Category Archives: punctuation

Capitalism – The Key To Controlling Illegal Immigration

There may not be too many basic truisms in life but here’s one: capitalism works, socialism doesn’t. Write it down.  It’s the answer to illegal immigration.

The proof of the pudding lies in— historical fact. Remember John Adams’ argument to the jury in the famous 1770 Boston Massacre case, “Facts are things,” i.e., not to be forgotten. Same here.  Socialist-minded Dems shy away from comparisons to capitalism, a comparison which is anathema to them.  Because the greatest example of capitalism working is right here, under their noses, the good ol’ USA.  Socialism destroys initiative, the keystone of capitalism and economic success.  Without initiative, everyone is mired in the same economic morass with the means of producti0n held in the hands of the state/government and no hope of anyone ever getting ahead.  A social and economic dead end.  That’s why socialism is futile, dead and buried, and capitalism, which results in economic empowerment, is alive and well.  These are essential facts, not hyperbole, which must be reckoned with in any consideration of illegal immigration.

Capitalism provides economic wealth and can also provide social wealth.  This means economic empowerment and the ability to fight poverty and terrorism among other things.  Most importantly, it is also the key to solving illegal immigration issues.  But don’t just take my word for it.  Look at a compelling case history, based on an  October 10, 2014 Wall Street Journal article by Hernando De Soto, “The Capitalist Cure For Terrorism.”  While the article’s primary focus explains how capitalism helped to curb terrorism in Peru, using Peru as a model there is no reason why capitalism cannot also be used to control illegal immigration, an issue which is subsumed in any terrorism threat.  It is, accordingly, eminently relevant to the three central American countries, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, which provide the bulk of the mass exodus to the U.S. border.

The essence of De Soto’s article is simply this: capitalism works outside the West, and Latin cultures can and do understand market economics. What’s needed is government leadership (yes, even with capitalism, government can still be useful) to build, streamline and fortify laws and structures that let capitalism flourish. Although I have not visited these countries, I did undertake online research to search for the existence of laws allowing and promoting private enterprise.   This online research did not reveal the existence of any laws in Honduras, Guatemala, or El Salvador, which provide and/or promote the opportunity for private enterprise by local citizenry to enter and operate their own businesses as to exports or otherwise.  In Honduras, from which 80% of the mass exodus flows,  unemployment, poverty, political persecution and resulting violence are the culprits. These issues exist throughout Central America and are undoubtedly the major flaw in the economic infrastructure in these countries.  In other words endemic corruption together with the forces in power acting to keep power away from the people underlie the exodus.

All three countries rely heavily on exports as a source of income and accordingly need people to produce the goods for exportation.  So, if any form of private enterprise exists, why are so many people leaving?  How many would leave their own business if they had one?  The answer to the mass exodus from these countries is clearly twofold: security and opportunity.   Perhaps a lesson can be drawn from De Soto’s experience as to each issue.

Those seeking asylum from violence may find the solution in a mixed-class volunteer army, as was done in Peru.  This approach should provide the best means of combating  any corruption in the police/military.   As De Soto noted in his article, Peru “rapidly fielded a much larger, mixed-class volunteer army – four times the army’s previous size – and won the war [against terror] in short order.”

Together with providing security for the people,  providing opportunity for small businesses to flourish is necessary.  The starting point is capitalism.  A strong volunteer army cannot come into existence absent a free market economy, which in turn needs capitalism to flourish.  The volunteer army should be coupled with an accessible legal framework with which to start and operate businesses.   The root cause of the exodus is clearly failure of the economic infrastructure in these countries –  the inability of individuals to start and operate a business because of economic strangulation from over regulation or repressive laws leading to loss of opportunity.  In Guatemala for example, according to one source, there are 24 tax payments per year. Government mismanagement of the economy persists in El Salvador according to another.  A heavy dose of regulation cutting, ala President Trump’s approach, as applied here in the USA, to eliminate over regulation of business, is vital to economic opportunity.  Better results are possible.

Cutting the regulatory stranglehold on businesses has been a strong component in building today’s extremely strong American economy.  Seeing the countryside in Central America as a breeding ground for a new, modern capitalist economy is an untried approach which should be combined with strong police/military intervention to combat and deter unnecessary violence.  This combination will supply the key answer to the mass exodus from these three Central American countries.  It may appear to be an oversimplification of a difficult situation but since nothing else seems to be working, it’s worth serious consideration.  De Soto put it aptly.  “The trick is to start…Throughout history, capitalism has been created by those who were once poor.”

Arnold G. Regardie

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, punctuation, sound sentence structure, Writing Improvement

ABUSE OF POWER

This is the premier installment of my new weekly series on leadership and success.  It features a cardinal rule for anyone aspiring to leadership – avoid abuse of power at all costs.

This installment focuses on the actions of past President Harry S. Truman, who, as Vice President, succeeded to the presidency following the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 12, 1945.  Truman issued executive orders in 1945 restricting potential information available to a congressional committee investigating the Pearl Harbor attack. These actions, rarely if ever seen before or since by a sitting president, reflected a total disregard for the separation of powers doctrine embedded in our Constitution.  This committee had been authorized by a joint congressional resolution to undertake an investigation of the December 7, 1941 attack by Japanese air and naval forces on the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  Truman’s unconstitutional actions left Americans still searching for the complete truth as to responsibility for the Pearl Harbor attack.

The deep shock of the unexpected attack stunned the country and spawned an intense nationwide controversy.  Swept by anger and outrage, the country demanded an answer to the overriding question: why had a great country like the United States been so totally blindsided by the Japanese?   In response, on September 11, 1945, by concurrent resolution, Congress authorized a Joint Committee to investigate the attack and the events and circumstances relating thereto.  The ten-member Joint Committee, five Senators and five Representatives, released its report to the public on July 20, 1946.  In an apparent effort to preserve nonpartisanship, six Democrats, (the maximum authorized by the concurrent resolution), and four Republicans comprised the committee’s political makeup.

The totality of the Joint Committee Report, reached by an 8-2 vote, cannot be completely appreciated without considering the views of the two dissenters, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI) and Senator Owen Brewster, (R-ME)   Their views, although contained in the original Report, were largely downplayed by the print media when the Report was released.  It essentially absolved President Franklin D. Roosevelt and other high ranking Washington officials and military and naval commanders in the field of responsibility for the attack.  But the two dissenting members, in a fully documented 87-page opinion, thoroughly denounced the Report, including its partisanship.

The dissenters reached 21 conclusions of fact and responsibility respecting the evidence before the Joint Committee.  The extensive factual support for their views, based entirely on evidence adduced by the Joint Committee, minimizes any argument that they were merely the product of a partisan attack.  Their final conclusion, that President Roosevelt and other high ranking Washington officials  and military commanders knew, or in the exercise of due diligence, should have known, that Pearl Harbor would be attacked and failed to perform those responsibilities indispensably essential to its defense, deserves serious consideration.

The two dissenting members targeted several aspects of the final report for strong criticism.   They reserved their undoubtedly most scathing attack on the Report for the restrictions imposed by President Truman’s executive orders on potential investigative information otherwise available to the Joint Committee.

Here is the chronology.  On August 28, 1945, President Truman issued an executive order severely limiting the Joint Committee’s power to gain access to the full facts by denying release to the public, except with specific approval of the President in each case, of information relating to status, technique, procedures, results, or degree of success of any “crytptanalytic (sic)” unit of the Government.    A second order followed on October 23, 1945.  Although the President’s new order modifying the first order was less stringent, the Minority objected that this modification left much to be desired because it was limited to the State, War, and Navy Departments and relaxed the secrecy of records only so far as the Joint Committee was concerned while continuing to impose restrictions for individual members, even when accompanied by Committee counsel.  This order also contained the unfortunate phrase, “any information in their possession material to the investigation” (emphasis in original), which provided a cloak for those reluctant to yield requested information.  No subsequent modifying order wholly removed those restrictions.

A November 7, 1945, Truman order relaxed restraints on executives of the Government in order that they may speak freely to individual members of the Committee, but it also closed with the admonition,  “This does not include any files or written material.”

The dissenters viewed these executive orders as tantamount to thrusting an “iron curtain” over the investigation. Truman’s successive efforts to soften the effect of the restrictions suggest that he had second thoughts about issuing them in the first place.  In any event his efforts were not totally effective as the dissenters pointed out.

The following quotation emphasizes significant aspects of the dissenters’ criticism of Truman’s restrictions:

“It was not until October 23, 1945, that President Truman made the [original] order less stringent by a new order.  The modification left much to be desired…By one way or another, control over papers, records, and other information remained in the hands of the majority [Democratic] party members…The relaxation of restraints was often publicized while the continuing qualifications were but little discussed.  The effect was to restrict individual members of the committee in practice while the appearance of their freedom of operations was held out to the public.”

Truman’s actions stand out as most troublesome, amounting in effect to a presidential cover-up of potentially revealing facts about the attack.  Truman of course had ample motivation to cover up information suggesting President Roosevelt may have had advance knowledge of the attack.  It was Roosevelt who agreed to place Truman on the national ticket as vice-presidential candidate in 1944.  Truman, thus, would not have become president but for Roosevelt.

The Minority had strong reasons to complain about President Truman’s restrictions, which effectively negated investigative completeness. They stand out as a clear abuse of executive power.  The specter of a sitting President restricting a congressional investigation into an issue as vitally important to the American people as the Pearl Harbor attack is unparalleled. The restrictions Truman imposed on the investigation provide an apt leadership lesson, i.e., avoid abuse of power.  His actions raise serious doubts as to whether the whole truth about Pearl Harbor will ever be known.  His presidential reputation remains forever tainted.

This opening installment is based on my forthcoming book, “The Pearl Harbor Congressional Cover Up.   A True Account of How A Democratic Congress Misled the American People on the Pearl Harbor Attack, December 7. 1941. Featuring Historic Lessons on the Failure of Leadership to Foresee the Attack, and to Avert War With Japan.”

Arnold G. Regardie

 

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, punctuation, sound sentence structure, tips for good diction, Writing Improvement

“Fake News” Is Nothing New. The “Surprise” Attack on Pearl Harbor May Be Fake News.

There has been a lot of media talk recently about fake news.  But this is nothing new.  In fact, fake news has been around for as long as there has been news.

Take the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, December 7, 1941, for example.  Conventional wisdom has it that this was a surprise attack by Imperial Japan on the U.S. Pacific fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor.  But a veritable cottage industry of second guessers has sprung up over the years, books and articles galore, making the argument that President Franklin Roosevelt not only knew about the coming attack ahead of time but did nothing to prevent it so as to form a basis for America to get into World War II.  Roosevelt did this, so the argument goes, to help revive a struggling American economy by putting it on a war footing,  to come to the aid of  America’s allies overseas, notably Great Britain, as well as to protect its own interests worldwide.

Needless to say, the U.S. was swept by anger and outrage over the attack, the prevailing question in effect being, “How could a great country like the United States  have been caught so flat footed?”   Several investigations were conducted into the causes of the lack of U.S. preparedness,  probably the best known being the investigation by a ten-member Congressional subcommittee, five Representatives and five Senators, six Democrats and four Republicans, which began in 1945 and concluded in July, 1946, with the issuance of a 41,000 page report.  The report, signed by eight of the ten subcommittee members, concluded that there had been no dereliction of duty by President Roosevelt,  various cabinet members, or certain members of the Army and Navy, but errors of judgement had been made.  The majority also stated that the Empire of Japan made the attack on its own and had not been tricked or coerced by the U.S. into making it.

However, there was a minority report signed by two Senators which criticized the majority opinion in a scathing, blistering  denunciation.   This dissenting opinion, some seventy-seven pages long, supported chapter, book, and verse, by detailed references to the record before the subcommittee, concluded that Roosevelt and other high officials in Washington were in fact at fault in not being prepared for the attack.  They were also very critical of President Harry Truman, who came into office after Roosevelt died in April, 1945.  They concluded that Truman had obstructed the investigation so that all the facts concerning U.S. preparedness, or lack thereof,  had not come to light.

To this day it appears that all of the facts about the attack have not been made public due to later restrictions on the release of certain government records having been imposed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.

Will all the facts concerning U.S. lack of preparedness ever be known?  Was the attack by the Japanese on December 7, 1941 really a surprise attack?  Did President Roosevelt have advance knowledge of it?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Is all of this managed news?  Was the “surprise” attack fake news to cover up for Roosevelt?  Who knows?  But I think the American people are entitled to know the facts, all the facts.

Incidentally, for those of you interested in reading  the majority subcommittee opinion, read my book, “Prelude to Disaster:  How Imperial Japan’s Diplomatic Treachery Led to America’s Greatest Military Disaster – Pearl Harbor.”  It is essentially based on the subcommittee report.  The book is a true account of Japanese diplomatic deception which led up to the Pearl Harbor attack and provides an inside look at the diplomatic exchanges between U.S. State Department representatives and Japanese diplomats while dark clouds of war loomed in the background.  It puts the reader in a position to be an eyewitness to history.  It is available on Amazon and eBay.

©2017 Arnold G. Regardie.  All rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, punctuation, sound sentence structure, Writing Improvement

Elect Hillary? Another Obama? No thanks!

Previous posts to this site have taken the position that Donald Trump is a serious presidential contender, deserving of your support.  Here is more evidence.

As many people now agree, electing Obama was a mistake, a major mistake.  The campaign of Hillary Clinton is clearly dedicated to a continuation of his policies.  Is that what you want, more of the same?  No thank you and let it be repeated for emphasis, no thank you.  Obama’s legacy, which seems to override everything he says and does these days,  can be summed up in one word: worthless.  Obama will go down in history as the most incompetent, the most ineffective president the country has unfortunately ever had.

Here’s the latest evidence, facts, not innuendo, not hyperbole, facts, that Obamacare is proving to be an utter disaster.  In today’s news, the latest blow to the Affordable Care Act is that Aetna Insurance, one of the top-five insurers,  is the latest insurer to withdraw its plans from coverage, citing losses aggregating $400 million since 2014.  This development comes after Humana and UnitedHealthcare have previously withdrawn.  It has also been reported that there have  been double digit premium increases for many of the carriers which will continue to sell through exchanges such as Covered California next year.   Dropping out of Obamacare by the carriers is attributed to too many sick people and not enough young healthy people seeking coverage.

All of which brings to mind  what Nancy Pelosi famously said in so many words back around 2009, i.e., “We have to pass this bill [Obamacare] to find out what’s in  it.”  This comment is undoubtedly the most irresponsible statement ever uttered by a member of Congress.  Well Nancy, now you know.  Read it and weep.

But Obama’s election was urged by the liberal media saying in effect, the country simply has to elect a man of color, a minority member, as the first minority president, to prove it’s a true democracy.  And Obama, an eloquent speaker, was elected, in large part by lying to the American people.  But that’s another story which we’ll save for another day.  Well, now they’re saying it again, i.e., the country has to elect a woman, Hillary, as the first woman president.

Remember that old saw, fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Well, lets not make the same mistake again.  Hillary as president would be calamitous for the country, not to mention the free world.  She is grossly incompetent, lacks judgment, temperament, leadership skills and experience, is also corrupt and a world-class liar.  She has no business running for any public office, much less the presidency.  But the liberal media is backing her largely because she’s a woman, as it backed Obama largely because he was a minority member.

Donald Trump has promised repeal of Obamacare as part of his presidency, one of the many reforms he has promised, all of which deserve serious consideration.   This is yet another of  long list of reasons why Trump deserves to be elected.

Arnold G. Regardie©2016.  All rights reserved.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, punctuation, sound sentence structure, tips for good diction, Writing Improvement

To Develop Confidence In Your Writing, You Must Overcome Self doubt.

With the ongoing explosion in global communications in this age of high technology, writing has become more important than ever before. In January, 2012, in one of my first blogs, I addressed the problem of overcoming self doubt in writing. This is such a an important topic that it deserves a repeat look.

Many people don’t write well because they don’t believe they can. They have no confidence in their writing. “I’m not a good writer!” is an all too often heard personal lament. For those of you who believe they fit into that category, i.e., those who don’t believe they are good writers but want to be, my book, “The Art of Clear Writing,” (available on amazon.com and in print), can help. It provides an organized guide to clear writing fundamentals and sets forth down-to-earth, well-established writing guidelines and techniques that have worked well for others, not hard and fast rules that must be committed to memory and followed at all costs.

As mentioned in the introduction, the underlying proposition of this book is that clear writing is an art form – it can be learned. Anybody can write well – but you need the desire and dedication to do it. If you’re willing to put in the time and learn the skills, the satisfaction and rewards will come. These guidelines and techniques are capable of being learned through application and practice, and should result in a marked improvement in your writing. Even if writing is not your strong suit, you can still improve your writing dramatically by following the guidelines and techniques explained in my book.

Also bear in mind that writing, any writing, is a form of salesmanship, i.e., you are selling yourself. It is a basic sales truism that people will buy from you if they trust you. That truism applies to writing as well. Whatever your purpose in writing may be, whether you’re applying for a job, selling a product or service, writing personal or business letters, writing a company manual, or even preparing something as basic as an interoffice memo, the reader must trust you for your writing to be successful. Achieving this trust will depend on the respect and credibility emanating from your writing. If the reader believes you to be a credible writer and trusts you, you’ve gone a long way toward accomplishing your primary writing goal of selling the reader on whatever you’re writing about. Attracting that trust can be achieved only if you dedicate yourself to improving your writing skills.

Where do you start? Begin with a positive attitude toward what you’re doing, whether writing or speaking. John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers and a prominent lawyer by trade, successfully argued to the jury during the Boston Massacre trial of 1770 that “facts are stubborn things” and cannot be changed no matter how strong are your passions. Adams strongly believed in the rule of law and that the British soldiers he defended (successfully, it should be added), who were accused of murder when they fired their muskets into an angry mob, were innocent.

Thoughts are also things according to Napoleon Hill, author of the influential and best selling personal achievement book, “Think and Grow Rich.” Hill postulated that thoughts can be very powerful things when mixed with definiteness of purpose, persistence, and a burning desire for success.

I’m also reminded of Tim Gallwey’s best seller, “The Inner Game of Tennis”, which is largely about developing the ability to focus your attention on the task at hand. It is more about solving life’s problems by learning the art of relaxed focus and attention to achieve peak mental performance, i.e., getting into a “zone”, than playing tennis.

Clear writing thus depends to a large extent on the power of belief, belief that comes from having confidence in your writing. When you have that confidence, it will show – the reader can see it. To obtain confidence you must master what can best be described as the “inner game” of writing, overcoming mental blocks to clear writing. As with other challenges in life, you must develop the right mental attitude. In other words, you can’t write clearly if you are nagged by anxiety and self doubt about your writing. Persistence and determination to write well are omnipotent.

Following the guidelines and techniques set forth in this book is a good start to improving your writing. But it’s also definitely helpful to read self-help books on salesmanship and self esteem in conjunction with your writing development. Good salesmanship depends in large part on having confidence in yourself. Acclaimed lecturer and author Jeffrey Gitomer writes in his “Little Red Book of Selling,” (p.193), that the theme of your success is to believe that you can achieve whatever you set your mind to. His book is an excellent place to start. And keep one of his favorite axioms in mind, “hard work makes luck,” (p.36).

Here’s the bottom line. Whether playing tennis or writing, you must develop confidence in your ability. The best way to gain confidence in your writing ability is by working at it. Practice your writing continuously. Refine it as you go. Study the style and technique of other writers. The more you read and write, the more your writing will improve, which should increase your confidence.

Copyright © Arnold G. Regardie. All rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, punctuation, sound sentence structure, tips for good diction, Writing Improvement

Income Inequality Is For The Marketplace To Cure

Last Sunday night, January 12, on John Stoessel’s program (Fox News), income inequality was discussed. Bob Beckel, a liberal, was one of the panelists. He wants the minimum wage raised to $15 per hour. Here is my take on the topic.

First, I believe in a free marketplace. Free enterprise is now, always has been, and will remain the growth engine for the American economy. It’s the ticket; the less government intervention the better. There are too many people who look for government to help them get along in life instead of trying to do it themselves.

Income inequality is a byproduct of the free marketplace. The market places a value on your services. It rewards those whose services are deemed to be more valuable, who persevere and have a commitment to improve themselves. There are CEOs of companies who command large salaries in comparison with company workers who command much less. Many people complain that this is not fair. But the shareholders of the companies, who own them, elect the directors who set the salaries of the officers who run the company, and if the company is going in the right direction and is profitable, the directors have the right to compensate those who are responsible. Conversely, if the company is not profitable, the directors have the right to make changes in the company officers. Decisions by the directors are approved or disapproved as the case may be by the shareholders. This is the way it works in a capitalistic, free enterprise economy.

I have attended many business opportunity meetings where people from all backgrounds have provided information as to their successes. People from all races, religions, ethnic backgrounds, and both sexes have testified as to their commitment to success. These folks make huge amounts of income but they got there by perseverance and dogged determination.

Bob Beckel argued that raising the minimum wage is the answer to income inequality. But I suspect that he has never run a business. It has been reported that 92 million people are out of work today, an historic high. How many more people would lose their jobs if the minimum wage was raised? How many employers would decide that cutting payroll is the only answer to rising labor costs, or that part time workers would be less expensive than full time? How many businesses would fail because costs of operation are too high? How many prospective new businesses would be thwarted because of increased labor costs? Increasing the minimum wage when so many people are out of work is not going to put them back to work. Increasing healthcare costs for businesses is not the answer either; this will only add to the current economic woes.

This is not to say that some government intervention in the economy is not necessary. Business can grow too big making some government regulation appropriate. Monopolies in restraint of trade are not in the best interest of economic growth. Neither is abuse of workers. Moderation is the key.

The current economic malaise is the result of an incompetent and inexperienced administration in Washington. A strong and growing economy with a vibrant work force would put more people to work and result of a better living standard for everyone. I think that’s the best answer. There may not be complete elimination of income inequality but I don’t think that’s possible under any system except communism. And if you think those folks living under communism are happy, take a look at conditions in North Korea and Cuba. Ask those folks what they think of their standard of living.

As I have emphasized before, work to improve your writing skills. Clear writing skills will go a long way to increase your earning ability, lessen income inequality, and improve the skill set of the work force. More skilled workers in the workforce will help improve the economy, so improvement of your writing skills will benefit yourself as well as the country. As President Kennedy said at his inauguration in 1961, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

All of the clear writing techniques and guidelines discussed on this blog are available in one place in my book, “The Art of Clear Writing,” available on amazon.com/kindle and in print.

Copyright © 2014. Arnold G. Regardie. All rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, punctuation, sound sentence structure, tips for good diction, Writing Improvement

Chris Christie Tips the Scale (No Pun Intended) In His Favor

Republican Governor Chris Christie’s recent overwhelming victory as Governor in New Jersey, one of the bluest of blue states, is a truly welcome event to behold. In trouncing his democratic challenger Barbara Buono by some thirty-odd points, Christie proved that he is a force to be reckoned with in the 2016 presidential sweepstakes.

With apologies for any unintended reference to Christie’s weight as an issue (it shouldn’t be), it appears to me that Christie tips the scale in his favor. That is, using the word SCALE as an acronym, he should be chosen as the Republican presidential candidate for 2016. Here’s how it breaks down:
S – strength
C – credibility
A – accomplishments
L – leadership
E – electability

Christie scores points in each category. He has a strong personality and is credible. His accomplishments as governor of New Jersey are manifold. By reaching out across the aisles to broker legislative reforms in the state, he has demonstrated needed leadership skills, lacking in Washington D.C. He is a staunch fiscal conservative, a strong critic of Obamacare, President Obama’s signature healthcare law, and has stood his ground against public employee unions. SCALE clearly shows that he is not only qualified to run for the office of president, but is electable, capable of winning. He has broad charismatic appeal not only to males but to women, blacks, and hispanics. In the recent election, he carried male voters by 63% and female voters by 57%.

Using the same acronym for Hillary Clinton, backed by the liberal media for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, she fails on several counts. Her credibility is lacking in view of her record as having lied when the occasion suits her, a matter of public record. Her accomplishments are questionable. Although having been elected to the U.S. Senate on the strength of the name of her husband, Bill Clinton, an impeached president, there is no record of legislative accomplishments in the Senate she can point to. As Secretary of State under President Obama, four Americans died on her watch in Benghazi, a matter for which there are still many unanswered questions. She lied after the Benghazi attack, as did President Obama, falsely attributing it to anger over a publication criticizing Muslims. In short, she has not shown her ability to govern anyone, and is hardly qualified to lead a country of some 300 million people.

As reported in the media recently, Christie’s election victory also reflects his capacity to appeal to independent voters as well as to those Democrats who are willing to cross party lines. These are the types of voters who are necessary to carry him to a presidential victory in 2016.

The question remains as to whether Republicans can stop quarreling among themselves long enough to back Christie as a moderate candidate who can clearly appeal to a broad swath of voters. Traditional ideological purity on issues such as abortion and gay rights may have to give way among conservative Republican supporters in favor of a more pragmatic approach, an approach that carries with it a path to victory in 2016.

Copyright 2013. Arnold G. Regardie. All rights reserved.

1 Comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, punctuation, sound sentence structure, Writing Improvement