Conservatives Should Embrace Trump

COMMON SENSE: I voted for Cruz, but he lost. Eventually, he couldn’t even compete. Now, I support Trump. In fact, I champion him. He may not be the Constitutionalist I desired, but he is a fearless advocate for the American people, and I’m tired of being led by a man who feels it is his duty to apologize for us.

 

I would rather have 75 percent of what I want than another four years of something I know I do not want. If Donald Trump secures our borders, rebuilds the military, and makes us energy independent, we will once again be a great nation, and he intends to do a lot more than that.

 

I exhort my fellow Conservatives to choose pragmatism over petulance and embrace the Trump candidacy. A seat at the table of power is being offered by this patriot, and we would be foolish to reject it, in favor of some misguided sense of self-righteous purity. To choose the way of a fool, as Mitt Romney has done, will do nothing more than ensure Obama’s legacy is preserved by the most corrupt woman in American history. Let’s help make history rather than be a victim of it.

 

—Jack Watts

Read Full Post »

NIXON & OBAMA: Portraits in Narcissism

This is more poignant today than when I originally posted it a year-and-a-half ago:

I voted for Richard M. Nixon. There, I’ve admitted it. Other than Aaron Burr, Nixon has been the worst criminal in American politics, until now.

In 1972, most people voted for Nixon. He won in a landslide, a genuine one. Nixon seemed like a much better candidate than George McGovern, who even lost his home state of Minnesota. Massachusetts was the only state McGovern carried. As I saw things, as a very young man, things were looking up. The Vietnam War was winding down, and the nation appeared to be getting back on track.

There was that pesky Watergate distraction, disrupting my tranquility, but that was nothing more than a trivial story. I was certain of it. Then, it began to gain traction, increased momentum, and finally a life of its own.

In its beginning stages, I tried not to pay much attention. The story was so negative, and I wanted to dwell on the positive—Nixon’s overwhelming mandate from the people. Because he won so handily, it seemed far-fetched for him—or for any of his surrogates—to engage in something as ridiculous as a bungled burglary at the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate. Everybody knew Nixon was going to win, which made it seem preposterous for his people to do something that foolish or risky. Besides, it was illegal, and the President would never be involved in anything that was criminal. What President would?

That was exactly the way I thought—just like millions of others. When the cover-up was exposed and Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, I had to face reality, which was very difficult. I realized I had been on the wrong side. I had been for Executive Privilege and not for full disclosure. I had been for keeping things quiet, covering them up, and moving forward. Others called for the light to shine in the darkness, but not me. I was wrong—dead wrong.

It was a difficult time for me, requiring extensive, gut-wrenching introspection. From that experience, however, I became a different person. I promised myself to never champion the darkness again, regardless of what it might cost.

I also concluded several things about Nixon. I realized his narcissism wouldn’t allow him to just win. He needed to do more than that. He needed to subjugate and destroy his political opposition; just beating them wasn’t enough. Knowing what his opponents were doing became an obsession with Nixon—just like it has with our current President.

Now, forty years later, we have the same situation with President Barack Hussein Obama—the exact same situation. Like Nixon, Obama has a “we-they” mentality. Those who are not with him are his enemies, and destroying one’s enemies is what narcissists like Nixon and Obama do.

The concept of “loyal opposition” doesn’t exist for a narcissist. Opposition, by nature, means disloyalty. Because their way is the right way, lying to achieve victory is normal and praiseworthy. Neither would consider there was anything wrong with such an outlook. It’s why both of them seem so believable, even though Nixon wasn’t at the time and Obama isn’t now.

Being mistrustful, both were afraid power would be taken from them. In Obama’s case, he feared that if the truth came out about the Benghazi attack, he would lose the election. That’s why he engaged in a massive cover-up that has been ongoing. Just as Nixon did in Watergate, Obama has consistently stonewalled, refusing to disclose anything voluntarily. He never will. It’s not in his nature to do so.

Being somewhat paranoid, narcissists never reveal who they really are. To them, being candid and forthright would put them at a disadvantage to their opponents, and that’s something no narcissist would ever do voluntarily.

When you think of events from the perspective of a narcissist, their behavior makes sense. For Nixon, the Watergate break-in and cover-up was necessary. In the same way, for Obama, the bugging of the Associated Press’s lines, the complicity of the IRS to destroy his Tea Party opposition, and the Benghazi cover-up to ensure his reelection were all reasonable things to do. All of it makes sense from a narcissistic worldview. If you are not one, however, as most people aren’t, it doesn’t seem logical. Finally, because maintaining power is a consuming passion, Obama will hold on to power until the bitter end, just like Nixon did.

As Obama’s house of cards continues to collapse, millions of his followers will become disillusioned—just as I was when Nixon resigned in disgrace. Helping these unfortunates through the process of disenchantment to emotional health is something good men and women need to do. Ridiculing them for having been fooled is something that will not be helpful. They will just become embittered like I was forty years ago.

—Jack Watts

Read Full Post »

QUESTION: Why Won’t Obama Take Responsibility?

In the wake of the Associated Press wiretap scandal, which was carried out by the Obama administration illegally, numerous members of the main stream media have finally stopped looking at the President through rose-colored glasses. Like a disenchanted spouse after the honeymoon phase of marriage has passed, the press has begun to see the President’s flaws. More than any other criticism, they express bewilderment about why he refuses to take responsibility for his actions and those of his administration.

Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here.” In the Obama White House, the buck never stops at the desk of the President or any of his key appointees. Concerning the IRS scandal, Obama is perfectly willing to throw several low-level agents in Cincinnati to the wolves, while promoting Sarah Hall Ingram to head the IRS division of Obamacare. She was the person responsible for overseeing the harassment of Obama’s political and religious opponents. For being so successful, she was given a hefty bonus and a promotion. Being the head of Obamacare for the IRS makes her even scarier. Concerning Benghazi, to provide cover for his lies and those of Hillary Clinton, the producer of the “reprehensible” movie clip was thrown in jail, arrested by fifty stormtroopers. He remains incarcerated.

Concerning all three of these scandals, nobody at the top knows anything about anything. This stonewalling has infuriated the main stream press. Now, they are repeatedly asking why Obama, or none of his key surrogates like Holder, will take responsibility for anything.

The answer is easy. Narcissists never take responsibility for failure, nor for any action that negatively reflects upon them. It’s as simple as that. It isn’t in Obama’s psychological nature to take the blame, nor will he ever do so. He can’t. Even worse, his entire administration reflects his narcissism, producing a culture that avoids culpability like the plague.

Neither Obama or any of his key people will ever willingly cooperate to provide documentation about what they have been doing either. To get to the truth, sub-committees from the House of Representatives will have to force the administration to come clean. Nothing else will work. Even worse, Congressmen will be depicted as being evil for doing so. To Obama, for them to seek the truth is a witch hunt and a distraction from what is important—his agenda to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” All the Congressional inquiries are is a politically motivated attempt to undermine his noble, praiseworthy goals.

It isn’t that he just says things like this; he actually believes them. In his eyes, nothing about the Congressional investigations are legitimate. By scrutinizing his behavior, these Congressman are the enemy, and he will never subordinate his grandiose purpose for anything. For a narcissist, there is no such thing as checks and balances. To question Obama is to question Providence.

Defrocking Obama will be much more difficult than defrocking Richard Nixon, but it can be done. The question I have is will the the American people have the will, the resolution, and the perseverance to finish the job?

Read Full Post »

Nixon’s ‘Missing Minutes’ in the Watergate Tapes Brought Him Down; Will the Missing Benghazi Emails Bring Down Obama?

What forced Richard Nixon to resign was the Watergate tapes, or more accurately, the eighteen minutes that were missing from a conversation the President had with Bob Haldeman, his Chief-of-Staff, three days after the botched burglary.

Here is where the comparison to Obama’s coverup of Benghazi becomes relevant. In the fifty emails released by the administration to Congress, none of them were from the first two days after the attack. What these missing emails contain is so damming it will bring down Obama’s Presidency, just as the missing minutes from Nixon’s tapes brought him down forty years ago. To hide what the missing emails contain, Obama and his surrogates have purposefully leaked information about the abuses of the IRS toward the Tea Party, Christian groups, friends of Israel, and conservative Hispanic groups. Obama did this, knowing his administration would take a terrible hit for doing so.

Why would he do that, knowing it would wound him? Why would he create a huge scandal for himself—one that would substantially undermine his credibility? It’s because what these emails contain would mortally wound his ability to lead. The IRS scandal is bad, but it is a diversion from a worse one.

The House Government Oversight Committee needs to subpoena these missing emails, as well as everyone on the email chain. If they do, we will finally get to the truth about Benghazi. If Obama refuses to release them, which he will, the House should draw up Articles of Impeachment immediately.

Right now, there are not enough votes in the Senate to convict Obama, but that could change, especially with vulnerable seats in VA, AR, AK, CO, LA, IA, MN, MI, WV, MT, NC, and SD up for grabs in 2014. If you were a Democratic candidate in these mostly red states, would you stand behind the Benghazi coverup? Not if you wanted to be reelected, you wouldn’t.

If we can obtain the missing emails, our nation will be saved and order restored.

—Jack Watts   My Prayer for America

Read Full Post »

Nixon and Obama: Portraits in Narcissism

I voted for Richard M. Nixon. There, I’ve admitted it. Other than Aaron Burr, Nixon has been the worst criminal in American politics, until now.

In 1972, most people voted for Nixon. He won in a landslide, a genuine one. Nixon seemed like a much better candidate than George McGovern, who even lost his home state of Minnesota. Massachusetts was the only state McGovern carried. As I saw things, as a very young man, things were looking up. The Vietnam War was winding down, and the nation appeared to be getting back on track.

There was that pesky Watergate distraction, disrupting my tranquility, but that was nothing more than a trivial story. I was certain of it. Then, it began to gain traction, increased momentum, and finally a life of its own.

In its beginning stages, I tried not to pay much attention. The story was so negative, and I wanted to dwell on the positive—Nixon’s overwhelming mandate from the people. Because he won so handily, it seemed far-fetched for him—or for any of his surrogates—to engage in something as ridiculous as a bungled burglary at the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate. Everybody knew Nixon was going to win, which made it seem preposterous for his people to do something that foolish or risky. Besides, it was illegal, and the President would never be involved in anything that was criminal. What President would?

That was exactly the way I thought—just like millions of others. When the cover-up was exposed and Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, I had to face reality, which was very difficult. I realized I had been on the wrong side. I had been for Executive Privilege and not for full disclosure. I had been for keeping things quiet, covering them up, and moving forward. Others called for the light to shine in the darkness, but not me. I was wrong—dead wrong.

It was a difficult time for me, requiring extensive, gut-wrenching introspection. From that experience, however, I became a different person. I promised myself to never champion the darkness again, regardless of what it might cost.

I also concluded several things about Nixon. I realized his narcissism wouldn’t allow him to just win. He needed to do more than that. He needed to subjugate and destroy his political opposition; just beating them wasn’t enough. Knowing what his opponents were doing became an obsession with Nixon—just like it has with our current President.

Now, forty years later, we have the same situation with President Barack Hussein Obama—the exact same situation. Like Nixon, Obama has a “we-they” mentality. Those who are not with him are his enemies, and destroying one’s enemies is what narcissists like Nixon and Obama do.

The concept of “loyal opposition” doesn’t exist for a narcissist. Opposition, by nature, means disloyalty. Because their way is the right way, lying to achieve victory is normal and praiseworthy. Neither would consider there was anything wrong with such an outlook. It’s why both of them seem so believable, even though Nixon wasn’t at the time and Obama isn’t now.

Being mistrustful, both were afraid power would be taken from them. In Obama’s case, he feared that if the truth came out about the Benghazi attack, he would lose the election. That’s why he engaged in a massive cover-up that has been ongoing. Just as Nixon did in Watergate, Obama has consistently stonewalled, refusing to disclose anything voluntarily. He never will. It’s not in his nature to do so.

Being somewhat paranoid, narcissists never reveal who they really are. To them, being candid and forthright would put them at a disadvantage to their opponents, and that’s something no narcissist would ever do voluntarily.

When you think of events from the perspective of a narcissist, their behavior makes sense. For Nixon, the Watergate break-in and cover-up was necessary. In the same way, for Obama, the bugging of the Associated Press’s lines, the complicity of the IRS to destroy his Tea Party opposition, and the Benghazi cover-up to ensure his reelection were all reasonable things to do. All of it makes sense from a narcissistic worldview. If you are not one, however, as most people aren’t, it doesn’t seem logical. Finally, because maintaining power is a consuming passion, Obama will hold on to power until the bitter end, just like Nixon did.

As Obama’s house of cards continues to collapse, millions of his followers will become disillusioned—just as I was when Nixon resigned in disgrace. Helping these unfortunates through the process of disenchantment to emotional health is something good men and women need to do. Ridiculing them for having been fooled is something that will not be helpful. They will just become embittered like I was forty years ago.

—Jack Watts

Read Full Post »

This Election Is Similar to 1980

I remember this time in 1979, when the 1980 Presidential election was beginning to heat up. I was in a Ph.D. program at Emory University in political science, and we were being told that the United States was in irreversible decline—that our best years were behind us. In academia, this belief was nearly universally espoused.

Jimmy Carter was in The White House, gearing up for his reelection bid. In Iran, the diplomats and staff in our embassy were being held hostage, inflation was in double digits, gas lines were long, and interest rates were well over 20 percent. After the Watergate scandal, with the Vietnam War still a vivid memory, Americans were weary of Washington politicians, but Carter looked like he would win a second term because the Republicans couldn’t seem to get their act together.

Some supported Ronald Reagan, who was considered a rightwing extremist like Barry Goldwater. The traditional belief was that if nominated, his candidacy would ensure a Carter victory, which would mean four more years of poor leadership. Because I accepted this theory as accurate, I initially supported Howard Baker, the Tennessee Senator—a centrist Republican like Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. He looked like a safe bet and someone who could actually defeat Carter, but Baker was unimaginative and as exciting as walls that are painted taupe.

As I listened to Ronald Reagan, however, who was depicted by the media as an old, less-than-intelligent cowboy with wild, grandiose ideas, his heartfelt passion for American exceptionalism captivated me. His love for America matched mine, and I started to believe his vision for a prosperous future, which was to lead the western democracies into the twenty-first century. At Emory, I was the only one in the political science department who felt this way, so I did battle routinely with my fellow graduate students and professors.

As it turned out, the rest of the country, except for the intelligencia, staunch Democrats, and those on the dole felt the same way, and Reagan won an impressive victory, which was accompanied by a landslide victory four years later. As it turned out, Reagan ushered in a quarter century of prosperity, while winning the Cold War.

As the New Year begins in 2012, the parallels with 1980 are astounding. The liberal media continues to champion the failed policies of President Obama, just like they did with Jimmy Carter, and the theme of America’s irreversible decline is once again the clarion message being heralded by the liberal media. Our debt is unsustainable, while President Obama believes he is at least the fourth best President Obama in our history. Plagued by unpopular wars and national ennui, our future looks bleak once again.

As I look at the field of Republican aspirants, it reminds me of this time thirty-two years ago. Romney resembles Howard Baker—a safe bet and a man who will say or do anything to win the White House. The candidate with vision and passion is clearly Newt Gingrich, but the scorched earth criticism of his past by his fellow contenders may derail him; that is, unless people rally to his cause—just like they came to Reagan’s defense. My advise to Newt is to stop whining, stay focused on his vision for America, which resonates with millions, and keep on apologizing for being an ass for all those years. Americans will forgive anything, except for arrogance and cover-ups. I like that about us.

Traditional wisdom says that Romney—the man with money and the Presidential looks—will win the nomination, but I hope that’s not true. I would definitely vote for him against Obama, but I would need a Viagra to muster the energy to do so. If Newt’s the nominee, I’ll work tirelessly for his election—just as I did for Reagan, when I wore a younger man’s clothes.

Read Full Post »