Oligogracy

Dobson's Choice

2012-01-27T17:05:00.000-08:00

I don't usually delve into religious topics here, but something happened last week that I found profoundly disturbing. When a number of evangelical leaders met to discuss the current crop of GOP Presidential candidates, Dr. James Dobson made a comment that seemed out of character; out of Character for both Dr. Dobson specifically and for a minister of the Gospel in general. Observing the reaction that fellow Christians had to the comments resulted in a number of disappointments. This is an attempt to explain why.

One Sunday morning in the not too distant past my Pastor told a story that left a stark impression. He spoke of an experience that he had as a young minister attending a youth conference. A speaker at the conference was speaking on the topic of sexual purity. That's a good topic to discuss at a youth conference. The damage done to so many young lives through bad choices in this area is incalculable, and the pressures on young people to make bad choices in this area are immense. At the beginning of the speaker's presentation he held up a single long stemmed rose before the audience. He admired the beauty of the rose, the rich red velvet petals, the glossy green leaves, the sweet perfume of the bloom. He then took the rose and handed it to a student in the audience. He told him to admire it, to smell it, to feel the softness of the petals, and the smoothness of the leaves, and then pass it around for others to admire and appreciate while he delivered his message.

The minister spoke to the crowd of young people about the importance of saving themselves for that special someone. He told them of the treasure that each of them were in their purity, and the special gift that they alone could preserve for their marriage. He told them that they were like that rose; something pristine and beautiful, to preserve. And at the conclusion of his message he asked the audience to return the rose to him. The rose was brought to the stage and placed in the ministers hand. Again he held it up before the crowd. No longer a thing of beauty. The leaves bent, twisted or missing. The petals bruised and all but gone. The sweet smell diminished by being passed from hand to hand. The minister looked out at the crowd, held the rose out before them, and in a voice of admonition he asked them "Who would want this now?". And then he left them there.

The story grieved my spirit when I first heard it, and it does so again now as I write. Jesus is who wants that broken rose. Jesus does not just leave us there. The minister in the story had no idea how many broken roses may have been sitting in his audience desperate for a word of hope, only to be left convinced that they were hopelessly undesirable. It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that we are each in one way or another a broken rose. Our joy, and our hope, is that in Christ we are pristine and beautiful through His grace. The broken roses that turn to Christ are not forever broken roses. Or as the bible says "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."

Pastors don't walk around among the congregation on Sunday morning reminding brothers and sisters of their past sins. It simply has no place within the faith. I have known people in some churches that had pretty bad reputations from before they found Christ. I have known Christians that made really big mistakes after they were saved. Christianity is big on redemption because perfection does not exist in humanity. Christianity teaches that nobody passes go without grace. Nobody. Not Callista Gingrich. Not James Dobson. Ministers have a tremendous responsibility. They are ambassadors of Christ to the world. It isn't a role that they can step in and out of based on a particular circumstance, or because they really, really, like a particular political candidate.

I like Dr. Dobson. I like Newt Gingrich. I actually know very little about Callista. I do know that all three of these people profess to be members of my Christian family. The issue that I have with this situation goes beyond who made the comment and about whom the comment was made. The thought of a minister, any minister, telling a sister in Christ that her past sins have left her an undesirable and broken rose, just leaves me profoundly saddened. It isn't Christlike, and it isn't biblical. Dr. Dobson held Karen Santorum up as a beautiful rose before his audience. Then he held up Callista Gingrich, pealed away God's grace to reveal her brokenness, and in a voice of admonition he asked them; "Who do you want as your first lady?" Dr. Dobson had no idea how many broken roses may have been within reach of his voice, or of the impact that his words may have had on them.

The Psalmist wrote "as far as the East is from the West, so far has he removed our transgressions from us". It is not the direction of the Spirit that motivates us to hunt down the past sins of fellow believers and put them on display. We do not represent Christ when we bind our brothers and sisters in the shackles of their past sins. Politics can test our most deeply held principles, and tempt us towards worldly victory through spiritual compromise. As Christians we should be reminded that we are not called to be representatives of our favorite political candidate, but representatives of Christ to a desperate and hopeless world.

Newt Hampshire?

2012-01-04T21:37:00.000-08:00

Newt needs a strategist. Just writing it down feels wrong somehow. I mean, if there is a candidate that should be able to come up with their own campaign strategy, it has to be Newt Gingrich...but off he goes to New Hampshire.

There are a couple of fundamental truths regarding the GOP primary race. First, Mitt Romney is going to be one of the top delegate winners in the race. Second, the field has to be whittled down in order for Mitt's competitor to be competitive. The most likely scenarios that lead to a "not-Romney" nominee are the ones that acknowledge those two fundamental truths. Just a couple of months ago, Newt seemed to be well aware of this.

Mitt Romney is going to win in New Hampshire. Newt Gingrich is not. Rick Santorum may ride his wave of success in Iowa to a respectable showing in New Hampshire, but he has over 35 points to make up if he is going to beat Romney. Gingrich has very little to gain by pursuing Romney into New Hampshire. It may seem tempting to try and beard the Romney lion in his New Hampshire den, but it will take resources that Gingrich doesn't have to spare, and it won't change the outcome.

Newt has a substantial lead in South Carolina. His biggest challenge in South Carolina is going to be holding on to his lead. The threat to his lead in South Carolina is not going to come from Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum's strong showing in Iowa is almost certainly going to allow him to chip away at Newt's lead. If Rick has a strong showing in New Hampshire, that could increase his momentum going into South Carolina considerably. It is vital for Newt to defend his lead against Santorum in South Carolina and Florida.

Newt will get very few delegates from the proportional delegate systems in Iowa and New Hampshire. South Carolina and Florida are not adhering to the proportional delegate rules this year, so it will be winner take all in those states. South Carolina is the first possibility for a Gingrich win, and the only guy positioned to deny that win to Newt is Rick Santorum. If Newt wins in SC he will immediately be in contention with the frontrunners, and positioned to take the lead in Fl. If Newt concedes SC to Santorum or Romney, his race is probably going to be over. Santorum only needs to bleed 7% off of Newt's Florida lead to deliver Florida to Romney. It is conceivable that Newt could fail to win in any of the first four races with Romney winning IA, NH, and Fl, and either Santorum or Romney picking up SC. Newt's best chance at winning the nomination is to bypass New Hampshire and protect his leads in SC and Fl against Santorum.

The campaign strategies that Newt discussed today are irrational. First he made it clear that he plans to take the fight to Romney in New Hampshire. In the face of a certain loss that is just a waste of time and resources; perhaps it's gratifying in some way, but it is hard to see a constructive purpose to it. Then he made some comments about aligning with Santorum against Romney. Santorum is Romney's new bff. Rick takes votes away from Gingrich, who is still the biggest threat to Romney. Romney won't be attacking Santorum as long as Rick is damaging Newt, so it's hard to see what this "alliance" would do for Rick. Worse than that, it puts Newt in a sympathetic position towards Santorum at the very time that Santorum is the biggest threat to potential Gingrich wins in SC and Fl.

Maybe the staff Newt lost to Perry is having a bigger impact than I thought it would. At least Perry seems to know that the next stop should be South Carolina. It's 24 days until the SC primary. If the two Ricks start making gains there, they're probably not going to be taking them from Romney.

Dr. Hemlock

2011-12-29T23:12:00.000-08:00

Shock! Ron Paul's supporters are up in arms. One of the reasons of the moment for this seemingly persistent state has to do with assertions from some quarters of the Republican Party that the Iowa caucus system will need to be evaluated if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus in January. Congressman Paul represents something of a dilemma for the GOP. Paul's relationship with the GOP has been rocky at best, arguably adversarial, and seemingly estranged even while ongoing. The Republican Party has been willing to quietly accept Paul while he has been a quirky congressman from Texas that most folks don't take too seriously. As Paul has risen in the polls in recent days, and has actually produced numbers that indicate that he might land the Iowa caucus, the GOP has been forced to look at Paul in an entirely different light.

While Ron Paul was just a taken-none-too-seriously-slightly-nutty-uncle of the Republican Party he seemed relatively harmless. Harmless candidates that aren't being taken seriously don't receive a lot of vetting or critical analysis in a race for a Presidential nomination where there is plenty of serious stuff to critically analyze. The end result is that the only real message that has been going out about Ron Paul, is Ron Paul's message about Ron Paul. That's a problem. For the Republican Party, Paul's rise in the polls couldn't be happening at a worse time. Some of the things that Ron Paul says are silly enough that they don't even get a response. In the last GOP debate Paul made the case that the Cuban missile crisis was easily solved by simply getting two heads of state together on the phone to sort it out. The assertion has Kennedy and Khrushchev rolling in their graves, and serious people rolling their eyes. Unfortunately, Ron Paul has done a lot of things worthy of eye rolls over the years. Some of those things could be pure poison to the GOP.

In an effort to be amicable, many people that are not Paul supporters routinely refer to him as a "nice guy". They think of him as a well meaning constitutional expert, an originalist, good on most things but bad on foreign policy, 90% good 10% nuts, that sort of thing. Somewhere along the line we lost track of the fact that there is an implied acceptability in such remarks. Newt Gingrich is the only primary candidate to single Paul out as an unacceptable candidate for the Presidency. That's a lead that the other candidates should be following, but it poses a conundrum for the GOP. How excusable is it that Ron Paul has been able to interlope as a Republican Congressman with no serious challenge for his seat in Texas?

Ron Paul's newsletter controversy illustrates some deep and troubling flaws in the character of the man. The idea that he was unaware of the content of his newsletters is preposterous, and doesn't merit much analysis. He was listed as the editor of the newsletter, was clearly involved in the promotion of the newsletter, financially benefited from the sale of the newsletter, and accepted responsibility for its content up until the time he started running for President. How much benefit of the doubt would Rush Limbaugh get if there were racist or anti-Semitic articles routinely showing up on the pages of the Limbaugh Letter? Even if Paul's assertions that he misled subscribers into buying something he had nothing to do with weren't laughably absurd, why is even that acceptable behavior?

It is not possible for Ron Paul to win the GOP nomination for the Presidency. It is possible for him to make a mockery of the GOP primary and harm the Republican Party in the bargain. The GOP should have dealt more honestly with "Dr. Paul" long ago. Instead, he has been expediently tolerated because of the House seat that he has brought along with him. A man that is willing to entertain the insane theories of those that think the US government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and that Israel was behind the first World Trade Center bombing, or include alarmist articles about an impending "Race War" in his publications, and endear himself to White Nationalists, and make multiple guest appearances on the Alex Jones show, and exhibit a cold indifference to the idea of Israel being subjected to nuclear attack, and more, should not receive a stamp of legitimacy from the Republican Party. That stamp of approval has misled many potential voters into thinking of Ron Paul as a serious candidate for the GOP nomination. It can't end well.

Ron Paul has made a career out of exploiting the fears and prejudices of those from whom he seeks support. There are certainly honorable people that support Paul and appreciate his compelling statements on personal liberty, fiscal discipline and nation building. I agree with his positions on some things and disagree with his positions on others, but his positions are incidental. The problem with Ron Paul is the man himself, and no position on any issue is going to fix that.

Judging Newt

2011-12-21T22:02:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich has had the temerity to assert that rogue courts should be held to account, and the punditry is apoplectic. Once again the sturm und drang surrounding Newt seems to be only loosly connected with anything he's actually said or done. I just finished watching Greta Van Susteren interview a judge (that just happens to have a new book out) about Newt's "assault on the judiciary". Excuse me? An assault on rogue courts is an attack on the third branch of government? It's always nice when the host and the guest both agree on completely wrong characterizations of a third person's positions. It's even better when that third person isn't around to set the record straight. I guess that if Obama declares himself King and congress stands up to him, that will be an attack on the Presidency. That's the kind of critical analysis we're getting from the professionals.

There are two basic things that I've had the 'pleasure' to observe Fox News handle fairly poorly in the last two days; first on the O'Reilly Factor last night, and again on On the Record tonight. In these instances a guest of Bill or Greta would make a fairly gross mischaracterization about Newt's proposals and the host would just nod and go on. Is there a referee in this game? Anyway, on to those two basic things.

The first item is the assertion by the pundits that it is preposterous for a President to think he can just drag a Judge before congress if they hand down a ruling that the President doesn't like. They use words like 'tyranical' and 'imperious' and act like Newt is trying to make himself into a king. The only problem with this whole line of discussion is that Newt is talking about a constitutional process driven by Congress, not the President. The issue that Newt is drawing attention to is not problems with specific rulings in specific cases. The problem is Judges that assault American culture in a belligerent manner not related to established law. The Judge in Texas threatening a school Superintendent with Jail time if he uses religious terms in a school function is a perfect example of the type of problem Newt is talking about. Using this example is not a call for the US congress to meddle in issues involving Judges beyond federal jurisdiction. It is just an example.

The second item that these geniuses zero in on is that there is already a process in place to deal with bad rulings. They really come out strongly on this as if it is a really important point. Hmmm, like it's a really important point that everybody doesn't already know. Do they seriously think that Newt doesn't know that? There is a pretty simple rule of thumb that I like to follow, and it goes something like this; If what you think you heard is completely irrational, then you might want to pause for a moment and seek a little clarification. It is true that we have an appeals process that can correct a bad ruling by a rogue Judge. Bad rulings are not the issue that Newt is raising. The issue that Newt is raising is bad Judges. Appeals courts don't do anything to correct problems with bad Judges. An appeals process is completely irrelevant in dealing with rogue Judges that are out of control or completely out of touch with American constitutional and judicial tradition.

When Judges engage in this type of behavior it is appropriate to hold them accountable. Asking a Judge to give an accounting before congress prior to proceeding with impeachment is not an unreasonable thing to do. At the heart of the frustration that Newt is expressing is the idea that the court is somehow superior to the other two branches. Activist Judges are a serious problem that conservatives have been discussing for quite some time. Rather than react with shock and alarm that a Presidential candidate has had the gall to talk about the issue, we would be better off to think critically about his recommendations and find some areas of general agreement.

Ron Paul Jones and the Bonhomme Richard

2011-12-18T21:07:00.000-08:00

I remember when I was in grade school that one of my favorite stories from the American revolutionary war was the story of Captain John Paul Jones of the Bonhomme Richard. In September of 1779 Captain Jones engaged the British Royal Navy in the famous battle of Flamborough Head. After withstanding a devastating assault by the British warship "Serapis", the Commanding Officer of the enemy ship called for Jones to surrender. John Paul Jone's response to the British Commander would immortalize him as a part of American History; "Sir, I have not yet begun to fight!"

Captain Jones went on to win the battle of Flamborough Head. The battle losses were heavy on both sides, but the victory had a reach that went far beyond the fleets engaged upon the seas that day. As the name of the ship under John Paul Jone's command may indicate, the Bonhomme Richard was not of American origin. The Bonhomme Richard was a gift from the French in a time of war. The victory at Flamborough Head is credited with confirming French resolve in their support of the colonies against the crown.

French involvement in the American revolution was a vital element in the eventual liberation of the colonies from Great Britain. At the time, France was a superpower, and the American colonies were...not. Arguments that the United States would not have won independence from King George without the aid of the French may be overstated, but it is clear that the struggle would have been much longer and more arduous without the aid of the French. The "foreign aid" of the French.

At the very inception of our nation we see an alliance with a foreign government play a central part in our struggle for liberty. How is it that we now hear some cry that the founders abhorred alliances? Did the founding fathers think that all nations should fend for themselves? Did they believe that only the fittest should survive and the rest be damned? It seems unlikely in the context of the very founding that they fathered. It does not comply with reason to assume that the founders were willing to embrace the alliance with the French only for selfish reasons. Neither reason nor history support that view.

When the French revolution began just a few years after the end of our own, there were many in America that thought that we should get involved to help the French in their revolution against their monarch. We do not see stirring speeches from the founding fathers regarding our need to stay out of the conflict due to "constitutional restrictions" or avoiding a role as "policeman of the world". There were practical acknowledgments that America was too weak at the time to engage a European power. History tells us that Washington's primary concern regarding involvement in the French revolution was the potential of reigniting hostilities with the British.

During this same time period there was a slave uprising against the French in Haiti. The French requested aid from the United States and Washington granted it in the form of weapons, supplies, and money. The French were ultimately unsuccessful in quelling the rebellion. While there was some concern in the Southern States that a slave rebellion in Haiti could spill over into the United States, the incident clearly was not associated with anything that could be considered a direct threat against our new nation.

Shortly after the end of their Revolution the French went on a bit of a rampage beyond their borders. They declared war on what seemed to be anybody within reach, including Great Britain. In the United States there were calls for aid to the French. Thomas Jefferson was one of the supporters of aiding the French in their escapades. This is probably a good place to highlight that Thomas Jefferson is widely considered to be one of the "founding fathers". How does this stack up against some of the rhetoric that we find when we fast-forward to the present day? How does it stack up against the rhetoric of Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is prone to wrap himself in the constitution and make claims regarding what the founding fathers were all about. Romanticizing about the founding of our nation and the amazing people that risked and sacrificed so much to bring it about is a natural thing to do. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are both heroes of mine; amazing men participating in an incredible adventure to establish what I sincerely believe is the greatest nation in the history of the world. The non-interventionism that Ron Paul ascribes to these men is simply not supported by historical fact. Paul would like to claim the mantle of the founding fathers by attributing to them ideals of his own that the founders simply didn't share.

Ron Paul's neo-libertarian philosophy points to an idealism that can not be blamed on the founding fathers. When libertarian philosophy and an understanding of the way the world works are combined in the crucible of reason, the pragmatic American conservatism that served the founders so well emerges. In the absence of the other elements, the blind application of Paul's idealism in a world of harsh realities is simply dangerous. Perhaps Ron Paul would scold the French for not supporting America's "right to defend itself" at Flamborough Head in that Summer of 1779...or in the battle of the Chesapeake...or at Yorktown, just as he has recently scolded the United States for not supporting Israel's "right to defend itself". All in all, I'm just as happy that Dr. Paul wasn't advising the French.

Theater of the absurd

2011-12-14T16:48:00.000-08:00

Watching this GOP primary race is, at times, a trip deep into a world of surrealism. Consider the commentary after a debate, or on the comments made by a candidate on the campaign trail. I listen to the candidate. Then I listen to the commentary. Then I have to go back and listen to the candidate again. Scratch my head. Slap the computer monitor. Listen to each again. Am I watching the wrong debate? ...listening to the wrong statement? What the heck is wrong with people?

Mitt Romney, goes after Newt Gingrich for consulting with a company that Mitt doesn't like. Repeatedly. Publicly. He says Newt should give the money back. Ok, that's weird. All the time I'm thinking "Does Mitt realize he's speaking out against capitalism?" Seems like a weird thing for Mitt to go after Newt for. Then Newt responds by saying he'll give his money back as soon as Mitt gives back the money he made at Bain Capital for profiting on liquidating companies. Nobody can point out the absurd like Newt. By making an absurd comment he clearly pointed out the absurdity of Mitt's comment. What do you mean he didn't? Isn't it obvious? Then the commentary starts. How can these people act like Newt was seriously asking Mitt to return his money without busting out laughing?. Then Charles Krauthammer jumps into the fray. Finally someone with a brain. He accuses Newt of making a left wing attack at the heart of capitalism. Charles Krauthammer? Being really, really dim? What planet did I wake up on?

Then there was the recent debate. Rick Perry jumps on Mitt over changing the content in his book regarding individual healthcare mandates. Mitt denies it, Perry doubles down. Mitt asks Perry to put his money where his mouth is with a $10,000 bet. Perry runs away and hides. Not so confident now, huh? So I'm thinking Perry really came out on the short end of that. Then after the debate the commentator starts talking about how out of touch Mitt seems for making such a huge bet. While I'm containing my belly laugh at this silly commentator I'm thinking of the times I've said "I'll bet you a million bucks!!!!". What a goof. Then the next day that's the story. The story is everywhere; radio, internet, TV. Perry gets his chops busted for being, as it turns out, dead wrong about what was in the book, and it's a big problem for Mitt Romney?

My favorite spin of the whole season has to be the Bachmann/Santorum tag team match against Gingrich over immigration in recent days. In September it would have been the Bachmann/Santorum/Gingrich tag team match against nobody, but that's ancient history now. Yeah, September is when Newt first responded to an immigration question in a debate. Everybody remembers how Santorum went directly for Newt's throat with that vicious retort;

Well, my solution is very similar to Newt Gingrich's.

Ouch! That's going down in debate history as a contender for best slap-down of all time. Newt hadn't even stopped reeling from that blow when Santorum let lose with the next salvo;

MODERATOR: So there are 11 million people that -- fait accompli. They're here. What do you do with them if you are able to secure the border?

SANTORUM: Well, I think we can have the discussion, that whether what we do with people, how long they've been here, whether they had other types of records.

Newt's isolation almost complete, and then comes Bachmann;

MODERATOR: The fence is built, the border is under control. What do you do with 11.5 million people who are here without documents and with U.S.- born children?

BACHMANN: Well, that's right. And again, it is sequential, and it depends upon where they live, how long they have been here, if they have a criminal record. All of those things have to be taken into place.

It's pretty tough to see Newt "taken into place" like that. In the context of things we have seen in this primary race it doesn't even seem odd to speculate that Santorum and Bachmann have both been abducted by aliens (probably illegal) and replaced with pretty darn good replicas. Those replicas need to go back and watch the tapes of the September debate. A little background research is always a good idea before replacing Presidential primary candidates with alien doppelgangers.

And have you heard the one about Ron Paul? He may actually do well in Iowa. (rimshot!)

It just gets a little more weird every day. You can't make this stuff up. Don't I wish I had...

Unnatural Democracies

2011-04-14T20:39:00.000-07:00

For weeks now we've been hearing rumors that Thomas Jefferson has been sighted in the Middle East. First he was seen in Egypt, then there was a smattering of rumors throughout the region before another confirmed sighting in Libya. We can only hope that he will visit the United States before fading away again, to refresh our collective memory of the origins of our own democracy. A memory which has apparently grown quite dim.

Following the media coverage and the political banter about the recent populist uprisings in the Middle East might lead the casual observer to conclude that being able to vote in a democratic election is all that it takes to solve the problems of extremism in that part of the world. Unfortunately, enlightenment is not found in the voting booth. In the late 1920s a fledgling political party began to rise to power through populist appeal and democratic elections. In May of 1928 the Party gained its first 12 seats of representation, about 2.8% of the total. Through activism against the establishment and populist agitation the Party would secure 107 seats in elections by 1930. By 1932 the Party would be voted into the majority and Adolf Hitler would be in position to become Chancellor of Germany, through a democratic process. The rest is, as they say, history.

All democracies are not created equal and democracy in itself is not inherently good or evil. It is simply a system to be bent to the will of those that use it. For many in the West, and particularly in America, there is a tendency to conflate democracy with individual liberty and Western values. It is common to view democracy itself as the foundation of liberty in America. In reality it is the first principles, the philosophy, values and even the morality that the founding fathers forged into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that form the foundation of American democracy. The presence of such a foundation in the Middle East has not been revealed.

At the philosophical heart of America's founding lies the concept of Natural Law. The idea that man's rights come from Nature, or Nature's God and not from man. This is the seed from which all of America's founding principles grew. It was a novel concept at a time when rights were granted by rulers and religious leaders. The commitment to the idea of individual liberty and the right of self determination was something new and uniquely American in its implementation. For the first time a government and a society would conform around the rights of the individual. Though the underlying philosophy was not new and was not limited to America, it would be first put into practice as an American experiment.

The foundation on which democracies will be built in the Middle East is not the Natural Law foundation of American democracy. Democracies in Egypt, Libya and other places in the Middle East will be built on foundations that are alien to us in the West. Societies will not conform to the rights of individuals in that part of the world. But democracy can conform to the political needs of leaders there. Since the Europeans divided up the Middle East and turned it over to local leaders at the end of the colonial period there have been efforts underway to re-unify those countries into a single Islamic State. The populist appeal of this idea is not new in that part of the world. That appeal has been used by dictators and leaders before and it is no accident that the current populist activism has associations with an organization that seeks to unify the muslim nations. If the Muslim Brotherhood is able to use democratic means to establish itself as a majority Party throughout the Middle East, it is not difficult to foresee a scenario in which they succeed in their goals of reunification.

We may be about to find out what democracy in the Middle East will ultimately look like. But those rumors that Thomas Jefferson has been sighted in the Middle East should be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism. Particularly in light of the evidence that he may not even be that recognizable to some of the name droppers that claim to know him.

Elusive Doctrine

2011-03-30T10:56:00.000-07:00

Reading the news in recent weeks has provided a number of compelling calls for action. News articles with introductory sentences like the ones below have filled the pages of our news papers and grabbed the attention of concerned readers;

An estimated 20,000 people have fled the urban centre since fighting broke out in the area last week.
The United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator has voiced concern over the plight of civilians affected by the recent fighting.
The United Nations Mission today voiced its growing concerns over the civilian impact of the continuing operations by the Army against a rebel group operating in the country’s south.
At least one person has died and up to 10 others were injured after protesters clashed with police.
United Nations agencies prepared today to rush in aid as rebels reported that civilians are being targeted.
Government attacks on civilians have dramatically increased in recent weeks without signs of abating.

It's difficult to see news like this, day after day, and remain complacent and uninvolved. But that is exactly what most of the world has done...regarding Sudan. OK, that's not quite fair, one of the lines above is actually about Libya. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which one.

It is an understatement to say that an identifiable doctrine regarding the US approach to recent events in the middle east is elusive. The decision to take lives or to risk lives in armed conflict is, and should be, the most difficult decision ever undertaken by a President of the United States. President Obama talked a lot about the responsibility of the United States in Monday night's speech on the situation in Libya. He mentioned a responsibility to act "when our interests and values are at stake", but he made little effort to clarify what vital US interests are at stake in Libya that might justify the expenditure of American blood or treasure. That may not be a fair expectation though. Robert Gates acknowledged on "Meet the Press" this week that Libya was "not a vital interest for the U.S., but we clearly have interests there". So expecting our interests to be 'vital' in order to justify military action may be setting the bar too high for the administration,.

Obama laid out the case for intervention using a rationale that holds no consistency with the US stance regarding similar situations. Logic demands to know what is unique about the situation in Libya that sets it apart from places like Sudan when the case for action is being made. Unfortunately, there is little comfort in speculating on those questions. Obama rationalized his chosen course as an act of cooperation with other States that wanted to restrain Qaddafi. He did not address how the existence or absence of US vital interests may have played into his decision. He did not offer any insight into whether this is an action that the US should have considered pursuing independently if other countries were not trying to persuade him into signing on. The question should be asked if there is ever a circumstance in which the US should take part in a coalition to pursue an action that it would not consider pursuing unilaterally. Any President that puts US forces in harms way as a result of international peer pressure has failed his office.

After September 11th, 2001 Qaddafi began efforts to amend his ways in order to avoid getting caught up in the conflagration of the war on terrorism. It would be ludicrous to consider him an ally even after his attempts to reform and cooperate with efforts by the Bush administration to remove WMD components from Libya. Qaddafi is a bad guy and he has been since before most of the US troops engaged in the conflict against him today were born. There is some irony in the fact that his destruction comes upon him in a more moderate part of his time on earth. But the irony is certainly grim, it is not an option for him to continue in power at the conclusion of this action.

Obama's claims that it is not a requirement to remove Qaddafi from power are either simple rhetoric or they are the height of naivete. The option of Qaddafi remaining in power was destroyed by the first US cruise missile to arrive in Libya. Qaddafi will never again believe that diplomatic overtures or cooperation in the war on terror will insulate him from harm and it is unrealistic to expect him not to return to his old ways. Whatever limited scope Obama may have had in mind at the outset of the conflict, he can not afford to stop short of removing Qaddafi now. The roulette wheel of US foreign policy under Barack Obama will leave us to deal with the completely unknown quantity that makes up the rebellion in Libya. We can 'hope' that the 'change' will be better, but there is only one way to find out.

PreJournalism

2011-01-12T16:45:00.000-08:00

In the 2002 movie "The Minority Report" we find a future earth in which crime has been eradicated from society. Three precognitives (precogs) in the police department of "PreCrime" report imminent crimes before they occur. This proactive crime reporting enables the police to swoop in and haul away the perpetrator before he has a chance to do any harm, and in some cases before he even considers committing a crime. When one of the three precogs disagrees with the other two a "Minority Report" is issued and subsequently ignored by the authorities who make their decision based on the majority opinion of the other two precogs.

Apparently the main stream US media has employed a team of precogs that enable them to report on events that have not yet occurred. At least this is as plausible an explanation as any other for the media coverage that we have seen regarding the tragic event that occurred in Tucson last Saturday. The department of PreJournalism had a story written and ready to go in anticipation of an event that had not yet occurred. It's understandable that they would make the mistake of leaping forth with their official PreJournalism reports. In their rush to be first out with the story they ran with the one they had written, instead of the one that had occurred.

When Dewey beat Truman, the PreJournalists had an expectation that Truman would actually lose. They even had polling data to support it. The occasional premature reports of someone passing away may be inaccurate, but the reporter still knows that the event is inevitable. There is no question in the journalists mind that it will happen. They don't even need the aid of precognition. Being proactive about writing a story about who will win the Presidency, or someone passing away is pretty low risk. When a celebrity's health degrades to a certain point, it isn't uncommon for a journalist to have a story ready to go at a moments notice, just in case. Neither is it uncommon to have articles declaring victory for each candidate in a political race ready to go as soon as the results are in. But you wouldn't write an article declaring victory for someone that wasn't in the race, and you wouldn't write an obituary article for someone in the bloom of health. When the news doesn't match reality, it tells us a lot about the writer's perception of reality.

The perception of the main stream media and left wing pundits in the United States is that right wing activists and Tea party folks are capable of ruthlessly gunning down a popular, moderate democrat congresswoman in cold blood. They believe that it is as inevitable as someone winning the next election or an aged celebrity passing away. Their expectations that something like this will happen are high enough that it was the first thing that came to mind when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot at a political event by a deranged gunman last weekend. Their expectations that something like this will happen are high enough that media outlets across the industry have the story prepped and ready to go. Their expectations that something like this will happen are high enough that they will report that story for events that don't even come close to fitting it.

A discussion should be taking place in the United States today about the dangers of ignoring people with severe mental disorders in our society. We should be talking about what to do when we encounter people that are clearly a menace to society or a danger to themselves. We should be talking about signs to look for in our loved ones so we can help them or get them the help they need. We should even be talking about the litigious reasons for shutting down mental facilities across America back in the 1970s and the impact it has had on our society. But the PreJournalists majority report has left us with nothing more than a hypothetical discussion about an event that didn't occur. The minority report warns us about the dangers of ignoring the psychotics that live among us. And just like in that movie, the minority report is being discarded and ignored.

The Meaning of Christmas

2010-12-22T14:48:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas!

Out of Touch

2010-12-16T19:32:00.000-08:00

It is difficult for politicians to think outside of their political boxes. How often do we see politicians work together to produce a result that just leaves the folks back home shaking their heads? When asked to defend their actions they may even have some reasonable arguments. Reasonable, that is, if we put ourselves in the shoes of the politicians. How do we get the politicians to put themselves in the shoes of their constituents?

In Texas there is a bit of a scandal currently underway around the election of the Speaker of the House in the state legislature. Joe Straus is a RINO. Everybody knows he's a RINO. Nobody mistakes him for a conservative. He represents everything that the recent groundswell of conservative activism in America reviles. He's a compromiser. He's a moderate. He's unprincipled. He's a political creature. He builds his coalition from both sides of the aisle. He initially became house speaker by building a coalition of democrats and moderate republicans in the Texas State House. When the GOP rode to massive gains in the Texas House of Representatives in November the grass roots was confident that Straus' days as Speaker were numbered. But it was not to be.

On November 3rd Joe Strauss posted a pledge of support containing the names of 79 Republican State legislators. The folks back home have been shaking their heads ever since. I had the opportunity to discuss the issue briefly with my State Rep. He said that Straus was a fiscal conservative. He said that Straus could be relied on to allow conservative initiatives to move forward if the case could be made that there was reasonable support for them. He said that Party affiliations of committee chairmen is dictated by apportionment in Texas, so the damage Straus could cause with chair appointments was limited by the process. He said that those that pledged their support to Straus had done so to avoid a big political fight over the election of Speaker. He said a lot of things that sounded reasonable. Reasonable, that is, if we put ourselves in the shoes of the politicians...

I don't agree with everything that my Representative said, but there isn't any real point to addressing the points he used to defend his support for Straus. Those are all things that the folks down at the State House care about; political things. A large number of Texas State legislators are missing the point that the wins in November were more about the people doing the electing than they were about the people being elected. The grass roots won this election for Texas and America, not for Austin and Washington. The grass roots, the TEA party movement, and dedicated conservative Republicans handed a trust to these Representatives and these Representatives immediately betrayed that trust.

The House Speaker fight that some of these GOP Representatives hoped to avoid will return to them multiplied. The excitement that many voters had in the run up to the election has been diluted with skepticism. Now the grass roots is targeting Republican legislators to coerce them into breaking their pledges of support for Straus. It is dissapointing to see this growing divisiveness in the relationship between constituents and Representatives while the sweeping victory is still fresh in our minds. The fight could turn ugly. There have already been whispers that the grass roots is opposing Straus, in part, because he is Jewish. Yes, that would be the same grass roots that was such a praiseworthy ally prior to the election.

Politics as usual lost the election in November. Unfortunately, the politicians didn't catch on. The GOP in Texas is squandering an opportunity to solidify its appeal to the independents in the grass roots. The risks are high. Some damage has already been done regardless of who now becomes Speaker of the House. The division between the establishment and the grass roots has always been real and this episode has clearly exacerbated the problem. Only time will tell how much. It is good for constituents to limit their trust in their representatives, but antics like this will result in some people becoming disillusioned and disengaging from the process. The Texas Representatives defending their ill advised act of supporting Joe Straus should be very careful about how they proceed. The people they are defending themselves against, and in some cases even vilifying, are the same people they will be asking for votes in the future.

Profound

2010-10-29T16:36:00.000-07:00

The clip below speaks pretty well for itself. Here is a link to the clip for the facebook crowd: Dennis Prager Video

Good things to think about in the voting booth on Tuesday...

Sophistrycated

2010-10-27T18:04:00.000-07:00

In an interview with Der Spiegel last week Karl Rove made the comment that the Tea party movement is "not sophisticated". After being almost immediately pounced on by conservative pundits and talkers in the United States for slighting Tea partiers, Rove has attempted to make the case that he meant it in a good way. You know, like all of the other times that you've been complimented by being called unsophisticated. Let's see what undesireable things Webster has to say about being sophisticated:

Definition of Sophisticated

1: deprived of native or original simplicity: as a : highly complicated or developed : complex "sophisticated electronic devices" b : having a refined knowledge of the ways of the world cultivated especially through wide experience "a sophisticated lady" "a sophisticated columnist" b : intellectually appealing "a sophisticated novel"

2: devoid of grossness: as a : finely experienced and aware

Hmmm... Ok, perhaps that doesn't quite clear it up. Let's try taking a look at the Antonyms for sophisticated:

guileless, ingenuous, innocent, naive (or naïve), unsophisticated, untutored, unworldly, wide-eyed

Yikes! Ok, how about the synonyms for unsophisticated (there has to be a compliment here somewhere):

aw-shucks, dewy-eyed, green, ingenuous, innocent, naïf, primitive, simple, simpleminded, uncritical, unknowing, naive, unsuspecting, unsuspicious, unwary, unworldly, wide-eyed.

I guess you get the point. "Sophisticated" may be my least favorite word in the world. The common use of the word is to indicate worldliness, or worldy experience and it is nearly always intended as something positive. The implication is that those who are not worldly are naive. It is a cynical philosophy that assumes that principles and worldy wisdom are mutually exclusive. In a way I do take it as a compliment to be considered unsophisticated, but the fact remains that nobody ever calls someone unsophisticated when a compliment is intended. If Rove had been looking for a term to compliment the Tea party movement with, the word is "principled". It is possible to be wise in the ways of the world, think critically, take a complex view of things and still hold true to one's principles. In fact, that's a pretty good description of the Tea party movement if I do say so myself.

People like Karl Rove and Dick Morris have made their lives out of playing a political game. In that game they apply manipulation and compromise in pursuit of a goal. They may select the goal based on principles, but the path to that goal is expediency. In the days following the Delaware primary election, Karl Rove lashed out irrationally at the Tea partiers that had taken Mike Castle out of the race by handing the nomination to Christine O'Donnell. The strategist would favor Castle in the race for the sake of a certain short term victory. Rove made it very clear that he thought the election of O'Donnell indicated a lack of voter sophistication. Now that he has stated it plainly in the interview with Der Spiegel he would like to come back and try to convince us that he is being taken out of context. Would it be unsophisticated to just take his word for it?

9/11 Hijackers

2010-09-10T20:10:00.000-07:00

For nine years there has been a somber, respectful dignity surrounding the anniversary of the most heinous assault on America since the day of her founding. It has been a day about America, about mourning, about heroic sacrifice, unity and loss. It has been about all of us as Americans and about none of us as individuals. This year there is a sad trend in a different direction.

When Glenn Beck started his 9/12 project I felt certain that he made a conscious choice to pick a day other than 9/11 for his national movement. It was clearly linked to 9/11, but it was about the America that came together the day after that tragedy in 2001. I thought that there was a grace and wisdom in his choice not to pick September 11th for his cause. Yes, it's wild speculation, but I think that he knew it wasn't appropriate to make 9/11 about Glenn Beck's project.

On April 21, 2009 Obama signed into law the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which for the first time includes federal authorization to establish September 11 as an annually recognized National Day of Service and Remembrance. For some reason, mourning and reflection are no longer enough to fill the vacuum of 9/11. Apparently, we need something constructive to do. And apparently we need to do it in the name of a politician. There are about three thousand more appropriate people to name this legislation after than Ted Kennedy.

In Gainesville Florida a leader of a small church has climbed up on a soap box of his own and drawn the attention of a perplexed nation toward his plans to burn a koran on September 11th. Terry Jones wants the nation to focus on him on 9/11/2010. And if you want to buy one of his nice "Islam is of the Devil" t-shirts while you're at it, that's ok with him too (or hire him as a guest speaker, or make a paypal contribution, or wait for his book to come out, or...). Terry ironically calls his church "World Outreach". I guess he thinks that the back of his hand is still outreach. I'm sure that being Christ's representative through the great commission and the call to be "salt and light" to a lost world can be found in Terry's actions somewhere. You know; "Faith, Hope, Love, but the greatest of these is sticking your thumb in the eye of muslims."

Other "protesters" encouraged by Terry's notoriety have taken up the cause of koran burning. The ever noble Fred Phelps arrived late at the party. Upset, I'm sure, that he didn't think of it first. Lucky they weren't fresh out of korans to burn at the last minute. There are others that will join in their protest, but really, who cares who they are. All in good company. Maybe the cottage industry in 'match light' korans will be good for the economy. A new twist came out today that there will be a big protest at the ground zero mosque site on Saturday. All these creative new ways to show our respect for the thousands that lost their lives.

I won't be watching the TV on Saturday. I won't be listening to the radio. The circus doesn't really interest me on September 11th. For 364 days a year I may "adore a riot", but not tomorrow. It is ok to leave September 11th alone. It should not be exploited for agendas, or used for "making a point". Thousands of our fellow Americans lost their lives on that date and burning korans doesn't strike me as a good way to respect their memory. Maybe I'm old fashoned. For me it is a somber occasion, not a day for marching in the streets and lashing out at Islam in some sort of display. It is a day of reflection and remembering. It is a day for hardening and restoring our collective resolve. It is about America. It is about how we came together as a nation, even if too briefly. It is about being reminded of the truly important things and the need for constant vigilance against anything we may become complacent about. Yes it is also about the seething rage that fills me every time I think about the event, but that is a personal thing that I don't need to wear on my sleeve in some choreographed public book burning.

I guess we all have our own way of memorializing the event, but I prefer constructive acts; make a contribution to wounded warriors or another appropriate charity, take a concealed carry class, join the military, send a batch of cookies to a soldier in Afghanistan. There are a lot of better things one can do other than hijack the event to make symbolic gestures with no constructive purpose.

Razing Keynes

2010-09-01T21:40:00.000-07:00

I'm no fan of John Maynard Keynes. Neither am I a fan of misrepresentation of the ideas of "intellectuals" for political expediency. Keynes is praised by liberals and damned by conservatives for economic policies he never advocated and in all likelihood would not have approved of. It is true that deficit spending is a key piece of Keynesian economic theory. But deficit spending in itself is simply deficit spending. It is not Keynesian economics.

Keynes economic theory required fiscal responsibility in boom times to offset the fiscal irresponsibility that he asserted would reinvigorate the economy when things went bust. Contemporary liberal economic theory says that the government must exhaust increased revenues in boom time in the name of social justice and must turn to deficit spending to spur the economy when things go bust. They call this "Keynesian economics" in an effort to co-opt Keynes and lend the credibility of his simply hair-brained scheme to their ridiculously hair-brained scheme. Conservatives respond by vilifying Keynes.

To modern day liberal economists the time is always right for deficit spending. For conservatives, the only time deficit spending is tolerated is for national defense. In modern political terms, Keynes would represent an economic moderate. He was clearly not an economic conservative, but neither was he the socialist that the left paints him as. Vladamir Lenin said "A lie told often enough becomes the truth", and he was almost right. It is the lie that goes unchallenged often enough that becomes the truth. By allowing the current economic schemes to be labeled "Keynesian" conservatives have allowed the left to add credibility to a socialist agenda. Once again we see the right allow the left to establish the debate on a foundation of unchallenged intellectual dishonesty.

Once upon a time I had the privilege to attend a conference for TEA party activists. In a gesture toward non-partisanship a session was offered with the title "How Independents and Traditional Democrats who support the TEA Party Movement core values can challenge Left Wing Democrats in the 2010 Primaries". The leader of the session was well known economist and 2010 US Senate candidate Warren Mosler. Mr. Mosler made a strong case for a drastic reduction in taxes, even a tax holiday, to invigorate the floundering US economy. Ok so far. As he continued to speak it became clear that his position on lowering taxes was merely situational. Low taxes had no inherent value to Mr. Mosler, they were simply a mechanism to address a transient economic state. At the end of the session I challenged Mr. Mosler by asserting that he would be just as quick to raise taxes to cool the economy and consequently grow government; a position at odds with "Tea Party Movement core values". He held firmly to his position that it was the only way to maintain a stable economy. Unfortunately, many of the attendees were just happy to hear an "Independent" advocate cutting taxes.

Mr. Mosler's theory is essentially a variation on Keynesian economics. Both plans call for the government to actively control the economic thermostat by pumping money into the economy in bad times and pumping it back out in good. Both of these plans illustrate an academic, theoretical view of the relationship between the government and the economy. They are liberal in their presumption of a benevolent government that will act responsibly with surpluses in good economic times to prepare for bad economic times. It is this naivete that ensures the failure of these systems. Government has never illustrated an ability to restrain itself when presented with a surplus. An increase in revenue is always followed by an increase in government. In a purely Utopian sense Keynes and Mosler have interesting theories. In the real world they are just wishful thinking.

The next time someone uses Keynes to support a "stimulus" package, tell them first of all that Keynes wasn't really all that great, and secondly that what we're getting from Washington isn't Keynesian economics.

The Agitministrator

2010-06-30T18:06:00.000-07:00

Chief Executive
Chief of State
Chief Diplomat
Chief of Party
Chief Citizen
Chief Legislator
Commander in Chief
Leader of the free world

These titles describe a leader, a manager, an administrator, an executive. These are titles by which the President of the United States is routinely called. The position of President of the United States is clearly a senior management position. One might even say it is -the- senior management position. What are the odds that a nation of over 300 million people would elect a man with no management experience to be the most senior manager in the country? Apparently...pretty good.

Agitators, radicals, community organizers, are not noted for their managerial qualities. They may be charismatic leaders, but we don't generally think of leaders in these roles as 'Presidential'. It takes an entirely different set of skills to manage a crisis than it does to create one. The agitator's focus is the creation, or exploitation of crises in pursuit of his goals. The administrator's focus regarding crises, is management and resolution. Since January of 2009 we have seen example after example of crises being exploited in pursuit of goals, and virtually no crisis management from the leader of the free world.

The BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico highlights the anti-managerial nature of Barack Obama. The most basic crisis management techniques were either a completely foreign concept to this President, or he intentionally avoided putting them into practice. Either of those two possibilities is unacceptable in the Chief Executive of the United States. Accusations of incompetence have been made, but this is a level of incompetence that is staggering. There has also been speculation that there is a more sinister motive behind the administration's inaction, but the evidence for simple incompetence is compelling simply due to the variety of crises that have been met with incompetence by the administration.

Experience was an issue in the 2008 general election for President. It was enough of an issue that the entire race was pitched as if Barack Obama was running against Sarah Palin for the Chief Executive position. The irony was that Palin's executive experience was probably more relevant than McCain's Senate experience, and certainly surpassed the experience of Barack Obama, but the issue was not seen that way by most people. Obama's main managerial experience claim was that he had managed a campaign of several hundred workers. The sycophant press never questioned how picking a campaign manager or working with a few hundred people that, by default, were all die-hard Obama supporters would prepare him for managing the truly epic crises of global scale that the US president routinely has to personally manage.

Fast forward to the Obama Presidency. Any crisis that Obama can exploit to further his ideological agenda gets exploited; illegal immigration in Arizona to push comprehensive immigration reform, gulf oil spill for cap-n-trade and increased oil production regulation, auto manufacturer's bankruptcy for stronger cafe standards and union growth, financial crisis for anti-capitalist financial reforms and expanded government influence. In case after case the drum beat for 'fundamentally transforming America' provides the underlying rhythm. In case after case we see that the focus is not on correcting a problem, not on managing the crisis, but on making the most of the crisis in pursuit of ideological goals. What we see are the actions of an agitator, a radical, a community organizer.

What may not be obvious when looking at bureaucratic machinations becomes more clear when the impact of the administration's incompetence is physically manifested. The most under reported story of the year is the horrible flooding in the Nashville area. The Nashville flood is one of the most expensive natural disasters in US history. More than 30 people lost their lives. Barack Obama may have had a record of voting 'present' in the Senate, but he could not even take the time to do that for Nashville. There was no agenda that could be furthered in Nashville and the press apparently had other stories to cover. Where an administrator with the best interests of the citizens might have had some stake in Nashville, there was nothing there to concern the agitator.

The management of the gulf oil spill has been simply non-existent. Any responsibility that the government might have in facilitating the clean-up or keeping oil from reaching US shores has been hidden behind BP's responsibility for the blowout. These two aspects of the spill illustrate the administration's complete lack of action in this crisis. The blowout is being managed by BP. Agree or disagree with the actions taken by BP, BP has been working to stop the leak from day 1. For the clean up effort and the effort to keep oil from reaching US shores, the administration has done nothing. They haven't mismanaged the crisis. They haven't even bothered to show up. It has been obvious for weeks that the spill would not be contained, that a clean-up effort would be needed, and that oil would reach the beaches of the gulf coast. It has also been clear that BP would not be able to do anything to stop any of those things from happening. The administration has gone to great lengths to be very cross with BP, and to do absolutely nothing else. The President appears to even be incapable of cutting the red tape that inhibits the ability of local authorities to protect themselves or for foreign flagged ships to take part in the skimming operations.

The administration may have some conflict of interest in cleaning up the spill. The disaster probably works in their favor for pushing their legislative agenda. But it also advertises a level of incompetence that is nothing short of dangerous. Any first year project manager could have dealt with the gulf oil spill better than the President of the United Sates has done. Some very specific and obvious actions (like meeting with the management of BP) have just been ignored by this administration. We can be certain that they have not been ignored by the enemies of the United States, or by those that would seek to capitalize on a weak America.

If Barack Obama can't get a few oil industry execs together, or work with local governments to coordinate a containment plan, how would he manage the effort to deal with a North Korean invasion of South Korea? If Barack Obama can't see that it is a bad idea to send condolences to Turkey for the deaths of a the jihadis in the gaza blockade run, how is he going to deal with Iran's insistence on building a nuclear bomb? Does China think that Obama could effectively obstruct a 'reunification' effort with Taiwan? Do Chavez and the Organization of South American States think that Obama would do anything to defend democracies like Honduras from socialist expansion in the region?

It is a very dangerous thing to give the enemies of freedom and democracy the idea that the Leader of the free world is lost on a golf course somewhere. The balance of power in the world is giving way to a dangerous imbalance of power. The impression of incompetence and weakness in the US administration may force the hands of those that see a window of opportunity that they can not expect to stay open indefinitely. We can only wonder if the resulting crises will be dealt with by an administrator, or exploited by an agitator. The evidence is not encouraging.

What border problem?

2010-06-30T10:39:00.000-07:00

Feel the Paine

2010-06-22T11:37:00.000-07:00

Here's to you

2010-06-18T08:49:00.001-07:00

Oligogue personified

2010-06-14T09:20:00.000-07:00

The Million Dollar Prize

2010-06-09T12:01:00.000-07:00

One Voice

2010-06-05T14:38:00.000-07:00

Comprehensive Opportunism

2010-05-23T10:27:00.000-07:00

The federal government has, for all intents and purposes, decided not to enforce US immigration law. This position was clarified recently when Homeland Security official John Morton indicated that the government might simply decide not to process illegal immigrants turned over by Arizona law enforcement. The crisis over illegal immigration in America is artificial. States would not be struggling under the burden of illegal immigration if the federal government were living up to its obligations to enforce US immigration law. Unfortunately, enforcing US immigration law is not in the best interests of the open borders proponents in the current administration, but even more unfortunately, the resulting crisis may be.

If the US government were interested in controlling illegal immigration it could do so. It is certainly within the capability of the various agencies of our government to control the border and drastically reduce the number of employers hiring illegal immigrants. These two actions would reduce the influx of illegal aliens and quickly result in the self deportation of a significant number of those currently residing in the United States. It is clear that the goal of the US government is not immigration enforcement. The goal is immigration reform. Solving the current problems with immigration enforcement would decrease the viability of comprehensive immigration reform in the near term.

The immigration calamity in America today is little more than political brinkmanship between the supporters and opponents of comprehensive immigration reform. It may seem that the administration is faced with the conundrum of how to achieve its goals as American citizens increasingly display their frustration with illegal immigration, but that frustration may ultimately work out in the favor of the open borders crowd. President Obama has joined others in conceding that the time is not right to push immigration reform. That concession should not be expected to keep the administration from attempting to seize the high ground if the fervor on both sides of the debate swells into a crisis that can not be ignored. We should not assume that we are safe from a comprehensive immigration reform effort until new representatives are seated after the mid-term elections.

With the recent activities on health care we watched as a crisis was created out of whole cloth. For months the people of the United States made it clear that they did not believe there was a crisis in American health care and that the system did not require fundamental transformation. The politicians moved forward with health care reform, self-justified by the moral high ground provided by a non-existent crisis. Do we expect they will not take the same advantage with a real crisis in immigration? How many of us have any real expectation that even the well meaning politicians in Washington will not make unfortunate compromises on immigration reform if faced with a crisis that demands resolution?

It was necessary for the Arizona legislature to act in the interests of the citizens of that state. It is necessary for American citizens to protest the irresponsible actions of the federal government on immigration. It is necessary for concerned citizens to stand up and support Arizona's actions and speak out against the spiteful boycott effort directed against Arizona. These things are necessary, appropriate and should not be delayed. They are also elements of the crisis and it is unclear which side of the debate will make the most of them.

The two generals at Gettysburg both made a decision that they would put everything they had into that battle. They knew that the armies arrayed against each other would engage in a decisive struggle with consequences that would reach far beyond the fields of Pennsylvania. They were committed to engage and resigned to the outcome of that battle. The struggle surrounding the illegal immigration issue may be the political Gettysburg of our time. The stakes for both sides in this battle are too high to walk away from. Arizona may have fired the first shot, but the struggle is far from over. We must not take victory for granted or underestimate the foe.

Rights and Obligations

2010-05-06T11:48:00.000-07:00

On the 9th of March in 1916 Pancho Villa sent several hundred Mexican guerrillas on a raid into the United States. The invaders attacked Columbus New Mexico, killing 17 Americans. US cavalry from nearby camp Furlong confronted Villa's force, chased it back into Mexico and killed a number of the guerrillas along the way. Six days after the invasion President Wilson ordered the US army to launch a punitive expedition into Mexico to capture Villa and disperse his forces. A sequence of events was set in place that may well have culminated in a full blown war between the US and Mexico if not for the looming conflict in Europe that was to become World War I.

Looking back through the lens of history we see the 1916 US government seriously undertaking its responsibility to protect the sovereignty of the United States and the lives and property of its citizens. But what if the US government had not acted? What if those in the besieged town of Columbus New Mexico had their cries for help fall on the deaf ears of a Federal government that refused to perform its role? Would New Mexico have had the right to protect itself in the absence of assistance from the federal government? In 1916 these questions would have seemed absurd. In 1916 the federal government would have never entertained the notion that it did not have both the right and the obligation to provide for the security of New Mexico.

Under the federal system of government in the United States there is a fundamental presumption that the parties in the federation will fulfill their responsibilities to one another. The federal government has the responsibility to protect the whole of the country and to protect the individual states. When the various parties of the federation start arbitrarily deciding which rules they will follow and which rules they will not it brings the entire system into grave peril. Today there seems to be some confusion regarding where we draw the line between what is a right of the federal government, and what is an obligation.

Several years ago I read a heart wrenching article about two women that were victims of a home invasion. One of the women was able to hide from the invaders and call 911 while the other woman was victimized by the intruders. The police came and knocked on the door. When there was no answer at the door, the police left. The woman again called 911 and again the police came, knocked and left. Ultimately the second woman was discovered by the invaders and horribly tormented by them before they eventually left. During the subsequent investigation into the incident the police department established the position that they had the right to protect these women, but they did not have an obligation to do so.

Self defense is a fundamental right simply because there are times when no one else can help you. When an authority takes the position that they have a right to do something for you, but not an obligation, it at least leaves you with the option of fending for yourself. The article about the home invaders was written as a warning that people should take their own security seriously and not rely 100% on help that may not arrive in time, or may not arrive at all. But what if those police had taken a slightly different position? Suppose that they had taken the position that they had an exclusive right to protect those women from crime. Then the police, and only the police, could legally defend these women from the home invaders. The women would then be in a position where they are prohibited from legally protecting themselves. What if the police then went a step further and said that they had that exclusive right, but not an obligation? In essence they would be saying 'you can't protect yourself and we may our may not as we choose."

This is what is happening in Arizona today over the immigration issue. The federal government has taken the position that it has an exclusive right to enforce immigration laws in Arizona, but not an obligation to do so. If the fed refuses to enforce the immigration laws, and refuses to allow the states to do so, where does that leave us? First, it leaves us with an official open borders immigration policy. There is a growing chorus from around the United States against Arizona's choice to enforce immigration laws. The absence of federal commitment to enforce immigration law in Arizona can only be interpreted as the federal government taking an open border position on the issue. The ire directed at Arizona from around the country indicates that there is a significant, deliberate and widespread open borders movement. A second side effect of the federal government's position on this issue is stress on the integrity of the federation.

While this stress is not on the verge of threatening the union, it is important that we be clear about the source of it. City governments and private citizens around the country are vilifying Arizona and threatening boycotts. One might look at the actions of the Arizona legislature as the source of the problem, but one would be looking in the wrong place. If the federal government fulfilled its obligation to enforce immigration law, Arizonans would not have to deal with the barbs being hurled their way. We should not overlook the outpouring of support and solidarity that is also being expressed for Arizona by many Americans, but it is unfortunate that Arizona has to deal with any level of condemnation for exercising their right to self defense. One of the roles of the federal government is to limit disputes between the states. The federal government's lack of immigration enforcement on the southern border is clearly exacerbating the friction between American citizens from different states. While the federal government is very clear about having the right to control illegal immigration, they obviously do not feel much of an obligation to do so.

Supreme Consequences

2010-04-13T11:18:00.000-07:00

The latest entry in the "elections have consequences" category is the announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. It's no secret that Justices have a tendency to vacate their seats under conditions that favor replacements cut from philosophically similar cloth. Justice Steven's replacement will likely provide Barack Obama with a judicial legacy that will last for decades to come. Through herculean efforts, and a minor miracle or two, the health care bill may be repealed. But, appointments to the Supreme Court may as well be carved in granite.

It is among a President's greatest betrayals of the constitution to appointment a Supreme Court Justice that refuses to limit his actions to the interpretation of established law and precedent. Unfortunately we have ample assurance from President Obama that his appointees will not be so constrained. Obama has not been subtle about the fact that it is his expressed desire that the blindfold of justice be removed and replaced with a microscope of empathy that implies situational justice under a system of situational law. The transformation of America will extend into the American system of justice.

The process of Supreme Court appointments is one more area in which we see the disparate levels of the playing field between statists and conservatives. The original intent behind the various branches of the US government was that there would be a somewhat adversarial relationship between the branches. Each branch is intended to check the power of the other branches. Under this system it was originally presumed that no congress would stand for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices expected to venture into the domain of the legislative branch. The original formula was fairly simple; Congress passes laws, Supreme Court interprets laws, Congress updates laws if it isn't happy with the Supreme Court's interpretation, Supreme Court decides if Congress's law is constitutional. Unfortunately, it favors one side over the other if the Supreme Court abandons this formula and ventures in to the legislative arena as a mini-Congress sans accountability.

It is a farce that the debate over judicial appointments is nearly always broken down along the lines of left and right. There are only two ways that a judicial appointee can be perceived; as an interpreter of existing law, or as a fabricator of new law. How does this become a left versus right issue? Only the first of these two types should be approved by any Senate of any political persuasion. To do otherwise requires the Senate to sede a portion of its authority to the Judiciary. But when it is to the advantage of Senators from one political party to look the other way and allow activist Justices into the system at the expense of their own authority, there are few options available to the opposition.

The hue and cry about Republican obstructionism over Obama's 'unnamed' Supreme Court appointee has already started. Where the whole Senate should be set in opposition against the type of Justice that Obama has already told us he will select, it is clear that the battle will break along party lines once more. It may not be possible for Senate Republicans to stop the appointment of an activist SC Justice. But if the ideal response would be for all of the Senate to guard their domain and protect the integrity of the court, then there is absolutely no excuse for Republicans to avoid this fight, even though they will undoubtedly stand alone.

Decimal pointless

2010-04-01T21:28:00.000-07:00

Somebody please explain to me what all the discussion about cost has to do with the government health care takeover debate. Conservatives are making a lot of noise about fiscal responsibility (generally a good thing in itself) and statists are doing everything they can to make the case that their actions are fiscally responsible. So...are conservatives saying they'd go along with government run health care if it was fiscally responsible? Are the statists saying they'll drop the whole thing if they can't make the financial case for it? Somehow I doubt it.

The debate over government health care should be limited to arguments about the proper role of the government in health care. Turning the debate into a financial debate concedes that it is proper for government to take over this role if it can be made financially viable. There is already a 'tanning' tax in the health care bill. I don't really want to challenge the government to go search from Arby's to Zippos to find enough 'health care related items' that can be taxed to fund its crusade to meddle in health care.

In reality, the debate about government involvement in health care is two debates. One debate revolves around the fundamental transformation of the relationship between American citizens and their government. The second debate comes into play simply because the health care debate has become a proxy for the debate between capitalism and socialism. These debates need to be separated and dealt with in their own context. The reluctance to engage in a straight up political debate about the merits of capitalism or socialism is clouding a number of issues. Capitalism is routinely disparaged in the mainstream, but when assertions of socialism are made the recipients feign offense and flatly deny them. As usual, it is the conservative side of the argument that is weakened by the framing of these debates.

Another government effort that aims at transforming the relationship between the American people and their government is about to spin up to full speed once more; Cap-and-Trade. It is predictable that the debate over cap-and-trade will rapidly fall into some of the same financial arguments we have seen with health care. Getting sidetracked by peripheral arguments around health care and cap-and-trade works to the advantage of the statists. Any good salesman knows that once he has you trying to figure out how to pay for something the chances are pretty good that you're going to make a purchase of some kind. But a question has to be asked. Why are conservatives arguing about how to pay for something that they have no desire for in the first place?

A defense of capitalism needs to be made, but it needs to be separated from these other debates. The defenders of capitalism have done a very poor job for a very long time. One of the main reasons is that they tend to make their defense of capitalism a peripheral part of other issues. There is an eagerness on the part of conservatives to seem reasonable that motivates them to make some bad choices. The case against government health care is complex and requires some critical argument. The argument is difficult to make in our sound-bite media culture and it is easier to just say 'we can't afford it'. While it may be easier and it may sound reasonable, it is also self defeating. Those on the other side of the debate simply don't care about the affordability problem. Acting as if they do? Pointless.

The Undiscovered Country

2010-03-24T21:25:00.000-07:00

Is it possible to love something and simultaneously believe that it needs to be transformed? If I say you're a wonderful person, and then provide a description of how you need to be fundamentally transformed, you might question the veracity of my initial assertion. Why should I then believe that someone who wants to fundamentally transform America, loves America? Forget love, why should I believe they even like America? Why should I believe they don't actually dislike America?

We're not talking about saying, "I love you, but you nose is too big.." We're talking about saying, "I loath every aspect of you, but I love the idea of what you would be if you were fundamentally transformed into something else entirely." Try that line on your spouse and see how it goes over. The idea is ludicrous, but when a US politician takes this position about his country everyone acts as if it is the most natural thing in the world. Question that politician's patriotism or love of country and the righteous indignation will rapidly ensue. It is well past time to stop pretending that politicians seeking to transform America are anything other than anti-American, anti-Patriots.

Barack Obama, December 2007 - "We will stand up in this election to bring about the change that won't just win an election, but will transform America,"

Barack Obama, October 2008 - "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

Barack Obama, August 2008 - "Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America,"

And I love Barack Obama, fundamentally transformed into Thomas Jefferson. Obama loves his vision of an America that has never been, has no ties to America's foundational ideals, and is not compatible with our constitution. What he loves is not America at all. Even worse, what he loves is America supplanted.

From Merriam-Webster online:

supplant
1: to supersede (another) especially by force or treachery
2a: to eradicate and supply a substitute for

We have mistaken political correctness for civility in our political discourse, and it has not served us well. When the President of the United States has nothing but contempt for the principles set forth by the men that signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it is not reasonable to pretend that he represents any idea of America that we should seriously entertain. Civility does not demand that we hold back our questions of patriotism. Civility demands only that we speak the truth plainly and constructively. In the absence of that plain truth we may find ourselves living in a doppelganger America with the same borders but a completely different soul.

Barack Obama swore an oath to defend the Constitution. But in the same way that America is a re-definable quantity to Barack Obama, so is the Constitution. In his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama states; "Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world...How could it be otherwise?"

The transformation of America is a process, not an event. The transformation of the relationship between corporations and the government that we have seen with the financial institutions and the auto manufacturers is a step in the process. Transforming the relationship between the people and the government through health insurance reform is a step in the process. Transforming the cultural identity of America through irresponsible immigration policies is a step in the process. Transforming the transportation infrastructure to de-emphasize automotive transportation is a step in the process. Transforming the relationships between energy producers, corporations, individuals and government through cap-and-trade is a step in the process. Transforming the electoral process through the efforts put forth in Congress last week to declare voting a right for released felons is a step in the process. The list goes on.

There are a lot of things to watch. The transformers have been emboldened by their recent efforts on health care reform. It remains to be seen if those that put their careers in jeopardy by voting for the health care reform legislation will try to keep a low profile now in hopes of voter memory loss by November or if they will decide that they now have nothing to lose by pushing on to immigration reform and cap-and-trade. I'm having a hard time convincing myself that they could convince themselves that the voters could possibly forget this betrayal by November. I'm not optimistic that there will be any let up in the transform business.

I've seen some introspection among conservatives worrying about being perceived as sore losers if they keep up the resistance to the health care takeover. Conservatives must stop being concerned about perceptions and focus on principles. Every effort must be made to repeal the health care takeover. Every effort must be made to resist the other attempts to "transform" America. It is going to be a long and arduous struggle. The commitment of real patriots and those that love the real America is paramount.

Anything but Tea

2010-03-15T12:44:00.000-07:00

Sometimes you just have to wonder what goes through somebody's mind when they start off down a chosen path. A left-wing response to the Tea Party movement crawled into action over the past weekend. In spite of the media's attempted build-up for the event, you probably missed it if you weren't looking for it. Documentary film maker Annabel Park launched the new movement a few weeks ago on Facebook with a call to start a "coffee party, a Red Bull party, anything but tea,". Thus the "Coffee Party" was born. Now you have to admit, that's real catchy. See, coffee is a drink kind of like tea, and, well, you see, ummm, well...it's a drink kind of like tea. Get it? Me either.

For the irreparably history challenged, the Boston Tea Party was an actual event from America's revolutionary era. In 1773 a number of protesters dumped tea into Boston harbor to illustrate their displeasure over an overreaching government's tea tax. The modern day Tea Party movement did not choose the association arbitrarily. The Tea Party movement is associating themselves with that spirit of protest and demand for government accountability. The fledgling Coffee Party chose it's name simply on the basis that it is -Not Tea-. Personally I think it would have been a lot more interesting if they had just called themselves the "Not-Tea" Party. It would probably reflect better on their principles, and it would certainly serve to highlight their desire to distance themselves from the foundational principles connecting the original Tea Party with those of the present day Tea Party movement. In fairness, the choice of the drink name for Annabel's Party was apparently pretty arbitrary, so my personal recommendation to conservatives is to just refer to them as the "Not-Tea Party".

Annabel is apparently concerned that the Not Tea Party will be viewed simply as an anti-Tea Party movement. You see, it isn't that they are actually opposed to the Tea Party, they are just opposed to anybody in Washington listening to the Tea Party. The Not Tea Party is fine with you brewing your tea, they just don't want anyone to actually drink it. This only seems ironic because of the fact that the entire impetus behind the Tea Party movement was to give voice to a very large under-represented, even dismissed, group of Americans. With all the "Coffee" peddlers that have been in place since before the beginning of the Tea Party movement, it's not clear how the Not Tea Party plans to set themselves apart.

The Not Tea Party movement attempts to build a case around not liking the way Washington gets things done. They aren't terribly concerned about -what- Washington is doing. It is -how- Washington is doing things that has spurred Annabel and her cohorts to action. I can't say I'm all that concerned over the details of the process that is used to diminish our liberty, I just would like to see it stop. As a friend of mine pointed out, we may need a Beer Party to help us sort through the whole mess. I'll drink to that.

Stop the Insanity

2010-03-08T11:14:00.000-08:00

Oh! When will it stop?! Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning rocked Washington last week when he held up legislation to extend unemployment benefits. Members of both parties were quick to distance themselves from Bunning's insanity after he actually questioned how the 10 billion dollar proposition would be funded.

Democrats immediately cried foul over Bunning's abuse of struggling, unemployed Americans as Republicans responded with stage whispers of "pssst! Jim, sit down and be quiet. People are looking.". What praise he did get from his colleagues was along the lines of the comment by Orrin Hatch, "Senator Bunning's making a point" (no kidding). Then there is the whacked out response from the liberal collective; blaming Bush, accusing Bunning of hypocrisy because he voted for a spending bill once upon a time, pointing out that Bunning didn't even vote for "Pay Go". As if the question of how we are going to pay for things needs context.

Apparently no Senator that has previously voted for anything that included deficit spending is allowed to take a stand against increased deficit spending. That doesn't seem to leave us in a great position to get deficit spending under control. I never thought I'd see the day when we would need more hypocrites in Washington. Actually, this might be a good opportunity to clear up some general confusion about just what a hypocrite is. When a Senator calls for increased deficit spending for his own bill while speaking out against it in someone else's, he is a hypocrite. When a Senator, that has previously engaged in deficit spending, speaks out against deficit spending without calling for deficit spending on his own bill he is a reformed deficit spender. Either way, it doesn't require a defense of Jim Bunning to make the case that asking how we're going to come up with the 10 billion clams for unemployment benefits is perfectly reasonable.

Unfortunately, it is becoming more common to see a politician's principles only on his way out of office. It's kind of like a death bed confession for politicians. I have an easier time believing that Bunning is actually opposed to deficit spending since he isn't running for another term, but it doesn't make the whole situation any less surreal. I know it's a stretch, but the unemployment issue seems like it might be related to our economic woes, and there's a gazillion dollars of unspent stimulus money still in the slush fund. It seems reasonable that an extension of employment benefits could be taken out of money that was designated for easing the economic crisis. But why take advantage of an old crisis when you can get a few billion more to spend by creating a new one?

The real crisis revealed by this episode is that it is somehow controversial for a politician to ask how a piece of government spending is going to be paid for.

Multiplici-TEA

2010-02-19T19:16:00.000-08:00

Be very careful what you call your next Birthday celebration gathering. If you throw a Birthday "Party" you may run afoul of the FEC. Then again, you may have somebody register as a candidate affiliated with your Party. The IRS might even classify your gifts as campaign contributions. On the up side, at least campaign contribution limits are high enough that your guests can still treat you fairly well. Just don't forget to invite your CPA.

A brief Google search returned almost 800,000 hits for the -Fondue Party-. With so many Google hits, you would think that the Fondue Party would be making more news. The mainstream media is apparently suppressing it for some reason. Google hints at a well orgainized Party complete with community organization. There is a PDF file by community organizer Martha Stewart titled "Fondue Party Planner". They have a 'recipe' for growth linked to "Must-Know Fondue Tips for a Great Fondue Party". Sounds cheesy to me.

At only about 270,000 hits, the Tupperware Party can't boast the Google exposure of the Fondue Party. Still it seems to be a pretty well established party dating back about 60 years. I don't recall seeing any of their candidates on the national stage. It's apparently a grass roots movement meeting mostly in people's homes. Based on my research it does not seem like a terribly successful political Party. Then again my research may not be air tight since I put the lid on it after about 10 seconds of googling.

Then there is the Lingerie Party. To say they have Google exposure would be a naked understatement. This Party clearly takes the lead over the Fondue and Tupperware Parties in the Google research arena by screaming past the competition to an obscene 13.7 Million hits. The Google research method indicates that this is a Party for serious adults. One of the sites even recommends an "Adult Home Party". Must be another grass roots thing. The Lingerie Party also appears to have a strong multi-media presence on the web. Just goes to show you how revealing a little research can be.

If none of those sound like your cup of Tea, you should register with the Tea Party. With over 34 Million Google hits it's clearly the biggest Party I've researched all day (or in the last 5 minutes depending on how you look at it). It probably has such a big presence on the web because the Party predates all of the other political Parties in the United States. It was apparently founded in Boston in 1773 and ....dang. I guess I did too much research this time. This thing isn't a political Party at all. Oh well, if the mainstream media ever has 10 seconds and access to Google maybe they'll figure it out too. In the meantime I'm going to look into that Fondue Party. All this research has made me kind of hungry.

Captain Post-America

2010-02-10T11:52:00.000-08:00

Well boys and girls, this is not your (founding) father's Captain America. In issue No. 602 of Captain America, "Two Americas, Part One," Cap plans to infiltrate an organization associated with the villains depicted below.

Naturally the "Two America's" story line comes complete with "two Captain America's". One the progressive protagonist infiltrator of the white-supremacist, anti-government, Watchdog group, and one a mentally deranged impostor that sides with the Watchdogs. Marvel has acknowledged the inappropriateness of the "Tea Bag" sign in the comic book, but they seem to be fine characterizing those that want to see the constitution upheld as "anti-American". Of course the dig wouldn't be complete without Cap saying "We're not in New York anymore" as he observes the protest (take that Kansas!).

I'd rather the statists go make up their own super heroes, but I guess that might be harder to sneak by. And it's hard to come up with a good name; Captain Nanny...Captain Tyranny...Captain Big Government...just don't have that same ring. On the upside, if Marvel ever decides to do a Captain America movie there's no shortage of folks in Hollywood that can play this role. All in all, it's a pretty poor ending for a guy that started out defending freedom and fighting the Nazis. So long Cap.

The Oligogue's Guide to Compromise

2010-02-04T10:28:00.000-08:00

Che-Oligogue's abbreviated guide to compromise:

Rule 1: Compromise between liberty and tyranny expands tyranny and diminishes liberty.

Rule 2: Compromise between liberalism and conservatism advances liberalism.

Rule 3: Compromise between statism and individual liberty expands the state at the expense of the free society.

Rule 4: Compromise between freedom and anything else decreases freedom.

Rule 5: Compromise with an oligogue bolsters the oligogracy.

Political compromise, like a lot of things in the political realm, has evolved into something unhealthy for America. Compromise is a limiting force when it is properly applied, but when it is improperly applied it can become the enabler for no end of mischief. Rather than limiting politicians to operate in areas of general agreement, compromise in American politics has evolved into a political system of barter.

When one party seeks to achieve W, X and Y and the second party seeks to achieve X, Y and Z, the proper compromise would be for both parties to agree to X and Y and reject W and Z. Unfortunately, the definition of compromise in Washington ensures that W will be traded for Z and vice versa. This system is a disaster for conservatism.

The calls for bipartisan cooperation in Washington have been on the increase in recent days. Whether the issue is health care nationalization, cap-and-tax or immigration liberalization the starting point for the debate has been established by the statists. Every potential conclusion to these debates favors the statist strategy of taking some now and the rest later. There is no significant overlap between the statist position and the conservative postion from which a compromise position can form.

The Brezhnev doctrine is alive and well in the strategy of the American left today; "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable." When conservatives start with a position seeking W, and the left starts with a position to seek X,Y and Z, a solution of W,X,Y and Z does not represent a bipartisan compromise. It represents the defeat of conservatism. No compromise solution exists in this scenario. It is well past time for the right to stop bragging about facilitating their own defeat by extoling the virtues of bipartisanship. There is no inherent virtue in bipartisanship. There is no vice in partisanship based on principle.

That Pesky Constitution Again!

2010-02-03T15:59:00.000-08:00

Moonstruck

2010-01-27T18:02:00.000-08:00

Two articles in the news today provide an interesting insight into the perspective of the Obama administration. In one story we find out that the President intends to freeze NASA's budget. The plan would entail outsourcing space flight, stalling the development of the aging shuttle fleet replacement and derailing an anticipated moon shot effort. The second story is about an anticipated announcement of a high-speed rail project from Barack Obama after tonight's State of the Union speech.

One might reasonably ask if our bankrupt nation can afford either of these hefty government expenditures, but what is the rationale in trading one for another? It is interesting that neither of the writers of these articles note the potential link between the two. The current speculation appears to favor Florida as the 'winner' of the high-speed rail project. Yes, that is the same Florida that is going to feel most of the bite of the NASA budget freeze. There is something insidious about seemingly casual actions that result in the unnecessary upheaval in the lives of those in the industries that find themselves in the disfavor of this administration.

How many people from NASA will have their lives thrown into chaos, lose their seniority, have their pensions and retirement expectations altered, only to end up standing in the employment line looking to start over as an employee for the new high-speed rail project? If chaos isn't one of the goals of the plan, it might as well be. Don't we see the same thing in the move to supplant a workforce in the traditional energy industry and establish a new one in green energy production? Reducing an industry in which America leads the world and embracing a new industry in which foreign involvement will almost certainly be enlisted just seems like a net loss.

Conservatives may disagree (and I certainly do), but the administration continues to push the idea that the government needs to create jobs. It should be clear that displacing one work force by reducing one industry and creating a new industry for that work force to occupy is not job creation. I just can't quite shake the image of our President 'smiting' one industry and 'blessing' another at his individual whim and with little regard for the havoc it wreaks on the lives of those involved..

Say it ain't so....Sarah

2010-01-20T21:36:00.000-08:00

Conservative hearts are breaking all across America tonight after Sarah Palin announced today that she will be campaigning on behalf of John McCain and Rick Perry in their republican primaries. To be fair, she also announced that she will be campaigning on behalf of Michelle Bachmann, but one-in-three is really not all that great. After months of moving in the direction of principled conservatism in interviews, speeches, endorsing Hoffman in the NY-23 race, and as a darling of the TEA Party movement, Palin is now betting all of her conservative chips on purple.

John McCain and Rick Perry are RINOs. Maybe that isn't quite right. Rick Perry does talk like a conservative when the cameras are rolling. I guess that makes him a Repubican in Name and Speech Only (RINASO?). He is the poster boy for "all hat and no cattle" when it comes to walking his talk. McCain doesn't even make a pretense of being a conservative and has publicly expressed his contempt for conservatives in the past. One can only wonder what Palin is thinking with this activity, but this type of political positioning is not what has endeared her to the anti-establishment conservative grass roots. "Going Rogue and Back" wasn't a sequel we were hoping for ( or is that "Two RINOs for sister Sarah"?).

Supporting McCain and Perry in a general election against a liberal democrat - yes it's redundant - is a strategy that most conservatives would support. Supporting these two guys in the primary smacks of politics as usual political expediency. It doesn't take much more than a coin toss to choose between Hutchison and Perry. They are both RINOs. Now we have an endorsement from Dick Cheney for Hutchison and an endorsement from Palin for Perry. We're working pretty hard to confuse the conservative message in Texas (and doing a fine job). The difference in the results between a Hutchison win or a Perry win are simply not going to be meaningful.

In Texas a Palin endorsement for Perry may steer some conservatives away from Medina into the Perry camp. That may keep Medina from becoming a real contender in the race just as her numbers are beginning to climb following last weeks Republican gubernatorial debate. The only real accomplishment in all of this is that it decreases the chance of a run off between Perry and Hutchison. Medina is arguably the most conservative participant in the race so it's difficult to identify a principled reason for Palin's tactics. It might lead one to speculate that the relationship between Palin and the TEA Party can be found somewhere in the explanation for the conspicuous lack of a TEA Party endorsement for Medina.

In Arizona McCain doesn't really seem to have a challenge on his hands. Plenty of noise has been made about a real conservative running against him, but the only significant thing that seems to be running against him is conservative opinion. A serious contender has not officially come forward to challenge McCain. With nothing really at risk for McCain in the Arizona primary we can only wonder why Sarah would tie her conservative credibility to John McCain. It is no secret that conservatives are not fond of John McCain. One possible outcome of this endorsement is that it may decrease the viability of a Hayworth bid for McCain's seat and ultimately convince Hayworth to stay out of the race. If that is an intended outcome of Palin's endorsement it puts her squarely at odds with the grass roots of the conservative movement in Arizona.

Palin's endorsements of McCain and Perry in the primary appear to simply be symbolic gestures, but they come at the expense of conservative grass roots efforts in both states. These gestures are almost certain to be poorly received by the rank-and-file at the TEA Party convention in Nashville next month where Palin is scheduled to deliver the keynote. Palin's recent, and significant, efforts to align herself with grass roots conservatives just highlight the politics-as-usual nature of these endorsements. For some of us that have been waiting with high hopes for an indication that real conservatism flows in the veins of Sarah Palin this is a moment of disillusionment.

Blow out Conservatism (dot com)

2010-01-19T15:11:00.000-08:00

Self defeatism and good intentions can sometimes be difficult to tell apart. In this time of so much grass roots activism there are a lot of well intended efforts under way. The call of patriotism has been heard by many and many are looking for ways to answer that call. While the patriotism of those that are striving to steer America back toward her foundational principles is unquestionable, it is inevitable that some of our activism will be constructive and some will not. Some well intentioned conservative efforts may in fact work against stated goals and ultimately steer America in the direction of more statism.

KLIF 570 is a local talk radio outlet in Dallas Texas that offers both local and national conservative talk personalities. Jeff Bolton is the local talent that hosts the morning drive for KLIF and the force behind a national movement called Blow Out Congress. The concluding paragraph from the BOC website's "About Us" page provides the following;

BlowOutCongress.com advocates the complete replacement of all 535 members of congress in the next election cycles. This effort is not associated with or affiliated with any political party.

All 535? The target of BOC is pretty clear. Every member of the house and senate must go. BOC provides a pretty good illustration of a growing body of opinion of what Washington is doing for us. Dissatisfaction with Washington is at an all time high and so are emotions. In a Fox & Friends interview Bolton asserted that BOC began when he "created it on the air one day in a fit of rage". Tapping into the rage of an audience is a good way to harness their energy and support, but is it constructive?

Jeff's audience is mostly conservative. The anger currently being directed at elected officials is coming mostly from conservatives. The members of BOC are going to be mostly conservative. What is the likely contribution of a conservative BOC member in the upcoming elections? If the incumbent is a liberal, or a big government establishment politician, the BOC member will vote against them in favor of a more conservative candidate; just like they would if they were not a member of BOC. If the incumbent is a conservative steeped in the founding principles of the United States, the BOC member will vote against them to "Blow out Congress". The majority of the instances where a BOC member changes his behavior will benefit statist candidates over conservative candidates.

BOC punishes every single candidate regardless of how principled they may be in executing the duties of their office. This is diametrically opposed to conservative philosophy. A representative that is doing his job and adhering to foundational principles should never be thrown overboard in favor of a statist candidate. The BOC website claims that the effort is not affiliated with any political party. That is a fantasy that relies on an equal political demographic distribution among the members of the campaign and the candidates affected by BOC. A suspension of disbelief is required for any critical thinker to not recognize that this campaign is tailored to harm conservatives and favor statists.

The power of incumbency is undeniably too great in our political process. An arbitrary carpet bombing campaign directed at mostly Republican candidates in a general election is an assault on logic. Increasing the election chances for statist candidates is a counter-intuitive response to our frustrations over the statist inclinations of our representatives in Washington. Applying this tactic in a general election simply amounts to conservative suicide.

It is vital that our activism be constructive and realistic. There is no glimmer of hope that everyone in congress will be removed by BOC. None. Nada. Zilch. There is every reason to expect that this activity will have a disproportionate impact on conservative candidates in favor of their statist opponents. Let's pursue efforts born of the sober and deliberate thought that is the hallmark of conservatism, and leave the "fit of rage" emotional response campaigns to the statists.

The RINO In The Room

2010-01-13T19:28:00.000-08:00

Will the real conservative please stand up? Welcome to the 2010 Texas gubernatorial race. Our game of political "To Tell The Truth" finds current Governor Rick Perry, US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and activist Debra Medina each stepping up to make the claim that they are the real conservative Republican in the race for Texas governor. Wouldn't it be nice if all we had to do was sit through a half hour game-show to get the two impostors to come clean and step aside for the authentic article? Unfortunately, in the political version of "To Tell The Truth" all the candidates stand up and claim to be the real deal at the end of the show, or maybe the show just never ends.

Fortunately, two of the candidates are pretty well known quantities in Texas politics. Perry and Hutchison have been around for quite a few years and these two are the main source of the surrealism in the current race. Texas conservatives simply watch agape at the spectacle of Rick and Kay trying to out-conservative each other as they scramble for voters. To the casual observer (especially those outside of Texas) it may appear that Texas has been blessed with two solid candidates. The reality is that Texas has been blessed with two establishment politicians that are very good at saying the right thing when the cameras are rolling and doing something else entirely when they think they can get away with it. One of the nice things about these two unscrupulous politicians is that they recognize non-conservative political double dealing very well in each other.

Rick Perry's campaign has done a stellar job of compiling some of Kay Bailey Hutchison's inconsistencies, misrepresentations, broken promises and acts of political expediency at washingtonkay. Likewise, Kay has highlighted Perry's lack of principles and repeated assault on conservatism at slickrickperry. Ironically they have both done a reasonably honest job of compiling each others sins for us with surprisingly little exaggeration. One can only imagine how much Debra Medina appreciates the work that the campaigns have put into these websites.

The RINO in the room is the endorsements that have been thrown at Kay and Rick to bolster their claims to the title of the "real conservative". We've seen politicians like Dick Cheney endorse Kay and State Senator Dan Patrick endorse Perry. Both of these men know what conservatism is, so it's pretty certain that they know they aren't endorsing a conservative. Dick and Dan aren't alone among conservative politicians - who should really know better - endorsing one or the other of these two. At least with the politicians we can chalk it up to party politics and trying to win an election. That doesn't excuse them. This is the type of political expediency that we've already seen too much of from politicians. The more mysterious aspect of the situation is the run-of-the-mill Texas Republicans that claim to support Kay or Rick on the basis of conservative bonafides. It seems reasonable by now to expect just about everyone to have stirred from the slumber of their complacency regarding politics. Folks that find themselves rooting for Rick or Kay under the expectation that the candidate shares some conservative principles with them really need to take a look at the websites listed in the previous paragraph. The public record is not a friend to either of these establishment politicians.

If Rick and Kay can each keep their seat when it's time for the real conservative to stand, then the title is Debra Medina's to lose. Medina is a newcomer to state politics. Her current political resume consists of being the chairman of the Wharton County GOP. She is free of the stigma of an establishment politician and is refreshingly non-politican-like. Medina was a homeschool mom, a nurse and an entrepreneur starting her own business. Her common sense view of limited government and maximized individual liberty is encouraging and laid out fairly well on her web-site. Is she an establishment politician in the making, or a grass roots constitutionalist working to get things back on the right track? Either way, her grass roots campaign has its work cut out to overcome the name recognition of her gargantuan opponents.

The race will begin in earnest with a televised debate on Thursday January 14th at 7pm. TV and radio stations across Texas will carry the debate; list of stations. Hopefully Texan's will have a candidate that will be able to stand and say "I'm the real conservative".

In Vox We Trust

2010-01-07T19:54:00.000-08:00

Somewhere over the rainbow there is a special utopian place populated exclusively by intellectuals that have slipped the bonds of humanity to float, unfettered by reality, on pristine clouds of pure thought. Once a week, one of these ascended beings returns to earth under the cover of night to lay a morsel of his wisdom on the steps of World Net Daily to be distributed among the starving minds of the unenlightened inhabitants of earth. I don't know if our benefactor goes by "Vox" or "Theodore" when reclining on clouds with his fellow intellectuals, but to mortals everywhere he is known as "Vox Day".

If you look to the right you'll find a link to Mr. Day's blog at Vox Popoli, and I will freely admit to being a fan of much of Vox's writing. Unfortunately there is an area of discussion in which reason seems to abandon Mr. Day's otherwise logical mind. It is not uncommon for Libertarian purists to achieve amazing feats of logical contortion when it comes to justifying their unwillingness to constructively engage in the improvement of the Republican Party, but Vox stands out.

The blessing that has been bestowed upon us this week is entitled "Trust not in Republicans". The opening paragraph sets the tone;

In the chapter of his magnum opus, titled "Of the Reasons for Administering Correction to Bad and Good Together," St. Augustine explains that those who have neither sinned themselves nor opposed the evil deeds of the wicked merit the consequences that invariably arise from those evil deeds on the basis of their refusal to interfere with the rampant sin surrounding them. St. Augustine was referring to Christian morality and the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410 A.D., but the principle applies equally well to economics and the ongoing financial devastation of the United States.

Augustine is quoted to lend authority to the premise that not opposing a bad thing is the moral equivalent of doing the bad thing. There is no denying that Republican politicians contributed to the increased national debt and that they were enabled by a complacent constituency. Unfortunately Mr. Day's argument dismisses those Republicans that have taken principled stands. His argument doesn't address those grass roots conservative activists that are currently working to set the Party back on its conservative foundations.

Where Augustine would "administer correction" to those that did not oppose evil, Vox would take it one step further and administer correction to those that opposed but did not stop evil (or have not stopped it yet). Coming from a self-described Christian-Libertarian, Vox's view is surprisingly devoid of hope or opportunity for redemption. Augustine did not include those that unsuccessfully opposed evil among those that "merit the consequences" of it.

By Vox's own tortured logic the Libertarians that he associates with are just as worthy of correction as some of the Republicans he disdains. Neither have stopped the debt/deficit bomb ticking beneath our feet. Vox's fatalism comes out in his concluding sentence, "The Republican Party is not the answer. It cannot be, because it is a significant part of the problem." Frankly, that is simply nonsense and disappointing coming from someone like Vox. The complacency of conservatives is what poisoned the Republican Party and it is the consequence of that complacency that led to the contributions of Republican politicians to the economic problems that Vox lays out in his article. It is the height of irony that Vox's own argument turns against him and the other libertarians that pretended the problems with the "evil deeds" of the Republican Party were someone else's problems and that he now "merits the consequences" just as if he were one of those complacent Republican conservatives.

The opportunity for redemption that Vox has overlooked is available to him just as it is to the afore mentioned complacent conservatives. There is a grass-fire sweeping this nation and conservatives are throwing off their complacency to wrestle the GOP back into line. Where Vox is willing to dismiss the Republican Party as a possible solution to the problem, he seems unwilling to offer a constructive solution of his own. Defeatist attitudes are not needed. The constructive engagement of men like Vox is needed to fix the Republican Party. The GOP is not some mysterious and unapproachable ivory tower. The Republican Party is just a political institution that is as vulnerable to the manipulations of men of principle as it has been to those that lack principle. Conservatism is not served by complaints or hollow acts of defiance from the sidelines and it is difficult to see how such ineffective deeds exempt Vox from the principle he places at the core of his missive.

Epic Fail

2009-12-30T10:55:00.000-08:00

My youngest is now 16 and "Epic Fail" is the most recent addition to his repertoire to find its way into the household vocabulary . Joining the ranks of "choke", "tank", "crash and burn", "whiff", "flop", "bomb" and others that I'm sure to be forgetting, "Epic Fail" just has a compelling ring to it for those times when performance doesn't quite meet expectations. It also has fewer unfortunate connotations for some situations than phrases like "crash and burn" and "bomb". You know, situations like failed attempts to blow up a US airliner full of passengers. The versatile phrase applies quite well to both an underachieving bomber that can't blow up his own pants and the government responsible for stopping him before he gets the chance to try. Interestingly, the connotations of the phrase can morph from describing the haplessness of an incompetent wannabe bomber to describing a government failure of epic proportions.

The failures apparently began long before the attempted bombing and there is no telling when they will stop. One of my favorite epic fails in this saga is Napolitano's initial assessment that the "system worked". Hmmmm....so the system relies on a bomb or bomber malfunction at the point of detonation? Ironically, I'm pretty sure that the Secretary was attempting to reassure the American people that the situation was under control. Two epic fails for the price of one, the system didn't work and the statement was definitely not reassuring.

President Obama took a brief break from resting in Hawaii to state that we "will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable." Fortunately Mr. Obama was able to pave the way back to his resting by almost immediately identifying the bomber as an "isolated extremist". Let's see, "all who were involved" vs. "isolated extremist"...epic fail.

The government reveals its contempt for the intelligence of the American people every time the profiling question is raised. There is always quite a rush to say that profiling on a religious or ethnic basis is wrong. Well, profiling -only- on a religious or ethnic basis is wrong. Including religious or ethnic components in the profiling when there are clear religious and ethnic trends among the people that are actively seeking to do harm is common sense.

When our public servants start thinking that they are lords and benefactors of the American people then this type of contempt for the intelligence of their 'subjects' is inevitable. The little people have to be reassured so they don't do anything rash and the less they know the better. The clamoring for full body scanning at airports is still ramping up. I'm not sure whether it is driven more by the fitness lobby or the scanner manufacturers, but it just seems like some common sense measures might be in order first. Improving passenger profiling (gasp!) and interagency coordination on controlling visas might save us all some time at the gym and a few hundred lives in the bargain. Not improving profiling and interagency coordination in the wake of what just occurred would certainly qualify as an epic fail.

For some reason the US government continues to refuse to act as if we are at war. We recently experienced a truly epic failure due to this attitude at Fort Hood. Our military bases are not on a war footing and neither are the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, et al. The panty-bomber is now being processed through the US justice system. The military's and inteligence community's ability to interrogate and determine the scope of other potential threats is being limited by government insistance on viewing the attempted bombing as a crime, rather than an act of war. There are reports out of Yemen that there are more bombers making plans. The bomber in custody may have information that could save American lives. Ideological disdain for both the military and the idea that America is at war with Islamic Extremism may inhibit the ability of the United States to take advantage of information currently sitting in a US jail. If the result of this approach is that another bomber succeeds, that success will represent a failure of truly epic proportions.

Daley Warnings

2009-12-26T00:56:00.000-08:00

The biggest threat to the liberal agenda is . . . “liberals”. That is the opinion of Democrat political machinist William M. Daley as stated in his Christmas Eve Washington Post opinion piece. The corollary, which he states somewhat subtly, is that the salvation of the liberal agenda is “moderates”. It seems reasonable to consider Daley an expert on advancing the liberal cause, so his missive might provide a useful opportunity for some opposition research.

Several conservative infotainers have recently excoriated Barack Obama for not having a specific Health Care Reform (HCR) plan of his own, and for not being intimately familiar with the Senate and House HCR plans. The ire from the right may be feigned for shock value, or it may be real. Non-the-less it should be no surprise to the pundits that Obama simply doesn’t care what is in the final legislation. Oh, there are things that he would like to see in the bill, but he will sign any bill that crosses his desk and appropriately declare victory. The reason that he will be very happy to do so is provided eloquently by Mr. Daley;

“All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.

For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective.”

Barack Obama and William Daley both understand one thing very well, how to move the ball down the field. Every compromise by a moderate Republican or Blue Dog Democrat moves the ball towards the liberal goal. Moderates plus time equals liberalism. Conservatives understand this, and now we see evidence by the hand of William Daley that Liberals understand it as well. Where it is clear why elements within the Democrat Party would want to ‘slowly and steadily’ chart a course toward liberalism, there is simply no benign explanation for why elements within the Republican Party would strive toward that exact same goal.

The Democrat Party's agent provocateur, Howard Dean, understands the game as well, but his approach is somewhat non-linear. Dean's irrational rants provide a skewed perspective of the 'liberalness' of a position and allow a middle to be established where the left would naturally exist in Dean's absence. The dynamic and vocal complaints from the Dean wing of the Party serves as a collective "Dean scream" that provides a certain amount of legitimacy to the slow and steady, moderate, approach advocated by Daley. Though Dean's followers might bristle at being used in such a cynical fashion, their ultimate goals are aligned with those of their exploiters.

Daley understands that moderates in both Parties are ultimately useful in the advancement of liberalism and he provides a back-handed warning for the Republican Party regarding Republicans that aren’t moving to the center along with him;

“If anything, the Democrats' salvation may lie in the fact that Republicans seem even more hell-bent on allowing their radical wing to drag the party away from the center.”

That would be that pesky ‘radical wing’ that wants to follow the constitution and adhere to America’s founding principles. Some suspicion regarding Daley's motives in providing this warning to the GOP may be appropriate. Deligitimizing both the Founders and the Constitution is necessary for the advancement of liberalism and the frequency and boldness of the attacks on both are on the rise. Unfortunately, Daley's friendly advice for the GOP is nothing more than one more instance in a series of thinly veiled attacks on the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. It should not go unnoticed that moderates are counted among Daley’s allies in that assault.

Institutional Confusion

2009-12-21T21:52:00.000-08:00

There was a time, recent enough that I am almost embarrassed to admit it, that I believed the leftward tilting bias in mainstream US media was institutional. It seemed reasonable that the bias was due to the fact that nearly every aspect of the mainstream media's product is conceived, validated and fabricated in left-wing echo chambers of like thinkers. There is an almost complete lack of ideological diversity within the US media establishment. The 2008 Presidential campaign was the effort that finally succeeded in disabusing me of the final vestiges of my unfortunately idealistic notion. US media bias is intentional and there is ample evidence that many within the establishment believe it to be appropriate, and even noble.

Sadly, today I find myself in a similar quandary regarding our representatives in Washington. I'm not talking about the died-in-the-wool marxists that no longer even think that making a pretense of being something else is necessary. The quandary has to do with, primarily Republican, politicians that clearly articulate conservative principles and then betray those principles with their actions. US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voted to end the filibuster that was delaying the senate Health Care bill last Friday. The reasons provided by Ms. Hutchison's office include speculation that the vote would have passed without her and that her vote was an expression of support for the troops due to the delay of a defense appropriations bill that was being delayed by the filibuster.

Senator Hutchison is currently engaged in a battle with Rick Perry over the Texas Governorship. Early promises to step down from the Senate so that her attentions would not be divided were broken for the principled reason that she needed to say in Washington and fight against the attempt to take over Health Care. Apparently we missed the fine print where it says "unless the attempt would pass without her help, or if it damages some other legislation that might interfere with her Texas Governor campaign." While Kay and Rick attempt to out-conservative each other in Texas, Texans just look on with a raised eye-brow shaking their heads. It is rather pathetic that neither of them seem to realize how ridiculous they look to real conservatives in Texas. But Ms. Hutchison's actions last Friday were nothing less than a blow at the very core of America.

The troubling aspect of this episode is how obvious the ramifications of it should be to Kay Bailey Hutchison. On the one hand we have a piece of legislation that stands to alter the character of America more than any single act since the New Deal. On the other hand we have a military appropriations bill that represents a fleeting opportunity for a hawkish politician to acquire some additional campaign capital. While it is extremely unlikely that delaying the defense appropriations bill would have resulted in the war effort being denied needed funds, it is possible that delaying the vote on Health Care would have pushed it into an election year in which it's passage would be in question.

Is it reasonable, or even possible to believe that Kay doesn't understand the far reaching impact of the current attempt to take over Health Care? This is the crux of my current quandary. Can there be any real question regarding the dramatic advance of statism represented by the Health Care legislation effort? There does not appear to be any possible explanation for any politician to be anything other than wholly invested in the Health Care "Reform" effort; either wholly invested in it's success, or wholly invested in its defeat. There is something decidedly unseemly about Kay's apparent nonchalance over her vote to end the filibuster.

A Primary Cause

2009-12-17T17:25:00.000-08:00

A lot of conservatives are frustrated with the Republican Party today. The frustration is understandable. The GOP leadership is doing a poor job of spreading the message of conservatism. The GOP leadership is doing a poor job of defending conservatism when it is attacked by detractors. The RNC is still making poor choices and endorsing non-conservative candidates when viable conservatives are trying to mount campaigns as Republicans. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of conservatives that see the Republican Party as
'bad guys' that need to be opposed, when they should look at them as more of a wayward member of the conservative family that needs an intervention.

Some emerging leaders in the conservative movement have started calling for people to throw off their Party affiliation. They say that registering as an independent will send a message to the Republican Party and encourage them to change their errant behavior. It is true that a drop in the number of registered Republicans might get the attention of the RNC. It does not necessarily follow that the RNC would gravitate toward conservatism as a result of conservatives abandoning the Republican Party. The case could easily be made that the Republican Party would try to broaden is appeal to the center to replace the exodus from the right. In fact, the case could easily be made that this has been taking place to some degree since Ross Perot siphoned a large number of conservatives away from the Party in 1992.

Regardless of the long term effects, the short term effect would almost certainly be a shift to the center by the GOP. Republican primary races are among the greatest opportunities for conservatives to have success moving the Party back towards conservatism. In some cases the RNC leadership backs the less conservative candidate in the primary and it is very difficult for the more conservative candidate to overcome the RNC support for the opposition without significant conservative grass-roots support. In 17 states the only people that can vote for that more conservative candidate are registered Republicans. Independents can vote for whoever they want in the general election, but they are leaving the choice of the Republican candidate up to somebody else.

The irony of this scenario should not be ignored. The newly registered independents that were frustrated over the lack of conservative offerings from the GOP influence the system to favor the less conservative GOP primary candidate. When the introduction of a conservative third party candidate in the general election is added to the situation, things only get worse. Dividing the vote between conservative third parties and Republicans provides a significant advantage to the liberal in almost every case. So what is the solution?

The grass roots activism that is currently sweeping the nation is incredible. Campaigns are energized and conservatives are more organized than they have ever been. Any conservative candidate capable of winning a general election should be capable of winning a Republican Primary. Any conservative candidate that is not capable of winning a Republican Primary is almost certainly not capable of winning a general election. The chance of conservative success goes up when the third party energy and organization is invested in a conservative Republican candidate. That is not to say pick a different candidate or get behind the 'establishment' candidate. Run the exact same candidate that would run as a conservative third party candidate, but run them as a Republican in the GOP primary. If they win the primary, they will have the weight of the RNC behind them in the general election.

It is important for conservatives to engage in constructive activities that maximize the chances for getting conservatives elected to office. Supporting conservative candidates in Republican Primaries is one of the most effective things that conservatives can do to help re-establish conservatism in America and in the GOP. Registering as an independent? Well that might just be a 'Primary' cause for the continued decline of conservatism in the GOP...

Patriotism in the Enemy Camp

2009-12-02T19:39:00.000-08:00

For Chris Matthews, West Point military academy is apparently the "Enemy Camp" as he described it in the context of Obama's recent visit to pitch his Afghanistan plan. Matthews later offered an apology and tried to explain that it might not have come across as he intended. A review of the transcript puts the situation pretty clearly in context;

"I watched those cadets, and I didn't see much excitement, but among the older
people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of
warmth in that crowd out there, uh, the, the president chose to address
tonight. And I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the
enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean that was, that's where Paul
Wolfowitz used to write speeches for back in the old Bush days. That's
where he went to rabble-rouse the we're-going-to-democratize-the-world, uh,
campaign back, uh, in, in '02. Uh, so I, I thought it was a strange
venue."

Matthews' contempt for the venue chosen by Obama was clear from his statement. In the audio it is even more clear from the tone of his voice as he talks about "the older people there". He seems almost irritated that the audience wasn't excited to be in the presence of the President. For Bush to go to West Point to rally the troops to a mission that they would risk their lives for is rousing the 'rabble' in the mind of Chris Matthews. Sad.

It is no secret that there is little love lost between Barack Obama and the men and women that wear the military uniforms of our Nation. Obama's insistence on making decisions about providing additional troops and support in his own time and fashion is just an illustration of his contempt for the military. Obama made a point to show his generals that he is in charge and that their wishes and input are incidental to his decisions and strategy. Obama made it a point to show us all that he has no respect for the military.

Chris Matthews is un-American, and unpatriotic, and so is Barack Obama. They hold our heritage and the foundational principles of our nation in contempt. Their view of America is not American-centric. Their world view is post-American. The left bristled at the questions regarding their patriotism during the Bush years. Somehow it has become uncouth to question someone's patriotism or love of country in present day America. It is now clear that this is largely due to conflicting definitions of patriotism. If we all agreed on the meaning of the term somebody would have no choice but to give up their claims of patriotism.

The basic definition of patriotism is love or devotion to one's country. But only in that grossly oversimplified definition could Chris Matthews claim to be a patriot to a nation in which George Washington could claim the same. We can be absolutely certain that Chris Matthews and George Washington would not share a common definition of patriotism. To the conservative, patriotism is the love for, and devotion to, the idea of America envisioned by the founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other writings of those prototypical patriots.

In the past year there have been instances where those on the left have questioned the patriotism of some on the right for being skeptical about the actions of President Obama. For statists, patriotism is about devotion to the state, or even to a person that embodies their philosophy. Just as a conservative patriot that might find himself whisked away to the time of the founding fathers might be smitten by personalities that embody the ideals that he holds dear, so we see those like Chris Matthews on the left smitten by the personality of Barack Obama. This new post-American president in some ways represents a founding father of a new America for many on the left. John Edwards may have been right, in a round about way, when he made his claim that there are two Americas. When it comes to claims of patriotism we just need to ask ourselves which America is the object of that patriotism.

The Mythical Moderate

2009-11-18T10:23:00.000-08:00

"Moderate" is not a new term in our political discourse, but what exactly does it mean?

The single thing that probably instigated this pondering session is the recent debacle in the special election for the the New York 23 district seat for US House of Representatives. Between the two major Party candidates in the race we had a liberal Republican (Scozzafava) set against a liberal Democrat. To the media this amounted to a race between a 'moderate' Republican and a Democrat. When the fervor over the "Republican" candidate's complete lack of conservative credentials ultimately forced her out of the race she endorsed her Democrat opponent over the third party conservative candidate. Did anyone notice that the moderate Republican was closer to a liberal than they were to a conservative? (insert cricket sounds here)

Arlen Specter, the liberal former-Republican senator from Pennsylvania was described as a moderate Republican by the media for years. When Specter announced his defection from the Republican Party to run in the future as a Democrat, it was treated as the most natural 'progression' by the media. Apparently, to the media, a fully evolved Republican is just a Democrat; they start as a tad-pole in the paleocon pool and ultimately achieve 'Obama'.

It isn't difficult to understand why the media likes this idea of calling the liberal fifth column in the Republican Party "moderates", but what is the deal with Michael Steele and the RNC? The conservative message of the Republican Party has been marginalized by infiltrators and the Party leadership keeps talking about big tents. Why does the GOP tent have to be large enough to hold all of the the ideological opponents of conservatism while the flaps are simultaneously held tightly closed against the admittance of a single one of the founding fathers of our great nation?

There are many that look back to the founding fathers and the founding principles of the United States and hold both in great esteem. How is it that we, as a society, can look back and revere a group of men that could never be described as moderates and still buy the lie that the moderate path is the path of reason? The men that founded our nation would find themselves on the fringe of our national political landscape today. It is hard to imagine that they would be able to recognize the nation they left us. How is it that a very large number of modern Americans swell with the pride of patriotism when confronted with the example of our founding heroes and yet strive constantly against those foundational ideals in the voting booth?

We are at a unique point in our history as Americans; a point at which we will decide who we are as a people. Will we embrace the foundational principles of the founding fathers, or will we betray those ideals? I honestly don't know when the last time would have been that deep introspection into our national psyche would have revealed that we were the nation envisioned at the founding; perhaps only in that instant after the founding itself as events were set adrift on the currents of time. Even so, most of us recognize that the seed of something amazing was planted in the foundational soils of America. The fruit of that seed is now ripe and this is the generation that will decide to harvest the potential of that fruit or turn away and let it rot on the vine.

The founding fathers warned us repeatedly not to allow the federal government too free a reign over our lives. George Washington said it very well when he said;

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a
troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left
to irresponsible action.”

It may seem a harsh sentiment, but moderates in America today stand directly opposed to the foundational principles that were promoted by George Washington. Even though they may claim an affection for the founders, moderates have arrayed themselves against Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the others. Moderates have rejected the foundational principles of America for a repackaged progressivism in the name of reasonableness. We have lived with the term for so long that we have grown immune to the fact that 'moderate' is just an Orwellian term for the harbingers of the tyranny that the founders warned us about.

Fox defended by chickens

2009-10-23T08:28:00.000-07:00

This is a chilling turn of events for the first ammendment in America.

Does the fate of Fox News depend solely on the whims of its competitors?

ALERT: Supreme Court Denies Olofson Appeal

2009-10-15T17:28:00.000-07:00

Update 12/9/09: This issue received little media coverage (even conservative alternative media coverage) apparently because of the fact that Olofson has become a somewhat controversial figure and there is much focus on his guilt or innocence. Regardless of your position on Olofson's guilt or innocence, there is a larger point in the legal ramifications of the lower court ruling that the US Supreme court has allowed to stand and become legal precedent in the US.

A break from the usual blog post, but the news about this does not seem to be getting out;

On October 13th the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition of David Olofson. This is the case in which a lower court ruled that a firearm that malfunctions such that it fires more than one round with a single trigger pull qualifies as a machine gun. The court docket reflecting the denial can be found here;

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/09-256.htm

Olofson was originally convicted and sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. The decision of the lower courts now appears to be left standing. Olofson has already served over a year of his sentence.

There is almost no news of this ruling. If anybody runs across any updates, please comment on this post and include a link.

This is really terrible news for second amendment proponents. We need to lobby our representatives to enact legal protections against prosecution for firearm malfunctions. The danger in this case is that by allowing the lower court ruling to stand as it was written, the Supreme Court has set a new precedent for what legally constitutes a machine gun.

Convenient Conversions

2009-10-14T10:16:00.000-07:00

Many of the folks on the left end of the debate over health care 'reform' have suddenly latched onto the idea of making the issue a moral obligation that every good Christian must support. I always find it interesting when people that give little thought to religion in their day to day lives try to use the shallowest interpretation of someone else's religion to force others into their camp; that would be the insulting and ironic sort of 'interesting'.

The fact that Christ was big on charity does not compel Christians to embrace socialism. When Christ tells us to look after widows and orphans, he is not telling us to forcibly take money away from someone else to do it with. It is unfortunate, and it points to a very fundamental confusion, when the conservative refusal to support government charity is viewed as religious hypocrisy. The real hypocrisy is found in the argument of the one that denies the existence of God in one breath and then assumes a false piety to expound on the will of God for a Christian that won't support the government charity program du jour.

The increasing use of this tactic by progressives may be revealing something about how they view the role of government. It is difficult to imagine Jesus and the disciples coming across a needy widow and directing her to the appropriate government program to have her needs met by the state. It is difficult to picture Jesus directing his disciples to give a little extra to Caesar out of compassion for the poor. Even so, this is the moral equivalency we see being drawn by progressives; giving to the government to support welfare programs is morally equal to supporting a needy family or a private charity.

It is unfortunate that politics has so divided our society when it comes to charity. If charity were left to the private sector there would be countless opportunities for liberals and conservatives to work together to help our fellow man. The politicians would like to convince us that it is our view of charity that divides us, when in reality it is our view of the proper role of government. There is no reason that conservatives and liberals could not work together to find private sector solutions for those in need. Well, there is one reason; a private sector solution wouldn't meet the needs of politicians that are more worried about helping themselves by expanding their power and influence than they are about helping those in need.

There's no place like home

2009-09-15T09:21:00.000-07:00

I can't shake the feeling that I've just awaken in Oz. America voted for change and America changed...overnight...into a place that is hardly recognizable. There is an almost surreal, parallel reality feel to the landscape. It isn't supposed to work this way. The election of a single individual should not be able to so dramatically change what America is. Our national character is not supposed to be a transient element that varies based on who happens to be living in the White house.

Domestic issues have gone through a whirlwind flurry of changes in the last few months. America is increasingly comfortable with positions that are anti-capitalist, anti-individualism, anti-success, anti-private enterprise, anti-constitution, anti-tradition, anti-American culture, pro-nationalization, pro-welfare, pro-state. It is as if a mask has been removed from the left and they have been emboldened to embrace positions that the American people would have recoiled from in the very recent past. We have seen those that oppose the change take to the streets to protest. Those that are incensed are very unhappy indeed. But they are too few.

Recent polls still show President Obama's approval ratings near 50%. Why? Van Jones stepped down last Friday from the position President Obama appointed him to. Van Jones was a self proclaimed communist and that fact was almost entirely disregarded by what passes for the press in America today. ...communist...? Is there some part of 'communist' that people don't understand?

The Senate just voted to withhold federal funds from ACORN. Obama's ties to ACORN go back years. ACORN is intertwined with leftist politics. The House of Representatives has not voted to remove funding from ACORN yet. Again, the media is largely silent in the face of an enormous corruption scandal. The administration has had nothing to say. The left is calling for investigations into the couple that posed as a pimp and prostitute to execute a 'sting' operation against ACORN (some are even calling for charges to be pressed).

Socialized medicine, socialized auto industry, socialized financial sector, an international union providing the ground forces for the administration at every turn. Still...50%? Really? 50% of the people in America today are OK with socialism? 50% of the people in America today are complacent about communists openly serving in our government? That's just on the home front.

The 'bizzaro-world' character inversion of the US extends into our foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United States bears almost no resemblance to the foreign policy of the United States that existed just a year ago. Venezuela, Iran, Hamas and North Korea are treated with kid gloves. Israel and Honduras are treated with unveiled animosity. It seems like moments ago that Iran and North Korea were members of the "Axis of Evil" and Hamas was a terrorist organization. Now Israel is the thug of the Mideast and Iran is a place we should not judge. The attempt by Honduras to thwart the overtures of a socialist, Chavez wannabe, is met with American ire and a series of diplomatic penalties.

Honduras self defensively applied their democratically instituted procedures for dealing with a power grubbing President. What action could Honduras have taken to protect itself that would not have stoked the displeasure of the US State Department? Capitulation seems to be the only acceptable course. How will Obama respond when Israel attacks Iran in proactive self defense? Will we join the cabal of Israel haters on the world stage, sever ties, employ sanctions? The attack will happen. It will happen soon. The administration undoubtedly understands this. Iran has purchased anti-aircraft batteries from Russia. The US has left Israel with virtually no option other than attacking Iran before the batteries are installed. Why?

Is it possible to avoid drawing the conclusion that the US no longer considers Israel and Honduras allies? Where we once pursued strong ties with isolated democracies we now find ourselves seeking to improve relations with Venezuela and Iran at the expense of our relationships with Israel and Honduras. This foreign policy reversal will almost certainly lead to war between Israel and Iran. Hugo Chavez continues to tighten his grip on Venezuela at the same time he is increasing the size and capability of his military. Might the relaxed attitude of the US embolden Chavez to do something rash?

How marginalized on the world stage will the US be when our enemies no longer respect us and our friends no longer trust us? Why in the face of everything taking place do we see less than 1% of the population protesting? Why is the protest still divided so clearly along Party lines? There are only three possibilities; 1. our politics has become so cynical that it is beyond rescue, 2. the complacency of the American people is simply pathological, 3. the number of people in America that are truly comfortable with socialism on a global scale is far greater than previously understood. Perhaps some combination of the three would provide a fourth option. But none of these options bode well for America or her allies.

Throughout history the people of a given state were directly associated with the character of the state itself. The character of a nation reflects on the character of its people. The character of America reflects on Americans. From the perspective of the American citizen we see the actions of an administration, but the world sees the actions of America.

Scot Free

2009-09-01T09:57:00.000-07:00

Eight fairly easy years in prison is now the United Kingdom's going rate for the murder of 270 men, women and children.

The tale of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is a horribly sordid tale that highlights the disconnect between governments and the people in what passes for free societies in the world today. The first attempt to explain the Scottish government's incomprehensible move last week in freeing the monster bomber of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie was to call it an act of compassion for a terminally ill cancer afflictee. How rife with irony is that? How insulting is that? Is there any act that could have been added to this decade old tale of woe and injustice that could have been less compassionate? It is an unspeakable travesty that the wounds born by thousands affected by the loss of 270 lives over Scotland have been ripped open by an unsympathetic government that lacks the sense to avoid compounding the blow by pouring the salt of it's misplaced 'compassion' into those very wounds.

UK officials went into crisis management mode almost immediately after the release as they were faced with the images of the hero's welcome al-Megrahi received in Tripoli upon his return home and rumors began to stir of a boycott of UK goods by consumers in the US. The explanations came quickly that officials had requested that the return be kept low key and not allowed to be turned into the celebration for a returning hero that it became. There is something fundamentally disturbing about the fact that any official would think it was the welcome al-Megrahi received in Tripoli that caused so many to be outraged and offended. What they did in Libya to welcome him home is what any reasonable observer would have expected. What they did in Scotland to send him home was the crime.

The news of the event and the confusing swirl of governments and corporations exchanging prisoners and oil contracts have been covered for days. When the dust settles there may be some resolution of who did what for what reasons. On the other hand the whole affair may just end up absorbed by a government-industrial-complex-bureaucratic-morass that is never completely untangled. It is clear that Oligogues thrive in governments around the world and pursue the path of greatest expedience towards their own ends at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent.

Unfortunately, it is also clear that the UK governments had no expectation of being held accountable by the people. It is nothing short of bizarre that the chagrin that has been expressed has been on the behalf of the Libyan's over the way they received al-Megrahi, as if everything would have been just fine if they had kept it low key. This is evidence of a government that is out of touch with, and out of reach of, its people. A government that would abuse its people in the name of compassion for a dying mass murderer and not realize the sick irony of such an act should serve as a warning for us all.

Whether they realize it or not, this has been a sad turn of events for the citizens of the UK. Liberty can not thrive where the government is not kept close to the people, and accountable to them.

Harry and Nancy and Barry, oh my!

2009-08-14T12:34:00.000-07:00

Amid the cacophony of voices being raised about the health care reform agendas of the Obama administration and the democrats in congress is a growing murmur that Republicans need to present their own alternative plan for health care reform. The conventional thought appears to be that just saying 'no' is not a sufficient response, and that Republicans need to do 'something'. The timing behind deciding to do 'something' now seems a little strange for a Party that was in the majority for eight years. One might reasonably contend that, during the eight years in which Republicans in congress were very intent on rocking no boats so they could keep their jobs, there might have been better opportunities to get things done.

Republicans do not hold a majority in the House or the Senate. They do not hold the Presidency. Their ability to influence legislation is pretty limited, and any health care reform agenda that they try to advance will only advance as part of a compromise. The real influence on health care reform will come from those that the Republicans have to compromise with; the Reid, Pelosi, Obama triumvirate.

When the kids want to burn down the house so the family can can get a new one, the parents just have to say 'no'. It's not always easy being the parents of 'no', but sometimes that's what is needed. We don't look for a compromise that just lets the kids burn the house down more slowly, even if we agree that the house might need a little sprucing up. There is nothing wrong with being the Party of 'no', or the Party of 'get your lousy hands off my health care'.

There are a number of things that people tend to identify as problems with health care in America. Some will point at issues with getting insurance coverage when there is a preexisting condition. Some will point out the high cost of health insurance. These are not problems with 'health care'. This is a problem with preexisting condition coverage and a problem with insurance costs. Each of these problems is quite solvable through private sector solutions. Lumping all health related issues into one big pot and trying to build the case that we need the government to control all aspects of health care is silly to the point of being ludicrous. We would never tolerate such an illogical approach to other problems.

Whether you think the foodstamp program is good or bad it provides a handy metaphor for what is going on today with 'health care' reform. Arguments can be made about whether feeding the hungry can be done better by private charity or the government, but the fact is that we do have a foodstamp program that has been put in place specifically to address the needs of feeding those that might not be able to afford their own food. Other approaches that the government might have taken could include a 'public option' government run grocery chain in direct competition with other grocery stores, or they might have just taken over the grocery industry and taxed the rich to make free groceries available to everyone. People would recognize this lunacy for what it is if the debate were about anything but health care.

Make sure your representatives know that doing nothing is an acceptable alternative to compromising with the socialized medicine cabal in Washington. It's ok to be the "Party of no".

Escapegoats

2009-08-04T21:34:00.000-07:00

Enjoy the town-hall drama while it lasts. It's been refreshing and encouraging to see folks holding their elected representatives accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, the politicians are only going to let their feet be held to the fire for so long. The little Napoleons have had just about all they can stand and they've started construction on their escape hatch.

The talking points were running full steam ahead on Monday and Tuesday as politicians supporting the health care reform agenda placed the "evil" insurance companies squarely in the cross-hairs;

Nancy Pelosi has been handing her fellow house members talking point cards titled "health insurance reform to hold insurance companies accountable".
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) warned other members of congress on Tuesday that "These health insurance companies and people like them are trying to load these town meetings for visual impact on television,"
DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse also chimed in on Tuesday that "These mobs are bussed in by well funded, highly organized groups run by Republican operatives and funded by the special interests who are desperately trying to stop the agenda for change the President was elected to bring to Washington,"
At a joint Press conference on Monday with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) Sebelius drew jeers from the crowd when she claimed that the government plan would stop the system of rationing used by insurance companies.
In Austin, Rep. Lloyd Dogget, D-TX gave ABC News this response for his angry town-hall attendees; "This notion of a grass-roots campaign is totally and completely phony," Doggett said in an interview with ABC News. "The Republican Party has coordinated this apparent outrage and stirred it up." Doggett said that he's happy for dialogue, but "there's no way you can change the legislation to satisfy any of these Republicans and their insurance allies."

And so it goes. The dialogue is evolving from "health care reform" to "health insurance reform" and the operatives are working hard to delegitimize the town hall protests by casting them as 'astro-turf' campaigns driven by corporate lobbyists. Of course, once the debate is settled that the insurance companies have hijacked the town-hall forum they might as well stop holding the meetings. After all, what else can they do?

At least we'll have you-tube to watch those old home movie re-runs of politicians being grilled by the people that the politicians didn't really think were watching;

Wreckless

2009-08-03T15:28:00.001-07:00

If the Clintons can have their own dictionary, then so can I;

Wreckless: adj\ marked by lack of proper caution and resulting in harm.

At least I'll make up my own words to go along with my made-up definitions.

Barack Obama caused quite a stir with his "off-the-cuff" remarks about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. last week. He has drawn a lot of criticism for making the remark before having all of the facts, but in the days since the statement was delivered at the Press conference it has become reasonably clear that Obama had all the facts that he wanted or needed. No revelations in the past days have caused Obama to rethink his position on the issue. The closest that Obama has come to admitting that he may have "acted stupidly" was to say that he might have "calibrated" his words more carefully. Or as James McMurtry put it in Too Long in the Wasteland; "So I didn't mean to say it, but I meant what I said".

As the media searched for a "Teachable Moment" they seemed to be interested in teaching about anything but Obama. Unfortunately, Obama is the only real mystery that the Cambridge episode has done anything to unravel. The primary thing that we learned about our President is something that doesn't seem to be receiving much attention; he holds a deep contempt for the very office that he holds. Any government official in a position of authority understands that their words have impact. A President's words carry a tremendous amount of weight and potential for great harm or good.

President Obama's, 60s style, anti-establishment world view does not end with the men and women in blue. For the revolutionary community organizer that view extends all the way to the office of the Presidency. As Barack Obama attempts to transcend the traditional restraints and decorum of his office it can only be assumed that he grasped the impact of his words about the Cambridge incident before he uttered them. The anti-establishment radical abhors the constraints of position, even his own. I am not saying that Obama intended to harm anyone with his statement, just that he was not constrained by the consideration that his words might bring harm to those involved;

Cambridge Police Sgt Jim Crowley was first on the scene and the arresting officer in the incident. As the officer that managed the scene he was immediately thrust into the spot-light following President Obama's statement. Obama's allegations of Police misconduct placed Crowley directly at risk for accusations of racism and abuse of his authority. Crowley's precarious position required him to pursue legal representation to defend himself and his career.
Cambridge Police Sgt Leon Lashley is the black sergeant that supported officer Crowley's version of the events in which Professor Gates was arrested. In the days following the Press conference statement by President Obama, Lashley has faced a barrage of negative exposure. In a letter to Jim Crowley, Lashley pointed out that "One of the major problems stemming from the events of July 16 is that I, now known as 'the black Sergeant', have had my image plastered all over the Internet, television and newspapers. Subsequently, I have also become known, at least to some, as an 'Uncle Tom.' " Lashely requested that the letter be delivered to Professor Gates at the infamous 'Beer Summit'.
The Cambridge Police department spent several days meeting with the Press and dealing with the fallout of the President's comments. The distraction siphoned resources and personnel away from their normal operations to deal with a media circus and legal firestorm. The distractions extended to the officers on the job that had to deal with the morale issues surrounding the allegations against their department and their colleagues that had been on the scene at the Gates house.
Lucia Whalen is the neighbor that made the 911 call when she saw what she thought were two people breaking into a house across the street. She wins the prize in the "no good deed goes unpunished" category as she has been vilified as a racist since making the call to protect her neighbor's home. It was obvious that the affair had taken a toll on Ms. Whalen when she delivered an emotional statement to the press. As the Boston Globe described it; "With her hands shaking and her voice trembling, she said she decided to speak publicly only after the media managed to reach her mother. Whalen, who works for Harvard’s alumni magazine, said she was not raised to “judge people based on race, ethnicity, or any other feature other than their character. When I was called racist and I was a target of scorn and ridicule because of the things I never said, the criticism hurt me as a person,”
Law Enforcement personnel throughout the nation have had their authority weakened by a single statement from the President of the United States. Their job is more difficult and dangerous today than it was just a few days ago. Some folks are undoubtedly less likely to call the police on behalf of their neighbors if there is a potential that racial sensitivities might be aroused. Some people may now consider a lack of cooperation with police in the normal execution of their duties to just be an assertion of their rights.

A few words from the President of the United States can travel far and touch the lives of a lot of people. The tradition of decorum on the part of US Presidents is there for a reason. President Obama may not have intended to harm the many people that were caught in the wake of his comments, but in his clear contempt for the authority of the police in Cambridge and his contempt for the decorum of his own office he was clearly wreckless.

Random Policy

2009-07-28T21:56:00.000-07:00

The US State Department threw our old ally Honduras under the bus again on Tuesday by revoking the visas of four senior Honduran officials. The only official that has been identified is the Honduran Supreme Court magistrate that ordered the arrest of ex President Zelaya. Amid the immense amount of news being generated by the US administration and congress this is almost certainly to be nothing more than a minor blip on the mainstream media news cycle radar. It is a tragedy nonetheless and represents nothing short of a betrayal of the people and democratic government of our former ally by the current administration, and our nation by association.

These words may seem strong, but they fit the situation. In a region where there is an increasing amount of anti-American socialist influence it is unacceptable for the State Department to be working against a democratic ally following a constitutional process to remove a defiant President intent on forcing a constitutional crisis. What loyalty we may have had to a fellow democratic state was a loyalty of principle with the state and its democratic institutions, and should not have been limited to the President that clearly defied the tenets of democracy in pursuit of nothing more noble than increasing his own power.

Even now after the dust has settled and the picture has clarified the US administration continues to legitimize the notion that there was a coup in Honduras. By no stretch of the imagination could the constitutional process that was followed in Honduras be considered a coup. We have our own balance of powers in the United States and would no doubt bristle at foreign countries characterizing the application of our laws to defend against a disturbance in that balance as a coup. Imagine a foreign country berating us for not reinstalling Richard Nixon to the presidency if he had been constitutionally ousted instead of resigning from office.

The loyalties of the United States must be given only to principles. It is one thing to support democracy, but quite another to support a wannabe dictator because we don't like the methods another country follows to remove him or because he is popular with other regional leaders. The magnitude of the crisis is self-limiting if the problem is not exacerbated by external factors. The normal course of Honduran elections will be under way soon and the democratic election of a new president would firmly close the door on the whole affair in November. The purpose behind the US administration's efforts against Honduras is unclear.

US support for Zelaya's return is clearly emboldening him. Zelaya is calling for the US government to crank up the pressure on the interim Honduran government in pursuit of his return. The US appears to be doing a great deal to try and comply with Zelaya's demands. If the US does not take a stand for democracy in the region there is a looming chance that international pressures will be brought to bear to discredit the upcoming Honduran elections, perpetuating a crisis that the country might otherwise be able to put behind them.

The US administration has not attempted to make a case for its support of Zelaya. Without clarifying the principles behind the decisions to punish Honduras for ousting Zelaya, the administration's actions can only result in increased confusion regarding its current philosophy on foreign affairs. Many in Honduras are appalled at the fact that the US has united with Zelaya, Chavez and Castro against Honduras. There are still many that have been unable to decipher the US response to the election catastrophe in Iran, and the US response to the situation in Honduras is equally confusing. One common thread appears to be a lack of willingness to oppose the actions of anti-democratic leaders that don't respect their own laws. That's not a great basis for foreign policy.

A swing and a Mitt

2009-07-22T21:40:00.000-07:00

Mitt Romney was in the news on Wednesday giving advice to his pal Barack. Mitt took his swing at steering Obama in the right direction on health care and found nothing but air. What was Mitt's sage advice to Obama? "Slow down". Yeah that's good advice.

Hey, if you're going to jump off of a cliff, do it slow. Sure you'll still be a broken, quivering mass on the rocks at the base of the cliff, but at least you didn't "rush" into it. Everybody knows that all the bad things turn out better if they're done sloooooowww. Don't listen to that dope that tells you not to jump.

Here's some sage advice for Mitt. If you're going to try and convince voters that you're a conservative in the next election, don't go around bragging about your bi-partisan misadventures with Teddy Kennedy.

We don't need more cooperation in Washington. We don't need people reaching across aisles (unless they're doing it to slap a liberal). We need folks to take stands on principle and not compromise. It isn't about just getting something done. In fact, it should be mostly about making sure that the wrong thing doesn't get done.

Once upon a time in a former life I had the joy of being a brick-layer's helper. New to the job and still having a few things to learn I was caught hesitating at some point in the first couple of days. The boss was quick to hit me with; "Do something even if it's wrong". Now, laying bricks is hard work and it takes some skill to do it well and I'm not disparaging brick layers in any way. Having said that, the boss did not intend for his comment to be taken literally, and we weren't exactly working on multi-trillion dollar destruction and reassembly of the most sophisticated health care system in the world (if you know what I mean).

Mitt's advice to Obama should have been to stop. Congress doesn't need to just "do something". Of all the things that I'm sure of, very close to the top is the certainty that the current cast of characters in Washington doesn't need to do one single thing to health care. If they want to undo some previous government meddling I might go along with that, if they take a couple of giant steps back from that cliff first.

Going slow or fast at this point is all about the start of this government boondoggle. The biggest problems with this issue probably don't lie in the starting, they lie in the ultimate destination. Jumping off of that cliff starts out with a pretty nice view and the wind in your hair might even be nice, but it's not that tough to predict how things will turn out. Our health care system is not that bad Mitt. Just tell Obama to stop.

Identity Crisis

2009-07-18T21:35:00.000-07:00

If you've read many posts on these pages you've had the opportunity to catch a rant about the lip service paid to conservatism by the Republican Party. The GOP has made a habit of playing the field when it comes to constituents. In Pennsylvania the Party was happy to back Arlen Specter, a candidate that was so indistinguishable from a liberal democrat that he now is one. In Florida the Republican Senatorial Committee couldn't get to the microphone fast enough to endorse the RINO Crist after pledging not to take sides when the conservative Marco Rubio announced his bid for the senate a short time before. On Friday three liberal Republicans endorsed Sonia Sotomayor for confirmation to the Supreme Court, without a peep from the RNC. These escapades follow on the heels of the 2008 John McCain debacle.

John McCain did not win the majority of registered Republican votes in a single primary leading up to Super Tuesday. Independents and Democrats voting for McCain in the primary made him the front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination. This travesty resulted in a visceral response from the GOP's conservative base, but somehow the GOP continues to back conservatives into a corner while offering a smarmy reassurance that it is the party for conservatives. It is time for the GOP to make a decision and pick an identity.

There is no Goldwater or Reagan on the Republican stage today. The fundamental tenets of conservatism lie forgotten in a dim corner of the RNC headquarters gathering dust. Michael Steele trots out a superficial shell of some fading memory of a conservative principle that he doesn't fully comprehend when it serves his need for placating testy conservatives. When Michael Steele talks about the "Big Tent" of the Republican Party he is expressing a willingness to compromise conservative values and entertain positions on issues that appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. This represents an evolution away from the original meaning of "Big Tent"; welcoming into the Party people from all walks of life who share Republican values.

Conservatives in America today are frustrated. Many are furious and feel that they have been betrayed by the Republican Party. It is unacceptable for the GOP to continue to count conservatives among the base of its constituency while simultaneously implementing policies and taking actions that are in fact hostile to conservatism. There are still some true conservatives in the Republican Party and many Republican voters are still staunchly conservative. It is an unfortunate fact that the commitment that many conservative voters and elected officials feel towards the Republican Party reflects the commitment that the GOP is demonstrating towards conservatism. It is another unfortunate fact that conservatives need a conservative Republican Party.

Many conservatives are calling for the formation of a conservative third Party. There are two reasons that I oppose this idea. The first reason is simply that there is not time. The great majority of conservatives still identify with the Republican Party and it would take many years to form a viable third Party. In the intervening time, conservatives would be fragmented and ineffective and irreparable harm would almost certainly have been done to our country before a third Party would be in a position to stop it. The second reason is less practical, but more compelling for me personally. The injustice of a Republican Party co-opted by globalist cosmopolitan moderates that sneer at conservatives one moment and pretend to be allies of conservatism the next is unacceptable. I want my Party back and I'm not willing to give it away without a fight.

One of the reasons that the blog updates have been sparse in the last few weeks is that I have been working on a new project with the aim of increasing the influence of conservatives on the Republican party. On Friday July 17th I launched a 527 non-profit political advocacy campaign titled "Conservatives for Republican Reform". The purpose of this activity is to reform Republican Party policies and activities that work against conservatism. While it is undoubtedly critical that conservatives continue to resist the actions of the Obama administration and the liberals holding office across our land, it is equally vital that the disadvantages conservatives face in the GOP be addressed. The Republican Party platform has a lot of compelling points for conservatives, but it needs teeth. When the RNC backs a candidate that ignores the Party platform over a candidate that adheres to the platform, they need to hear loud and clear that it is unacceptable. The platform has to count for something if the GOP is going to have a meaningful identity.

The website for the campaign can be viewed at; http://www.gopreformpac.com/. Please stop by and leave suggestions or support. The site is pretty rough. If there are any ace web-site developers out there that would like to contribute their talent to the cause, I would love to hear from them.

Soft as nails

2009-07-06T20:49:00.000-07:00

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannise them will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious or otherwise, to put shackles on sleeping men. - Voltaire

There is a perspective that is being expressed with increasing frequency in conservative circles. It is a perspective that runs the risk of being accepted due to the simple repetition of its presentation; repeated often enough it becomes familiar and comfortable. A July 6th World Net Daily lead in to their 'subscription only' Whistleblower magazine underscores the title page of the July 2009 edition, headlined "Soft Tyranny: Exposing Obama's revolutionary agenda". The underlying premise that there is anything soft about the tyranny unfolding before us is fundamentally flawed.

We have a President that has told us in his own words that he wants to bankrupt energy producers that don't produce the right kind of energy. We have a President that has told us in his own words that he wants a civilian security force as powerful and well supplied as the US military. The vast majority of the US population opposed the massive bail-out spending in recent months, but the oligogues in Washington moved forward with it. The vast majority of the US population opposes illegal immigration, but the oligogues in Washington insist on legitimizing illegal aliens with amnesty. The vast majority of the US population opposes Cap-and-Tax, but the house pushed it through in defiance of the will of the people. Tragically, this is just a small sampling of examples.

The softness that we see in America today does not lie with the tyrannical government that consistently, and knowingly thwarts the will of the American people. The softness that we see in America today is in the American people themselves. When the subjects are compliant, how can one know how soft the tyranny is, or if it is soft at all? It is not the fact that Obama and the current cabal in Washington came along that allowed this modern tyranny to descend on the United States. Our history is replete with warnings that tyranny is waiting just beyond the gates for the moment when we the people let down our guard. Tyranny is constant, not transient. It does not come and go depending on the results of elections in a free society. Tyranny is an ever present danger waiting for an opportunity. There is no question about when, or if tyranny will come. The tyrants will come, every time, without exception, when the people fail to remain vigilant.

We have become a nation of people like those to whom Samuel Adams spoke when he said "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." It is sobering to ponder what the founding fathers would think of the descendants to whom they entrusted their legacy.

No, the premise underlying the assertions is simply wrong. Tyranny is not soft or hard; it is just tyranny. Tyranny will take everything it believes it can get away with and it will be emboldened by every expansion it achieves. We are seeing new levels of tyranny in America because we have developed new levels of apathy as a people. The limits of neither the tyranny nor the apathy have been fully determined.

Obama's Coup

2009-06-29T18:18:00.000-07:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has labeled the chaotic change of leadership in Honduras a "Military Coup". That Clinton dictionary apparently has interesting definitions for words like "coup" and "is". One's opinion of the validity of her view of the situation probably has something to do with what one thinks the definition of "coup" "is". It may be impossible to unravel that chestnut with -two- words seemingly indecipherable, but let's give it a try anyway.

The non-Clinton dictionary that most of us have access to provides the following(courtesy of TheFreeDictionary.com);

Coup (noun)
1. A brilliantly executed stratagem; a triumph.
2. a. A coup d'état.
b. A sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover

Applying this definition to Mrs. Clinton's claims might lead one to infer that the military had at some point "[appropriated] leadership or power" or implemented "a takeover" of the Honduran government. Interestingly enough, the Honduran military was never in control of Honduras or the Honduran government at anytime during the recent ouster of Honduran President Zelaya. So what exactly do we find under the listing of "Coup" in Secretary Clinton's classified government dictionary;

Coup (noun)
1. A constitutional process in which the judicial and legislative bodies of a democratic nation remove Presidents attempting to usurp power for themselves in violation of that nation's constitution.

The military part of Mrs. Clinton's "military coup" comes from the fact that the legitimate government of Honduras ordered the military to remove Zelaya from Honduran soil.

Seriously, the situation, while certainly not a "military coup", may become dangerous. The US response to what is happening could embolden regional elements to the point of real military action. First hand information provided by a co-worker today confirms that the people of Honduras are perplexed by the US response to the removal of President Zelaya. The US has been overwhelmed by the gravity of the Michael Jackson situation so the potential for conflagration in South America has seen little coverage over the weekend. Here is a recap for those that might have missed it;

March 24th 2009: Honduran President Zelaya announces by executive decree that a national referendum will be held prior to June 28, 2009 to create a process to re-write the Honduran constitution. The intent of the referendum is immediately interpreted as a clear attempt by Zelaya to discredit democratic institutions in Honduras and extend his hold on power beyond the constitutional limit of his term.

Tues. June 23rd 2009: The Honduran National Congress passes a law to block Zelaya's referendum.

Wed. June 24th 2009: Zelaya sacks General Romeo Vasquez, head of Honduran armed forces, for refusing to lend logistical support for the June 28 referendum. The chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air force resign in protest to the firing of Vasquez.

Thurs. June 25th 2009: The Honduran Supreme Court annuls Zelaya's executive decree ordering a June 28 referendum. Zelaya vows to hold the referendum in defiance of the courts order. Honduran lawmakers open an investigation to determine if Zelaya's defiance of the Supreme Court order blocking the referendum damaged the rule of law in Honduras. The National Congress of Honduras meets to draft a letter of resignation for Zelaya. Zelaya asks the Organization of American States (OAS) for support. (A lot happened on the 25th but it was totally eclipsed in the US media by the death of Michael Jackson.)

Fri. June 26th 2009: Thousands of Zelaya opponents march in the streets of Tegucigalpa calling for the President's ouster while supporters of Zelaya begin distributing ballots for the referendum. The OAS calls for restraint from all involved parties.

Sat. June 27th 2009: The Supreme Court of Honduras rejects Zelaya's dismissal of General Romeo Vasquez.

Sun. June 28th 2009: Zelaya is forcibly seized by the military under court order and forced to board a plane to Costa Rica. The leader of the National Congress, Roberto Micheletti, is constitutionally confirmed as the new President of Honduras by unanimous congressional vote. Micheletti belongs to the same political party as ex-President Zelaya.

The Obama administration is in the rare company of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro in denouncing the removal of Zelaya. The danger to Honduras can not be overstated. Hugo Chavez' Venezuelan military is on high alert and Chavez is demanding that Zelaya be returned to power. The energies of Zelaya's internal Honduran agitators combined with the blustering of Chavez, Castro and the OAS will quickly turn Honduras into a tinder box. Obama's support for the reinstatement of Zelaya may give Chavez the perception that he has the moral authority to reinstall Zelaya into the Honduran Presidency by force. Given the unpopularity of Zelaya in Honduras and the prior relationship between Chavez and Zelaya, it is conceivable that this entire episode is part of a larger scheme that may result in Chavez being the power behind the throne in Honduras in the event that Zelaya is reinstated (by whatever means).

Last week we saw Obama's desire for normalized relations with Iran embolden an oppressive regime and weaken the US response to atrocities following the Iranian election scandal. There should be little doubt that Chavez has been watching the US leadership and gauging last week's response to the situation in Iran and the current response to the situation in Honduras. We can only hope that the desire for normalized relations with Venezuela will not cloud the judgment of the administration and weaken another response.

Cap-and-Betrayed

2009-06-29T09:00:00.000-07:00

The meager political news coverage that was able to slip between the blanket coverage of Michael Jackson's death over the weekend was full of references to the moderate Republicans and Democrats that had been courted to support the Cap-and-Tax resolution on Friday. This is proof positive that the term 'moderate' has officially been redefined to mean 'extreme leftist totalitarian'. H.R. 2454 may be the most flagrant attack on US industry and prosperity in American history. If further evidence was needed that we have completely lost control of our elected officials in Washington, it was just provided by 211 Democrats and eight Republicans on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Betrayal is the only term that can adequately describe the action taken by the representatives that supported the Cap-and-Tax resolution. If the eight Republicans that voted for the resolution had not broken ranks, the resolution would have failed. That a single Republican could have voted in support of the resolution is undeniable proof that the GOP is profoundly dysfunctional. Support of the resolution is not only incompatible with Republican ideals, it is a direct attack upon them. The Republicans that voted on Friday to support Cap-and-Tax can no longer make any pretense that they support the ideas of limited government, free markets and individual liberty; there is nothing moderate about them.

Friday's vote in the house was a vote by government to amass power for itself, and for that sole purpose. Supporters of the resolution have taken another extreme step towards a complete embracing of statism. Those in the media, in government, and the public at large that rationalized support for this measure, based on a view that it was a moderate position, have deluded themselves into accepting the extreme in the name of moderation. It is appalling that the Democrats in the house voted nearly en masse in support of this attack on our nation, but there is simply no room for support of this resolution in the Republican party. One can only speculate how much worse the situation would have been if the current economic situation had not provided an impetus for some of the fence-sitters to make the right decision.

If the Republican party is going to take a stand anywhere, it must make a stand here. Cap-and-Tax is one of the easiest issues to oppose through a rudimentary application of conservative principles. A Republican that plays an active role in advancing the Cap-and-Tax scheme is a leftist charlatan exploiting the Republican label to advance an anti-conservative agenda. Conservatives and Republicans must abandon the complacency of the past and make sure that the GOP leadership gets the message loud and clear. Michael Steele needs to hear from all of us until the following eight names are the first thing he thinks about when he wakes up in the morning and the last thing on his mind as he tries to sleep at night;

Mary Bono Mack - Ca.
John McHugh - NY.
Chris Smith - NJ.
Leonard Lance - NJ.
Frank LoBiondo - NJ.
Michael Castle - D.
Mark Kirk - Il.
Dave Reichert - Wa.

Conservatives should seriously reconsider contributing to the RNC as long as there is a possibility that portions of their contributions will go to any of those whose names appear on the list above.

Cap-and-Tax, What Cap-and-Tax?

2009-06-25T10:30:00.000-07:00

The masters of diversion have managed to pull off another spectacular feat of misdirection. The morning radio talkers are all a twitter about the ABC health care infomercial debacle that aired last night. As an aside, I find it a little interesting that conservatives pretty much boycotted the viewing of ABCs sop to the Obama administration, but are now apparently quite eager to find out what was said second hand. Anyway, the biggest issue on the radar at the moment is not health care reform. It's not even Barney Frank's "push" to legalize pot. These issues are smoke screens and they are working very well for the oligogues in Washington.

The imminent issue that needs our immediate attention is the Cap-and-Tax measure that the house will be voting on -Tomorrow- (Friday 6/26). While we've spent a week distracted by pot, ABC, and Mahmoud our misrepresentatives have been getting their ducks in a row to foist upon us the biggest tax hike in the history of the republic. The American public is becoming increasingly dubious of the merits of the global warming scam and the statists know that the door is rapidly closing on their ability to 'take advantage of the crisis'. The only bright spot in this issue is that Pelosi currently doesn't have the votes needed to pass the bill on Friday. That bright spot still has ample opportunity to dim as the proponents of the bill continue to lobby democrats and moderate republicans.

As the statists continue their drive to control every aspect of our lives we need to keep track of everything they are up to, but the immediate threats need special attention. The immediate threat for the day is H.R.2454; a resolution to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy. Cap-and-Tax is not a tax on the rich. This is a regressive tax that poses a real threat to the economy, to jobs and to the cost of living of everyday Americans. Rich or poor, your energy costs are going up if Cap-and-Tax becomes law. For my fellow Texans, the impact to the Texas economy alone is estimated at 35 Billion dollars in jobs alone.

There are a good number of representatives that are uncertain about supporting this resolution. A clear message of opposition to Cap-and-Tax legislation from their constituents can help them make the right choice in the face of intense pressure from the democrat leadership. Please contact your representative in Washington today and ask them to oppose this resolution.

Barack's Iranian Poll Dance

2009-06-24T21:44:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama saw his options for keeping the door open for improved relations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime in Iran dwindle on Tuesday in the face of increasing state-side alarm over the draconian measures being used against protesters in Tehran. Our President is walking the thin line of moral relativism between leaving the avenues of diplomacy open with an influential state in the middle east and assuring a brutal dictator that the US will not "meddle" in his affairs. After days of dipping his toes into the pool of public opinion, and trying really, really hard not to cause any ripples that might disturb Mahmoud, Obama was swamped with a wave of public opinion as polls began to show that both Democrats and Republicans were almost universally united in their support for condemning Ahmadinejad. Obama immediately responded to his concerned constituents by changing his vote from "present" to "present and kind of irritated that this whole hunger for democracy thing in Iran is screwing up my plans to have tea with Mahmoud".

Also on Tuesday, Britain expelled two Iranian diplomats in retaliation for Iran's expulsion of two British diplomats on charges of espionage. PM Gordan Brown said Iran's allegations against his diplomats were "absolutely without foundation". Meanwhile, back in America Barack Obama struggled with the weighty issue of how to keep the door open for Iranian diplomats to take part in the White house 4th of July picnic. But the American president took on a new tone on Wednesday and began to seriously consider withdrawing his 4th of July picnic invitation to the Iranian contingent when news of a tragic massacre in Tehran began to spread across the airwaves. When Ahmadinejad got word of Obama's growing ire he immediately stopped what he was doing and said "Barack who?".

We've had a pretty wide variety of Presidents in the United States. Regardless of their ideology, most of our Presidents have taken their roles as apologists for freedom and democracy pretty seriously. In modern times the notable exception to this is Jimmy Carter. Even so, the contempt that Obama has for this role stands in a class by itself. Obama's statements about the 'arrogance' of America are not mere rhetoric. He truly believes that it is uncouth for America to step out in front and assert her views. Who are we, after all, to tell a brutal dictator that we don't approve of him stealing an election and oppressing his people.

There is a real danger in the Obama doctrine of 'non-meddling'. Our enemies and petty despots around the world will be emboldened by the knowledge that our bag of carrots contains no sticks. Our allies will operate under a new uncertainty about America's commitment to them. The wretched subjects of oppressive regimes will quail in the realization that they are alone and without support. Maybe we can at least save some money on our electric bill for turning out that light. You know, the one Reagan told us about. The one that used to shine on the hill.

Psychophants

2009-06-16T21:20:00.000-07:00

"In a way Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God. He's going to bring all different sides together."

Maybe a joke? Maybe a gush from a star-struck fan? Maybe the mindless rambling of a psycho? You be the judge, but this is a direct quote from Evan Thomas, an editor at Newsweek, on Chris Mathews' MSNBC Hardball on Friday June 5th. Thomas made the statement with a straight face. He was quite serious. Mathews only response was an affirming "yeah." The intense media focus resulting from the comment was conspicuous only in its lacking.

Claims of a leftward tilt in the mainstream media are nothing new. There was a time, not very long ago, that I believed that the bias in the mainstream News outlets in the United states was environmental. When everybody that you spend time with shares a particular bias, that bias is going to naturally, though unintentionally, come out. It is no secret that news rooms are dominated by folks that share a liberal world view. The members of the press share a voting preference for democrat candidates, their industry is centralized in areas dominated by liberal demographics, the celebrities they hang out with promote liberal causes. It seems very plausible that they might unintentionally project the values of their "normal" world into their reporting. In light of all of this, how could they be expected to see their bias slipping through? The answer: As easily as Chris Mathews knows beyond a doubt that Barack Obama is really not "sort of God" ( the "thrill going up [his] leg" not withstanding). At some point the preponderance of evidence just makes the verdict undeniably obvious.

It does not bother me that the press is critical of conservatives and Republicans. It is the obligation of the press to be critical of elected officials. The fact is that the "fourth estate" is quite able to scrutinize certain people and to perform credible feats of investigative journalism in areas that interest them. The problem is that they just aren't interested in being critical in some areas; areas of vital interest to the American people.

A free and unbeholden press is one of the most crucial protections of our fundamental freedoms, but a monolithic press in league with the government they are ordained to view suspiciously and hold accountable is a very real threat to liberty. There is a scenario that we have seen played out repeatedly in recent history; a scenario where a government seizes control of the press and media outlets to strengthen its hold on power and quiet the voices of opposition. We are witnessing a new variation on this theme in America today; a press that willingly, even eagerly, surrenders its role as a free press to become the mouthpiece of government. The freedom of speech guaranteed to all Americans in the 1st amendment is greatly curtailed when the press becomes a symbiotic member of a government-media complex. What is the value of our freedom to speak when we are denied access to the pulpit? The freedom to whisper to each other in our enclaves is no freedom at all.

Here are a few recent examples of media in the service of the government of the United States:

"A recent CBS News poll shows that 53 percent of the American people fully backs the stimulus package, 63 percent of people we polled thought the Republican opposition to the stimulus package was for political reasons. So, are you out of touch with the American people? Do you think the Republicans are digging themselves in a hole by not being more supportive of the President’s proposals?"— CBS’s Katie Couric interviewing Republican House Leader John Boehner on the February 24 Evening News (i.e. supportive like the press?).

"[Jindal] is running for the outside rail of the Republican Party, the right-wing rail. That’s all the room that’s left on that side because Barack has grabbed the center with the charm he showed tonight in his excellent rhetoric."— Chris Matthews during MSNBC’s live coverage of Obama’s speech to Congress, February 24 (only Matthews could make the claim that anything about Obama is 'center').

"It made me feel pretty good. I thought it was a great speech. You know, a friend of mine said, ‘Oh my God, we have a President again!’ Now, in some ways, that’s not fair to Bush, but that’s the way you felt. You felt this was a guy who was totally in charge."— NPR’s Nina Totenberg on Obama’s address to Congress, February 27 Inside Washington (is that the National part or the Public part Nina?).

"I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office. I mean, from visionary leader of a giant movement, now he’s got an executive position that he has to perform in, in a way."— ABC Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran to Media Bistro’s Steve Krakauer in a February 20 "Morning Media Menu" podcast (he came down to earth just for us...).
“Anderson, there was no way he could quite reach the summit with this speech. He couldn't please everyone. But, overall, it was the most powerful and the most persuasive speech any American President has ever made to the Muslim populations around the world.” - CNN political analyst David Gergen on Anderson Cooper 360, June 4th (It may be hard to imagine Anderson Cooper as the straight man for David Gergen, but there you go. Objectivity at its finest).

It is truly stunning how many examples of this type of coverage are revealed by a short web search. The Obama administration has deputy press secretaries planted at news anchor desks throughout the country. This is the environment in which we find a headline today on the Drudge Report about ABC's plans to air a special edition of World News from the Blue Room of the White House. Charlie Gibson will anchor the prime time special entitled 'Prescription for America' to cover Obama's government health care plan. Experts presenting opposition view points are not expected to be included.

Typically the revolutionary comes to power and then seizes control of the press. In America the activist press was on the ground, in place, eagerly awaiting the leader for whom they were paving the way. The most vital role of a free press is to serve as a watchdog on government in the interest of the people. The mainstream media in America has abdicated their responsibility and betrayed our trust. There should be no doubt that they are aware of what they are doing and that it is intentional.

Ain't no Fordunate One

2009-06-08T20:10:00.000-07:00

Ok, maybe my age is showing a little, but I can't help hearing some Fogerty defiance in the background as I watch the fiasco that our US auto industry has become. Two out of the three US auto makers have a nearly 70 billion dollar advantage over the third thanks to 'we the taxpeople' and it doesn't look like the playing field is going to get any more level any time soon. As a 60% shareholder in GM the government has put itself in the unique position of having a substantial interest in the success of the company and, frankly, an obligation to the tax payers to protect that investment.

Obama has professed to have no interest in managing an auto maker, but it challenges logical analysis to conclude that the government is not going to take an active role in running the company that it just purchased at a fire sale. If the government puts incentives, such as tax advantages, in place for those that buy certain types of cars that 'just happen' to fall within the portfolio of a certain auto manufacture a little more than another, well who can blame them really? But where does that leave Ford? It's hard to tell.

Ford has been in the process of turning it's business around for a few years now. What had looked like a 2009 recovery for the company is now projected to be a 2011 recovery due to the economic slump. Ford's recent lineup of vehicles has been fairly well received and the company has been more proactive than it's US competitors in restructuring debt and reducing costs. The company had a clear advantage over GM and Chrysler before the US government came to the rescue. Now the leadership at Ford is beginning to wonder aloud if they haven't pitted themselves against a competitor backed by the tax-base of the largest economy in the world.

As reported in Automobilemag, Ford spokesman Mark Truby made the following comment on June 1st;

"The reality is, if you're competing against a company that's majority owned by
the U.S. government, that does raise certain concerns about what the competitive
dynamic will be for the industry. So we're hoping we can work with the
administration and the task force to be heard on those issues as this
progresses."

But that hope is clearly the hope of an outsider asking, with hat in hand, for a seat at the table.

Taxpayer money is also finding its way into GM's financing entity GMAC. Through changes at GMAC the company now services both GM and Chrysler loans and the taxpayer funding provides them with a lower capital cost than their competition. Ford Credit is seeking approval for industrial loan corporation status that would make its capital costs more competitive with GMAC, but they've been trying since 2006.

To add insult to injury there is an increasing clamor for Ford to take part in the government bailout and a growing number of folks questioning Ford's wisdom in not doing so in the first place. A June 2nd Houston Chronicle article tried to cheer up the folks at Ford with the following;

"Perhaps Ford should have taken a government bailout when it had the chance because now, Uncle Sam is the competition.
The government has a responsibility to taxpayers to maximize the return on its investment, and the best way to do that is by crushing the competition, with Ford as the primary target.
Unfortunately for Ford, the government also can write laws that directly affect automakers’ profitability.
Mulally now finds himself in an exclusive, and thankless, executive circle. Call them the Unbankrupt or the Loners of Solvency."

I guess the Chron isn't going to do anything to upset that 'thankless' status.

Between the infusion of government billions into GM and Chrysler, the government having a vested interest in the success of Ford's competition, and Ford's higher cost of capital, the playing field appears to be anything but level for Ford. How they will ultimately fare remains to be seen. Government medling and inefficiency may turn out to be the albatross for GM that it has been for so many other things, and American's sense of fair play may rally consumers to the Ford brand. Consumers are fickle creatures, but there is a growing number of callers to radio shows and commenters on internet news sites swearing to abandon GM and Chrysler in favor of Ford. I hope they mean it.

Unnecessary Mediocrity

2009-06-04T15:49:00.000-07:00

Throughout the last year or two there has been a lot of talk about "change" in US politics. Indeed, a lot of change has recently been brought about and more is promised. In the collage of issues currently in the queue for change there is a real risk of getting bogged down in issue specific details and being overwhelmed by the volume of arguments. Conversations between conservatives contain an increasing amount of issue-by-issue introspection regarding how to justify their resistance to change. This introspection highlights the need to be focused on persistent core values rather than transient issues.

Exceptionalism is a core tenet of conservatism. Unfortunately, like a lot of conservative principles, the philosophy that the best should be exalted above the mediocre is one that conservatives have done a poor job defending in recent years. In our society's obsession with equal treatment, or being fair, the value of the exceptional has consistently been diluted. Even among conservatives, this societal pressure has resulted in discomfort when confronted with a conflict between a solution that is "best" and a solution that is "fair". To accept the mediocre over the exceptional in the name of fairness is contrary to conservative principle.

It is also a core belief of conservatism that change should be resisted. This does not mean that change is to be resisted arbitrarily, merely that change must be justified before it is embraced. The conservative recognizes that change is much more difficult to undo than it is to implement and not something to be taken lightly. Asserting that a case against change has not been made does not provide sufficient justification for the conservative to abandon the status-quo. Conservatives frequently fall into the trap of trying to justify why something should not be changed when the onus should lie completely with those advocating the change. Conservatives all too often find themselves drawn into the defense of tradition rather than demanding that the proponents of change justify their demands.

These two core conservative values are essential parts of any analysis of an argument for change. When faced with a recommendation for change the conservative asks; "Is it best and is it necessary?". While there may be some subjectivity in the answers to these questions, the conservative should oppose the call for any change that is not both necessary and superior to the status-quo. This process removes the issue dependency from the debate and divorces the discussion from the defense of tradition. All calls for change must pass these two gate keeping conservative principles and the same logical process is evenly applied regardless of the issue.

Our history is full of examples of non-constructive change. How many times have we seen changes in the education system that could not have passed the "better and necessary" test? The call for comprehensive immigration reform is a current debate that these principles should be applied to in conservative arguments. Gay marriage is an issue that currently seems to cause a lot of confusion among conservatives as they struggle to make arguments for the status-quo. If expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage can be proven by the advocates to be 'best and necessary' for society then the 'change' from tradition can be justified to the conservative. If it can not be proven to be best and necessary for society then the conservative is not compelled to agree to change tradition. Confusion is minimized when the focus is on applying principles to the issues rather than on the issues themselves.

The case for change must be made and won by those demanding change. The conservative's role in the debate is to challenge the case for change and stand firm against unnecessary mediocrity.

Situational Values

2009-05-27T15:22:00.000-07:00

The LA Times is reporting a split in the GOP over Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court justice. It is true that there is a split in the Republican Party, but it's not new. The divide in the GOP is not a recent development and it certainly predates the controversy over Sotomayor.

The Times article contends that the conflict in the Republican Party revolves around the potential negative impact that a contentious confirmation process might have on potential Republican voters in the Latino community. There is no denying the accuracy of this observation. Discussions and arguments are taking place throughout the right side of the political spectrum on blogs, forums and media outlets around the nation. The gulf between the two sides of the argument is wide and growing. And it has nothing to do with Sonia Sotomayor.

The current strife is simply the latest in a long series of allegorical representations of the struggle between two entrenched political factions of the Republican Party; expedience and principle. The GOP has been said to be at an 'Ideological Crossroads', but it would be more accurate to describe it as an 'Ideological Precipice'. The survival of the Party depends on it making a turn to one side or the other, lest it plummet out of sight into oblivion.

Since the election of George H. W. Bush in 1988 the faction of expedience has been steadily increasing its influence over the Republican Party. The faction of principle has been a consistent part of the Republican base, but the satisfaction level of this portion of the Party has been steadily deteriorating. As the stream of conservatives giving up on the GOP threatens to become a flood, those that are willing to write the conservatives off and re-brand the Party to seek new voters are becoming bolder and more vocal. This is the environment in which we find ourselves considering the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court justice.

The faction of expedience looks at the possibility of a contentious confirmation process and fears the possibility that potential Latino voters might be offended and lost as voters. The faction of principle looks at the possibility that large numbers of Latinos may closely follow the confirmation process and sees an opportunity to present the case for conservatism to a captive audience. The faction of expedience asserts that the candidate must be handled differently in deference to the sex and race of the candidate. The faction of principle contends that it is inconsistent with conservatism to decide which actions are appropriate based on anything but the candidate's merit. The two positions are irreconcilable.

As the demographics of the United States inevitably change, the demographics of the GOP must change as well. Any assertions to the contrary would be short sighted, and of questionable motive. The Republican Party can appeal to new voters from these growing demographic groups in one of two ways; successfully make the case for conservative principles or adopt principles that already appeal to the voters. There is a question that the GOP must answer as it stands at the brink of the ideological precipice. Will the principles of the Party be defined by what is considered expedient, or will what is considered expedient be defined by the principles of the Party?

Pitching a Big Tent

2009-05-26T21:49:00.000-07:00

There has been quite a bit of talk lately about the lack of an identifiable leader for the Republican Party. Perhaps its just a symptom of the "Hollywood" society we live in that there is an expectation that every movement be defined by a charismatic leader. An article by Charles Hurt in the New York Post on Tuesday titled "Republicans Desperately Need a Star" opines about the GOP leadership void while stating "You're flat broke unless you got a salesman, a pitch and a shtick."

It is true that the very best ideas need people to articulate them. But, the very best 'articulators' can cloud the best ideas. Then there is always the danger of having the brand tarnished by the salesman, no matter how good the 'pitch' and 'shtick'. The best solution is to have a product that sells itself. If the consumers of a product are so excited about it that they want to share it with the world, those consumers can be an amazingly effective sales force. On the other hand, a product that doesn't satisfy the customer is eventually going to flop in spite of the best salesman, pitch or shtick. So while the world wonders what is the right recipe for the GOP to use to get it's message out, the first problem that needs to be acknowledged is that a message has not been selected for distribution.

Across the entire spectrum between Rush Limbaugh and Arlen Specter people can be found expressing with certainty that the salvation of the GOP lies in moving to the right, or moving to the left or staying put. The Republican Party platform reads like a conservative manifesto, but candidates are not held to it's creed by the Party. The Republican Party primary is open to voters that do not identify themselves as Republicans and know nothing of the Party platform. A National figure of the stature of Colin Powell can campaign and vote for the most liberal Democrat President in the history of the republic and then go on to claim a Republican identity and be welcomed into the fold by RNC chief Michael Steele. What pitchman could sell the conflicting patchwork of ideas that the GOP is willing to embrace in the name of "big tent" politics?

No disrespect intended to Mr. Hurt, but the Republican Party's problem isn't the lack of a pitchman, it's the lack of a product.

Tortured arguments

2009-05-16T23:16:00.000-07:00

Imagine two people having a debate. The debate is spirited and both sides are making their points, but not approaching a resolution. Next imagine one of the debaters unilaterally starts a new debate based on a presumption that the original debate had been resolved in their favor. The opposing party can continue debate in one of two ways; demand that the original debate be concluded first, or allow themselves to be drawn into the new debate and tacitly accept the premise. Accepting the new debate is sometimes difficult to distinguish from surrendering the previous one.

Our nation has recently been drawn into a debate about interrogation techniques, most specifically waterboarding, used on terrorists. The debate has covered topics ranging from considerations of '24' style, ticking-time-bomb, hypothetical scenarios to very real occurrences of tough tactics being used on three real live detainees. The opposing views expressed in the debate have ranged from waterboarding being an almost harmless, kid-glove, tactic to being an atrocity rising to the levels of those committed by the most vile of villains dredged up from history. It is clearly neither of these, but the resolution of that debate is far beyond the scope of this missive. Something else that should be clear is that this debate is something we as a nation need to see through to the end. It is important that we use this opportunity to find our national sense of what is right or wrong, our national conscience, about this issue before we lose the opportunity by allowing the debate to evolve into something new.

There has been much drama surrounding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent statements about what she may or may not have been told in CIA briefings. The Obama administration created a brief flurry of sensational headlines over statements that some personnel from the previous administration should be targeted with some level of punitive consequences over their involvement in approving the use of the waterboard on the three detainees. Both of these issues illustrate a transition of the debate on waterboarding from "was it an acceptable thing to do?" to "how should we punish those involved in it?". It is important for us, as a nation, to answer the first question first.

There has been a somewhat odd response to the Nancy Pelosi/CIA story from those that do not believe the use of the waterboard was a crime. They have expressed hopes that Nancy's involvement will bring an end to the Administration's threats of punishment. This cynical, politically motivated response enables a movement of the debate away from the "right/wrong" discussion to the "consequences" discussion. Some of the folks that originally spoke out against potential punishment of Bush administration personnel are now running the risk of legitimizing the idea with their assertions that Nancy Pelosi should be included among those punished. Even though they may be correct in their calculus that illustrating Pelosi's culpability in the events would result in a removal of the threat of punishment for everyone involved, these folks run a real risk of tacitly conceding that the acts of the Bush administration were punishable acts.

Even if everyone is protected from punishment, it is still important to settle the original debate over whether it was appropriate to use the harsh interrogation techniques in the first place. Conceding that waterboarding three detainees was an inappropriate, or illegal, act may have far reaching ramifications. What recourse does it open up in the defense of the detainees that were waterboarded? What avenue of grievances does it open up for thousands of US military personnel that voluntarily submitted themselves to the waterboard as part of their training? What is the potential impact of removing these interrogation techniques from the available options? Those that have been clamouring for waterboarding to be classified as torture, or war crimes, have cited the US reputation in the world as one of the primary reasons for their concern. That position can not be reconciled with the paradox that we as a nation might concede that waterboarding was illegal, but no one will be held responsible.

The debate over waterboarding is not a pleasant one, but it is one that needs to be finished. As a nation caught up in this trial, we need to return a verdict on waterboarding before we allow the trial to move to the punishment phase.

The Cowardly Elephant

2009-05-12T20:52:00.000-07:00

"Expedience" is rapidly becoming the byword of the National Republican Party as the Party illustrates that it is happy to continue providing all the evidence we can stand that it is truly searching for it's soul. President Andrew Johnson spoke well when he said "Honest conviction is my courage; the Constitution is my guide." Unfortunately, for the Republican Party, principle is the foundation of conviction. There is a troubling lack of principle in the national leadership of the GOP today. Without principle there is no conviction and without conviction there is no courage and without courage, fear becomes the guide.

On Tuesday Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced his run for US Senate in the 2010 mid-term election cycle. Within minutes thereafter the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), Texas Senator John Cornyn, endorsed Crist and threw the "full support" of the NRSC behind Crist. It was an act of expedience. To paraphrase the reason cited by Cornyn Crist has the best chance of winning. There was no discussion of Crist's value system or his position on issues. The main consideration was perceived electability.

On May 5th Marco Rubio, a Florida state rep from Miami, announced his bid for the same US Senate seat. The response from the NRSC was non committal. After Rubio's announcement last week Cornyn issued a statement on behalf of the NRSC that he did "not expect the NRSC to take sides" in the Florida primary. That position lasted until minutes after Crist officially joined the race. There is some debate as to whether the NRSC will financially support Crist in the primary race. But it is hard to imagine that the "full support" of the NRSC promised by Cornyn does not include "full support".

Unlike Crist, Rubio has a clearly identifiable set of core values; Conservative core values. There is no debate that Crist is a moderate. Crist supported the stimulus activities of the current administration and has gone to great lengths to alienate the conservative base of the Florida GOP. Crist holds the edge in recognition and has more appeal among the center of the electorate. Rubio is widely viewed as an electable candidate with greater support among republicans. So why is the NRSC supporting Crist over Rubio? Fear. The simple explanation for the national GOP gravitation towards Charlie Crist in Florida, and Tom Ridge in Pennsylvania is that the Party leadership is operating out of fear. They are listening to the voices described in the previous post and, in the absence of their own convictions, they are afraid to ignore them. The presence of fear is a clear indication of an absence of principle in the leadership of the Republican Party. Without courage the National GOP leadership will continue to seek the middle for it's perceived safety.

Marco Rubio has said that he is ready to "let the debate begin" with Crist over the direction the GOP should be going. The GOP should be helping candidates like Marco Rubio in Florida and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania make the case for conservatism. The NRSC should be putting it's "full support" behind these candidates. If the Party is going to go on an expedition in search of it's principles, it would be a good idea for them to try talking to men that already have some.

As a Texan, I am deeply disappointed in John Cornyn's role in using the NRSC to actively oppose a conservative candidate in the Florida Senate race. Senator Cornyn is clearly the more conservative of our two Texas Senators, but in this case he has let us down. I will be contacting Sen. Cornyn's office to express my disappointment and encourage him to support conservative candidates through the NRSC. I would strongly encourage others to please do the same.

Who's side are you on?

2009-05-06T20:38:00.000-07:00

There is an odd struggle transpiring around the republican party. What might have at first seemed to be a collection of isolated cases appears to be coalescing into something more deliberate, but it's still somewhat difficult to define. One thing is clear; A lot of people are concerned about the health and well being of the republican party. The interesting thing is that they're not all republicans.

Last week we saw Arlen "good riddance" Specter announce his departure from the republican party. Arlen was fairly candid in admitting that the move was purely an act of self preservation instigated by the certainty that he would lose the GOP primary to Pat Toomey. Nonetheless, that didn't keep Arlen from admonishing the GOP to redeem itself from becoming too extreme in it's positions. This might be viewed as ironic coming from a man rode to office on the coat tails of Ronald Reagan and who has certainly been part of a GOP that was more conservative than the one we have today.

The press and the moderate GOP power elite have leapt to the call to thank Toomey for drubbing Specter out of the party by immediately moving to shove him aside in favor of Specter-lite Tom Ridge. The 'Philadelphia Daily News' concedes that Toomey could never win in the general election and that Specter's departure is good for the GOP in the long run because it will "propel it, at long last, to the sensible politics [Specter] represents." . In other words, it's good for the republican party to propel it to democrat politics.

Another recent defector from the republican party is Colin Powell. In the past week he has encouraged the republican party to throw off the influences of people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and move to the center. Apparently Powell missed the part where the GOP nominated the democrat's favorite republican for president in 2008, over the persistent and vocal protestations of both Limbaugh and Coulter. Coulter harangued GOP voters reading her website into supporting McCain with rousing endorsements like;

"we should organize parties around the country where Republicans can get drunk
so they can vote for McCain. We can pass out clothespins with his name as a
reminder and slogan-festooned vomit bags. The East Coast parties can post the
number of drinks necessary for the task to help the West Coast parties."

If only the GOP would stop letting Rush and Ann pick their candidates...

And of course the story of friendly democrat advice for the GOP wouldn't be complete without hearing from someone that always keeps the best interests of the republican party close to her heart, Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was so overcome with concern for the GOP that she was compelled to try and help them out. On Obama's 100th day in office dear Nancy graciously offered her advice;

“Yes, there is — shall we say — a ‘radical right-wing’ element with whom they
identify. But by and large, I say to Republicans in America: Take back your
party. The party of protecting the environment. The party of individual rights.
The party of fairness. This is not the Grand Old Party.”

Not to question Nancy's motives or anything, but I wonder what her motives are.

Next, enter the republicans. A May 2nd Associated Press article headlined "Republicans launch listening tour to rebrand image" focused on the recent formation of the republican "National Council for a New America". Some of the characters in the cast are a surprise, like Bobby Jindal, while others are not, like John McCain. During the troop's traveling about in search of a message Jeb Bush told one audience;

"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something,"

Thanks for clearing that up Gov. At a time when republicans across the country are returning to the core values of conservatism, the GOP party leaders, the media and the democrats are tripping over themselves to ignore the conservative grass-roots and shove the GOP to the left. The situation is simply surreal. A lot of folks are very concerned that the GOP might make the 'mistake' of moving toward conservatism. It's so nice that they care.

There was no republican candidate for president in 2008 that was further to the left than John McCain. It is difficult to imagine a republican candidate further to the left than John McCain that would be distinguishable from a democrat. When the two parties become indistinguishable from each other, we need to ask ourselves why we still need two parties. If the two parties are no more than just teams that we cheer on, then there isn't much point to our individual involvement in the political process.

Those republicans that are taking their 'listening tour' on the road have it backwards. We need leaders that can take a 'talking tour' on the road and articulate principles and core values. Wishy-washy navel gazers that don't know what to stand for other than their own re-election campaign are the problem. You don't learn principles from a focus group, you either have them or you don't.

Lou Dobbs gets it right again

2009-05-04T09:04:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I wonder how Lou fits in over at CNN. His spotlight on the CIFTA International Arms treaty is a welcome sight;

Wyoming Senator John Barrasso's vow to fight ratification of the treaty is a good start. Please keep spreading the word and contact your senators to express opposition to this treaty.

Are you watching closely?

2009-05-01T07:36:00.000-07:00

In the movie "The Prestige" Christian Bale added the line "Are you watching closely?" to the everyday parlance of fans of the film. Mysterious acts of prestidigitation slipped by the magician's attentive audience as they fell victim to his skillful exploits of misdirection. On the world stage today there are so many distractions that it is becoming impossible to keep our eyes on the hands of our politicians. Unfortunately this is a time when we need to be watching closely.

Amid the flu, the economy, the rising unemployment numbers, decreasing stability in Pakistan, North Korean missile tests, border violence in Northern Mexico, announcement of a looming supreme court opening, airplanes in New York city, Presidential world tours, release of interrogation tactics information, politicians changing parties, threats of prosecutions over waterboarding authorization, and presidential news conferences we run a very real risk of being overcome by information exhaustion. While we are watching all of the attention grabbing headlines and being drawn from one sensational story to the next, the US congress is steadily going about their work.

Amid the cacophony of news this past week the US house of representatives approved an expansion of the federal "hate crime" laws on a vote of 249 to 174. The Senate will get their chance to chime in soon. Ordinarily a vote like this would have grabbed our national attention. Today it just slides by as a footnote that might get noticed during the ebb in more sensational news stories, or it might not.

The agents of political change are found in the US House of Representatives and Senate. For all of Obama's campaigning as an agent of change, the majority of real change that he will bring us will be through approving legislation handed to him by congress. It is a misdirection when Obama says in a news conference that FOCA is not his top priority. It is a top priority for some members of congress. Rest assured that Obama will sign the FOCA legislation when congress submits it to him, regardless of how high it is on his priority list.

Amid the distractions we need to remember that congress is a hand that needs to be watched. And it needs to be watched very closely. If we aren't vigilant we will find ourselves staring at the stage as the curtain closes wondering what happened, and how we missed it.

Party Like 1934 and shutup

2009-04-29T07:35:00.000-07:00

A 1934 Chicago Tribune editorial cartoon

I don't know who Klavan is, but he has a way of getting to the point.

Incompetent Defense

2009-04-26T23:52:00.000-07:00

In the legal arena, appeals are sometimes granted on the grounds of incompetent defense. When a lawyer does a particularly poor job defending his client it can be unclear if a guilty verdict is due to actual misdeeds of the defendant, or due to the fact that the defense team may as well have been working for the prosecution. When someone we care about faces an accusation, we want to be able to tell ourselves that they have the best possible representation. We don't want to go into the situation knowing that the chosen defense team is not the right one for the job. We certainly don't want to see a defense team that may even be hostile to the client.

On the world stage today we see an increasing chorus of accusations being made against capitalism. The prosecution's team is made up of socialist states in Central and South America, some European countries, China, Russia and an increasing number of anti-corporatists here at home. Six Central and South American socialist states released a declaration this week blaming most of the worlds problems on capitalism; economic crisis, global warming, food crisis, energy crisis, and more. Back in March, China called for a new global currency to be controlled by the International Monetary Fund. China renewed that call again yesterday. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been calling for a new financial architecture for the 'global age' for several months.

At the G20 summit on April 2nd the heads of state for the worlds largest economies came to an agreement on a $1 trillion international bailout package. Germany and France had initially declared opposition to the plan. What had at first looked like a principled position supporting a process that let nations deal with the crisis individually turned out to just be a bargaining chip used to leverage concessions on international banking regulations from other member nations. CNN reported that UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said;

the final deal included agreement on tighter regulation of hedge funds, tax havens and the banking system.

"We will implement new rules on pay and bonuses at a global level that reflect actual performance with no more rewards for failure," Brown said. "We want to encourage corporate responsibility in every part of the world."

Someone needs to explain to Prime Minister Brown that executive pay and bonus levels did not cause the current global economic woes.

So where is the defense team for capitalism? Socialism is on the verge of becoming trendy right here in the USA, yet we find ourselves staring at the clock on the courtroom wall wondering when the defense team is going to arrive. It is traditionally the United States that carries the banner for capitalism in the world. Unfortunately, the handling of the defense of capitalism on the world stage has been left in the hands of a man that is not sympathetic toward his client.

When six socialist leaders come together to denounce capitalism as the source of all of the world's problems, the silence of the American president is conspicuous. Capitalism is just a code word for the United States in the minds of men like Hugo Chavez. These six socialist leaders have just placed the blame for the worlds woes squarely on the shoulders of the people of the USA. The citizens of the USA need competent defense and none has stepped forward. It's time for us to realize that the defense team just isn't up to the task. If we want the job done right, we're going to have to do it ourselves.

When one decides to represent himself in a court of law, he waives his right to claim incompetent defense at a later date. Sadly, it will be up to us as individuals to speak up on our own behalf in response to the accusations against us. In reality, our advocate never wanted the case, and was never competent to defend us anyway.

World Wide Wow

2009-04-23T17:35:00.000-07:00

It's been an interesting week to say the least. A lot of folks that are not regular readers have stopped by in the last couple of days. Thanks for stopping by. For me personally it's been a fascinating illustration of the way the web can work to spread information. Since a lot of you that are driving by are fellow forum crawlers, bloggers and web junkies I'll take a break from the normal fare and just talk about what has transpired over the last few days.

On April 17th a member over at a conservative forum that I visit posted an article from Alan Korwin's page nine blog about Obama voicing support for the Inter-American arms treaty. A very general discussion about the treaty spread out over the next couple of days on the forum. Nobody cared much for the idea of an international arms treaty and there was a general sense that it couldn't be good for our 2nd amendment rights. I had only followed the discussion peripherally before following a link back to the text of the treaty on April 19th and taking a look. After reading the treaty I noted to the other folks on the forum that ammo reloading was clearly vulnerable to the treaty. After looking around the web a bit I realized that this aspect of the treaty wasn't coming up in the discussions. Thus I had my next blog topic.

On Tuesday morning of April 21st I posted the blog article and sent emails to a few friends (you know who you are) asking them to help get the word out about the treaty and the associated threat to reloaders. Feeling a sense of concern about spreading the story I started trying to come up with a way to get the word out. Posting on my blog has not exactly been a reliable way to raise a widespread alarm (the site has had nearly as many hits since the night before last as it had since it started in October). At lunch time I sent a news tip to an online news-site, but my expectations were pretty low. After discussing it later in the day with a friend at work he suggested that I try sending it to World Net Daily, and I emailed them the news tip.

After getting home Tuesday night and sitting down to spend some time at the computer before bed, I noticed the blog's hit count was pretty good for the day. It looked like some of those friends I emailed had told some of their friends. The news was getting out and things were good. I spent about an hour playing on some forums and then checked the blog again. The hit count was steadily climbing and it was about midnight. That's unusual. I went straight to WND to see what I already knew must have happened. It was pretty cool to see that title right at the top in the headline slot.

Since Tuesday night there have been nearly 900 hits on the site. I typically get four or five a day. In a google search the story shows up on about 200 web sites. It is pretty neat to see the web at work from a front row seat. Hope you weren't too bored with this story. Regular programming will resume soon.

For all the firearms enthusiasts that are driving by, here's a little entertainment;

Illicit Representation

2009-04-21T10:05:00.000-07:00

If you reload your own ammo you may find yourself engaged in "Illicit Manufacturing" of ammunition under an arms control treaty that President Obama started pushing last week in Mexico. The treaty itself is not new. It was written back in the 90's and signed by President Clinton, but never ratified by the U.S. senate. According to an AP article from Mexico City last week "Administration officials say President Barack Obama will push for Senate ratification of a Latin American arms trafficking treaty."

Virtually everyone that supports the 2nd ammendment or has an interest in firearms has heard the numerous recent reports of ammunition shortages. The shortages have extended to reloading supplies that many folks rely on to keep their shooting costs down or to assemble exotic or hard to find ammunition. Many shooters have considered reloading their own ammo as insurance against limited supplies should legislation be enacted that would make ammo more scarce or dramatically more expensive. Those thoughts may be in vain if the current administration is successful in getting the "INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS" treaty passed.

In previous reports on this treaty I have found no mention of the impact that the treaty would have on ammo reloaders. The first definition under Article 1 of the treaty states(emphasis added);

1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives,
and other related materials:

a. from components or parts illicitly
trafficked; or

b. without a license from a competent
governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly
takes place; or

c. without marking the firearms that require
marking at the time of manufacturing.

The section above clearly identifies ammo reloaders that are not licensed by the government as "Illicit Manufacturers" of ammunition. Now that we have reloaders properly labeled, lets move down to Article IV to see what we should do with them(emphasis added);

Article IV
Legislative Measures

1. States
Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the
necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal
offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition,
explosives, and other related materials.

Again, this is pretty straightforward. If you reload ammunition without a license after the treaty is signed you will be a criminal.

The administration has not done much to outline the impact of the treaty on U.S. citizens. I wouldn't be too terribly shocked to find that Obama does not have a plan for providing reloading licenses to all of the folks that are currently reloading. There is no way to objectively look at this treaty without seeing the underlying impact that it will have on the availability of arms and ammunition to law abiding U.S. citizens.

If you are concerned about the continued erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights please pass this information along. The treaty is already signed, we need to get to work to stop ratification of this attack on the liberty of U.S. citizens.

Texas TEA

2009-04-19T23:44:00.000-07:00

The past week was an interesting sociological experiment in disorganized protest, disconnected media, and disinterested public servants. I had hoped to attend the TEA party at the Alamo in San Antonio. Unfortunately the logistics did not work out and the closest I was able to get was to attend a morning TEA party/protest on the steps of the Grayson county courthouse in Sherman Texas and then watch Glenn Beck's show broadcast from the Alamo that evening. In a way I'm glad that the Alamo trip fell through so that I could experience the small town 'unproduced' gathering in Sherman.

The nationwide protest on 'tax-day' was an amazing testament to the power of the internet to get people connected and informed. The new media (talk-radio, bloggers, forums and internet news sites) did an admirable job of getting out the message regarding the April 15th gatherings. The conspicuous lack of a centralized planning organization or sponsor makes the event all the more impressive. The mainstream media(MSM) responded to the event with a sense of bewilderment and a naive disbelief that such an event could be pulled off so quickly by a 'grass roots' effort (particularly with such limited MSM exposure or affirmation). The MSM's failure to grasp the situation almost immediately sparked speculation that there was some invisible hand of conspiracy organizing the event. To those that closely followed the events it is pretty clear that there was not a lot of orchestration between individual gatherings. These were every day folks standing up for their principles, not organized activists.

Some of the TEA parties shunned elected officials while others welcomed them. Some were festive productions, some were just gatherings in homes or on the steps of rural county courthouses like the one in Sherman. Two themes were constant parts of the protests across the nation on Wednesday; Washington is out of touch with the people, and the out of control spending must stop. The clear dichotomy of American society was illustrated by two counter posed themes from the MSM and the Oligogues in congress respectively; The event is just a rant from uninformed rubes, and the event is just an astro-turf theatrical stunt funded by big corporations or shadowy right-wing figures.

The desire of many elected officials to dismiss the event as inconsequential is a clear indication of their belief that the only opinion that matters is the one that comes from Washington. They are offended whenever the little people start trying to assert influence over government. Patently offensive comments from elected officials and from members of the MSM demonstrate the contempt they share for the average American that is tired of being discounted by the government/media complex. It is hard to fathom that the plummeting viewership/readership and plummeting congressional approval ratings have still not begun to convince the oligogues that there may be more to our expressions of discontent than typical political posturing.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are confused about the meaning and purpose behind the protest. Most of those involved in the protests are republicans or conservatives, but not all. Many independents and some democrats are joining the protest against out of control government. Nancy Pelosi thinks that she is preaching to the choir when she accuses protesters of being stooges for big-money interests;

Somehow I doubt that is going to play well among democrats concerned about the out of control spending. Democrats and Independents that took part in last Wednesday's protest may not care for Nancy's characterization of their actions. Just keep on talking Nancy.

On the republican side of the aisle there are some that would like to have it both ways. They voted for the stimulus bill and now they are going after the out of control "democrat" spending. Unfortunately (for them) people are actually paying attention. Using all the right talking points or buzzwords is apparently not enought to make everyone forget;

I guess that's more of Nancy's 'astro-turf' in action...

The media's contempt and ridicule for those taking part in the events is beyond outrageous. The disgusting innuendo from CNN's Anderson Cooper and NBC's Keith Olbermann is beneath contempt. Of course it never occurred to either of these gentlemen that members of their own audiences may be taking part in the protests. I looked briefly for a clip from one of these guys to include in this post, but I can't find anything that I'd have on my site. You can find them on Youtube if you're interested, just beware that these 'mainstream' commentators are now pornographers and set your expectations appropriately.

The hard left becomes increasingly shrill in the face of dissent. Any mask of reasonableness worn by the Pelosis and Olbermanns is beginning to slip badly. Their insults and contempt for those with whom they disagree are broad, sweeping and not even thinly veiled. These are the media and political elite, the oligogues. Hopefully their increasing boldness will allow more average americans to see them for what they are. More average Americans like the 15 year old girl that stood before the crowd on the footsteps of the Grayson county courthouse to recite Ronald Reagan's innaugural address;

Astro-turf indeed.

Discomfort Zone

2009-04-13T06:52:00.000-07:00

-Attributed to Sir Francis Drake - 1577

Disturb us, Lord, when
We are too well pleased with ourselves,
When our dreams have come true
Because we have dreamed too little,
When we arrived safely
Because we sailed too close to the shore.

Disturb us, Lord, when
With the abundance of things we possess
We have lost our thirst
For the waters of life;
Having fallen in love with life,
We have ceased to dream of eternity
And in our efforts to build a new earth,
We have allowed our vision
Of the new Heaven to dim.

Disturb us, Lord, to dare more boldly,
To venture on wider seas
Where storms will show your mastery;
Where losing sight of land,
We shall find the stars.

We ask You to push back
The horizons of our hopes;
And to push us into the future
In strength, courage, hope, and love.

This we ask in the name of our Captain,
Who is Jesus Christ

World Domination and Comic Books

2009-04-08T10:06:00.000-07:00

When most ten-year-olds would be captured by their favorite Saturday morning cartoon or the latest version of their favorite comic book, the 10 year old Barack Obama was totally immersed in his plans for world domination. At least that's one theory. I'd like to ask my fellow conservatives to explain something to me. There is a surprisingly (at least to me) large group of folks that insist that Barack Obama is a clandestine muslim. I simply don't get it. The evidence supporting the theory is anecdotal at best, even if Obama's own actions may help feed the rumors...

Some of the 'evidence' cited by most adherents to the Obama-is-a-muslim theory includes the following;

1. In Islam, if your father is a muslim you are a muslim.

2. Obama lived in Indonesia and attended an Islamic school.

To the first point, my response is typically "so what". The idea that someone born to muslim parents can not decide to not be a muslim is nonsensical. The fact that Islam deals harshly with those that leave the faith seems to illustrate pretty well that even muslims believe that being born a muslim doesn't make you one unless you choose to be at some point.

To the second point, Obama lived in Indonesia for four years between the ages of 6 and 10. He attended a catholic school for 1st through 3rd grades and a muslim school for 4th grade. Why should we infer from this that his experience in Indonesia was so profound that it propelled him, as a 10 year old boy, to secretly practice Islam for the next 34 years while attending a non-muslim church for at least 20 of those years?

Neither of Obama's parents were devoutly religious in any faith. He did not have strong religious influences in his young life. The religious activities in Obama's adult years were social exercises supporting his role as a community organizer and politician. The Church that he was a member of should illustrate pretty well that Obama wasn't really into what evangelicals would consider mainstream Christianity, and wasn't pretending to be until he started running for President.

Obama fits the mold of the modern secular humanist that thinks all religions are fine, as long as they aren't taken too seriously. Obama's background has left him with a strong cosmopolitan world view. His belief that he is a sophisticated 'citizen of the world' has led him to more than one fairly significant faux pas on his 'Blame America' world tour. He may have the ego for it, but I have a hard time picturing the 10 year old Obama sitting at his desk in the muslim school plotting world domination. Feel free to connect the dots for me.

Friends like these...

2009-03-30T19:20:00.000-07:00

The posts have been coming slowly lately. One of the reasons is that I have been spending too much of my blog time on internet forums. I initially hoped that conservative internet forums might be good sources of information for taking action. Blogging is a good vent, but it's not exactly shaking the foundations of the world. Like most things, forums are a mixed bag.

One of the conservative forums is good, the folks are able to interact without much rancor over disagreements. Pretty much what I expect from a conservative forum, but I've become realistic about my high expectations so it is a pleasant surprise. Most internet forums, conservative or otherwise are just not terribly, hmmm, constructive. Some focus on trivial pursuits. Some anti-liberal grass action sites don't even know what conservatism is and don't know why anybody would bring it up. Some are just commercial ventures where just about anything goes. Some mean well and co-opt celebrity sponsors, but get bogged down in senseless minutiae.

Since some of these sites do not identify with conservatism, I'll torture myself throughout this post as I struggle with how to refer to these sites. To be fair, all of the non-liberal forums have some positive elements in common, but I'm here to rant today so I'll shock everyone and focus on something 'un-rosy'. A common discussion on forums that do not typically hold Obama in high regard is the controversial citizenship question regarding said president. Common enough that everyone on both sides of the debate is sick of it. Really sick of it. Sick of it to the point of, well, almost being able to resist taking part in the next thread that starts up on the topic.

I have no idea what the morbid curiosity is that draws us to discuss this topic. It's almost as if we think that if we just repeat the same argument -one more time- that lightbulb will go off in somebody's head, they will miraculously agree with us, the heavens will open, the sun will shine down and a heavenly chord will resound. The bottom line is that folks seem to either think it's critical to pursue the citizenship thing, or they think it is a monumental waste of time. There just isn't much middle ground, and absolutely nobody changes their mind; ever.

This post is -not- going to be a discussion about the merits of one side or the other of the citizenship debate. If you leave a comment taking a position on the citizenship debate, I'll delete it. I promise. It's good to be the blogger. This post is about opportunists that prey on the fears of people that are deeply and profoundly concerned about the state of their country. This post is about well meaning people being willing to accept information and support from people that they would punch between the eyes if they met them on the street.

I'll start with my standard disclaimer that there are honorable people asking questions about Obama's citizenship. I'll add that there are honorable people behind some of the legal efforts in this area. I'll add that I expect just about everybody that might possibly fall into the categories listed in the previous two sentences to totally ignore the previous two sentences and be very cross about the rest of this post.

If you spend time on enough forums that may or may not quite be conservative three of the names that will be routinely dropped in support of the birther's case are; Andy Martin, Philip Berg and Alex Jones. These men are either running for something, running from something, selling something or about to. The thing that they have in common is that they have all at one point or another accused conservatives and liberals of being involved in one conspiracy or another.

Lets start with Alex Jones. Jones' latest production is "The Obama Deception". Take globalism and wrap it in a mysterious global conspiracy and you have the New World Order. But not for free of course. The 2 pack DVD is only $34.90 on Jones' website. Naturally you want one for your self and one to give as a gift, so there's really no point in selling them one at a time. Of course there are plenty of offerings on Alex's website for those 9/11 we-dun-it folks out there. Such classics as 'debunking 9/11 debunking' can be had for a price. Of course bulk orders are available. Alex is your one stop shop for 9/11 conspiracies, global secret society, Eugenics, illuminati, Presidential eligibility (and you can buy your short wave radio while you're there). In all fairness there isn't much in this for Alex, except money, and publicity, and advertising, and followers for his radio show, and did I mention money.

Next let's take a look at Philip Berg. Phil made a bit of a splash in recent news by submitting a case stating that Obama was not eligible to be president because he was born in Kenya. Berg is a lightweight compared to Jones. His motives are more difficult to decipher, but up until his assault on Obama he was a committed supporter of Hillary Clinton. His previous claims to fame include calling on supreme court justices to disbar themselves over their decision regarding the 2000 presidential election, and bringing suits against Bush and Cheney for their foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Of course his current activities include his web-site where the top of the page provides a convenient "Donations for Pending Cases" widget. Paypal is accepted. Phil has some catching up to do though. There don't appear to be any DVDs or books for sale on his site. Maybe he can create some while those cases are pending but the cash is rolling in.

Best for last, Andy Martin. Andy has run for office as a democrat and a republican in at least three different states over the last 30 years. He is also a rabid anti-Semite who, among other things, in a 1983 legal motion stated "I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did". He was a darling of the birther crowd until he revealed on CNN "American Morning" that Obama's father was actually communist Frank Marshal Davis. That doesn't stop pre-revelation information from being used to support the birther position. Additionally, Martin has a long history of filing frivolous lawsuits and was denied entrance into the Illinois bar due to a "personality defect" listed in the results of a psychiatric exam. Still, Andy does stand by his assertion that Obama is a secret muslim and he has the book to prove it.

Two of these charlatans will graciously attempt to give the gift of public service once again as they run for office as republican candidates. The gift is intended for the democrats of course, it's hard to see how having any of these jokers associated with republican office could possibly benefit republicans. Question any of the gifts they deliver to the birthers on the might be conservative if they knew what that meant forums and you'll have a fight on your hands. And don't you dare raise any questions about whether or not it is a good idea to let one's self be associated with these folks.

I'm still sure that I'll be able to get through to somebody though. If I can just make my point a little better I . . . .

Crocodile Rage?

2009-03-20T13:44:00.000-07:00

Obama made a good show of his indignation at the audacity of AIG to pay the bonuses they were contractually obligated to pay their employees. Was it a Charade, or is there a new conspiracy afoot from those ultra-right-wing kooks over at MSNBC and Rolling Stone Magazine?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Pay grades and principles

2009-03-13T16:03:00.000-07:00

I listened to the Mark Davis' show on WBAP last Friday morning on the way to work. It's something that I've promised myself that I would stop doing, but some morbid curiosity keeps drawing me back. Or maybe it's just an unfortunate side effect of my short attention span that lands me there during the commercial breaks on the other radio stations. Either way, Friday morning I came the closest to calling a talk show that I ever have, and it was Mark's show.

This post is about two topics really. One is the topic that Davis was talking about on Friday, and the other was inspired by the struggle that Mark had in trying to find his own position on that issue. His gut was telling him which position he should take, but his brain could not quite understand why. This is encouraging because he had a reaction to the issue based on principle, but disappointing in that he couldn't identify it for his listeners.

Friday's topic du jour was provided by Republican state rep Joe Deshotel who wants the state to start paying students at low-performing schools for good grades. The Fort Worth Star Telegram reported on March 13th as follows;

Freshmen could earn $50 for each "A," $35 for each "B," and $20 for each "C" in English, math, science or social studies. They would get half their money at the end of each grading period and the other half at graduation. They would also receive college and career counseling through the program.

Funding for Republican Beaumont Rep. Joe Deshotel's bill would come from $6 billion in federal stimulus money the state is planning to use on education. Deshotel's office said the pilot program doesn't have an estimated cost yet.

"If it does help cut down the dropout rate, which is unacceptably high in Texas, then we can look at expanding it," Deshotel said in Friday's editions of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Wow, you've got to love that last sentence, especially coming from a Republican. It seems incongruous that Mark could label himself a conservative and not immediately have several things leap right off the page and assault his principles. The first one has nothing to do with education and nothing to do with Deshotel's specific plan. No, the first problem is the assertion that this would be paid for with Federal bailout money. Texas should be telling Washington to apply that money to a darkened confined space, notwithstanding the head that is currently in the way. But as far as Deshotel's plan goes, here is a road map to some conservative principles that Mark should have felt tingling on Friday;

1.) Let's start with the problem that this plan reinforces the idea that ‘goodies’ come from government. As conservatives, our suspicion of government and government motives is a pretty big brick in the bulwark against tyranny. At a time when there are already too many things undermining the principles of personal responsibility and self reliance we really don't need one more thing chipping away at them and we don't need to reinforce the idea that you can rely on Uncle Sam to keep you on the right path.

2.) Did you notice that there is nothing about teaching in this bill? The bill looks at nothing more than an expansion in the educational bureaucracy to boost kids grades. We will need to install and manage a payroll system for high-school students. Make no mistake that this program will eventually find it's way into every public high-school. We currently spend way too much money on an inefficient educational system. The amount of money going into infrastructure and administration has grown beyond reason, with little or nothing in the way of achievement results to show for it. No, a conservative response would be more along the lines of having money deducted from a school's budget for every F and D.

3.) And whatever happened to that school voucher idea? Instead of making it easier to get kids out of under-performing schools and into schools where they can learn, we have a plan to make private school kids envious of their public-school friends. We shouldn’t be trying to coax kids into public education with the lure of the report-cash that they see their public school friends walking around with at the end of every semester. No, conservative principles would not approve of putting public education into competition for the hearts and minds of private/home education students.

4.) The last point I'll cover is that this concept reinforces the idea that the problem with education is the kids, not the education system. The education system in the US (and specifically in Texas) is a one size fits all system. The major focus of that system is getting, virtually, all kids into college. This is a disservice to the kids that are going to college, the kids that are not going to college and the tax-payers that are paying for something that we know we will never get. We need a vocational path for non-college bound students, and we need to quit overselling the value of going to college. Kids should be placed on a vocational or college prep path either when they leave middle school or after their freshmen year of high-school. My college education has served me pretty well, but it is not the most important thing in the world.

Ok, I'll also throw in the fact that the idea just wouldn't work. I didn't get to hear the entire show on Friday. Perhaps Mark found at least one reason to oppose this bill based on conservative principle. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Still, if you're going to be a spokesman for conservative principles, it would be nice to see those conservative principles speak for you a little more naturally.

Nothing to add

2009-03-05T23:23:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it's best to just let them speak for themselves...

Your mom dresses you funny

2009-03-01T09:16:00.000-08:00

Watching the media response to Bobby Jindal's response to Obama's speech last Tuesday night is nothing short of bizarre. The talking heads on both sides of the political aisle have admitted that Jindal's performance was a disappointment. Conservative editor of the Weekly Standard Fred Barnes on Fox News' Beltway Boys agreed Saturday night that the GOP needs to find somebody new to deliver speeches in the future. Among the big gripes about this disastrous performance were observations that Jindal looked funny and that he talked funny. Seriously.

Conservatives continue to eat their own over superficial idiocy while the liberals make a concerted effort to go after a promising young conservative politician. The liberals have soundly attacked Jindal for disagreeing with Obma's solution to our economic woes. They are shocked that a conservative doesn't agree that destroying the free market system is the best way to fix it. Conservatives had better wake up and start exercising a little self defense. It's ok if the liberals don't like conservatives. We've watched professional actors pretend to be politicians for so long that now we think that all politicians need to be professional actors. There was nothing wrong with the substance of Jindal's speech (at least not after you get past the first couple of minutes of niceties he threw at Obama).

It is a little ironic that we find the assertion that Jindal was speaking down to the audience among the criticisms. This is coming from the folks that are accepting the "economy bad, people need money, print more money, problem fixed" argument. Speaking down seems like a natural enough response. Those that speak out against the spending spree approach to fixing our current economic problems are met with rolling eyes and gasps of exasperation by folks that keep repeating the "we have to do something" line. Unfortunately this response seems to be nearly as likely to come from a conservative pundit as it is from a liberal.

Throwing a can of gasoline on a house fire is doing something. Whether it's a good thing, or not, depends on how much you like the house. If you think the house is worth saving then you might not be so eager for that kind of help. If you've been looking for way to get rid of the old house so you can build one more to your liking, that gasoline doesn't worry you. Obama wants a new house. Bobby likes the old house. I agree with Bobby, and I don't care if he dresses funny.

How to destroy Mexico in three easy steps

2009-02-25T07:20:00.000-08:00

If the United States wanted to destroy the nation of Mexico, without armed conflict, there are three straightforward steps that could be followed.

Step 1: Make sure that the most lucrative Mexican industries are extra-legal. This step is probably the most simple of the three. The disparate wealth between the US and Mexico and the 3-to-1 population ratio creates a nearly limitless market for Mexican drug and human traffic. Exploiting these areas of Mexico's economy will rapidly grow these industries large enough to create significant conflicts of interest for government intervention. The concept is similar to the cigarette tax in the US, but several orders of magnitude larger. The key is to make the undesirable behavior too lucrative for government to live without.

Step 2: Create a mechanism that removes individuals from the Mexican population that have a combination of strong work ethic and morals while simultaneously keeping their identity tied to their native land. This step significantly increases the effectiveness of step 1 by making sure that there are compelling reasons to allow uncontrolled cross-border access into the US from Mexico. It also reduces the incentive for legitimate industry to grow in Mexico. By not making it too easy to get into the US illegally, we can rest assured that those that do make the journey for US labor jobs will largely be above average in their work ethic, not interested in getting involved in the drug trade, and have strong ties to their homeland that encourage them to send money back home and incentivize others to make the arduous trek. Some level of cooperation from Mexican officials on the other side of the border will be needed to make this viable. Step three helps secure the cooperation of these officials.

Step 3: Keep Mexican law enforcement at a disadvantage against organized crime. The first step listed above goes a long way towards enabling this end. By ensuring that criminal organizations are well funded relative to Mexican law enforcement and government officials the US can make sure that these officials have some motivation to go along with the overall scheme. The "Plato o Plomo" approach can be effective for motivating Mexican government or law enforcement officials. The drug cartels can pay the officials with gold (plato) to get the desired result or pay them with lead (plomo) until you find cooperative officials.

The US could put the Mexican government on the verge of collapse in a relatively short period of time if this simple three step plan of subversion were put into action. Obviously, no country would be foolish enough to create such chaos at it's own doorstep, but this exercise illustrates that it is theoretically possible to achieve the stated end.

Confession of a former Chrysler man

2009-02-17T14:19:00.000-08:00

Chrysler told the government today that they'll need a few billion more bucks of that bailout money, thank you very much. GM is expected to follow suit. As far as I'm concerned, if these guys are going to get my money through the government, then they don't need me to buy their cars. Particularly when there is a US auto manufacturer that is not lining up at the government trough. Yep, I'm a Ford man now.

If it's just a savvy attempt to differentiate from the competition, Ford needs to put a little more effort into publicizing their ability to keep their company out of the ditch without Nancy Pelosi's help with the steering. After congress largely ignored the public outcry over the lack of transparency in the latest libation to the gods of bureaucratic waste and inefficiency, I am more than willing to support corporations that are not benefiting directly therefrom.

Unlike the financial industry that followed congressional pied pipers into a long series of bad investments, the Auto industry has no external antagonist at which to point. While I might not like the fact that the financial industry is being bailed out, I have to admit that there is a certain element of fairness to the government helping with a problem that it had a significant part in causing. There is no similar dynamic at work in the auto industry bailout. GM and Chrysler were both in deep, deep trouble before the sub-prime mortgage debacle ensued. Now they want to bury their mistakes in our tax dollars. Rather than reward these corporate mismanagers, we should all make a point of supporting companies that can actually survive in a capitalistic economy.

There's an ad agency somewhere that needs to pick up on this.

Nonsense of urgency

2009-02-05T17:18:00.001-08:00

The oligogues are in quite a hurry to ram some form of spendulus maximus through the legislature before the ink is dry. The supreme oligogue himself admonished us all today about risking the end of the world as we know it by asking for some scrutiny of the proposals. We have heard a number of alarming concerns raised about the spending bill in the last few days. The number of questions about the bill will only continue to increase as time drags on. The oligogues are aware of this and are clamouring for the debate to stop and a vote to be held, and of course a strong spirit of bi-partisanship throughout.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came out with a report today illustrating that the stimulus plan is harmful to the US economy in the long term. The negative impacts are not expected to be felt until after the 2010 mid-term elections (all the more reason for haste).

The Heritage Foundation released a report yesterday establishing the case for provisions to be added to the bill to protect US workers from illegal immigrant competition for stimulus jobs. While the house bill contained protections, the senate bill does not and could pave the way for 300,000 of the stimulated construction jobs to go to illegal immigrants.

Yesterday, Barack Obama agreed that the "Buy American" language would be removed from the stimulus package under pressure from the EU. Concerns have previously been expressed about US stimulus dollars going overseas. Obama has now ensured that more of the US stimulus dollars will be used to create jobs outside of the US.

These three examples make it pretty clear that the economic benefits of the stimulus package are not well quantified. As public support for the current spending proposal is declining there is an almost frantic response from the oligogues to get something in place quickly. The current bill will not survive a great deal of public scrutiny and the politicians know it. While some economists are predicting that the recession will bottom out in 2009, the oligogues know that they can not take credit for it and will lose their spending spree opportunity unless they get a stimulus package in place before hand.

Blind squirrel syndrome

2009-01-30T06:08:00.000-08:00

It has been said that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. There must be a similar syndrome that causes me to find myself in agreement with Nancy Pelosi (hack, hack, gag, cough). In a news conference yesterday, Pelosi was asked if the party line split in the house over the stimulus plan represented a failure to achieve the bipartisanship that Obama desires. She responded as follows; “I didn’t come here to be partisan. I didn’t come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest." This is a philosophy that I agree with and think that more elected officials should adhere to.

Pelosi has a clearly identifiable set of principles. Her constituents voted for her for a reason and they expect her actions in Washington to reflect her principles. Of course, I think that there is almost nothing worse for this country than Nancy Pelosi acting on her principles, but I'm not one the constituents that she is obligated to.

Democrat politicians believe that they are what's best for this country, that their dominance in Washington is in the best interest of the American people. This ideology of expedience is what enables them to adopt any cause that increases their hold on power without fear of contradiction. For Pelosi, the stimulus bill is in the best interest of the country because it expands government in the areas she thinks best and strengthens the democrat hold on power. Conservatives make a mistake of underestimating liberals when they ascribe positions or actions of democrat politicians to blind partisanship.

Principle is stronger than party loyalty. In the recent past we have seen republican politicians voting in ways that had more to do with job security than principle. It is pretty short sighted of republicans to focus on getting elected for the next term while the democrats are focusing on securing power for all of eternity. Relying on party loyalty to overcome the dilution of principles led to a republican disaster in the 2008 election cycle.

There is no virtue in loyalty to a party without principle, nor vice in partisanship based upon principle. Republicans found their principles when they voted against the house stimulus bill. Democrats did not abandon theirs by voting for it. Hopefully the object lesson will serve to show republican politicians how much more effective it is to act on principle when your party has the majority.

Objectivity Shmobjectivity

2009-01-23T21:25:00.000-08:00

Inaugural headlines from 4 years ago:

"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines Today:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

Ideology of expedience - Part 3

2009-01-23T19:46:00.000-08:00

Part - 3 Comprehensive immigration reform

The proclivity that liberals have to support causes that are politically expedient may be illustrated best by the debate over illegal immigration. Consider a scenario in which millions of conservatives from foreign nations were illegally present in the US. Consider a scenario in which vast numbers of conservatives streamed illegally across the border on a daily basis. Would we be seeing the American left wing clamour for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) if this growing constituency represented a corresponding increase in republican voters? The question is rhetorical.

There are multiple reasons given for support of CIR by people across a large swath of the political spectrum. The consistent voice in support of the rule of immigration law in the United States has come from conservatives. If the vast majority of illegal immigrants were conservatives, the principles of US conservatives might strain under the lure of political expediency. Unfortunately, there are no principles to strain for liberal politicians that see a tide of left leaning voters washing up on America's shores. The 'path to citizenship' aspect of CIR promises to dramatically swell the ranks of democrat voters.

The low end of the estimate for illegal immigrants currently residing in the US is about 12 million. Starting with this number, consider the following points;

1. Permanent residents - once an illegal immigrant is placed on the path to citizenship they achieve permanent resident status after six years. As a permanent resident an alien residing in the united states can take advantage of family reunification privileges. A permanent resident can bring a spouse and unmarried children in to the united states through family reunification. Since the 12 million number is already almost certainly low, let's say that each new permanent resident under CIR brings a family member into the US. That brings us to 24 million. Though there are movements underway to give permanent residents the right to vote in national elections, they currently are not eligible. They are eligible to vote in some state and local elections.

2. Once citizenship is received the family reunification provisions expand to include parents and siblings. Under the latest CIR proposal it takes CIR immigrants eleven years to achieve citizenship, rather than the normal five. Let's assume that each new citizen under CIR sponsors two family members;

In eleven years there are potentially 24 million CIR voters eligible to vote in national elections.
In eleven years there are potentially 48 million CIR voters eligible to vote in state and local elections.
In sixteen years there are potentially 48 million new CIR voters in national elections.
In sixteen years there are potentially about 100 million CIR voters eligible to vote in state and local elections.

And so it goes. Births to CIR immigrant families eventually begin to further swell these numbers.
As previously argued, those public works jobs and tax refunds to low-income wage earners will help steer our new CIR voters into the 'right' political camp. The vast majority of illegal immigrants in the country today come from Mexico. The population of Mexico is not limitless, so there is a limit to how far out we can extrapolate the numbers in this theoretical exercise. The numbers can be, and have been, looked at a number of different ways by a number of different people. Projections over the next twenty years range from about 70 million to almost 200 million additional immigrants due to CIR. More professional presentations may be found, but there can be no denying the fact CIR stands to have a profound impact on the demographics, culture and politics of the US.

Moderate cosmopolitan republicans like GW Bush and John McCain can not help but be aware of the calculus behind CIR. Their support for CIR illustrates an apathy, or perhaps antipathy, for conservatism and American culture. Liberal democrat politicians make no pretense of concern for American culture and the possibility of overwhelming numbers of democrat voters within two or three presidential election cycles has no downside whatsoever for them.

This is the last entry in the Ideology of Expedience series. A lack of resistance on the part of conservatives and republicans in these three areas may have long lasting and far reaching consequences for conservatism in America. It is important that conservatives do not take these issues lightly or lower their guard over the next two years. The mid-term elections in 2010 are as important as any election that we have ever had in this country. Conservatives must become a viable force in congress again in 2010, but it is possible for irreparable damage to be done between now and then if conservatives continue to expect others to solve problems for them or continue to quibble over the distracting minutiae that seems to be everywhere today.

A single act of consequence

2009-01-21T14:23:00.000-08:00

I am convinced that there is a single act that conservatives could collectively perform that would help steer the GOP back towards it's conservative underpinnings. It now seems like ancient history that John McCain was chosen as the GOP candidate in the 2008 presidential race. John McCain is not a conservative, even though many liberals and the media twisted themselves in knots to paint him as one. One factor, and I believe it is the most significant one, in the selection of candidate McCain was the early primary results. I would contend that the best way to have GOP presidential candidates that reflect the wishes of GOP voters would be to change the GOP primary. Please consider the following changes to the GOP primary process.

1. Close the primaries. Allow only registered republicans to vote in republican primaries.

2. Require all states to hold primaries on the same day. Alternatively, hold primaries by groups of states where one state from each geographical region is part of the group(I actually prefer this option).

3. Require all primary candidates to sign a statement that says they agree with all points of the republican party platform.

4. Have runoffs in each state between the top two primary candidates if no primary candidates receive a majority of the votes.

A single, clear, tangible act of improving the primary process would have profound implications for GOP presidential candidate selection. If conservatives can get on one message and raise a collective voice we should be able to get the attention of the party brass. If any body has any ideas for how to go about it, please pass them along.

Ideology of expedience - Part 2

2009-01-14T22:46:00.001-08:00

In the previous post an argument was made asserting that the plans of the new regime in Washington to send annual checks to low income people will increase the roster of democrat voters by increasing government dependency. Today's post continues to build the case for a link between government dependency and increased participation of democrat voters in national elections.

2. Public works

Up to 4 million people in the US are destined for government public works jobs according to Barack Obama's latest estimate. The components of the public works proposal in Obama's economic plan are health care reform, green technology investment, green technology job training programs, renewable energy infrastructure, invest in the sciences and deploy the next generation broadband internet. Missing from the official plan is the civilian national security force 'just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded' as the US military that Obama mentioned last July.

We have seen government funded public works on a large scale in this country once before. It took a global conflagration to move those workers back into the private sector and bring an end to the great depression. I won't bother going through Obama's list item by item to point out the the problems with each category. The underlying problem with government solutions to problems is that they are government solutions. Liberals love to remind us how helpless we are and how much we need government to step in and take care of problems. Rather than do what is needed to make the private sector more successful in these areas, Washington will make the case that we are incapable of succeeding without it's benevolence.

If the new administration succeeds in creating 4 million jobs, there will be 4 million more people literally dependent on government. People in many of these new jobs will know that they are receiving their pay check directly from the government or from a company that is funded by the government. Many others will owe their jobs to the government but the trail back to the source may not be readily identifiable. The result from some of the jobs will be tangible, but may not be vital. In some of these new areas of employment, success is not guaranteed and the results may ultimately be of no use. The conundrum that underlies the issue is that any of these enterprises that are truly successful, would be areas that the private sector would be prone to pursue anyway. Should the government be directly competing with private sector enterprises?

The only guarantee that comes with this program is that millions of workers will owe their jobs to the government. Many will know it and many will suspect it. Many more will have family or friends that benefit from these programs. Once these jobs are in place, what is the mechanism for returning the country to a private sector mindset? What is the exit strategy? There simply isn't one. Voters will be concerned about keeping their jobs, or about keeping people employed in general. The situation will perpetuate as liberals take a position for keeping people employed, or adding new workers to the public works roster, while conservatives are left with the position of reducing employment as they try to get government back under control. There is no way to end public works programs without putting people out of work.

Another question worth asking is whether or not the government would be an equal opportunity employer. Might the government attach strings for the out of work folks enrolling in one of these public works programs? Strings like those attached for applicants to work on Obama's staff?

It is also noteworthy that there has been no real discussion regarding how to pay for all of this job creation. There is a frightening trend among our elected public servants to ascribe infallibility to John Maynard Keynes. A growing number of every day citizens in this country are following those leaders in the Keynesian belief that the government can turn the presses loose with impunity to get us out of the economic ditch in which we find ourselves. These politicians and their followers would have us believe that weak economic principles got us into this mess so weak economic principles will have to get us out of it.

Ideology of expedience - Part 1

2009-01-12T13:04:00.000-08:00

An interesting paradox presents itself when one realizes that one of our two major political parties adheres to an ideology that revolves around maximizing the ability of those that share their ideology to stay in power. You might question whether that could be considered a single ideology, all ideologies or no ideology at all. It is, in fact, an ideology of expedience. Taking a principled stand on attracting the largest number of voters possible regardless of what that may take may not seem like taking a principled stand, but it is working very well for the true believers in the democrat party. If you can think of a better name for this belief system let me know.

In recent years the GOP has begun to dabble in expedience as well, but they have a lot of catching up to do. It has only been the stubborn hope of conservatives and their refusal to surrender that allowed republicans to achieve some successes in the past decade. As republicans have consistently lightened their message the country has shifted consistently left. Which started first may be debatable, but the inevitable result was the democrat majority we see today. Amid the dearth of apologists for conservatism the virtues of conservatism are rapidly fading from the public consciousness.

Three issues of such enormity that they could change the economy, culture, demographics and politics of America forever are currently looming on the horizon. If democrats can implement the policies they desire around these three issues they will dominate American politics indefinitely. This sounds alarmist because it is. These issues highlight the fallacy in thinking that a single election can not have a profound impact on our nation. Even if by some miracle democrats do not succeed in implementing their plans in these three areas, conservatives must take this opportunity to grasp the gravity of the situation.

The three issues are; 1-Tax breaks for the poor, 2-Public works programs and 3-Comprehensive immigration reform. For the next two years the democrats in Washington have a great deal of leverage to accomplish their goals. Because of the game changing nature of these issues, the democrat focus in these areas over the next two years will be intense. The first of these three topics will be covered in today's post, the other two will be addressed in subsequent posts.

Part 1: Tax breaks for the poor

Democrats, and those that lean left say that it's not fair for the rich to get a tax break when the poor don't. Point out that the poor don't pay taxes and liberals look at you like you just swallowed their cat. It doesn't matter to them if the poor pay taxes or not. If you lower taxes for the rich then you have to, in the name of fairness, lower taxes for the poor as well. Even if that literally means sending a check to someone who doesn't pay taxes. Many people appear to be unable to think of tax cuts as anything but charity and will in fact say that the tax cuts should be given to the poor instead of directing them at the engines of industry.

There is no long term economic benefit to tax cuts directed at lower wage earners. There is a long term benefit to the politicians that lure these voters into their constituencies with the promise of cash. There may be something cathartic about having the government give other people's money to the poor on our behalf, but in the long run it does us all a disservice (the poor included). Perhaps it is just a coincidence that sending tax refunds to those that don't pay taxes also predisposes the recipients to vote for the folks handing out the checks. A cynic might look at the situation and say that politicians that promise poor people 'tax breaks' are trying to buy votes, while those that want to give tax breaks to job creators are trying to, um, create jobs maybe.

The only thing that might disappear faster than a drop of government cash into the endless sea of US consumers is the opportunity for conservatives to make a principled stand against this give away. The democrats are as good at math as anybody and they know that there will be more voters receiving the proposed handout than will be bilked for contributions to the effort. Once the democrats get their low-income tax refund enacted, there will be no going back. It is a far different thing for republicans to attempt to make the case against this 'tax break' before it is put in place than it will be for republicans to try and take it away after it is in place.

After the low-income tax refunds are put in place republicans will have two courses of action available to them; they can violate their principles and go along with the wealth redistribution scheme or they can stand on their principles and risk alienating a portion of the population large enough to guarantee losses in national elections. This puts the democrats ahead in the fight and opens the way to a future in which the republican identity crises will be exacerbated as democrats promise to increase the refund and republicans look for a message. Just as we have seen previously with the minimum wage, lower-income tax rebates will become a political football in a game that places republicans permanently on defense. The outcome of that game seems predictable.

Recounting past mistakes

2009-01-08T06:36:00.000-08:00

Norm Coleman has lost his recount battle against Al Franken. It's hard to believe I know. Who would have ever thought that the republican would lose the recount fight in a close election with a democrat? Hmmmm... If we throw out the fact that this result was guaranteed as soon as Norm jumped into the mud wrestling pit with a democrat that had written the contest rules, the conclusion is quite surprising. I think that republicans should keep fighting these recount battles the same way in the future and hope really, really, really hard that they get different results next time. The democrats think so too.

It almost makes one wonder why the founders didn' t see this election chaos coming. Those were some pretty smart guys and they did a better than average job of highlighting the dangers of an out of control government. They were generally careful to avoid systems of government that were intrinsically divisive. Why would they leave a gaping hole in our election system that threatens to pull us all into political acrimony and divide us as a people?

Wouldn't it be great if the founders had given us an election system in which a state-wide recount could never occur?

Wouldn't it be great if the founders had given us an election system in which all elections were local elections with local accountability?

Wouldn't it be great if the founders had given us an election system that didn't have to pretend that millions of voters would actually investigate all of the contenders for National office and exercise their "civic duty" as informed voters (rather than base decisions on 10 second sound bites and one liners from celebrities)?

Wouldn't it be great if the founders had given us an election system that gave presidential campaigns no reason to stretch out for years and cost billions of dollars?

Wouldn't it be great if the founders had given us an election system in which districts had representation in national elections rather than just being thrown in with the rest of the state 'winner take all'?

Wouldn't it be great if the founders had given us an election system in which two parties didn't set all of the rules for elections?

Wouldn't it be great if the founders had given us an election system that was inherently immune to media meddling?

Most voters in the US today don't even know that the founders gave us an election system that had all of the attributes listed above. Here is a web-site where you can read about "The founders vision of presidential elections". Somewhere along the line politicians decided they could improve on the founders vision and gave us the system we have today. Maybe those founders were pretty smart guys after all.

New Year's Resolve

2009-01-02T22:44:00.000-08:00

Conservative talk radio is about talk. It is entertainment. It is a source of information. It is about equipping people so that they can take action from an informed position. It is not an action in itself. It is not the job of the radio talk show host to solve all of the problems that conservatives face. A growing portion of the talk radio audience seems to have a different opinion.

While listening to a local conservative talk show over the holidays I heard a caller fuss at a talk show host because the conservative talk show host "community" was not doing enough to organize conservatives. Did the host set the caller straight? Nope, the host went along with the bizarre notion that radio talkers should be the leaders of the conservative movement.

The reformation of the conservative movement will not come about through radio jockeys issuing marching orders to their listeners. The tired accusations of the left that Rush Limbaugh's fans are "mind numbed robots" marching to the beat of Rush's drum are in danger of being legitimized by listeners that want somebody else to tell them what to do or just do the work for them. Most of the Radio talkers put a lot of work into their show. They provide a valuable service in keeping conservatives informed and providing a perspective on current events that is missing from other media.

It's a new year and a new political era. It should be the resolution of every conservative to find some action they can take. A lot of good information comes out of the radio, but if no action is taken on that information we might as well join everybody else listening to the top 40.

We have seen the enemy (again) ...

2008-12-29T13:01:00.000-08:00

There is an odd quirk of human nature that ensures future generations will become so much smarter than past generations that they will repeat their mistakes. We contain some inexplicable inborn contempt for the past that convinces us that either human nature has changed since our forebears faced similar challenges or that we simply know more than they did. Thus the throwback to Pogo's well worn line "We have seen the enemy and he is us". For the sake of irony I am tempted to go back further and find some ancient paraphrase. For the sake of brevity I'll resist, but you know it has to be there.

There is an unhealthy atmosphere growing in a lot of conservative blogs and forums on the internet today that just has me baffled. In a social setting, that doesn't involve a computer and a web-cam, we tend to click with other folks that we discover a few common interests with. People that we have a lot of life experience in common with can become lifelong friends. If we agree 70 or 80 percent of the time on politics with somebody, we feel like we're part of the same club. Face to face we tend to temper our disagreements, but something changes when our interactions are impersonalized.

Years ago there was a cartoon used in driver's education training that depicted a nice gentlemen that turned into a ravening beast as soon as he got behind the steering wheel of a car. Most of us have experienced the metamorphosis first hand, in either ourselves or others, of that sudden change in personality that overcomes some people when they strap in behind the wheel. This same startling transformation apparently takes place for a lot of folks when they sit down at a computer and merge into the forum traffic on their favorite conservative blog site.

I recently spent some time on a conservative forum. Overall the folks seemed nice enough, but there were two episodes that provide a couple of different cautionary tales. The first one involved a new member to the forum introducing himself, and the ensuing response (let's call the new member 'cowboy'). Cowboy introduced himself by describing his family life and his conservative philosophy. For the most part cowboy was pretty conservative and he had quite a bit in common with the other folks. He did make one mistake, he mentioned two controversial positions that he held regarding the role of government. These were areas where he did not believe the government should regulate behavior and they are typically associated with strong libertarian identity. You may be able to figure out what they were, but the specifics aren't relevant. Cowboy did not say that he engaged in any of these activities or that he approved of them in any way, just that he did not think government should regulate them. The forum ate him alive. They told him in no uncertain terms that he was not welcome on the forum. They heaped shame on him. They called him names. Cowboy did not respond to a single post, he left the forum. Were his positions wrong? Sure. Cowboy was 27 years old. He may have never even had anybody challenge his positions or been debated seriously. There are folks on that forum that have a lot more life experience than cowboy has. He'll never benefit from it.

The second episode was just strange. A topic was started that posed a question about when the tipping point would come and folks would take to the streets and rise up in arms against the government. Perhaps it wasn't the best thought out topic. The discussion skirted the issue of actual violence, but didn't do anything to dismiss the idea. A member (aka. dontshoot) started trying to clarify what some of the posters were trying to say. Every time dontshoot asked a question he was pounced on for trying to bait others into making a specific threat of violence. Typically the pouncer would then make a statement defending other posters and denying any intent to imply violence. It was quite bizarre because some of the members were clearly talking about violence, but not making a specific threat. When one of the members submitted a post stating that he would probably act on writings that made his college English professor compare him to a terrorist, dontshoot had his fill. The next post from dontshoot was a civil farewell to the folks whose opinion he respected and a request to the moderator to remove his account. Two pages of posts making fun of dontshoot followed his departure from the forum.

These types of episodes are unfortunately not unique to that specific forum (and frankly, it's a good forum). In both of these cases the two subjects of ridicule were probably 80 to 90 percent ideologically aligned with the other posters. The intolerance, accusations, and refusals to defend or clarify a position reminded me strongly of left-wing forums that I debated on a few years ago. My expectations from the progressive sites are pretty low, but there is a dissapointing trend of conservative blogs and forums becoming incubators of general discord and incivility between conservatives. The strands in the web of scorn run in every conceivable direction between neocons, paleocons, libertarians, republicans, constitutionalists, social conservatives etc. The left does a pretty good job of building a coalition out of a large number of diverse special interest groups. The right is fragmenting into ideological camps in spite of vast amounts of common ground. Pogo might have something to say on the topic, again.

Neosocialism Defined

2008-12-21T20:18:00.000-08:00

A fundamental shift in American politics has occurred in the years following the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Indeed, the Reagan years may have been a last resurgent gasp of conservatism in the midst of a political shift that was well under way even then. While identifying the point at which the transformation began may be difficult, it is clear that what is now considered moderate for national politics in either major political party is well to the left of the US democrat party of 5 decades ago. In a single generation the national political spectrum has been narrowed to the point that it is now, for all practical purposes, encompassed completely by what was previously the democrat party.

Barry Goldwater would be branded a fanatic and quickly marginalized in the political discussions of today, as would the majority of the founders of our nation. The republican revolution in the early 1990s highlighted just how bad conservatives are at getting credit for their accomplishments and how incapable they are of leading like winners when they have a majority. Conservatives have been allowing themselves to be defined by their ideological counter parts for decades. One has to wonder if it was a calculated act on the part of progressives to label conservatives as mean spirited so that conservatives would act like pansies to prove the progressives wrong. It certainly seems like conservatives have been responding to other peoples opinions of them for so long that they have lost touch with the fundamental virtues of conservatism and the ability to articulate them.

In the political climate of today, conservatives seem more concerned with being liked than following through on their principles to do what is right. It is pretty pathetic to watch conservative politicians pander to media and liberal political leaders. Democrat politicians play to win while republican politicians play to get along. It is virtually inconceivable to imagine a contemporary president from either party offending union interests the way that Reagan did over the air traffic controller strike in 1981. UAW assembly line workers, that currently knock down incomes that are the envy of many white collar job holders, are not the least bit interested in taking a pay cut. The government is not the least bit interested in applying pressure for the unions to make concessions, regardless of the consequences for the industry. Where Reagan made a principled decision to do what was right for an industry and for our nation, the political leaders of today just print more money and kick the can down the road.

It is in this climate of political expediency and economic distress that the spectre of socialism creeps into the US political framework. Many folks bristle whenever the recent government funded bailouts are referred to in socialistic terms. They will say that the government would have to take ownership of the rescued business or industry for it to qualify as socialism. At a time when folks complain so much about the government, they are strangely willing to place an inordinate amount of trust therein. Socialism may not look the same in one place as it does in another. Socialism in the USSR looked different than it does in France and different than it will in the United States, but rest assured that the bailout activity that we find our leaders engaged in right now is socialism just the same.

Neosocialism is, ironically, not a new term. It has been around for about a century. In the current situation the proper use for the term is to identify new socialistic political developments. Just as "Neoconservative" has been used as a pejorative by liberals in recent years "Neosocialist" has also been used by some conservatives in the same way (albeit to a lesser degree). Moving from the name calling category into the "words have meaning" category neosocialism describes the current situation very well.

Unfortunately, we seem beset by a populus that is fervent in it's political complacency in the midst of a paradigm shift in the role of government in the United States. The shock of the assertion by leaders in congress and the administration that part of the solution to the current auto industry woes would be the appointment of a "Car Czar" is only exceeded by the shock of the resounding "so what" from the American people. This is not a routine act of government, it is major change in the relationship between the US government and US industry. The role of this appointee would include direct involvement in the day-to-day business decisions of US auto companies. Proof that this situation heralds a major shift in the role of our government is the fact that the neosocialists leading this charge hail from both political parties. The real betrayal here is the relative silence of some republican politicians that would resign us all to this fate in clear violation of their conservative and libertarian principles, going along for the sake of expediency just as they did in the financial bail out.

The auto execs and the unions worked together to get themselves into this problem. They need to work together to solve it. There are some very real issues with pension programs and other items that may ultimately require a bankruptcy court to solve. Solving the problems may be unpleasant and it is certainly something that politicians don't want to have to deal with. We live in an era where politicians seem to think it is their job to make sure that nothing unpleasant ever happens to anyone. The prospect of hard times is not justification to discard our system of government.

Free GOP strategy tip

2008-12-18T23:15:00.000-08:00

Hey GOP, the democrats don't play politics by your rules, stop playing by theirs. Norm Coleman is about to lose an election to Al Franken in Minnesota because he is playing a democrat game by democrat rules.

How many times will it take for republican candidates to learn that the democrat is the odds on favorite in the recount game? Republicans that achieve close victories that are challenged by democrat led recounts need to put all of their energy into one activity; getting the recount stopped. Any other effort invariably results in democrats counting votes until they win. The democrats are much, much, much better at finding votes in a recount than republicans are.

Unless a miracle occurs, in a few days we will be treated to the spectacle of Norm Coleman blinking like an owl in the sunlight wondering how he lost the election.

Irreconcilable indifferences

2008-12-18T09:46:00.000-08:00

For today's quiz identify which of the following groups of words were recently used by Robert Redford to describe GW Bush and which group were taken from a Fatah Internet forum;

1. Morally criminal. Devious. Sneaky.

2. Idiot. Cruel. Dirt.

Ok, it's a trick question, because the answer really doesn't matter. The simple fact is that there are a lot of irrational opinions about George Bush. While it may seem foolish to expect rationality from either a Hollywood leftist or an Islamic radical, I think the comments do illustrate how broad the moonbat spectrum really is. The two sets of comments were made about completely different topics. The only thing that the two contributors had in common was that they were both wrong and willing to listen to inaccurate, agenda driven information sources. In fairness to the Fatah forum, they probably have less opportunity to develop an informed opinion than Mr. Redford does.

It should be no secret that I am not a great fan of George Bush (see previous post). My disagreements with Bush are nearly all over domestic issues; growth of government, comprehensive immigration reform, etc. When it comes to foreign policy, Bush did a terrible job of handling the Iraq situation after the toppling of Saddam. However, the folks that think there was some evil plot behind the invasion of Iraq for Haliburton, big-oil, daddy-Bush, etc., have selectively removed about two years of their memories. The tortured logic and conspiratorial nuttery that must be entertained in order to lay nefarious intent at the feet of George Bush for the Iraq war is simply irrational. It is ironic that so many folks allow themselves to be manipulated by demagogues for political purposes while accusing Bush of being a manipulative demagogue.

Irony is also provided in the fact that, aside from the war in Iraq, the thing that Bush gets the most blame for is the current state of the US (perhaps world) economy. Bush's biggest mistake regarding the US economy was that he didn't recognize how rapidly it was declining. Among the din of media lemmings rushing over the cliffs of economic doom, I can understand how Bush may have come to the conclusion that he couldn't respond to, or even take seriously, every 'nattering nabob' of economic negativism. Given the events over the last few years, the economy was surprisingly robust until the sub-prime lending fiasco reared it's head. Unfortunately the equation for a lot of folks is as simple as;

(Bush President + Economy Bad) = Bush Bad President

The sub-prime problem is clearly the largest falling domino in the recent series of economic woes and it was clearly toppled by agenda driven democrats. That's the ironic part. I'm surprised that Barney Frank isn't in a state of perpetual euphoric hysteria over the realization that he can basically do anything he pleases and never be held accountable for it. Who knows, maybe that's why he seems so weird. Sadly, there has been no serious attempt by our politicians to explain what is going on with the US economy. Politicians are too busy making political points and placing or deflecting blame to try and solve real problems. There is no better way to bore readers to certain death than to wax quixotic on economic issues, but it is interesting (in a sick twisted sort of way) that the rampant consumerism and deficit spending that is wrecking individual wealth across the land is now the official vehicle that the federal government thinks will save our national economy. I'm surely missing some great drawback to all of us just living within our means. But I'm getting off topic.

A lot of folks are saying that Bush will be vindicated by history. I'm not sure I'd put a lot of faith in the current keepers of historical accuracy.

George W. Bush does have a unique gift. After billing himself as a uniter upon his entry to the presidency he has gone on to be one of the most disliked and divisive presidents in history. Our friends in Hollywood and Fatah illustrate the reason pretty well. Ask just about anyone if they are satisfied with GW and they will simply tell you no, but they may have completely different reasons. One person may dislike GW's handling of the war on terror, one may dislike his position on immigration reform or the environment. There just seems to be something for everyone to strongly dislike. Such is the curse of being a moderate. Why the GOP thought that another moderate uniter would be the best choice for the 2008 presidential nominee is quite a mystery given the approval ratings of the current whitehouse occupant. Politicians that betray the principles of their supporters under the guise of reaching out are just betraying the principles of their supporters. How a politician gets to the point that they think this behavior will earn them the respect of friend or foe is just another mystery of politics.

Bush bushed

2008-12-12T08:38:00.000-08:00

I'm not in any great hurry for Obama to move into the Whitehouse, but I am getting really tired of GW Bush. You might say I'm bushed. I had pretty well resigned myself to the fact that Bush could not be counted on to veto an auto industry bail-out. I have to admit that I was blind sided by Bush's unilateral move this morning to use financial industry bail-out funds to prop up the auto industry. I guess one of the problems with giving the treasury latitude regarding how the financial industry rescue funds would be spent is that they now think they have latitude regarding how to spend the funds. What do you know, hindsight really is 20/20.

The unions killed any chance of a senate bail-out by refusing to accept wage levels comparable to those paid to the competition in the Japanese auto industry. After hearing the news of Bush's willingness to step in, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger (I hope that's not contagious) said "I think it's great news." No kidding. Higher expenses and inferior products have brought the US auto industry so far, so far.

In the chaos of the moment nobody seems to have a clear picture of what the administration is proposing to do. The terms and conditions are unclear. Will the government still take an ownership stake in the auto companies? Will an auto-exec puppet master be installed (aka the 'Car Czar')? The real question is how do we make sure that the big-3 will make "Washington approved" cars with the money that Bush is going to be throwing out the back door of Marine 1.

Just to clarify my position, I think that the auto bail-out is a bad idea. There is a little known process available in America that allows bankrupt companies to go through a restructuring process. Yes that's sarcasm because there is apparently nothing more American than filing bankruptcy. Everybody is doing it. It seems to be no big deal for people to file bankruptcy at the drop of a hat unless it interferes with politicians' plan to take an ownership stake in, and/or some controlling authority of, the company. When a company files bankruptcy, a court oversees the restructuring of the business in a manner that is in the best interest of the creditors, shareholders and future profitability of the company. Unfortunately, this does not typically result in politicians being able to tell the company how to run its business or what type of products to build.

The auto execs would love to have a few billions from Washington. Apparently they don't mind a few strings wrapped around their government Christmas gift as long as the contents of the package are valuable enough. After all, why file for bankruptcy now if they can talk Washington out of a few billion bucks and still file bankruptcy later if needed? CEOs that can't see past this quarter's bottom line have no motivation to pass up a juicy handout from Washington. From their perspective, its great if the bail-out works, but they are no worse off if it doesn't.

Note to the big-3 CEOs; Your companies are bankrupt. For crying out loud, you guys can't even afford to fly your private jets to Washington anymore. The politicians aren't looking after the best interests of your companies. Go find a business solution to your problems before you find yourselves taking the bus to your next kowtow appointment in Washington.

We're all winners

2008-12-05T11:52:00.000-08:00

I rolled my eyes the first time I ever heard of 'tee-ball'. Tee-ball is billed as a game that provides an early start for teaching kids some baseball basics. For a 5 year old tee-ball is basically just about snacks and looking cute in the uniform for mom. For a gazillion years kids started playing baseball when they were a little older and actually capable throwing a ball and swinging a bat. Back when I was a kid in the pee-wee leagues, one kid threw the ball and another kid tried to whack it with a bat (and we walked to school in the snow up-hill etc.). Kids at that age develop at different rates, so sometimes we'd get a pitcher that could really throw, sometimes we'd get a kid that was doing good just to get the ball to the plate. Sometimes we'd just put together a sand-lot game and go play off the radar. On the sand-lot an older kid would usually pitch, and when you were batting you just hoped he wasn't mad at you for some reason. But it never occurred to us to put the ball on a tee. We called that golf.

The first experience I had with tee-ball was when my oldest son played about 15 years ago. It was also my first direct experience with the "Everybody's a winner" concept. At the end of the season we had the obligatory team pic-nic. The team was pretty mediocre (except for my exceptional progeny of course). At some point during the pic-nic somebody produced a box and told the beaming urchins what a great season they had as the trophies were handed out. It's nice to have something to remember the experience by, but somewhere along the line the distinction between a souvenir and a trophy has been lost.

After tee-ball I was looking forward to my son's promotion to Coach Pitch? Finally we were able to move on to Pitching Machines? At what point do we just start having the coaches bat, run and field while the kids sit in the dugout and watch the game?

At the congressional pee-wee automaker pic-nic the GM, Ford and Chrysler CEOs are lining up for their trophies. They've run their companies into the dirt, but the prizes their congressional coaches will give them will reassure them that they are winners after all. And the coaches in congress will be happy to handle the pitching for them in the future.

I learned as a kid that if I didn't want to be the last one picked for the sand-lot team, I had to prove something to somebody. I learned that every pitch wouldn't be perfect and that every time I swung the bat wouldn't be a hit. I learned to be nice to my friends big brother so his pitches wouldn't be so scary. I learned that sometimes you get beaned. I learned that a dog can just show up out of nowhere and trip you on your way to first. I learned that failure is always a possibility.

The US auto industry is in trouble for a lot of reasons. If they aren't making a profit now, it is difficult to see how government money with government strings is going to make the big three better at making cars, selling cars or just running their businesses. There are plenty of folks in Washington that will be happy to take the reigns of the car companies. It remains to be seen what the management in these companies will be willing to give up. One can hope that they won't be happy to just sit in the dugout and let politicians play their game for them.