C-POL: Constitutionalist, Conservative Politics

Memo #2 to Occupiers: You are almost certainly being played.

2011-12-05T14:25:00.001-06:00

Well, the Occupiers haven't backed down on their Bolshevik rhetoric, so I'll go ahead and repeat the point I made in my last post:

If, somehow, your wildest dreams are realized and you end up overturning the capitalist system, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL WHAT TAKES ITS PLACE.

As soon as you realize you've been played by those who are even more nefarious than you are, it'll be too late -- you'll be a "stain on a tank tread".

Something tells me this is what Scott Adams had in mind with today's comic.

Memo to the idealists currently “occupying” Wall Street and various other places

2011-10-14T14:32:00.001-05:00

Suppose you got everything you seem to want, up to and including the overthrow of capitalism.

You will not be able to control what takes its place. Seriously.

You envision a utopian society, characterized by economic and social justice, where all is sunshine, rainbows and unicorns, where everyone happily puts the needs of the many above the needs of the few.

It will never happen, not in this life. Mankind’s fallen nature guarantees it. History proves it. If you try it again, you’ll prove it again.

Perry v. Cain: Some initial thoughts

2011-10-07T16:16:00.001-05:00

A commenter on my earlier Perry/Al Gore post, instead of interacting with the actual topic of the post, took the opportunity to promote his favored candidate, Herman Cain. Fair enough.

I was planning to answer him there, but I thought it would be good to do a separate post regarding my first impressions of Cain, who is definitely a rising star in the latest polls. Cain appears to have been the chief beneficiary of Sarah Palin’s decision to bow out of the 2012 race.

Here’s the deal:

I like Cain a lot, but the fact that he allowed the media to manipulate him regarding the Perry hunting lease... that doesn't give me optimism regarding his ability to handle the media onslaught he would experience in office.

I like the fact that he has a ton of executive experience in business, but that is applicable only in the president's role as head of the Executive branch (i.e. overseeing the various cabinet departments and bureaucracies). I see little in his resume that would prepare him for the task of getting what he wants against the wishes of a hostile Congress.

Perry has a big advantage in this regard. I believe this kind of experience and skill will be indispensable for anyone who seeks not just to roll back the usurpations of the Obama administration, but also to get us on the road toward constitutional government.

Perry's gaffes regarding Gardasil and the Texas DREAM Act have annoyed a lot of conservatives, but they also give insight into an aspect of Perry's character: Once he's convinced something is the right thing to do, he won't back down, regardless of the opposition. Get him focused on the right things as president, and I believe conservatives will find that they've rarely had a better ally in the White House.

Observations on politics, culture, and life in general (#1)

2011-10-07T15:51:00.001-05:00

(This is the first of what I hope will be an ongoing, occasional series)

#1: However noble its origins, and however admirable its original cause, in time a political party becomes concerned with little more than accumulating and retaining political power.

The Founders of our country had leaders like George Washington in mind when they crafted the Constitution – men of virtue, uninterested in exercising power for one’s personal benefit or for the benefit of those one identified with.

When Washington left office, America was at a dangerous crossroad. What kind of men would follow him? The Founders had done what they could to disperse power as much as possible among the branches of the federal government and between the federal and state governments, but this new form of government was vulnerable to those who would abuse it.

In his Farewell Address, Washington warned the nation that our experiment with republican government wouldn’t survive long unless (1) we the people remained virtuous, and (2) we insisted that our leaders be virtuous as well.

Along with this general warning, Washington also warned specifically about the “spirit of party” – the natural tendency of the electorate to organize into political parties or movements.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

As I acknowledged in the Observation, political parties often have noble and admirable beginnings. But just as government itself naturally draws those who seek power for the benefit of themselves and their ideologies, such also is the eventual destiny of political movements that attract enough voters to make a difference in elections.

In the one case, the politician will say or do whatever he deems necessary to retain his power and privilege. In the other case, a political party will eventually take (or promise to take) whatever stands are necessary to increase its power and influence in elected government.

All of this to say: Political parties are in many ways necessary as a means to provide a collective voice to those whose voice would otherwise not be heard. But, we must always be careful to be true to our own beliefs and values, and never invest our identity in any particular movement – because history shows that it’s just a matter of time before that movement betrays its founding ideals.

We’ve seen that with the two major parties. If the TEA party movement remains viable in the long term, I have no doubt that it will eventually do so as well. Such is the fallen nature of mankind.

Yes, Rick Perry headed Al Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign in Texas, but…

2011-08-31T15:47:00.001-05:00

[7 September UPDATE: Maybe he didn’t. See note at bottom of post.]

There are many on the right who see something sinister in the fact that 2012 presidential contender Rick Perry chaired then-Senator Al Gore’s campaign in Texas. But there is a very important truth that must be understood: the 1980s were the beginning of the end of a century-long era when Texas was essentially a one-party state.

To be elected in this state in this era, there was no question about the necessary party affiliation – you simply had to be Democrat. The state party did, however, have its liberal and conservative wings.

The Great Realignment began with the improbable election of Republican Bill Clements as governor in 1977, and gained momentum with the switch of congressman Phil Gramm to the GOP after he was punished by the Democrats for helping Ronald Reagan push conservative budgets through Congress.

Throughout the 80s, more and more conservative Democrat politicians came to the realization that the GOP represented their true values much more than the Democratic Party did. Voters were starting to come to this realization as well, and more and more Republican candidates were being elected.

Perry says that he joined Gore’s campaign because the latter was then considered to be a southern conservative. The conservative wing of the party (which still existed back then) saw Gore as their strongest candidate. Keep in mind, this is several years before Gore left those roots behind to join the Gaia cult.

Ironically, it was Perry’s experiences during that campaign that finally persuaded him that the Democratic Party was no longer his home. Disillusioned with nominee Dukakis, Perry voted for George H. Bush in November, 1988. Then, bucking family and friends, he publicly switched to the GOP in 1989 before scoring a stunning upset in the state Land Commissioner race.

Here’s how Time Magazine described Perry’s 1988 experience in a July 16 article:

A decade later, Perry said the 1988 presidential primary election helped push him to his party switch. In the fall of 1988, he voted for Bush over his party's nominee, Dukakis. "I came to my senses," he told the Austin American-Statesman in 1998. Perry's efforts for Gore left few public footprints, and contemporaries on both sides of the aisle have few memories of the alliance. A longtime Hobby staffer suggested it was likely that Perry's co-chair title in Gore's 1988 Texas campaign was little more than an honorific, not a recognition of any organizational responsibility. His role was limited to a single appearance, Perry told the San Antonio Express-News in 2001, adding that he had served at the request of Lewis. But it was a fact of his political biography that would be waved in his face in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary race by Tea Party candidate Deborah Medina and U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and it likely will be raised again if he chooses to seek the GOP presidential nomination. Perry has never denied the association but has treated it as a road-to-Damascus moment. "On the surface, Al Gore appeared to be the more conservative of the candidates," Perry told the Express-News, adding, "Fortunately, we found out who the real Al Gore was, and I was long on the side of the angels by then."

The point is: joining Gore’s campaign in 1988 seemed consistent with Perry’s west Texas conservative values. Serving on the campaign opened his eyes to the reality that the Democratic Party had become. His response was the only logical one. This is a non-story.

7 September UPDATE: Politifact reports September 7 that the accepted story about Perry’s involvement in Gore’s 1988 campaign is for the most part a legend made up by his political opponents. While he was in fact a vocal supporter of Gore (who was in fact the most conservative Democrat running that year), he did not serve on the campaign in any capacity, in either a formal or an honorary role. I’m curious to know why Perry never made a serious effort to counter the false narrative.

If Romney is an “outsider”, it’s because the voters made him one

2011-08-30T11:44:00.001-05:00

It looks like destined-to-be-also-ran presidential candidate Mitt Romney has settled on his main line of attack against current front-runner Rick Perry. The Hill reports August 30 on a speech Romney gave to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in San Antonio:

Romney also decried "career politicians," a subtle shot at Perry, who's held public office continuously since 1985.

"I am a conservative businessman. I have spent most of my life outside of politics, dealing with real problems in the real economy," Romney said. "Career politicians got us into this mess and they simply don't know how to get us out!"

This strategy is laughable, given that Romney has spent years trying to become a career politician, with a prior stint as governor of Massachusetts and failed senatorial and presidential campaigns under his belt.

Quick Quote: Barack Obama v. Thomas Edison

2011-08-26T10:54:00.001-05:00

“When Thomas Edison repeatedly came up short in his quest to create a working light bulb, he contended he hadn't failed but rather found 10,000 ways that didn't work. In his quest to fix the economy, Obama has found one way that doesn't work but seems determined to try it 10,000 times.”

— Patriot Post Digest, August 26

If Sarah Palin runs, I’ll have a tough choice to make

2011-08-23T16:43:00.001-05:00

Conventional wisdom says that if Sarah Palin doesn’t jump into the race within the next few weeks, her opportunity will be gone. But, as CBS reports today, Palin’s style is anything but conventional.

I’ve been a member of the Blogs for Palin blogroll for a very long time, and I would absolutely love it if she is the GOP nominee. The problem is, I like Texas Governor Rick Perry as well. I think either one of them would serve our country honorably and capably, with much more fealty to the Constitution than any of their recent predecessors.

At the moment, when choosing between the actual candidacy of Perry and the possible candidacy of Palin, I am leaning toward Perry. But if Palin jumps into the race, I’m not sure yet what I’ll do.

Why John Huntsman is a member of the 1% Club

2011-08-23T16:15:00.001-05:00

Howard Dean, darling of the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, has nothing but praise for supposed Republican John Huntsman, reports The Daily Caller today:

“Jacob [Weisberg, of Slate] wrote this was ‘the thinking man’s candidate,’” said Dean. “There aren’t any thinking people in the Republican Party. I’m serious. Name a few thoughtful policy analysts in the Republican Party — not Rick Perry, not Michele Bachmann. Look at all these people. Huntsman is the real deal.”

Note to the uninitiated: When a Dem calls a Republican a “thinking man’s candidate”, he means the Republican’s world view agrees more with the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party. Dean eventually comes right out and says it:

“I learned that Jon Huntsman is a great candidate for president but he is in the wrong party,” Dean said. “I’m sure he’ll be happy to hear that from me.”

Maybe Huntsman would be happy to hear that. I suspect that he might take the compliment as evidence that he’s more “electable” than any of this GOP opponents.

Huntsman is polling at about 1% among likely GOP primary voters, so I wonder where he thinks his base is. The Democrats? They already have their candidate, and I doubt they’d exchange him for a candidate who seems to agree with them but doesn’t have the courage to affirm this by changing his party affiliation.

The Republicans? Huntsman used to work for Obama. That’ll whip up enthusiasm among the GOP masses in the general election.

Enjoy the spotlight while it lasts, Mr. Huntsman. When the Dems and the media are done with you, you’ll suddenly find that nobody will return your calls any more.

A Perry you can believe in

2011-08-23T10:46:00.001-05:00

Bachmann’s $2 gasoline pledge

2011-08-22T17:39:00.001-05:00

The Hill, August 22:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is doubling down on her vow to drive gasoline prices to less than $2 per gallon if she’s elected president, a pledge that 2012 GOP rival Jon Huntsman said isn’t rooted in the “real world.”

Bachmann drew attention last week when she pledged at a Tuesday campaign stop that “Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 per gallon again.”

It’s one thing to express confidence that gasoline prices would drop significantly (without naming a specific amount) under a Bachmann administration. But to pledge that prices would fall below $2?

Gasoline prices are governed by three factors, mainly: supply, demand, and government regulation.

A Bachmann administration could definitely affect supply by rolling back domestic drilling restrictions. Of course, much of the increased supply would probably be snapped up immediately by the insatiable emerging economies of China and India, so it seems that the effect on global oil prices might end up being a wash, especially if OPEC decides to adjust its own production to keep prices steady.

Prices could be driven down by killing demand for oil, but I don’t think Bachmann has any intention of doing that.

She could also get gasoline prices moving in the right direction by decreasing the tax and regulatory burden on the oil and gas industry. Good luck with that, because she’ll need the cooperation of a Congress that, regardless of which party is in control, will be driven by their perception of public opinion on environmental issues. Again, there may be some downward movement in gasoline prices, but not enough.

The United States does not set oil prices, and it is horribly naïve for Rep. Bachmann to pledge that, simply on the strength of “’can-do’ America”, a global market will bend to her will. Such a promise would be an albatross around her neck throughout her administration. And no, the Democrat-controlled media would not let her forget it.

As I said the other day, I like Bachmann a lot, but it’s ill-considered statements like this that lead me to rank her lower than certain other GOP candidates.

Of course, this gaffe is light years away from suggesting that upon one’s election the “rise of the oceans” would begin to slow, but still…

GOP base begs NY ex-gov Pataki to jump into 2012 race

2011-08-22T15:29:00.001-05:00

Not really, but he may do it anyway, according to an August 22 AP article:

A spokesman for Republican former New York Gov. George Pataki says he's taking a harder look at running for president in 2012.

But what makes him think he could pull this off? The only one he'd likely rob votes from is Romney. And maybe Fred Karger, if anyone had been planning to vote for him.

Au contraire, says the former governor. Here’s how his triumphal march through the primaries would begin:

He cites his own moderate views that could attract independent voters in the important New Hampshire primary.

In other words, apparently he thinks that garnering the favor of enough of "important" New Hampshire's independent voters will trigger a groundswell of support for his "moderate" views in other parts of the country.

Good luck with that.

GOP Nomination 2012: The Good, the Bad, and the [YAWN!]

2011-08-19T17:25:00.001-05:00

Back in May I sorted through the various announced, likely, and potential candidates for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. A lot has happened since then, so I thought I’d have another look at the list (once again, culled from this site). This time around, I will disregard altogether the candidates who (IMO) have little or no chance of scoring in the double-digits.

Also this time, I will attempt to quantify my opinion of each candidate on a scale from +5 (awesome) to 0 (meh) to –5 (nononononono).

4
4
3
2 Rick Perry
Sarah Palin*
Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain

0
0 ~~Paul Ryan~~*
Rick Santorum

-3
-4
-4
-5 Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani*
Ron Paul

* Considering, but not yet announced

As you can see from the above, the candidates I am most excited about are Perry and Palin. In their rhetoric, I see two candidates whose views track closely with mine (with Perry getting a slight edge for his constitutionalist views). In addition, I see two people who are fearless in the face of the withering Democrat/Media assault that has been hurled their way. Their political instincts are good, they stay on message, and the message is a good one. I have no proof of this, but I have a feeling that Palin will defer to Perry as long as he stays the course. Perry does have some negatives, and perhaps I’ll deal with them in a separate post, but I don’t believe that any of the currently-known negatives fatally compromise him.

I like Bachmann a lot, but I’m not sure she can hold her own in the major leagues. The MSM has been laying one trap after another for her, and she keeps walking into them. This is sad, because her constitutionalist views are great.

Cain is another one I consider to be very smart and likable, and he has a good businessman’s sense of what ails our country. But the media is casting him as a sideshow attraction (which they absolutely must do, because to them there’s no such thing as a black conservative), and he doesn’t seem to know how to take the initiative away from them.

Ryan… good budget plan a few months back, but that’s about it. His plan made him a tea party celebrity for a while, and that is the only reason he seems to be considering a run. What makes him good presidential material? [August 22 UPDATE: He’s out]

Santorum… good on the pro-life issue and some social issues, but that’s about it. He has little to offer the masses regarding the current economic/constitutional crisis. He peaked back in the 90s.

Gingrich… another guy who peaked back in the 90s. He’s damaged goods, showing an appalling lack of judgment in his personal life as well as in his public life.

Romney… elitist northeastern Republican who—SURPRISE!—is the choice of the party establishment (and HEY—did you hear he’s currently far ahead of everyone else in New Hampshire?). No matter how much he tries to pass himself off as a conservative, the fact remains that the voters of Massachusetts would not have chosen him as their governor if he was as conservative as he’s pretending to be now. Outside the northeast, the GOP base isn’t really buying what he’s selling. Plan B: spend tons of money in an attempt to drown out the true conservatives.

Giuliani… not much different from Romney. I seriously doubt that he will jump in, because he’d be competing for Romney’s base, along with a few others who remember favorably his strong leadership in the weeks following 9/11. He has little to offer that Romney isn’t already offering. Oh, and Romney already got his hands on the campaign donations of those who might be persuaded to vote for Giuliani.

Paul… I was actually a fan of his back in the 90s, when I sympathized greatly with his constitutionalist views. Today, I still agree with him on many issues (mainly related to domestic policy), but he’s dangerously kooky on many other issues (mainly related to foreign policy). In some ways, he’s become the Lyndon LaRouche of the right, drawing the conspiracy-obsessed fringe in like flies to fly paper. I shudder at the thought of Mr. Paul being at the helm. Even Romney would be preferable, and that’s a painful admission coming from me.

So, what do you think? Feel free to make the case for your favorite or against my favorite(s), but if you do, please keep it civil.

Quick Quote: Thomas Jefferson on the immorality of passing the public debt from one generation to the next

2011-08-12T12:29:00.001-05:00

"I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence."

— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison (September 6, 1789)

Via The Federalist Papers (on Facebook)

Ministry of Propaganda ramps up for Obama’s reelection campaign

2011-08-08T11:32:00.001-05:00

Hollywood, currently serving as the Ministry of Propaganda for the Obama administration, is wasting no time putting together a movie celebrating the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

Although it appears the movie will focus on the heroics of SEAL Team Six, I’m certain that directors Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal will make sure we won’t miss the fact that it happened on Obama’s watch (even if his involvement amounted to nothing more than approving the operation)*.

Oh, and the projected release date for the Osama movie is – wait for it – October, 2012. Coincidence, I’m sure.

If you doubt that this is a joint enterprise of Hollywood and the White House, consider the following, which merited a raised eyebrow from lefty NYT columnist Maureen Dowd:

It was clear that the White House had outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood when Boal got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently — to the surprise of some military officers — at a C.I.A. ceremony celebrating the hero Seals.

Via Townhall

* By the way, I’m still waiting for the big-budget Hollywood movie celebrating the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Sen. Barack Obama condemns the Obama administration’s “leadership failure” in debt limit crisis

2011-07-31T09:47:00.001-05:00

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies...

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

-- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

Quick Quote - Alexander Hamilton on the balance between state and federal power

2011-07-20T16:40:00.001-05:00

Hamilton certainly did not envision a future where the states willingly surrendered any leverage they had over the federal government.

"This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them."

–Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788

The causes are various, but one of the most egregious was the states’ ratification of the 17th Amendment, making the Senate a matter of popular vote rather than state appointment.

Whatever the reasons, the states now are for the most part submissive to the will of the federal government, and We The People are overwhelmingly the losers.

(Via Patriot Post)

John Adams: Nip it in the bud!

2011-07-20T11:21:00.001-05:00

John Adams, like Barney Fife, saw but one rational response to approaching dangers: nip it in the bud. Writing to the residents of Massachusetts in 1775, he (Adams, not Fife) had this to say about Britain’s “long train of abuses and usurpations”:

Obsta principiis, nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards.

Obsta principiis – Resist the beginnings.

Unfortunately, arbitrary power has grown far beyond the shoots. For too long, the American people have given way, to the point where virtually all resistance ceased for many decades.

Groups like the TEA party movement represent an attempt to take a metaphorical machete to the tangled jungle of unconstitutional government. It may be too late, but let history record that someone recognized the peril and at least tried to reverse it.

If we’ve lost the Fruit-of-the-Loom grapes, then we’ve lost America

2011-07-18T15:31:00.001-05:00

On July 16 Politico wrote about the DNC/Hollywood axis, and about how our movie dollars are going straight into Obama’s reelection coffers (well, they didn’t put it in those words exactly, but still). People who are tremendously famous – not because they’re particularly smart, but because they can string memorized words, emotions and facial expressions together in a way that is pleasing to the general public – are, once again, cranking up the money machine for those dedicated to pushing our country even further into the Abyss (again, not Politico’s words – you have to learn to read between the lines).

Politico’s Mackenzie Weinger presents many of the usual suspects – Tom Hanks, Rita Wilson, George Clooney, Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, Michael Keaton, Alec Baldwin, Will Ferrell, Jennifer Garner, Gwyneth Paltrow, yada yada yada… but then she ends with a shocker: “Wayne Wilderson, the actor who portrays the grapes in Fruit of the Loom commercials.”

I knew things were bad for the republic, but never in my wildest dreams did I suspect that we had lost the grapes.

The GOP candidates are, I suspect, scrambling to determine how to get them back.

NAACP blasts lack of diversity in NBA and NFL

2011-07-08T08:23:00.004-05:00

Just kidding! They would never complain about the overwhelming dominance of African Americans in professional basketball and football!

This week their target is the television newsroom, as reported July 7 by the Wall Street Journal:

In a press release issued this morning, the NAACP condemned 24-hour cable news channel CNN for its recently announced prime time news lineup, calling the lack of diversity in its collection of news anchors a “glaring omission.”

Of course, they don’t do the heavy lifting of proving that qualified minorities are trying to get jobs or promotions and are being denied. As usual, they simply infer discrimination without having to be in the same ZIP code as the facts.

As our president is fond of saying, let me be clear: The NAACP's goal is not diversity. Its goal is to increase representation of African Americans wherever it sees said representation to be deficient. This is not necessarily wrong in itself. What's wrong is the fact that they're hiding under the cloak of Diversity. If diversity was truly the the NAACP's goal, it would at the very least express discomfort at the overrepresentation of African Americans in basketball and football. Raise your hand if you think that will ever happen.

(Don’t miss the part of the article where the NAACP press release essentially says, “everyone knows Fox News is racist, but we expected better from CNN”. Again, reinforcing the liberal meme without being required to prove anything.)

About this bus tour thing: Is Sarah running or not?

2011-05-31T10:05:00.001-05:00

The Daily Beast’s Shushannah Walshe reports May 30 on how we can know whether or not an announcement is forthcoming:

Sarah Palin’s “One Nation” Bus Tour launched Sunday, but is it an unofficial exploratory phase for a potential 2012 run or is it a Palin family vacation stopping in historic sites in the Northeast? The answer may well be both.

According to a source with knowledge of Palin’s operation and thinking, keep a careful eye on how long the tour lasts, because it is intended as a way to test the presidential waters. If the road trip ends abruptly, it’s a sign she didn’t get the enthusiastic responses she believes she needs to launch a campaign. If the tour heads to regions outside of the Northeast like Iowa and South Carolina that, the source says, is a “big indicator” that Palin will pull the trigger.

Palin is breaking all of the rules regarding how to launch a campaign. The fact is, though, that she’s introducing herself to America on her own terms, not on the media’s. The political world hasn’t seen anyone like her in a long time, and nobody in the media/political elite knows what to do with her (besides inadvertently give her all of the free publicity she wants).

Many of us non-elite folks are enjoying the spectacle immensely.

Obama continues to find ways to show contempt for the Constitution

2011-05-30T00:28:00.001-05:00

Seriously? Robo-signing a bill?

The Hill, May 27:

Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) is questioning President Obama's use of an autopen in signing an extension of the Patriot Act.

In a letter Friday, Graves asks Obama to confirm that he saw the law prior to its autopen signing.

[…] Obama signed the bill into law late Thursday night. The autopen was used because the president was in France, meeting with G8 leaders, and the bill's provisions expired at midnight.

Graves cited Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution, which says that the president must sign a bill to approve it into law.

Who has legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of this?

President Obama DID NOT SIGN THIS BILL.

Is Sam Elliot a Democrat or a Republican? None of your business.

2011-05-26T11:44:00.002-05:00

A lot of people are curious about the political views of actor Sam Elliot. I know this because a post from December 2009 brings many of these people to this blog. In fact, many of the top search engine queries bringing people to C-Pol are variations on this question.

That finally got me wondering as well: Is Sam Elliot a Democrat or a Republican?

Research shows that political affiliation in Hollywood leans absurdly Democrat. But, Google searches on Sam Elliot himself turn up… nothing.

The fact of the matter is that Elliot seems to think that his political leanings are nobody’s business but his own.

How refreshing. Would that more in Hollywood felt this way.

Despite my criticism of Mr. Elliot in that December 2009 post, I love his acting, and I think that just about any movie he’s in (not counting the one cited in the blog post) is improved by his presence.

That’s actually the point: actors should be famous for their acting, not their political activity.

Rule of thumb: Don’t rely on media reports when deciding who to support for the GOP nomination

2011-05-24T10:49:00.001-05:00

David Limbaugh, May 24 essay (emphasis added):

But in the end, it's not the liberal bias, double standards, selective demonization and unfairness that troubles me most. It is what I fear to be our side's passive acquiescence to the media's predictable narrative. Why do we keep allowing our political enemies to pick and disqualify our candidates?

Professional politicians have steered our ship of state into the Titanic iceberg. It's hardly facetious to suggest that there's an inverse relationship between the collective experience of those in the political class and their ability and willingness to extricate us from the mess they've created.

We need fresh blood and a fresh approach to the nation-threatening problems we face, so perhaps we should liberate ourselves from the template preventing us from stepping outside the box.

I haven't decided whom I will support for the GOP nomination this early in the field. I like Palin, Cain, Ryan, Rick Perry, Santorum, Pawlenty, John Bolton and Bachmann, among others. But I sure won't let the liberal media or establishment types color my thinking about it.

About the 2012 GOP field: Likes, Dislikes, and Ambivalents

2011-05-20T11:16:00.001-05:00

The primaries are just under a year away, and already we’re wading hip-deep in GOP candidacy announcements. Add to that those who are delaying their announcements for one reason or another, and it’s obvious that just about everyone who’s anyone wants a piece of the action.

This post marks the first in an occasional series regarding which declared, exploring or prospective candidates come across favorably to me (Likes), which come across unfavorably (Dislikes), and which can’t manage to come across at all (Ambivalents).

Ambivalents are people I’m somewhat familiar with, but there’s nothing yet that makes them stand out for me one way or the other. As I learn more about them and their views, I’ll bump them up to the Likes or Dislikes.

So now, without further ado, and without much explanation, here they are, presented alphabetically in each category, and culled from a list found here. Even though Huckabee and Trump declined to launch campaigns, I included them just to go on record with the fact that I don’t like them.

Likes

Michele Bachmann*
Herman Cain
Sarah Palin*

Dislikes

Newt Gingrich
Lindsey Graham*
~~Mike Huckabee~~
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney**
~~Donald Trump~~

Ambivalents

John Bolton*
Mitch Daniels*
Gary Johnson
Jon Huntsman*
Tim Pawlenty
Rick Santorum**

* Potential candidate
** Formed exploratory committee, but not yet declared

And now, a bonus category for those I know so little about, I can’t even summon the energy to be ambivalent about them.

Sub-Ambivalents

Fred Karger
Tom Miller
Vern Wuensche

Is there a difference between earmarks at the federal level and at the state level?

2011-05-18T17:29:00.001-05:00

In a May 15 article, The Daily Caller (TDC) seems to be trying to whip up some controversy regarding possible GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s apparent inconsistency on the earmarks issue.

Given that Bachmann is a TEA party favorite, this is a serious charge. TDC notes that she has secured nearly $4 million in earmarks for her district since she was first elected to Congress in 2007. She also argued to exclude transportation projects from a GOP-championed earmarks moratorium.

These facts are enough to raise eyebrows among TEA partiers and constitutionalists. I’d like to know how she defends these actions. Do they undermine the credibility of her TEA Party Caucus on Capitol Hill?

While the answers to these questions are important, TDC raises another issue that got under my skin:

Bachmann’s penchant for earmarks dates back to her days in the Minnesota state Senate. Despite her reputation as a fiscal conservative, from 2001-2006, then-state Senator Bachmann proposed more than $60 million in earmarks, including a $710,000 “Bond For Centerville Local Improvements Around Highway 14? and a $40,000,000 “Bond for Lino Lakes And Columbus Township Highway Interchanges.”

Doug Sachtleben, Bachmann’s communications director, sought to explain the earmarks, arguing that voters resent “taking money from taxpayers in one state to pay for a host of wasteful projects in other states.” He added that voters “also expect that things like road projects should be done at the state level, where voters can have a say through the selling of bonds.” These are not absurd arguments — bridges have to get built somehow — but Tea Party activists may find the argument that earmarks are fine at the state level as appealing as Mitt Romney’s argument that individual health care mandates are fine so long as they are enacted at the state level.

When it comes to government, I believe in the principle of subsidiarity – namely, that any activity that ought to be taken on by government should be taken on by the lowest level of government that can get the job done.

Road and bridge construction is most certainly not in the constitutional domain of the federal government. So, what about the other levels?

Some necessary infrastructure is within the financial means of municipal and county governments. But the reality is that major projects – highway interchanges, bridges, etc. – can quickly wipe out the treasuries of smaller cities and towns (and the counties containing them). The money has to come from a higher level.

But think about this: What is a county? It is an administrative subdivision of… the state government! Counties are entities created by the state enabling it to govern regions more efficiently. Likewise, cities are state-created entities. So, it could be argued that spending at the city, county or state level could all be considered state spending.

This fact – and the principle of subsidiarity – are what make the final sentence in the above excerpt so nonsensical. Are there TEA partiers who think that the state should not fund highway projects (whether at the request of a local representative or not)? If there are any, I’d like to hear the logic behind such a position. I suspect, though, that the author’s “Tea Party activists” are made of straw.

One final thought on the excerpt’s final sentence: There is no equivalence between state funding of transportation infrastructure (a legitimate government concern) and state funding of health care (not a legitimate government concern).

Appeals court hands Obama administration a major victory in the war on the unborn

2011-05-17T09:08:00.001-05:00

Fox News, April 29:

A U.S. appeals court ruled Friday that the Obama administration can use federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a decision that overturns a judge's order last year and hands the White House a major victory.

In a 2-1 decision, the court said that opponents of taxpayer-funded stem cell research are not likely to succeed in a lawsuit to stop it.

The ruling reversed an opinion last August by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who said the research likely violates the law against federal funding of embryo destruction.

The 1996 law prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars in work that harms an embryo, so private money has been used to cull batches of the cells. Those batches can reproduce in lab dishes indefinitely, and the Obama administration issued rules permitting taxpayer dollars to be used in work on them.

Does anybody think tests like this would NOT be used eventually for granting/denying services in ObamaCare?

2011-05-17T08:31:00.001-05:00

UPI, May 13:

A blood test that measures the length of a person's telomeres -- a predictor of longevity -- may be available soon, U.S. and Spanish researchers say.

"Knowing whether our telomeres are a normal length or not for a given chronological age will give us an indication of our health status and of our physiological 'age' even before diseases appear," Maria A. Blasco, who heads the Telomeres and Telomerase Group at the Spanish National Cancer Research Center and who co-founded the company Life Length, told Scientific American.

Stay classy, Mr. President

2011-05-11T11:55:00.001-05:00

All presidents use their influential position as a bully pulpit for advocacy of issues important to them. But, has any other president in living memory used their office as a platform for mocking and caricaturing his political opponents?

Arizona Daily Star, May 11:

Touting gains on border security and mocking Republicans' insatiable appetite for border enforcement, President Obama said Tuesday it's time for immigration reform.

The administration has gone "above and beyond" what Republicans asked for on border security when the last round of serious immigration reform debate stalled in 2007, Obama said in El Paso on his first trip to the U.S.-Mexico border since becoming president.

"All the stuff they've asked for, we've done," Obama said. "But, I suspect there's going to be those who try to move the goal posts on us one more time."

They'll now call for even more Border Patrol agents and a higher fence, he said.

"Maybe they'll say we need a moat? Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat?" Obama said. "They'll never be satisfied. And I understand that; that's politics. But the truth is that the measures we've put in place are getting results."

Way to promote reasoned debate, Mr. President.

Mock all you want, but can you prove that the border is less porous now than it was when you entered office? I’d love to have some south Texas ranchers in the room with you when you answer.

P.S. A moat with alligators might actually work.

Newt Gingrich, about 15 years too late

2011-05-11T11:01:00.001-05:00

So… Newt Gingrich, conservative architect of the 1994 Republican Revolution, has tossed his hat into the GOP primary ring. It’s amazing that there was any space left in the ring for his hat to land on.

Back then, I admired Gingrich for his ability to make “gutsy calls” on issues that resonated well with the conservative base. His star faded, however, as the GOP-led Congress failed to deliver much of anything in the way of reform.

If he had run in 1996, he might have had a decent chance at the nomination, even with the brutal treatment he was receiving at the hands of Democrat allies in the media. Certainly, he would have energized GOP voters much more than Bob Dole did.

Since then, he has popped up in the news from time to time, and mostly for the wrong reasons. For example:

His controversial divorces and remarriages (now on wife #3). Call me old fashioned, but I wonder about the character of a man who supposedly has a strong faith in God, but twice deliberately broke vows made to Him. In both of his divorces, he already had a replacement lined up before the soon-to-be-ex-wife knew anything was up. I wonder what Callista was thinking when Newt did his “vows” the third time. When Gingrich starts courting conservative voters, what shall we make of his promises?
He conceded nearly every Democrat talking point on global warming (parting with the Dems only in proposing free-market remedies). Four years later, Gingrich (who is no more qualified to pontificate on climate issues than Al Gore is) remains proud of the stands he’s taken.
He endorsed Dede Scozzafava in a special election for a NY congressional seat, publicly scolding Republicans who thought the nomination should go to someone whose views should align more closely with the GOP than with the Dems.

So what does he bring to the table now that makes him think this is his time?

Europe’s cultural suicide

2011-05-10T12:01:00.001-05:00

I have written many times about the ongoing demographic collapse of Europe – namely, the fact that the native populations of the various European countries seem to be uninterested in reproducing themselves.

As the native populations are slowly replaced by immigrant populations, the native culture of the various countries is also slowly being diluted – more so by the natives than by the immigrants. The process is slow and sporadic enough that most people don’t see it. It’s there, however, for anyone able and willing to step back and look at the broader currents of events.

Two seemingly minor, disparate recent occurrences serve to illustrate the culture shift.

First, from The Telegraph (UK), May 2:

The European Commission has apologised for printing more than three million school diaries containing no reference to Easter or Christmas.

The diaries - 330,000 of which were delivered to UK schools - note Sikh, Hindu, Muslim and Chinese festivals, as well as highlighting ''Europe Day'' which falls on May 9.

But the lack of any acknowledgement of Easter, Christmas or any other Christian holiday angered church leaders and politicians.

Earlier this year a Commission official admitted the omission was a ''blunder''.

A “blunder”, yes – but one that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.

Next, from The Daily Mail (UK), May 9 (emphasis added):

Rules to prevent religious discrimination can now also be used to protect a belief in the BBC’s ethos of public service broadcasting, a tribunal has ruled.

Its extraordinary decision elevates the BBC’s core principle to a place in the law equivalent to Christianity.

And the move leaves the way clear for long-serving employee Devan Maistry to sue the Corporation for wrongful dismissal.

South African-born Mr Maistry, who worked for the BBC Asian Network, says he suffered discrimination for six years until he was dismissed last year.

He has filed a claim for ‘religious or belief discrimination’, which allegedly took place against his philosophical view that ‘public service broadcasting has the higher purpose of promoting cultural interchange and social cohesion’.

Birmingham employment tribunal chairman Pam Hughes decided Mr Maistry has a worthy case, and gave him the right to a full hearing later this year.

In doing so, the tribunal chairman established the principle that Mr Maistry’s love of public service broadcasting amounted to a belief which should have the same protection from discrimination that the law gives to followers of religious faiths.

It seems clear to me that the religious shift in Europe is toward secular fundamentalism – the aggressive undermining of traditional religious belief of any kind. We can see this in both of the above stories.

In the first story, Christianity loses its privileged place in Europe’s cultural history through a “blunder” communicating that Christianity is so irrelevant to the ruling elites, nobody noticed it was missing.

In the second story (read the entire article for more examples), all religions are consigned to irrelevance through the principle espoused by the villain in the movie The Incredibles: “Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super, no-one will be.”

In the end, the joke will be on the secular fundamentalists. Once the destruction of Europe’s native culture has reached a certain point, do they really think their secularist utopia will be realized?

Hardly. The immigrant populations that are filling the void left by the demographic decline of the native populations will eventually also fill the cultural void, whether the secularists like it or not.

Are we or are we not still in a housing recession? (Haiku News)

2011-05-09T16:51:00.001-05:00

MSNBC reports May 9 on the ongoing collapse in home prices:

"Home value declines are currently equal to those we experienced during the darkest days of the housing recession. With accelerating declines during the first quarter, it is unreasonable to expect home values to return to stability by the end of 2011," [real estate data firm] Zillow chief economist Stan Humphries said in a statement.

To which I reply, using haiku*:

Why use the past tense
for the housing recession
if nothing has changed??

* Why haiku? Why not? Among other things, I am drawn to the (occasional) challenge of condensing my thoughts into just a few words when the topic allows. Yes, others came up with the idea first, but I may still give it a try. I’ll even insist on conforming to the 5-7-5 format that real haiku poets sneer at. Okay, I confess – really all I’m doing is forcing my commentary into exactly 17 syllables! Deal with it.

PC police raid Pooh's Corner

2011-05-07T13:27:00.003-05:00

A Florida State University sociologist frets that children's literature is insufficiently diverse, as Fox News reports May 6:

A comprehensive study of traditional children’s book characters has determined that Pooh Corner may be rife with gender inequality.

Dr. Janice McCabe, a sociologist at Florida State University, examined nearly 6,000 children’s books between 1900 and 2000 and determined the stories have a definitive gender bias and a disproportionate representation of genders.

“We found that males are represented more frequently than females in the titles and the central characters in the book,” McCabe told Fox News Radio.

[...] “I had kind of expected that books would start off in 1900 being unequal and become more equal over time,” she said.

“We were surprised by the historical patterns and by the animals. The fact that the animals were the most unequal and even in the 1990s there were still two male animals to every one female animal.”

I'm wondering... are there any barriers to women in general, or feminists in particular, getting their children's stories published? I'm not aware of any. What's stopping them?

So, what's the real problem here? Obviously the parents are the problem:

“A lot of times this is invisible to people,” she said, encouraging parents to pay attention to gender when selecting books and reading material for their children. “I’m not saying they shouldn’t read books about men and boys,” she said. “Instead, just think about the gender of particular books and be aware of it.”

Apparently, Mom (who typically makes the purchase decisions regarding children's books) and Dad are still trapped in the roles defined for them by our oppressive patriarchal culture, and are thus blind to the injustice of the status quo.

Hey, let's try a wacky little experiment: If children's book writers publish a bunch of "gender-balanced" books that are enjoyable and don't have an obvious agenda, maybe the public will reward them by buying the books.

I wonder why Dr. McCabe didn't think of this?

Quick Quote: James Madison on the evil of public debt

2011-05-07T12:27:00.000-05:00

I regret, as much as any member, the unavoidable weight and duration of the burdens to be imposed; having never been a proselyte to the doctrine, that public debts are public benefits. I consider them, on the contrary, as evils which ought to be removed as fast as honor and justice will permit, and shall heartily join in the means necessary for that purpose.

– James Madison, Debates in the House of Representatives on the First Report on Public Credit, February 11, 1790; “Liberty and Order: The First American Party Struggle," edited and with a Preface by Lance Banning (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004), Part II: The Leadership Divides

(via The Federalist Papers (Facebook))

C-Pol: One of the best blogs you’ve never read

2011-05-05T10:36:00.001-05:00

I was surprised and pleased to see C-Pol listed by NewsReal Blog’s Walter Hudson as one of “The Top 10 Tea Party Bloggers You Need to Read”. Due to my sporadic posting frequency, the daily visit count for C-Pol isn’t all that high, so you can be sure I noticed the spike that came from Hudson’s post.

Hudson gave the following explanation for the inclusion of the ten blogs in his list:

Among the grassroots movement, many voices have emerged to articulate a philosophy of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. We’ve scoured the net to bring you some of the best bloggers championing that message. We sought to bring to light writers whose work deserves more attention than they currently receive. We wanted to introduce you to voices you may not have heard of before and will be glad to know. These aren’t folks who necessarily identify as Tea Partiers, but who boldly articulate the philosophy which drives the movement. Here are the top 10 Tea Party bloggers you need to read.

I’m glad that he used this standard, because there are a lot of folks out there who, like me, champion the constitutionalist philosophy but haven’t hitched their wagon to the TEA party movement.

I attended one TEA party rally in my hometown at the movement’s genesis in 2009, but since then my activism has been expressed at the ballot box and through online advocacy of constitutional government.

On C-Pol, I usually like to go beyond the daily rough-and-tumble of politics to look at the big ideas that are driving said politics. Because of that, my posts are less frequent than you would see with a blog that focuses on the news of the day.

The subtitle of my blog is: “Documenting the twilight years of the American republic”. That sounds awfully pessimistic, doesn’t it?

Given my goal of focusing on the broader currents of contemporary events and cultural trends, and given my understanding of human nature, I believe our civilization has crossed some bridges that have since crumbled behind us.

Our opportunities to turn back the tide of statism and tyranny are rapidly dwindling, and it seems that overall, the American people are not even aware of what is slipping away. I believe very strongly that Barack Obama has provided us with one of our last chances to elect leaders who have the political will to roll back a century of progressive/socialist rot.

I also believe, perhaps less strongly, that the advocates of constitutional government probably won’t be able to agree on a standardbearer in the 2012 presidential primaries (seriously -- is there anybody who isn’t planning to run?), and that the establishment will likely get its favorite by default.

Thus, I am pessimistic about our country’s future, but not fatalistically so. As long as I am able to resist the forces that are destroying our country and its culture, I will continue to do so. My favorite communication medium is the written word, so this blog serves as my ideal outlet.

If you think that C-Pol is a worthwhile contribution to the war of ideas, please let me know in some way. You can rate this post, you can leave a comment, you can become a Follower. Thanks for your support!

Just one reason why Ron Paul should not be the GOP nominee in 2012

2011-05-04T17:08:00.001-05:00

Rep. Ron Paul, libertarian Texas congressman, perennial GOP presidential candidate and opponent of 99.7% of U.S. foreign policy, has finally given his reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden. As reported May 3 in The Hill:

Paul, a long-time skeptic of American interventionism, said that "like all other Americans, I'm glad he's gone," but raised multiple questions about the costs associated with the 10-year manhunt for the al Qaeda leader behind the 9/11 attacks.

"If we got him, I guess it's time to come home as far as I'm concerned," he said during an interview with Fox Business network.

Engaging straw men is easier than engaging the truth, I suppose. Does he think the War on Terror was merely a global manhunt for OBL? No, of course not, but Paul will latch on to any reason he can find, rational or not, to bring the troops home.

Al Qaeda will continue to function without its symbolic leader. So will terror organizations not related to Al Qaeda. Most if not all of them remain committed to our destruction.

Paul is ideologically antiwar, so no logic will persuade him that it makes sense to continue our campaign to destroy our enemies’ ability (or will) to make war against us.

The world is a very dangerous place. It would be immeasurably more dangerous with Ron Paul in the White House.

Fake MLK quote is born in the wake of Osama bin Laden's demise

2011-05-03T10:24:00.001-05:00

In the day and a half since terror boss Osama bin Laden was dispatched with extreme prejudice by American assets, I have seen the following quote appear countless times in my Facebook newsfeed:

I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

The quote is attributed to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

As it turns out, it's not all MLK. Everything but the first sentence comes from King's 1963 book, Strength to Love.

The first sentence actually started out as a comment presented with the remaining quote in someone's Facebook status update. For some reason, people who copied and pasted this person's status moved the opening quotation mark to include the comment. Here's the original (click image to view larger version):

The extra sentence is a great sentiment, and one with which I am sure MLK would agree. ("Fake but accurate", as newsman Dan Rather said in another context.)

Due to the tireless efforts of well-meaning people, future generations will swear up and down that MLK actually said it.

(Via: St Eutychus)

Further evidence that Obama is becoming a dictator!

2011-05-03T09:41:00.000-05:00

I missed it on CNN, but this ad I saw on a website makes it clear: President Obama is personally setting mortgage rates now!

It's on the internet, so it must be true.

Seriously, though: This advertiser seems to think that the cult of Obama is a powerful draw.

Donald Trump is no friend of the Constitution

2011-04-22T10:02:00.003-05:00

Donald Trump has been receiving Strange New Respect in many corners of the conservative movement, largely because he has proven himself adept at forcing a lot of relevant issues through the media barricades.

BUT… the fact that he can put Obama and the rest of the Left on the defensive does not mean he is worthy of the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

He has plenty of business sense, but he appears to be seriously lacking in Constitutional sense. Michelle Malkin gives an egregious example in her April 22 essay:

Too many mega-developers like Trump have achieved success by using and abusing the government's ability to commandeer private property for purported "public use." Invoking the Fifth Amendment takings clause, real estate moguls, parking garage builders, mall developers and sports palace architects have colluded with elected officials to pull off legalized theft in the name of reducing "blight." Under eminent domain, the definition of "public purpose" has been stretched like Silly Putty to cover everything from roads and bridges to high-end retail stores, baseball stadiums and casinos.

While casting himself as America's new constitutional savior, Trump has shown reckless disregard for fundamental private property rights.

In the early years of this blog, I posted often about cities that seize private property through eminent domain proceedings, only to turn the property over to private developers who promised more money for the tax coffers than the previous owner brought in (this tax revenue increase was the “public use” justification!). The practice, even though it was upheld by the Supremes in the Kelo decision, is manifestly contrary to what the authors of the 5th Amendment ‘takings’ clause intended.

Trump, apparently, has no respect for the private property rights of those who stand in the way of his business interests. And we should support him because…?

It’s becoming increasingly likely that conservatives will not like the 2012 GOP presidential nominee

2011-04-18T10:58:00.001-05:00

Why? Because, it seems, every politician with any kind of conservative following, hoping to harness the anti-Obama sentiment, will end up tossing their hats into the ring.

The latest to come to my attention is Roy Moore. Moore gained fame (or notoriety, depending on one’s perspective) in 2003 – eight years ago – as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court when he defiantly placed a Ten Commandments monument outside the state’s courthouse.

He went on to parlay his fame into two unsuccessful bids for the Alabama GOP gubernatorial nomination.

His chance of gaining the GOP presidential nomination next year barely registers on the scale, but he does have his loyal fans among conservatives.

Now, as conservatives start to rally around an increasing number of flags, we’re increasing the likelihood that whatever candidate the establishment settles on will cruise to the nomination with the support of a ridiculously small plurality of GOP voter support.

Again.

Many conservatives recognize the problem, but the solution usually proffered is: “All conservatives should unite behind my favorite candidate! Problem solved!”

To which other conservatives reply: “In your dreams!’

And so, as the rhetorical brawling goes on and on, our country slides ever deeper into the abyss.

There’s simply no way to spin the budget deal as a victory for fiscal sanity

2011-04-12T08:32:00.001-05:00

Politics is the art of the possible.
-- Otto von Bismarck

Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith

If $38 billion out of a $1.5 trillion budget shortfall is all that was possible, we’re done for.

If the United Nations had existed in the 1860s…

2011-04-05T08:45:00.001-05:00

Imagine, if you will, that the United Nations existed in the 1860s.

Upon receiving news of Sherman’s March to the Sea, it would not be farfetched to presume that the leading power of the day, Great Britain, would have assembled a coalition of the willing and, armed with the appropriate UN resolutions, intervened on behalf of the Confederacy*.

By the rules of “humanitarian intervention” under which we apparently operate today, it doesn’t matter whether or not Lincoln had any legitimate interest in keeping the union together** – the actions of his generals would have brought upon the north the wrath of the nations.

Just saying.

* Just like today, the nation leading the coalition would have had its personal reasons for wanting to deal some serious hurt to the offending government. So then, as today, one wonders if the motivation for the intervention would have been completely altruistic.
** I have my own opinions on this, but they are not germane to this post.

In Libya, it may be that the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy – but the Obama administration has no clue one way or the other

2011-03-30T14:03:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, Byron York wrote about the staggering incoherence of the decision process that led to our “kinetic military action” in Libya:

Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO and overall chief of U.S. and coalition forces in the Libyan war, says American intelligence agents are "examining very closely" the rebel forces for whom U.S. forces have gone to war. So far, Stavridis says, the U.S. has discovered "flickers" of the presence of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, although Stavridis calls the opposition leadership "responsible."

[…]

Stavridis' testimony raises two questions. One is the extent of al Qaeda and other terrorist presence; what is a flicker? The second question is why the United States did not complete its "due diligence" before, and not after, going to war. "I don't say this critically of you, because you didn't make this decision," Inhofe said to Stavridis, "but wouldn't that have been a good idea to find out before we took the steps we are taking?"

Why are we in Libya right now? Who are these rebels that we’re assisting? Do we really know enough about the “opposition leadership” to conclude that they’re “responsible”? Does the Obama administration really care if they are? When is the last time that the U.S. took sides in a civil war, knowing little or nothing about the side we supported?

Senator Biden thinks President Obama should be impeached for going to war against Libya

2011-03-23T14:37:00.001-05:00

Senator Joe Biden, campaigning for president in 2007, does not mince his words* regarding a president’s constitutional war powers. He is absolutely unwavering in his insistence that if a president goes to war with a country in the absence of an imminent threat to the US – even worse, without congressional approval – this is an impeachable offense:

* (Although, it could be said that he never minces his words regarding anything. It’s quite entertaining sometimes.)

Senator Obama opposes President Obama’s use of force in Libya

2011-03-22T16:52:00.001-05:00

In a December 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, candidate Obama had this to say about presidents who send our military to war without first consulting Congress:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

Another grim milestone for federal spending

2011-03-16T14:57:00.001-05:00

Total federal spending has consistently outpaced tax receipts for so long that to even raise the point tends to elicit yawns.

However, as the Weekly Standard reports today, this year brings us to a milestone without precedent:

We have now gotten to the point — as I noted yesterday — where if national defense, interstate highways, national parks, homeland security, and all other discretionary programs somehow became absolutely free, we’d still have a budget deficit. The White House Office of Management and Budget projects that in the current fiscal year (2011), mandatory spending alone will exceed all federal receipts. So even if we didn’t spend a single cent on discretionary programs, we still wouldn’t be able to balance our budget this year — let alone pay off any of the $14 trillion in debt that we have already accumulated.

Just an Olympiad ago, in 2007, the picture was quite different. In fact, in that year, federal revenues not only exceeded mandatory spending, but they exceeded it by more than $1 trillion ($1.117 trillion, to be more exact). The next year, 2008, during which the gap fell to a still-huge $914 billion, the Bush administration released a report issuing a rather dire warning (p. 25). The report said that, “if left unchanged, mandatory spending alone is projected to exceed total projected Government receipts in approximately 50 years.” That dire prediction has now come true — about 50 years earlier than projected.

This bears repeating: Even if we brought discretionary spending to $0.00 this year, there still would not be enough tax receipts to fund the mandatory (in other words, entitlement, or wealth-transfer) spending programs.

This problem goes much, much deeper than the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts. As Kevin D. Williamson observed in NRO on March 14, there aren’t enough millionaires out there to balance the budget. Even if all of the income of “the rich” was simply confiscated, the debt would continue to grow.

The Bush administration might be forgiven for being so far off on its projection… truly, this country has never before seen anything like the profligacy of this administration and its allies in Congress.

How much more evidence do we need that belief in global warming borders on fundamentalist religion for many?

2011-03-11T18:00:00.001-06:00

Fundamentalist Christians are often mocked for suggesting that this or that natural disaster is a sign of God’s judgment on the people living in the affected area.

As I took in the news this morning about the horrific results of the earthquake in Japan, at one point I wondered: How long before someone blames this on global warming? Not quite ready to believe that anybody would be so absurd, I dismissed the thought and went on with my day.

As it turns out, the Church of Global Warming has taught its disciples well. The Daily Caller reports that a lot of tweets are coming up on Twitter like the following:

AliceTMBFan said “2 hours of geography earlier talking about Japan has left me thinking…maybe global warming is way more serious then we thought…”

Arbiterofwords tweeted “I’m worried that Japan earthquake, on top of other recent natural ‘disasters’, is a sign we’ve passed point of no return for climate change.”

MrVikas said “Events like the #Japan #earthquake and #tsunami MUST keep #climate change at forefront of policy thought: http://bit.ly/cZe8To #environment

Tayyclayy noted her frustration by tweeting “An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan.. And some say climate change isn’t real?!”

DanFranklin postulated “Never really believed all this global warming talk, but after the earthquake in NZ and today in Japan. Maybe we’ve ruined the world.”

And TeamIanHarding tweeted “While Japan witnessed an earthquake we were talking about the problems that global warming leads to in school. Think. Pray. And change.”

Back when I actively maintained my old Global Warming Heretic blog, I complained that proponents of the global warming (or climate change, if you insist) hypothesis had rigged the debate so that absolutely nothing that happened in the real world could undermine their case – whatever happened, it affirmed the hypothesis.

Is it any surprise, then, that a totally natural event – slippage along a tectonic plate boundary – is somehow confirmation of the notion that humans really ought to stop driving SUVs?

Why, despite the MSM/Dem complex’s earnest efforts, Sarah Palin remains wildly popular among conservatives

2011-03-08T09:53:00.001-06:00

NRO reports March 7 that Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Peter Fitzgerald issued the following letter in response to the minority party senators who are currently shirking their constitutional duty by vacationing in Illinois (and occasionally lobbing demand-laden press releases across the border):

March 7, 2011

Sen. Mark Miller

Parts Unknown, IL

Dear Senator Miller,

Thank you for your hand-delivered letter with an offer to meet, in Illinois, about the business and future direction of Wisconsin.

Let’s set aside how bizarre that is for a moment.

As you know, this legislation is designed to finally balance the state budget, prevent layoffs and create jobs in the real world. There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed or underemployed Wisconsinites, and at least 1,500 more whose jobs are in the balance because of your media stunt. We all deserve better than this.

In the meantime, members of your caucus have been meeting with the governor’s staff, talking to the media, trying to find a way back to Madison, and contradicting your message in public. In case you don’t remember, you were present yourself at one of those meetings with the governor’s staff. Your grasp of reality, and control of your caucus as minority leader, continues to amaze me.

As you know, your opportunity to compromise and amend the bill was on the floor of the state Senate. As you know, you forfeited that right and opportunity when you decided to flee the state instead of doing your job.

Your stubbornness in trying to ignore the last election and protect the broken status quo is truly shameful. While we wait for you and your colleagues to finally show up, Senate Republicans continue to stand ready to do the job we were elected to do, here in Wisconsin. I hope you are enjoying your vacation, and your vacation from reality.

Sincerely,

Scott Fitzgerald

Senate Majority Leader

CC: Governor Scott Walker

This letter is positively dripping with awesomeness.

Wisconsin Republicans are doing an awesome job of playing political hardball with their wayward colleagues.

Woefully few Republicans have the guts to do this on the national stage. Sarah Palin is one, and I'm convinced that this accounts for a good portion of her popularity among the conservative base.

Ironically, this seems to be precisely the quality that makes establishment Republicans squirm. Are they even capable of putting forth candidates who will refuse to let the MSM/Dem complex walk all over them?

If ObamaCare’s individual mandate is constitutional, then there are NO meaningful limits on congressional power

2011-03-04T09:55:00.001-06:00

Rich Lowry, National Review, March 4:

At issue is the individual mandate. Two other district-court judges have struck it down on the grounds that Congress doesn’t have the power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to require that everyone buy health insurance. If someone doesn’t purchase insurance, he hasn’t done anything. He isn’t engaged in activity that may or may not affect interstate commerce, but in sheer inactivity. Never before has anyone thought Congress could regulate nonevents.

The easy-to-grasp distinction between an activity and inactivity is one of the most powerful legal arguments of Obamacare’s opponents. But they hadn’t yet run up against a jurist as ingenious as Judge Kessler. She brushes the activity/inactivity distinction aside because not doing something is a choice and therefore “mental activity.”

[…] Judge Kessler writes, “It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not ‘acting,’ especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something.”

This takes the old liberal Commerce Clause argument – that every activity has a “nexus” to interstate commerce – and kicks it into an entirely new orbit.

If we must accept Judge Kessler’s reasoning, I would appreciate it if someone on the Dem side could explain to me: Are there any meaningful limits on the power of Congress to regulate human choices?

Quick Quote: Benjamin Franklin on the War on Poverty

2011-03-04T08:05:00.000-06:00

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

-- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

Read the rest here. Franklin appears to be of the opinion that we shouldn’t allow the social “safety net” to become a hammock.

Are President Obama's opponents motivated primarily by racism?

2011-03-03T15:44:00.000-06:00

Let's follow the logic here.

Democrats routinely accuse Obama's detractors of opposing him because he's black.

So... Does this mean that I secretly agree with his ideology and agenda, but I'll oppose him to the point of harming myself... simply because he's black? Seriously?

It's easy to jump to the conclusion that the Dems who make this charge are pathetically ignorant, but I really think that's not the case. They're smart enough to know that if a conservative gets tricked into trying to defend himself against this absurd charge, he's already lost in the court of public opinion.

Conservatives need to stop trying to prove a negative. When this slander is hurled our way, we need to laugh at our accuser, wondering aloud if he realizes how ridiculous he sounds.

Thomas More wrote that "the devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked". I doubt that the Dems will endure it well either.

When the going gets rough, the Democrats run away -- First Wisconsin, now Indiana

2011-02-22T15:00:00.002-06:00

Just like in Wisconsin, today in Indiana we are being treated to the spectacle of legislators from a minority party, completely beholden to a small constituency (less than 12% of all workers nationwide, according to the BLS), refusing to live up to their constitutional responsibility. Indianapolis Star, February 22:

Seats on one side of the Indiana House were nearly empty today as House Democrats departed the the state rather than vote on anti-union legislation.

A source tells the Indianapolis Star that Democrats are headed to Illinois, though it was possible some also might go to Kentucky. They need to go to a state with a Democratic governor to avoid being taken into police custody and returned to Indiana.

The House came into session twice this morning, with only three of the 40 Democrats present. Those were needed to make a motion, and a seconding motion, for any procedural steps Democrats would want to take to ensure Republicans don’t do anything official without quorum.

With only 58 legislators present, there was no quorum present to do business. The House needs 67 of its members to be present.

House Speaker Brian Bosma said he did not know yet whether he would ask the Indiana State Police to compel the lawmakers to attend, if they can be found.

It seems obvious that the Dems hope to be seen as heroic, on a par with anti-regime protesters in various Middle Eastern countries, but the fact of the matter is that they are cowards who refuse to acknowledge that their biggest campaign cash source is a huge drag on our ailing economy and on the taxpayer's wallet.

The Democrats aren't about to bite the hand that feeds them.

A question I wish Wisconsin students would ask their teachers

2011-02-21T11:18:00.003-06:00

"Teacher, based on your actions of the past several days, can I conclude that you think it's okay to lie and steal if it's for a cause you feel strongly about?"

The Atlantic's Ford Vox (himself a brain injury physician) is horrified to learn that many doctors in Wisconsin have conspired with public school teachers to defraud taxpayers by writing fake sick excuses. Read what he has to say in his February 21 post. He links to several Youtube videos documenting this activity -- which ought to be sufficient to get the teachers fired and the doctors hauled before medical ethics boards. Here's one of them:

By continuing to hide like cowards in another state, and by declaring their solidarity with the protesters, it can be argued Wisconsin Dem senators are tacitly endorsing these tactics.

UPDATE: Fox News, Feb. 21:

The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health is investigating whether some of its doctors wrote fake sick notes to people protesting the governor's plan to strip public union employees of the right to collectively bargain.

Over the weekend, FOX News reported that doctors from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine were manning a doctor station to write medical notes excusing those protesting at the Wisconsin State Capitol from work. Physicians were seen standing on a street corner wearing lab coats and giving out medical notes.

Business-hostile California spurs economic growth... in neighboring Arizona and Oregon

2011-02-21T10:25:00.000-06:00

Reuters reported February 18 that California-based Intel is planning to invest up to $8 BILLION in new manufacturing facilities in Arizona and Oregon. I wonder why they didn't think it worthwhile to invest the money a little closer to home base?

Intel Corp plans to build a $5 billion, cutting-edge microchip factory in Arizona by 2013, sharply ramping up its U.S. manufacturing capacity as part of a major global expansion.

The state-of-the-art plant, which will crank out microchips with next-generation 14 nanometer line-widths, is expected to bring thousands of jobs to the cash-strapped western U.S. state, which is offering more incentives to lure businesses.

[...] Intel said in October it plans to spend $6 billion to $8 billion on high-tech manufacturing facilities in Arizona and Oregon, creating as many as 8,000 construction jobs.

I'm sure that California's neighbors will be happy if the state keeps making it hard for businesses to do business there.

Further proof that the Obama has no clue whatsoever about the separation of powers

2011-01-28T13:58:00.000-06:00

(or no respect for it, at the very least)

CNSNews, January 28:

Teen Dating Violence Is A ‘Cabinet-Level Priority,’ Attorney General Holder Says

(CNSNews.com) - Stemming teen dating violence and safeguarding children is a "Cabinet-level priority" of the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder told a gathering at the Justice Department on Friday.

[...] "That’s what the National Advisory Committee -- and today’s meeting – is all about. By working together, I believe we can empower adolescents to understand and to develop healthy relationships before violence and abuse can begin. And I am confident that we can help more young people identify signs of abuse, and assist them in locating services."

The goal of Friday's meeting is to work on a "strategic, comprehensive action plan," Holder said in his prepared remarks.

Are there any local issues that the Obama administration refuses to meddle in simply because they're none of the federal government's business?

More evidence Sarah Palin lives rent-free in the minds of the American media

2011-01-22T22:06:00.001-06:00

As reported by Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King at Big Journalism, January 21:

The Washington Post is engaging in online political activism by encouraging its readers to boycott news coverage of Sarah Palin.

The Post has picked up the call initiated this morning by Post columnist Dana Milbank, adding a Twitter link on the column page. The link generates a message to be sent from a Twitter member’s page that reads, “I’m making February a Palin-free month. Will you join me?”

The Post added the Twitter link to Milbank’s column this afternoon, several hours after running and pulling a Washington Post online poll about boycotting Sarah Palin news coverage. The poll initially accompanied The Post’s Milbank op-ed but was pulled within hours of publication at WashingtonPost.com.

The poll, which questioned Post readers whether they would support a Palin news boycott, received the support of eighty percent of approximately 450 votes cast.

(BTW, the title of this post was inspired by one of the comments in the Big Journalism article)

Illinois legislature votes to drive state's businesses, people away

2011-01-12T08:53:00.001-06:00

Well, not in so many words. But what else to make of an act that seems certain to choke the life out of a weak economy?

Fox News, January 12:

Democrats in the Illinois Legislature on Wednesday approved a 66 percent income-tax increase in a desperate and politically risky effort to end the state's crippling budget crisis.

The increase now goes to Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, who supports the plan to temporarily raise the personal tax rate to 5 percent, a two-thirds increase from the current 3 percent rate. Corporate taxes also would climb as part of the effort to close a budget hole that could hit $15 billion this year.

The higher taxes will generate about $6.8 billion a year, Quinn's office said -- a major increase by any measure. In percentage terms, 66 percent might be the biggest increase any state has adopted while grappling with recent economic woes.

I suspect that the revenue estimate in the third paragraph assumes economic activity will remain constant despite the tax increase. Is that a valid assumption?

UPDATE: News-Gazette (Illinois), January 19:

The founder of [sandwich shop chain] Jimmy John's said he has applied for Florida residency and may recommend that his corporate headquarters move out-of-state as a result of the Illinois tax increases enacted last week.

Chevy Volt, "Car of the Year"? About as meaningless as an Academy Award

2011-01-10T14:55:00.000-06:00

Daily Finance reports today that the Chevy Volt has been named Car of the Year at the Detroit Auto Show:

The Volt's selection for the Car of the Year award wasn't much of a surprise. Reviews by the automotive press have largely praised the vehicle's design, and the Volt has taken several other awards already, including Motor Trend magazine's Car of the Year.

The auto industry declaring an automobile to be critically acclaimed is about as meaningful as the film industry awarding honors to various of its own products.

Oscar-winning movies often end up being complete duds with the unwashed masses. I'm sure that we philistines will fail to get sucked in by the hype swirling around the Car of the Year as well.

House Speaker's aides to be formally sworn in -- Meaningless symbolism or a serious commitment to the Constitution?

2011-01-04T16:57:00.000-06:00

Politico reports January 3 that incoming House Speaker John Boehner has made an unusual request of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts:

In another statement of the new House Republican majority’s commitment to the Constitution, aides to incoming Speaker John Boehner plan to take their oath of office Tuesday morning — a day before the same oath is administered to the 435 House members of the new Congress.

At Boehner’s request, Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the staff ceremony, which may be a first in congressional history. Aides in Boehner’s Washington and district offices are expected to take the oath in the Capitol in a private, low-key event with no press coverage, a Boehner aide said.

[...] In a sense, the ceremony will be symbolic. House aides already commit to supporting the Constitution when they sign their employment forms. But the formal event will be another measure that Boehner takes seriously his new responsibility.

Dare we hope? Forgive our cynicism (borne of a long history of disappointments), but we'll withhold our applause until we see such gestures followed up with genuine substance. Onward!

Further proof that ObamaCare is not about health care: New law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals

2011-01-04T12:16:00.000-06:00

Weekly Standard, January 3:

Under the headline, "Construction Stops at Physician Hospitals," Politico reports today that "Physician Hospitals of America says that construction had to stop at 45 hospitals nationwide or they would not be able to bill Medicare for treatments." Stopping construction at doctor-owned hospitals might not seem like the best way to boost the economy or to promote greater access and choice in health care, but that exactly what Obamacare is doing.

Kenneth Artz of the Heartland Institute explains, "Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding." Politico adds, "Friday [New Year's Eve] marked the last day physician-owned hospitals could get Medicare certification covering their new or expanded hospitals, one of the latest provisions of the reform law to go into effect."

Memo to GOP 2012 hopefuls who are addicted to corn alcohol

2011-01-04T10:28:00.000-06:00

The Iowa caucuses have become so ridiculously overinflated in their importance that even many of the professed small-government conservatives can't seem to resist groveling at the feet of this tiny fraction of the electorate.

NRO notes today that it really does matter what the GOP's 2012 candidate believes about ethanol subsidies:

There are four potential midwestern 2012 Republican presidential nominees: Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, South Dakota senator John Thune, and Indiana congressman Mike Pence. When it comes to doling out favors to the ethanol industry, none of them can credibly claim his attitude was “just say no.”

Does it matter? Absolutely: As this year’s tariff and tax-credit extensions showed, even a Tea Party–driven small-government surge can’t stop politicians from kowtowing to the ethanol lobby. Further, a Republican president who is willing to carve out exemptions for ethanol interests will lack credibility when he battles spending or tax breaks benefiting other special interests. And finally, while some claim that ethanol will allow our nation to achieve energy independence, the fact that the highest approved corn-gas blend is only 15 percent ethanol (and is approved only for certain automobile models from 2007 or later) suggests that an America running on corn is unlikely in the extreme.

GOP candidates, please take note that the reenergized constitutionalist/conservative base that brought you back to power hasn't disbanded. You are being watched closely by people who think that corn alcohol is not fit to be served at a tea party.

If you don't give up your addiction, Obama will have no trouble whatsover observing that the GOP seems to differ from the Democrats only in its spending priorities.

How else will our distinguished senators know what’s in the $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill?

2010-12-14T17:08:00.001-06:00

History gives abundant evidence that they can’t be troubled to read it on their own. Politico, December 14:

As Democrats try to push through a nearly 2,000-page omnibus spending bill, Republican senators are threatening to bog down the floor by forcing Senate clerks to read the full text aloud, a process that could take more than one full day to complete.

“Democrats haven’t given Republicans or the American people time to read the bill, but I’ll join with other Republican colleagues to force them to read it on the Senate floor,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

Such a tactic is rarely employed, but any senator can force a full reading of legislation, which is usually skipped by unanimous consent.

Three cheers for Sen. DeMint and other GOP obstructionists. Stop the runaway train!

Quick Quote: Thomas Jefferson on wealth redistribution

2010-12-10T10:26:00.001-06:00

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

— Thomas Jefferson

Quick Quote: James Madison on the federal leviathan

2010-12-09T08:33:00.001-06:00

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

— James Madison, The Federalist #62

What's wrong with the new "enhanced pat-down" procedure at airports?

2010-11-19T08:23:00.000-06:00

Let's begin by stipulating that, in the vast majority of cases, Transportation Safety Agency (TSA) employees are going out of their way to carry out this new mandate in as professional a manner as they can, given what they've been told to do.

That said, there's still something terribly wrong with enhanced pat-downs, from a legal and constitutional perspective.

Behavior that would get any other law enforcement officer fired (and possibly jailed) is considered routine at these security checkpoints. Search without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of any kind is illegal (and unconstitutional) in any other context. What's the legal difference between this and a traffic cop randomly pulling your car over and, without a word, starting to rummage through your belongings, looking for evidence of wrongdoing?

In any other context, these pat-downs would be considered sexual harassment or even sexual assault, regardless of the intent of the one doing it, if the receiver did not consent. I suppose that buying a plane ticket is supposed to imply consent.

EU implosion, update #7: Demographic collapse in Germany, cont'd.

2010-11-16T17:41:00.000-06:00

Germany's population plunge proceeds apace, despite a financial incentive program. Reuters, November 12:

The number of births in Germany fell to a record post-war low last year despite government investment of billions of euros on incentives to counter the country's shrinking population.

Germany has a population of 82 million but the low birth rates mean average ages are rising, hampering the development of Europe's largest economy. The tide of immigration that fed the post world war two economic expansion has also now been reversed with new immigration controls.

The Federal Statistics Office in Wiesbaden reported that there were 665,126 children born in 2009, down from 682,514 in 2008. The annual birth rate has fallen by more than 100,000 a year in the last decade from 770,774 births registered in 1999.

An official at the statistics office said the 2009 figure was the lowest number of births in Germany since 1945, when 520,000 children were born.

Germany has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe.

All "EU implosion update" posts

Curing what ails us: How can we dethrone the ruling class? (A modest proposal)

2010-11-16T14:43:00.001-06:00

A good place to start might be a voter boycott of the Ivy League.

For two or three election cycles (if not longer), simply refuse to vote for anybody, regardless of party, who graduated from Ivy League universities.

That seems to be the primary breeding ground of every -ism that is using the levers of power to drag our country and culture into the abyss.

Thoughts?

How this election was like the Battle of Midway

2010-11-13T13:02:00.001-06:00

In a November 13 American Thinker essay, Greg Richards provides what I think is an excellent metaphor for what was accomplished in this election (emphasis added):

After Jimmy Doolittle bombed Tokyo in April 1942, the Japanese decided to eliminate the U.S. Navy in a final battle. They sent a very strong force to occupy Midway Island, about 1,500 miles from Hawaii, figuring that this would be a challenge the Navy could not refuse and which would result in a decisive battle of annihilation of what was left of the American fleet.

The Japanese did not realize that we had broken their naval code, and instead of being surprised at Midway, we bushwhacked them, sinking their entire striking force of four heavy carriers. The Battle of Midway, June 4, 1942, is regarded as one of the most decisive naval engagements in history. It was characterized by Admiral Ernest King, the Chief of Naval Operations, as having "restored the balance of power in the Pacific."

We have to remember, of course, that in June 1942, most of the war in the Pacific was in front of us. The battles of New Guinea, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and countless others had yet to be fought. So the Battle of Midway was a turning point only because it was followed by the will of the country to "win through to absolute victory," in the words of FDR.

If conservatives and constitutionalists are satisfied with the election outcome to the point that they demobilize, then we’ve already lost.

We haven’t won the victory – not even close. We don’t have the political power to get the government back under constitutional control – not even close. If we lack the commitment to “win through to absolute victory”, what was the point of this election?

A window of opportunity like this may not open again in our lifetimes.

This kind of flash mob can make the Christmas shopping season quite bearable

2010-11-12T10:22:00.001-06:00

This “Random Act of Culture” by more than 650 voices of the Opera Company of Philadelphia brought tears to my eyes.

What happens when a taxpayer-funded Cold War relic outlives its original reason for existence

2010-11-10T13:49:00.002-06:00

In the case of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, it becomes a tool of leftist propaganda, and we get opinion pieces like this review of former president George W. Bush's new book.

This is just like the situation with National Public Radio. RFE/RL is welcome to express or republish whatever opinions it likes, but let it do so without a dime of my money.

(It's probably just a coincidence that Hillary Clinton serves on the Board of Governors overseeing RFE/RL)

Dear GOP: We're watching. Yours truly, The Voters.

2010-11-09T10:03:00.001-06:00

Michael Ramirez, via IBD:

Lisa Benson, via TownHall:

One way ObamaCare will make your food more expensive

2010-11-09T09:47:00.000-06:00

CNSNews, November 8:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration estimates that it will take the food service industry 14 million additional hours each year to comply with a new regulation that mandates chain restaurants and vending machine operators label the products they sell with a calorie count in a place visible to the consumer.

Most of the burden of the regulation, which is buried in President Obama’s 2,000 page health-care reform bill, will fall on the vending industry.

In the Nov. 5 edition of the Federal Register, the FDA estimates “a total of 14,068,808 recurring hours, with nearly all of these for vending machine operators, including 31,408 recurring hours for recordkeeping and 14,037,400 recurring hours for third party disclosure” in conjunction with the regulation.

What the GOP’s #1 priority in Congress should be for the next two years: STOP THE RUNAWAY TRAIN!

2010-11-05T16:52:00.001-05:00

“You shall not pass!”

Rasmussen released a poll the day after the election indicating that 59% expected the incoming GOP House majority to disappoint them over the next two years.

In my opinion, it all comes down to what we expect the Republicans to be able to do. The fact is, the GOP has a governing majority in the House, but they don’t control the Senate or the White House. So, what are their options if they wish to honor the sentiments of those who swept them into office?

I suggest a two part strategy.

First, OBSTRUCT! In the House, the GOP can prevent any more of the left’s agenda from even coming up for a vote. In the Senate, the Dems no longer have a filibuster-proof majority – take advantage of this.

Second, GET ON RECORD! The House should hold roll-call votes on the repeal of the odious things (like ObamaCare) that have already passed. Then, hold roll-call votes on new legislation that reflects conservative values (WITHIN actual constitutional boundaries, thank you very much). So what if the Senate doesn’t join in? When 2012 comes along, you DO want to still be able to draw a distinction between yourselves and the Dems, don’t you?

So, GOP – do you have the guts to do this? Or will you go back to your old ways of trying your best to be liked by the Dems in Congress and in the media?

Free hint: The latter option is how you lost in 2006 and 2008. Your base is in NO mood to see you go back to that. Just sayin’.

Chutzpah

2010-11-05T14:07:00.001-05:00

WaPo, November 5 reports that Nancy Pelosi considers herself to be the one who can best lead the minority she helped to create:

Rejecting demands from some that she relinquish power, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Friday that she will run for minority leader, setting up what could be an ideological battle inside the Democratic caucus.

"I am running for Dem leader," Pelosi (Calif.) said on her Twitter account. She said her decision was in part "driven by the urgency of creating jobs" and protecting this year's health-care and Wall Street overhauls.

Nov 13 UPDATE: Then again, she apparently knows her fellow Democrats quite well.

San Francisco food nannies know what’s best for the city’s remaining children

2010-11-04T16:41:00.001-05:00

San Francisco has long been the gathering place for people who aren’t interested in having children. Thus, it was with some surprise that I read this week about an action taken by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to manage the restaurant food choices of families with young children.

Los Angeles Times, November 2:

San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.

The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.

The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.

Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure, described it in magnificently Orwellian fashion:

“We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice.”

Well, if this is all about “food justice”, we can’t let ourselves be sidetracked by petty issues like the right of parents to make informed choices about their children’s diet.

Given that SF officials don’t appear to have much experience raising real-life kids, allow me to clue them in: The availability of toys in a kids meal affects the choice of restaurant much more than it affects the choice of food.

The Center for Consumer Freedom adds that this is more about the parents’ choices than it is about the kids’ choices:

But there’s nothing wrong with the occasional fast food dinner. And that much has always been up to parental discretion: It’s not very often you see a child hop in the car, drive to McDonald’s, and charge a Happy Meal to his own credit card. Yet San Francisco seems to think parents are no match for the “I’m Lovin’ It” jingle.

The supervisors seem well aware of the ridicule their nannying efforts are provoking around the country. Nevertheless, they hope their action will end up starting a cascade that ends up undermining parental rights everywhere. From the L.A. Times article linked above:

Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose swing vote provided the veto-proof majority, said critics should not dismiss the legislation as a nutty effort by San Franciscans. "I do believe the industry is going to take note of this. I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're wacked out there.' "

It’s San Francisco—they’re wacked out there. We’re not buying into their nutty efforts.

Choose you this day – November 2, 2010

2010-11-02T08:47:00.004-05:00

It’s hard to imagine the stakes being higher in the US than they are right now. We can’t legally get Obama out of office yet, but we can bring his destructive agenda to a screeching halt.

I’m not one given to political hyperbole, but I firmly believe that if Congress remains in the hands of the Democrats after this election, the “shining city on a hill” will continue its plunge into darkness.

If you love your country…. if you hold to the once commonplace but now exotic notion that government should submit itself to the explicit boundaries set for it in its founding charter…. if you understand that those currently in power are seeking to remake America in their image…. GET OUT THERE AND VOTE!
Bring your like-minded friends with you.

UPDATE: P.J. O'Rourke said it well in The Weekly Standard yesterday (emphasis added):

This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.

Rasmussen's useless throw-the-bums-out poll

2010-10-28T11:52:00.000-05:00

I usually find Rasmussen's political polls to be useful, but the one released today really provides no helpful information regarding the mood of the electorate. One of the poll questions asked:

Suppose you could vote this fall on whether to get rid of the entire Congress and start over again. Would you vote to keep the entire Congress or get rid of the entire Congress?

No middle ground -- throw them all out or keep all of them? If these were our only choices, I suppose I'd have to say throw them all out and start over. Unsurprisingly, 65% of the pitchfork-wielding voters went this way as well, because few in their right mind think that keeping the entire Congress is a good idea.

Here in the real world, it's clear that there are some good guys in Congress who should be returned to office.

What was Rasmussen's point in asking this question?

Far more useful were these questions from the same poll:

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party?

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party?

Do you consider yourself part of the Tea Party Movement? [those who answered "no" or "Not sure" were asked] Do you have any close friends or family members who are part of the Tea Party movement?

It's definitely newsworthy to note that (despite what the Democrat and media elite have said repeatedly) only 56% of people who identify with the TEA Party movement (and only 61% of self-identified Republicans) have a favorable view of the Republican Party.

This fact should have been the headline, because the GOP leadership really, really needs to understand this.

Memo to GOP: The national debt wouldn't be where it is now without your active participation

2010-10-15T10:34:00.002-05:00

I sure do hope the GOP bigwigs understand the sentiment that appears to be set to thrust their party back into power. If they think this is just a matter of letting a different party preside over the sinking of our country, their base will withdraw its support with extreme prejudice.
CNSNews, October 14:

The national debt increased for the 53rd straight fiscal year, jumping $1.65 trillion in fiscal 2010, according to data posted online by the Bureau of the Public Debt and confirmed by a spokesperson for the agency.

Fiscal Year 1958, the first year of the run, saw a debt increase of $5.8 billion, a paltry sum these days. Since then, the cumulative debt increase has been $13.3 trillion.
Although the GOP has been complicit in this drunken-sailor spending binge, the events of the past two years have shown that the Democrats are ideologically devoted to spending without restraint.
The GOP needs to understand that many of the people who will be voting for them this time will be doing so as the most efficient means of stopping the runaway Democrat train, and not necessarily because they trust the Republicans.
GOP, you'll have two years to earn the trust of these folks. That's not long, so you'd better not dawdle.

Happy Indigenous Peoples Day!

2010-10-11T17:20:00.000-05:00

Today is a U.S. holiday officially known as Columbus Day, in commemoration of Christopher Columbus' (or whatever his real name was) voyage westward in search of a shorter (and thus more profitable) trade route to India and China.

Instead of reaching his goal, he unexpectedly blundered into some islands which were off the coast of a continent that was heretofore unknown to the major powers of Europe.

Once word of his discovery made it back to Europe, the race to carve up the New World was on. Spain and Portugal were out of the gate more quickly than the others, and in short order they had staked their claims to most of the western hemisphere. Not to be left out, France and Britain claimed what they could as well.

Of course, the nomadic peoples who had arrived hundreds or thousands of years before for the most part weren't too keen on welcoming the newcomers, but one by one these people groups were conquered or displaced.

In the minds of many on the left, Everything That Is Wrong With The World today can be traced back to Columbus' arrival at Hispaniola in 1492. Because of this, Columbus' voyage is not to be celebrated, but rather reviled. Many have lobbied for the second Monday of October to be renamed Indigenous Peoples Day. America's very existence is considered to be an affront to human decency.

But is it fair to single out the US for moral culpability in something that is pretty much the natural state of humanity?

How many countries can you name that do not have within their boundary territories in which people groups were at some point in history conquered or displaced?

How many people groups can you name that today occupy territory that has never at any point in history belonged to some other people group?

I am not for a moment excusing any atrocities that may have been committed (and there were many) during the course of colonization, but the simple act of establishing a colony does not ipso facto constitute an atrocity, as some would have us believe.

Personally, I don't see much to celebrate in the character of Columbus the man. But neither do I see any cause to lay the sufferings of the "indigenous peoples" (a term of art in itself) at his feet.

Fences: A parable.

2010-08-25T09:39:00.001-05:00

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up."
-- Robert Frost

Update on the “most open and transparent” administration in history

2010-07-28T14:24:00.001-05:00

Here’s the promise, published January 20, 2009:

Transparency -- President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise. The President's executive orders and proclamations will be published for everyone to review, and that’s just the beginning of our efforts to provide a window for all Americans into the business of the government.

Here’s the directive to the Executive Branch, published January 21, 2009:

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

[…and so on…]

Here’s the reality (FoxBusiness, July 28):

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."

The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network.

Go to the FoxBusiness link above to read the relevant section of the law.

[Emphasis added throughout]

Who in the world is David H. Comins?

2010-07-28T10:32:00.002-05:00

Does David H. Comins actually exist?

The “Thought For The Day” Listserv had this quote today:

People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them Benjamin Franklin said it first.
-- David H. Comins

I loved the quote, and wanted to pass it along to my friends, but I was curious about the author, because I had never heard of him.

I’m usually pretty good at digging information out of Google, but so far I’ve come up empty. Searching on his name, I found countless sites that reproduce this quote, but have no information about who Comins is.

So… Is Comins a one-hit wonder, famous precisely for saying the above quote, but otherwise obscure? That’s not very easy to pull off, it seems to me.

I did find a Facebook page for a David Comins, but I’d have to get on his Friends list to see any detailed information on him. There’s a David Comins on LinkedIn, but how would an Information Manager at TimeWarner become famous for a quote on Benjamin Franklin?

C’mon, somebody do my homework for me and point me to a site that tells me who Comins is.

There is a lesson in all of this. How often to we uncritically pass on things we find on the Internet or receive in our email? Do any of the people who posted the Comins quote on their websites know anything about Comins, assuming he exists? I’m willing to bet they don’t.

You’re welcome to prove me wrong.

11 July 2011 UPDATE: The hunt for David H. Comins still rages on, given the number of visits to this post through search engines. I decided to have another look to see if anything else had turned up on him. I think we've got him! It seems that the possibility that I dismissed above as the least likely has ended up being the reality about our mystery man.

All of those sites referring to him as an author may want to reconsider that description, given that pretty much the only thing he ever got published was... that quote. It was a reader submission for a magazine article. In real life, it looks like he was a real estate broker in Manchester, Connecticut for quite a while, but he's well past retirement now. I wouldn't be surprised if he’s spending his golden years marveling about how famous—yet obscure—he is.

The Case of the Vanishing Oil Spill: A Parable

2010-07-27T15:06:00.001-05:00

ABC News reported July 26 that the oil cleanup brigades are having trouble finding oil to clean up (emphasis added):

For 86 days, oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's damaged well, dumping some 200 million gallons of crude into sensitive ecosystems. BP and the federal government have amassed an army to clean the oil up, but there's one problem -- they're having trouble finding it.

At its peak last month, the oil slick was the size of Kansas, but it has been rapidly shrinking, now down to the size of New Hampshire.

[…] The numbers don't lie: two weeks ago, skimmers picked up about 25,000 barrels of oily water. Last Thursday, they gathered just 200 barrels.

Still, it doesn't mean that all the oil that gushed for weeks is gone. Thousands of small oil patches remain below the surface, but experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment.

"[It's] mother nature doing her job," said Ed Overton, a professor of environmental studies at Louisiana State University.

The well has been capped for only two weeks, and already nature has done an “astonishing” amount of the work that the cleanup folks had expected to do.

This says a lot about our planet’s ability to accommodate shocks to the ecosystem.

Think about it. Experts have been taken completely by surprise by the way the Gulf of Mexico is cleaning itself up.

And yet, we’re told by many that the science is settled concerning climate change, and that there remains no credible opposition to the notion that we’re nearing a tipping point of irreversible damage to our planet. What’s really astonishing is the hubris of “experts” who think their knowledge of climate is anywhere near the level needed to make predictions like that.

Pause and reflect.

(Image found here)

Liking Sarah Palin and… Mitt Romney??

2010-07-27T08:30:00.001-05:00

Facebook fan page recommendations appear to be based on one of two main criteria: (1) a certain number of people on your Friends list are fans of the page; or (2) a certain number of people who are not on your Friends list, but are fans of some page you’re a fan of, are also fans of some other page you’re not a fan of (got that?).

Recently I’ve been seeing the following recommendation on my Facebook sidebar:

Facebook is making this statement based on statistics, not on philosophy. “Like” has a different meaning in the Real World.

It just seems difficult to believe that thinking conservatives would truly like both Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney… especially when we’re talking about the difference between (1) a woman who refuses to back away from her conservative values, even in the face of an all-out attempt to destroy her and her family, and (2) a man who was acceptable to the majority of the voters in one of the most liberal states in the country.

MSM starting to report on the “unintended consequences” of Obamacare

2010-07-23T17:12:00.001-05:00

“Unintended consequences” – a phrase almost certain to become clichéd in the coming months and years as people and businesses start digging into (and reacting to) the deepest, darkest parts of the new health care law.

AP reports July 23 that the law is already starting to have a negative impact on one class of people:

Some major health insurance companies have stopped issuing certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, state officials said Friday.

Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty said in his state UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield have stopped issuing new policies that cover children individually. Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland said a couple of local insurers in her state have done likewise.

[…] Starting later this year, the health care overhaul law requires insurers to accept children regardless of medical problems — a major early benefit of the complex legislation. Insurers are worried that parents will wait until kids get sick to sign them up, saddling the companies with unpredictable costs.

[…] "Our plans are very concerned about this," said Alissa Fox, a top Washington lobbyist for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. "If the law says that insurers have to take you any time, any place, some people will see that as an opportunity to wait until their children get sick to buy coverage."

There is nothing in the law that would stop a hospital from buying a policy for a uninsured child who came into the emergency room, she added.

The law is almost certainly riddled with landmines like this. The average congressperson can neither confirm nor deny this, primarily because the average congressperson hasn’t actually read the law he or she voted to enact.

If the GOP wants to win in November, it needs to be more than simply not-Obama

2010-07-23T16:58:00.001-05:00

Does the national GOP hoping to passively surf the growing wave of anti-Obama sentiment all the way to control of Congress?

In NRO on July 21, Victor Davis Hanson argues that the GOP – as a party and as individual candidates – needs to be specific about how it would govern differently than Obama and the current Congress are governing:

Republican politicos will quite accurately lecture that presenting such detailed alternative plans would be foolhardy: The key now is simply to be against what an unpopular Obama is for. I accept that offering detailed solutions might well turn the public as much against the proposed medicine as against the original malignant disease.

Yet at some point, blanket Obama-bashing without a comprehensive alternative will turn stale. Critics of Obama — if they are to be taken seriously — will have to be about more than not being Obama. Instead, conservatives must identify exactly how to undo the Obama agenda — and do so in a way that does not earn them the disdain that the Republican Congress earned between 2001 and 2006, and the Republican administration between 2005 and 2009.

We need some notion of a contracted agenda, so that conservative voters can hold conservative politicians to account in this age of anti-incumbency. Voters wanted closed borders, balanced budgets, ethical members of Congress, and less government between 2001 and 2006. They believed that all of that had been promised — and then were sorely disappointed.

In short, conservative voters want to see something specific — as much to keep their own honest as to defeat the other.

The Tea Party movement’s very existence shows that the conservative base is restless. Conservatives are in no mood to be used by the GOP elites to effect a return to We May Be Bad But We’re Not As Bad As The Democrats. The elites will ignore this at their peril.

“Cash for Clunkers”, revisited: New home sales plunge to lowest level on record

2010-06-23T10:32:00.001-05:00

The Associated Press reports that another major chunk of the façade known as the “economic recovery” has crumbled:

Sales of new homes collapsed in May, sinking 33 percent to the lowest level on record as potential buyers stopped shopping for homes once they could no longer receive government tax credits.

The bleak report from the Commerce Department is the first sign of how the expiration of federal tax credits could affect the nation's housing market.

The credits expired April 30. That's when a new-home buyer would have had to sign a contract to qualify.

"We fear that the appetite to buy a home has disappeared alongside the tax credit," Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics," wrote in a note. "After all, unemployment remains high, job security is low and credit conditions are tight."

Sound familiar? Last summer, the “Cash for Clunkers” program created an artificially high demand for automobiles, almost certainly spurring purchases by people who otherwise wouldn’t have (or shouldn’t have) done so. Once the C4C program ended, auto sales dropped through the floor.

Here we go again. The federal tax credits for new home purchases is gone, and sales have dropped to a level never before seen in the 47 years that the government has been tracking this statistic.

Just like we saw with C4C, it is likely that many who bought a home in recent months should not have done so. How many of them will be in foreclosure in just a few short years?

Remember these examples each time you are told that we’re in the midst of an economic recovery.

Given the fresh storm clouds gathering on the horizon, now may not be the best time to buy a home, with or without a tax credit incentive.

If corporate earnings appear to be improving right now…

2010-06-23T10:18:00.001-05:00

…it may very well be that businesses are shifting as much income and production as possible to this year. Arthur Laffer writes in the Wall Street Journal June 6:

On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there's always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Laffer believes that allowing the tax cuts to expire will result in an economic collapse next year that will dwarf what we’ve seen so far. To be sure, a sudden, massive tax increase in the middle of a weak economy will not end well.

The Global Debt Crisis Explained, sort of

2010-06-07T17:30:00.001-05:00

I had not heard of Clarke and Dawe before, but I love the way they “explain” the impossibly tangled web of debt that may bring down one economy after another.

Various countries in Europe are the first to falter, but the US appears to be heading for the precipice as well. Bloomberg, June 4:

U.S.’s $13 Trillion Debt Poised to Overtake GDP

President Barack Obama is poised to increase the U.S. debt to a level that exceeds the value of the nation’s annual economic output, a step toward what Bill Gross called a “debt super cycle.”

The CHART OF THE DAY tracks U.S. gross domestic product and the government’s total debt, which rose past $13 trillion for the first time this month. The amount owed will surpass GDP in 2012, based on forecasts by the International Monetary Fund. The lower panel shows U.S. annual GDP growth as tracked by the IMF, which projects the world’s largest economy to expand at a slower pace than the 3.2 percent average during the past five decades.

“Over the long term, interest rates on government debt will likely have to rise to attract investors,” said Hiroki Shimazu, a market economist in Tokyo at Nikko Cordial Securities Inc., a unit of Japan’s third-largest publicly traded bank. “That will be a big burden on the government and the people.”

Click on the “Graphic” tab at the above link to view the chart.

Do boycotters secretly hate Arizona hispanics?

2010-06-02T13:22:00.000-05:00

With the announcement of each new boycott of Arizona companies (such as the one just approved by L.A. County), I wonder if the Legion of the Outraged has thought this through completely.

If, somehow, these boycotts manage to have an actual economic impact on Arizona businesses, just who do they think will lose their jobs first? Wouldn't it be the lower-income employees?

Even if the middle- and upper-class somehow got hit first, their ensuing decrease in economic activity would affect... who?

I cannot escape the conclusion that those who purport to champion the cause of Hispanics in Arizona secretly hate them.

Government-authored spyware – what a great idea!

2010-04-17T14:30:00.001-05:00

No, it’s not happening yet (that I know of), but the RIAA and MPAA are pushing hard to establish the legal precedent of government surveillance of average citizens’ private in-home activities.

Tom’s Guide reports:

Big Brother is watching you. Actually, it's the RIAA and the MPAA, especially if you're parked on a BitTorrent client. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that both organizations--along with a few others--want to take the file-monitoring process a huge step further by infiltrating consumer PCs and deleting the infringing content off their hard drives. How? Through "anti-infringement" spyware developed and enforced by the government.

This is no joke.

"There are several technologies and methods that can be used by network administrators and providers...these include [consumer] tools for managing copyright infringement from the home (based on tools used to protect consumers from viruses and malware)," reads a caption in a joint comment (pdf) filed by the MPAA and RIAA.

The joint comment goes on to suggest other means of copyright enforcement including a mandatory scan on all internet connections to interdict transfers of illegal content, physical searches at all borders of personal media players, laptops, and USB sticks. There's even an indication that the parties want to enforce international bullying to force other countries to put similar policies in place.

A couple of observations are in order.

First, the only reason the RIAA and MPAA could even dream of getting the federal government to do something like this is that they know the fedgov recognizes no meaningful limits on its power. Industries take advantage of this fact all of the time – using the government as a bludgeon against one’s competitors has become a time-honored tradition in this country – but the RIAA/MPAA proposal goes beyond what we normally see.

Many people who will complain that this is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and a denial of due process will, the next day, demand that the government provide health care, jobless benefits, welfare, etc. We can’t have it both ways. Either the federal government is bound by the U.S. Constitution, or it isn’t.

Second, is there any real difference between government-authored spyware on our computers and government-installed surveillance cameras in our homes? Both would have the same official purpose – crime prevention. I wonder if RIAA and MPAA executives would consent to government video surveillance of their mansions, “just in case” they decided to do something illegal.

Unions could indeed be the strongest force for good government, if it wasn’t for the fact that they are unions

2010-04-15T14:14:00.001-05:00

Today’s email update from CNSNews had this ironic juxtaposition of headlines:

Rep. Grayson Calls Labor Unions Strongest Force for ‘Good Government’

Unions Making Postal Service Unsustainable, GAO Says

Way to court the conservative base, Mitt

2010-04-14T11:44:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney’s opposition to ObamaCare appears to be based on technical objections – in other words, Romney thinks he would have done a better job of expanding his Mass-Care miracle to the national level. NY Times, April 9:

The Democratic National Committee has posted a video compilation of Mr. Romney’s comments praising the Massachusetts health insurance mandate. Twice last week, Mr. Obama pointedly observed that Mr. Romney seemed to be lambasting a federal plan that was derivative of his own Massachusetts model.

“I keep on scratching my head,” Mr. Obama said at a fund-raising reception in Boston. “I say, ‘Boy, this Massachusetts thing, who designed that?’ ”

In response, Mr. Romney is reminding audiences that Mr. Obama has cast the Republicans as the “party of no,” devoid of ideas. “And yet,” Mr. Romney said in Bedford, “he’s saying that I was the guy that came up with the idea for what he did. He can’t have it both ways.”

He added, “If ever again somewhere down the road I would be debating him, I would be happy to take credit for his accomplishment.”

Yes, he’s bragging about the fact that ObamaCare got its inspiration from Romney’s Mass-Care, which some insist will end up bankrupting the state of Massachusetts.

Remember, Mitt: the GOP’s conservative base dominates the primary voting. If you want to trick enough of them into thinking you’re a conservative, you need to stop showing your true colors.

(Source: Creators)

Via: Rich Lowry, NRO

Vanity, thy name is Barack Obama

2010-04-14T10:39:00.001-05:00

"What rankles, though, is Obama's habit of putting down America while praising himself. The laughable assertion that Obama has taken 'historic steps to improve our own democracy' shows not humility but an extreme vanity. A truly humble president would occasionally evince some doubt as to whether he is worthy to lead America. Obama seems to doubt whether America is worthy of being led by him."

-- James Taranto, Best of the Web (WSJ), April 12

Two Americas: Tax consumers close to outnumbering tax payers for the first time

2010-04-13T10:55:00.001-05:00

AP reported last week that nearly half of US households will have no income tax liability whatsoever this year:

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

The untaxed 47%, once they realize the power of their position, will gladly vote for politicians who promise to raise taxes on someone else, while the remaining 53% can be divided and conquered on other issues.

“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” – George Bernard Shaw

(Source: Chip Bok)

Timing of Stevens retirement announcement belies Obama administration concerns about November elections

2010-04-09T10:27:00.001-05:00

US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had already telegraphed his intention to retire while Obama is president, so it was only a matter of when.

The WaPo reports today that he has now informed the president that he will retire at the end of the Court’s current term. Why now? On the surface, the timing seems pretty routine:

Stevens said he was announcing now so that the president would have time to make a nomination and the Senate to confirm in time for the start of the court's new term next October.

But why this year? Stevens has been quite clear that he didn’t want a Republican to name his successor, so in theory his retirement could have, for example, waited until next year.

Then again, the Obama White House senses an ill wind blowing among the electorate, a wind that might sweep some or all of the Democrat majority out of the Senate in November.

Even if the Dems retain their majority, the loss of just a few seats would force Obama to choose a nominee that is far less radical than he would like. Hence, given the uncertainties of November, there is no better time than now for Obama to get a justice more to his liking.

Is there any serious doubt that Stevens is deferring to the political calculations of the administration?

Yes, yes, I know, it happens with Republican presidents too.

The notion of an independent judiciary is long dead – yet another symptom of the twilight years of the American republic.

Conservatives shouldn’t play the identity politics game either

2010-04-02T14:16:00.001-05:00

Phylllis Schlafly makes her case for the type of person who should be nominated to replace John Paul Stevens, should he be the next to retire:

For as long as we can remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has included at least one military veteran. Recent examples include Republican-appointed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who is expected to resign this year.
The Democrats have not placed a veteran on the Supreme Court in nearly half a century. When President Obama fills Stevens' seat, will the High Court be left without anyone who has military experience?

Veterans in the U.S. Senate should make sure that such an embarrassment does not occur. Cases concerning the military appear every year before the Supreme Court, and our nation will not be well-served by a court lacking in military experience.

With all due respect, Mrs. Schlafly, we shouldn’t be concerning ourselves with whether or not this group or that group is respresented among The Nine.

For my part, the only special interest I want to see represented in the Supreme Court is The Constitution of the United States.

Yeah, I know, I know. But I can dream, can’t I?

Conservatives shouldn’t play the identity politics game either

2010-04-02T14:15:00.001-05:00

Phylllis Schlafly makes her case for the type of person who should be nominated to replace John Paul Stevens, should he be the next to retire:

For as long as we can remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has included at least one military veteran. Recent examples include Republican-appointed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who is expected to resign this year.

The Democrats have not placed a veteran on the Supreme Court in nearly half a century. When President Obama fills Stevens' seat, will the High Court be left without anyone who has military experience?

Veterans in the U.S. Senate should make sure that such an embarrassment does not occur. Cases concerning the military appear every year before the Supreme Court, and our nation will not be well-served by a court lacking in military experience.

With all due respect, Mrs. Schlafly, we shouldn’t be concerning ourselves with whether or not this group or that group is respresented among The Nine.

For my part, the only special interest I want to see represented in the Supreme Court is The Constitution of the United States.

Yeah, I know, I know. But I can dream, can’t I?

Quick Quote: Milton Friedman on why business is none of the government’s business

2010-03-26T08:59:00.001-05:00

“The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-union-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline.”

-- Milton Friedman

Is the GOP already losing its will to fight ObamaCare?

2010-03-24T18:04:00.001-05:00

Jeffrey Anderson at National Review Online (emphasis added):

Less than three days after the passage of Obamacare, many Republicans are already losing their stomach for the fight. As Ezra Klein gleefully — but aptly — observes over at the Washington Post, “In about 12 hours, the GOP's position has gone from ‘repeal this socialist monstrosity that will destroy our final freedoms’ to ‘there are some things we don't like about this legislation and would like to repeal, and there are some things we support and would like to keep.’ . . . At this rate, they'll be running on expanding the bill come November.”

Sen. Jon Kyl said, “I would guess probably more realistically would be a potential repeal of pieces of the bill.” It lights the fire in the belly, doesn’t it? Sens. Mike Enzi and John Cornyn followed suit.

On MSNBC, Rudy Giuliani, said, “You just laid out how the Republicans should run the campaign, when we get a month, two months out of this — not repeal health care.” With all due respect to Mayor Giuliani, this is the sort of thinking that led to his Florida Strategy.

Sometimes, one has to wonder at Republicans’ tin ear. If they were writing Patrick Henry’s famous 1775 address, would they have advised, “Well, full liberty might be a bit much to ask for. And I’m not sure if we really want death. How about, 'Give me a little more liberty, or make me ill'?”

“Repeal, and then real reform” — that’s the right message, and the one that reflects the American people’s views. “Partial repeal” actually legitimizes Obamacare and helps to sell it by suggesting that the GOP doesn’t really think it’s all that bad.

You can read the WaPo article here.

Be sure to vote in our C-Poll some time in the next 7 days!

4 4 3 2	Rick Perry Sarah Palin* Michele Bachmann Herman Cain
0 0	~~Paul Ryan~~* Rick Santorum
-3 -4 -4 -5	Newt Gingrich Mitt Romney Rudy Giuliani* Ron Paul