Quick Quote: Noah Webster on getting the government we deserve

"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded. If government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws."

— Noah Webster, History of the United States (1832)

---

Comment: I see this as the continuation of a theme found in George Washington's farewell address.  The reason we have a government that has strayed so far from the Constitution is that the voters have not demanded constitutional fidelity. 

People tend to vote their values whether they realize it or not.  The kind of leaders we tolerate says as much about our values as it does those of the leaders themselves.

I will expand on this further in a future post.

Perry v. Cain: Some initial thoughts

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.

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

[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

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.

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

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

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

Bachmann’s $2 gasoline pledge

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

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!]

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.

Ministry of Propaganda ramps up for Obama’s reelection campaign

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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).

Newt Gingrich, about 15 years too late

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?

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

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.

Donald Trump is no friend of the Constitution

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

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.