The Solution For America

“The American people get it.”  He said smiling, “high taxes only hurt the economy.”  I stood in the lounge of Murphy’s Pub at the conclusion of CPAC, my mormon mock-tail in hand, discussing the future of our nation with Les Phillip, a friendly but confident candidate for Alabama’s fifth district.  As we talked, I began to realize that this man was not the average political candidate.  “What about the income tax?”  I asked.  Mr. Phillip smiled, and leaned in close.  “What we need to do,” he said, a hint of excitement in his voice, “is repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments.  By so doing, we will resurrect one of the most important check’s on the federal government’s power, and help to de-regulate the failed social programs of the last 100 years.”  Les’s proposal is not only sound, but it is also, perhaps, the solution to the economic crisis now facing America.

There exists a disconnect between congress and the states that they purport to represent.  As originally provided for by the Constitution, senators were appointed by their respective state legislatures, rather than the population at large.  Federal taxes were collected not from individual citizens, but from the state governments in accordance with their respective population.  As can be imagined, the state governments, having a vested interest in keeping as much of their tax revenue as possible, did all they could to restrain and check the federal government’s ability to spend.  All that changed with the passage of the 16th and 17th amendment, and it wasn’t long before the federal government began to increase its power in ways never before dreamed of.

As suggested by Mr. Phillip, a repeal of the 16th and 17th amendment would resurrect one of the most important checks on the federal government’s ability to spend.  It would restore the lost connection between the state governments and congress, thereby assuring a more transparent, efficient, and respectable federal government, and above all, provide the solution for America.

Set It Off

This morning, The New York Times published one of the most intellectually honest pieces to appear on its front page in a long time.  The five page essay, written by David Barstow, chronicles the rise of what has now become almost universally known as the Tea Party.  He describes the movement as “a political reordering that would drastically shrink the federal government and sweep away not just Mr. Obama, but much of the Republican establishment, starting with Senator John McCain.”  While admitting that the movement is still young, and lacking in political unity, he explains that there does exist uniform agreement on many issues.  “Tea Party gatherings are full of people who say they would do away with the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax and countless agencies, not to mention bailouts and stimulus packages. Nor is it unusual to hear calls to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”  Mr. Barstow’s essay accurately identifies the Tea Party as a collective recognition that the Federal Government should be limited to those few powers enumerated by the constitution, and that great myth that Social Security, Medicare, The Department of Education, and all their sibling social programs are nothing more than an extension of Congress’s duty to regulate commerce must be dispensed with.  Hats off.

Channeling Reagan

Obama Seeks to Channel Reagan as Democrats Prepare for Election, reads a headline on this morning’s Bloomberg.com. Meanwhile, Governor Crist of Florida is quoted in Politico as saying “If I’m a RINO, then so is Ronald Reagan.” It appears that Channeling Reagan is, or is at least perceived to be, a good way to bait conservatives. The hope is that by associating oneself with the political ideologies of the 40th President, one may safely appeal to those pesky fundamentalists that still believe in things without coming across as too over-the top. This is unfortunate, because it distracts from the actual issues by allowing politicians to focus on abstract policies (I.E. ‘fiscal responsibility,’ ‘responsible spending,’ etc.), rather than articulate the means intended to accomplish such goals and enact such policies.

In short, association with public figures is nothing more than another cheap way to dodge substantive questions about what one truly believes and desires.

Is THIS what pwned means?

I have a good friend (well a couple, who would have thought it?) that is into video gaming and all of the online sophistication that our dear editor Nick is into.  Some time back, I noticed the use of the term “pwned” which my friend Andrew pronounced as “Poned” with particular stress on the P.  Over drinks at a favorite stomping ground in Maryland (Fingers & Claws - plug!) I attempted to gain a good understanding of the proper context in which to use “pwned”, which is about the same as using “owned” which I use.  However, I guess techies got bored and had to invent a new word during the downtime they acquire from “hours” of mindless stimulation (I kid, I kid!). 

I found two really good examples of when someone can use the term “pwned” which entails being destroyed by a superior power. 

Over a week ago, Jon Stewart was ‘pwned’ by John Yoo, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under George W. Bush.  Stewart is a smart cat, of course, but when engaged in this really good, thoughtful discussion on enhanced interrogation he gets beat by someone who obviously thought this out fully and not as half-heartedly as liberals would have you believe (bear in mind, Stewart should decide sooner or later if he is going to be a legit news reporter or journalist, or when he gets called out for being extremely biased, if he will continue to cower behind the now hackneyed “I’m an entertainer!” argument). 

[Video from HuffPo here which includes the three clips]

Last night, Marc Thiessen, author of the new book Courting Disaster, could be said to have “pwned” Christiane Amanpour (and whoever the tool box on the TV was as well).  Once again, the Conservative is trying to have a down to Earth discussion about a serious topic and the two left-leaning-friends take it to eleven and try to not even let the man talk.  In the end, Christiane should have felt embarassed if such a sentiment still exists in a CNN “reporter’s” lexicon. 

[Marc Thiessen pwnes CNN part one]

[Marc Thiessen pwnes CNN part two] – “They’re only doing training as you know” Great demonstration of ineptitude.

-rj

Punishing the Guilty- Unless We Don’t

The Heritage Foundation nailed it in their Morning Bell yesterday:

The TARP program has so far distributed $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest and dividends have already been repaid. Except for AIG, almost all banks that received taxpayer money are expected to pay back the American taxpayers in full. As The New York Times reports: “The losses from the bailout fund are expected from money paid to rescue Chrysler and General Motors and the insurance giant American International Group, and from a program to help homeowners avert foreclosures.”

So the real deadbeats that are not giving us “our money back” are not the banks, but the union-backed car companies and failed government mortgage modification programs. But guess what? The White House has chosen not to include the car companies among the institutions that will pay this so called “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee.” Also exempted are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored entities that helped create the crisis.

It’s time we told our elected officials to stop picking winners and losers, and voted in people who are in favor of term limits and in favor of a separation of business from government. Beyond liberal or conservative, these are the issues that are so important to America. After all, when Howard Dean, Markos Moulitas and Arianna Huffington agree with The Heritage Foundation…perhaps it’s time for- and I dislike using this word- change to how our system works. Of course, it’s up to us, the voters and citizens of America, to make said change.

What it Means To Be A Conservative

From Austin Russell:

At times, it can appear almost impossible to identify the fundamental philosophical precepts that define the Conservative—or, as it has come to be called by many popular news sources— the Tea-Party Movement. Many dismiss it as nothing more than a marketing gimmick employed by the Republican Party to turn public sentiment against the current administration. Indeed, some argue that the only ideal underlying the movement is outrage. Politico reported yesterday morning—without providing any direct quote—that Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) himself, a popular figure within the movement, suggested that “the GOP should be wary of aligning themselves too closely to protesters who can be unpredictable in their actions and messaging.” The obvious inference is that the Movement lacks a firm philosophical leg upon which to stand.  Additionally, The New York Times yesterday published a criticism of Governor Mitt Romney for his participation in the formation of the Massachussetes socialized healthcare program. It calls Romney “One of the most prominent supporters of the main ideas behind the health care plan passed by the Democratic Senate”—equivocating support for state government social programs with that of federal social programs in an attempt to demonstrate that “the [Republican] [P]arty’s voice has been dominated by people who make things up, and then condemn the rhetorical phantoms of their making.” While the article does not directly refer to the Conservative Movement, it does place Rush Limbaugh, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Mitt Romney, and Governor Sarah Palin into the same philosophical camp, once more implying that there is no true difference between the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. The reality, of course, is that nothing could be further from the truth.

Barack Obama’s ascendance to the presidency, combined with the Democratic takeover of Congress did not, as many suppose, signal a desire on the part of the American people to empower, much less to expand, the size of the federal government. Rather, the continued expansion of the federal government under President George Bush and the Republican Congress, despite campaign promises to the contrary, convinced voters that the Republican Party was, at the very least, dishonest. It was upon Democratic promises of responsibility, accountability and change upon which so many relied for their vote. After all, if the previous administration had practiced a policy favoring bigger government, would not a change from such require a policy favoring smaller government? Unfortunately, the reality was not, as many supposed, a choice between big and small, but rather, big and bigger. In an effort to understand and correct their mistake, Americans have taken it upon themselves to more narrowly define what it is they actually want. And what do they want? The answer is obvious: a smaller, less intrusive, cleaner and more efficient federal government.  That is why the latest Gallup poll found that an overwhelming majority (40%) of Americans identified their political ideology as conservative.

The new movement favors principles over individuals and values what politicians do over what they say or how they present themselves. In short, conservatives care most about what happens rather than who is in power. If Barack Obama were, today, to begin supporting the ideals of smaller government, and individual liberty—and not only in word, but in deed—there is no doubt that those same conservatives that now seek his political head would rally behind him in numbers greater than those following his election fourteen months ago.

Operation: Just Cause

In December of 1989, George H.W. Bush (or Bush Senior for the liberals who do not know the proper application of a generational?suffix) sent the XVII Airborne Corps, Joint Special Operations Command and numerous other Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force units into the country of Panama.? The operation was launched in an effort by then-President Bush to depose of Manuel Noriega (the de facto leader of the Panamanian government at the time) and rescue Americans who had been trapped in the country during those turbulent times.? The operation was named Operation Just Cause, leaving some critics of the engagement to quip that the operation’s name was the only argument H.W. Bush had to justify the action (I will leave the conspiracy theories about Skulls and Bones, Mena Airport, Bush, the CIA and aliens out for the sake of time, much to the chagrin of Alex Jones supporters).

What makes a war “just”?? Surely this is a topic that has been debated and mulled over for as long as men have been around on this earth (because women do not go to war, of course; war is a bi-product if irrational manliness).? Can anyone truly justify a war to every one’s liking?? Is the nature of the state to do what is right for the population of that state, no matter what that means for other states (as the term state is understood post-Machiavelli) as we see with the realists?? Or can a state only be justified in going to war if such an engagement is for the benefit of humanity as a whole (by asking “pretty please” from the UN)?? Then again, it was once said that “those who invoke humanity on their side mean to cheat” (Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political).?

Apparently, Americans are having a sort of crisis of conscience.? According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, only 50% percent of our fellow countrymen and women feel that the War in Afghanistan is a “Just” war.? This goes along with the Quinnipiac University poll that came out about a week and a half ago, which nearly reaches the exact same conclusion.? Support for the war in the first year preceding the September 11th attacks of 2001 was close to near unanimous approval, with Gallup showing 89-93% stating that Afghanistan was not a mistake in January of 2002.? So it appears that Americans (Democrats and Republicans mind you) are waning on their support for a war that they felt was necessary in 2001 and 2002.? What has changed?

If the Afghan War was justified then, what makes it less so now?? Surely we are there for the same reason, since we did not go over and overthrow the Taliban and then leave only to return as “occupiers”.? What is it that makes this war “unjust” then?? What is “justice” to these people who?have decided that it is no more than a mere term to be thrown around in the height of passion following an attack on 3,000 innocent people?? Was it only then just because we went in and overthrew a tyrannical regime that was directly tied to forces responsible for bloodshed on our own soil?? Now is it “unjust” solely for the reason that we are being told by the news and liberal (and libertarian and some conservative) influences that we have overstayed our welcome?? Which is the more justified action: going in and sacking the regime of a country to leave it in anarchy and decay; or staying and building it up to the point that their government can run effectively and more justly than before?? Who are the 21% of voters that have obtained this retroactive prescience? and decided they are against it after they were for it?? I can understand those people who were against it from the beginning, and that is because they feel that no war is ever justified.? They should be acknowledged and applauded for their principled stand, but let us not forget the ignorance that must be evident in such a dogmatic stance.?

I must admit that it is polls like these that create a feeling of futility in the pit of my stomach.? Perhaps a majority of Americans should not be asked a question about wars and their relation to justice until they better understand what justice is.? The slow decay of support for this necessary war is a sad barometer of the fortitude possessed by the American people to support the men and women overseas, their families at home, and the mission we sent them to do eight years ago.? In the end, those 50% of Americans who now question the mission and its necessity, are not doing those soldiers or their families justice.?

-rj

Weekly Team-Up: Dobbs & Fox A Match Made for Democrats?

Lou Dobbs has suddenly resigned from CNN effective immediately.? Given the recent?Biblical exodus of sorts of conservative journalists from all the major networks to Fox News in the last 12-18 months, will Dobbs be the next to make his arrival on Rupurt Murdoch’s ever growing conservative juggernaut?

MarketWatch seems to think he is headed to Fox Business Network, which would most likely be very fitting.? It would also allow for him to be a guest commentator on Fox News, and do drop in segments on Fox News from the Fox Business studios.

We have to ask once more: is?this a good thing? Sure, it’s great for Fox News Network and its profits, but is it good to be pulling all conservative influence from the other networks? Check out Dustin’s articles on this?here and here.

-nick

———————————————————————————————————————-

Following up on Nick’s comments, a liberal friend made a point recently?that made a lot of sense- namely, that with Lou Dobbs on Fox, the Republican Party and conservatives will further be known as the “white party” and the “white movement.” If Dobbs is brought onto Fox News, conservatives and Republicans stand to lose a massive number of potential voters and supporters they are already struggling with- minorities in general, and Hispanics in particular. Dobbs is despised by many Hispanics, and if he comes to Fox, this will do great damage to the conservative movement and its ability to convince minority voters to support its candidates and policy viewpoints.

Before the accusations start, no- I am not saying we should be politically correct. I am saying, however, that good tactics are needed to spread a message, since many people associate a message with the messenger in both positive and negative ways. Example: my friend Rachel Sheffield, a researcher at The Heritage Foundation, is a much better representative for?social conservatives?than someone like Rhode Island Governor Carcieri, for many reasons. These include the fact that Sheffield comes across as sincere and constructive when supporting heterosexual marriage (full disclosure: she’s a friend of mine), whereas Carcieri is appears bigoted and hateful in his most recent defense of heterosexual marriage. Likewise, someone like Dobbs could cause major damage to the conservative movement’s attempts to show immigrants and minorities how conservative policies are better for both of those groups of people as well as the country as a whole.

Personally, I don’t pay attention to Dobbs, so?I don’t know the truth of the accusations against him regarding race and prejudice.?However, since Hispanics dislike him, my opinion doesn’t matter- theirs does. After all, a movement can have strong views without alienating a large number of American citizens, but Dobbs is not able to do that for the conservative immigration policy supporters. Thus, the question remains: is Dobbs an effective voice for conservative immigration policies, or is he a liability to the movement?

-dustin

Alan Grayson Is Enjoying His 15 Minutes of Fame

Imagine if a conservative or Republican did this about abortion. Unfortunately, it’s a very effective tactic- minimal effort, lots of attention and it excites the base.

“Question Authority”

“Question Authority” is a popular slogan often pasted on bumper stickers that came out of the late 1970′s famous protests around the United States. The phrase is a statement refuting the logical fallacy of “because I said so.” In other words, statements made by “authority figures” are not necessarily factual just because the individual making the statements have rank over others.

“You will always find that those are most apt to boast of national merit, who have little or not merit of their own to depend on…” -Oliver Goldsmith

From Vietnam to George W. Bush, questioning authority has been the policy of the left, especially when Republicans have been in office. And to be fair, there has always been an assumption that it is the duty of citizenry not to blindly accept what they are being told by a government. Especially when that government was appointment by the very people it assumes it has authority over.

“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” -Benjamin Franklin

But for the Left, this mantra of sorts has quickly come to a close with the election of a Progressive administration. Questioning authority is unacceptable. And it is confusing to the Left why conservatives would ever question the policies of the administration. Furthermore, the generation that invented the “Question Authority” movement, now the authorities themselves, have entered into numerous double standards.

Mark Lloyd was brought into the administration as the Chief Diversity Officer. A position that is designed to verify that a strategy of diversity and inclusion policy is taking place across the nation. Yet the administration has attempted to shut down and shut out Fox News as of late. A very diverse move.

I for one was never taught in school that asking questions was a thing of ignorance.

-nick

« Previous Page — Next Page »