We Won, Now Let’s Find Some Perspective

Today is a great day for Conservatives.  There is a weariness in our souls that has somewhat dissipated.  But something has been troubling me for some time now, and I think that it is important that we all take a minute to find some perspective.

I’ve repeatedly heard from television talking heads, my radio, and politicians that now the work will begin to reduce spending, provide tax breaks, repeal Obamacare, push nuclear energy, so on and so forth.  But folks, that’s just not going to happen.  I’d be willing to bet that none of that happens.

This election was not about actively reversing trends.  We just don’t have the power to do that.  Our side will not be able to push an agenda, and even if our side could do that, the likelihood of President Obama signing anything Conservatives sent to him is slim to none.  In military strategy you have the “rollback” and you have “containment”.  The rollback is the complete annihilation of the enemy.  And containment of course is a strategic blockade.

What this election was truly about was creating a two year containment or a blockade.  We all saw very clearly how much damage could be done in two years with a Progressive president and a Congress full of his sheep.  The results of this election simply keep President Obama in check, when he was clearly not in check the last two years.  2012 should be Conservatives goal for really seeing a reversal of trends.

Perspective is an important thing, and it will be increasingly important as we edge closer to 2012.  Why?  Mainly because Conservatives have made a stand, the Tea Party has made a stand, and that passion, involvement and trend needs to continue into the 2012 presidential election.  If we lose perspective though, and talking heads and politicians begin waxing poetic about how they are about to roll all of Obama’s policies back over the next two years, then the reality is that Conservatives could be in the same pot of boiling water in two years time that Liberals and Progressives are currently sitting in.

Now is not the time for politicians to be making promises that Congressional Conservatives do not have the power to act on, and talking heads and radio show hosts should be reminding viewers and listeners of this fact.  We would simply be setting ourselves up for failure.  Under-promising and over-delivering should be the slogan of every Conservative in office right now.  For the last two years we have been playing a football game without a defense or an offense.  We just got our defense in play to keep Obama from out right scoring.  But the reality is that we won’t have an opportunity to get an offense into the game until 2012.  If we all keep that in mind over the next short 24 months, and keep our passions and involvement high, then we can take back the Senate and potentially the presidency and start the Republican Rollback of the Progressive movement.

Obama Might Be Targeting Americans… and I’m OK With That

I am trying to work some things out in my mind, and I was hoping that I might solicit the help of a few of our thelobbyist comrades-in-arms (probably a poor idiom considering the topic at hand). Am I to assume, that police departments are not allowed (according to some) to ask for documentation pertaining to a person’s legal status in these United States; but it is imperative that our troops and commanders check the citizenship of people overseas in war-torn sections of the world before we take out a target?

The specific case I am talking about has to do with an American born- Anwar al-Awlaki. “Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen, born in New Mexico, and now residing in Yemen, where he repeatedly issues exhortations to murder his fellow Americans,” as reported by the Washington Independent. The Obama Administration has secret intelligence, as well as overt intelligence, tying the American to Al Qaeda operating in Yemen; he ministered to the 9/11 hijackers, was the possible inspiration for the Ft. Hood shooter, and purportedly had ties to the would-be Christmas bomber. Because of this, he has been placed on a counter-terrorism ‘hit-list.’ It is important to note, that the CIA reported that he was not placed on that list until they received intelligence that would lead them to believe that the operation al-Awlaki has been working on recently has gone from the planning stages to the operational stage.

Civil libertarians are upset over the fact that the Executive would use its power to summarily strip away an American’s citizenship and have that person, what they call, assassinated. I want to clear up, however, because killing someone who happens to be an American is not “assassination.” Every surreptitious murder of a fellow American would be assassination. It is the murder of a prominent political figure-head, generally for political purposes. Strategically killing someone who is fighting for the other side is not assassination, or does every time a Taliban or Al Qaeda soldier get killed without knowing whom killed him/her considered assassination? I think the fact that people are saying “Obama is assassinating Americans” only works to hype up the readership of periodicals (like they ever do that).

I understand the plight of the civil libertarians, I understand that they think that this action is a gross misuse of government power and that Americans cannot have their liberties stripped away.  Let us clear the record: yes, the government can take away your citizenship. There is a set of guidelines that shows what it takes for someone to loose their citizenship. Title 8, § 1481 details all of the reasons why someone might have their citizenship revoked:

A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

People against the policy of killing American citizens during a time of war while those citizens are operating against the United States point to the ending clause of Subsection 8:

(8) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

However, this final statement pertains to subsection 8 alone, because the previous seven subsections discuss other reasons why the government might revoke someone’s citizenship. Some talk about if the citizen goes to a consulate office and writes a formal letter, only then can their citizenship be officially withdrawn. Considering we are talking about people who are willing to use airplanes with civilians as missiles, and place plastic explosives in their shoes to kill Americans; I just can’t say that it is reasonable for people to expect terrorists (home-grown or not) to act reasonably. Besides, a person’s citizenship can be revoked the minute they join the ranks of a foreign army or try to usurp the United States government.

When the police are in a stand off with a suspect, an American citizen or not, they are forced to abide by the rule of law and their own standard operating procedures. In times of imminent peril and danger, either to themselves or to the hostages, they use sharp shooters to take out the suspect. No Mirandizing, no obtaining a warrant to search his persons, no trial and jury of his/her peers, the executive has the prerogative to take matters into their own hands in particular situations. I think that a war might be one of those situations. This is not the first time this question has been brought up, as Andy McCarthy writes:

The president is the commander-in-chief with primacy on questions regarding the conduct of war. Even if we were to accept for argument’s sake that at issue is a legal rather than a political judgment, Supreme Court precedent (the World War II era Quirin case and the 2004 Hamdi decision) hold that American citizens who fight for the enemy in wartime may be treated as enemy combatants, just like aliens.

The problem is that we have people who are trying to legislate war. Ironic. War is chaos, it is hell, it is the state of nature according to Hobbes. But then again, it is not the state of nature, because it isn’t all against all, it’s us against them: it’s political. Part of political justice is ensuring the safety of your own before that of those who are trying to harm you, and if it is someone who was once a part of the ‘us’ crowd, it is necessary and proper for the government to take the necessary steps to keep that person from harming the whole. We can try to contain the ravages of war with laws, but there are limits to doing this, as there are limits to everything else in life. But if we tie the hands of the president during a time of war, we tie the hands of the country and ultimately make it more possible for Americans here and abroad to perish. I support what the President is doing in this case, I think that going and throwing Hellfire missiles at every target does us no good; we loose actionable intelligence and sometimes cause collateral damage. But taking out someone that could be critical in the carrying out of terrorist operations is the duty of the President and myriad organizations that have been established to keep this country safe. When they are doing that, I will gladly thank them.

I just hope people keep this in mind when the DoJ and Attorney General Holder talk about “going after” the Bush Administration for their “detaining” and “enhanced interrogation” memos. The pro-National Security Bush crowd seems to be the only crowd (aside from the civil libertarians against both Administrations) that has a consistent policy. The real problem lies in the Obama Administration’s hypocrisy.

-rj

What Can Brown Do For You?

It hurts, I know.  For the countless Conservatives and Tea Partiers who helped Scott Brown’s campaign make history, those who donated money from all around these United States (like the $348,000 spent by the Tea Party Express in California for a Scott Brown TV ad), those Republican operatives who boarded the buses here in DC and trekked northward into enemy territory to knock on doors: I cannot offer you and yours much comfort in my words.  Actions speak louder than words, and Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Partiers seem to be uniting for the first time this year due to Senator Brown’s recent actions. 

It sucks; and nobody wanted to think this was going to be the case because as Glenn Beck said during his closing speech at CPAC, “it’s not enough for Republicans to just suck less than the other side.” 

What led us to this unfortunate quandary was the Senator’s recent vote against the filibuster for Senator Harry Reid’s Jobs Bill.  This will allow the Bill to reach a final vote in the Senate Wednesday.  His actions earned him praise from Maryland Democrat and Representative Steny Hoyer, which is the equivalent of Dallas Cowboys picking up L.T. and having Dan Snyder applaud the move as “great.”  It has also earned him some malicious scorn on his Facebook page and office phone lines; and a bit of criticism here at thelobbyist as well.   

Sen. Brown was probably pacing back and forth with his home state sticking to his shoes before returning to DC for votes this week.  He was probably taking a lot of information in about the problems facing Massachusetts, particularly unemployment which increased from 8.7% to 9.4% (November – December 2009), a considerable increase especially when compared to the rest of the United States.  All the while, Massachusetts’ Unemployment Insurance benefits have dipped $41.9 million into the red. 

I am not endorsing Senator Brown’s actions, nor am I even excusing them.  It is imperative that the Republican Party experience an eureka moment where they do not treat people who are for limited domestic influence by federal government as the fringe.  Can’t there be someone who can moderately explain why limited government involvement on the federal level is a good idea for the entire country?  Isn’t this where Reagan reigned supreme?  At the same time, can’t Tea Partiers, Conservatives and some Libertarians also come to accept that a Republican in Massachusetts will not be an exact replica of a Texas Republican, or a Carolina Republican? 

I am just asking for everyone to hold tight I guess.  I know we made Scott Brown into this last best hope, and I do not think that his voting in favor of this particular jobs bill shows us anything we really should not have already expected: Scott Brown is a Republican.  Not a Tea Partier, not particularly Conservative, and certainly not a libertarian.  Does this make him a RINO?  No… he is still a Republican and can still help us keep the $1 Trillion government slow-roll take-over of healthcare.  That means a lot more to me right now than the $14-40 Billion jobs bill.  Let’s not burn our bridge just yet, and keep our eyes on the prize.

-rj

Conservative Congress

Yesterday, the citizens of Illinois cast their votes in the first primary election for national office. Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias were nominated to battle it out for President Obama’s senate seat. A strong shift in public sentiment, most recently demonstrated by Republican Scott Brown’s win over Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy’s, leads many to predict a win for Kirk.

While there are those who would celebrate any Republican victory as a win for conservative principles, it is important to remember that not all Republicans are also conservative. While both Kirk and Brown alike position farther right on the political spectrum than their rivals in the Democratic Party, they fall terribly short of what conservatives are searching for. Kirk’s call for federal subsidies to fund a state-run public transportation program, and Brown’s refusal to take a firm stance on abortion are just two examples. Such waffling is unacceptable.

If Freedom is to succeed, Americans must elect leaders who refuse to straddle the political fence. If Illinois has taught us anything, it is that we must begin as early as the primary elections to speak up, and make our voices heard.

J. Austin Russell

Destruction Among The Democrats

I was at my internship with Laura Ingraham earlier today, and as part of the job I had to look up information regarding the falling house of cards that is the Democratic Party and its domestic initiatives. Below is what I found:

1. President Obama’s Transportation Security Administration nominee has resigned after Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and other Republicans held up his nomination due to his lying to Congress.

2. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) is calling for health care voting to halt until newly-elected Senator Brown (R-MA) is seated.

3. White House officials and House Democrats see things differently on health care and the ramifications of the Brown election.

4. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) may very well have Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) as a challenger this year, despite his calling out the left today.

5. White House advisor David Axelrod and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs don’t get it.

Below is what I have found since:

6. Suddenly, deadlines aren’t so important to President Obama.

7. Moderate Scott Brown (R-MA) and conservative Jim DeMint (R-SC) are on the same page, it appears. Kind of makes Democrats look like the ones who are purging their own ranks.

8. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is kinda-sorta-not-really calling for health care reform to start over.

Update:

9. Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) has been rumored to be prepared to resign from Congress if the health care debate keeps going, and is being courted by a large insurance organization.

10. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is being hammered by the liberal members of her caucus.

None of this is to take away from the fact that Republicans still have work to do in creating a big tent- though Ed Morrissey continues to do great work regarding that goal- and that the Tea Partiers and many other Americans are as angry at the Republican Party as they are at the Democratic Party. While I think the Republicans will win several Senate seats, and 20-30 House seats, I also think the divisions between conservative Republicans and moderate Republicans, and between social conservatives and fiscal/economic conservatives, will hand several House races and at least one or two Senate seats to the Democrats in 2010. Of course, if President Obama keeps using his waning political capital to help Democrats in tough elections, perhaps Republicans will be fortunate enough to have another two years to get their own house in order before the 2012 elections.

A Big Yawn

So apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yet another racial comment- after comparing Republicans opposed to Democratic health care reform to supporters of slavery- and the political world is hung up on every word. Questions like the following dominate the arena:

1. Should he resign like former Senator Trent Lott did? (No, he shouldn’t.)

2. Are Reid’s remarks similar to Lott’s? (No, they aren’t. Lott’s were insensitive to the public’s eye, but meant to compliment a public servant. Reid’s were analytical but insensitive. Reid’s were definitely about race, Lott’s probably were not.)

3. What does President Obama think? (He doesn’t care.)

4. Will this hurt Reid’s already tough re-election campaign? (Duh.)

5. What does Reverend Al Sharpton (or some other race-baiter) think? (Sharpton defended Reid.)

So, this leads me to two questions, one important and one not so much. The less important one is this: why is Sharpton now coming out against former president Bill Clinton’s remark last year that “A few years ago, this guy [then-Senator Obama] would have been getting us coffee,” when he is defending Reid?  After all, let’s say “a few years ago” was a reference to President Obama’s age, not race, and remember that sometimes “a few years ago” can mean as much as a decade, especially to older people such as Clinton and former senator Ted Kennedy (to whom Clinton made the remark). Perhaps the former president was merely remarking on the presidential candidate’s youth and inexperience? If he really wants to help black Americans, Sharpton should ignore these minor, attention-grabbing comments by public figures and concentrate on helping young blacks get a better education. Or, better yat, perhaps he could join Star Parker in helping diminish the number of black abortions.

My second question is more important, however, and more timely than the age-old complaint about Sharpton’s priorities. Namely, it is this: why are Republicans wasting their time on attacking Reid? This issue will have a minimal effect on the health care debate, it won’t help change the public’s view on the party one iota and few outside of politics remember Trent Lott’s comments. Republicans should release a statement or two, let Reid’s general election opponents use this comment and his slavery one to his or her advantage, and concentrate on the larger issues facing America and her citizens. If we are to win past November 2010, conservatives and Republicans must be viewed as the movement and party that can prioritize. The Bush years were incredibly harmful to the Republican and conservative brands, and Democrats have taken full advantage. We have to show the public that we deserve their trust yet again, and hammering Reid over a really stupid and insensitive comment won’t do it. In fact, it may very well hurt us in the long run.

Best of thelobbyist 2009

Thanks to all our readers for making 2009 a great year for thelobbyist.? Below you will find the top post from each month during the 2009 calendar year.

January – 8 days until EPA annihilation of America?Stop Them! – nick r. brown

February – Pseudo-Scientists Kill Possum (Not to be confused with Opossum) – nick r. brown

March – Conservatives Just Don?t ?Get It? – nick r. brown

April – Pay for Performance Act of 2009: An Encroachment of a Free Society – sam theodosopoulos

May – ?I?d Pretend I Was One Of Those Deaf-Mutes.? – nick r. brown

June – Fox News Presents Obstacle For NH GOP Opportunity – sam theodosopoulos

July – Tie: The Personal Democracy Forum Doesn?t Help Conservatives & Personal Democracy Forum: The Future of the Conservative Movement – nick r. brown

August – The Moore You Know About Obama? -? tom qualtere

September – Conservatives Are Right On Gay Marriage – dustin siggins

October - We?ve Never Begged For Money? – nick r. brown

November – An Actual Solution To Health Care Reform -? nicholas j. rohrhoff

December – Pro-Life IS Pro Health Care Reform – dustin siggins

-nick

Health Care Officially Passes Senate

It passed on a party-line vote, too. However, do not despair yet:

1. The White House is outright lying about President Obama’s campaigning on the public option. Desperation?

2. According to Politico, the White House is admitting negotiations over the bill may go past the State of the Union address in late January or very early February. Given that there have been multiple passed deadlines already, and primary season hits full stride in May, will vulnerable Democrats like Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) be willing to pass this monstrosity in the final vote? Their constituents will be (and are) paying attention, and 2010 is going to be a Republican year anyway, so conservative Democrats are going to continue to be very careful.

3. Democrats in the House have felt ignored and trampled for much of the health care debate, and The Heritage Foundation has compiled a number of issues the House and Senate will have to overcome to get a final bill passed. Question: will the House be willing to cave? That verdict is uncertain.

4. Politically influential conservatives, liberals and moderates are against the Senate bill. Polls show Americans are increasingly against the so-called “ObamaCare” version of health care reform. Again, will vulnerable Democrats risk voting for the bill?

5. The designed-to-be-a-pain federal legislation process is in America’s favor.

It’s Christmas- let’s enjoy the day, thank God for sending us His son and enjoy our time with family and friends. Let’s also pray for the guidance and ability to prevent this bill from gravely harming Americans by not letting it pass.

The Best Of Both Worlds

Hey, CPAC organizers, here’s an idea- let’s stick to our principles and get good public relations at the same time! Let’s start with not allowing the John Birch Society to co-sponsor the 2010 CPAC. Then, let’s fully support the inclusion of GOProud as a c0-sponsor.

Here’s what this will do:

1. It will show that the largest, most popular gathering of American conservatives does not support the kind of extremism our movement has been accused of over the past several years and particularly in the last year.

2. It will show that the largest, most popular gathering of American conservatives?is inclusive towards?organizations that share stances on tax policy; a belief in?limited government and free markets; and?standing up against those foreign enemies that commit atrocious human rights violations. Since GOProud is a conservative gay organization, it will also show that the conservative movement values what Ed Morrissey so aptly said we should: “…a governing coalition based on fundamental conservative principles or a mission of absolute purity on the Right.”

Morrissey concluded his analysis better than I can, so I’ll steal what he wrote: “If we want to win control of the House in 2010, we need to focus on key principles that address the nation?s crises and the main points of disillusion with Democrats.

That should set our focus on those points on which Democrats overreached ? namely, spending, government intrusion, spiraling deficits, and fiscal insanity.? We need to show that we can, if trusted with power again, govern properly and responsibly, and even more that we understand that the priorities are the fiscal issues and not the social issues that divide more than they unite.

GOProud?s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort.? We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.”

We’re All Racists Now…

Apparently we’re all racists now. Jimmy Carter told me so.

I’m from Dixie. The land of labels. The area of the country were if anyone has a problem with anything that anyone else of the opposite skin color does it’s always attributed solely to racism. The accusation usual comes from Liberals. It’s frustrating. It’s equally as frustrating to listen to Carter proclaim his excitement of the South’s progress in race relations like he is sitting on some cloud as a deity encouraging his Southern brothers toward some goal that he had already achieved ages ago.

Jimmy Carter, please go away. You aren’t President, you aren’t anything. You have failed so many times I cannot even think of a time you succeeded other than somehow tricking the country into voting for you. Oh, and congrats on that Nobel Prize for keeping North Korea free of nuclear weapons. As a Georgian, if I could kick you out of my state I would. You bring the Empire State of the South nothing but shame.

I was happy to see Robert Gibbs shoot down Carter’s assessment. It may be the first truthful and logical thing I’ve ever heard the man say.

When Maureen Dowd wrote her hate column to Joe Wilson last week she went after his affiliation with the Sons of the Confederacy. Anyone reading this without knowledge of what the SCV is would immediately associate this with some sort of secessionist or racist organization, which is what I’m guessing since it was in the New York Times. The more accurately named Sons of Confederate Veterans is a veterans organization. How dare he be apart of a veterans organization!

SCV was formed in union with the Grand Army of the Republic, which is the veterans organization of Northern soldiers during the Civil War. These groups M.O. is to research and preserve the history of the war, establish battle sight memorials, and help individuals locate information on relatives that fought in the war. The SCV has received commendation from both Republican President George Bush (Bush, George W. “Letter of Commendation.” Confederate Veteran, June, 1996: p.6.) and from Democratic President Bill Clinton (Clinton, Bill. “Letter of June 21, 1994, from Bill Clinton.” UDC Magazine, Sept. 1994: p. 9.). But how dare you be a member Joe Wilson! That makes you a racist!

It must be noted that Obamacare will cover illegal immigrants. Ed Morrissey covered this on HotAir.com when the neutral Congressional Research Office announced this a few weeks ago. I was told recently by a blue crusader that Joe Wilson was a racist because he yelled, “You lie” after Obama mentioned illegals. That somehow because Obama was lying about coverage of illegal immigrants, and Wilson called him on it means that Wilson is a racist because the lie he uncovered pertained to illegal immigrants. Seriously? Informal fallacy perhaps?

Does anyone realize what’s going on here?

That’s right Admiral, it’s a trap. Democrats want us to be having this conversation. They want us to be stirred up and talking about race relations, and our thoughts on the black president. Which is completely ironic in itself considering the fact that WE HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT! White people had to vote for him too.

But the whole point of all of this is that we are now not talking about what we should be talking about: the health care and cap and trade bills. There is recent precedence for this if you don’t believe me. Remember how concerned we all were for the well fair of the voter in Iran? Then Michael Jackson died. Iran what? Sad but true.

What’s also sad but true is that race relations in this country may have just been set back 20 years. And at the fault of the liberals stirring up the controversy. Ironically the Democrats always proclaim to be the ones promoting minorities. But Robert Byrd is running around unafflicted by his own party for his massive involvement in the KKK. And it’s the Democrats that block conservative efforts to move minorities out of inner city schools to provide them a better education. It’s almost as if the liberals don’t want to see minorities succeed, be well educated, and find successful jobs or become business owners. I wonder why? Ask Herman Cain.

But I digress. Focus people, focus! Let’s get back to the real issue before those in power in DC try to play some sleight of hand while they have us busy with our heads in the clouds over an issue that’s not really an issue.

-nick

Next Page »