Keeping the Uninformed Blissfully Ignorant

The President ripped away whatever is left of the mask he has worn since the 2008 elections. What he articulated in the State of the Union show fits the classic definition of Facsism. Jonah Goldberg, who also wrote Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, writing in the National Review Online, in an article entitled Obama's Vision for a Spartan America is disgusted.  And with good reason.  The United States is the one nation on earth where each individual has been allowed to pursue his own vision of the good life.  Not anymore.  It is only a short step from where we are to some bureaucrat deciding where you will live, what you will do for a living, and how much you will be paid.  It is a short step to some bureaucrat deciding how warm to keep your house, what appliances you may have, what food you may eat, and all the other decisions you make now.  As it stands, bureaucrats are deciding what health care you will receive, and when that becomes too expensive, when you will die.

This is not a vision of America, it is a vision of Mussolini's Italy, or Hitler's Germany.  It is the vision of a Fascist America that the Progressives have been working towards for over 100 years.

Meanwhile the Republican elites are doing their best to see that Obama's vision comes true.  They don't want ordinary Americans making their own decisions any more than the Democrats do.  In Our Elective Despotism, (American Thinker)  Lawrence Sellin explains that the only thing the Republican establishment wants is to get their hands on our tax money and distributed it to their friends. The only thing they don't like about ObamaCare is that they were frozen out of any decision making. By way of illustrating his point Sellin writes:

One of the most honest and courageous members of Congress in decades, Rep. Allen West (R-FL), is about to become a sacrificial lamb of the collusion between the Republican and Democratic establishments in the state of Florida.

And what is West's crime? He is an independent thinker and a rising star of the Tea Party movement.

The Republican establishment hates the Tea Party because it has the audacity to suggest that American citizens should have a voice in their government.

Reading between the lines, both political parties want to transform the United States into a Fascist State, with, of course, the elites of either party at the helm. Interesting, he is backed up by Steve McCann, also writing in the American Thinker in an article entitled The Republican Party's Strategic Blunder.

The overriding interest of this cabal has been and continues to be: the accumulation of power through the control of the income, borrowing and spending by the Federal Government. Thus, with the exception of the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the Republican controlled House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999, the Republican members of the Ruling Class have been content since 1952 to merely slow down the big-government policies of the Democrats while publicly decrying their tax and spend policies.

This insider apparatus has been the primary determining factor in whom among those choosing to run for office will receive the financial, media and logistical support so vital for any political campaign, but particularly for national office be it the Presidency or either house of Congress. It is this cabal that has given the nation Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain in the presidential sweepstakes and innumerable go-along to get-along members of Congress.

And that is why we have either had to hold our noses and vote for the Republican, who promised to take us there slower, or vote for the Democrat who promised to take us there faster. But neither one promised us the liberty to live our own lives.

McCann posits the death of the Republican party, and I agree. But what will replace it? If whatever replaces it must use the same politicians, with the same prejudices, to win office, are we any better off?  Unless we can reverse the leftward drift into fascism that the nation is taking, a second party will be pointless, only serving to keep the uninformed blissfully ignorant.  We will have simply two wings of a single party.

The Message the TEA party is Trying to Send

I don't have much time today, as I report from an undisclosed location near Atlanta, Georgia. But an article in the American Thinker today caught my eye. The article, by Joseph M Koenig is titled It's Not About Newt. Check it out.

The Stupid Party Miscalculates Again

Jonah Goldberg has an interesting article up at National Review Online entitled Romney's Authenticity Problem. The article makes the point that the "Establishment Republicans" have been pushing Romney as the only one who can beat Obama. But now, they are having second thoughts:

The most persuasive case for Romney has always been that if he’s the nominee, the election will be a referendum on Obama. But that calculation always assumed that rank-and-file Republicans will vote for their nominee in huge numbers no matter what. That may well still be the case, but it feels less guaranteed every day.

We've been trying to tell you for some time. Unless you cough up a true blue, honest to goodness Conservative, a lot of your conservative base is going to sit out the election.  The reasons why should be obvious if you think about them.  We know we embarrass you.  Our insistence on our Second Amendment rights, our professed belief in God and his great gift of grace, Jesus Christ, our sense of being rugged individualists, all seem to strike you as distasteful.  We must seem like a bunch of rubes, hicks, and hayseeds crashing your masquerade ball.  But ever since 1972, the conservatives have had only one place to go.  So we have accepted your abuse, hoping that someday you would see us as a valuable partner in setting the agenda of this great nation.  Yet here we are again, with a liberal, possibly progressive, masquerading as a conservative.

Anthony Martin, the Conservative Examiner explains some of our problems with Mr. Romney in a piece entitled Reality Check: Why Romney is the Likely Nominee. Mr. Martin:

But first it is important to understand Romney from a purely traditional conservative point of view. He is no real conservative in the traditional sense but a Republican from the old eastern liberal establishment cabal in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, and Henry Kissinger. This is in stark contrast to Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and modern conservatives such as Jim DeMint.

After explaining that choosing such candidates has usually cost the Republicans the White House, he goes on to point out that:

Conservatives have warned essentially since the last Presidential election that if they choose another nominee from the liberal establishment, it will spell disaster in the general election. But so far, Republicans have not heeded the warning. They are poised yet again to make a major mistake by choosing a candidate in the Rockefeller tradition.

So, why would "The Establishment" do that? I have heard theories that, for instance, what they really want is the Senate. But, even if the House stays Republican, and the Senate goes Republican, the chances of making any significant policy changes are next to nil if the Presidency remains in the hands of Barack Obama. There will be no repeal of ObamaCare as long as Obama is in the White House. If it is not repealed soon, it will never be repealed, and the United States will continue its leftward slide into third world irrelevance. So, again, why?

A conversation led by Neil Cavuto of the Fox Business Network the other evening provides the answer. Cavuto had 3 guests on his show to talk about Obama's decline and Romney's rise. Someone mentioned, perhaps Cavuto himself, that as Wall Street has had the opportunity to evaluate Obama from an investment/economic perspective, the financiers have dropped him like a hot potato. They are putting their money on Romney, according to Cavuto, who has significant contact with the movers and shakers among the Wall Street fat cats.

Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying (and I am paraphrasing here) that conservative ideas work every time they are tried. He also says that leftist ideas have failed in every country they have been tried. Don't you think it is time we tried a winning formula for a change?

The Republican Establishment Speaks

I have been reading Jonah Goldberg's articles since the mid 1990s, when I discovered him at National Review Online, along with his couch, which seemed to star in some of his pieces as a character in its own right. Goldberg has matured into a father, husband, and a thoughtful conservative voice. So the article appearing at Townhall.com today entitled Conservative Establishment Divided Against Itself somewhat surprised me. Goldberg has become a part of the "Republican Establishment." Goldberg claims that he has not moved from the principles he so eloquently spoke about a decade and a half ago, but rather it is we, the conservative base, who has moved further to the right.

Long pause, staring out the window of the office overlooking the PolyKahr estates....

He is correct. I cannot speak for everyone else, but I can relate my own journey to come to this point in my life. I suspect others have followed similar pathways that have led them to a place close to mine. Conservatism, in the mind of Goldberg, is not an ideology. There are no unifying principles to Goldbergs conservatism except that the conservative is the one standing athwart history yelling "stop." The conservative says "think about the unintended consequences," or "think how this could be used by your worst enemy." Unfortunately, the Left usually thinks it has thought of the unintended consequences. Also, unfortunately, the conservatives have been too polite to use what the Left has given us against them.

You can see the problem with this state of affairs already. The Left constantly frames the issues we are all talking about. Slowly they marshal their forces until it appears they have the majority opinion. The conservative press makes arguments against the proposal, but since these are often based on tradition, religion, and the nature of man, all things the Left rejects, the arguments are dismissed out of hand. Out of desperation, the conservative offers up a "compromise" which is less destructive, but in fact the Left has just won yet again. We conservatives find ourselves in the ridiculous position of trying to defend programs that before we were against. It is disconcerting to see so called "conservative" politicians trying to figure out how to save Social Security and Medicare, for example. Today the Left starts out as if what is has always been, and keeps pushing the nation ever leftward. For example, taking the gun control scheme currently in place, they run around asking why we in the gun rights community can't compromise on "reasonable, common sense" gun control. But if the truth be actually told, most of the 20,000 laws currently on the books are illegal and unconstitutional, and should be stricken.

Then I thought of the word, "conservative." A "conservative" conserves. But what is it he is trying to conserve? In Europe, conservatives try to conserve the monarchy. For the most part they have failed miserably. In America, conservatives have been trying to maintain the gains made in the Revolution and subsequent writing of the Constitution. Being a Constitutionalist solves many of the problems we have had with the Leftward movement of our national politics over time. The Constitution offers a set of fixed principles, that none the less can be changed if enough of us can be convinced to change it. If it were adhered to by everybody, most of our nation's problems would be manageable.

Not to be thwarted by anything so minor as a dusty 200 year old document written by men who couldn't possibly survive in today's fast paced hustle and bustle world, the Left has turned the Constitution into a "living, breathing" document that can be bent, folded, stapled and mutilated as needed to sanction the latest most up to date fad. PETA is suing to grant some killer whales human rights. How avant guarde!  How very Left, the idea that rights are granted by men.  How stupid.  Yet unless we assert some fixed principle why this is a stupid idea, it too will become the law of the land.

So, I come, at last, to where I am. The Constitution meant what it said when it said it, and it means the same things today that it meant when it was written. The original intent of the Constitution can be researched and understood, and this is the method that should be used. By these standards, a huge number of subsidies, entitlements, transfer payments, and laws should be stricken from the books. Does that sound radical to you Mr. Goldberg? Maybe it is, but I can look myself in the mirror each day knowing that I can argue from principle, rather that just saying to the Left "slow down."  We need to have rock solid and unchanging principles if we are ever to turn back the current slide into fascism and a police state.  

Don't Like the Outcome of Elections-Get New Voters

For years now, I have heard that there is some poor schmuck out there somewhere who is a legitimate citizen, but who can not show valid photo identification of himself. Should this person be denied the right to vote just because (fill in the emotional tag line here)? I ask who that person is? The only response is a vague reference to even more vaguely oppressed minorities. Whoever this person is, he doesn't drive so no need for a driver's license. Obviously he doesn't travel to foreign countries, at least not legally, so no need for a passport. But, since you are asked to identify yourself at seemingly ever turn, what is so hard about going down to your local DMV and getting a free identification card with a photo? Who can't manage that? Show me the individual, and then let's talk.

Ray Hartwell has a great piece on the issue over at Pajamas Media entitled Plain and Simple, the DNC Wants Voter Fraud. Mr. Hartwell:

And so, when I think about the DNC’s concern about the implications of voter ID laws “for real people,” I have to wonder if their concern isn’t really more about people who are not “real” – i.e., the dead and imaginary voters who have turned out for decades now in Chicago and other Democratic strongholds across the country.

Certainly the activities of ACORN and its allies in 2008, which are being cranked up again for 2012, belie any DNC profession of concern about the integrity of elections. The same can be said for the Department of Justice’s refusal to take action to clean up voter rolls – they will not force local authorities to comply with federal voting laws by removing dead people and others who are ineligible from the rolls.

When I read articles like this from Hot Air, I have to think that Hartwell is right. The Democrat politicians want voter fraud. There can be no other explanation for the lame excuse making taking place in Wisconsin. The next conclusion is also pretty clear: they, more than Republicans, believe they benefit when people take the admonition to "vote early, vote often" quite literally. To the degree that it happens, and they get away with it, what does that say about the legitimacy of the laws the politicians are making? The legitimacy of our form of government is that the people's representatives make the laws under which we live. What if that weren't true?

Recall that the Democrats passed ObamaCare on a party line vote and against the will of the majority of the people in this country.  Recall that polls indicate that that majority has only grown in the years since that vote.  Yet the Democrats felt invulnerable enough to thumb their noses at the voters and go ahead with this horrible monstrosity.  They weren't falling on their swords for the good of the Republic, but hoping to steal yet more liberty from the American people  They felt little fear that the people would rise up.  Why is that?

The Founders gave the American people a way to hold a bloodless revolution every two years. The Constitution provides a framework to carry out the words of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

Voter fraud essentially disenfranchises the legitimate majority of voters by deciding for them which politician shall represent them in the making of laws. It is, I believe, for that reason that the Democrats did not fear the voters over ObamaCare. They have in essence, gotten rid of their legitimate voters and have instead gotten new voters, ones to their liking, and they are loathe to give them up.

The War on Guns: ‘Conservative’ case for Mitt Romney no case at all

The War on Guns: ‘Conservative’ case for Mitt Romney no case at all

Go read the post, and the link to the post, which takes you to David Codrea's National Gun Rights Examiner page. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Read it? Good.

Just in case the "Republican establishment" is reading this post, let me be clear. I will not vote for Romney. It doesn't matter if that means Obama gets a second term. I am tired of holding my nose to vote for the lesser of two evils. Enough. David is right, let the "establishment" hold their collective noses for a change.

Of course, David is correct, that Romney has a terrible record on guns. If a gun control bill reached his desk, do you think he'd sign it? No matter what he says now, once elected he will probably go with his natural inclinations. Romney seems to be another one who thinks because he doesn't "need" an "evil black rifle," nobody else does either. Of course, the Second Amendment spells out a right, not a need. He also has a terrible record on health care, signing in to law in Massachusetts RomneyCare, which was the basis for ObamaCare. He hasn't repudiated it, even though it has done none of what was promised. Now, I realize that it is Constitutional at the State level, while it is not Constitutional at the Federal level. But even if it is Constitutional at the State level, there remains the fact that it is a massive collectivisation of Americans that seeks to enslave others to provide for a few who can not, or will not provide for themselves.  And I know he promises now to repeal ObamaCare. But how anxious do you think a President Romney will be to repeal ObamaCare if it comes to his desk? Frankly, I just don't trust him to keep his word. We've seen this before with candidates from both sides of the aisle, so there is plenty of precedent.  For instance, remember that candidate Bush promised to veto campaign finance reform, but President Bush signed it.

Then there is his plan to handle the economy: a 59 point plan. Really? I like some of his ideas, like requiring Congress to approve major regulations before they take effect. But what about small ones, like the ATF imposing reporting requirements on dealers who sell more than 5 long guns to the same buyer in a week along the Southwestern border. What about making Congress actually write those regulations, rather than delegate the job to the executive branch. Indeed, there is so much that the Government is doing now that is Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. What will he do about those things? But then, Romney, protestations aside, is not a conservative, much less a Constitutionalists.  Of course, he can not simply abolish agencies like Education and Energy, as woeful as those agencies are, but he could put it before Congress.   But I don't see him doing that either.

A vote for Romney is a vote for more big government, and more deficit spending.  We need less, not more.

In 2012, the Cry needs to be Repeal!

The number of Federal crimes is estimated to be 4,450 according to a Heritage Foundation report Revisiting the Explosive Growth of Federal Crimes. This number has been growing by 56.6 per year at least since 1980. And of course, this doesn't even begin to count the causes of Federal civil action against individuals and companies for various environmental and other actions resulting in fines. For instance, there is the case of the Dollarhites at BigGovernment.com. Dollarhite is being threatened with a $4 million fine for selling more than $500 dollars worth of rabbits. The follow up to the story can be found here. But this is not an isolated incident.  This happens thousands of people across the country almost daily, most of them under the radar.  Ayn Rand had it right in her book Atlas Shrugged: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." We are probably at that point.

As a Christian, I know the Ten Commandments. I understand that I break one or more of these commandments daily. In a perfect world, I would love the Lord with all my heart, and sole, and mind, and thus be able to keep every one of the other nine, but this is not a perfect world. But throwing myself on the mercy of my God is a different matter than depending on the kind mercies of a random policeman, or a Federal Agent, not to mention Federal Prosecutors, Judges, and juries. Any time someone wants to go after an individual, they can usually find something for which to hang them.  If not for the actual crime itself, then they can use your varying statements to law enforcement over a long investigation as proof that you lied, itself a crime.

I have long called for the repeal of laws now on the books. So, it was with some comfort that I see others now calling for repeal of laws. 500magnum writing in Gunleaders blog that it is time for gun rights activists to begin asking politicians which Unconstitutional gun laws they are willing to repeal. I think it is a good idea. But why stop there?  There are so many laws, rules and regulations that are either out and out Unconstitutional, or of dubious Constitutionality, that whole Federal departments could be eliminated, saving millions, or billions of dollars.  Further, the Courts do us a grave disservice by presuming that the any law passed by the Congress, and signed by the President is Constitutional on its face.  With all the shenanigans that go on today in Congress, such a presumption is wholly unwarranted.

Many people think that Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading, itself a vague law that should put fear into anyone who regularly trades in the stock of industries that they well understand.  In fact, as Tibor Machan notes the charges of insider trading were dismissed. In fact, Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to Federal Agents, obstruction and conspiracy. But one has to wonder what it was she was guilty of obstructing, or what crime the conspiracy was guilty of committing, absent the actual crime? Martha Stewart's case was a reminder to the world that if the Federal government wants to get you, it will.

Taking a Good Look at Ron Paul

Jonah Goldberg makes several excellent points, points that are quite libertarian, today in his article at Townhall.com entitled Tyranny of the Typical. Since Mr. Goldberg says it much more elegantly than I can, instead of making a hash of things let me just quote a couple of graphs. However, to set up the first quote, Goldberg is at pains to describe Murray Rothbard's "bias of the status quo." He does so by introducing a story that Mr. Rothbard had told in his Libertarian Manifesto called the "Fable of the Shoes.":

It's worth keeping this fable in mind as the reaction to last week's CNN-Tea Party Express debate hardens into popular myth. Moderator Wolf Blitzer had asked Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) what should happen if a man refuses to get health insurance and then has a medical crisis. Paul -- a disciple of Rothbard -- explained that freedom is about taking risks. "But, congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?"

First, why is the extremely liberal CNN moderating our first televised debate with a leftist moderator? Fox News has much higher ratings than CNN, and we could certainly find a neutral, if not friendly moderator. Brit Hume would be a good moderator, and would ask the kind of questions we really wanted to know the answer to, without the "gotcha." I am concerned that once again the media, and the Republican "establishment," whoever they are, are going to select our standard bearer. Dr. Paul is already being dismissed as not electable, and we haven't even held our first primary! It is in no small measure to the kind of questioning he got at the hands of Wolf Blitzer. Dr. Paul's message is not easily reduced to sound bites, so this style of debate does not show him well.

I will make a confession here. I got to see Ron Paul in October of 2007 at the Gun Rights Policy Conference held across the river from Cincinnati, Ohio. He was the only candidate then running, from either party, that bothered to show up. While his message was the same as it is now, I was turned off by the cult of personality that his supporters affected. Most of them were young people, kids to me at my age. Of course, they had no real experience, but they had tons of energy and enthusiasm.  I have since reread Washington's farewell address. I have reread Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex. I have been working my way through Glenn Beck's Original Argument. And I have lived with as close to a fascist dictatorship as I care to get. In short, I am a convert to small "L" libertarianism, thanks in no small part to my friend, Francis Porretto.

Frankly, Dr. Paul's message is as close to the original ideas propounded by the founders as anyone today running for President. His foreign policy, often dismissed as "kooky" would be met with general approval all around. The founders' view was that we should trade with all countries, but be absolutely neutral in their affairs. To that end, we should have a strong military, especially a strong Navy, to defend our neutrality. But, we should back out of all entangling alliances. We should get out of the hundreds of places where our troops are now stationed such as Korea, Japan, Germany, and who knows where else. America's greatness is not that she can overwhelm any other force on the planet. That role, if it was ever thrust upon us, is no longer needed. America's greatness is in the freedom and liberty she provides to her citizens. We should be a shining city on the hill, an example to others, and a rebuke to petty tyrants and dictators everywhere. 

Second, there is an unspoken assumption built into Blitzer's question "... are you saying that society should just let him die?" That assumption is that our stricken man does not in fact own his own life, that society has at least a partial ownership of him, and therefore it is up to society to see that he gets the proper care, or dies, based on its interests at the time. That is the whole, unspoken truth behind ObamaCare. It is a foreign idea that has insinuated itself in our culture that says we can not do for ourselves.  But we did for 141 years.

Paul calmly replied that he's not in favor of letting the man die. A physician who practiced before Medicare and Medicaid were enacted, Paul noted that hospitals were never in the practice of turning away patients in need. "We've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves," he observed. "Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it."

Just so.

If our republic is to survive, we must change ourselves, and our neighbors. Health care is not a "right," desirable as it may be. It is a good. Someone has to go to some expense to provide it. Socializing the provision of any good, be it health care or shoes, creates moral risks and unintended consequences. The unintended consequences include a scarcity of providers, and the eventual rationing of care because prices have been taken off the table. When that happens, one wonders which situation Blitzer would find moral: Letting the man die, due to his own decisions, or denying him the care he has been forced to pay for, thus letting him to die because government can not deliver on its promises?

Update: Steve McCann has an excellent summary of the steps the Obama regime has taken to bring us fully under a Fascist government over at the American Thinker today. The article is entitled Obama's Fascist Economy. It may be a good idea to keep this one close to hand when discussing the situation we find ourselves in with friends and neighbors.

Tell Me Sweet Little Lies

Sultan Knish, AKA Daniel Greenfield, has a piece on his website entitled 5 Biggest Lies about Liberalism. I wish I could have said it as well. After I read it, I was sorry I did not see it before, when it ran a year ago. One could take issue with which lies of the left are are top five, but certainly multiculturalism, feminism, being friends of the poor, being pro-peace, and being patriotic are in the top ten. I would add that the Left claims the mantle of science and rationality, while being irrational and fanatical.

On multiculturalism, Greenfield writes:

Multiculturalism is really only class warfare disguised as opposition to bigotry. Take away all the historical revisionism about the Democratic party's ugly civil rights history and the empty slogans about diversity, and what you have left is naked political opportunism. The Democratic party trafficked in racism when it suited them (and still does) and dons the halo of tolerance when it suits them now. The left was equally at home working both sides of the street, and the views of great socialists from Jack London to Karl Marx on race, differed little from those of the Nazi party.

and on feminism, he writes:

Like multiculturalism, owning the feminist brand has been convenient. And it was easy enough to manage once feminism became a wholly owned product of academia, funded by liberal groups like the Ford Foundation. This brand of feminism has as much to do with equal rights for women, as African Studies have to do with equal rights for African-Americans. They're basically little more than ways to repackage the agenda politics of the far left in identity colors. That way socialism can be dressed up as a civil rights agenda, and opposition to it becomes racism or sexism.

In exposing what the Left is really about with their multiculti, feminazi hatred of everything and everyone, their historical revisionism, their constant and pathological lies about their true motives, and their real goals, one would think that a open minded reader would at least begin to question just what their leaders have in mind. Recently, Senate Majority Leader Reid allowed a bit of truth spill out, buried in amongst the lies, that let us have a glimpse of what they were really trying to do. Harry Reid excoriated the Republicans for holding up the the FAA extension over a provision to cut subsidies to 13 small airports, when in fact it was the Democrats who wanted to add provisions to unionize flight attendants. In doing so, Reid had to know that most of the news media would back him up, or bury the true issue deep in the story. Even if John Boehner objects, his message will never get out. To make matters worse, the particular flight attendants they wanted to unionize, Delta, had voted not to be represented by a union. But the union can't seem to take "no" for an answer. So, who are the Democrats representing: the flight attendants or the union bosses? The union bosses may believe that Delta employees don't really know what's good for them, but should that be the concern of the Democrats? Indeed, should that be the concern of Government at all? 

The Left has consistently lied about Anthropogenic Global Warming (Goofball Wormening). They have everywhere claimed that the "science is settled," which then absolves them from debating the topic. But as any real scientist knows, the science is never settled. New findings must always be tested by proving or falsifying predictions made from the new theory. But whenever the so called "climate models" have been tested on a past climate, they have been found inaccurate. Satellite data has been routinely ignored because it didn't show a warming trend. Even land based temperatures have not shown any warming for 10 years. But the Left uses its strangle hold on the media to keep these messages under wraps. Timothy Birdnow has an article entitled Warmists Strike Back at the American Thinker which discusses the active role the climate "scientists" took in ensuring that skeptics would not have a forum to present their counter findings.  What he presents is a consistent series of lies, misdirections, and energy put into discrediting their critics that defies belief.  A sane person would have to ask himself why, when they could see the raw data, and working behind the curtains they had to know the tricks, would they have kept up the facade so long?

Then there are the lies being told about Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry. According to these liars, Perry and Bachmann would initiate a Christian Theocracy in the United States. Of course, especially in Bachmann's case, this line of reasoning ignores the the first 100 years of American history. If the Constitution permitted a theocracy, it would have already occurred. But the Founders did not intend to establish a religion, instead allowing each to worship as he pleased. Indeed, this freedom is enshrined in the First Amendment. But, to take these liars at their word, which mandate would a Bachmann Presidency be required to uphold? On the one hand, there is the mandate from her alleged god to force all people to bow down to Jesus, and on the other, God witnesses that she will uphold the Constitution? In point of fact, this is all much ado about nothing, as pointed out by David French at National Review Online here.  We are all dominionists now.

Paul Kengor has a piece at the American Thinker entitled The Democrats Invincible Ignorance. Dr. Kengor paints a bleak picture of trying to convince people with facts and statistics that they can go and look up for themselves. Kengor writes:

I've only recently come to realize the nature of the hurdle this country faces in trying to turn around a stalled economy and horrendous deficit. Here it is: liberal Democrat politicians have completely convinced huge numbers of their followers that our economic/fiscal mess is the result of two principal demons: 1) "the rich," and 2) the Tea Party. The former, of course, has been a longtime liberal scapegoat; the latter is a new one.
...
I've realized this painfully only in the last few weeks as a result of several commentaries I've done (USA Today, FoxNews, among others), viewed by a large portion of Americans from across the political spectrum. In these commentaries, I tried to stick to statistics and facts. I naïvely thought my approach would be convincing. It was not.

Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it!" And here, at last is the reason...the lesson. When people have lost all moral understanding, and when lying, cheating, propaganda, even murder, become acceptable means to an end, and that end is a payday in terms of money and power, then this is what you get.   The shriveled, ugly heart of the Left.

This will be the most ruthless campaign season that I can remember.  I hope you are up to it, because I don't see the Republicans helping us much.  Indeed, the Republicans just want to take us there slower.

Is Perry Establishment, or TEA Party Favorite

The American Thinker had an article yesterday, that hints at "the troubles" coming our way, but posits a fairly optimistic outcome for Elections 2012. The title of the article is What Liberals Fear More than Obama Losing, by Geoffrey P. Hunt, whose opening paragraph held much promise:

The left are now wringing their hands fearing their agenda is overripe, blaming everyone else for their own spoiled pickling. While Obama's sinking prospects for re-election are disquieting, the real source of liberals' despair is their sudden, unexpected realization that the progressive agenda is dead in its tracks and will likely be in full retreat after 2012.

Good so far, but then it devolves into puff piece for Rick Perry.  I say puff piece because everyone knows campaign rhetoric is designed more to rally the base than to actually indicate what a candidate would really do if elected.

The tipping point provoking the libs' worst nightmare was contained in Rick Perry's speech announcing his candidacy to be the Republican nominee for president. Perry proclaimed his mission was not to make government more accountable, effective, or efficient -- that's standard issue bromide from populist reformers. No, Perry was bold enough, and as his critics will assert reckless, to suggest government should be irrelevant -- his words "as inconsequential to your lives as possible."

Frankly, I don't like being railroaded into selecting someone before I can take the measure of the man (or woman, because these days a lot of women are showing more gumption than the men), and this is feeling like 2000 all over again. That year, George Bush announced, and seeming took a victory lap before being nominated by acclimation. His talk of being a "compassionate conservative" had heads scratching all over. You see, those of us who call ourselves conservative think of ourselves as truly compassionate. We want to teach all men to fish, whereas the phony compassion of liberalism just wants to give people a fish and let it go. True compassion however, takes more time and effort, and requires a change in the other persons heart, so I can understand liberals disdain for it. In any case, we just thought it was a marketing ploy, and a clever one at that. Shrewd, Mr. Rove, very shrewd. But it turned out that "compassionate conservatism" was actually code for "more of the same liberalism."  What kept us voting for Bush was the thought of AlGore, of John Kerry (he served in Vietnam) was so off putting, that we held our collective nose and voted for him anyway.

In any case, since he is in the race, let's have a look at Rick Perry. His official campaign website is here. The things Rick Perry is saying here mostly seem to be things that I can live with. Perry vows to repeal ObamaCare, cut spending, and cut taxes. What I don't see is that he would get rid of any departments, no matter how Unconstitutional those departments may be. For example, the Department of Education gives out billions for things that are not even on the Congress's to-do list. Then there are departments like DHS. DHS, in Obama's hands threatens to become a secret police force. We don't (or didn't) have those sorts of things in America. And what about repealing the unPatriot Act?  What about eliminating thousands of regulations that stifle business and job creation every day?  No mention of any of that.

On the other side, if Jeff Greenfield's scare mongering is any indication, I could live with Top 10 Things Governor Rick Perry Doesn't Want You to Know About Him. Of course, that is just some red meat thrown at the left, so I discount a lot of what I read there. But if what a lot of the MSM is saying and writing about him may not be true, they have definitely telegraphed that this guy is both electable, and has truly conservative ideas. They are afraid of Rick Perry, which elevates him in my eyes.

What about Rick Perry's record on guns? You can tell a lot about a politician's position on other issues by his position on guns. Perry apparently has a concealed carry license, but then reputedly so do Senators Boxer and Schumer. That doesn't mean they are all for you having a gun. Keep in mind the liberals ability to simultaneously hold two opposing points of view.  Rick Perry opposed the recent efforts of the ATF to illegally grab more power by making the four Southwestern States report multiple sales of long guns to the Fed. Good. He has reportedly stated that if a person has a concealed carry license, he should be allowed to carry pretty much anywhere. Not bad. Licensing concealed carry is a good first step (as the Left always says.) In the generational culture war to keep our guns and bear them, we eventually want Constitutional carry everywhere.

In today's American Thinker, J. Robert Smith has an article which says that Romney plans to scare seniors about Social Security and Medicare. But Perry's plans, as I understand them now, seem quite modest. If we had done them back in 2004, we might not have had the current recession, or it might not have been as bad as it has been.

The primary election season is designed to put the candidates in the fire, and see if they survive. It needs to be as spread out as possible. As voters, we need the time to ask questions, and get answers, assuming the candidate doesn't simply lie to the nation. If Perry scares the Dems, that is just fine. If he scares the so called Repub establishment, that is good too.  The debt ceiling fiasco shows that the establishment Republicans are not listening to the voters either.  Perhaps a Perry candidacy is the two by four we need to smack them up beside the head.    

We will not see actual cuts in spending

Jerry Pournelle writes a very telling post entitled There Won't Be Cuts, courtesy of Kevin at the Smallest Minority over in the side bar.

I am taking a road trip, so won't be around for a few days. But this is what I fear we will end up with. Smoke and mirrors, but no real cuts. Or, and this is a trick I especially like, put the "cuts" in the out years, where Reid and Boehner can not be held accountable for them since no Congress can legally bind a future Congress. The Republicans will say that they need more people in Congress to get something done. Don't fall for it again. This is the same trick they pulled on us in 1994. We gave them more, but they betrayed us at every turn.

Democrats should Impeach Obama Now

I don't usually play the Devil's advocate, and I don't usually help out the other side. But I am feeling devilish today, in part because of what I have been reading. In today's American Thinker, Jeannie DeAngelis has a good piece entitled The End Result of Obama's Logic. The piece combines the Obama foreign policy, specifically the START treaty with Project Gunwalker (not mentioned by name.) I'll provide a spoiler here:

If common sense demands a logical policy decision, Barack Obama chooses the opposite. The pattern is this: In a quest to attain an ideological goal, the president ties the nation's hands behind its back in an intentional contribution to America's weakened condition. Whether at the treaty table or making policy decisions that affect everything from the American economy to a porous border, Obama seems willing to sacrifice lives and our way of life to promote a liberal ideology that looks increasingly as though its end goal includes the destruction of America.

In the Mideast, Obama tells our faithful paid ally, Mubarack, to go, but doesn't think at least a little encouragement might have been helpful when the Persians were rioting against Amadinnerjacket. Why the seemingly illogical choices? Read above.

Then, there is the Wall Street Journal editorial that complains about the decline of the Navy, courtesy of Gun Rights 4 Us. Why, when the world is getting less stable, would a President of the United States want fewer aircraft carriers, less sea power, and less ability to confront an enemy abroad. Would Obama rather have to meet the enemy at our front door? Does he actually have anyone outside of the U.S. that he considers an enemy?  Read the above.

When a long train of abuses invariably points in one direction, you can only conclude incompetence by a sheer act of denial. Anyone looking at the current situation rationally would conclude the the President does not have the best interests of the American people at heart, and is actively working against them. It may be time to draft up Articles of Impeachment. Interestingly, it is not Republicans who should draft them, but the Democrats.

The Democrats?!? Strangely, yes, and I'll tell you why.

Obama is going down for the count in 2012. The Stupd Party could put up anybody, including the dead elephant himself (and they may. Never underestimate their ability to create a decisive defeat for themselves out of sure victory.)  By getting rid of Obama now, they will put the affable gaff-a-matic, Joe Biden in office to complete Obama's term. But Uncle Joe stands the proverbial snowballs chance of winning the Presidency. The most likely choice for Democrats would be Hilary, who wouldn't have any real opposition.  The Donkeys would perhaps give up some of their Black vote, but would gain a solid majority of the Soccer mom vote.  As for the Black vote, they can write off some of it, and tell everyone else the same thing the Republicans have been telling Conservatives:  Where are you going to go?  The other party?  Hahahahaha!  In addition, impeaching Obama would allow Democrats who would like to vote to repeal ObamaCare and otherwise vote with Republicans on some issues to do so with a clear conscience, and bringing back the idea that the country is being governed by a bipartisan majority.

With Hilary as the most likely new standard bearer, what would the Republicans do.  I think Romney, Gingrich, and especially Huckabee have been tried on the national stage, and been found wanting.  Rubio is an untried quantity, but shows a lot of promise.  Chris Christie also shows promise, though he is probably not a fan of gun rights.  Bobby Jindal has been laying low lately, but he also is a possibility.

Sarah Palin would be an obvious choice.  She is smart, attractive, and has a good story.  She has been collecting political chits from those she endorses.  Indeed, Sarah Palin can be said to have long coat tails without the usual requirement to be wearing the coat.  She has a nose for politics, which is an absolute must for anyone running for President.  On the other hand, she divides people like no one else.  About half the women I know love her, about half hate her.  She would also be facing a woman that the press loves, so they would be hiding anything that made Hilary look bad, and playing up anything they thought would make Palin unappealing.  Personally, I like Palin.  In the end, it would be a close match up, but Hilary would win.

Don't expect the Dems to actually pull this off.  The unions and others who have invested heavily in Obama would never let them do it, though it would be the smart move.  The Rs have their own reasons for not doing it.  They have already calculated that an opposition party attack would force the Dems to close ranks, so that a long floor debate would eat up time without any useful outcome, and distract from the job of getting our debt under some control.  So, our Country continues to sink into irrelavance, our enemies aboad and at home continue to administer the death of a thousand cuts.  From what I can see, they will not stop until we are bled out.

Wherein I Go Where No One Should Go-Speculation on the 2012 Election

It is too early to speculate on who might carry the conservative banner in the 2012 elections, if anyone.  There might be a dark horse candidate that comes seemingly from nowhere.  The Left might suddenly moderate its actions, and leave Tea Party candidates high and dry.  Fat chance, but you never know.  It is a long time to 2012 in political terms.

Now, to rehash for a moment. Remember that last time, we had a choice between two Fascisti. Note that I use the word Fascist not in a derogatory manner, but it the sense that Jonah Goldberg defined as:

“Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the ‘problem’ and therefore defined as the enemy.”

In this sense, it was clear that either McCain or Obama would ultimately have very similar policies, and we would be heading down the path to greater totalitarianism no matter which one was elected. That so many conservatives chose not to vote is not surprising.  But now conservatives have some apparent conservative choices.  Sarah Palin is exciting, and always says the correct thing.  Unfortunately, Sarah Palin is also divisive.  I like her.  Many women do not.  Allen West is a warrior who has had to make tough decisions on the battlefield, and has proven himself in at least a Congressional election.  But Col. West, by his own admission, needs more seasoning in the wily ways of Washington, DC.  I expect Col. West to show up in 2016 or 2020.  Michele Bachman also looks like possible material for the Presidency, and I am sure she is weighing her options.  For the first time in a long time, there is some depth to the conservative brigade in government, and I hope to see a true conservative candidate.  On the other hand, people like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have proven themselves to not hold conservative principles.  If these "front runners" become the nominee, expect conservatives to again sit out the election.  Note to the Republican establishment:  don't push these guys on us. 

All this speculation was generated by an article in the American Thinker today entitled
Rubio and Reassurances by Chet Arthur. Arthur seems to feel that women voters, in particular, want to be reassured. They don't generally like war like talk. Now, some of my readers will disagree. That's fine, but think about the women you know. Think about their attitudes towards the topic of guns, self defense, and the need to be on constant alert to dangers that may be just over the horizon. Brigid of Home On The Range and Tam of View from the Porch may be the exception, but I bet most women are not like that.  Now, a lot of women do carry a weapon, and believe when push comes to shove in any chair in a bar fight.  They just prefer not to think of these things.  Mrs. PolyKahr, for example, is always happy to let me go first.  If I don't get blown up, well then it is probably safe for the Mrs. to go there.  I suspect most women are somewhere on that spectrum.  According to Mr. Arthur, Marco Rubio has the ability, at the same time, to hold truly conservative principles, and to reassure not only men, but women as well.  Rush Limbaugh said (and I paraphrase because I heard it while driving somewhere) that Rubio makes every speech a teaching moment on the Constitution.  High praise from the god father of the modern conservative movement.

On the other side is Marco Rubio's relative inexperience.  Like Obama, he will be a Senator for 2 years in 2012.  Because the Left has no problem changing its talking points from day to day, I am sure they will try to make hay out of this, though I don't know how. Go read Chat Arthur's article, then check out Marco Rubio. He may just be the candidate for you, if he runs.

Is Governor Bev Perdue Corrupt?

ABC News channel 11 here in Raleigh has a report up about possible corruption in the Governor's office. The story, entitled Perdue was subject of 1996 corruption probe on February 10, 2011 by Steve Daniels describes recent documentation that ABC 11 News has received.

The FBI's investigation was closed, but never really resolved. The report itself raises questions, but there are no answers here. This so far looks like a case of "we report, you decide," an unusual stand for the media today.