Walk Into The Fire

Cluster40 Comments

I have become a big fan of political commentator Ben Shapiro as of late and have started reading his new book “Bullies”, which is terrific. Not surprisingly, Ben was mentored by the late Andrew Breitbart who pioneered the conservative tactic that Ben has now taken up the mantle on and that is to shine the light on the left and their despicable bullying tactics. It is imperative that conservatives spend the next four years methodically exposing the left, Obama, and the media for the shameful, divisive nature of their politics that they display daily, and have successfully used as a club to gain control and power. The tactic is to pit “victims” against “aggressors”, and to famously champion the victims. And of course, the Democrats side with the victims, therefore, anyone opposed to the Democrats is the aggressor; ie: bully, ie: Conservatives. And everyone hates a bully therefore everyone should hate Conservatives. Obama has even made himself into the victim claiming that people think that his name is funny, that he doesn’t “look” like previous Presidents, and that Republicans attack him on the floor of the Congress, all of which is designed to foment hatred against those who oppose him. This tactic has been very effective on the low information voter, and the intellectually challenged, which unfortunately constitutes far too many of the current population of voters, and is a tactic that Obama and the media have recently accelerated as evidenced by John Dickerson’s column on “pulverizing” the GOP.

Ironically in 2008, Obama ran as, and was elected as a uniter. But that again was just another lie as his Chicago thug-like nature took over shortly after the election, displaying no real interest in building coalitions, a fact cemented by his appointment of Rahm “dead fish” Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff. But why should he build coalitions? When all he has to do now is continue to play the well established “victim” card and demonize anyone who opposes his sanctimonious agenda. We are seeing that in the gun debate, the gay marriage debate, the higher tax debate, and so on and so on. This allows Obama and the Democrats to avoid any adult like, real substantive debate on the issue and unfortunately, this fact sails over the head of too many people. This shameful tactic was also in full display during the last campaign, when Obama relentlessly attacked the very character of Romney, claming him to be an uncaring, rich person who evades taxes, strips people of their healthcare and allows spouses to die. And the complicit media carried his water the entire way. That is why conservatives have no choice and must confront this tactic head on, and as Breitbart famously exclaimed “walk into the fire”.

What OWS Got Wrong…and What We Have to Get Right

Mark Noonan122 Comments

 

I don’t often say that a video is “must see”, but this one is.  It lays out what is wrong with our financial and government system.  Our task is to educate the American people about the fact that what has happened is that Big Government and Big Corporation have got together and screw everything up.  The OWS people were shouting about the banks…and demanding that government fix it!  Government carefully and diligently assisted the bankers in ruining the economy.

Free markets are the silver bullet to fix what ails us – politically and economically.  We must have a revolution so that we can ensure that anyone who wants to participate in either market can do so without let or hindrance from a corporate or government bureaucrat.  If we want to occupy something, then we should be occupying the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury – that would set us on a path back to rationality.

Content Of Their Character

Cluster26 Comments

This weekend we honor a great American. MLK was a true visionary, and devoted his life to advance a noble cause, a cause of which we as Americans unfortunately still struggle with. MLK risked his life for that cause, and in that battle, he is credited with one of the all time great historical quotes, and personally one of my favorites:

“I have a dream that one day my four children will one day live in a nation where they will  not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”

Nearly 50 years later it seems as though we have not only not lived up to that dream, but have lost sight of it altogether. Today we have politically devolved to the point that we still judge people by the color of their skin, or at least I should say some of us do, and unfortunately that includes the President, who ironically was one of whom benefited the most from MLK’s efforts. Today, our current Democratic Party seems to over look content of character in favor of color of skin to rile up an over emotional political constituency and to advance a political agenda. Liberals within the party have an inherent mistrust of the individual character believing that individuals if left to their own accord are inherently racist, inherently unfair, inherently selfish and because of those character flaws, will not make good decisions. Therefore, they promote a large federal bureaucracy that will serve to “level the playing field”.

Conservatives on the other hand, believe in the individual character. Conservatism is the inherent belief that if left to their own accord, the individual is not racist, is fair and unselfish and will make good decisions. The Constitution was also written in that firm belief in the individual character by mandating smaller, more decentralized government that empowered the individual over the federal bureaucracy and that fact is the reason why America has advanced so far, so quickly. By contrast, many liberals see the Constitution as a racist, and misogynistic document, no doubt as a result of the fact that it was written by older white men of Faith, and completely ignore the fact that that document has resulted in a country that has offered the most civil rights to more people than any other governing document in the history of the world. And it did so, because of the inherent belief in the individual character, just like MLK implored us to believe in so many years ago.

My hope is that we as a country will eventually coalesce around that dream but considering the current state of our political discourse, and the completely irresponsible media, I am afraid that that hope is fading. The over emotional, hyper sensitive liberals in the media and in politics seem to be drowning out the rational adult voices in our society and until that dynamic changes, America will continue to lose sight of the dream.

UPDATE: Speaking of inherent mistrust of character. I ask you – how is this kind of rhetoric helpful?

“Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.” – John Dickerson, Slate Magazine

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan:  Just wanted to point out that the Error of Obama is now officially half over, boys and girls…there is less Obama time in front of us than there is behind!

Term Limits Back in the Public Square

Mark Noonan28 Comments

It came and then it faded away – mostly because a court decision absurdly ruled that the States cannot limit their federal office holders terms.  But the American people do seem to want it – according to Gallup, 75% of Americans want term limits on members of Congress.  This is broadly supported by Democrats, Republicans and Independents and all age groups are in favor.  Gallup didn’t break it down by ethnicity, but I doubt the measurements would come out much different if they had.

Term limits are, in my view, a vital aspect of ensuring that government is responsive to the will of the people.  To arguments that we need experienced legislators I answer:  like the ones we have now?  To arguments that staff will take control if legislators are rapidly overturned I answer:  why in heck do we even have large staffs for each legislator?  They are supposed to be writing the laws (and these days we know they don’t even read them before they vote on them…seems like the staffs are already in control in our non-term limited legislature).  Three terms for House members, two terms for Senators, that is my ideal.  If I thought I could get it in there, I’d also forbid sitting office holders from seeking a different office until at least two years after they left office.  We’re not supposed to have a professional, political class but, instead, have citizen legislators who serve for a time and then go back home to live under the laws they wrote (no elected official should have a pension, nor should they have their health care provided by government…they are there to serve, darn it!).

There is a mood to change things for real in America – and whomever taps in to it first and best will win everything.

 

Is it Time for a Left/Right Alliance?

Mark Noonan20 Comments

The other day Legal Insurrection had a post about a meeting – pleasant and mutually enriching – between TEA Party and MoveOn activists.  Today, Pajamas Media had an announcement from the Hacktivist group, Anonymous:

…“Obama has been working hard to try and ban semi-automatic weapons and shotguns while at the same time increasing the weapons and firepower that police and government agencies have. Within minutes of the Connecticut shooting, politicians were on the state run media saying it was time to get rid of the guns and they will be talking about it for weeks to come,” Anonymous wrote on its blog. “The Obama administration and his government funded media have been promoting this idea for months. Every time there is a shooting performed by a crazy person the media talks about it non-stop for weeks or months. But when there is an illegal or unlawful shooting by police that does not fit Obama’s agenda the story is barely mentioned.”

Anonymous notes that not only do police shootings barely get any attention, but cases where slaying are committed without guns or where guns are used to save lives also fly under the radar.

“Mr. Obama the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution does not talk about an army, that is covered elsewhere in the constitution. It does talk about a well regulated militia which is made of civilians with their own weapons. The second amendment of the US Constitution does not talk about protecting government or government resources, but it does talk about being necessary for the security of a free state. The second amendment of the US constitution does not say a single word about hunting or sport. But it does say ‘The peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’.”…

To be sure, be wary!  Gentle as lambs but wise as serpents, as one bit of wisdom commanded.  The left is, in its leadership, made up of junior-league Leninists who crave control because they honestly believe they are smarter than the rest of us and have an innate right to command.  But, still, this is interesting – I haven’t seen any better exposition of the 2nd Amendment from right wing groups since the Newtown Massacre.

Clearly, there is something going on here which doesn’t fit the narrative.  The goal of those who are wrecking our nation is to keep us all divided – as I’ve said before, I say the Lord’s Prayer in the same pew as a black man, but because of the narrative he and I are supposed to mistrust each other and each turn to government to protect us from each other.  There could be a growing separation between the leadership of the left and the rank and file, just as we rank and file GOPers/conservatives/libertarians are increasingly alienated from those who allegedly lead us.  While the left and right will never agree on most things, we might all agree on this, at least:  that individual liberty, at this moment, trumps all and we’d better ensure we’ve got that.  Once we’ve got our liberty secured, we can set about each other for all we’re worth as we determine relative trivialities like tax rates and spending levels.

It is something to weigh in our minds.

 

Part 357, obAMATEUR Hypocrite…..

tiredoflibbs42 Comments

This says it all….

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” – Senator Barack Hussein Obama 2006

What changed?

Oh, that’s right he is now pResident.

By his own words, he has marked his pResidency a failure.  He has marked his leadership a failure.  He alone has shifted $6 trillion in debt to our children and grand-children.  He certainly has not led on the debt issue.  He has not lead on deficit reduction.  He just issues smug threats while generating fear amongst our citizens, especially the elderly – threatening them with non-payment of their Social Security.   He has not issued a budget, nor has Harry Reid passed a budget in almost four years.

Just more of the same…. while Democrats are out of power they make grandiose speeches against debt, deficits and irresponsible spending.  They regain power and everything they have said before is long forgotten.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan:  From Instapundit:

READER DENNIS MULCARE WRITES: “Perhaps, if you can encourage your readers to have their young children write Obama about their angst regarding the national debt, he will publish 23 ways to address federal spending.”

Rush Nails It!

Cluster51 Comments

I, like Mark Levin, am so disappointed and infuriated with this wanna-be imperial President that I have had to detach myself from the political scene as of late. I no longer watch any political shows nor do I listen to talk radio much anymore with the exception of ocassionally tuning in to Hugh Hewitt and Rush. I didn’t hear this the other day on Rush, but I did read the transcript this morning, and his take on the POTUS, and Washington DC, is about as spot on as I have read in a long time. In his words:

RUSH: Let me tell you what I think, and I’m gonna tell you this in a balanced way — a balanced and fair way. What I think is really going on here is our president, Barack Obama, if you’ll note, really never talks about plans and proposals to solve problems. What he does is position his political opponents as the enemy. Everything he did today in the debt limit Q&A in his press conference, and even in the setup, was about the enemy. The Republicans are the enemy.

He’s not proposing solutions to anything. He’s not interested in solutions. As far as Obama’s concerned, there isn’t a problem, other than the existence of opposition to him. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. The biggest problem to Obama is the existence of opposition. And I’m telling you: I firmly believe everything going on in Washington today — everything inside the Beltway, in the media, in the think tanks, in the halls of Congress, everything — is oriented toward eliminating a viable opposition. Be it on the radio, be it on television, be it in Congress, wherever.

I think both parties have this goal. I think the Republican establishment is of the same frame of mind as Obama is, that the opposition is conservatives. The opposition is conservatism. And that’s why we’ve had some people ask me, “What was Colin Powell doing?” Colin Powell was on Meet the Press yesterday doing what Scarborough did on MSNBC this morning, which is what a lot of Republicans are doing, and that is criticizing conservatives. Every problem we’ve got, from the gridlock to intransigence to spending, it’s all the fault of conservatives.

And even the Republican establishment agrees with this………..To understand everything happening in Washington, understand that the objective is the elimination of any serious potentially viable political opposition to Barack Obama and the Democrats.

The Obama press conference yesterday was an embarrassment. Now mind you, I didn’t watch it because I refuse to listen to anything this man child says, but I did read the transcript and what struck me was the whining by the POTUS, mainly about how others speak of him. Does he think he is above criticism? He accuses others of wanting to throw old people off of a cliff, and starve autistic children, BUT he is offended if someone refers to him as a “big spending Socialist”? I thought spending was his recipe to turn this economy around, and I thought progressives, such as he, thought that socialism was preferable to capitalism. So what is there to be offended about? He should embrace his socialist tendencies, after all that his what his base elected him for.

The fact is, he is not offended, he is simply trying to eliminate his opposition through ridicule and shame. He has repeatedly said that if Congress doesn’t act on any particular issue, then he will act unilaterally, and by refusing to compromise and keeping his opponents on the defense, he will be able to act unilaterally aided by a complicit media and Senate that encourages him every step of the way. Gun control is the latest “crisis” that Obama will unilaterally act on, as he is being encouraged to do, but this is just the first “crisis” of his second term. There will be many more to follow, and through these manufactured crisis’s, will come executive fiat. Welcome to your very own Banana Republic.

Reid Named in Fraud Case

Mark Noonan19 Comments

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

Embattled St. George businessman Jeremy Johnson says new Utah Attorney General John Swallow helped broker a deal in 2010 in which Johnson believed he was to pay Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid $600,000 to make a federal investigation into Johnson’s company go away…

A Reid spokeswoman had no comment.  There is, at this point, no indication that any of the alleged bribe money actually made its way to Reid.  We’ll have to see how this comes out.  But, if you want to get some background on Reid – and the curious questions surrounding just how he got so rich – then I suggest The Audacity of Harry Reid.  Harry Reid is not just a hack politician.  Harry Reid is not just someone who is handing the legislative power over to President Obama.  Harry Reid is much more than all that – and all of it bad.

The General Welfare Clause

Federalist 2012145 Comments

The “General Welfare” clause
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
– Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

This posting covers many areas spanning from the original institution through the beginning of the subversion of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This document relies on vetted on-line information, books, and other available materials from institutes of higher education. Credit will be given to the best of the ability of this writer. Spelling will contain the spelling of the time of publication. I can only hope this post can lead to further discussion of the subject matter.

Article 1 [Legislative Branch] Section 8 [Powers of Congress] of the US Constitution defines what the enumerated duties of the Federal Government are while Amendment 10 [ratified December 15, 1791], which is also known as the States’ Rights Amendment, reinforces what is inside and outside the purview of the Federal government. The Constitution was written and ratified to both authorize and limit the powers of the Federal government listing those enumerated duties which, in part, were reaffirmed with the Tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights two years later.

Renderings of the exact enumerated duties are commonplace in the age of the internet; however, this post will look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about the Constitution in general and the “general welfare clause” in particular. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one …” Madison also said, “With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” Reiterating, Thomas Jefferson said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

Reaffirmation comes as part of the Bill of Rights, and in particular, the 10th Amendment which embodies the general principles of Federalism in a republican form of government. The Constitution specifies the parameters of authority that may be exercised by the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative, and judicial while the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising.

With consideration that the Framers were wary of a centralized government, they created a novel system of mixed sovereignty between duties of the national (Federal) government and those of the States. Noted in The Federalist No. 39, the new government was “in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.” Critical to this system was the enumerated federal powers, which allows the federal government to operate only within defined areas where the States individually could not. Federalist No. 33 states that a congressional act beyond its enumerated powers is “merely [an] act of usurpation” which “deserves to be treated as such.” Additionally, in Federalist No. 45, Madison explained: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Governments control people–constitutions control governments

Continue reading →