Uncouth Ruminations

Herman Cain's Waterloo?

2011-11-02T15:57:00.000-07:00

On Sunday night Politico released a story that Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, while he was president of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, sexually harassed two women. According to the story Cain and the association he headed made payments to the women as part of severance. When approached about the subject Cain first said he didn’t recall any sexual harassment allegations against him. A few hours later he admitted that there was at least one woman who received payment but not two.

According to Cain, the damnable evidence was that he compared one woman’s height to his wife’s. As he relayed it to Greta Van Susteren,

“She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying - and I was standing close to her - and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. . . . And I brought my hand up to my chin saying: ‘My wife comes up to my chin.’ And that was put in (the complaint) as something that made her uncomfortable.”

Asked by columnist Charles Krauthammer on Fox News whether the attacks were racially motivated, Cain agreed.

Late Wednesday afternoon Drudge reported that a third woman was harassed by Cain but didn’t bring any formal accusations.

Lexicographer Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” In recent years some have contended that a racist is someone winning an argument with a liberal. In both cases, those are the labels people run to in desperate times. Reaching for the race card, Herman Cain may be realizing that the clock is about to strike midnight on his Cinderella campaign.

Conservatives have run to his defense. If Cain’s side of the story is true then it looks he himself was a victim of a bogus lawsuit in an age of bogus lawsuits, although if that was the case we might expect him to have remembered it.

But if there had been only one allegation that would be one thing. There were at least two accusations independent of each other and Cain did not even have the story straight about the one he has admitted. This is not a Clarence Thomas redux.

As Quin Hillyer of The American Spectator noticed,

“The allegations against Thomas came out of the blue only after he was nominated to the Supreme Court, and even then they came rather late in the process -- making them far more likely to have been spurred by pure politics. . . .

“There was no way they were politically motivated, because Cain had never been a candidate for anything. Furthermore, the allegations came not just from one disgruntled employee, but from two separate women.”

This isn’t ancient history. It isn’t even the first controversy of Cain’s campaign.

Among the notable gaffes of Cain’s campaign: claims there will be no Muslims in his administration, complete ignorance on the basics of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, contradictory statements about the extra-judicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, about prisoner exchanges, about abortion (in the same interview no less), and an inability to speak beyond the basics of his tax plan.

If the argument against a second term for Barack Obama is that he is an amateur completely overwhelmed by the office, why should Americans nominate and elect another who is perhaps even more amateurish?

The crux of the Cain matter is not the allegations of sexual harassment. Even if Cain is innocent and the payments were only to make the allegations go away it doesn't change the fact that Cain is a lousy candidate who can't take a consistent position and can't explain anything, even regarding factual events in which he was, in one way or another, an active participant.

Herman Cain may be a decent man who is competent at running businesses and who may also have been hit with spurious sexual harassment allegations over a decade ago. But if the missteps, misstatements, and changed stories of the Cain campaign as well as the candidate’s ignorance portend anything, a Cain administration would be nothing short of a fiasco.

Addendum: See Thomas Fleming's latest in the UK Daily Mail, "High Tech Lynchings."

An Early Exit for Perry?

2011-09-13T08:15:00.000-07:00

The clock is ticking on Rick Perry.

Indeed, Perry is the candidate Republicans and the activists of the Tea Party Express stripe probably deserve.

He is brash, unapologetic, unreflective, and ignorant. He is a political chameleon who says anything. Then again, should we have expected anything else from someone who has never lost an election by running as both a Democrat and a Republican?

When Perry is on his talking points and repeating Republican boilerplate rhetoric he is clearly more comfortable. But it’s getting easier to notice that Perry struggles whenever he has to resort to any specific data. He finished poorly at last week’s Reagan Library debate when he was asked to explain why he doesn’t subscribe to the theory of man-made global warming. He wasn’t necessarily wrong but he clearly hadn’t thought about the issue beyond the talking point. All that mattered was that he said what he knows the base wants to hear.

This makes Perry the dream candidate for Republicans. Republican voters don’t know what they really believe and neither does Perry. He says what they like to hear and his supporters use this as a substitute for thinking.

During the Monday night Tea Party debate the other Republican candidates ganged up on Perry regarding “Gardacil Rick”’s 2007 forced vaccination scheme. At issue was Perry’s executive order forcing all twelve-year-old girls in Texas public schools to receive the HPV vaccine intended to prevent cervical cancer. Only after much denunciation has Perry backed away from the matter, but only in the manner in which he committed it.

Note that Perry only says he’s sorry for the way he ordered the forced inoculations but he had the right intentions, which means he isn’t sorry at all. He isn’t sorry he forced vaccinations on anyone. He isn’t sorry that he involved government in a health care issue. What he’s really only sorry about is that his action proved unpopular and possibly harms his chances of becoming dictator.

Moderator Brian Williams’ smarmy question last week at the Reagan Library about the number of executions in Texas under Perry and the audience’s ghoulish roar similarly demonstrates how Perry and the GOP deserve each other.

Williams asked Perry if he had any trouble sleeping at night wondering whether just one of the 234 convicts executed during his governorship might have been innocent. That Perry so effortlessly answered affirmatively testifies to his intransigence and lack of reflection. One trembles to think what foreign policy blunders Perry would dig his heels into and refuse to correct.

But the clock is ticking on Perry because he faces the possibility of flaming out Fred Thompson style.

Four years ago the actor and former senator was supposed to be the savior for disgruntled conservatives. But Thompson waited and waited and by the time he entered the race he was in over his head. He didn’t have even a rudimentary grasp of the issues and all the other candidates pounced on him for all the preferential treatment he received when he wasn’t yet running. Now the man who would have been president is doing reverse mortgage commercials.

Conservatives are enamored with Perry right now because they like the idea of Rick Perry. They like that he’s from Texas and that he swaggers. He’s handsome, jogs with his gun, and the liberal media hate him. But nowhere in that list is a real reason to support any man for the most powerful job in the world.

Like Thompson, Perry entered the race and became an immediate frontrunner. A CNN poll has Perry currently ahead of Mitt Romney by a clip of 32-21. It’s hard to believe that a third of Republican primary voters know enough about Rick Perry at this stage to vault him ahead of Romney so most of Perry’s support has to be based on the idea of Rick Perry.

Up to this point in the primary process, candidates have been trying to knock Romney down over Massachusetts health care with little success. As the heat in the kitchen rises, Perry will face more scrutiny – scrutiny Romney has thus far survived.

For someone who has not debated particularly well when specifics have entered the equation, Perry’s moment might be dwindling.

9/11 Changed Everything. And Nothing.

2011-09-12T21:21:00.000-07:00

In the run-up to the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks Americans have been drowned with reminders of that fateful day. For over a week leading up to the anniversary USA Today ran a series of front-page stories entitled “How 9/11 Changed America.”

Americans have been told that they cannot forget 9/11. The implication is that Americans should not forget about the ghastly images from that day or how they felt. But this is a silly statement.

No can forget 9/11 because no one is allowed to. 9/11 is a part of daily American life. Anyone who flies in a US airport is reminded of the terrorist attacks. Take off your shoes. No liquids. Assume the position.

China-made American flags are still ubiquitous. The obligatory singing of “God Bless America” is as much a part of baseball games as arguing with the umpire and American soldiers are given public spectacles of reverence that are perhaps only outdone in their vacuity by parades in communist countries. Who could possibly forget?

Among the more unreflective clichés that emerged from the attacks was “9/11 Changed Everything.” This was government propaganda because terrorism was neither a new tactic of war nor was Islam a new religion. It reminds one of what Cicero said, "To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child."

A friend recently told me that he had asked his wife if she knew why the terrorist attack happened. She said she didn’t know and had never really thought about it. My friend was surprised but I wasn’t. It’s not that his wife is an ignoramus but most Americans haven’t thought about it. Nor have they been encouraged to do so.

Not a few days after the attack did President Bush get out in front and declare this wasn’t “our” fault and that the terrorists only hate us for our freedoms. He admonished the American people not to dwell upon it. He said, Don’t worry. We who failed so spectacularly on 9/11 will take care of everything. As for you, go shopping. It was an explanation so simplistic and convenient that it shouldn’t have worked on third graders but the American people obeyed without question.

The eventual execution of Osama bin Laden crystallized the so-called post-9/11 world. When the news of bin Laden’s death came, people in the streets and in sports stadiums chanted “U-S-A! U-S-A!” But what were they celebrating? The war wasn’t over. Troops weren’t coming home any sooner than scheduled. The one behind the attacks was dead but everything remained exactly the same. What does it say when the death of Public Enemy #1 amounts to nothing?

When Navy SEAL Team 6 got bin Laden they took pictures which were not released and they buried the body quickly. In retrospect, it’s almost like the death never happened.

In May, I theorized that the burial happened that way so the national security state could continue as before with few questions asked. In what should have been an ideal time to consider dismantling at least parts of the national security bureaucracy, the speedy burial meant the resumption of “normalcy” regarding the post-9/11 world. No one asked, Why, if all it took was a unit of well-trained soldiers to track down bin Laden, were large armies stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq? Indeed, things would go on as before.

That is the legacy of September 11, 2001.

Everything changed and nothing changed.

When Osama bin Laden was found hiding in plain sight in Pakistan and there were zero consequences for Pakistan's duplicity, that should have exposed once and for all the sham of what Washington has done in the so-called post-9/11 world.

With apologies to country music singer Darryl Worley, no, we have not forgotten. If only we could.

The War on Facebook

2011-08-09T23:57:00.000-07:00

My desk has lately seen a plethora of material relating to the nefariousness of social networks.

The current issues of my magazine subscriptions to The American Conservative, Chronicles, and Modern Reformation all have either cover stories or prominent articles about the downsides of social networking. My first blog entry for Young American for Liberty dealt with a new Missouri law that aims to police teacher-student communication on Facebook. After the fallout from the Anthony Weiner scandal, it looks like the new bogeyman is social networking.

It’s fashionable right now to blame the various social networks for current lapses in morality and any other social ills we might perceive. This isn’t too surprising. Whenever a new innovation is used to commit an ancient crime, the crime itself is overlooked and the new thing is what is scandalized. Mass murder is committed with an assault rifle and the gun controllers scream that assault rifles must be banned, ignoring the fact that it took a murderer to operate the weapon in the first place. Technology is only as dangerous as the people who use it.

Anthony Weiner’s problem wasn’t that Twitter tricked him into tweeting that lewd picture. The crime was the congressman’s actions, not the avenue through which he committed it. After all, is there a difference in the morality of it if Weiner had been a congressman twenty years ago and he snapped a Polaroid of his . . . you know, and sent it in the mail?

Some of the recent criticism of Facebook and Twitter is relevant and thoughtful. Ours is a narcissistic culture and Facebook has the ability to feed it. Stephen B. Tippens Jr.’s article for The American Conservative concedes that some social networking is good, and I agree, but our eternal narcissism is enslaving us to our computers and cellphones. As he puts it, “couples . . . date their cellphones instead of each other.” It’s only a little hyperbolic to say that everyone between the ages of thirteen and thirty is attached to their mobile device.

But Mark Zuckerberg is a convenient scapegoat.

The inventor of Facebook couldn’t have possibly expected that the little website he concocted in his Harvard dormitory would encompass over half a billion users and make him filthy rich. The irony is that a socially-awkward computer hacker created a website that would digitally bring the world together but also isolate us from one another. In other words, it’s made us more like Mark Zuckerberg.

We might have 500 “friends,” but do we actually know more than a handful of them? It’s true that heterosexual marriage is in the toilet and we don’t know our neighbors, but these were problems before anyone ever thought of Facebook.

In Chronicles (not online), Catharine Savage Brosman sees parallels to the Soviet Union in the erosion of privacy but that isn’t quite apples to apples. The totalitarian USSR robbed its people of their freedom and privacy.

Big Brother has certainly taken privacy away from us but with innovations like Facebook, we’re handing the rest of it over willingly. Through social media we show pictures of ourselves, we tell the world what we like, and we announce when we’ll be home, as if more than a handful of people who see it will actually care. American culture is dead and on Facebook we flaunt our vacuity.

But for the record, Facebook, or any other particular iteration, isn’t the problem. People are the problem: stupid, narcissistic people. Facebook and the other social media are just further examples that anything new and innovative can be enjoyed and serve a worthwhile purpose if people use it responsibly.

Much has been made about the role of social media in Iran’s so-called Green Revolution, the Arab Spring, and more recently, the riots in the UK. Undoubtedly there will be pushes made by the governing class of busybodies to begin policing Facebook in the name of security, of course.

When that happens, watch out. All the wonders of the social media revolution may have simply made the job of the surveillance state all that much easier.

Norway Feels Blowback and Conservatives Feel the Heat

2011-08-09T23:27:00.000-07:00

*From the cutting room floor of The Humble Libertarian (originally composed July 28, 2011)

The July 22 Norway attacks perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik that killed nearly 100 children at a political summer camp and a government building has reawakened the paranoia of the thought controllers on the Left that may be igniting a new cultural war against conservatives.

On January 8 of this year, Jared Loughner killed six people in Tucson, Arizona and critically injured Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Almost before the bodies hit the ground, Paul Krugman of The New York Times sat as judge, jury, and executioner of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck as the depraved masterminds who inspired Loughner to go on a killing spree. Others joined the dog pile but as details about the young man’s “ideology” surfaced, the case against Palin et al was dropped.

Breivik’s impetus for murder, it appears, was a reaction to what he identified as the “Islamification” of Europe, multiculturalism, and open borders. His actions were undoubtedly a terroristic crime but the people Breivik shot are just as significant as the people he didn’t.

While Muslims certainly stuck in Breivik’s craw, and he apparently cited some of America’s professional anti-jihadists like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller in his infamous manifesto, he didn’t kill any Muslims as far as anyone has reported. His targets were children at a political summer camp held by Norway’s Labor Party and Norway’s three-time prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. His real aim was clearly directed at the governing class, not Muslims. His operation was blowback for Europe’s decades of enforced multiculturalism.

No one Left or Right condones the deed done by Breivik but liberals still leapt for joy that they got to dust off the Loughner playbook. Their objective in this aftermath was to silence any dissent in the Breivik narrative. Not only must the Norwegian’s actions be condemned but his grievances as well.

Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan wrote, “[a]wful as this atrocity was, native born and homegrown terrorism is not the macro-threat to the continent.

"That threat comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists. . . .

"As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.”

Naturally, Thought Police like ThinkProgress and Daily Kos were incensed and dragged out old bigotry cards and called for Buchanan’s head. Of course, what angered them is not that Buchanan defended the actions of a murderer, which he didn’t, but that he questioned some of the highest articles of the liberal faith. The belief that maybe Breivik had a reason to gripe does not excuse his actions. It only explains them and this is lost on liberals.

It might be offensive to say that Muslim communities in countries that are not traditionally Muslim have caused friction. But the people of Europe were also not consulted about these policies of open borders and multiculturalism so it shouldn’t be surprising that somebody would eventually have something to say about it.

The lion’s share of the attention has focused on the sympathy Breivik had with the likes of the aforementioned Pam Geller and Robert Spencer who do peddle in fear-mongering and paranoia. Not to be outdone, over at National Review Online, another professional anti-jihadist, Andrew McCarthy, used this tragedy as an excuse to not apologize for selling his own brand of Muslims Under The Bed. Those who should be chastened for their sensationalism have let us know that they are reflecting on nothing and are refusing to look beneath the surface.

Entirely dismissing Breivik’s motivations along with his actions does no more favors than entirely dismissing the grievances of the jihadists. In each instance it oversimplifies a complex problem.

Murdering children is certainly no way to protest despicable government policies. But post-Norway, will there be any discussion on the American Right that penetrates deeper than the talking points of FrontPageMag but indicates that the real culprit might just be the bankrupt welfare state?

A Wealthier, Less Principled Mitt Romney

2011-04-21T23:44:00.000-07:00

If there is one reason people are considering supporting former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for president, it's because he's considered "electable," meaning he has a fair shot to defeat President Obama in 2012.

If there was one thing that hampered Romney's 2008 campaign it was the perception that he was a flip-flopper, a role which earned him the nickname "Multiple Choice Mitt."

While trying to present himself as a conservative, and even winning the endorsement of National Review, Romney was dogged by a very recent and probably very politically calculated switch from pro-choice on abortion to pro-life. This from a man who minced no words in assuring Massachusetts voters during a 2002 gubernatorial debate that he would "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."

A more pressing issue for the 2012 presidential primaries is the national health care scheme passed by the last Congress. The plan that served as the model for Obamacare infamously bears the signature of Governor Mitt Romney.

Knowing that the Republican nominee in 2012 will have to campaign against Obama's landmark achievement, the president must be licking his lips knowing that a likely opponent of his will have to contort himself in an attempt to effectively campaign against himself. Voters would be sure to be reminded of another Massachusetts presidential candidate who also voted for something before he voted against it.

As of this writing, there is speculation that real estate mogul and reality TV star Donald Trump is running for president. Considering that a reality TV star may be a presidential contender should tell us that the line between reality and fantasy is already blurred.

Like Romney, Trump had always been pro-choice until he thought about running for president. Now "The Donald," a philandering, casino-running, beauty pageant-owning egomaniac has gotten religion. Doing an interview for the Christian Broadcasting Network, one that looks more like The Onion than anything else, Trump is now telling us how much he loves the Bible, how much he loves sending people Bibles, and how great it is going to church.

So now it appears that Trump is doing what Romney has done for years, trying to convince us that he is not what he has always been: an empty suit who will say anything to advance himself.

Last week, a few reports surfaced on the Drudge Report where Trump, on separate occasions, labeled both George W. Bush and Obama has "the worst president ever."

Shortly after the 2008 presidential election, Trump called Bush "evil" and even though he supported John McCain, he felt comfortable with President-elect Obama because he would govern by "consensus" and not rush off to war in a bull-headed manner like Bush. On the one hand, this may only mean that Trump was one among millions snookered by the smooth rhetoric of candidate Obama. But on the other hand, one has to wonder, if Trump believed Bush was bull-headed and rash in going to war, what had he ever seen in McCain's character and temperament that led him to believe the Arizona Republican would have been any different?

Even though Trump has traditionally supported Democrats and before he supported McCain, he preferred Hillary Clinton, which might give us a clue about how "The Donald" feels about government-run health care.

Like much of the current appeal of a Romney candidacy, the reason conservatives seem to be giving for supporting Trump is that he has a chance to beat Obama.

But if Republicans choose Trump, what does that say?

It means that after a lifetime of supporting Democrats and Democratic causes, all a celebrity like Trump has to do is start saying a few of the right things and he suddenly has conservative bona fides.

Are Republicans and conservatives so eager to make a Faustian Bargain to regain control of the White House that anyone, regardless of all the evidence against them, will do so long as they read the right lines?

Time will tell.

Obama's War of Choice

2011-03-23T22:39:00.000-07:00

So now Barack Obama has joined the presidential wars club.

By engaging militarily in Libya without even the veneer of congressional authorization, Ohio representative Dennis Kucinich suggested that the president's actions are "an impeachable offense." He's been derided by members of his own party, but Kucinich is right. If unconstitutionally sending the U.S. military to intervene in another nation's civil war is not an impeachable offense then nothing is.

While there have been no declarations of war since World War II, presidents have routinely circumvented the Constitution's clearly stated clause that only Congress can declare war by calling their decisions a "police action" or getting a watered-down resolution. There is some debate concerning whether the president may order military action in an immediate emergency and then call Congress once the emergency stage has passed. But what's happening in Libya in no way resembles an emergency that requires the president to act unilaterally and without constitutional authority. Instead, the former professor of constitutional law has allowed the UN Security Council resolution to serve as the supreme law of the land.

But the UN Security Council resolution only authorizes that there may be "all necessary measures" to "protect Libyan citizens." If the Authorization for Use of Military Force legislation of 2001 was a blank check for President Bush, then what is this? Just what does "all necessary measures" to "protect Libyan citizens" mean?

Now that Obama has plunged the United States into this civil war, what are our objectives in protecting Libyan citizens?

By intervening in the first place, Obama has assured that the only possible outcome of this conflict means Gaddafi is dethroned. By entering on the side of the rebels, Obama has staked his claim. To offer limited assistance and then pull away is to condemn the rebels to the mercy of Gaddafi.

Why intervene on the side of the rebels unless it is to see them to victory? And if we take them across the finish line, how then does the new government in a fragile, fractious country operate unless it is propped up? What of Gaddafi's fighters? As students of history should know, the losers in a civil war do not often lay down all their weapons and celebrate the peace when the war is declared "over."

So why intervene in the first place? Is it because the UN said it was okay? If so, Obama has done nothing less than cede American sovereignty.

What vital American national interests are involved in who rules a cobbled-together kingdom of the northern Sahara?

Consider this: Moammar Gaddafi seized power over 40 years ago. Why is it that only now he is such a menace to American national interests that he must be confronted? It's been over 22 years since Gaddafi's only successful aggression against the United States, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Although 190 Americans died that day there was no military action taken against the "Mad Dog of the Middle East." If no previous president from Reagan to George W. Bush felt the mass murder of American civilians was worth retaliating against Gaddafi, why does protecting the lives of Libyan citizens merit it now?

As the Arab League bails out it becomes increasingly clear that it will only be the United States policing this conflict. Great Britain and France may have led the initial charge to act but countries facing insolvency are not long for occupations.

To invoke General Petraeus in 2003, how does this end?

By involving the United States, Obama makes this his war, regardless of whether Hillary or Samantha Power bullied him into it. If he calls off the whole shebang, he will have made himself into a fool by first declaring "Gaddafi must go," doing nothing for two weeks before reluctantly inserting American firepower, and ultimately leaving Libya with Gaddafi still in power having outlasted the strongest military on the planet with his third-rate army.

So now President Obama has taken us to war. He has taken us to war in a country where no national interests are at stake and he did so without the slightest acknowledgement from Congress. His actions have left the door open for more naked acts of aggression in the future.

Now is as good a time as any for that neglected congress to grow a backbone, reclaim their constitutional authority to declare war and finally put a stop to these presidential wars.

It's time for Speaker Boehner to make a real stand and assert one of his chamber's remaining power: The power to impeach the president for high crimes and misdemeanors.

A Serious Tea Party

2011-03-16T16:07:00.000-07:00

Under discussion: The Tea Party Goes to Washington by Rand Paul with Jack Hunter, 272 pages, $21.99, Hardcover.

What is the Tea Party? Is it the refashioned conservative movement? Is it the reaction to a new liberal Democratic president? Or worst of all, is the Tea Party just a bunch of astroturfing-Fox News-watching-racist rednecks? In The Tea Party Goes to Washington, Kentucky senator Rand Paul begins to give us an answer.

The Tea Party, according to Senator Paul, is a reaction to the big spending of Washington and a desire to curtail the power of the federal government. The trouble, or virtue, of a movement without a central hierarchy is that there is no unified message or platform. There have been a few attempts to present an official Tea Party message but A Tea Party Manifesto and That’s No Angry Mob – That’s My Mom are mostly relegated to the bargain shelf at Borders.

If there is a difference between earlier attempts at a Tea Party synthesis and Rand Paul’s it's that the current volume is attached to the platform of a victorious candidate. Since winning, Marco Rubio has shunned the Tea Party label he rode to election, exposing himself as the Bush family agent that he always was, while Tea Party losers Joe Miller, Christine O’Donnell, and Sharron Angle are already largely forgotten. So without the competing versions, the Rand Paul incarnation of the Tea Party shines brighter. And considering the contents of The Tea Party Goes to Washington, it’s sure to ruffle the feathers of anyone who would like to see the Tea Party either go away or be co-opted by the Republican Party altogether.

A note is needed first on the aesthetics of the book. The cover art depicts the Capitol Dome being squeezed by a belt, indicative of the diet Washington needs. But what’s most intriguing about the cover is what’s not there: a picture of the author himself. Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich – all presidential contenders – all adorn the covers of their books.

Nor is this unique to politicians. Talk show hosts Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews all have their mugs defacing the covers of their books. This is no coincidence. Most of the people hawking books are not actually interested in ideas but only in advancing themselves. Will someone tell me what would be the primary difference between a Huckabee candidacy and a Romney one? What’s in Sean Hannity’s book that’s not in Mark Levin’s? The difference is only in personality and style. The fact that Senator Paul is absent from the front cover (although not the back where he is pictured with his smiling wife) indicates that the book is more about his ideas than about himself personally.

The book itself is charming because it is part autobiography and part agenda. Facing the first page of every chapter is a photo, including pictures from the senator’s childhood as Ron Paul’s son and several with his own family from the campaign trail. While these images and stories from the campaign and his life are affectionate and reinforce the already-present human side of Rand Paul, the most lasting impression in the book is how radical it is. Radical not in the sense that the senator should fear being dragged before Peter King’s inquisition, but radical in how there are real ideas in the book and not shallow talking points.

This radicalism is evident even before the first page of the text. Rand Paul’s selection of a co-author is Jack Hunter, a so-far obscure South Carolina columnist and radio commentator known to many by his alias, The Southern Avenger. This choice of co-author is remarkable because Hunter, a veteran of both the Ron Paul Revolution and the Buchanan Brigades, proto-Tea Party movements, had, like Rand Paul, also never written a book. It is not for nothing that Rand Paul’s collaborator was not an accomplished ghost writer but an authentic voice of the grassroots Right.

The fingerprints of the co-author are everywhere to be found. Chapter 3, “Equal Parts Chastisement, Republicans and Democrats” is vintage Jack Hunter, including a brief introduction to the neoconservatives and treatment of Fred Barnes’ sycophantic 2003 Wall Street Journal article “Big Government Conservatism” where the Weekly Standard veteran condoned and justified George W. Bush’s growth of government. Rand Paul sees the disconnect among Republicans who took this sort of blind eye to the Republican Bush’s growth but are enraged by the Democrat Obama’s growth. “Consider this – what kind of person would talk about how badly the neighbors’ kids behave while ignoring the bad behavior of their own children?” (62) is a phrase Mr. Hunter’s listeners have heard a time or two.

Not to be outdone, Rand Paul reminds Democrats that they are just as guilty of looking the other way when their man does the same crime:

“Contrary to his supporters’ belief, Obama’s agenda has not been a reversal of Bush’s agenda but an extension of it, only more ambitious in scope and even more reckless in spending. Amazingly, and perhaps ironically, even on the issues that once animated the Left against the Republicans – prolonged war, civil liberties infringements, the further empowerment of the executive branch – Obama has basically maintained the same policies as his predecessor, and in some cases has expanded them.” (59)

And this was before Obama reinstituted indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay. One wonders if waterboarding will be next.

But nowhere is the radicalism more evident than in Chapter 7, “A Conservative Foreign Policy,” and nowhere else is it more evident that Rand Paul is indeed his father’s son.

In this important chapter, the reader is treated to discussions of the neoconservative influence on foreign policy, the long-forgotten Senator Robert Taft, and a call to end nation-building.

Outside of the often insular conservative movement, there is scant attention or even acknowledgement of the existence of the neoconservatives and to find a discussion of this sect of interlopers in a U.S. senator’s book is more than just a breath of fresh air – it is a torrent, especially when there are phrases peppered in like “a Republican Party tainted by neoconservative ideology.”

The importance of the issues discussed in this chapter have been brought up before in Ron Paul’s books and more academic treatises, but the blessing in Rand Paul’s book is that he makes arguments that got his father booed without incurring the same wrath himself. In other words, Rand Paul takes foreign policy, an issue on which there was no allowable dissent during the Bush years, and presents it in a way that can be accepted by conservatives:

“The great irony is that conservatives preach individual responsibility and reliance domestically but practice policies abroad that create dependence on foreign aid and dependence on foreign soldiers. Where conservatives will ask the domestically unemployed to seek work and become independent of government welfare, abroad we let nations depend on our succor. We don’t demand the same self-reliance internationally that we do domestically.” (131-132)

If there are a couple of faults with The Tea Party Goes to Washington they have to do with the frequent references to his father. Littered throughout the text are phrases like “My father always says . . .” or “My dad believes . . .” but these are only slightly distracting. This is not necessarily Rand Paul’s fault – it just proves he came from a stable home and his father was obviously around enough to influence him – but this may expose the younger Paul to criticism among the uneducated that he is just a clone of his father.

There were also a couple of minor historical errors regarding years. On page 144, Gerald Ford is referred to as the moderate candidate for president in 1974, the year Ford ascended to the presidency, not the year he was a candidate for president, which was 1976. Then on page 154, Neville Chamberlain is said to have signed a peace treaty with Germany in 1939, the “appeasement” of Hitler. The author is probably thinking about the Munich Agreement which was in 1938.

The Tea Party Goes to Washington, with over four pages of recommended books and websites at the end, is undeniably a book about not just ideas, but fresh ideas. The Republican establishment did its best to wall Rand Paul out of the U.S. Senate during the 2010 primary, in much the same way they did to his father at the 2008 Republican National Convention, a sleight that does not go unnoticed by the son.

It's easy to see why.

National Review stands beside History yelling "Go!"

2011-02-17T14:16:00.000-08:00

While House Republicans’ repeal of Obamacare is laudable, the stark truth is that true repeal is still elusive. An alternative some have considered -- as opposed to waiting on the courts or a new government -- is to try nullification, the oft-maligned, seldom-employed tactic used by state governments where they refuse to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional.

Tom Woods of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has written not one but two recent books advocating nullification. In “Nullification” and “Rollback” Woods encourages the use of the tactic in a political landscape where choices between the two governing parties could hardly be worse.

No shortage of liberal writers have denounced Woods’ book or the idea of nullification. But when scholars in reputedly conservative journals join the dog-pile of their defense of the status quo, one has to wonder why these conservative intellectuals are so intent on letting unconstitutional legislation become more easily enshrined.

In the February 21, 2011 dead-tree issue of National Review (not online), Gettysburg College professor Allen C. Guelzo discards nullification and reaches a nearly identical conclusion as the liberal Princeton professor Sean Wilentz does in The New Republic.*

The subtitle of Guelzo’s “Nullification Temptation” is “Let’s stop Obamacare without blowing up the constitutional order.” In case Guelzo didn’t choose the title or subtitle himself, he immediate clarifies that there is no hyperbole when he refers to nullification as a “nuclear option” and declares “Its danger lies in how easily it could destroy not just Obamacare but the entire Constitution.”

Guelzo proceeds to list all the major events in the history of nullification: the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, South Carolina’s attempt to nullify the 1832 “Tariff of Abominations,” and Wisconsin’s efforts to avoid enforcing the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. Guelzo finishes this section by saying, “At no point, however, did nullification prevail.”

So if Professor Guelzo admits that nullification never prevailed against the comparatively miniscule federal government of the 19th Century, why is he saying that nullification today could “destroy . . . the entire Constitution” when Americans now live under a far more consolidated, bureaucratic, and intrusive state?

Does Guelzo expect his readers to believe that an America where cameras adorn nearly every intersection, IRS agents harass citizens for not relinquishing enough of their money to the state, and has a federal capitol employing more than 2 million, that even one state’s refusal to enforce Obamacare is enough to upend the whole edifice? A high school student wouldn’t get away with that sort of nonsense.

By opposing the very theory of nullification, liberal Wilentz and conservative Guelzo both endorse the criminalization of speech against the president (the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions contra the Alien and Sedition Acts) and that slaves, even if they escaped to a free state like Wisconsin, had to be returned to their masters.

So why does Guelzo go to the trouble to discredit nullification? It makes sense for a liberal like Wilentz to recoil at any idea of resistance to the Washington leviathan. But why does someone posing as a proponent of limited government accept such a broad interpretation of the Constitution that would justify any and every expansive big government scheme?

One might assume that Guelzo might like to see nullification employed to frustrate Democratic health care legislation but that position forces him to confront what he cannot bear: What if someday Republicans pass legislation Democratic state governments find constitutionally wanting? Republican nullification would set the precedent that state governments can slow down or halt Washington’s machinations. To ensure that Republican monstrosities can govern the land Guelzo has to let Democratic fiascos remain too.

It’s the same reason Democrats haven’t repealed the Patriot Act and Republicans have never taken a scalpel to the welfare state. Both sides scream at each other but they always end up preserving each others’ programs. When the minority party becomes the majority they realize they can use their adversaries’ initiatives for their own gain.

If this is the state of the conservative opposition leading up to 2012 it’s no wonder a state-run health care operative like Mitt Romney is considered a serious contender to unseat a state-run health care operative like President Barack Obama.

*The title of Wilentz’s blog is “States of Anarchy.” In Guelzo’s, he calls nullification “the spirit of anarchy.” When historians who are supposed to represent two different sides of the spectrum end up with arguments and rhetoric so similar that one could almost charge the other with plagiarism, it is hard to refute the claim that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties.

Know Nothing Party

2010-11-02T11:14:00.000-07:00

How things have changed in two short years.*

In November 2008 we were told conservatism was dead and the Republican Party was on its way to Whig status. Ragin' Cajun James Carville boastfully predicted 40 years of Democratic governance.

Maybe not.

Now conservatism is in an ascendancy. The Republicans are back and have learned that the reason they were fired in the first place was because of all that spending. Now that Republicans are back in the House, they can get to work on repealing Obamacare, privatizing Social Security, and ending the welfare state.

Maybe not.

For all the chatter, there isn't anything even broadly revolutionary about this election. There might be a few upsets and a few unapproved candidates might survive running the gauntlet, but this Republican Congress will likely resemble the ones that disappointed from 1994-2006.

The mistake made by rose-spectacled Republicans comes in thinking that a change of majority parties makes much of a difference beyond the name plates and seating arrangements.

Time magazine just put "Party Crashers" Rand Paul, Christine O'Donnell, Marco Rubio, and Meg Whitman on its election issue cover. That Bush Republican Marco Rubio and former eBay CEO and billionaire Meg Whitman are somehow considered "a new breed of Republicans" tells us enough about what is considered "Tea Party" these days.

Too much buzzkill?

The first reason for skepticism is that there has not been a serious philosophical shift, nay even a debate within the GOP.

One might argue that support for the bank bailouts or President Obama's stimulus became a litmus test since it resulted in the scalp of Bob Bennett and the defection of Arlen Specter. But that anyone can support the promotion to Speaker of the House for bailout leader John Boehner suggests that the party leadership won't have to pay for their sins.

The one issue that got Republicans kicked out in the first place, foreign policy and the disastrous experiments in Middle Eastern nation-building, has been a non-issue in this election cycle.

Republicans have convinced themselves and probably convinced a lot of voters that the real reason they got booted was because they spent too much. The party's recent emphasis on economic issues would be a step in the right direction if it was rooted in anything besides partisanship. Like the kid who got spanked for sticking his hand in the cookie jar, these Republicans are only sorry they got caught.

Secondly, there is nothing in this election to suggest confidence in Republicans -- only that Democrats failed and voters had nowhere else to turn.

Republican victories this year are also consistent with historical precedent. In America's duopoly, the ruling party traditionally loses big in the first midterm. One party fails and the other one gets their chance to do . . . something.

In 1954, during Dwight Eisenhower's first term as president and the first such Republican in 20 years, the GOP lost 18 seats in the House. Reagan's Republicans got routed in 1982 while the economy was still sour. Bill Clinton had large majorities in Congress in 1994 before losing a whopping 54 seats. With the memory of 9/11 still fresh, George W. Bush's GOP temporarily broke the trend by adding 8 seats at midterm.

Since the Republicans have gone into exile, there has been no urgency to address issues. Republican identity for the past two years has been wrapped up in opposition to the Democratic president. It's not because he's black. It's because he's a Democrat.

The new Republican ascendance has nothing to do with a re-birth of conservatism or faith in the GOP and everything to do with a Democratic ruling majority that didn't delivery what it promised despite overwhelming majorities.

The Republicans' position as the majority party in Congress doesn't preclude them from relinquishing their title as the Party of No. They can still oppose President Obama at every turn for the next two years but that won't mean they stand for anything.

The Republican Party doesn't need to be restored to power. It needs some fresh ideas and new leaders.

And if Barack Obama can defy conventional wisdom and make a Clintonian move to the Center, who will he and the rest of us have to thank for providing no genuine alternative?

That Rally

2010-09-02T03:39:00.000-07:00

If there is any question about the status of the conservative movement, it could be found in Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally: it is as alive and kicking as Ronald Reagan himself.

Too soon?

Either way, despite estimates of hundreds of thousands attending Beck’s rally last Saturday, there was nothing on display to imply that American conservatism has any long-term usefulness.

More than anything, it showed the triumph of liberalism over everything in the country, even the purported conservative movement itself.

Heeding criticism that the rally could only be political in nature, the Mormon Beck made it about “god.” Only keynote speaker Sarah Palin, whose presence was derided as proof that the event would just be a Republican rally, treaded into the political muck.

The insufferable opening prayer, led by a supposed descendent of Mayflower passengers, alongside a rabbi and supposed descendents of the Indians er, Native Americans at Plymouth Rock, included a petition about Quaker William Penn and this beauty:

“And you, O God, called us to repentance when we did not live up to our creed, and we did not treat everyone as equal. But Lord, we found out that you are a God of forgiveness, you are a God of covenant, you are a God of restoration, you are a God of healing and you have healed us.”

I’m no professional theologian, but if I understand that correctly, Americans didn’t learn about the forgiveness of God by reading the Bible’s account of Christ’s sacrificial death but only after we had enslaved the blacks and broken our treaties with the Ind-. . . Native Americans. Was this conservative Christianity or the liberal gods of collective guilt and multiculturalism?

This display of multiculturalism isn’t new and it isn’t even unique for Beck. In May, the radio and TV host dedicated one of his “Founders Fridays” programs to the forgotten black founders, a pathetic display of unwatchable political correctness.

That so many conservatives lap up this god constructed in the image of America only proves that the liberals have won the race card war. Or as James Edwards says at Alternative Right:

“. . . a conservative movement as willingly impotent as the crowd that came to DC on Saturday can’t go on much longer. At some point it’s going to dawn on them that no matter how much they grovel to MLK and praise his holy name, or how many ‘conservative’ imams they pack their podium with, they still get called racists and Nazis, and their country just keeps slipping further down the tubes.”

So what was the point of this event? Did we restore honor? Did we worship the god of our imaginations? Has anyone bothered to ask how ironic was it that someone like Beck, who is calling for an end to big government, chose to have his event at the Lincoln Memorial, a monument to a man who knew a thing or two about centralization?

A better question, one that should have been asked, is what the Republicans will do after the November midterm elections, where they are poised to either retake the House or at least make inroads.

The clarion call of the Tea Party over the past year has been “Cut spending!” The right course to be sure, but Pat Buchanan asks what cutting spending really means:

“Where are the victorious tea party Republicans going to cut?

“According to USA Today, 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, and perhaps an equal number on Medicare and Social Security. Which of these three will tea party Republicans cut, when Republicans are already denying Democratic charges that they plan to raise the retirement age for Social Security? . . .

“Are Republicans going to go after other entitlements — veterans benefits, earned income tax credits, food stamps — which now go to 41 million Americans, or unemployment benefits that run for 99 weeks?

“The big remaining items in the budget are interest on the debt, which must be paid, and war and defense. But Republicans are more likely to be supportive of Obama’s rebuilding a military ravaged by war, and staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan, than are Democrats.

“Obama’s budget commission will surely come in with tax increases on personal incomes, perhaps also for Social Security and Medicare. But the GOP cannot sign on to these and go home again.”

The Republicans only stand to benefit from an event like Beck’s “Restoring Honor,” an event celebrating America’s civil religion, one that obviously resounds with the Republican base.

The only question is how long it will take for conservatives and Tea Partiers to realize that to “restore honor” or restore the republic for that matter, will take more than a few hours of feel-good entertainment and self-indulgence.

It will require hard questions like those above as well as a healthy dose of willpower.

If not, “honor” will only be an afterthought.

American Losers

2010-08-19T21:23:00.000-07:00

The two sides arguing over the “Ground Zero” mosque could hardly be more hysterical if they were dreamt up by a comic book writer.

Political figures like Sarah Palin and New Gingrich, who would seem to have 2012 aspirations, have weighed in with their invectives on the issue of whether New York City Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf can build (or renovate) a multiple-purpose community center that happens to have a mosque in it as well as a plaque offering condolences for the victims of September 11.

But it's the intransigents on both sides in this argument have made this a no-win situation.

Just what exactly is to be gained by anybody regarding this mosque?

Will terrorism go away if they can’t build this mosque? Will we be unable to mourn those who died a few blocks away on 9/11 if a Muslim prays nearby? And since two New York City blocks from Ground Zero is an affront to the families of 9/11 victims, would three blocks be sufficient to remove the insensitivity of this undertaking? Four? Five? Twenty?

And if Osama bin Laden is able to recruit terrorists to his cause because Muslims around the world perceive the “Overseas Contingency Operations” as a war against their religion, then how does this mosque fiasco not serve his purposes perfectly?

Only in the broadest sense was this ever about religious freedom. There are already over one hundred mosques in New York City. Muslims certainly aren’t denied the freedom to worship.

The reason for the outrage over this “mosque” is obvious and understandable. Almost nine years ago, a few blocks away from the proposed site, mass murders were carried out by people devoted to a fanatical religious and political belief. That Japanese would want to erect a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor in 1950 is neither an unfounded nor a completely irrelevant comparison.

But Sufi Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is not the Wahhabi Osama bin Laden and the Cordoba House is not an affiliate of al-Qaeda. To conflate these actors is to certify that Americans, or at least American politicians, know nothing about the faith of over a billion people.

Among the people defending the building are New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Obama. The same Michael Bloomberg who discovered he had the authority to ban trans fats and serve a third term as mayor and the same President Obama, who thinks the Constitution grants health insurance to every American, come out of this debacle with the perception that they are the ones with a clearer understanding of the Constitution.

What’s worse is that these multiculturalists on the Left get to hide behind their supposed love for the First Amendment even as they prove themselves less interested in permitting the freedoms of the Second, Fifth, or Tenth Amendments. Why, who in the world would want to deny Muslims the right to worship anywhere they want unless they were Ra-a-a-a-acists! The Left gets to continue its indulgence that we can all just get along and they set up a trap to make the Right look mindlessly authoritarian, to which they eagerly complied.

Regardless of which “side” prevails in this charade one thing can be sure: the only losers are the American people.

Partisans of the Left and Right get to continue indulgence in their fantasies: All the Muslims are coming to kill us vs. We can’t allow somebody to not get whatever they want wherever they want it especially if they’re a minority.

Never mind that this was, at most, a state issue that had nothing to do with the First Amendment’s injunction that the federal government could not impose a state church on Americans. As a local property rights issue, this should not have animated the 99% of Americans who live outside Manhattan.

Never mind also that this one-act play was performed without any real discussion about states’ rights, what effect this “mosque” has in our relations with Muslims already living in our own country, or whether our foreign policy has anything to do with why some Muslims want to murder Americans in the first place.

Then again, isn't it much easier in our idiocracy to abide by the two choices given to us by our masters than to ponder any forbidden third option?

Racism and Us

2010-07-26T03:17:00.000-07:00

What is racism? That’s a good question these days. It might be easier to define the meaning of life in one sentence.

Americans are already overwhelmed about race. Ethnic studies and diversity seminars are as much a part of contemporary university campuses as the football team. Every week our government and media masters inform the peasantry that we require a (new) Conversation on Race and someone the other day told me that we now have our first black president.

What we know about racism is like what George Orwell said about fascism, that it ‘has no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable.’

We have been particularly bombarded with “evidence” of “racism” lately.

There is still smoke emanating from the Shirley Sherrod-firing-rehiring fiasco. New Black Panther Samir Shabazz’s clarion call to kill cracker babies still shocks anyone except those familiar with the New Black Panthers.

Everyday for awhile it seemed like another vulgar recording of Mel Gibson surfaced with Mel using another one of those words.

His rants were more painful than shocking, but they were also words in what was meant to be a private conversation.

This is bandied about by the tolerance-mongers as proof that Mel is a racist. Of course, the faster one denounces Mel and calls him a dirty racist, the more racially enlightened one is, or so the logic would seem.

Even Shirley Sherrod’s case is an exercise in silliness. Although she’s been exonerated, mostly by a liberal press embarrassed to have been snookered by some simple editing from Andrew Breitbart, the infamous video still catches her imputing racism to President Obama’s opponents. Even then, it’s hard to see how her own purported racism would affect her performance as a USDA state director of rural development, a bureaucratic post that should probably be eliminated anyway.

But there is certainly more than thought crimes going on.

A political appointee is about to be rewarded with a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land and it seems normal. Chris Dodd, one of the chief clowns who both perpetuated and benefited from the housing scam gets to write the “financial reform bill” with nary a peep. Meanwhile, July ends as the deadliest month in a nine year war. Like racism, the national interest in Afghanistan seems to have as protean a definition.

Of particular importance to Americans should be what this all says us.

The sad truth is that charges of racism are not likely to end anytime soon. Not only is it hopeless (and bloody) to attempt perfecting mankind, but because charging someone with racism is simply too valuable, convenient, and probably fun for any of its users to surrender.

The ruling class definitely has no intention of letting racism, real or imagined, fade into memory – to its own benefit.

The fastest way to silence opposition, the race racket gets outright encouragement from our overlords. We contaminate political discussion ourselves when we launch into self-righteous diatribes. Out go questions about constitutionality - in comes whether some minutiae in a speech pandering to Muslims means President Obama is secretly a Muslim.

Democrats, who were once the party of segregation, have been the masters of this but Republicans, and many of their partisans who have joined this highly-received but poorly-written farce, are catching up.

It’s not too surprising. There are few satisfactions greater than getting to assail someone else as a racist. It’s a not-so-thinly veiled pat-on-the-back.

But it is for all these reasons that our ruling class cherishes these squabbles. Instead of Nero fiddling while Rome burned it’s the citizenry.

Maybe Americans aren’t actually interested in citizenship and civic responsibility. Maybe politics and current events are just another form of entertainment and playing the racist game is just everyone’s favorite episode.

As a game, it’s just another way for a dreadfully narcissistic culture to fall further in love with itself and where a Republican or Democrat winning office is no more impactful than which Kardashian sister is dating which sports star.

Instead of issues like the Constitution, natural rights, and peace consuming our creative energies, perhaps this is the republic we actually want.

And get.

Peter Schiff's Parallel Universe and Ours

2010-07-12T05:55:00.000-07:00

Under discussion: How An Economy Grows And Why It Crashes by Peter D. Schiff and Andrew J. Schiff, 233 pages, $19.95, Hardcover.

In that parallel universe Peter Schiff is probably winning his race for Senate.

But here in the United States of Criminals, Celebrities, and Corporations, he barely has ballot access in the Connecticut race to replace Chris Dodd where he trails such Republican heroes as WWE First Lady Linda McMahon and former congressman Rob Simmons before Simmons dropped out.

The groundswell for a Schiff candidacy emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse which Schiff had predicted for years, explaining that the illusion of wealth created for the housing boom could not be sustained and that the inevitable bust would spread to other sectors of the economy. A mash-up video of his appearances on various financial TV shows in 2006 and 2007, where he was openly derided and actually laughed at, is titled “Peter Schiff was Right” and has been a Youtube sensation with over one million views.

So just how did Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital brokerage firm, know that the economy was going to crash when almost every pontificator on both sides of the aisle was promising that the good times would never end? Did he have a crystal ball? Was he imbued with special powers to see when those unpredictable financial catastrophes are barreling down the road?

Well, one thing Peter Schiff was blessed with was a father who discovered the Austrian school of economic thought after breaking out of the New Deal orbit sometime during the 1950’s.

Schiff’s father, Irwin, is well-known among anti-IRS crusaders and perpetual victim of the income tax tyranny. At 82, Irwin is currently in federal prison (not for the first time) after unsuccessfully challenging the tax code.

But when Irwin was much younger, he entertained his boys in long car rides with economic lessons disguised as stories. One such story was “The Fish Story” which Irwin turned into a book in 1979 entitled, How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn’t. In 2010 “The Fish Story” was modified and turned into How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes.

At first, How an Economy Grows almost seems an odd selection for a traditional review because it is so simple and straightforward. Since the inspiration for the book is a children’s story, it’s written on a level anyone can understand. And with many of the fictional characters (from Ben Barnacle to Tricky Dickson) based loosely on real people it is certainly entertaining for adults.

The narrative can really be split into two sections. The first half is about how a primitive society began on a remote island. From there the reader is introduced to basic Austrian economics through fish. Since fish is the abundant material on the island and holds real value for the islanders it is the obvious choice for currency. The fish had value everyone on the island could appreciate and understand. Someone wants a canoe? That’ll be nine fish. That might be a lot of fish, but a canoe was a luxury and cost a lot to construct.

Then as time progressed and people had more fish on hand they discovered they needed some form of fish repository – a bank!

With depositors fish could be loaned out to prospective entrepreneurs. If the would-be businessman had a good opportunity to repay the loan with interest then there was a better chance he could get the loan in the first place. The bank might have to turn people down for loans, but they had to because they were at risk themselves. What if the loan was issued to someone who couldn’t handle it and defaulted? Who would bail them out?

Here the reader learns about the basics of banking, lending, credit, and saving.

As the people of the island increased their numbers they realized they needed some form of government and so the second half of the story begins and the republic Usonia was born. Governed by 12 senators including an executive Senator in Chief, a constitution was written so that the senators would not overstep their authority.

But after a few generations, the Senate’s wise and prudential statesmen were replaced by more appealing “go-getters.” Schiff portrays the moment things changed when Senator in Chief hopeful Franky Deep came into power:

“He observed that people loved getting stuff for free. Similarly, they hated paying taxes. So, he devised a plan: if he could find a way to make it look like he was giving something to the islanders for free, then he could gain their unconditional support. Unfortunately, all the government had was what it raised in taxes. The Senate didn’t catch any fish. They could only give by taking. How could they give away more than they took?

“After a particularly bad monsoon, Franky sensed an opportunity (politicians never let a crisis go to waste).

“He preached, ‘My fellow islanders, the storm we have just been through has wrought untold hardship on our people. Many of our citizens are now hutless and fishless.

“’We cannot stand idly by and do nothing. If elected, I will institute a government reconstruction program for our neediest citizens to repair the damage.’ But he assured the citizens that the cost of the construction would be paid for by the economic activity the spending generated.

“His opponent, Grouper Cleveland, offered nothing, except wise stewardship of the island’s savings and a promise not to interfere with the liberties of the citizenry.

“Not surprisingly, Franky Deep sailed into office as Senator in Chief.” (104-105)

With the institution of paper money in the form of Fish Reserve Notes, redeemable pieces of paper backed by real fish in the vaults, the rest of the story is laid out:

“The new bank director . . . was not crazy about the new fish notes. He thought the ease in which the notes could be printed would create dangerous incentives for the senators. Yet, he could sleep soundly at night provided that the government maintained enough actual government fish in the bank to redeem all the notes.

“Not surprisingly, his confidence didn’t last long.

“Soon, Franky and his agents had handed over far more Fish Reserve Notes than the government’s account had fish to redeem.”

“’Franky, stop the presses! . . . I have only nine fish available for every 10 notes that you guys have handed out. If the savers figure out that there really aren’t enough fish to cover their deposits, there will be a run on the bank and I’ll be out of fish. . . .’” (107)

Slowly but surely all of his successors followed Franky’s lead. The newly-appointed bank chairmen, beginning with Ally Greenfin and later with Ben Barnacle, followed in giving the government what they wanted. After Franky Deep came Lindy B, promising to

“Furnish the canoe navy with bigger spears, but he would also help the sagging economy by 'providing emergency unemployment fish notes to all laid-off workers' prevailing over Buddy Goldfish who offered nothing but careful stewardship of the island’s savings and boring protection for the islander’s economic liberties. More importantly, Buddy argued that the island could not afford such an extravagant ‘spears and fish’ policy.

“Not surprisingly, Lindy won in a landslide.” (126)

And comparably broad parallels to modern America finish out the story.

Humorously illustrated, Schiff’s story is a pleasurable read. It demonstrates that basic knowledge of economics is simple and that the laws of economics apply the same to complex societies as they do for simple ones. In short, if more saving is necessary for people on a small island to recover from disaster then saving is what is necessary to rescue a large society.

Peter Schiff will certainly not win his election for U.S. Senate in Connecticut. But he has bequeathed a valuable chapter of economic education to his country.

Perhaps this time people will listen.

Limiting the Republic

2010-07-01T08:53:00.000-07:00

It would seem that term limits are getting a hearing in 2010.

Among the tenets of the 1994 Republican Revolution was support for term limits, many of the GOP challengers promising to serve no more than three terms and retire. Most Republicans didn’t keep the promise, although ironically it was one promise Mark Sanford could keep.

The theme might be picking up steam again as Rand Paul won his primary election on a platform of term limits and no earmarks.

The antithesis: Ninety-Two years old, the longest serving member of the Senate and reportedly the “King of Pork,” Robert Byrd’s death is a reminder about the soundness of term limits and how even in as anti-Establishment an atmosphere as 2010, any meaningful change in Washington D.C. is little more than an exercise in futility unless something deeply penetrates the American soul.

Accompanying the obligatorily fawning obituaries of Robert Byrd, longest serving senator, reformed Klansman, constitutional scholar, has been the mention of his most enduring accomplishment: pork to West Virginia.

As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Byrd secured the lion’s share of federal money for his state. Dubbed the “King of Pork” as an insult, Byrd embraced the epithet as a badge of honor. It’s tempting to chuckle about how Byrd turned the charge on its head, but it also highlights the problem of enacting term limits.

The most obvious problem is that term limits are dependent on the willingness of the authorities to voluntarily relinquish power. If there is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program then what is more permanent than the bureaucrat who never retires?

But this problem cuts two ways.

A career politician becomes such not just because he won’t retire from office. Voters have to keep electing them. William Murchison of Chronicles magazine answers an important question:

“Nearly everyone has heard Lord Acton’s axiom about power: It ‘tends to corrupt.’ Corrupt whom, though? The power-wielders alone? Just as corrupted can be the beneficiaries of the exercise of power.”

If we’re supposed to believe that West Virginians weren’t grateful for the federal money Byrd sent their way for decades then how else might we explain how one the reddest states awarded the old Democrat nine terms in the Senate? Can West Virginians, or any American, name any piece of legislation Byrd ever authored?

On the issue of earmarks and appropriation, Americans can be a little fickle.

We are aghast when we realize how much money is wasted on a certain congressman or senator’s pet project back in their home state but we aren’t as appalled when our local farmers get subsidies or the community gets a new public park, even if the sign at the entrance has to be defaced with a politician’s name.

In short, we like the pork when we’re the ones getting it.

As such, Americans cannot possibly be serious about cutting spending or reducing the size of government unless we are willing to deny ourselves some of the luxuries we’ve become accustomed to receiving from the federal government. Part of this includes the luxury of having elected representatives dedicated to getting us the goodies.

Professor and columnist Walter Williams likes to tell a story about the late Senator Jesse Helms.

On principle, both Williams and Helms were opponents of subsidies, but Helms got them for his state anyway. Why?

Helms believed the voters of North Carolina would have sent him packing in favor of someone who would give them their God-given subsidies. Considering Helms was not a legislator known for buckling to the pressures of popular opinion, his story delivers a sad message about the mentality and entitlement of American voters.

Therefore, the solution is bound up in more than just an election or a few elections. It requires a change of heart. Demanding others give up their goodies requires giving up our own.

It also means Americans must stop asking themselves, “What can government do for me?” because when the government does something for me it has to do something for everyone else. In a nation of over 300 million, a $13 trillion deficit is just the start.

Was Benjamin Franklin right when he said that republics end when the people discover they can vote themselves money from the treasury?

Race Card Hypocrisy

2010-06-04T01:13:00.000-07:00

There has been no shortage of race cards since Barack Obama’s presidency began.

Most are obvious, of course.

The race card has been standard fare for the Democrats since LBJ. The election of a black president and the emergence of a populist movement on the Right only accelerated the claims.

It’s hard to forget Janeane Garofalo’s sanctimonious monologue with Keith Olbermann, “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

Conservatives and Tea Partiers were understandably furious.

The Tea Party movement may have conspicuously risen during the early days of the Obama administration, but to leap to the conclusion that the only possible reason grassroots Republicans could oppose the new Democratic president’s agenda was the occupant’s skin color, required an extraordinary sense of moral superiority.

During the Obama reign, conservatives have been adamant that their opposition to the Obama agenda has nothing to do with his skin color but all about the philosophy.

This would seem true.

There may have been no Tea Party movement during the 1990’s, but the hysteria about a popular, iconic Democratic president drummed up on the Right was similar during the Clinton administration. But admitting that a sizeable number of today’s protesters are simply GOP partisans doesn’t win many points with key Democratic constituencies and it doesn’t make for great TV ratings either.

Conservatives have also been quick to remind the Democrats that they don’t exactly have a pure history of multicultural kumbayah-ocity. Nor do we go very long before someone reminds us that Vice President Biden once said, “You cannot go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts without a slight Indian accent.”

But the point today is not to show how Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to race.

We know that it is not racist to oppose a black man’s agenda. If conservatives really believe in a limited, constitutional government, then there is little in the Obama administration that is worthy of praise. We know that the racist charges are meant to silence dissent.

With that in mind, why are conservatives playing the race card in the aftermath of the Israeli flotilla incident?

Despite claims from the White House that there will be “no daylight between the U.S. and Israel,” and despite accepting a non-binding U.N. resolution that does not actively condemn Israel’s actions, why are conservatives insisting that the Obama administration is “anti-Israel”?

Would we tolerate this sort of hyperbole if this was any nation besides Israel?

Take this recent video from conservative filmmaker Andrew Klavan.

In it, Klavan uses the sound of a honking horn to illustrate when anti-Semitism is being said, to show how it rings out loudly when uttered by a bigot.

This stunt is funny, although in an unintentional way, because it was always my observation that self-righteously condemning someone’s unauthorized opinion was the exclusive domain of liberals.

Here, Klavan demonstrates that conservatives have a chance to club liberals for not being enlightened enough on race (and by taking a quote from Pat Buchanan out of context, Klavan proves that even the mention of Hitler’s name without immediate condemnation equals anti-Semitism).

Klavan:

“We said never again would we stand by and watch such an atrocity [the Holocaust] to occur. And now that the Jews are once again in danger of destruction, we’re not standing by, we’re actually pitching in to help.”

This may have been satire, but it captures the bootlicking required to avoid the anti-Semite epitaph.

After all, did we not just see Rand Paul risk excommunication because the Thought Police assailed him for holding a single philosophical dispute with one point of the Civil Rights Act? Is this any different?

Is it possible to have a difference with policies of the Israeli government without being anti-Semitic?

Is it possible to think the Palestinians should have their own state without being anti-Semitic?

Is it possible to think Israel should be in charge of its own self-defense without being anti-Semitic?

Is it possible to think that the actions of the Israeli government might not be infallible without being anti-Semitic?

Is it possible to disagree with President Obama without being a white supremacist?

Conservatives should know better.

We Have an Israel Problem

2010-06-02T21:06:00.000-07:00

This Memorial Day weekend, while most Americans were preparing for backyard barbecues and mattress sales, and even a few remembering our war dead, a now-worldwide incident unfolded where the Israeli Defense Force boarded a humanitarian flotilla destined for a blockaded Gaza, captured the crew and killed perhaps sixteen people in the process.

The international reaction to this incident has indeed been one of furor.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini called the killing of civilians “a grave act.” The German government issued a statement saying that Israel must consider “proportionality” regarding its own self-defense while the Norwegian Prime Minister called for an end to the blockade of Gaza. (Source: Yahoo News)

Over here, commentators on both sides of the aisle are tripping over themselves in an ugly farce trying to justify Israel’s actions.

Marty Peretz at the reliably liberal New Republic tries to convince us that “The Facts are on Israel’s Side.”

On David Horowitz’s Newsreal blog, which never misses an opportunity to confuse Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States, the proprietor shamelessly called the people on the flotilla “armed jihadists” without a single reputable attribution to support his loaded claim and despite video footage showing that the passengers, at best, had makeshift weapons with which to defend themselves against armed Israeli soldiers boarding their ship. Apparently neoconservatives like Horowitz believe Turks armed with metal rods are a genuine threat to professionally-trained soldiers with automatic weapons.

Over at National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson imitated an Israeli press secretary thusly,

“The fallout from Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, the distortions around the 2002 terrorist storming of the Church of Nativity, the 2006 Lebanon war — over time, these incidents do their part, in weird fashion, to incur hatred for a liberal democracy while creating sympathy for a theocratic thugocracy like Hamas.”

A simpler way to look at it is if Larry King, who is currently going through his seventh divorce, defiantly exclaimed on television, “Cheat on half a dozen wives and suddenly you get a reputation as an adulterer.”

So what does all this mean?

The very fact that this incident is such an issue in the United States demonstrates that we have an Israel problem.

Can anyone identify the vital U.S. national interest in the eastern Mediterranean?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is all over American television defending the IDF’s actions calling it “self-defense.” That is to be expected.

But why are Americans like Victor Davis Hanson exercising every benefit of the doubt for a foreign government? The Obama White House, which has sycophantically stated that there will be no “daylight between the U.S. and Israel,” is probably wondering how to get that sort of treatment.

The problem is not whether Israel is right or wrong in disputes like these but that we defend and subsidize Israel in disputes that are none of our business in the first place.

And just what can the world expect in response?

Even if Hamas had nothing to do with this flotilla, does any rational thinker believe they will let this incident pass and not use it to increase their pressure on the Jewish state? Even new British Prime Minister David Cameron notes how the blockade and attack on this flotilla only strengthens Hamas’ grip on the besieged Palestinians.

Ardent Israel defenders in this country should set aside their hysteria to consider just one fact: Israel may have numerous enemies, but she is not weak.

Even if every exaggerated nightmare about Israel’s plight was true, their actions over the weekend, in their 2006 war in Lebanon, and the 2008 war in Gaza have demonstrated to the world that they are capable of defending themselves with relative ease.

Nor has this incident provided any real discomfort or danger for any American (except perhaps one American who is suspected to have been on the flotilla).

Moreover, Israel brings so much of this on herself.

For a country constantly claiming to be struggling in an anti-Semitic world, someone ought to ask why Israel insists on behaving in such a way that creates more resentment than security. Is this not making Israel’s enemies our enemies?

Perhaps it is time for some brave soul in Washington to ask, “What are we getting out of this relationship?”

The Smear Bund Reloads

2010-05-24T19:24:00.000-07:00

“I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism, I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant - but at the same time I do believe in private ownership but I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding.”

- Rand Paul, May 20, 2010

Fresh off a resounding primary win, Rand Paul didn’t leave himself much time for a “honeymoon” this week when he inadvertently uttered one of the Things You’re Not Allowed To Say.

Just what did he say? Did he espouse the merits of racism? Did he lament that the country did not elect Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrats in 1948? Did our good and benevolent media handlers, who cannot possibly have an agenda of their own, catch Rand changing out of his surgical scrubs and into his Klan hood?

Rather, Rand Paul made a statement intolerable to our political and cultural elites when he suggested that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not infallible.

In fact, there was nothing in the above quote that was even inconsistent with his philosophy.

Rand Paul’s entire campaign thus far has been about keeping government out of the lives of private citizens. Do the liberals (and a conservative establishment altogether unhappy with this marriage) want us to believe that Rand’s whole campaign, nay, whole life dedicated to preserving the privacy and rights of the individual was just part of a grand scheme to reinstitute segregated lunch counters?

It wasn’t enough to say that racism is wrong. It wasn’t enough to point out the economic stupidity inherent to discrimination practiced by business owners. Rand Paul’s detractors, both Left and Right, show us that the only acceptable way to be absolved or recused of racism is to faithfully recite the court history.

Always tenuous in his relationship with the Republican Party, whose full support he needs, a chastened Dr. Paul, with all the passion of a church heretic choosing expediency over burning at the steak, has backpedaled by saying that he would have undoubtedly supported the Civil Rights Act, a position he implied in the first place. Perhaps now that he says he believes all the articles of the government catechism, the Inquisition of Acceptable Opinion will pull back on the reins.

But this is unlikely to end as this is only the second act of a play we’ve already seen.

The Democrats have naturally lacerated Rand. They are loathe to ever pass up an opportunity to project their bloated sense of moral superiority at anyone who disagrees with them by labeling them a racist or bigot. Perhaps even less surprising is how the GOP has turned its back and tepidly cheered on the Left’s hysterics.

The Republicans, who are none too happy that Rand pummeled their candidate of choice, finally have a reason to throw him to the wolves. For a candidate whom they have no passionate attachment, cutting the rope comes naturally and easily. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the party who left Jim Bunning to twist in the wind has given the same treatment to his potential successor.

While there is a fair amount of criticism about Rand Paul’s campaign, particularly among libertarians, that he is so reviled by his party’s establishment, both before and after a landslide primary victory, shows that his enemies still see him as a legitimate threat to cut against the grain of his party. And that is what cannot be tolerated.

Despite all of this, it’s still doubtful this will sink the 25-point lead Rand currently holds over his opponent. Try as they might, the Democrats cannot put “macaca” in his mouth.

But Rand Paul has been here before.

Last December, a prominent staffer resigned when racist content was found on his myspace.com page. Although the staffer, Chris Hightower, did not author the substance, he did leave it alone, an indication that he values a person’s right to the freedom of speech, even when it’s detestable.

Likewise, Rand Paul never condoned racism or discrimination but only nodded that property rights are sacred in the western tradition, even when the holders themselves are repulsive.

But the point is that Rand Paul has survived this sort of controversy before. He kept on his message of rejecting government interference and balancing the budget, even when his primary opponent tried to use this incident as a club in evidence of Rand’s “strange ideas.”

Yet, Rand Paul is still naturally strong in this race. He’s the indisputably conservative candidate in an indisputably conservative state.

“Gotcha” questions like these will come up again. The successful distraction caused by this kerfuffle only proves that it will come up again because the more time we spend talking about 46-year-old legislation that is not about to be repealed means there will be less time to talk about dangerously inflated budgets that are sinking the economy.

Rand Paul needs to get together with his team to prepare for every possible contingency because the next irrelevant question is already being cooked up.

Otherwise, damage control will have to be added to his list of talking points.

*

Here are a few other takes on this situation that are worth a read:

Tom Woods: Rand Paul and the Zombies
Jack Hunter: Rand Paul's Practical Philosophy
Daniel McCarthy: Rand Paul and the Paleos
Daniel Larison: Can Rand Paul Revive Conservative Foreign Policy?
Jacob Hornberger: Rand Paul, Civil Rights, and More Liberal Hypocrisy on Race
Michael Scheuer: Maddow and the Obamas: Killers of Hope, Spurs of Rebellion
Wes Messamore: A Question for Rachel Maddow
Chris W: Progressive Hypocrisy and Rand Paul

**

This essay is also now up at The Humble Libertarian.

Spin Cycle

2010-05-13T17:33:00.000-07:00

Message to Voters: Vote for more of the same!

2010-05-12T18:19:00.000-07:00

Lebanon Junction, Kentucky

Less than a week before Kentucky Republicans go to the polls to choose their U.S. Senate candidate, the Bluegrass State looks poised to host a political upset that would impress Harry Truman. Sensing this, every GOP hack and lackey is coming to save Trey Grayson from a truly humiliating defeat.

Practically hand-selected by Senate minority leader and unofficial dean of Kentucky’s Republican Party, Trey Grayson was supposed to waltz to the nomination as the candidate who was sure to beat the Democrats in November. It was over a year ago that an anonymous GOP operative told Politico, when Grayson formed his exploratory committee, that “For the first time, we now know who the Republican nominee will be next November and that’s Trey Grayson.”

But we’ve been through a lot since April 2009.

Before he published God and Man at Yale, William F. Buckley’s intended pilot volume had been tentatively titled Revolt Against the Masses. If this senate race was translated into a book it would surely be called Revolt Against the Establishment.

After all, ignoring Rand Paul did not work. The attack ads have not worked. Bragging about endorsements from 27 current Kentucky office-holders has not worked. Even trying to turn Rand Paul over to the IRS did not work.

Now we have come full circle.

The original appeal of Grayson is the card he and his handlers are playing now: He is the candidate who is electable.

He’s moderate. He’s safe. He has a good chance to beat the Democrats.

But the “electability” argument is the Carpathia to Trey Grayson’s Titanic.

If the polls (and elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts) have been any indication, it’s that Republican primary voters are tired of Republicans’ abandonment of principles and the back-room deals that personified the Bush administration.

In Tuesday’s Louisville Courier-Journal, lawyer and Mitch McConnell’s court historian John David Dyche used his op-ed to try to get the Republicans to rally around Trey so the party can choose pragmatism over principle and hope that repeating the same mistakes of the past will not yield the same results.

In fact, Rand Paul ought to be thanking John David Dyche. Unknowingly, the Louisville lawyer’s act of sycophancy perfectly articulated the strengths of Dr. Paul’s outsider campaign:

"Dr. Rand Paul says he will not vote for any budget that is not balanced. Secretary of State Trey Grayson rightly responded that Paul's position 'is not practical' and explained why. Now Paul is airing an ad attacking Grayson as if Grayson is altogether opposed to balancing the budget."

Translation: Trey Grayson is in favor of balancing the budget when it’s convenient.

"The idealistic Paul's passion is appealing. He is unlikely to lapse into business-as-usual in Washington. But his rigid ideological positions could render him vulnerable to Democratic defeat this fall and largely irrelevant on Capitol Hill even if he wins. . . .

"Grayson's pragmatism would make him a team player in the clubby Senate. Yet many Republicans see unprincipled deal-making as precisely the problem that got the GOP, and America, into the current mess."

Translation: Please vote for unprincipled deal-making.

Many Republicans rue America's well-intentioned but ill-founded invasion of Iraq. They hear scary echoes of that misadventure in Grayson's tough talk about Iran.

Translation: Please support Grayson so there can be an invasion of Iran that Americans don’t want.

"Over in the pandering party, Democratic candidates contentedly bicker about petty things like housing stipends and stock portfolios. After all, their D.C. destiny would be that of acolyte at the altar of Obama's radical liberal agenda, which polling shows Kentuckians strongly oppose."

Translation: Please ignore polls showing that Rand Paul, who strongly opposes Obama's agenda, is just as strong against the Democrats as Trey Grayson.

Fighting Them Over There So We Can Fight Them . . . Over Here?

2010-05-08T14:47:00.000-07:00

Fortunately for New Yorkers, Faisal Shahzad’s plan went up in smoke.

It’s been less than a week since Shahzad entered the national scene with his smoking car in Times Square, but there remain unanswered questions, including one no one wants to ask.

Why would he do this? What were his connections to the Pakistani Taliban? And if this had happened two years ago would Dick Cheney view this attempted terrorist attack by a native Pakistani as justification for invading Iran?

There remains plenty of ambiguity in this case, but one of the certainties is that Shahzad did not fit into our government’s tidy box of terrorist classification.

In the midst of a contentious immigration debate taking place in this country, Shahzad fits the positive stereotype the elites like to project on us for why there should be unrestricted immigration.

Shahzad never hurt anybody. He seemed to have gone about the immigration process in the prescribed way and was awarded citizenship 13 months ago. He went to American universities where he did not cause any trouble. He had his Muslim faith but he must have appeared moderate since nobody was startled by it.

He earned a job as a financial consultant for a marketing firm in Connecticut. He bought a house that was foreclosed a year ago, making his loss in the housing collapse the only probable reason that his economic situation would have given him cause to lash out at his adopted country.

But does anyone believe that Faisal Shahzad, a thirty-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, who earned degrees from American universities in 2000 and 2005, and was a junior financial analyst until one year ago, would have tried to ignite his Nissan Pathfinder were the United States not bombing his native land, an act of undeclared war that was escalated during the past year by President Obama?

All the available evidence in this case points in that direction.

Fighting the terrorists “over there” certainly did not stop Shahzad from trying to fight us over here. The U.S. has been engaged in Afghanistan for nearly nine years and in Iraq for over seven now. He had plenty of opportunity to volunteer for jihad because of those wars while he was enjoying freedom and becoming naturalized. Once drone strikes in Pakistan became more pronounced, this native-born Pakistani decided to take a trip to the old country where, it is assumed at this point, he volunteered himself for the Pakistani Taliban late in 2009.

If this scenario is true, that Shahzad was trying to exact revenge for what was happening to his old country, then wouldn’t extrication from the region remove the incentive for these continual, albeit amateurish bomb plots?

What the U.S. government has to realize is that terrorism is also a home-grown problem. While the Bush administration was trying to hypnotize the country into believing that terrorists are motivated by an inexplicable hatred of freedom, traditionalist conservatives and libertarians pointed out that Americans suffer terrorism over here because we have been over there.

As long as we insist that we have to be “over there,” terrorists will come over here. As Shahzad shows, some of them are already here.

If we see that it is “necessary” to remain “over there,” the price of our presence will be more car bombs like the one set by Faisal Shahzad.

And if some of those are successful, will it occur to anyone in seats of power that fighting them “over there” did not stop them from coming over here?

*

Editorial note: Wes Messamore of The Humble Libertarian has brought me on as a new regular contributor where this essay also appears. Please feel free to read and comment there as well.

Pro-Life Phonies

2010-05-01T12:57:00.000-07:00

They weren’t all standing on the stage together but the group of recent endorsers of Trey Grayson’s U.S. Senate campaign would at first glance seem like an entertaining group photo.

In addition to Dick Cheney, Trey Grayson has recently wrangled the endorsements of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson. Santorum and Dobson are famously pro-life and Giuliani is infamously pro-choice in a party that, he learned, doesn’t nominate pro-choicers for its presidential candidates.

As a senator, Santorum was a poster boy for the pro-life cause. A handsome man with a large family, the Roman Catholic urged the teaching of Intelligent Design be inluded in No Child Left Behind and wrote “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and Common Sense,” a rebuttal to Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village.”

In his endorsement of Trey Grayson, Santorum said,

"Trey Grayson is the only 100% pro-life candidate in this race. I’ve looked at the records and past statements of both candidates on the issue of protecting life, and I’m impressed with Grayson’s conviction and sincerity.”

This might seem like a strong statement, but the former senator hasn’t always used this measuring stick.

In 2004, with then-Republican and always-pro-choice Arlen Specter in a brutal primary fight against then-Congressman Pat Toomey, Santorum and President George W. Bush came to the Keystone State to pull Specter’s chestnuts out of the fire. Now that Specter has prodigally returned to the Democrats, Santorum has endorsed Toomey. Santorum has since apologized for endorsing Specter in 2004, but the only thing the former proved is that even if you yourself are pro-life, you can always support someone who is pro-choice as long as they are a Republican.

In his endorsement, James Dobson said,

“Trey Grayson is the only candidate with the conviction to lead on the issues that matter to Kentucky families. His unwavering commitment to the sanctity of human life and the family resonates with me. I know that he will be a leader on these issues, not just another Senator who checks the box.”

While his organization has done some good work, James Dobson is the one "who checks the box."

Dobson brayed in 2007 that he would support a “minor party candidate” if Giuliani, who was then seen as the frontrunner, won the presidential nomination. When the nominally pro-life John McCain, who voted to confirm Bill Clinton’s abortion-rights defenders to the Supreme Court, won the nomination, Dobson predictably returned to the fold, spurning the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin, whose pro-life views are as bulletproof as the ones Dobson claims to demand of Republicans.

Now back to the image of these three people, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Santorum, and James Dobson all supporting the same candidate, Trey Grayson. The question is this: What brings together people with disagreements on something as vital as whether the taking of an unborn life is murder or not and whether it deserves protection?

Obviously any candidate needs a wide coalition to get elected and that may mean having supporters with varying views on abortion, as bombastic and as intransigent as defenders on both sides of this issue tend to be.

But that still hasn’t answered the question of why Trey Grayson is the one who gets support from alleged pro-life leaders as Rick Santorum and James Dobson as well as pro-choice Republicans like Rudy Giuliani. After all, Grayson’s opponent, Rand Paul is also pro-life. Both candidates have endorsements from pro-life groups. What makes Grayson more pro-life than Rand Paul?

Perhaps the answer is the bazooka-toting elephant in the room.

Seeing that some of these pro-life stalwarts don’t quite live up to their principles, a simpler way to decipher the meanings of these recent endorsements might be found in this list:

1. Rand Paul is pro-life.
2. Trey Grayson is pro-life.
3. Rick Santorum is pro-life.
4. James Dobson is pro-life.
5. Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice.
6. Rand Paul is against the mainstream Republican foreign policy.
7. Trey Grayson is pro-war.
8. Rick Santorum is pro-war.
9. James Dobson is pro-war.
10. Rudy Giuliani is pro-war.
11. Pro-life Rick Santorum, pro-life James Dobson, and pro-choice Rudy Giuliani all endorse pro-life Trey Grayson.
12. Fealty to the status quo GOP foreign policy outranks the pro-life plank.

Update 5/3/2010: According to Politico, James Dobson has reneged his endorsement of Grayson in favor of Rand Paul. It is encouraging to see Dobson change his mind, but take note of his explanation for his initial endorsement of Grayson. Dobson may have inadvertantly revealed Grayson's whole campaign strategy by saying that it wasn't so much an endorsement for Trey Grayson as much as it was an endorsement against Rand Paul.

From Politico:

"Christian conservative leader James Dobson withdrew his endorsement of Kentucky Senate candidate Trey Grayson Monday, switching his support to Rand Paul’s campaign and accusing 'senior members of the GOP' of misleading him about Paul’s record on abortion. . . .

“ 'I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent,' Dobson explained."

No Shame: The Case Against Mitt Romney

2010-04-14T10:47:00.000-07:00

Under discussion: No Apology: The Case for American Greatness by Mitt Romney, 323 pages, $26.95.

It’s hard to imagine a worse presidential contender than Mitt Romney. Yet, he nearly won the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and whether conservatives will admit it or not, Romney is the most likely member of the party to win the nomination in 2012.

The flip-flopping, status quo defending, conventional wisdom-spouting pol is certainly viewed as “safe” and “electable” by the Republican establishment and as a “tolerable Republican” by the Democrats. 1964 excepted, this is the course Republicans always take. Despite the grassroots’ anger over Romneycare becoming Obamacare, Republicans should get comfortable with a Romney candidacy.

Editors Rich Lowry and Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review, the so-called mast of so-called conservatism, are still behind him. A Rasmussen poll shows that Romney, three years out, is the strongest Republican opponent to Obama -- a 45-45 statistical dead heat. The same poll says Obama would beat Sarah Palin 48-42. Mike Huckabee’s political star is fading and the party still refuses to acknowledge the existence of Ron Paul who will be 76 during the primary season.

Make no mistake, Mitt Romney is running for president. Nobody writes a book like No Apology unless they’re running for something. And Mitt Romney is always running for something. With entire chapters dedicated to topics such as health care, education, energy, and four chapters wailing about foreign policy, Mitt Romney intends to be president.

But if Romney thinks he will be able to effectively challenge President Obama in 2012, he does have some convincing left to do – and not just the Democrats he spent his pre-2008 political career trying to schmooze.

While he should face little resistance to his atrocious foreign policy, the GOP base is sure to have huge question marks about Romney’s unfolding positions on abortion, gay marriage, and the bank bailouts.

The American Conservative columnist Daniel Larison has quipped that Romney should just not talk about foreign policy because he seems hopelessly confused, conflating differing sects of Islam with each other, exposing inexcusable ignorance of the millennia-old rivalries between Sunni and Shiite. But as George W. Bush proved, simple regional and religious ignorance may be just part of the job qualifications.

The self-stated purpose of No Apology is that American greatness is inherent and there is no reason for America to feel sorry about anything ever, the meme used by statists in both party to indicate that there is no difference a government and its people.

Through this, it is implied that No Apology is the antithesis to the supposed “Apology Tour” of President Obama. In practice, the purpose seems to be that Mitt Romney believes he can take both sides of an argument at the same time and think that that makes him smart. Also, it becomes evident that in addition to offering no “I’m sorry”’s, Mitt Romney offers no justifiable defense, or apology, for past Republican failures he fully intends to repeat.

An example of this shows up in Chapter 2 when Romney gives a great deal of attention to why great nations fall i.e., when they isolate themselves and refuse to accept the changes of modernity:

“While Europe embarked on the early stages of manufacturing, the Ottomans did not; . . . The Ottomans’ growing isolation from the dynamic world of manufacture and trade was reinforced by the conviction that their holy scriptures provided all the knowledge that was necessary; foreign technology was infidel technology. The empire banned the printing press for half a century.” (37)

And about China:

“For the Ottomans, the Qur’an contained everything that life required; for the Chinese, it was their ancient culture . . . But rather than viewing learning and innovation as paths to prosperity, [Mao Zedong] saw them as threats.” (39)

Remarkably, the author of No Apology wrote the following statements in Chapter 3:

“. . . Mao never really took to modernity and technology, and his military continued to reflect that prejudice, maintaining a massive four-million-soldier army as only a weak compensation for the nation’s obsolete or non-existent weapons systems and logistical support. It wasn’t until approximately twenty years ago that China decided to build a modern world-class military. . .”

“Rather than embracing discovery, the Islamic fundamentalists condemn it. For them, the Qur’an contains all information and learning that is needed, and everything that should be known. In this view, modernity itself is evil – contemporary law, business practices, social mores, tolerance, rationalism, and scientific inquiry are heresy. And as the world’s epicenter of innovation and intellectual discovery, America is emblematic of the world’s sinful pursuit of everything forbidden by Allah.” (64-65, 66)

It’s difficult to concisely summarize Romney’s cognitive dissonance. On the one hand he seems to argue that great and powerful nations fall when they refuse to adapt to change and embrace technology and modern innovations. He uses the dissolution of the grandest Islamic empire as evidence of that. But on the other hand, bands of terrorists who do not accept modernity and represent a backward worldview, are inexplicably more dangerous than the Ottomans themselves or Mao’s pre-modern military.

But this is also symptomatic of the fundamental phoniness of Mitt Romney.

He draws some comparisons from history and hopes the reader will accept Romney’s façade of intellectualism at face value. How can Romney honestly think, six inches beneath his mound of hair gel, that 4 percent of GDP is required to battle an enemy that he has already explained has sown the seeds of their own futility by refusing to accept modern innovations?

Even on a subject on which Romney is generally accepted as having unique knowledge, the economy, he again shows himself riding both sides:

“It doesn’t make sense to bail out individual companies or banks or financial institutions that get in trouble. As we’ve seen, creative destruction is part of a growing, productive economy. Bailing out sick enterprises . . . merely prolong the final act.

“But Secretary Paulson’s proposal was not aimed at saving sick Wall Street banks or even at preserving jobs on Wall Street. . . . It did in fact keep our economy from total meltdown. (127-128)

Here Romney uncritically repeats the conventional wisdom used by both corporate parties to justify the largest redistribution of wealth in history. What’s worse is that he essentially repeats Bush’s lie that he had to abandon his free-market principles to save the free market.

This time, it’s Romney who is fine with abandoning the concept of “creative destruction,” the way the market rewards good businesses and eliminates poor ones, for a titanic propping-up of the banks, as if their industry should have been immune from the laws of economics.

Apparently it has never occurred to ol’ Mitt that much of the American economy was already propped up by an illusion of wealth created by the Federal Reserve and that rescuing the banks only prolongs a tragic final act that is yet to come.

But perhaps Romney’s most brazen attempt at obfuscation is the most predictable one: Massachusetts health care.

It isn’t difficult to see why. Just as Romney’s amorphous position on abortion (one dependant on which office he’s seeking), might have been enough to derail his 2008 presidential bid, his signature achievement as governor of Massachusetts is what is temporarily angering conservatives in 2010.

He addresses the situation in Chapter 7, “Healing Health Care”:

“In 2009, the national health-care policy supported by President Barack Obama was often and erroneously reported as being based upon the plan we had enacted in Massachusetts. There were some very big differences – in particular, our plan did not include a public insurance option.” (176)

On this much Romney is right. At the time of the book’s writing, the so-called Massachusetts Model, which mandated that all citizens purchase health insurance, was not the same as the public option plan that was eventually discarded.

However, since No Apology went to press, the new health care law, which mandates health insurance for all Americans, does more closely resemble the Massachusetts Model, casting the proverbial aspersions on Romney’s claim that his model is different and likely putting a smile on Obama’s face when he sees Romney’s blabbering doubletalk on TV.

Republicans salivating at the prospect of an inevitable Obama defeat in 2012 should exercise caution when assuming that any suit or skirt will win. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act might be ancient history by then and Mitt Romney is just unprincipled enough to play John Kerry to Barack Obama’s George W. Bush.

And there would be no apology big enough for that.

A Message from Trey Grayson

2010-04-01T00:34:00.001-07:00

For those of you who might not know me, my name is Trey Grayson. I am Kentucky’s Secretary of State and a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

I am writing to you from Uncouth Ruminations, a blog of politics, history, and faith. The forlorn editor of this blog, Carl Wicklander, showed up on a blotter in Dick Cheney’s cave when it was discovered that Mr. Wicklander held some patently un-American views. Mr. Wicklander has since begun “Patriot Training,” a rigorous program where disloyal and thinking Republicans are “Hannitized” and reacquainted with timeless conservative texts such as “If Democrats had any Brains, They’d Be Republican” and “Going Rogue.”

But enough about that. I am writing to you in this forum so I can tell you why I want to be the next senator from Kentucky.

It’s easy in a race such as ours to run a negative campaign where the candidates engage in ad hominem attacks and don’t talk about the issues. But this is Kentucky and we’re above that.

The reason I want to be the next senator from Kentucky is simple: Rand Paul is SCARRRRY!!!

Maybe that’s not quite accurate. Rand Paul isn’t scary. He’s scary and kooky!

You don’t have to take my word for it. Learn about Rand Paul for yourself. I recommend a couple of scholarly, highly insightful, and impartial websites: randpaulstrangeideas.com and tookookyforkentucky.com. They’re the veritable snopes.com for Rand Paul!

First of all, Rand Paul is not even a Kentuckian. I am a Kentuckian. A fifth generation Kentuckian for that matter. Rand Paul was born in Texas. Why, if birthplace and genealogy don’t get you anywhere, then why did we even fight the American Revolution?

Here’s another troubling fact about Rand Paul: He is the son of Ron Paul. I’ll give you a minute to let that sink in.

Pretty scary, huh?

The depth of Rand Paul’s love and devotion to his father is utterly despicable. This is the sort of character who did not support George H. W. Bush for president in 1988 because his father was running as the Libertarian Party’s candidate. Kentucky doesn’t need a senator who is more loyal to his own father than to Poppy Bush and the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Do you want to know what’s even scarier? Rand Paul is funded by evil Big Libertarian money.

Just who is part of this Big Libertarian political machine that is funding this not-enough-of-a-Kentuckian?

College kids, young adults, and blue collar workers across the country who are giving sums of $5, $10, and $25. Those are exactly the sort of people we don’t need in the Republican Party.

Kentuckians deserve a senator who will stand up for them. Rand Paul is more than happy to accept small donations from libertarians all across America. I, on the other hand, reluctantly accept money from your friendly neighborhood bailed-out corporations at fundraisers that charge $500 per plate. I don't think I need to tell you which one of us in this race has Kentuckians interests at heart.

As scary as all this has been, I regret to inform you all that there is something about Rand Paul that is even scarier. Yes, scarier than not being born in Kentucky, scarier than being the son of Ron Paul, and scarier than getting small donations.

Rand Paul is opposed to the war in Iraq.

That’s right. Rand Paul is opposed to an invasion of an innocent country that did not threaten the United States and that a majority of Americans now oppose. Foresight like this does not deserve to be rewarded. Rand Paul also had the audacity to suggest that we should exclusively pursue the perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Does this man’s arrogance know no bounds?

I know this was a lot, but I hope this has been helpful for anyone considering voting in this year’s senate election in Kentucky. I hope that by looking at my opponent, Kentuckians will realize that I am the right man for the job.

And finally, during this Holy Week, I think it would be appropriate to take some time to meditate and say thank you. Thank you for your sacrifice. Thank you for showing us the way. May we never question you. Thank you, Mitch McConnell.

Americans Learn to Love Government

2010-03-22T10:01:00.000-07:00

Democrats hail this as a major breakthrough in their goal of finally getting every American insured. Republicans are denouncing the action as unprecedented big government tyranny that they will continue to fight, sure to draw cheers from the base.

But Republicans like John “Bailout” Boehner can jeer all they want about how Congress failed to listen to the will of the people, how this was shoved down the throats of the American people and how Democrats like Bart Stupak will pay at the ballot box in November.

The GOP, certain to make gains this November, will undoubtedly bludgeon the Democrats this fall with their health care bill, which was achieved through any number of shady means, although any significant resistance will likely end there.

One of the biggest reasons is that there are two Republican Parties. There is the party that is out of power and/or campaigning for reelection which purports to adhere to the Constitution and restraining government. This is the party that excites the Tea Partiers. The other party is the one that returns to power, retains the apparatuses Democrats instituted and introduces some of their own. This is the party that deserves to be run out of town and the one that brings the Democrats and this vicious cycle back.

But the screaming masses on the Right need to know one thing: Republicans have had numerous opportunities to roll back the welfare state. The Social Security Act of 1935 passed with bipartisan support. The New Deal remained firmly in place after eight years of Eisenhower.

Republicans have won seven of the eleven presidential elections since Medicare passed, yet Republicans not only preserved that single-payer program but expanded it in 2003 under a Republican president and a Republican congress. This means that Republicans are either

A). Fine with keeping the welfare state in place so they too can control Americans’ lives, or

B). They are too weak-willed to address the politically suicidal task of cutting entitlements. (Hint: Either answer is acceptable)

Even if there is no public option right now, universal health care is still in our future. Since the time of FDR, America has never taken a step away from government health care, only steps towards it.

And if there is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program, what can we say about something as transformational as this legislation?

The other big reason there won’t likely be any longstanding resistance is that Americans have already gotten comfortable with the idea of government health care.

Though often hesitant at first, Americans have shown that they do grow to love their entitlements.

Social Security and Medicare were measures that were denounced at the time as socialist but Americans have largely accepted these entitlements as American birthrights on a par with freedom of religion.

In today’s debate over the Democrats’ plan, Republicans demonstrated this by wailing about the cuts to Medicare as a way to fund the new program, not whether Medicare is constitutional in the first place.

The debate over private vs. public health care was lost long before Sunday’s vote.

Over seventy years ago, journalist Peter Edward “Garet” Garrett wrote about the New Deal in "The Revolution Was":

"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom. . . .

And:

“A government that has been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them. Much of it is irreversible. That is true because habits of dependence are much easier to form than to break.”

Those dependencies Americans have acquired, Social Security and Medicare, are running a hole in the budget. The biggest parts of the federal budget are the entitlements and all defense spending. The debt is currently $13 trillion. The Democrats propose that they can insure all Americans by just cutting from Medicare. At best, this is a solution that simply rearranges the debt. Republicans seem to be proposing that they can keep entitlement spending where it is, military spending where it is, cut taxes, and everything will be fine.

Cuts in the entitlement programs just won’t happen. Republicans won’t touch them because Democrats already campaign that Republicans will take away Social Security from seniors. Democrats won’t take a butter knife to the defense budget because Republicans already assail them for being weak. And nobody will raise taxes during a recession or during an election season.

The American government has weaned the American people into dependency. Everybody wants to cut something but nobody wants to give up their own share of the federal goodies.

In 2003 regarding the Iraq war, General David Petraeus said, “Tell me how this ends.”

We should be asking ourselves that same question today.

Lessons Not Learned

2010-03-11T09:29:00.000-08:00

The following letter appeared in the Thursday, March 11, 2010 issue of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It is in response to an editorial last week which can be read here.

Lessons Not Learned

Friday’s editorial “Election and end game” (March 5) perfectly mimicked the navel-gazing that passes for modern political discourse by declaring, “Nearly seven years after the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq still won’t have peaceful, free and fair elections. That’s not our fault, but theirs – and perhaps history’s.”

Nearly seven years ago our government chose to invade a country with no apparent knowledge of their religion, customs, or complex ethnic history and then the editors seemingly blame the Iraqis themselves for our ruling class’s ignorance.

Historian Thomas Fleming of Chronicles magazine compares this sort of uncritical thinking to a practical joker who tells his victim that he just won the lottery. Who is at fault if the victim suffers a heart attack or carelessly spends money he ultimately doesn’t have? Is it the victim who wasted money he thought he had or is it the joker who needlessly intervened in the victim’s life?

Do we blame the Iraqis for predictably behaving according to their history or do we blame the U.S. government for unleashing that behavior by intervening in a place where it was neither necessary nor wise?

And will this same lackadaisical thinking apply again to the more heavily populated and more ethnically diverse Iran?

Carl Wicklander
Nashville, IL

Dangerous Marco Rubio

2010-02-24T10:46:00.000-08:00

And he may just be the next senator from Florida.

There’s a lot of buzz around Marco Rubio these days. Justifiably so. He is running against the Establishment’s candidate Charlie Crist. He delivers stirring speeches and holds the support of the so-called Tea Parties. He’s charismatic and as a Cuban-American, he is a diverse face the Republican Party desperately needs.

He waxes about individual liberty and free enterprise. These topics gave him cheers at CPAC. But there is more to Rubio than this. What so many of his admirers may or may not realize is that Marco Rubio is exactly what the Republicans want in order for them to put a different face on their big government machinations.

He is Hispanic, which is a plus, and even though he is not (yet) the Establishment’s candidate, he does not represent any meaningful change from the status quo from early 21st century Republican politics, only more passionate delivery.

Last October, I first highlighted some troubles with Rubio in “Compassionate Conservatism Revisited?” where Rubio expressed support for a Republican version of a nanny state:

“I thought that of all the candidates, [Mike Huckabee] did the best job of connecting how the people’s social and moral well-being cannot be separated from their economic well-being.”

I also noted that one of Rubio’s political mentors was two-term governor Jeb Bush, who is portrayed in Robert Crew's recent monograph, “Aggressive Conservatism,” as a strong-willed and secretive executive who did not hesitate to stretch the authority of his office to achieve his goals. Sound familiar?

After Rubio delivered his speech at CPAC last weekend, he should give true conservatives and libertarians more reason to worry. Not only does he toe the Bush-Huckabee line of compassionate conservatism, he also makes clear that he follows their foreign policy as well:

“Americans are also looking for clear alternatives on the issues of national defense. . . . there is no greater risk to this country than the risk posed by radical Islamic terrorists. Let me be clear about something. These terrorists aren't trying to kill us because we offended them. They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way. We need to make it unmistakably clear that we will do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.

“We will punish -- we will punish their allies, like Iran -- and we will stand with our allies, like Israel. We will target and we will destroy terrorist cells and the leaders of those cells. The ones that survive, we will capture them.”

This is a startling part of the speech. But let’s break it down.

Let me be clear about something. These terrorists aren't trying to kill us because we offended them

This is a repackaging of the unreflective cliché, “They hate us because we’re free.”

By saying “Let me be clear,” Rubio wants to assure us that there is no alternative explanation to why terrorists hate us. We did not offend them. It would be preposterous to think they could be offended that the U.S. supports Israel unconditionally against the Palestinians, props up corrupt regimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, militarily occupies lands that Muslims consider holy, and whose foreign policy results in thousands of dead Muslims.

They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way.

Okay, they attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on us. There is a case to be made for that, but aren’t we currently engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan because we want to impose our view of the world, democratic republicanism, on the Muslim world? We obviously don’t like the idea of living under an imposed Islamic caliphate, so why should we believe that traditional Islamic societies would want to live like secular Westerners especially if it was forced on them?

We need to make it unmistakably clear that we will do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.

This comes directly from the playbook of the Israel Lobby: bait Iran, stand with Israel, and stay in the region for hundreds of years if necessary against vaguely defined "radical Islamic terrorism."

Meet Marco Rubio: Bush Republican.

War Party and Tea

2010-02-18T15:19:00.000-08:00

With the surprise retirement of Evan Bayh, widely assumed to be a shoo-in for reelection, Republicans can lick their chops some more about the electoral gains they are sure to make this fall.

Perhaps the Tea Party pressure is paying off. Maybe enough of those evil Democrats are getting the picture that their big government machinations are history and a renewed, revitalized, and reformed Republican Party is poised to set the ship aright by following the Constitution and restoring the republic to the one bequeathed to us by the founding fathers.

Probably not.

Like Obama, the Republicans are misreading the early election returns.

In 2006 and 2008, Americans sick of the Republicans, their ill-conceived wars, and a miserable economy, threw the GOP and their “permanent majority” out. 2008 was a year where the Republicans were so despised that Democrats could have literally nominated a yellow dog and still won the presidency. Not sensing this, Obama and the Democrats introduced to America an agenda that envisioned a health care plan that would inevitably lead to a government take-over of the industry.

Republicans have responded by defeating Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey, and of all places, Massachusetts.

So how are they misreading the election results?

They are taking these early Democratic defeats to mean that, even though the Republicans have offered no agenda of change, the American people must want back the good old days of the early 2000s of the ambiguous “War on Terror” and endless deficit spending.

No sooner had Scott Brown embarrassed his daughters on national television did National Review’s Andrew McCarthy assure us that it was the War on Terror that really motivated people to get out there by praising how:

“Scott Brown went out and made the case for enhanced interrogation, for denying terrorists the rights of criminal defendants, for detaining them without trial, and for trying them by military commission. It worked. It will work for other candidates willing to get out of their Beltway bubbles . . . .

“He said the United States needs to stop apologizing for defending itself. And he won going away, in the bluest of blue states.”

What McCarthy means by “defending itself,” is keeping the same Bush foreign policy that Americans have already repudiated.

This also shows how, despite all the good rhetoric about the Constitution, limited government, and reduced spending at home, all of that takes a back seat to the ubiquitous “War on Terror” and makes the so-called Tea Parties a farce.

Just look at the reception given to Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul.

Paul, who has consistently led in Kentucky polls for at least four months, is continually vilified by his party and their media henchmen for a variety of bizarre reasons. He’s kooky. He’s pro-abortion (untrue). He’s a marijuana advocate (a dramatic distortion). But the most telling criticism is that Rand Paul is somehow weak on military matters and wants to surrender the “War on Terror.”

To make that argument ignores the fact that Paul’s first campaign commercial declared that he will “stop travel visas from terrorist nations” and “keep prisoners off U.S. soil,” as well as supporting military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. On his website, he has expressed his support for a declaration of war on Afghanistan. He also wrangled the endorsement of war empress Sarah Palin. To the chagrin of all the little Churchills with laptops, Rand Paul is not Neville Chamberlain.

But it was Jeanette Pryor of Newsrealblog that summed up the supremacy of war when she said this regarding Sarah Palin’s endorsement:

"The logical conclusion of this endorsement is that Palin considers America’s global defense of freedom, national defense, the War on Terror, the defeat of Radical Islam, and the support of Israel and our allies, to be less important than 'some' domestic policy issues."

Pryor says plainly that not only are the wars more important than our domestics, but Israel is too. Are we for America first or are we not? Or as The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison noted about the reaction to Palin’s endorsement, she “has erred because she forgot that national security is the one area where conservatives cannot meaningfully disagree and still be accepted.”

During the Bush administration, everything took a backseat to the wars. Spending skyrocketed. The Roe v. Wade atrocity remained firmly in place. Border security was abandoned. The federal government sunk its claws deeper into American education. Executive power increased. But the wars, well, that’s what really mattered.

These GOP sycophants have already demonstrated that once the Republicans are back in power, the latter aim to do everything exactly the same once again. And the former aim to continue their bidding.

From the party that has had no ideas for fixing the problems they helped cause this should be no surprise.

Rand Paul and Sarah

2010-02-03T11:30:00.000-08:00

“You saw the Tea Party group basically in action twice in the last two or three years. One was for the anti- immigration-reform thing . . .

The second was after the nomination of Sarah Palin, this enormous surge to McCain, huge crowds coming out when he couldn't get a couple of hundred people before . . .

Now . . . Ron Paul, will do better. He's not going to be nominated, but he will do better than he did before if he runs again because he'll get some of those folks. But right now, quite frankly, the one candidate who can get them better than anybody else is Ms. Sarah Palin.”

- Patrick J. Buchanan, January 15, 2010 on “McLaughlin Group”

After weeks of speculation, on Monday, February 1, 2010, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin endorsed Kentucky Republican Rand Paul for the U.S. Senate. Palin, whose political baggage is too bulky to mention here, may prove to be a kingmaker.

Already, Rand Paul is pulling ahead in the polls in a race that was supposed to go easily to Secretary of State Trey Grayson. The Palin endorsement was welcomed by the Paul campaign and comes just two days after Rand’s father Ron Paul came to Louisville to campaign for his son and two days after the secretary of state smeared the father and son as “a career politician and pro-choice marijuana advocate,” respectively although not respectfully.

The Palin endorsement is intriguing. Hardly anyone in American politics, save perhaps President Obama, elicits such knee-jerk love or hate. In fact, I feel like an oddball in that I neither love nor hate the former governor. What’s wrong with me?

Some might also ask what’s wrong with Palin herself. Why would she endorse Rand Paul, the son of one of the most famous American libertarians when she has also endorsed pols such as her old running mate John McCain and Texas governor Rick Perry. It’s hard to imagine those three endorsees (a libertarian Republican, a progressive Republican, and George W. Bush’s lieutenant governor) getting along for five minutes. Maybe Sarah Palin is confused about her political philosophy. Maybe she is endorsing three people she just happens to like. Maybe she is just an old-fashioned politician held captive by the moment.

What to make of the endorsement? The Paul campaign welcomed it but some of the grassroots supporters of both are a little uneasy about it while others are simply distraught.

But in the words of Barry Goldwater, after conservatives threatened to abandon the party when Richard Nixon started pandering to the party’s liberals, “Let’s grow up, conservatives.” Or in this case, let’s grow up, Ron Paul Republicans.

Sarah Palin does have some political problems. She touts the bellicose foreign policy of John McCain both on their campaign trail and in her book. She held her hand out to receive stimulus money while she was still governor. She doesn’t really show much knowledge of the issues beyond the talking points. But both Sarah Palin and Rand Paul claim Tea Party support and like Pat Buchanan said, “The one candidate who can get [people] better than anybody else is Ms. Sarah Palin.”

Some grassroots libertarians are upset at the acceptance of the endorsement because Palin’s policy positions are far from perfect, and in some cases, are far from Rand Paul’s. But both claim Tea Party credentials and both campaign as the outsider to the establishment. And in a year where a Republican can win in Massachusetts, the endorsement is a good thing.

Why? 3 main reasons:

1. The endorsement might just produce, at the very least, a primary win. But to even get that far, alliances must be made and coalitions built, which by nature means teaming up with people who do not share complete confessional solidarity. A coalition is not a religious creed, where all points must be agreed upon to signify a true believer. Accepting Sarah Palin’s endorsement is not an abandonment of principles. It is good political sense.

2. Like it or not, she brings in people. And in a state that went 57-41 for McCain-Palin, Republican opponents like Trey Grayson will have more trouble marginalizing Rand Paul when one of the party’s biggest stars comes out for the latter. Will he continue trying to convince voters that Rand Paul is “pro-choice” when one of the country’s most prominent pro-life figures endorses him? Is Trey capable of walking the tightrope of vilifying Rand Paul without implying that Sarah Palin is also kooky, nutty, and anti-Semitic?

3. If Sarah Palin does get gutted for supporting Rand Paul, it only confirms that the GOP is the War Party and only the War Party. Federal encroachment, borrowing and spending, bailouts, and amnesty are all tolerable as long as you support torture and imperialism.

Welcome to the Kentucky race, Sarah. I hope you get a chance to listen to Dr. Paul.

*

Update: Regarding point #3 that the GOP may prove itself to be the War Party, see here for Jeanette Pryor's take at David Horowitz's Israel First Newsreal Blog. Ms. Pryor proves that point very plainly:

"The logical conclusion of this endorsement is that Palin considers America’s global defense of freedom, national defense, the War on Terror, the defeat of Radical Islam, and the support of Israel and our allies, to be less important than 'some' domestic policy issues."

Fooling the Tea Parties

2010-01-18T12:59:00.000-08:00

With the special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s senate seat approaching, there is a lot of speculation that Republican Scott Brown’s potential victory in the Bay State may be a sign of things to come for the GOP. Brown, who spouts conservative-sounding rhetoric in the liberal commonwealth, is even being presented as proof that the Tea Party movement is making real strides, nudging the Republican Party to the Right, even in states like Massachusetts where the candidate of the Right might just prevail.

Browsing Scott Brown’s campaign website shows that the candidate doesn’t deviate from safe GOP positions. He’s for tax cuts but says little about spending cuts. He is wishy-washy on abortion, but On the Issues records that as of 2002, Brown felt that “abortions should always be legally available.” His policy positions on Israel and Iran fall in line with those of the Israel Lobby and should make Dick Cheney and the rest of the gang at the American Enterprise Institute happy that a Senator Brown would represent the Republican status quo on foreign policy. As bloggers Carla Howell and Michael Cloud discovered, Scott Brown in practice has proven himself to be the archetypal big government Republican in a blue state.

This makes Scott Brown January 2010’s Doug Hoffman. Hoffman, who ran on the Conservative Party of New York ticket in the special election for New York’s 23rd district in November 2009, was the unofficial Tea Party candidate and generated mounds of enthusiasm among the Tea Partiers, even though he was vague on issues and the ones he did articulate upon were well within the GOP mainstream.

So despite polls showing the Tea Party Movement more favorable than the Republicans, the Tea Party Express’ endorsement of Brown is proof-positive that no matter how bitter they may appear to be at Republicans, the Tea Parties are expected to return to the Republican fold on Election Day. Their support for Brown over the much more libertarian (and unrelated) Joe Kennedy also demonstrates that, so far, the Tea Party movement is not serious about challenging the Republican Party, even from the inside out.

Here’s why. On his Friday radio program, Rush Limbaugh addressed the issue of a third party, an issue that arose during the 2008 presidential campaign, while conservatives were dragging their feet for John McCain:

“[A] Third party, in my view, is the only effort that will derail all the progress and energy and early victories that we've seen in recent months. A third party of the Ross Perot type, the Ron Paul type, bleeds voters away from the Republican Party, not the Democrat Party. . . . The fact that every single Republican senator votes consistently against government-run health care should be a clear indication that we are being heard. The fact that all but one Republican in the House voted against it, does this mean conservatives run the GOP? No. Not yet. But it means we're making progress. It means we're in an ascendancy. . . . And we've gotta stop this third-party temptation. It will only bleed votes from our side.”

“Bleed votes from our side.”

Beneath the surface, this means that despite pleas to the contrary, Rush Limbaugh is a Republican first and a conservative last. A Republican Party that does not have its conservative act together is better than a third party that does. This is why the conservatives who compose the Tea Party movement must finally reject the Republican Party and their faux conservative hand servants or else overhaul them all.

Not doing so is like saying, “Look, I know the Republican Party isn’t perfect, but if we don’t elect Republicans, it’ll be worse. Plus, now that they’re in the minority, they’re voting the right way! I’m sure this means that when the Democrats are voted out of office, these Republicans will vote exactly the same way because they’re principled conservatives now and there’s no way they could simply be partisans voting against their opposition!”

Scott Brown is the latest big government wolf the party and its sycophants are trying to stuff into small government clothing. If he wins on Tuesday, the Republicans will know they can pull the wool over the eyes of the Tea Parties and will gear up for the fall.

Then all of Rush's cited "progress" will truly be lost.

*

Update: Over at The Humble Libertarian, Wes has a piece up about how conservatives and libertarians are stunningly fawning over Scott Brown, Establishment Republican. Check it out.

Also see the essays by Sean Scallon and William Upton at The American Conservative blog about some inconvenient truths about Scott Brown.

An Opportunity only Conservatives Can Miss

2010-01-13T17:04:00.000-08:00

Only a year into the Obama presidency and Republicans are poised to make gains in 2010. This is heartening news for a party that was pronounced dead only a year ago.

With President Obama’s poll numbers slipping, 30-year Senator Chris Dodd choosing retirement over electoral humiliation and with the Tea Party Movement not going away, the Republicans smell enough blood in the water to already entertain dreams of regaining the majority. Maybe 2009 wasn’t so awful for the GOP after all.

For all of the rhetorical improvements Republicans have made in the wilderness, the party is proving that they can still take conservatives for another wild ride.

The Tea Parties, after Obama’s inauguration, were probably the biggest force in American politics last year.

Demonstrations on Tax Day were passionate, very well attended, and Tea Partiers made perpetual turn-coat Arlen Specter sweat through more than just the heat during the August recess. Talk of constitutional fidelity is up and tolerance for big government is down.

With such a force as the Tea Parties even outpolling the favorability of Republicans, limited government conservatives might finally have reason to hope for their cause. Since the Tea Parties could be such a force, maybe the Republicans can be trusted this time to responsibly administer the levers of power and actually cut spending, take their noses out of Americans’ private lives and balance the budget.

Then came the Christmas bomber.

All the hope for reducing spending and cutting government may still be lost.

While the vigor and passion exerted against Obama’s intrusive administration is laudable, the conservatives who make up the Tea Party Movement still have another hurdle to climb for theirs to be a serious limited government movement.

The deficit will not be reduced, the dollar will not be strengthened, and tax increases will not become an afterthought if ObamaCare is the only big government swindle that is eliminated. The limited government patriots of the Tea Parties will do only half their job if the issue of military spending is ignored. And that is why the Christmas bomber may be secretly celebrated by a Republican Party establishment that would not think twice about pulling another heist on their limited government conservatives.

If the Republican Party can continue justifying excessive military spending once they are back in power, the bait will be in for them to continue the domestic spending that made George W. Bush the LBJ of the Republicans.

That’s why this may be the perfect opportunity for conservatives to discover that fulfilling their mission of limiting government is incomplete unless military spending is addressed.

It’s been common among conservatives, during and since the Cold War, that any suggestion of reducing spending on the military is tantamount to surrender or appeasement of the enemy. But conservatives don’t believe this way about all the other types of government spending.

When a bleeding heart liberal pleas that there needs to be more money allocated for education, health care or poverty reduction, rank-and-file conservatives have usually responded that the more money that gets applied to those programs, the worse the problem gets. American children haven’t gotten smarter because money was given to them by the federal government and health care costs have simply increased as the government has involved itself. The same skepticism needs to apply to defense spending.

Even with President Obama allegedly “gutting our military,” the U.S. still spends as much on defense than the rest of the world combined. Should we ever ask ourselves how the rest of the world expects to be safe when they don’t spend nearly as much as we do? Is it possible for us to get by with less?

This also highlights the gravest contradiction in modern American conservatism. The mantra has always been to cut spending and cut taxes but there can be no contemplation of limiting the spending that could be given to the military.

This is a time to ask whether it’s in the national security interests of the U.S. to have troops in 130 countries of the world.

This is a time to ask whether the government, through both Republican and Democratic administrations, has exploited the patriotism of Americans by scaring them into acquiescing to their imperial ambitions.

This is a time to ask whether the maxim that more spending does not guarantee better results should also be applied to the military, a government institution.

This is a time to ask whether the network of terrorists responsible for 9/11, now down to perhaps 100, is worth hundreds of thousands of American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Pakistan or Yemen, or whether there might be a more fiscally prudent solution.

This is the challenge conservatives of the Tea Parties must overcome to retake their party.

Rand Paul: Dangerous for Trey Grayson

2009-12-22T14:26:00.000-08:00

After Rand Paul raised another $600,000 for his campaign during the 4th quarter, Kentucky Secretary of State and establishment favorite Trey Grayson had to know that he was in trouble. This is especially true considering the National Republican Senatorial Committee threw another big money fundraiser for Grayson and he still couldn’t keep up with the modest donations Rand Paul receives over the internet. A fundraiser last Wednesday, December 16, on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, yielded over $260,000 with the average donation continuing to be less than $100 for the Bowling Green doctor.

In November, Rand Paul was polling within the margin of error with Grayson in a WHAS poll. Now Rand Paul leads Grayson in another poll, this one conducted by Public Policy Polling where the former leads 54-18 among people who consider the GOP too liberal. Clearly Rand Paul is gaining the support of grassroots activists. He is not getting big donations and he is passing the litmus test on whether he’s an empty suit politician or a true conservative who refuses to play the “Me Too” game that the Republican Party has played since the glory days of Alf Landon.

For months, the secretary of state’s website was dormant on the issues. He probably figured he didn’t need to worry about forming his platform until after he coasted to the nomination. But since Rand Paul has been such a tireless campaigner traveling all across the Commonwealth and reaching disaffected voters for the better part of the year, and with better-than-expected poll numbers, he might just pull off the shocker.

Needless to say, Trey Grayson is getting pretty angry that his token challenger is not following the script and allowing Trey to coast to the primary victory; his coronation might have to be called off altogether.

It’s already been discussed here, at rather great length, that the Establishment is doing all it can to make sure that Rand Paul stays in Bowling Green in 2010, where he belongs. A county party chairman supporting Grayson went to the trouble to concoct a juvenile website, Too Kooky for Kentucky, to show how dangerous Rand Paul is. But in trying to show how loony Rand Paul and his views are, the chairman comes off as childish.

The newest controversy involves the now-former campaign coordinator of the Rand Paul campaign, Chris Hightower.

Last week, the liberal blog Barefoot and Progressive, broke a story about a myspace page attributed to Mr. Hightower features a picture of a lynched man accompanied by a racial epithet.

Chris Hightower quickly said, "I definitely deny anything that has anything to do with that. It’s not me. I’m definitely not a racist." He resigned from the campaign within a day.

But Hightower's explanation seems plausible. The controversial content was posted by someone else. It was plain to see that Mr. Hightower did not post the scurrility, only that he did not delete it – a consistently libertarian thing to do (although claiming that he's never had a myspace page is a different matter). I myself have never deleted a facebook, myspace, or blog comment before. I support free speech, too, even when it’s ugly.

But even though it was a liberal blogger who dug up the thought crime of a John Doe, it certainly works to the benefit of Trey Grayson. What better way to continue the smearing of Rand Paul than to suggest that the candidate himself has poor judgment because of the way a campaign staffer polices a personal social networking website page. As Rand Paul told WBKO (ABC) News in Bowling Green about the irony of the incident: "I think we live in an era where we’re responsible for what even other people post on your website."

This also shows the lengths that the Grayson campaign will go to in order to scare Kentucky Republican voters away from Rand Paul.

Grayson himself used this as a springboard for denouncing Rand Paul’s “disturbing views” on national security with “Rand Paul: Dangerous for Kentucky.”

While people might get distracted by "Myspacegate," supporters of Rand Paul should take notice that something else was in play. Perhaps Trey Grayson wasn’t necessarily interested in exploiting the racism of some acquaintance of a staffer’s. Perhaps he used this controversy as an opportunity to misrepresent Rand Paul’s views on foreign policy and national security, a contentious divide between the platforms of the two candidates.

Here’s what the secretary of state himself had to say on his website:

"However, when pressed by the Louisville Courier-Journal if he agreed or disagreed with Hightower's belief that the United States government was responsible for the attacks on September 11th, Rand Paul's campaign said it was a 'complicated situation' with 'truth on both sides.'"

"'Let me help you find the truth, Rand, if you can handle it. The attacks on 9/11 were pre-meditated and carried out by terrorists who wanted to disrupt the American way of life,' said Grayson campaign manager Nate Hodson. 'This is a foolish and dangerous position that continues the pattern of disturbing views from the Paul campaign. His views on national security have been as consistent as they have been misguided.'

So perhaps the issue is not about the political correctness of myspace content, but the chance to paint Chris Hightower, and through association, Rand Paul, as something much more dangerous to the Republican Establishment: a 9/11 Truther.

But Trey Grayson counts on readers to not read the Courier-Journal article where Hightower is accused of being a "Truther."

The image the Grayson campaign wants to create is one that paints Rand Paul as a weird, kooky guy who has a high-level staffer who believes the U.S. government deliberately flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Rather, what Chris Hightower said, in a letter to the editor, was

"My goodness, how soon some people forget we invaded them … do you not remember when we installed a foreign leader in Iran in the 1950s, do you not remember putting military bases in Saudi Arabia? Or, perhaps, you have forgotten the attack on Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, and the continued arming of Israel."

What we learn here is that Trey Grayson is more than content to continue peddling the government-approved version of the cause of terrorism: They hate us because we’re free and anyone who thinks there is any other reason is loony, unpatriotic, and un-American.

So regardless of whether Chris Hightower harbors any sympathy at all with a moronic statement left on a myspace page is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Grayson is struggling at the polls and knows it. The only recourse they have now is the only one they’ve had this whole time: fear.

Fear Rand Paul because he doesn’t have GOP-approved views on foreign policy. Fear Rand Paul because he knows somebody who might know somebody who is a racist. Fear Rand Paul because he has curly hair.

Trey Grayson wants voters to think Rand Paul is dangerous. That’s true. Rand Paul is dangerous. For Trey Grayson.

Please donate here.

Rand Paul Campaign Stop

2009-12-10T22:18:00.000-08:00

with the author

Henderson, KY

The temperature outside was frigid but there was a warm blanket of political activity inside "Rookie's Sports Bar" in downtown Henderson, Kentucky where U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul met with over 50 of his supporters, including the author of this blog.

Largely an informal event, the senate candidate feared and loathed by the establishment was all smiles as he got to meet with a diverse cast of his supporters. Young and old, black and white, people came out to hear the doctor from Bowling Green talk about balanced budgets, lowering taxes, term limits, and the value of the dollar. As another attendee remarked to me, we didn't hear a single worn-out Republican catchphrase. Rather, the candidate pointed out that President Obama is easy to target and that the real challenge is to get the Republican Party back in shape. It doesn't matter if we harass the president for being reckless with the nation's finances when Republicans do no better themselves.

In a sight inconceivable two years ago when Rand Paul’s father was running for president, the would-be senator is actually a viable candidate and has reason to be upbeat. The last poll conducted in November had Rand within the margin of error against the one-time presumptive candidate, Trey Grayson. The primary is still six months away and despite the rantings of cranky party chairmen, Rand Paul is not too kooky for a lot of folks in Kentucky.

The candidate, before and after his speech, took time to engage with nearly every attendee. In an act that didn't go unnoticed, the candidate was not "fashionably late" or any other euphemism to justify why his time is more important than that of his supporters, but was actually at the venue before the scheduled time. In that same vein, when the candidate departed, it was not flanked by highly-paid suits, but by carrying the boxes of his campaign materials himself.

If the bright mood of the candidate, the money he continues to rake in, and discontent among the ruling party are any indications, then the eye surgeon from Bowling Green will be doing a lot of smiling in 2010.

As anyone in attendance on Thursday Night knew, he has already left a significant imprint in the lives of many of his fellow Kentuckians.

Poll: Rand Paul leads Trey Grayson

2009-11-04T07:53:00.000-08:00

Rand Paul for U.S. Senate

According to a new WHAS-11 (Louisville) poll, Rand Paul leads among Republicans in the Senate race six months before the primary, but within the margin of error:

Paul: 35%
Grayson: 32%
Others or undecided: 34%
4.1% margin of error

This is an increase of 5 points for Rand Paul and a decrease of 9 points for Trey Grayson from an earlier WHAS poll in August.

WHAS's coverage below. Notice at the end how they begin to wonder if the hand-picked establishment candidate might have to be replaced by a veteran George W. Bush fundraiser!

Also see the Reuters story here.

Fear! Fear! Fear the kookiness of Rand Paul!

2009-10-30T05:55:00.000-07:00

Feeling the heat that Rand Paul is a real threat to beat him in the Republican primary, establishment pick Trey Grayson has resorted to personal attacks more than six months before the primary.

The move isn’t even a surprise. Being the son of Ron Paul has its downsides: the establishment hates you.

By raising over $1 million in the third quarter, nearly doubling the amount raised by the secretary of state, Grayson knows that young Dr. Paul will be able to get his name out there and be a force to be reckoned with.

Attempting to turn Rand Paul’s asset as an outsider on its head, Grayson earlier this month said, “He’s an outsider. He’s not a Kentuckian. You know, I’m a 5th generation Kentuckian, educated here in the public schools, raising my family here.”

“I’m a 5th generation Kentuckian.” As my friend Don Rickles would say, “Would you like a cookie?”

Something deep inside tells me that Grayson did not say the same thing to Alabama-born and ergo fellow outsider Mitch McConnell last month when the senate minority leader and 16 other Republican senators who supported last year’s bailouts threw a $500 per plate Washington D.C. fundraiser for him.

But Rand Paul, who has lived in the Bluegrass State since 1993, landed the real zinger in this verbal dust-up: “I’ve been a Kentuckian longer than Grayson’s been a Republican,” reminding voters that their Republican secretary of state was a Democratic delegate for Bill Clinton in 1992.

The other recent smear against Rand Paul is pure farce. It’s so bad . . .

In unison: “How bad was it?”

It’s so bad that if I didn’t know better, I would have suspected the Rand Paul campaign of making it up just so they could make their opponent and his supporters look foolish.

Trey Grayson can thank Breathitt County GOP chairman and campaign donor Mike Bryant for his cute website: Too Kooky For Kentucky.

The title itself is not surprising either. In “Fire Two!” after Rand Paul was smeared by the Voice Tribune of Louisville, I wrote in this blog that it won’t be long until Rand is branded as “just the kook son of chief kook Ron Paul.” Lo and behold, the picture at the head of Too Kooky for Kentucky has Ron Paul on the left and Rand Paul on the right with each of them wearing a dunce cap.

Interviewed on WTVQ-TV in Lexington we meet Mr. Mike Bryant. Rotund, bald, and donning squarish eye glasses, he kind of looks like me without the long sideburns.

After obviously searching for some coherent criticism, Bryant says, “Really, we don’t know yet what Rand stands for in a lot of cases.”

This complaint is laughable in a couple of ways.

Neither Trey Grayson nor any of his supporters have any ground on which to stand when they charge that they don’t know what Rand Paul stands for. As I’ve pointed out numerous times here, the Paul campaign website provides detailed descriptions of his positions whereas as Grayson’s campaign website, until very recently, was as bare as Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard when it came to the issues.

The other point here is that after only a brief survey of Too Kooky for Kentucky, one can easily conclude that the editor does clearly know what Rand Paul stands for. His claim on TV was, let’s say, excessively disingenuous.

He knows that Rand Paul is an antiwar Republican, he knows that he is against the Patriot Act, and he knows that he wants to end the War on Drugs. Of course, all of this makes him “kooky.” Kind of makes me wonder if Mr. Bryant would have dared call the late William F. Buckley a “kook,” who in the last years of his life expressed sympathy with each of those views.

And every post in Mr. Bryant’s little site is entered under the pen name “Ben Franklin.”

In an entry that is probably too ironic for the Too Kooky for Kentucky editor to get is when “Ben Franklin” writes “Like Obama and Kerry – Rand Paul Speaks out Against the Patriot Act.”

If I could get old Doc Brown’s time machine up and running again, I’d like to take this “Ben Franklin” so he can meet the original Ben Franklin. You know, the one who said, “Anyone who would sacrifice liberty for security will lose both.”

Examples like this could go on and on. It already has here.

So why fuss over Too Kooky for Kentucky, an obviously ill-conceived smear website? Well, if it was edited by a Joe Schmo Trey Grayson supporter, it wouldn't be worth any trouble.

But it's not run by a Joe Schmo. It's edited by a county party chairman who actually did the voters of Kentucky a huge favor. Grayson, who appears devoid of any discernible political philosophy, has been shown exactly what is expected of him as a senator.

He is expected to be a Bush Republican.

He is expected to do war, he is expected keep government appraised of our personal lives, he is expected to ignore the Constitution and he is expected to do war some more.

But this is also the Kentucky Republican Party strategy: Slime Rand Paul.

They cannot debate him on the issues. If they could, they wouldn’t have to call him a “kook” or disparage his outsider status. Or they could tell us about the “unkooky” ideas of Trey Grayson.

What they want is for Rand Paul to just go away. He’s inconveniencing Trey Grayson’s ascension as Mitch McConnell Jr.

But since Rand Paul insists on yapping his gums about antiquated ideas like the Constitution and balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility the Grayson people will have just one card to play:

The FEAR RAND PAUL CARD.

And they will play it, as they say in Kentucky, 'til the cows come home.

*

Stick it to Trey Grayson, Mitch McConnell, and their lackeys by donating to a candidate with real ideas here.

Update: Call and Adams, the Voice-Tribune columnists who smeared Rand in August (here and here) issued him a back-handed compliment last week in this column. They write, "Traditional candidates must secretly envy guys like U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul, who can raise big money over the internet from donors all over the country in events named 'money bombs.'" But notice their contempt when they say, "If Paul is smart, he'll use the extra time on his hands to campaign with Kentuckians who can actually vote for him."

I wonder if they had the same advice for Trey Grayson, the recent beneficiary of a $500/plate D.C. fundraiser. Since it was in Washington D.C., I'm sure there were only Kentuckians there scratching checks for Grayson. Oh, and according to the Paul campaign, their August "money bomb" had an average donation of $86 with 70% of the donations under $100. Just some food for thought about the "big money" Rand Paul gets on the internet.

Compassionate Conservatism Revisited?

2009-10-27T04:32:00.000-07:00

As gubernatorial races approach in New Jersey and Virginia, Republicans are rubbing their hands in anticipation of the beginning of a comeback. Delivering one or both of the governorships into GOP hands may be an early sign that Americans are not receptive to the change of Barack Obama’s status quo-ism.

This prospect can be very enticing. There is some speculation that Sarah Palin might run for office again. Her endorsement of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York’s 23rd district may make the difference in the 2009 special election. So too might Arlen Specter be sent packing and Chris “Countrywide” Dodd might finally pay for that sweetheart mortgage.

While extricating those suits from their seats might be attractive, one has to wonder what the Republicans have to offer the country other than the “R”’s beside their names.

One potential sleeper contest in 2010 is the Florida senate race. Charlie Crist, global warming-monger and stimulus money beggar, has announced that he will not seek another term as governor so he can run for the senate seat vacated by Mel Martinez. Crist is the favorite in both the primary and the general election, but he faces a challenge from a former underling, one-time Florida Speaker of the House Marco Rubio.

Rubio’s positives make him popular among the grassroots activists. He is a Fair Taxer, supporting a national sales tax instead of the income tax, a solution that fellow anti-IRSites like myself fear might only rearrange a problem instead of solving it. He favors a balanced budget amendment, a position sure to make conservatives swoon in reaction to President Obama’s ridiculous spending habits.

The benefit of Marco Rubio is that he is of Cuban ancestry. The media and haughty liberals never shirk an opportunity to remind the GOP that they are the “Old White Guy Party.” Rubio’s Hispanic heritage automatically catapults him to the front of the line of Republican examples of diversity where he can sit with Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal.

National Review placed the 38-year-old on the cover of its September 7 issue claiming “Yes, He Can” and that the party’s conservative activists need to get behind this “true conservative.”

Whether young Rubio is a “true conservative” or not is a sub question to the earlier one of what the Republicans have to offer: What does a “true conservative” have to offer during the Obama regnancy? What is “conservative” in the post-Bush era?

In a National Review Online interview with the insurgent, Rubio “counts former Gov. Jeb Bush as one of his most important political mentors” and the former governor has since endorsed Rubio as has son, Jeb Jr.

Not one to beat a dead elephant, but conservatives ought to ask themselves one of these days, What exactly has the Bush family done for conservative causes? Break promises not to raise taxes? Take turns invading Iraq? Spent like there was no tomorrow and completely nullifying any good tax cuts could do? Of course Jeb is his own man, but there are many sins of the father and brother for which he must atone.

One of the other GOP veterans who has hitched himself to the Rubio wagon is Mike Huckabee, who is reciprocating the endorsement Rubio made for him in 2008. When asked why he supported Huckabee, who had difficulty attracting much support outside single issue social conservatives, Rubio said,

“Two things I like about Mike Huckabee: One was his support of the Fair Tax . . . Second, I thought that of all the candidates, he did the best job of connecting how the people’s social and moral well-being cannot be separated from their economic well-being.” (emphasis mine)

“the people’s social and moral well-being cannot be separated from their economic well-being.”

Translation: excessive domestic spending known during the Bush years as Compassionate Conservatism.

Toeing both sides of a fine line to appease immigration restrictionists in the party as well as the open borders crowd, Rubio concedes that “On immigration, [Retiring Republican Senator Mel Martinez] voted for a package I probably would not have voted for . . .” (emphasis mine)

Rubio also chooses to toe both sides when it comes to the biggest fiasco of the generation, the Iraq War. Here he takes Jonah Goldberg’s Orwellian position on Iraq: it was a mistake but it was not wrong:

“Obviously, the Iraq War has had the chilling effect of making us question all intelligence findings now. . . . I think that there is some credence, in hindsight, to the notion that the real battlefield was in Afghanistan all along. . . .

“But understand at the same time, we were being told that Iraq was on the verge of gaining a nuclear capability. . . . So it’s impossible to sit here and give a fair analysis in hindsight.”

Translation: OK, maybe the Iraq War wasn’t such a great idea after all. Maybe. But who are we to say it was a mistake? It was just a war. No reason to worry about responsibility for it.

So for all the talk about the Republican Party getting its act together and finally getting back to its conservative principles, if it ever really had them, the "conservatism" during the Obama dispensation looks eerily similar to the one during the days of the Bush regime.

Mushy immigration rhetoric, government taking an active role in the people’s “well-being” and a persistent refusal to criticize GOP foreign policy, Rubio is probably better than Charlie Crist, but might we entertain the possibility that there might be a better potential standard-bearer?

Sending Rush to the Pillory - Letter to the Editor

2009-10-16T10:49:00.000-07:00

(The following letter to the editor will be appearing shortly in the Belleville [IL] News-Democrat.)

The news that Rush Limbaugh will not be a partial owner of the St. Louis Rams should not be too surprising. The outcry was loud, widespread, and predictable. If Mr. Checketts had not removed Rush from the bidding group, the PC football league would never have approved the deal.

More of a GOP hack than a truly principled conservative, Rush is best at being provocative and talking about football.

While most of the negative reaction has been directed at quotes of spurious origin, people seem to be consumed by the wrong issue. What is plain to see is that while we have freedom of speech in this country, some speech is more equal than others.

Even if the most acidic of Rush’s quotes are real, what difference should it make? If a statement is offensive, let us discuss why it is offensive instead of criminalizing the opinions of private citizens some of us don’t like.

This attitude is also evident in Rush’s quotes that are verifiable.

Whose civil liberty is infringed upon when we are pressured from discussing whether a particular football player might be overrated because of his skin color? Is it the person who asks it or is it the rest of us who are to resist talking about that because it is considered offensive to somebody?

Like Don Imus two years ago, Rush Limbaugh is guilty of a thought crime against elites who are uninterested in hearing anyone else’s opinion except the ones they give us.

Holocausts are Easy to Come By

2009-10-05T15:18:00.000-07:00

When Florida Congressman Alan Grayson called America’s level of uninsured people a “holocaust,” he did more than touch a few nerves.

Taking the inability or unwillingness of millions of Americans without health insurance and planting in many the imagery of the systematic deaths of over 10 million people in the 1940s, Congressman Grayson made a statement that was far beyond the line. However, considering the rhetoric used in modern politics, it is hardly a surprising analogy.

Coupled with these terms are always the inevitable parallels to World War II. “The Good War” is always selected as the morality tale on behalf of every modern day intervention, be it domestic or foreign. For example, Moammar Gaddhafi, Slobodan Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein have all been tagged “the second Hitler” making Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at least the fifth Hitler by this count.

All of these criminals have been labeled a “Hitler” at one point or another and, of course, “second Holocaust” usually follows shortly thereafter.

These images to World War II, Hitler, and the Holocaust are always convenient in making a political point, often out of desperation. No one in polite society would say that they disagree with the outcome of World War II, think Hitler was just misunderstood, or that the Holocaust was a good event that should be commemorated on the church calendar. No. Those three are the greatest consensuses in the western world.

Since nobody thinks the Holocaust was good, who would dare oppose anything when the alternative would be a “holocaust”? Don’t want a holocaust? Well, we’d better pass this health care legislation. Don’t want a holocaust? We’d better take out Saddam Hussein. Don’t want a second Holocaust? Then you know what we should do with Ahmadeinjad.

Likewise, recent news that the Iranians have an underground nuclear facility near the city of Qom, southwest of Tehran, has elicited the usual catcalls of “appeasement” and the necessity of regime change or sanctions in Iran.

Not satisfied with only having wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, neoconservatives and warmongers in both parties are anxious to begin the bombing of Iran over weapons no one can say with any certainty that they have.

A lot of people were convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could hit either the U.S. or Israel. Nothing of the sort was found and Iraq proved to be far weaker that we suspected. As for Israel, their actions in Lebanon in 2006 and Palestine last year should prove that they are more than capable of defending themselves. Plus, whether Iran would be able to hit Israel should be immaterial to America. Israel’s security is Israel’s responsibility.

But it’s the specter of “holocaust” that is meant to fill Americans’ minds with images of destruction, carnage, and total death, whether there is evidence to justify the illustration or not.

The same is true with Congressman Grayson. There is no evidence to suggest that unless there is a “public option” or universal health care that people will just die by the thousands. Likewise, there is no evidence that Iran is using this new facility in Qom to build a bomb to drop on Israel. But the holocaust plea is issued when its users know their case is weak.

The public option and the road to universal health care in the short term is dying. Countless charges of racism against opponents of government sponsored health care have rendered any hope of meaningful or bipartisan reform moot. Eight years in Afghanistan with no end in sight and numbers turning against the enterprise make it difficult for President Obama to answer his general’s plea to plunge America further into the Afghan malaise. That same war-weary population is not willing to militarily engage Iran unless they know that THIS one is a genuine threat to us. So far it has not been demonstrated.

But this phenomenon ably demonstrates the bankruptcy of America’s two-party system and their collective pandering to the lowest common denominator. Every dying political cause can be reduced to Hitler, the Holocaust, or World War II. It’s time for Americans to awaken and see that instead of facing a holocaust around every corner, the problem is the politicians who talk down to Americans by using these references to scare them into total dependence.

It is insulting and demeaning to a free people.

Is Glenn Beck Healthy for the Right?

2009-09-18T15:00:00.000-07:00

Following the anti-Obama festivities of the weekend of September 11, 2009, headlined by Glenn Beck’s 9.12 Project and march on Washington, one must certainly attest that the radio and TV host wields some amount of influence on the grassroots Right and beyond. Beck’s exposure of the depravity of ACORN and a rare willingness to sharply criticize the Bush administration make him stand out among the conservative commentariat. But could Beck be just as much of the problem of the Right as its solution?

Watching in 2009, it might appear as though Beck would be a suitable spokesman for a Bush-less Republican Party. He wails against the bank bailouts and the readiness with which Dubya expanded the government. Beck’s eagerness to attack the Bush administration is commendable and many of those attacks are those which Republicans and conservatives need to hear because if someone’s goal is to cut government, restore individual liberty, and be governed by laws instead of men, the first fact that must be grasped is that today's Republican Party is not your friend.

The problem with windbag talkers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and their minor league impersonators, is that they never seriously challenge the status quo of their party. This is done to the point that conservative talk radio may as well be called Republican talk radio. After all, these are the folks who jumped on the bandwagon for pro-choice, state-run health care Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. The speed with which they followed the empty suit perfectly illustrates how empty the vessel of contemporary American conservatism is. And it is why the talk radio medium ought to be generally, but not completely, ignored.

Is Glenn Beck different? It’s true that he frequently has Ron Paul as a guest, as well as his son, Rand. Judge Andrew Napolitano, who readily calls Republican and Democratic politicians the criminals that they are, is a regular guest host. Another regular is Professor Kevin Gutzman, a contributor to takimag.com, among the most anti-Bush and anti-GOP establishment webzines, Left or Right, to talk about states’ rights, an issue faux conservatives avoid like the Bubonic plague. Plus, Glenn Beck openly criticizes the Republican Party when the sycophants are still tip-toeing around the fact that maybe Bush might have, possibly, done some things that might not have been quite okay.

I actually somewhat like Beck. His schtick can get a little tiresome, going from crying to yelling to having a fire-side chat all in the same afternoon, but he also does some relevant reporting. Everyone following the news right now has heard about Beck’s reporting of the ACORN scandals. He’s the only TV or radio personality I can think of who has actually taken a skeptical view of the Federal Reserve and the insane monetary practices of printing a trillion dollars. He’s also the only TV host I’m aware of who actually has members of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty for segments on his show. To people like Rush and Hannity, Ron Paul is still a four-letter word.

Beck’s 9.12 Project is admirable and rather uncontroversial. “Common Sense” was a decent read and was actually pretty independent-minded, calling out both parties for their extravagance but most of it falling on the Democrats.

However, a recent mash-up video has surfaced where Beck can be seen calling Ron Paul a “crazy, kooky guy,” suggesting that last year’s bank bailout “wasn’t nearly enough” and that he “supported the Patriot Act.” Interspersed were neocon party lines of Ahmadinejad as Hitler who was making preparations for a second holocaust. (Also see this video where he contemptibly smears Ron Paul supporters for having a “money bomb” on November 5, Guy Fawkes Day, as domestic terrorists, oddly foreshadowing the Obama administration’s reports about potential right wing domestic terrorism which Beck would ironically denounce.)

Such a video obviously has the potential to be easily taken out of context and spliced together in Michael Moore fashion to make Beck look like a despicable flip-flopper. Indeed, anyone could be embarrassed by seeing their worst predictions all glued together. For example, in a needlessly rambling blog from over a year ago, I implied support for the war in Afghanistan over the one in Iraq, a position I certainly do not hold today.

Since the material from the nefarious video was originally uttered, Beck has admitted that he did support the Patriot Act but regrets it. In a more surprising video, Beck reveals that

“I guess the scales are falling off my eyes. . . . In 1900 with Teddy Roosevelt . . . we’re going to tell the rest of the world, ‘We’re going to spread democracy.’ . . . in Latin America, we really became thuggish and brutish. It only got worse after the next progressive came into office . . . the next one was a Democratic progressive, Woodrow Wilson, and we did, we empire built. The Democrats felt we needed to empire build with one giant, global government, it was originally . . . League of Nations . . . then it became the United Nations, one world government. The Republicans took it as ‘We’re going to lead the world and we’ll be the leader of it.’ I don’t think we should be either of those. I think we need to mind our own business and protect our own people. When somebody hits us, hit back hard, and then come home.” (emphasis mine)

If there is one issue that continues to unite the mainstream Right, outside of opposition to Obama, it’s the unwavering support for Bush’s wars. Even if it took him more than seven years, Glenn Beck should be commended for speaking out against enduring military occupations. May he keep it up.

But it’s still quite precarious that Glenn Beck has shed his more odious positions once the Republicans were thoroughly repudiated. His antics are a bit annoying, bordering on bad soap opera acting, but he still displays better independence than his more unoriginal talk radio colleagues.

So, is Glenn Beck healthy for the Right? Maybe, maybe not. Is he part of the solution or is he part of the problem? If he’s part of the problem, he’s far less of it than Rush, Hannity, Levin or Coulter.

Conservatives have been betrayed in an unrepentant fashion for the entirety of this century. If the evolution of Beck’s positions mean anything, it means that he might be a spokesman and a platform for an effective and genuine anti-government movement. It also means he’s someone who’s worth keeping at an arm’s length for any Republican Party that wants to move past the errors of the Bush administration.

Cash for Clunkers Flunks Out

2009-08-28T12:00:00.001-07:00

The following letter appeared in the Wednesday, August 26, 2009 edition of The Nashville (IL) News.

While enthusiastically received, the government's Cash for Clunkers program is but a band-aid that offers no long-term solutions.

We have been told that since so many people have lined up to exchange their "clunkers" for a rebate to buy a newer, fuel-efficient car, the economy is turning a corner because people are spending again. But it seems like no one is asking where the money for these rebates is coming from. The government is in spiraling debt, but taxes haven't increased nor have any programs been scaled back, so we know that the governent hasn't raised any new revenue.

Where did this money come from? It had to either be borrowed or printed out of thin air. In either scenario, we are all further in debt or face inflation. What this means is that at a time when people should be saving their money, the government is encouraging people to accrue more debt.

We are not far removed from the housing crisis that resulted in millions of people facing foreclosure and repossession. The money supply was expanded to accommodate all the loans issued that ultimately could not be paid back. Even with generous rebates, we will ultimately face inflation, and poorer folks are destined to default on car payments. And even though people flocked to car dealers for a couple of weeks, factories are not re-opening, closed dealerships remain closed, and workers are still laid off.

Like a shot of morphine, Cash for Clunkers makes us feel good about the economy for a little while, but eventually the high goes away and we return to reality. And that reality is that Cash for Clunkers was a $3 billion program that brought no new jobs to a struggling economy and deepened the debt.

Happy driving.

Carl Wicklander
Nashville

Edward M. Kennedy (1932-2009), R.I.P.

2009-08-27T18:47:00.000-07:00

When news broke on Wednesday morning that Senator Kennedy passed away, it was shocking in the sense that it was really over. It was common knowledge that the last Kennedy son had only a little time left. Turning the TV to C-SPAN and seeing images of the senator in his younger years was all the indication necessary to realize that his end had come.

When a titanic character like Ted Kennedy passes away, it can be easy to forget the things we did not like about them and only remember the good. It seems too petty to squabble once they’re dead. If we’re lucky, and the deceased wasn’t a nefarious scoundrel, we really can dwell on their finer side. But in this case, we have quite a struggle.

At worst, he was a murdering adulterer. At best, he was a manslaughterer with marital indiscretions that were as endemic among the Kennedy men as political ambition.

It’s not a burden for me to confess that I had no sympathy for the political positions that Ted Kennedy held. From his numerous immigration boondoggles to ruinous health care overhauls to education bar-lowerings, I found little agreeable with his agenda. Aside from his vote against the Iraq war, I would have to strain to think of a single vote of his that I would applaud.

With a health care debate literally raging and its chief spokesman going to the grave, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that his death will be used by his political allies to propagate their cause or that his enemies will continue to use his name and image as the “Liberal Lion” as a bludgeon against it. Indeed, even in death, Ted Kennedy will remain with us.

One of nine children, one of four sons, he had the closest to a natural death of any of his brothers. It’s difficult not to feel sorry for someone forced to endure that sort of tragedy. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy and neither would I wish it on Edward Kennedy either.

Love him or hate him. Those were the only options for Ted Kennedy in life. For what he did in his public and private life, I am not ashamed to admit that I hated him. But not enough hate to be pleased that he breathed his last breath late Tuesday night.

Rest in peace, Teddy. Let us bury the hatchet with you.

Rand Paul - Change Worth Having

2009-08-25T15:20:00.000-07:00

*At the request of my friend Tim, the Left Coast Rebel, I have written up a general action plan in our quest to see Rand Paul elected to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky. Enjoy.

There is little question remaining as to whether President Obama acted on his mandate to bring “change.” Now his poll numbers are slipping. Republicans, who were recently told the party may go the way of the dodo, are salivating about the possibility of returning to power as early as 2010.

Not so fast.

Republicans may be able to ride a wave of anti-Obama sentiment, but they should also be careful what they wish for.

Texas Governor George W. Bush rode into the presidency on a wave of Clinton fatigue and when he left, both he and his party were a smoldering mess.

The GOP might return to power in the House of Representatives in 2010, but if they return with nothing but a Bushless version of compassionate conservatism, it will be a Pyrrhic Victory.

For a victory worth attaining, we must provide a choice, not an echo. We must have a real platform, not a mindlessly repetitive slogan of “At least we’re not Democrats!” We must have a plan to show the country that Republicans are the party of small government, not the party of barely smaller government than the Democrats.

While the Democrats are spending money faster than Ben Bernanke can print it, now is the perfect time not only for the Republicans to return to power, but to return with oppositional force and the power of ideas.

Enter Rand Paul, Republican running for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky, but more importantly, he is running for liberty.

This is a time when grassroots Republicans can support and must demand candidates who will follow the Constitution and toe the party line only when the latter conforms to the former.

This is also the time to educate ourselves not just about the issues that face us but the candidates who purport to represent us.

Facing an establishment-approved candidate, physician Rand Paul has an uphill battle just to gain the Republican nomination. If a candidate, like Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, does not even post his positions on issues on his website but boasts about “listening” to potential voters, be aware that that candidate is doing nothing to aid liberty for the individual but is pandering to the anti-Democratic vote.

Simple exploration of http://www.randpaul2010.com/ will educate the reader and demonstrate that Rand Paul is a candidate grassroots Republicans can support, even if they don’t live in Kentucky.

Even though Dr. Paul would officially represent only Kentuckians, being a member of the 100-member Senate would assure that his votes would impact people in all states. Anyone unsure of that may want ask themselves whether the Republicans could afford to break out of their 40-seat minority.

But to wage a winning campaign, more than just the right ideas are necessary. Enough money is needed to stay in a competitive primary and general election. Rand Paul has calculated that although his opponents will likely raise more, he will need $2 million, $1 million for each contest. While that seems like a lot to raise for a candidate who won’t have the big money backers, no big contribution is needed if lots of people just give a little.

For example, last Thursday, August 20, an online fundraiser brought in over $400,000 to the Rand Paul campaign bringing the total to almost $700,000. The campaign reported afterward that the average donation was $86 and 70% of the donations were under $100.

Here’s the plan:

· Please make a small donation. Contributions like these to a candidate like Rand Paul assures that he would be representing people like you and it shows that large, united grassroots efforts can effectively challenge the corporate interests that rule both parties.

· Subscribe to the youtube.com channel “RandPaulsupporter.” This is a compendium of speeches and appearances Rand Paul has made from Neil Cavuto’s afternoon program on Fox News to Russia Today to what is apparently the back of a pick-up truck in Richmond, Kentucky.

· Check out Rand Paul for U.S. Senate, a blog I keep with Matthiasj of the Kentucky Preppers Network. We search the news everyday for any story about Rand Paul, his opponents, or the Senate race in general.

· This is just a subpoint, but stay educated. Rand Paul has already been smeared by establishment mouthpieces. Rand Paul for U.S. Senate is one place where you can arm yourself with the truth to defend against the lies. The party establishment is only concerned with winning, not promoting freedom or conservative principles. If you don’t believe that, just consider how many times Arlen Specter was elected as a Republican.

· Join the Campaign for Liberty and create a page, not unlike facebook. The continuation of Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign, the Campaign for Liberty will provide you with a variety of resources at your fingertips as well as a network of fellow liberty-minded patriots. Spend five minutes browsing through members’ blogs and you will be amazed at how many people are enthusiastic about liberty and not subservience to the State.

· Join facebook and become a supporter of Rand Paul. It may sound corny, but there are lots of messages and alerts sent out by groups and pages that follow the Paul campaign so you’ll always be informed.

Modest contributions and a grasp for the truth are enough to hoist Rand Paul to the nomination and all the way to the U.S. Senate. And it can be done with your help. A little bit of time, effort, and money from everyone who loves liberty is all we need to begin to chip away at the bipartisan racket of American politics.

If anyone has any questions about Rand Paul or the campaign, don’t hesitate to contact me via my blog where you can access my e-mail.

Good day.

www.randpaul2010.com/issues
http://randpaulforsenate.blogspot.com/
http://uncouthruminations.blogspot.com/

Fire Two!

2009-08-19T18:35:00.000-07:00

A week ago, Louisville-based Voice-Tribune columnists Ellen Call and Julie Adams outright lied about Rand Paul saying that he had not been traveling across the state of Kentucky talking about his potential U.S. Senate run and that he literally sprung news of his decision to enter the primary race on cable news outlets in New York.

Continuing on Monday’s theme of the smear artists coming out for Senate candidate Rand Paul, the columnists Call and Adams are back and seem upset that their criticism of Rand Paul has generated a backlash from Dr. Paul’s supporters.

Writes Call in “Rand Paul push-back”:

“Julie’s column criticizing Rand Paul for announcing his Senate campaign on cable news channels rather than in Kentucky struck a chord with some of our readers. One supporter told us, ‘Yes, Dr. Rand Paul made his announcement in New York City on Fox News about 1,000 miles from Kentucky with good reason. From reading your column, you are probably part of that reason.’

“What an arrogant mind-set for a campaign to develop, considering potential primary voters as “part of the problem.”

What an arrogant mind-set? What an arrogant obfuscation of the point! Criticism of the media equals criticism of potential primary voters?

Does this not sound like the allegations made by Democratic hit-men that people protesting President Obama’s health care plan are only doing so because the president is black? It almost defies words and the bounds of rational thinking to honestly believe that that particular supporter’s beef had anything to do with potential Kentucky Republican primary voters.
Call and Adams might be interested in what I wrote on Monday about what the anonymous Rand Paul supporter might have meant by “you are probably part of that reason”:

“But despite traveling across the state, giving speeches, and apparently going hoarse, Dr. Paul barely gets mentioned in Kentucky media outside of his Bowling Green residence. If a candidate is habitually labeled a “long-shot” and struggles to get a line or two in a newspaper, wouldn’t that candidate at least want to consider a national media outlet that he knows many in his state watch?”

Call concludes:

“From reading all of the e-mails we received from Paul supporters, I get the impression that his followers look at him as a hero who is not like all the other ‘career politicians.’ I respect many politicians, but I’ve always found it sad when people place all of their hopes on one candidate who they believe can fix everything.

“This kind of hero worship is a sure path to disappointment, so Paul supporters may want to put the Kool-Aid down.”

These are interesting references to be sure.

Kool-Aid, one of Bill O’Reilly’s favorite analogies for “liberal loons”, refers to the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid drunk by Jim Jones’ cult followers in a mass suicide in Jonestown. Therefore, drinking the Kool-Aid means following a person or cause so fervently that it leads to your own downfall or death. Apparently these ladies think obeying the Constitution, adhering to sound money policies, and opposing corporate bailouts is not a wise course for the GOP. Good to know.

The charge of hero worshiping politicians who “they believe can fix everything” is a direct attempt to conflate enthusiastic Paul supporters with the legions of Obama zombies that inspired conservatives to sardonically dub the then-senator “The Messiah.” Call and Adams, who have no qualms about heaping praise on the establishment favorite, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, must hope that such rhetoric will convince undecided Republicans that either Rand Paul’s supporters are as delusional as President Obama’s or that a vote for Rand Paul is like a vote for the Obama agenda itself. After all, it wasn't too long ago that Michigan GOP chair Saul Anuzis wanted to exclude Ron Paul from the GOP presidential debates or fan favorite Michelle Malkin wanted the elder Dr. Paul expelled to the fringes of the Democratic Party.

What I’ve documented this week is only a tidbit of what will surely come young Dr. Paul’s way. The Voice Tribune is a small scale organization, but as Rand Paul closes in on Trey Grayson (WHAS - 11 in Louisville recently conducted a poll where Grayson leads the supposed long-shot Paul by only 11 percentage points at 37-26%, painfully closer than Grayson would want it this far away from the May 2010 primary), the smears will get more intense, more outlandish, more disingenuous, and come from bigger outlets.

Take the time to visit Rand Paul’s campaign website and browse his positions on the issues and then take a gander at Trey Grayson’s vacuous website in search of anything substantial. Also visit Rand Paul for Senate, my other blog where I collaborate with Matthiasj of Kentucky Preppers Network with a combination of original writings (some that also appear here) and recent news about Rand Paul or the senate race in general. But most importantly, if you can spare it, please donate to the Rand Paul campaign.

The addition of one constitutionally-minded senator won’t change everything, but he would be able to change some. The big government and big corporate interests of the Republican Party, even in the conservative state of Kentucky, don’t want the independent mind of Dr. Rand Paul. They want a Yes Man to Mitch McConnell who will take studious notes from the Minority Leader on how not to rock the boat.

Kentuckians should expect to hear soon from the media and establishment propaganda organs about how conservative and down-to-earth everyman Trey Grayson is while Rand Paul is just the kook son of chief kook Ron Paul, all of whose supporters escaped from the insane asylum.

As you should know from this week’s posts, it’s already begun.

Ready, Aim, Smear!

2009-08-17T20:30:00.000-07:00

Consider this a warning: the smear brigades will come out for Rand Paul.

Still considered a long-shot by the establishment, Dr. Rand Paul, candidate for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky, will soon find himself staring down the barrel of what libertarian economist Murray Rothbard called “The Smear Bund.”

As the campaign progresses, it will be impossible (without a small cyber army) to debunk every character assassination attempt that comes in the direction of Rand Paul. However, one recent attempt on the website Voice-Tribune.com, a Louisville-based soft news center, is sure to be a steady one: young Dr. Paul is only running so he can cash in on his father’s popularity.

Writing in an op-ed, Julie Adams and Ellen Call have problems with the fact that Rand Paul announced his candidacy on cable:

“Paul used these two media outlets [CNN and Fox News] to inform Kentucky voters of why he’s running to represent this state in Congress.

“Oh, wait a minute; his announcement had absolutely nothing to do with informing Kentucky voters about why he wants to serve the commonwealth in Washington, D.C. His announcement was all about tapping into his father’s failed presidential network of donors across the United States in an attempt to assist in his own fundraising efforts. . . .

“Unlike traditional candidates for statewide office, Paul chose not to fly around the state, promote his candidacy and meet and greet.”

Actually, that sounds like a reasonable expectation of anyone desiring state-wide office. There’s only one problem: Rand Paul has already been going across the state talking about his ideas.

But despite traveling across the state, giving speeches, and apparently going hoarse, Dr. Paul barely gets mentioned in Kentucky media outside of his Bowling Green residence. If a candidate is habitually labeled a “long-shot” and struggles to get a line or two in a newspaper, wouldn’t that candidate at least want to consider a national media outlet that he knows many in his state watch? And in the case of CNN and Fox News, he should have the bases covered. I also wonder if these ladies have the same problem with the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Romneys, or the Dodds as they have with Rand Paul.

Then one of the writers reveals their condescension regarding the possibility of Dr. Paul sitting in the upper chamber:

“I sure wish I could have started out as a U.S. Senator, but I chose to run for Metro Council first to show folks in my hometown that I am committed to making my city a better place to live.”

[Sigh] If only little brats like the son of Ron Paul cared about people as much as I do. I obviously love my community more than Rand Paul loves his because I was so unselfish that I decided to begin a political career at the bottom of the ladder. Instead, the self-absorbed Paul had the audacity to have a career in the private sector where he helped people with eye disease. If he really cared about the people of Kentucky, he would have started out as a Bowling Green city councilman. Instead, this would-be nepotist founded a citizens’ tax reform group Kentucky Taxpayers United, which, besides not being a pre-approved political starting point, has nothing to do with helping the people of Kentucky.

Or something like that.

Continued:

“It would be wise for Paul to spend a little more energy on a “listening tour” covering the issues and challenges facing our state and leave the streets of New York City for Mayor Bloomberg.”

Hey, that’s another good point! Rand Paul should go on this “listening tour,” much like the one Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney were ridiculed for doing in the spring.

A listening tour, for those who aren’t familiar with the term, is just a fancy term insulated politicians use before they pander to their constituents. Appearing to listen to voters' concerns is the smoke-screen politicians use to find out what voters want to hear. They may as well be called “hustling tours.”

But career politicians have to do these “listening tours” because they don’t know what the average voter is worried about. The people who conduct “listening tours” haven’t been private citizens in years, possibly decades. Why should Rand Paul have a “listening tour” when he already knows the concerns of the average voter? Apparently he should adopt the plan of lead attention-getter, no-platform Trey Grayson whose campaign website still reads:

“I look forward to traveling across the Commonwealth and hearing how best to address the problems that face our country. As I explore this opportunity to continue serving you, I am committed to representing all Kentuckians and the issues that are important to you.”

In this short statement, the secretary of state admits that even though he’s been serving the people of Kentucky for years now, he doesn’t know which issues are important to them. So why should he be the automatic front-runner to gain access to “The Most Exclusive Club”?

According to Adams and Call, it would seem that Secretary Grayson has paid the right dues, regardless of whether he has the right ideas or any ideas at all.

This is what separates Rand Paul from his generic Republican opponent. He doesn’t need to travel around the state to see what’s going on – he already knows. He travels across the state because he’s getting his message out. He also travels because he’s virtually ignored by the media of his state and when he does get mentioned by people like Adams and Call, it’s for purposes of mockery and derision.

The smear attempt in the Voice Tribune was just in a small forum, but the subsequent smears will only resemble this one: Rand Paul is just his father's son and nothing else.

After eight years of a president and a party unconcerned with ideas, isn't it encouraging that there is someone seeking office does have ideas, regardless of who his father is?

Rand Paul interviewed on Glenn Beck, August 14

2009-08-16T17:45:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul for U.S. Senate

Cash Clunker

2009-08-15T13:00:00.000-07:00

*This post is a little old. It was composed before a trip I took to my old Kentucky home. This issue has faded somewhat, but the same problems exist.

The recession is on its way out! The “Cash for Clunkers” program has been a rousing success. The government agreed to give away money and people surprisingly lined up with their hands eagerly held out. The government printed up money (“It’s free money from the government!”) and the auto industry is back on its feet and soon it will be better than ever.

If only.

The lunacy of the Cash for Clunkers boondoggle is a testament to the government’s inability to learn from its mistakes.

Like the vaunted stimulus earlier this year, the “Cash for Clunkers” program was sold to the public as the avenue through which the economy will be jump-started. Just throw some money at a problem and like magic, it will go away. People aren’t buying enough cars? The solution must be the government paying people to start the process.

Unsurprisingly, the initial response to the program was successful. Despite saying that they are tired of others getting tax breaks and special treatment, people are generally receptive when they are the ones getting “free money” from the government.

So people are now buying new cars, maybe even American cars. That’s great, and all it took was a little government spending, $1 billion, to get the ball rolling.

And just like the housing bubble that inevitably burst, the “Cash for Clunkers” program is but a band-aid that brings no permanent relief, much less stabilization.

At a time when jobs are still not coming back, “Cash for Clunkers” offers no genuine solutions. Sure, people are buying cars, but does that alone mean the economy is on the way back? Closed dealerships remain closed. Factories aren’t reopening. The only certainty to come out of “Cash for Clunkers” is that it plunges the United States and its citizens further into debt.

Less than a year after the housing market hit rock bottom, people seem to believe that the government can create money out of thin air, pass it out, and then think that reality won’t set in when the money cannot be paid back.

Look at the housing crisis. Credit was massively expanded making more “money” available in the form of loans so that people traditionally deprived of loans could buy the home of their dreams. But the bills came due and people who should not have been approved for loans in the first place lost their homes. The same thing can’t happen to eager car buyers, can it?

The same general principle is at work in “Cash for Clunkers.” People are enticed with money that appeared out of nowhere so they can buy a new fuel-efficient car that they don’t necessarily need.

For a country that is still suffering through a recession and incalculable debt, it is dumbfounding to see that Congress and President Obama believe that creating more debt will somehow alleviate the current problems. It’s as if a doctor treating a stab wound victim decides that shoving the knife deeper into the tissue will make the stab wound go away. It makes no sense.

This program brings only temporary benefits but it cannot go on forever. Eventually the program will stop and lots of people will probably default on their car payments making this whole exercise a waste. But in the meantime, it’s quite likely that the same logic, handing out money, will be extended to some other industry. The U.S. Postal Service is in some financial trouble and thousands of offices might close. Will the government begin handing out tax rebates so we’ll send out more packages from the post office? Will they raise taxes to support the next scam?

Not likely. We already hear that taxes cannot be raised because we’re already in a recession and people can’t be deprived of yet more of their money. But isn’t that what “Cash for Clunkers” inevitably leads to? People losing yet more of their money for cars they might not even need?

The program encourages more spending when people should be saving.

But stopping programs like “Cash for Clunkers” is only stopping a symptom. It is the entire mentality that government can just hand out money to spur spending that needs to change. And the entity that needs to be confronted is the one that makes such schemes possible in the first place. It is not President Obama or even the dim-witted Congress, but the Federal Reserve, that giant printing press.

Printing up money that doesn’t exist is exactly what gets average citizens thrown into jail. But as long as the government has a “private” agency that officially finances its spending, people can be convinced that their taxes won’t have to be raised so the auto industry can stay afloat or that government-run health care is even remotely possible.

But before the Fed can be stopped, it has to first be examined. That is what Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” is designed to do. Already with over 250 co-sponsors in the House, the companion bill has a growing number of co-sponsors in the Senate. If we can expect government spending to actually slow down or even stop, we have to stop the mechanism that makes deficit spending possible.

To adapt from the historian Tom Woods, To stop the spending machine, you have to go after the money machine.

Audit the Fed.

Glenn Beck Interviews Rand Paul, August 6

2009-08-06T13:03:00.000-07:00

cross-posted at Rand Paul for U.S. Senate

Here are a few highlights from Glenn Beck’s interview today with Rand Paul, newly declared senate candidate in Kentucky. Added emphases are mine. Read the whole interview here.

PAUL: [The] Primary reason I run for office is I think our country is drowning in a sea of debt and I don't think the career politicians on either side of the aisle, Republican or Democrat, have been willing to address the problem. We need somebody who is an outsider who doesn't really need the career in Washington, doesn't need the fame of going to Washington, who wants to go up there and fix problem.

. . . In Kentucky we have a balanced budget every year by law. California doesn't, but we're ultimately going to be paying the taxes to bail out California. The federal government needs a rule because you cannot trust the politicians to balance their budget.

BECK: Where do you stand on healthcare? You're a doctor.

PAUL: I think the healthcare plan as presented is a disaster. I think the more benign sounding the title, Free Choice Healthcare Act, the more ominous the contents.

BECK: Do you think there's any place at all for government healthcare?

PAUL: Very, very little, even what we have doesn't work. People brag about the Medicare system. But the Medicare system, the costs are rising faster than the private system. And in the Medicare system, we're already short of money. . . . There are too many older folks and not enough younger folks working to pay for Medicare already. And they've added Medicare prescription drug plan which we don't have enough money for either. So really there's already a squeeze in what government's doing, and they're talking about adding another trillion dollars worth of cost to that system. It's untenable and won't work. But the other thing is the whole thing driving this debate is the 46 million uninsured. But of those if you break it down a third of them make more than $50,000 a year. A third of them are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up for it. And 20% are illegal aliens, and we're driving the debate over the government and society paying for the healthcare of people who broke the law to come here. I think it's crazy.

PAUL: . . . I'm worried about the deficit and what it will do. . . . ultimately I'm not a doomsday sayer, but I worry about in Germany, in 1923 when they destroyed their currency out of that arose a Hitler. . . . And we have to be very careful that we don't rewrite our Constitution or throw it out completely and we don't get some kind of strong leader that's going to help us or keep us from ourselves.

AP NewsBreak: Paul seeking US Senate seat from Ky.

2009-08-06T10:30:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul for U.S. Senate blog

Aug 5, 2009

AP NewsBreak: Paul seeking US Senate seat from Ky.

Star Telegram
FRANKFORT, Ky. -- A Kentucky ophthalmologist who has been eyeing a U.S. Senate campaign says he will run for the seat now held by Jim Bunning.

Republican Rand Paul of Bowling Green ended months of speculation Wednesday when he told The Associated Press in an interview that he is entering the race. Paul told the AP of his decision in advance of a series of planned media events, including an appearance on national television Wednesday evening.

Paul had been considering running even before the 77-year-old Bunning announced last week that he intends to retire when his second term ends next year.

Paul is the son of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, a Texas lawmaker who ran in last year's Republican primaries.

Rand Paul and Rush - On the Shattering Illusion of Integrity

2009-08-04T09:24:00.000-07:00

In the weeks and months to come, there will be a lot of chatter at Uncouth Ruminations about Rand Paul and his potential run for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky.

The following piece was originally authored by my good friend the Left Coast Rebel. If you don't already frequent his fine site, you should.

One more note: as of this week, I am also contributing to Rand Paul for U.S. Senate, a compendium of the latest news, videoes, and commentary about Rand Paul. Please take the time to visit us. And, please, if you can spare it, donate to the Rand Paul campaign.

Rand Paul and Rush - On the Shattering Illusion of Integrity

by The Left Coast Rebel.

Begin the day with a friendly voice,
A companion unobtrusive
Plays the song that's so elusive
And the magic music makes your morning mood.

Off on your way, hit the open road,
There is magic at your fingers
For the Spirit ever lingers,
Undemanding contact in your happy solitude.

Invisible airwaves crackle with life
Bright antenna bristle with the energy
Emotional feedback on timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free

All this machinery making modern music
Can still be open-hearted.
Not so coldly charted, it's really just a question
Of your honesty, yeah, your honesty.

One likes to believe in the freedom of music,
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity.

For the words of the profits were written on the studio wall,
Concert hall
And echoes with the sounds of salesmen.

- Rush, The Spirit of the Radio, 1980

My favorite band ever, (probably shows my age), bettered only by my favorite Senatorial primary candidate Rand Paul, (Kentucky for the 2010 race). I was reading today here that Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky announced that he will not run for re-election, my mind danced back and forth on the possible usherance of Rand's viability - an accelerated fundraising, message, viability and prophet of liberty. A voice for constitutional restraint and limited governance that is all but nonexistent in our Capitol. Rand is the real deal.

Knowing that Rand Paul's chances in many ways pivoted on Bunning running or not, I am excited that Bunning's exit may usher him into a lead for the Senate primary. Still somewhat of a long shot, (fill me in readers on how he may not be), this may bolster his money efforts and accelerate his campaign. Highlights from Rand's recent speech for me -

Where I'm different than some Republicans who will run for this office is that I think that we need to self-examine as a party where we are....where we haven't been so good....I believe that we will have within a year or two, worse than what we had in 1979, rip-roaring inflation and it will be of major consequence to the country, ( I agree).

All of the Republicans voted against the Obamanation budget, but when we were in charge we weren't so good. We were in charge for 8 years and we doubled the debt from 5 to 10 trillion dollars. We presided over the largest entitlement program since LBJ, the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, we cannot afford it and it is bankrupting Medicare at a rapid rate. (Folks, this needs to be relentlessly pointed out, for the GOP to learn not from its mistakes is to ensure the same results as the Obamanation, albeit at a slower clip).

We as Republicans also presided over a doubling of the size of the Department of Education, doubling the number of employees and increasing the Federal control over education.

A primary is about the direction of our country, it's about the direction of our party. Our party is simply an empty vessel unless we imbue it with something....you need to decide what type of Republicans will lead the party and where to go from here. I believe in the Republican party platform, the platform says that we are not here to bail-out private businesses. Let's choose leaders that believe in the platform and vote accordingly.

The direction of the party, the direction of the nation. Rand Paul exemplifies and personifies the adherence to an ethos of liberty; of an unflinching and stalwart compliance to the law of man and the laws of nature. That we cannot find prosperity through printed dollars. That we cannot bring the higher-up down to bring the lower up. That we cannot be ruled by our most base instincts. That we cannot be laid waste by Silver-Tongued Messiahs. That we cannot find prosperity as a nation by jettisoning the very concepts and notions that have made us the most prosperous and freest nation in the world, in all of mankind's history. That we cannot bury our Constitution, our most noble experiment in mankind's history.

Support him. For your Country, for our future, for liberty.

Rand Paul Rising

2009-07-31T13:41:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning announced his retirement from politics and all Republicans can breathe a sigh of relief because they now know who will be their party’s candidate for senate in 2010: Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

Or so we would think.

Grayson, considered by many to be the top Bluegrass Republican, was the recipient of $602,299 in campaign donations during the second quarter, outraising Senator Bunning by a wide margin and was likely the biggest reason for his retirement.

Sounds rather impressive. But what do we know about Trey Grayson? Who is he? What does he stand for?

Since 2004, Grayson has been the Secretary of State in Kentucky and according to his office website, his biggest accomplishments seem to be that he’s put government information online and has worked for “honest elections.” Not too bad, but not too great either. Besides, what politician would ever say they’ve worked against honest elections?

But searching for anything resembling a political philosophy in Trey Grayson is quite a task.

As I reported in May, Secretary Grayson’s campaign website leaves plenty to be desired. The shallow opening message that remains there today is still the closest visitors can come to finding that political philosophy: “I look forward to traveling across the Commonwealth and hearing how best to address the problems that face our country. As I explore this opportunity to continue serving you, I am committed to representing all Kentuckians and the issues that are important to you.”

Again I ask, does this mean he doesn’t have an actual agenda and is going to shape his platform according to what he discerns the people want to hear? And again, this smacks of a man without political principles.

But there is another option.

Rand Paul.

When Kentucky’s Republicans could be resigned to the fate of another lockstep Republican who knows how to recite conservative-sounding rhetoric but will inevitably bow to his party overlords, they need to know that they have another option. They could have a candidate who will swear fealty to the Constitution.

Sure, but doesn’t that sound like the standard Republican mantra of “respect for the Constitution” that is selectively followed? Where is the proof that Rand Paul (aside from the genetic argument) is not just another Republican who is spouting his assigned script and actually means it when he says we need to follow the Constitution?

That is because Rand Paul urges that the Constitution needs to be followed on the one issue Republicans want no part of: officially declaring war.

In this time of Republican exile, one can frequently hear GOP pols complain about how the new Democratic administration is constantly violating the Constitution with an endless list of economic usurpations that the U.S. Constitution in no way permits. Not that that is an incorrect assessment of the new regime, but the Republicans’ credibility on the issue is lower than low.

As the Constitution reads in Article 1, Section 8, it the Congress, not the President, who has the power “to declare war.”*

According to Rand Paul’s much more detailed campaign website, “any military action that takes more than a few days or weeks to organize and is directed against a country's government should require a declaration of war. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress met and declared war within 24hrs.”

How’s that for proof? Rand Paul isn’t talking ad nauseum about the Republican-safe issue of the Second Amendment, (although he does support the right to own a gun) but he is prepared to invoke the Constitution on the one issue that most haunts the Republicans and the one clause in the Constitution Republicans forfeited in order to give President Bush a blank check for a war of his choosing.

This is the bravery necessary for the Republicans to make a real comeback. Courage to obey the Constitution at all times, not to pay lip service about “respecting” the Constitution while out of power. They must shed the remnants of the Bush years and embrace the traditional conservative credo of caution and adherence to the law, by no means a mutually exclusive phenomenon.

So the candidacy of Rand Paul is full of promise and brimming with integrity. But let us not forget the lesson of Jim Bunning: politics requires money. While young Dr. Paul is raising a respectable amount (over $160,000 at this writing), more is needed. He still trails the presumed frontrunner Grayson by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This is where the grassroots soldiers enter.

On August 20, Ron Paul’s birthday, there is scheduled to be a “money bomb.”** If you are reading this, love liberty, and want real change within the American government, Rand Paul is one of the players who is worth supporting because he is one of the few in the 2010 discussion who is likely to keep his promises.

But he needs our moral and financial support. I am normally loathe to ask for money for anything (I think it can border on begging) but it is necessary here. Nobody needs to donate very much, but please, donate something. Even a little is enough. The Kentucky establishment effectively threw out an imperfect, but worthwhile conservative in Jim Bunning who was the victim of empty coffers.

Bunning over Grayson, but Rand Paul over all for liberty in the Bluegrass State.

Please help make it happen and donate.

*Though often conflated, the Authorization to Use Military Force resolution is not the same thing as an official declaration of war. In 2002, when Ron Paul suggested that an official declaration of war be issued against Iraq, supposed-conservative Henry Hyde told him that such action was “anachronistic” and something that just “isn’t done anymore”. That is not the attitude or mindset of anyone who thinks they are one and the same.

**A “money bomb” has nothing to do with violence, despite the imaginations of people like David Horowitz and Glenn Beck who have tried to re-define a day of numerous donations with one tied to political violence.

Sarah, the Country Club Republican?

2009-07-20T03:33:00.000-07:00

After an interview with Politico, Ron Paul is being ripped for accusing the soon-to-be former Alaska governor of being aligned with the northeastern, fat cat snobs who make up the establishment of the Republican Party.

To the grassroots Palinistas, this is a charge of treason.

Governor Palin has certainly been the recipient of some awful treatment from establishment types. These folks would have been fine with Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge on last year’s vice presidential slot, as they certainly would not have rocked the boat.

But people who fixate on the country club comment are on the wrong topic. Ron Paul did not call Palin herself a “Country Club Republican,” but regarded her followers as “more establishment, conventional, Country-Club type Republicans.”

At first, this does look like a statement at least a little divorced from reality. Surely all those hockey moms and pro-life demonstrators can’t be part of the dreaded establishment. That’s because they’re not. They are the poor folks who have been duped by the establishment into thinking that a Palin presidency would immediately benefit them. If the Palin supporters who had the influence to push the governor into the vice presidential slot are the ones we’re counting, then maybe Dr. Paul isn’t so crazy after all. He continues:

“I wonder whether she’s engaging 15-20 year olds . . . Because she doesn’t talk about the Federal Reserve. . . . She doesn’t talk too much about personal liberties, civil liberties, getting rid of drug laws, attacking the war on drugs, punishing people who torture.”

I might also add that after her rousing, war-centric convention speech last fall, coupled with an Israeli flag in her governor’s office, Sarah Palin, while exceptional at throwing red meat to the eager Republican base, at the least, does a mean impersonation an establishment lackey.

But this highlights the continuing rift in the Republicans, and if nothing else, their refusal to acknowledge the main cause for their woes: Iraq and the possibility (inevitability?) of even more foreign wars. And when the American Enterprise Institute and The Weekly Standard, a think tank and a magazine where the Iraq war germinated, think of Sarah Palin as a “project,” one conjures up memories of Texas Governor George W. Bush’s rhetoric of “no nation-building” being replaced with a “crusade to end tyranny.”

So is it possible that the appeal of Sarah Palin for the executive branch can be an odd combination of establishment appeal and grassroots rhetoric?

As I wrote recently, I’m not a Palin-aholic, but I am inclined to like her and I’ve said before that I want to like her. When I began reading about her last year, I rather liked what I learned: Lived by a pro-life creed that put other Republicans to shame, publicly questioned the “Surge” in Iraq and the lack of an exit strategy, and her husband had membership in the Alaskan Independence Party. This didn’t exactly scream George W. Bush reborn. But that someone who seemed to possess these fine qualities would hitch her wagon to John McCain was a bit odd. Perhaps it was telling.

Ask a Palin supporter what they like about her. Chances are great that what you will find is someone caught up in her personality. Yes, the story is inspiring, raising a big family while maintaining a career, and while that’s admirable, that’s not enough for me to throw support. “She’s a fighter” or “she’s a maverick” or “she’s one of us,” do not constitute solid arguments. Chances are also great that many of these same people are revolted by the cult of personality that still very much surrounds the current commander-in-chief. And a cult of personality around Palin is exactly what will be exploited by a Republican establishment that has no qualms about returning to the days of Bush.

It is this very cult of personality that makes me yet more wary if Sarah Palin chooses to re-enter elective politics (although I don’t see how). She clearly has a very devoted band of followers (I’m not sure, but I wonder if Palin had been caught in an affair like Mark Sanford, whether her supporters would have been screaming “Resign!”, not that I am making the charge) who are ready to fight for their beloved figure and what the GOP needs right now is a figure for their masses to unite around, even if it’s someone who seemingly threw her electability out the window with her resignation.

This is worthy of wariness because until very recently, George W. Bush possessed a cult-like following and one could say he still does when it comes to matters of war and the military. Because of that, President Bush got away with a lot of patently un-conservative behavior because his base would never question him. And they didn’t. So why would a base, even more in love with Palin, act any differently?

And like Bush, should Sarah Palin ever assume the presidency, she would enter with little background in foreign policy. But just as Governor Bush once sounded like a cautious interventionist, Governor Palin could just as easily be hoodwinked into the Forever War camp as well – in fact, it appears the neocons’ project worked. How else might someone who questioned the 2007 troop surge now sound like the editorial board of The Weekly Standard? And just for the record, didn’t she support McCain’s vote for TARP and his decision to bailout the banks?

Perhaps Sarah Palin is not exactly a “Country Club Republican” herself, but what she did in Alaska did little to truly unhinge the state’s establishment. That Palin is even still discussed as a presidential contender should signal to us that she is acceptable to the establishment. This is what her ardent supporters should be paying attention to. The establishment snobs we often disdain might not have such a problem with her after all. That can be because they might have already broken her and see her as the vessel that George W. Bush was: someone who can be manipulated and molded into someone quite different from the person we first saw.

Let us hope that Sarah Palin sticks to her pledge to effect positive change outside of government because she bears many of the markings that made the Bush administration possible.

And that is no good news at all.

Olbermann to call Homeland Security!

2009-07-09T15:55:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday of this week, Keith Olbermann, MSNBC’s equivalent of Sean Hannity, demonstrated why I refuse to watch that network with the rare exception of when they permit Pat Buchanan to utter five syllables in a row.

In Olbermann’s notable segment, “The Worst Person in the World,” the former sportscaster took aim at Fox News’ Glenn Beck and the CIA’s former head of its bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer. The charge: Scheuer is advising that Osama bin laden detonate a nuclear device in the United States and Beck should “be stopped” for allowing such speech to take place.*

How awful. What American would have the temerity to suggest that our enemy, our real enemy, ought to attack the U.S.? By all means, keep Guantanamo open just for Americans such as these.

If only that’s what Michael Scheuer actually said.

Listening to Olbermann’s opinion of the conversation, one could easily conclude that Scheuer is a traitor to the country he once worked to defend while Beck is his accomplice. Listening to Olbermann, Scheuer must have said this: “Osama! Get a nuclear bomb as soon as you can! Detonate it in this country so thousands, maybe even millions of my countrymen can be vaporized!”

Here’s what was really said:

Beck: Do you really, honestly believe, that we have come to a place where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land, Congress and the White House, really will not do the right thing in the end, that they won’t see the error of their ways? [in their failure to prevent terrorism]

Scheuer: No, sir, they will not. The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States, because it‘s going to take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It‘s an absurd situation, again. Only Osama can execute an attack that will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently and with as much violence as necessary.

So Scheuer did say that a nuclear device needed to be used in order for real change to American foreign policy to be enacted. He is not saying that he desires it to happen.

If Olbermann knew anything about Scheuer, or did a meager amount of research, he would know, by virtue of Scheuer’s career, books, and articles, that he is an American nationalist and patriot who does desire to see America protected from terrorism. During the Bush administration, Scheuer was frequently labeled a “Bush Basher” for suggesting that the invasion of Iraq would isolate America and would further radicalize Islam. Now he is vilified by a faux journalist for describing what may very well be necessary before real change in foreign policy takes place.

Scheuer, the author of 2008’s “Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq” and the anonymous author of “Through our Enemy’s Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America” and “Imperial Hubris: How the West is Losing the War on Terror,” has the consistent theme that our country’s ruling elites are either oblivious to the terrorist threat or are unwilling to change a policy of American intervention that led to the September 11, 2001 attacks. And most Americans, it would seem, are oblivious to this fact as well.

During the presidential campaign of 2007-2008, Ron Paul was the only candidate Scheuer endorsed because, as he said in the article “Stuck in the Cold [War] (McBama’s Nostalgia for the 20th Century):

“The difference between parties is just nuance. Republicans prefer to provide a strong, close-up whiff of gunpowder before coercively imposing their values on foreigners, while Democrats prefer raining anonymous death from 20,000 feet on foreigners, who – if they live – will have new values drilled into them. All are imperialism’s paladins . . . they are: aching to dictate their kind of freedom to various little brown brothers.”

This is the language of someone who has warned about the follies of the current policy. Since the current policy is what inflames would-be terrorists, there is no reason to believe that continuing it would reduce the incentive for terrorists to acquire a nuclear device. If a patient has a severe allergic reaction to penicillin, the cure is not more penicillin, especially if other prescriptions are available.

Just as many Americans probably still assume the Islamic terrorists hate us because we’re free, almost everyone in government assumes that since intervention has taken place since 9/11 that means the intervention has succeeded in defeating terrorism. Relying on the words of Osama bin Laden, instead of government propaganda, the recently retired Scheuer told “60 Minutes” in 2005 that

“No one should be surprised when Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the United States. I don’t believe in inevitability. But I think it’s pretty close to being inevitable.”

So what is the difference between this 2005 quote and the one that so aggravated Keith Olbermann?

Four years ago Scheuer called it pretty much an inevitability while recently he said that that inevitability is what it will take for American citizens to wake up to the gross dereliction of their leaders. That Scheuer is saying that he expects a nuclear detonation to come before Americans wake up to the government’s ineptitude is not the same thing as advising bin Laden to commit the atrocity itself, as if the terrorist’s desire to obtain a nuclear weapon was dependent upon any private citizen. In fact, it is more like a grieved parent coming to grips with the fact that their out-of-control drug-abusing child won’t realize they need help until the latter requires professional rehabilitation, despite all the previous efforts and warnings of the loving parent.

Now while Scheuer does advocate the use of waterboarding, a point at which I diverge, he is an American patriot, and anyone who simply skims through his body of writing will discover that the former CIA man only writes what he does out of a sincere devotion to his country. So when he says he has reason to believe that bin Ladin will send us that nuclear bomb, the good Scheuer hopes can come out of it is that the American people will finally demand to know why their leaders’ actions had not stopped the catastrophe they said the intervention was preventing.

For all the effort he puts into “The Worst Person in the World,” Keith Olbermann might want to take a break from his partisan hackery to investigate why a nuclear device might be detonated in the U.S. in the first place instead of shouting “traitor” at Scheuer and Beck while suggesting that their right to the freedom of speech should be abridged.
--
*The third person Olbermann selected for his “Worst Person in the World” was suspended steroid user Manny Ramirez of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Along with Beck and Scheuer’s alleged proposal that Osama bin Laden should detonate a nuclear device is equivalent, in Olbermann’s mind, to rehabilitating baseball player Manny Ramirez’s refusal to spend enough money on luxuries for his temporary minor league teammates. Apparently not spending money on your minor league teammates is on par with suggesting a nuclear device needs to be detonated in your own country.
--
Final note: Over at Left Coast Rebel, Tim has a piece up about Rand Paul and his potential run for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky. Check it out.

She Did What?

2009-07-07T14:56:00.000-07:00

Well, she does play by her own set of rules. Unlike Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin seems to have relinquished presidential aspirations voluntarily.

Like many Americans who were actually paying attention to news on the Friday before the Fourth, I was dumbfounded to learn that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was resigning, effective July 26.

Such a decision was out of the blue. The spat with David Letterman had subsided and she defeated another ethics charge, so why would Sarah Palin suddenly resign? As Mark Sanford’s political star has all but certainly been sucked into a black hole, Mrs. Palin had every reason to believe that she would be a frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. Either way, she had more charisma and a wider national appeal than the now-shamed South Carolina governor.

As soon as the news hit, I thought to myself, Mitt Romney is probably having one hell of a party at his mansion tonight, with his family and yuppie guests probably being waited on by an army of illegal immigrants, no less.

There have been a few theories peddled over why she would resign at this time. Could she no longer take the heat of being a public person? If so, why now? She readily bore her claws like a mama bear when her children once again were deemed newsworthy, so it’s doubtful she suddenly can’t take the heat. Anyone who believes Palin has a weak constitution is only watching the parodied Palin and not Sarah Barracuda.

Is she stepping down, as she said, to relieve the taxpayers of Alaska of having to pay the burden of her constant legal fees which have now reached over half a million dollars? I’m willing to believe that and if it’s true, then it’s the most fiscally sane move by a Republican since Mark Sanford decided to wait to see his mistress until he was on state business in South America.

But the most prevalent explanation is that she is resigning in order to stage a run for the presidency in 2012. If that is true, she is undoubtedly wasting her time. Resigning before her term is up, absent a scandal of Watergate or blue dress proportions, labels Palin, unfairly I believe, as a quitter, by critics on both the Right and the Left.

The most common refrain, predictably, is that she is unqualified for the job of president. Examining the U.S. Constitution, Article II states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Let’s see: born in Idaho in 1964 and living at least 14 years in the United States. Check. Sarah Palin is officially qualified to hold the position of president of the United States.

But, if one looks at the massive (and utterly unconstitutional) bureaucracy that pervades Washington D.C. and considers how involved the American president is expected to be not just in American life but in events around the world, no one is “qualified” for the job. Therefore, if Sarah Palin is fundamentally “unqualified” for the job, it has more to do with today’s federal government than Governor Palin’s "inexperience."

Of course, her critics assume that she is resigning in order to run for the presidency, perhaps in a strangely lustful desire to continue pummeling a favorite target. It’s difficult to see how even the governor can consider running for president. If she does, Mitt Romney’s line of attack will be that at least he finished a term as governor of his state before ever embarking on a presidential campaign. Personally, I am altogether untroubled that she is resigning. I am unaware of any law that states that once elected, a politician is barred from leaving office, even if they are without scandal.

But the media reaction to her resignation has actually been quite comical from both sides, even reminding me of the hysteria cooked up while Mark Sanford was on his final trip to Argentina. With Sanford it was, Where is he?! We demand to know where our elected officials are at all times because if things don’t go kablooey while they’re away, then people might start to think that they don’t need government in charge of everything after all! Whereas with Sarah Palin it’s, How dare she quit before her term is up! I know she’s an idiot and I hate her, but I demand that she stay in office! How dare she abandon her people! How, oh, how, will the people of Alaska be able to put food on the table if they can’t be sure of who their governor is?!

Or as Tucker Carlson said on the July 6, 2009 episode of Sean Hannity’s television program, “People who think Sarah Palin is dumb and/or insane seem mad that she’s not governing the state of Alaska.”

The point of this little anti-government tirade is to show that states and people actually have the ability to operate without minute surveillance and babysitting from our overlords. It is also to highlight what I found to be the most revealing statement in Governor Palin’s otherwise rambling resignation speech:

“Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government.”

What a libertarian and non-presidential thing to say.

Readers of this blog (it’s up to four of you now) should know that I am not a Palin-aholic, have been critical of some of her policies, but that I have a mild admiration for her.

Sarah Palin has a nice story, worked hard, defeated an incumbent Republican and almost became vice president of the United States. She espouses pro-life views and walks the walk. I question whether a real conservative would really join the ticket alongside John McCain. I was troubled that such a stalwart conservative would adopt the reckless foreign policy rhetoric of McCain and that she would parrot the it’s-amnesty-but-we’re-not-calling-it-amnesty illegal immigrant policy of the Arizona senior panderer. Despite these troubling issues, I felt like battling for Sarah Palin just because of the ruthless attacks on her from an elitist media. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I was also disappointed earlier this year when she initially held her hand out for stimulus money when she had promoted herself as a fiscal conservative. She did, however, pull her hand back a little and returned some of the money while all the faux fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party cheered.

But I do not consider Sarah Palin’s actions to be those of a quitter. Saying she is a quitter to her state is to hold quite a dim view of Alaskans, as if they won’t know what to do with themselves unless they have Sarah Palin as their governor.

But back to the line highlighted earlier: “Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government.”

That is perhaps the most likely long-term reason for her early departure from office. Her political action committee, SarahPAC, is doing even better now that their namesake has resigned.

Similarly, the message of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign did not end when the Texas congressman ended his campaign last summer. The Campaign for Liberty, the unofficial extension of Dr. Paul’s campaign currently has over 170,000 members who are dedicated to educating people in their communities about a message of freedom from government and the advocating of sound money -- all this from a presidential candidate who was routinely ignored or mocked by the media and party elites for over a year. Just imagine how many people a similar Sarah Palin (who has garnered exceedingly more attention than Ron Paul) group might attract around a message of energy independence and the preservation of unborn life.

So maybe, just maybe, she does want to enact change in the country or just the state of Alaska by an avenue other than government imposition – education.

Good for Sarah.

The Political Lynching of Mark Sanford

2009-06-30T13:59:00.000-07:00

It has not been a good week for anyone famous. First Ed McMahon died. Then Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson died hours apart from one another. Pitchman Billy Mays died suddenly. But nothing died faster in the past week than the career of South Carolina governor Mark Sanford.

Gone for nearly a week, talking heads were practically screaming about the whereabouts of the governor, nearly wagging their fingers at him for leaving town and not saying where he was going to everyone who would later demand to know. If I didn’t know any better, I would have thought that these anchors were using television and radio to lecture Mark Sanford, who they mistook for their teenager, for staying out too late. (One unintentionally hilarious example was an anchor complaining about what would happen if a hurricane hit South Carolina without the governor present. My guess is that no one else would have been able to stop the storm either.)

Needless to say, I found all this attention excessive. Before this year, most Americans probably did not know who the three-term congressman and second term governor was. I first learned of Mark Sanford last year as a Ron Paul-type of Republican, known for fiscal sanity, vetoing excessive spending, and for opposing Real ID and the doctrine of nation-building. As a congressman, Sanford voted against H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and was quoted in The American Conservative saying, “I don’t believe in pre-emptive war. . . . For us to hold the moral high ground in the world, our default position must be defensive.” In short, Mark Sanford was my kind of Republican.

So how shocking was it to learn that the man who kept the promise to serve no more than three terms in Congress, could not keep the promise of fidelity to his wife?

In brutal honesty, I was crushed when I learned the news of his affair, not for the pain caused to his family, but that his chances for president in 2012 were dead.

Now some think that since Governor Sanford succumbed to perhaps the most pervasive temptation in men, he is no longer qualified to serve as governor or in any higher office. There is plenty of merit to this argument. If a man cannot keep his marriage vows, how can he keep his vow to defend the Constitution?

It has been propagandized that having a mistress as far away as Argentina was made possible by the taxpayers of South Carolina. Or as The New York Times headlined it, “Governor Used State’s Money To Visit Lover.”

Not quite. The governor was on a state business trip to South America to negotiate trade and managed to work in some time with his mistress. But this whole incident, in a bizarre way, illustrates the fiscal conservatism of Mark Sanford. It doesn’t appear that the governor hopped down to Argentina every weekend on a jet subsidized by the taxpayers. He saw his mistress, but at a time when it made business sense for him. If this wasn’t so depressing, it would be a little funny.

Despite the cacophony of calls to resign his office, Mark Sanford refuses to listen. It was my expectation that he would. But why should he? Adultery breaks a commandment, but nothing in the U.S. Constitution. He did not lie about the affair. He did not use state money with the explicit purpose of seeing his mistress. According to my count, the only crime Mark Sanford has committed was his refusal to accept stimulus money.

Then the fuss regarding his “disappearance” became clear.

Governor Mark Sanford, the scourge of big spending Republicans in his own state, was an enemy because he regularly vetoed their big spending schemes. Before this year, Mark Sanford was a little known, but rising star in the Republican Party. He became known nationally for his refusal, some say grandstand, regarding the stimulus package. Even if he was merely grandstanding, it was a more convincing show than some GOP governors like Sarah Palin, who willfully held her hand out before taking heat for her hypocritical stance of denouncing President Obama’s ridiculous spending while readily willing to accept “her share” of it.

Contrary to popular conception, Republicans as a whole are not in favor of small government nor do they favor less intervention at home and abroad. At election time they sure are, but not once they get into power.

Occasionally a Republican will cut taxes, but only on rare occasions do they cut the spending that is needed to prevent the tax cuts from becoming deficits. The problem for Republican Party establishments like the one in South Carolina is that Mark Sanford was the rare politician who kept his word on government spending and fiscal responsibility. In fact, the first South Carolinians who would reap the benefits of Sanford’s demise, Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer and Sanford’s political rival, State Senator Jake Knotts, whose primary challenger Sanford supported, are the loudest voices calling for the governor’s resignation or at least an investigation. Maybe Republicans do believe in truth commissions!

Sanford's fellow South Carolinian, Jack “The Southern Avenger” Hunter, illustrated in January of this year just how South Carolina Republicans see the governor:

“Sanford has had one primary guiding principle his entire political career: limited government. Not just limited government rhetoric, the sort of lip service provided by milquetoast Republican to pacify their right wing base, but genuine, strict, fiscal conservatism and the guts to back it up. If you ever need a good illustration of just how duplicitous the GOP can be, just take notice of how frequently South Carolina Republicans get angry at Sanford for daring to actually represent the limited government principles they pretend to. It’s as if they’re saying, ‘Come on, Mark, you didn’t really think we meant all that conservative stuff, did you?’ . . . which to some makes him dangerous.”

Dangerous indeed.

I cannot say whether Bauer, Knotts, or anyone else knew with any certainty that Sanford was having an affair or if their agenda was the hope to stick something on Sanford, something to discredit the man and ultimately destroy him, but something smells in this fiasco besides the governor. My Campaign for Liberty co-patriot, Anna Lutz of South Carolina, related an answer she received from Knotts and State House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham that there is “more to come.”

Turns out, there was more before this even began. An anonymous Sanford staffer leaked e-mails to The State newspaper, a paper seeming to revel in Sanford’s demise, tipping them about a woman in Argentina – in December 2008. Suddenly it becomes apparent how an absent governor, neglecting no actual duties, could warrant such wall-to-wall attention, almost as if on cue. Perhaps it was the misstep Sanford’s enemies were waiting for.

Why else would Republicans be so elated to expose a private affair that had been disclosed with the family? In this, we see that Republicans, particularly in the case of South Carolina, do not care about limited government. They care about power. If they cared one lick about limiting government, they would be in front of the cameras saying exactly this, “Mark Sanford may be an adulterer, but he has been truthful, with his family and with us, about a tragic indiscretion. Importantly for our purposes, he has been a competent governor who has been loyal to his political principles. Until it can be proven that Governor Sanford’s moral failing in his private life has caused him to break a law, he deserves our support because the governor has been a steadfast supporter of the Republican Party platform and the people of South Carolina who have elected him to public office five times without defeat.”

Of course, no GOP hack in the Palmetto State is saying anything even remotely like this. That should say it all.

This diatribe notwithstanding, my own personal regard for Mark Sanford has taken a serious blow in the past week. After Ron Paul and his son Rand, Mark Sanford was probably my favorite Republican, and knowing that he has committed a serious moral failure calls his capacity to lead into question for the first time in my experience with him.

But Mark Sanford’s infidelity no more disqualifies him from the capacity to continue in office or ascend to higher office than does anyone’s perfect marital fidelity qualify anyone for high office either. After all, the only thing that is inherently different about Mark Sanford today as opposed to the beginning of June is the fact that we know about his unfaithfulness.

While he has been far from perfect politically (endorsing John McCain for president twice - ick!- he infamously deferred to also-ran warmonger Newt Gingrich earlier this year on Fox News Sunday regarding pre-emptive strikes on North Korea), but Republicans could do far worse than a so-far repentant adulterer.

(H/T: Anna Lutz)

Are they Demanding Democracy?

2009-06-22T05:20:00.000-07:00

Watching coverage of the Iranian election protests, one could easily conclude that the mobs are conducting their own Tiananmen Square, demanding fundamental freedoms from an oppressive regime.

But is this conclusion accurate? Is that what the protesters are demanding? Are they clamoring for free speech and due process? Did our invasion-turned-democratic experiment in Iraq finally catch on to the point that Iranians now get that Western-style freedom is a good thing and are ready to throw their Islamic backwardness aside? Did the Iranians begin saying to themselves, “Hey, it turns out this is a repressive regime that steals elections and abuses women! Let’s revolt and demand our freedoms!”? Or could it be that they are just storming against a regime they believe stole an election from their preferred candidate?

It is tempting for Americans to witness demonstrations such as these and assume that they are being done on behalf of freedom and democracy as we think of it. We as Americans need to be careful when interpreting events from halfway across the globe. When we see people protesting against the reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, many of us are assuming that since Ahmadinejad is the latest reincarnation of Hitler, these people must be demanding a bill of rights.

To be sure, the American media have wasted no time in telling everyone that Ahmadinejad had his reelection stolen for him. They also wasted no time in reminding everyone that he was an Iranian Revolution rebel of 1979 and may have even taken part in the abduction of 52 Americans in that same year. Couple that with his oft-cited remarks on Israel and everyone is told that the world’s largest rodent needs to be stopped, even if it requires the U.S. government’s favorite course of action: military intervention followed by regime change. Based on that logic, anybody would be better than Adolf Jr. and that man was obviously Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Well, maybe.

The vanquished candidate, Mousavi, was portrayed as a reform-minded pro-American democrat. If he was in fact a reform candidate of any caliber, it was perhaps only because he appeared saner than his rival. Like Ahmadinejad, Mousavi also has ties to the Iranian Revolution and served as prime minister shortly after the shah made his expeditious getaway. Like Ahmadinejad, Mousavi not only sees a nuclear program as Iran’s right, but he was the instigator of the program (and agrees with Ahmadinejad about that Holocaust-denial thingy). But unlike Ahmadinejad, Mousavi was the prime minister of Iran who may very well have ordered the attack on American marines in Beirut.

Knowing this, does it really matter who honestly prevailed in that election?

If Ahmadinejad is Hitler, then Mousavi may just be Mussoulini. And if those simplistic and cartoonish characterizations are true, would this be worth embroiling the United States?

So what is the point of President Obama making any sort of statement of solidarity with the protesters? Again, we don’t know if they’re demanding their Western-style freedoms or if they’re just enraged that their guy lost and think the Ayatollah Khamenei stole it.

Importantly, making any sort of statement, benign or bombastic, could have backlash against the people we want to help and inadvertently empower the current regime.

Why is that? Are those Iranians too stupid to figure out that they should have freedoms like Americans?

Well, the consequences could be dire; for thirty years, America has been seen as their enemy. Four years ago Ahmadinejad was elected after Iranians witnessed the United States invade two of Iran’s neighbors. And if Obama actually talked tough, it would be all the reason the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad need to remind the masses that America continues to be aggressive against Iran. There is no easier avenue through which to consolidate power than under an emergency, or the pretense of one. Just ask Rahm Emanuel.

Making a statement of any belligerence will condemn the protesters to the mercy of the Ayatollah. For decades, the Iranians have been taught that America is their enemy. If we give the protesters the perception that they are pro-American by actively stating our support for them, it will make an already oppressive regime murderous as they will have carte blanche to treat the protesters as though they are American poodles and, ergo, enemies of the regime.

With the perception Iranians have of America, one that is probably shared by more than a few of the protesters, we shouldn’t expect any statement from the United States to benefit the protesters any more than George W. Bush’s endorsement helped John McCain. And no amount of narcissistic posturing about human rights will save a single protestor from the brutality of the Iranian regime.

Also, to show solidarity presupposes that who wins elections in Iran is any business of the United States in the first place.

Another thing to consider is if there is some sort of U.S. involvement in this mess, do we KNOW that the protestors are going to greet us as their liberators? Or are we prepared to demonstrate to the world that we have really learned nothing from our Iraqi boondoggle?

On this occasion, the proper course for the United States should be to stay home and watch. Why stir the pot if the alternative, Mousavi, might not be any better in practice than Ahmadinejad? And whether Mousavi or Ahmadinejad is the titular ruler in Iran is no choice worth making and it is not worth a single American life.

Let us not confuse anti-government sentiment with pro-American and pro-democratic zeal.

The Obama Girl

2009-06-18T19:28:00.000-07:00

When I first heard of Sonia Sotomayor, it was a few weeks before President Obama nominated her to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was when that infamous video of her first surfaced where she uttered, “The Court of Appeals is where policy is made. . . . I know I should never say that because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know.” As bothersome as that comment was, which she shamelessly tried to cover up, the laughter that it elicited is what said more to me. As I explained in my letter to the local paper, that much probably tells us what Sonia Sotomayor thinks of the Constitution: she disregards the court’s call to interpret the law, attempts to cover up the gaffe with air quotes, and then laughs. How funny.

With this as my initial introduction, I was prepared to utterly detest Judge Sotomayor. Just imagine what sort of judicial activist she must be if she’s this upfront about it. In the end, she appears to have little that resembles a judicial philosophy and despite her gaffes and lack of judgment, it will be all of her personal factors that will make it utterly impossible for the Republicans to mount a serious offensive.

Take, for example, the quote that has easily garnered the most attention: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Oops.

In what would have ended the career of any white man, the perception that Republicans are inherently racist will likely render this Biden moment moot.

Regardless, the administration and its media lackeys wasted no time in playing the “out of context” card. You need to know the whole context to understand what she really meant, they bellowed. As Steel Phoenix pointed out, the context makes the quote even worse. Instead of making an off-the-cuff remark (off-the-cuff, yet somehow scripted), she has not only uttered that statement more than once, but the time in question (2001 at Berkeley) was intended for publication in the La Raza (The Race) Law Review. I’m unfamiliar with the La Raza Law Review, but if it’s in any way affiliated with the National Council on La Raza, it can only be described as anti-white and anti-American and encourages a Reconquista of the American Southwest.

So if this is true and La Raza Law Review is that La Raza, then she was at best pandering to Hispanics, and at worst giving aid and comfort to a group that is openly treasonous. Either way, that is a serious lack of judgment and ethics unbecoming of a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Not to mention the notion that her background would help her produce better decisions than say, some white guy.

Now for some of the other issues that are under the radar.

Surprisingly, Judge Sotomayor has a rather vague record on abortion. This is surprising only because the person who nominated her promised Planned Parenthood that Roe v. Wade was going to remain sacrosanct. That makes it difficult to believe that she could possibly be pro-life. But my pro-life brethren needn’t really fret over this issue. If she does turn out to be even the most unshakable of Roe supporters, she is replacing David Souter, not Clarence Thomas. The status quo will remain on this issue.

She has an interesting record on the Second Amendment. Appearing to understand what the amendment means, Sotomayor ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not pertain to state and local governments. She ruled correctly that the Second Amendment restricts (or is supposed to restrict) the U.S. Congress from infringing on Americans’ right to own a gun. But her ruling indicated that those state and local governments do have the right to restrict people from owning guns. It sounds like she swung both ways on that one: one level of government has the right to take away your right to own a gun, but another patently does not. The point is, you do have the right to own a gun and no government can take it away. Her ruling indicates that it is not a right.

An issue that has not been mentioned among conservatives looking to oppose the nomination is the issue of executive power. Republican appointees John Roberts and Sam Alito and William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor before them backed the Bush administration’s power grabs rather consistently.

It was disappointing for me that conservatives by and large looked the other way or bought the line that the executive needed additional powers to wage war other than the ones prescribed in the Constitution. How short-sighted was that view? Because George W. Bush exercised extraordinary powers, Barack Obama does too, and only looks to increase them. Now many of those same Bush supporters are aghast that President Obama has such penetrating power. I’m confused as to why it’s so surprising: Bush didn’t take his extraconstitutional power back to Crawford with him. It stayed in Washington ready to be used by the next emperor regardless of whether it was Grampsy or The Chosen One.

So what does Sonia Sotomayor feel about increasing executive power? It’s hard to say. Lewis McCrary of The American Conservative had trouble finding rulings on it. But if we recall her comment about the courts making policy, it’s not hard to imagine she would support additional unconstitutional power grabs that would benefit the man who gave her her new job. As President Obama has assumed more powers over the affairs of the country, how she rules on this matter is what should most concern conservatives.

People are having difficulty finding rulings that would indicate a judicial philosophy that directs Sotomayor. With no clear philosophy, that probably points to judicial activism and it will additionally make it even harder for Republicans to oppose her. That will leave Republicans with little else but to harp on the wise Latina (if they dare) and judicial activism comments, which in and of themselves will get them nowhere.

Plus Obama and his pick have the added advantage that her appointment to the federal district court was from President George H. W. Bush. Republicans won’t be able to claim that she’s just another Democratic operative and political appointee. Republicans with the seniority of Mitch McConnell have the votes to prove it. In this regard, President Obama can justifiably say, “Who are you to oppose Ms. Sotomayor now when you confirmed her in 1992?”

In a sense, it was politically golden for President Obama to pick Sonia Sotomayor. She’s Hispanic and a woman, two key Democratic demographics. Republicans are already branded as anti-Hispanic and anti-woman. They don’t need further stigmatization by harping on her wise Latina comment, so expect them to walk on eggshells. And she has a slippery (some might say sloppy) judicial record, even upsetting some liberals, which makes it hard to definitively nail her down.

All the president needs is for one of the Maine Republicans to cross the aisle to confirm a sister.

As far as picking someone to make it onto the high court, Barack Obama probably made the perfect nomination. Now whether she can reliably apply the law is another matter.

In other words, don't expect Sonia Sotomayor to get borked.

(H/T: Steel Phoenix)

Judging Sonia

2009-06-11T10:00:00.001-07:00

I have another piece on Sonia Sotomayor in the works that will appear sometime soon. What follows is a letter of mine that appeared in the Wednesday, June 10, 2009 Nashville (IL) News.

Judging Sonia

As eye-brow-raising as was Judge Sonia Sotomayor's comment about the wisdom of a wise Latina woman, a briefer and much more disturbing comment was uttered by her at Duke Law School in 2005: "The Court of Appeals is where policy is made . . . I know I should never say that, because we don't 'make law,' I know," to a chorus of laughter.

This would be news to the Founding Fathers who did not want the courts to make policy - that is the precise role of the legislature. The judiciary, on the contrary, interprets the law, it does not make it. More so than her comment about being a "wise Latina" does this reveal why constitutionally-minded Americans should oppose Judge Sotomayor's appointment to the high court.

For decades, courts have been making laws instead of interpreting them - in direct opposition to their constitutional role. It was Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's advice, "Do what you think is best and wait for the law to catch up," that serves as the motto for today's judicial activism.

Many Americans are rightly upset that abortion became the law of the land. What made it even more reprehensible is that it came not through constitutional legislation, but by order of judges unaccountable to the people. It is judges' loyalty to the philosophy Marshall espoused that makes possible the tyranny that faces us today. That Sotomayor and others laughed should tell us exactly what they think about the Constitution, the American people, and what we should expect from the wise Latina woman as a judge.

There have been Supreme Court justices whose failure to uphold the Constitution came as a surprise: Earl Warren, Sandra Day O'Connor, and David Souter, just to name a few recent ones.

If Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor illegally legislates from the bench, it will only be a surprise to those who weren't listening.

Carl Wicklander
Nashville

Unassertive Conservatism

2009-06-01T21:59:00.000-07:00

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, Mark Levin, 245 pages.

Although Republicans have been completely out of power for only about 130 days (no White House and neither chamber of Congress), the party and the conservative movement are undeniably in a pretty crappy place. Infighting began almost as soon as Barack Obama finished delivering his victory speech. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum immediately threw Sarah Palin and social conservatives under the bus for ruining the party. The spat between GOP chairman Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh still lingers. More recently there was a back-and-forth dispute between talk show host and writer Mark Levin and Dallas Morning News columnist and “Crunchy Con” spokesman Rod Dreher. Also, Levin has recently tussled with David Frum himself. Blood is everywhere.

What all of these altercations reveal is that despite the new president’s ambitious agenda, Republicans and their conservative enablers are still only fighting among themselves. There is good reason for this. Republicans got drunk on power and crashed the family car while their conservative supporters cheered from the passenger seat. They are still trying to figure out who is to blame.

And as conservatism appears no less doomed than the Republican Party, there are efforts to claim the mantle of what constitutes “true conservatism.” Enter the aforementioned Mark ("The Great One") Levin and his new book, Liberty and Tyranny.

Levin, the author of 2005’s Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America, holds a law degree from Temple, which presumably puts him in a higher intellectual bracket than the majority of his talk radio colleagues. Levin’s intellectual background is one of the reasons that his new book is so highly touted. Liberty and Tyranny is supposed to be an index of what it truly means to be conservative in the early 21 century. It is the new Conscience of a Conservative, the next The Conservative Mind and your “one-stop-shop for conservatism.”

When I endeavored to read the latest “This is what conservatism really means” screed, I was prepared to dislike it. As with many others in his profession, Mark Levin was a vibrant voice of support for the presidency of George W. Bush. So how could he possibly write a coherent book about conservatism that doesn’t descend into fawning servility to the GOP?

Well, he does write a fairly coherent book. Whether it’s coherent conservatism is a different matter.

I say this because of the disconsolate and discombobulated state American conservatism finds itself. During the administration of George W. Bush, conservatives became seen as nothing more than the Republican cheering section - supporting the Republican administration, deviating only occasionally on immigration and national education policy. Yet no matter what atrocity the Bush administration committed, conservatives by and large went along. Because of this, it is increasingly difficult for seemingly anachronistic conservatives like myself to believe the majority of these folks. For example, I could listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program for 3 hours and probably agree with the lovable little fuzz-ball perhaps 90% of the time, yet feel utterly frustrated because the man is a hypocrite and a sell-out to his cause.

The same problem generally afflicts Mark Levin. Liberty and Tyranny has plenty of good quotes that are conservative, and at times even libertarian. However, the reader must always remain aware that Mark Levin was another conservative who cheered the march of The Decider.

As opposed to what frequently occurs on his radio program, Levin writes in a rather temperate tone. The constant theme throughout the book is that conservative principles are the same principles as those espoused by the Founding Fathers. In fact, the closing line of the first chapter reads: “Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny precisely because its principles are the founding principles.”

This is a troubling line and as well as a troubling theme. It’s not that I do not believe traditional conservatism can trace its lineage to the Founders. Russell Kirk certainly did this and more. But making a statement like Levin’s is circular reasoning. Conservatives are like the Founders and the Founders are like today’s conservatives. George Washington was the first supply-sider and Thomas Jefferson believed in pre-emptive war, right?

Levin’s chapters on the free market, opposition to governmental take-overs of environment matters, and the Constitution are actually quite good. He descends into some typical fallacies, such as blaming protectionism and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff for causing the Great Depression and saying that World War II ended our worst recession (spending our way out), although these are not particularly glaring instances of a writer’s carelessness or ignorance.

Levin does make many valid points about federalism and restraint, which are historically conservative objectives. Federalism is indeed one of the greatest assets to American republicanism. Dividing up power preserves liberty. Allowing localities to govern themselves, and not by a distant power, was one of the hallmarks of the American War for Independence. Levin even has a great quote for it: “Individuals with widely divergent beliefs are able to coexist in the same country because of the diversity and toleration federalism promotes.”

Another interesting quote, this time regarding the Constitution: “. . . others are persuaded by the Statists’ distortions, arguing that the judge’s job is to spread democracy or liberty.” While Levin is correct that that is not a judge’s job, he later says that sometimes it is the job of the government to do just that. Almost at the end of the book, while discussing “self-preservation,” Levin states that “there are occasions when democracy building is prudent.”

Really? Earlier, Levin says that the government, i.e., the judiciary, should not spread liberty, but somehow the government, through the military and probably also through presidential orders, should sometimes spread liberty. This seems like having it both ways. It’s wrong if a liberal judge decrees something which makes it Statist, but conservatives know that sometimes spreading liberty is okay, if it’s done through the military, that is.

This, however, does lead to an error that is glaring: Levin never once mentions that war has not been constitutionally declared since 1941. For a writer that went through law school, and extols the Constitution over and over in this book, it’s rather odious to see that the most heinous of unconstitutional acts, undeclared war, is altogether ignored. Levin can go on and on about how such-and-such liberal program is not specified in the Constitution. But he seems to ignore outright that Republican and Democratic presidents have commandeered the power to make war for themselves.

An Aberration like that is indicative of the great problem of contemporary conservatism. To satirize, the routine goes something like this, “Government is bad. Government intrudes into our lives. Government intervention into the private sector is Statist. Oh, but the government has the right to intervene into other nations’ affairs.”

Now which is it? Should government intervene, under the banner of spreading liberty or not? Lots of conservatives rail against statism, some of them do so very well. But if someone, say Mark Levin, expresses support for a standing army, that itself is statist. The military, no matter how noble its warriors, is still a big government institution. It is an institution that requires heavy taxation and expansion at home in order to manage it. And there you have it: Conservatives say they want small government at home, big government abroad, and seem surprised to discover that they have gotten big government in both.

Another constant throughout the book is Levin’s campy dichotomy between conservatives and statists. In Levin’s world, conservatives only look to restrain themselves and keep the civil order in mind when they make decisions. Statists only want to accrue more power. True enough about statists, but what conservatives is he talking about? It couldn’t be George W. Bush who only amassed more and more power for himself. Although President Bush clearly fits Levin’s definition of a Statist, Levin, almost nowhere in his book, makes any attempt to distance himself from our most recent chief executive.

Let’s take a look at another quote to illustrate this: “The Conservative believes that in the context of the civil society, progress and modernity are essential to man’s well-being and fulfillment, despite their inevitable imperfections.” Sounds good to me, but this begs the question, when did a “conservative” ever act this way once they were in power?

Perhaps the best line that sums up the bewilderment of today’s “conservatives” is this: “Republicans seem clueless on how to slow, contain, and reverse the Statist’s agenda.”

That just about says it all. For all of the work conservatives have done for the Republican Party, some who are genuine anti-statists, have little to show from their party of choice. And this is one of the great downfalls of the book. At no point does Levin ever suggest that the problem for conservatives may be that we have put too much faith in the GOP to achieve our goals. As long as people like Levin continue to support the Republican Party no matter what, no amount of conservative rhetoric in books like Liberty and Tyranny will change a thing.

Examining Levin’s notes, almost 40 pages, one has to wonder just what sort of research the man did to come to his conclusions about conservatism. There are a few sprinkled references from the Founders, Edmund Burke, Alexis de Toqueville, and St. Augustine, but the vast majority of resources Levin used were from websites and contemporary newspapers. If he wished to glean wisdom from past generations, which he claims, he could have made more than one reference to Russell Kirk or a single reference to Robert Nisbet or Richard Weaver, men who spent years researching the historical tenets of the conservative tradition. Instead, it appears Levin sought to justify his opinion of conservatism by cutting-and-pasting.

One minor improvement in this area would have been to supply a reading list at the conclusion. That was one of the assets of Ron Paul’s 2008 book The Revolution. Once Dr. Paul’s book was finished, there was a list provided for the reader to continue their quest for freedom. Instead of only taking the doctor’s word for it, readers were encouraged to keep learning. Levin would have benefited his readers or anyone else looking to expand the conservative cause by including something similar. Absenting such a list makes Liberty and Tyranny the last word.

Taken as a whole, and considering my initial angst, Levin’s book isn’t awful, but it certainly isn't good, much less a sure-to-endure “conservative manifesto.” It’s a decent book, but does a poor job convincing this reader that the conservatives who followed George W. Bush without hesitation have learned anything from the mistakes of that administration. In the end, it is unlikely that Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny will be any more memorable than any of Ann Coulter’s endless ad hominem “Liberals suck” books.

The Rand Paul Revolution?

2009-05-21T07:35:00.000-07:00

With Republicans still spinning their wheels trying to figure out just what went wrong, the Democrats are setting their sights on the Kentucky senate seat currently held by Hall-of-Fame pitcher Jim Bunning. There is pressure building for the 77-year-old senator to retire from his seat and allow a more viable Republican to run in his place.

Jim Bunning, who has won two senatorial elections, each by the narrowest of margins, is perceived as the weakest Republican up for reelection in 2010. While he has voted against bailouts proposed by his own party, his manner has been awkward, bordering on bizarre. Incidents include refusing to debate his opponent in 2004 and threatening to resign earlier this year so that Kentucky’s Democrat governor Steve Beshear could appoint a member of his own party to his seat. Of course, calling the state’s most powerful Republican a “control freak” probably has not helped Bunning’s cause either.

On the May 17, 2009 broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked the senate minority leader and "control freak" Mitch McConnell if he would endorse Jim Bunning. After getting nowhere, Wallace questioned, “So you’re not endorsing him?”

Perfectly evading the question, the professional pol replied, “It’s not clear who the players are going to be yet.”

But even though the 2010 elections are almost a year and a half away and even though the Kentucky GOP establishment was noncommittal, he actually has already made his pick: Trey Grayson, Kentucky’s secretary of state.

The Politico, quoting an anonymous Republican aide said, “For the first time, we now know who the Republican nominee will be next November and that’s Trey Grayson. He’s by far the best-positioned Republican to be competitive and hopefully win in the fall. It’s not even close.”

From an establishment point-of-view and principles-be-damned- we’ve-got-to-win mindset, Trey Grayson is probably the obvious choice among current Kentucky Republican office-holders. After scandal-plagued Governor Ernie Fletcher was unceremoniously drummed from office in 2007, Secretary of State Grayson was one of only two Republicans (former University of Kentucky basketball star Richie Farmer was the other) to survive and he won at a 14-point clip.

But like an always-campaigning politician, Secretary Grayson has re-vamped his website telling everyone, “I look forward to traveling across the Commonwealth and hearing how best to address the problems that face our country. As I explore this opportunity to continue serving you, I am committed to representing all Kentuckians and the issues that are important to you.”

If you read that opening statement carefully, one might be compelled to ask, Does Secretary Grayson have any political principles? Does he really need to travel across the state in order to determine what the country’s problems are? Does this mean he doesn’t have an actual agenda and is going to shape his platform according to what he discerns the people want to hear? Not from a politician!

But there is another option, an outsider.

Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist residing in Bowling Green, Kentucky (my hometown) has recently declared his intent to run for the U.S. Senate by forming an exploratory committee. If the name looks a little familiar, it is because Dr. Rand Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the only GOP presidential candidate that generated ANY significant support among young people. If anyone heard Ron Paul speak in person during his run for the presidency, there is a good chance that they would have also seen or heard Rand Paul, as his son was a constant companion on the campaign trail.

Outside of his exposure to politics through his father’s political career, Rand’s only other political experience has been as the chairman of Kentucky Taxpayers United, a group that rates legislators' tax honesty and that is dedicated to generating tax reform in the Bluegrass State.

Over the past several months, Rand has already been traveling across Kentucky delivering his message of freedom for the individual through less interference from the government. In a departure from his potential opponent, Rand already has his message. It’s liberty. It’s not about making government more efficient or “getting government back on the side of the people,” as Sarah Palin said ad nauseum, but by making our lives more efficient by getting government out of it.

Whereas Trey Grayson’s website is remarkably vague on where the man stands on the issues, a brief tour through Rand Paul’s website will demonstrate that young Dr. Paul has thought about the issues and has specific stances on them. One look at his position on the Federal Reserve shows that Rand is not only skeptical of central banking (it must be in his blood), but knows Nobel Prize-winning economists who can back him up. Instead of just uttering vague platitudes about “change,” Rand Paul is enunciating what he would do in order to inaugurate change in Washington.

So, in an era where government is continually reaching into the private lives of American citizens, there is a little glimmer of hope in Kentucky. But since Rand will be running on a platform very similar to his father’s and since he is clearly not the establishment’s first choice, Rand definitely has an uphill climb. The inevitable smear brigades are likely warming up as we sit here.

There’s a chance for a liberty candidate to represent the good people of Kentucky. Can Rand do it?

Postscript: One of the downfalls of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign is that many of the people who liked him didn’t feel like they could really support him because he had no chance of winning the GOP nomination after primaries in all 50 states, especially with the big Republican field of 2008. But all that Rand Paul has to do is win one primary against perhaps only one other contender.

And one of the most effective weapons Ron Paul’s supporters wielded were their grossly (intentionally?) misinterpreted “money bombs” where grassroots activists hit up supporters to make small donations on a specific day. Instead of chasing down a few fat cats to make big donations, the Ron Paul supporters got small donations from LOTS of people. Through such efforts, Ron Paul amassed quite a campaign war chest, despite being designated a “second-tier candidate.” Since Rand only needs contributions in one state, how much easier will it be for him to acquire enough funds to satisfactorily challenge the Kentucky GOP establishment? As of this writing, Rand has already received over $20,000 . Of course, the nomination is only the first step.

My Letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

2009-05-12T06:33:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter to the editor that appeared in the May 10, 2009 issue of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Oh, those goofy ideas

In Kevin Horrigan's translation of Texas to non-Texans, "Secession: The Texas governor has a goofy idea. So what's new?" (May 3), the only discernible dialect was one of snobbery.

Mr. Horrigan mocks Texan customs and seems to believe that Texans are "goofy" for thinking that they have the right to secede from the Union. Does he consider New Englanders in 1814 "goofy" for calling a convention to discuss secession because of their opposition to the War of 1812?

What about the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, authored by the "goofs" Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, that declared that the states were not compelled to authorize unconstitutional laws and could leave the voluntary union as a last resort?

The 13 colonies seceded forcefully from the British empire. According to Mr. Horrigan's description of Texans curious about secession, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were superstitious knuckle-draggers.

What kind of Union is it, whether it is a nation or anything else, that says you can join voluntarily but not leave voluntarily? Sounds more like the mafia than liberty. Besides, if states do not have any sort of authority or check of power over the federal government, then why even bother having states at all?

Mr. Horrigan used one great American tradition, the free press, to stomp on another great American tradition, the right of secession.

Carl Wicklander
Nashville, IL

Of Secession and Snobs

2009-05-10T01:37:00.000-07:00

Along with numerous denouncements of America’s descent into socialism, one of the more peculiar and fascinating stories to emerge from the April 15 Tax Day Tea Parties was Texas Governor Rick Perry’s affirmation of secession.

Bringing up the idea of secession in the 21st century certainly seems out of place and the Texas governor has received much coverage for it.

In the Sunday, May 3, 2009 issue of the St Louis Post-Dispatch, columnist and native Texan Kevin Horrigan displayed his snobbery of secession and all things Texas for all to see.

Answering whether Texas and its governor have a right to secede, Horrigan determines that it’s just another goofy idea from Texas :

“Mr. Perry should have known better, but he attended college at Texas A&M, a place where myths never die. Aggies stand throughout football games in case the team runs out of players and one of them is needed. . . . Whenever one of the Aggies’ collie mascots dies, she . . . is buried at the north end of Kyle Field, facing the scoreboard. People who believe that dead dogs are interested in the score of college football games would have no trouble believing Texas could secede from the Union. Also, the dog attends classes with his handlers. Should the dog bark during a class, the class is cancelled. My theory is the dog was in Texas History class with Perry the day the teacher was going to explain that Texas’ right of secession was a crock. The dog barked, and, thus, Perry never got the word. People who believe in these sorts of things would have no trouble believing they can be reelected governor next year. . .”

The constant strain throughout this quote is Kevin Horrigan’s elitism. In it, he assumes that since many Texans engage in some silly, but perfectly harmless rituals that he doesn’t seem to care for, that makes them all stupid. Therefore, since Kevin Horrigan thinks that these little rituals are goofy or stupid, it means that their ideas, like secession, are also stupid.

The closest that Mr. Horrigan comes to refuting secession on facts is that Texas, having once been an independent nation, believed it had the option to leave the Union, i.e. secede, if “things didn’t work out.” He says that was not the case because they tried it in 1861 and it “didn’t work out.”

Horrigan thinks that answers the secession question for Texas. However, his assessment operates on the assumption that since secession didn’t work, it is a “crock,” to use his own word. But does he believe that about everything?

I wonder if the liberal Horrigan believes torture is a “crock.” We all know that torture was used but we also know that the United States classifies torture as illegal. But since torture took place, and according to Mr. Horrigan’s logic, that seems to indicate that torture is not a crock. So does that mean torture is actually legal?

Following Mr. Horrigan’s op-ed, I penned a letter to the editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to take up cause not against the writer’s elitist snobbery, which was the main point of his essay, but his beef with the idea of secession.

So, is secession legal? Is it crazy?

Well, it might be crazy, but it is technically legal.

The legality of it should be evident to all Americans. All American citizens know that the United States was formed by declaring its independence from the British Empire and fighting to ensure that they would be separated from the Mother Country. What is this if it is not secession?

No less of an authority on the meaning of the American War for Independence than Thomas Jefferson believed so when he said in 1816, “any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.’”

Earlier, in 1798, Jefferson and James Madison penned the famous Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, announcing that the states had the right to not enforce any federal law they did not believe was constitutional, keeping the national government in check. In those days, the states had more authority over the national government, due in part to the fact that the states preceded the Union.

However, this belief in secession was rebuked as a result of the War Between the States, which many, Kevin Horrigan being only one example, believe was because the seceding states were dragged back into a Union they felt they no longer belonged in.

Now we come to the reason why an indivisible union is necessary for the strong national government of today as opposed to the decentralized and deferential government bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers.

As the system works right now, the states are merely appendages to the national government, more like provinces or satrapies than entities truly in charge of their own affairs. With the Civil War rendering the 10th amendment, the states’ rights amendment, moot, the states are nothing other than corollaries to Washington D.C. No one can get away with saying today that state governments can overrule or nullify laws coming from Washington D.C. Since the state governments are ultimately subordinate to the national government, the people of the states are subordinate as well. If the country was more of the loose compact of states that it was before the Civil War, the national government would have a much harder time justifying the need to have military bases in 130 countries if the real sovereign were the states.

Perhaps the chief reason why secession and states’ rights are shunned by so many today is because they have been tied to racist causes. But believing that secession can only be used for racist causes horribly abuses the proper understanding of secession.

Rather than being used for ignoble purposes, secession is one of the strongest safeguards against tyranny coming from Washington. The farther away the national capital is from its constituents, the more draconian it has to be in enforcing its laws. The closer a capital is to its people, the less so. That was one of the reasons for the American Revolution: the right of local self-government.

All that said, secession is merely a legal right, not an outright necessity. But with seemingly every big industry getting “too big to fail,” meaning that its failure would be catastrophic, there is something to be admired about small things.

Let’s say these industries that are “too big to fail” do fail and havoc is wrecked. Now let’s say the same thing happens to the U.S. national government. What would we be left with? Just the smaller portions, like when the Soviet Union became so big that it had to fail.

So is secession crazy? Is the socialist road our country is on crazy? Seems less crazy to me and maybe even a few others.

My Letter to The Nashville (IL) News

2009-05-07T16:48:00.001-07:00

The following is a letter of mine printed in the Wednesday, May 6, 2009 edition of The Nashville News, my very local paper. It is reproduced here exactly as it was in the paper except I corrected their misspelling of "taxpayers'" in the second paragraph and I have added the links.

Thanks, Congressman

Thank you to Congressman John Shimkus for voting against reckless spending and for economic liberty as he described in last week’s letter.

I would also like to take this time to thank our congressman for cosponsoring H.R. 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, introduced by Congressman Ron Paul of Texas to audit our national bank. With endless bailouts and so much money being spent, Americans have a right to know what is really happening with their money. If what taxpayers do with their money is the government’s business, then what the government does with our money should likewise be the taxpayers’ business.

This is an important bill because even though we were promised transparency and accountability in our government, much of the government’s actions remain clouded in secrecy. H.R. 1207 has broad bipartisan support and opening the bank’s books for the first time in its nearly 100-year history could help usher in a real era of responsibility to our government.

It’s not often we can congratulate our public servants since so many of them embarrass themselves and their constituents, but Congressman Shimkus deserves our appreciation for joining a cause that puts Illinois taxpayers first.

If anyone is interested in learning more about H.R. 1207 and The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, I would encourage them to explore http://www.campaignforliberty.com/.

Carl Wicklander
Nashville

The Lawless Right

2009-05-06T01:06:00.000-07:00

Well, that’s what it boils down to, anyway. The arguments made by those on the Right regarding the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding suggests as much and it exposes the moral bankruptcy of what currently constitutes today’s mainstream American Right.

Along with this discussion have been repeated invocations of President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 to end the war in the Pacific. The argument reads: since Japan would never surrender before every man, woman, and child were exhausted to defend the empire, the atomic bombs HAD to be used in order to hasten their surrender. That, of course, ignores the simple fact that even though two atomic bombs were detonated, the Japanese did not fight to every last man, woman, or child.

What this whole discussion of “extraordinary tactics,” be it waterboarding or dropping atomic bombs, reveals is that those who populate the Right, time and again, abandon their principles and the rule of law for pragmatism.

The most compelling argument in favor of waterboarding is that it saves lives. That certainly seems justifiable if waterboarding a suspect means they reveal pivotal information about an impending terror attack.

But what if a waterboarded suspect gives false information because the action being engaged in is indeed torture and he says whatever is necessary to make the pain stop? If that is the case, is waterboarding anything other than torture or sadism?

And what does waterboarding say of us, a country that prosecuted the Japanese for doing the same thing in World War II? Does it say that activities we label “torture” are only torture when it is committed by other regimes? Answering “yes” to that question makes an activity like waterboarding an ethically neutral practice – its morality is determined by who commits it. Japanese waterboarding: evil and a war crime. American waterboarding: good and definitely not torture.

What is truly amazing is the apoplexy of those on the Right regarding the retraction of waterboarding as a counterterrorism measure.

We regularly hear about how waterboarding has indeed saved American lives because the frequently-waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “the mastermind of 9/11,” revealed that there was another terrorist attack slated for the West Coast. There does appear to have been another attack planned for the West Coast, but the great ignored fact is that it was called off by Osama bin Laden himself before 9/11. So how did waterboarding save American lives if the plot he exposed in 2002 was long-before canceled?

But this illusion marches on and the Right, and even a few on the Left, perpetuate that waterboarding is not torture, it worked, and we should continue it.

It is shrouded under the cover of “National Security,” and we can see how those on the Right readily throw away their convictions in favor of expediency.

The argument regularly heard from those waterboard supporters is that it works and if it meant protecting the American people from a terrorist attack, then we should have no problem pouring some water up a terrorist’s nose for 30 seconds.

The worst part is this excuse-making on the Right. How many times in the past couple of weeks have we heard the talking heads saying that “Well, those people cut off heads, we just pour some water up their noses.”

It is probably time to point out that “At least we’re not as bad as them” is not a real argument based on reason or fact. Neither is “Okay, so we waterboarded a guy a whole bunch of times, but it was never for more than 30 seconds!” And neither is “Well, we haven’t done it since 2003” or “It’s not torture, but even if it was, it was only on 3 people and they were terrorists anyway, so it doesn’t count.” Or “Yes, we did sign the Geneva Convention and the terrorists didn’t, so that technically means we don’t have to accord them the rights under it. That means we can torture!”

All of this makes the argument in favor of waterboarding not really about intelligence gathering but revenge. It’s like saying “Okay, maybe waterboarding really is torture, but come on, these people are terrorists. It shouldn’t matter whether waterboarding is against the law or not. They don’t abide by the rules, so we won’t.”

This defense of waterboarding on the Right has gotten so twisted that NOT supporting waterboarding is “disgusting.”

Another much-regurgitated argument was the rhetorical question posed to anyone who dared to question the wisdom of waterboarding: What if we have a suspect who has knowledge of an impending attack and won’t talk unless we waterboard? Or “President Obama, what if, God forbid, your little girls were kidnapped by terrorists and they wouldn’t tell you where they were? Would you waterboard then?”

Well, aside from the obvious fact that that second situation is far-fetched to the point of absurdity, let’s alter that second argument into something just a little more realistic.

Instead of terrorists doing the kidnapping, let’s say your family has been kidnapped by one person. What if they refused to give back your family, even for ransom? Would you murder the kidnapper to save your family? If you did, would you expect to be prosecuted by the law? Is it not still murder if it’s done to a villain? Is torture not actually torture if we say it’s for good purposes?

At best, what the Right is advocating is a disregard of the law because we don’t like it and, at worst, showing that values are expendable.

An example of this could be found on Glenn Beck’s television program on Friday, May 1, 2009. With a live studio audience, Mr. Beck, who has a strong independent streak, rejected the notion that waterboarding is a crime. For those familiar with Glenn Beck either on television or radio, he frequently excoriates politicians who deliberately ignore the Constitution. Yet this time, when the argument gets framed into matters of national security and the hypothetical ticking time bomb, waterboarding is absolutely necessary. In an exchange with libertarian justice Andrew Napolitano, Mr. Beck questions whether the Constitution is a “suicide pact” because it does not allow for presidents to waterboard.

Notice how easily a usually strong-willed conservative abandons the Constitution for the hypothetical ticking time bomb. In the most far-fetched scenario in world history, civilizational annihilation, the Constitution HAS to be dropped, even in the more hypothetical of situations. Like deficits, I guess laws don’t matter either.

Somehow, I conjecture that much of the rage roaring on the Right has little to do with actually combating terrorism or keeping Americans safe.

I make this estimation because one of the main defenses is that waterboarding has not been used since 2003. Why is that? If waterboarding is the only way we have been able to thwart impending terrorist attacks, does that mean we haven't been safe since 2003? Surely Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's knowledge of contemporary terrorist attacks has been exhausted. Could it really be a coincidence that 2003 was the year that waterboarding officially ended and the invasion of Iraq began?

What about the testimony of Major Paul Burney, who revealed that much of the time spent waterboarding was to find a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq? The possibility that this is true might just unveil the real reason why our country waterboarded: to better justify the invasion of an innocent country.

Since in most cases conservatives defended nearly everything George W. Bush did, we may begin to see why waterboarding is sacrosanct on the Right. Like the liberal mainstream media that have invested heavily in Barack Obama, conservatives have put a major investment in the legacy of President Bush. Any condemnation (or prosecution) of what he did in office is a condemnation of the Right that gave him perpetual cover.

Conservatism thus far in the 21st Century is not concerned with the rule of law or tradition. It is primarily concerned with making Republicans, and especially George W. Bush, look good. Doing so means that conservatives have to ignore the law. And they are.