The Contradiction of Leftist Opinion: Scott Walker, Tom Cotton, et al

The liberal media complex is usually singular in its vision--agitprop. Push the meme, secure the front against argument, then debilitate opposing viewpoints with ridicule. A very to the point mechanical process that has been honed through years of practice and study. 

But sometimes the meme's get tangled and the realism of their untruth reveal the true intentions of its propagators.

One one side, Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker is a blooming idiot and doesn't deserve to even be thought of as Presidential material since he doesn't possess...gasp!...a college degree!

What a snob! On today's Morning Joe, Howard Dean, a product of fancy prep schools and Yale, suggested that Scott Walker was unfit to be president because his lack of a college degree rendered him "unknowledgeable." 

Dean's disdain for the un-diplomaed came during a discussion of Walker having declined, during his recent trip to the UK, to state whether he believes in evolution. Joe Scarborough was incredulous at Dean's diss, pointing out that people such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg never finished college. To which list could be added super-successful and knowledgeable people from Rush Limbaugh to Steve Jobs, among many others...

On the other side of the coin is Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

Here is the latest from the National Inquirer of Liberal political rags, Salon, by a useless opinionator whose scribble is perfectly suited for such an environment, Heather Digby.

Tom Cotton is Ted Cruz with a war record, Sarah Palin with a Harvard degree, Chris Christie with a Southern accent — a force to be reckoned with. He may sound like he’s speaking gibberish to you or to me when he asks why there were no prisoners in Guantánamo before the prison existed, but to the Republican base he’s speaking their language as clear as day and it will fit nicely on a bumper sticker: “Let ‘em rot.”

The utter hilarity of the Left's dualistic  thought processes and contradicting dumbfuckery is on full parade here. One man is to "unknowlegable" to arrive to any station higher than the one he has already achieved. The other, educated in one of the highest bastions of Liberal thought, Harvard Law--the same law program which our President graduated from--and a successful member of the US armed force and he speaks "gibberish."  

Their high crime? Both are real time threats to the Liberal power base. Moreover, either they are in the process of developing a more in depth and meaningful record or they have already succeeded. Additionally and more importantly, they are both Republicans.

As you wade through the ridiculousness you can see that either you are to dumb, because of a lack of a college degree, or you are to stupid, even if you attended a Liberal institute of higher education. However, I might add the real issue here  isn't education or the lack of; the main problem is not following the Leftist orthodoxy and/or successfully combating it. For that you must be punished, minimized, and thus eradicated. 

Continue reading ...

Progressives Lost the Election and Their Ideas Caused It.

Throughout my years of political investigation I have come across puff pieces, produced by both Republicans and Democrats, that stretch, bend, and twist data in order to illustrate the positive impact of their policies on the lives of Americans. Unfortunately, honestly scrutinizing hard data and exploring the consequence of policies, positive or negative, seems to be a practice lost on political demagogues and zealots. For sure this latest article from the Atlantic's Richard V. Reeves--designed to soothe the souls of Progressives after their mid-term loss--falls into the aforementioned vein.

Progressives, these days, are a gloomy bunch, and it's not just because of the outcomes of last week's election. As they see it, there's much to be gloomy about: Poverty levels are stuck, they say, with little improvements made in recent decades. What's more, according to the standard progressive line, income inequality is soaring, and back to levels last seen in the roaring '20s. And, to top it all off, middle class incomes are flat, or even falling. 

But here's the thing: Each of these claims is a significant overstatement. In fact: Progressives have every reason to be celebrating right now. Why? Because by and large, things aren't so bad as progressives claim, and the reason things aren't so bad is because progressive policies are working...

The first point emphasized by Mr. Reeves is that "Poverty is Down."  Here is his chart--with some emphasis I have added--that he uses to correlate the drop in poverty from 1965 until present day.

The Atlantic, Progressives Lost the Election, but Their Ideas Are Winning, 2014.
Illustration modified by Politics and Critical Thinking.

I have taken the liberty to add some lines which shows the boom/bust cycle, aka recessions, to this chart. As you will notice there is a distinct rise in poverty which correlates to these recessions officially beginning, or right before, and a relatively substantial drop after they abate.  The two exceptions are the 1990-91 recession and the Great Recession in which the poverty rates actually rose or are continuing to rise.

Why is this important? What drove and does drive poverty reduction is not the usage of government programs such as wealth transfers and tax credits; it is job creation. When the boom cycle starts, jobs flourish, people become employed, make better wages, get promoted, etc. and are removed from the poverty rolls. What wealth transfers and tax credits accomplish is keeping already poverty ridden people from sinking lower, which is a good and moral thing to accomplish. It, however, does not push them off of poverty and when these policies are left to their own devices they cause stagnation. There is no no chance for upward mobility or opportunity.

Again...progressive policies have NOT kept forty million people out of poverty, what these policies do is keep people from falling further down. As stated before it is job destruction which has the propensity of putting people there and hence it's job creation which keeps them off. This is the most basic of economic thought and fact and will not change no matter how you parse it.

Next Mr. Reeves tackles inequality.

Inequality: Mostly in Check 

One of the staple progressive mantras is that income inequality is soaring, with the minority at the top vacuuming up most of the national income. But the picture is much more complex, and more positive, than that. Critically, the most dramatic figures for inequality are generated by looking at "market income"—i.e. before any taxes and transfers. 

Between 2000 and 2010, the biggest gains in real after-tax income were actually at the bottom of the ladder: 

The maintenance of incomes at the bottom of distribution is the result of strenuous government efforts to mitigate the effects of inequality, especially by cutting taxes and/or providing tax credits to lower-income Americans. Without this government action, inequality almost certainly would have risen quite sharply in the bottom 90 percent.

One thing often overlooked by Progressives about income inequality is that inequality is not the problem per se but a symptom of a deeper problem; "wage stagnation." Simply put this can be explained as a ratio between the cost-of-living:purchasing power. In terms of wage stagnation this ratio can be expressed as living expenses rise, wages, which among other factors, determine purchasing power, stay at a fixed point; neither rising nor decreasing.

Then it must be the riches' fault? Not exactly, income generation versus wealth generation are two different phenomena. Income generation can be explained as "earned compensation for performing a service, selling goods or property." Whereas wealth generation "having enough of said money and valuable possessions to preserve your current lifestyle without having to work to do." This is done through savings, investment and then return, and lowering debt. Many of the upper one economic quintiles do not live off of income, but rather returns on investments. (Consequently this is why it is ultimately ridiculous to call for raising the income tax on these people, since most of their wealth is generated through other means besides income.) Lower wages are a not a consequence of the upper one percenters stealing a part of the pie from the lower quintiles. While there is no denying that a minority has a larger share of the "pie" than most, they did not acquire this through theft of wages from the lower economic quintiles. That would be an impossibility since the "pie" is always contracting or expanding.

Therefore, if there are companies to invest in and people have capital available to invest in them, and these firms are successful, there will be a return larger than the primary investment.  Hence you will see the rich accruing more profit and the gap growing between them and the persons who rely on income--which is stagnant for the most part--for their living.

So what can we do about it? Well...Mr. Reeves hit on a small right-wing mantra which can help, but is not the sole solution, tax cuts/tax credits. Particularly, tax cuts allow for a small and incremental amount of money to be returned to workers which allows them to either expand their month to month purchasing power, increase savings, pay down debt, or invest as they see fit. Tax credits will allow for them to possibly acquire a negative tax burden and receive a lump sum in the form of a tax return which they can apply as well.

But as already mentioned...these are hardly Progressive ideas. In fact the idea tax cuts opposes the progressive philosophy since it takes away from the funding mechanisms, i.e taxes, which make government run safety nets possible. Tax-cuts and to a lesser degree tax credits are more of a right-wing function and perception.

In conclusion...progressive philosophies and their impact are usually grossly overstated. While they have provided us with a more humane way of dealing with poverty they are stagnating, stifling, and expensive. They are mechanisms to be used when adequate or necessary, but should be returned to the tool shed when they are no longer applicable. Becoming solely reliant on these ideas as our nation's philosophical cornerstone will generate nothing more than a dependance class, truly and 99% versus the 1% society. 

Continue reading ...

Reasons Conservatives Might Use to Oppose Sotomayor Nomination

Obama's Judge Sonia Sotomayor pick for Supreme Court Justice has already started dredging up some controversy. Conservatives are raising concerns over Sotomayor's reputed potential for "judicial activism."

While there are a range of arguments conservatives have against Sotomayor, there are a few at the top which demand some exploration. I am sure we will be seeing these in the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings.

Sotomayor speaking at Duke Law School, 2005, "Courts are where policy is made."



This has the potential of showing Judge Sotomayor of having an attitude which is indicative that she feels a judge makes laws rather than interprets the law. It is the age old debate of an originalist versus judicial activist. Being of a conservative mindset, I am personally predispositioned to judges whom demonstrate the originalist philosophy.

Next on the radar is the highly contentious legal battle of Rici v. Stefan. A case where fireman, Frank Rici, and other firefighters sued the city of New Haven, Connecticut over alleged reverse discrimination. Here is the meat and potatoes of the case via, Judgepedia (?). (I guess they have a fill-in-the-blank pedia for everything nowadays.)

In 2003, the New Haven fire department was planning to fill seven openings at the captain level and eight openings at the lieutenant level. The city conducted a promotion exam designed by the Illinois company, Industrial/Organizational Solutions. 77 applicants took the exam. 19 of the applicants were African-American. None of the African-Americans scored high enough on the test to qualify for promotion to the positions of captain or lieutenant. The New Haven fire department scrapped the results of the test in order to ward off a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which allows minority workers to sue employers if they can establish that a promotion test exerted a "disparate impact" on minorities. Additionally, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has an "80% rule", which says that a job-related test in which the passing rate of a racial minority is less than 80% of the white rate is presumptively flawed.

Frank Ricci, a white firefighter who has been in the New Haven fire department for eleven years, scored 6th out of the 77 test-takers. According to Ricci's sworn statement, he gave up a second job to study 13 hours a day for the test. He is dyslexic, and he paid an acquaintance over $1,000 to read textbooks onto audiotapes. He also took practice tests, used flashcards he made, and participated in a study group and mock interviews.

After the test results were thrown out, Ricci and seventeen other white firefighters, including one Hispanic firefighter, sued in federal court on the basis that they had been discriminated against because of their race.

In the near future, Rici v. Stefan will actually be going in front of the Supreme Court for review. The outcome will undoubtedly be interesting to watch.

Another bit of ammo for conservatives was the SCOTUS reviewing five of her decisions and overturning three. This evidently brings up the doubts about her abilities to form proper legal interpretation.

From the Washington Times.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

However, the totality of her record is another point brought up by White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs.

Mr. Gibbs dismissed questions about Judge Sotomayor's reversal rate, saying she wrote 380 majority opinions during her 11 years on the appeals court. Of those 380 opinions, the Supreme Court heard five of the cases and overturned her on three.

Admittedly, I do not profess to know how many times it takes getting your decisions as a federal judge overturned by the Supreme Court to constitute a problem.

Something else that should be taken note of is the highly progressive and liberal New Republic's legal affairs editor, Frank Rosen, raised concerns about Sotomayor. Interesting article.

In all fairness, and an opportunity to link to a friend, Professor Darren Hutchinson, proprietor of the progressive and highly cognitive blog, Dissenting Justice, has a retort to Rosen's May 4th post. Also, you might want to notice, the Professor' rebuff was actually linked in a Judgepedia article on Sotomayor. Just thought that was kind of neat.

Related Articles: Here are some interesting analysis of the Sotomayor nomination from the SCOUTS Blog. Please note, these were not cherry picked to be for or against Sotomayor, these are the latest posts offered on the SCOTUS Blog which pertain to the Judge and her nomination, minus one post announcing her being the nominee.

The Dynamic of the Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor

Sotomayor’s Record: The Ricci Effect

Where Would Justice Souter’s Replacement Make A Difference? Part I

Sotomayor and the Second Amendment

Final Note: If you want my opinion on Sotomayor and her nomination, feel free to ask.

Continue reading ...

Republican and Conservative Women, The Body Politic

You know, Stacy McCain made a great point, via Ann Coulter, that the stereotypical conservative guy is seen as being some aged, balding, white guy, with a bad complexion and he sweats too much. Well, it got me thinking about the stereotypical view of conservative woman also.

Here is what used to pop in my mind.



Here is the reality though.


Can't forget the recent advent of one Michelle Muccio, the Rebel Economist.



Oh if I only lived back in DC the Rebel would have a stalker...er...admirer!!

Let's not forget to mention the field of candidates and elected officials that conservatives are offering up these days.

Love her or hate her, you have to admit that is a million dollar smile.

How can you go wrong with a woman who is over fifty, hot, and loves the 2nd Amendment?

Another million dollar smile in the making.

Even FOX News has an impressive line-up.






Of course we cannot forget our Democratic colleagues, that just wouldn't be fair or fun. Here are the women of the Left.



Ooooh, did someone turn my stool upside down again? You jokers!



Aaah, I love when the tingle goes up my leg!!



Hey Olberman, I turned your stool upside down. You have room for one more???

Well here are some of their men.





Whew!! Glad I am on the Right!!

Finally, I know this is juvenile but the world is too damn serious these days and a little humor, even if it is tasteless, is what we need from time to time.

Continue reading ...

Think Progress: Nation evenly divided between Right and Left

The progressive blog, Think Progress, posted and interesting article about the ideological slant of the United States. According to the finding, 47 percent of Americans identifying as progressive or liberal and 48 percent as conservative or libertarian and the rest confused. The findings were provided by the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress.

While a slightly larger percentage of Americans are indicating they fall into the category of conservative or libertarian, Think Progress seems to insinuating that there is an ideological shift to progressivism, with regards to policy.

Think Progress-A nation that is evenly split in its political identity is decidedly center-left in its policy orientation.

The are a few problems with this particular "study." Some of the questions indicated ownership of certain issues by liberals and progressives. If you supported those issues it inherently put you in the category of left leaning. Take a gander at the four they tout as supposedly indicating this movement to a more liberal/progressive sense of direction.

• By a margin of almost nine to one, Americans agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth,” (79 percent agree, 12 percent neutral, 9 percent disagree).

First off, Conservatives and Libertarians both agree on the view that government is a "necessary evil" in the Jeffersonian sense. Government investments in education, science, and infrastructure are acceptable, as long as it does not abridge Constitutionally authority or result in ridiculous spending.

• More than three in four Americans (76 percent) also agree with the president’s argument that “America’s economic future requires a transformation away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.”

Yes it does. This has become a major issue national security issue for the United States. The major factor Conservatives and Libertarians have is the subsidizing of green renewable energy and these industries being presented as the ONLY solution.

A fairer and more scientific line of question should have been presented such as, "Do you think strictly relying on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are the future for our economic development?" "Or should we implement a balanced, but temporary, approach which includes clean coal, clean shale, and off shore drilling as well as green initiatives?"

• Nearly three in four Americans believe that “government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers,”

Again, Conservatives and Libertarians are not against government regulation. The role of the government, to a small extent, is to protect the American people from being taken advantage of by big business, illicit business practices, and corporate malfeasance. However it is not the role of government to over regulate in the name of protection an try to achieve control over those particular industries.

• Nearly two in three Americans (65 percent) agree that “the federal government should guarantee affordable health coverage for every American.”

This question is the furthest reaching in my opinion. Guaranteeing affordable health care does not equate to a lefty progressive stance. If the government provided nationalized health care or mandated that individuals and businesses have to carry health care this would be a decidedly progressive/liberal ideal. Just agreeing to this tenet does not make one left leaning though. The federal government could provide incentives through tax rebates for individuals or businesses to make the burden of obtaining health care easier.

The major line of questioning seemed directed to slant you in the direction of Liberal/Progressive and were quite broad. In the Center's defense though, questions on the economy and national defense were much more narrow.

Here is the link to the quiz, if you interested in taking it. This evidently is representative of the questioning used by the Center to make its determinations. It takes about 5 minutes and we are interested in opinion on its authenticity. If you decide to participate, please feel free to give us your feedback.

Continue reading ...

Senate "Conservatives" Claim Opposition to Stimulus

The Alice's in RINO Land might have learned a little something from their GOP counterparts in the House. Senate Conservatives are vowing to oppose the Obastimulized Pork-Chop of 2009.

From LiberalizetheUSAtoday,

Some Senate Republicans vow opposition to stimulus plan

USA Today — A group of conservative Senate Republicans vowed Thursday to vote against an $888 billion economic stimulus package when it comes up for a vote in the Senate.

"A trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste," said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., standing with Republican colleagues who said they feel shut out of the process of crafting the stimulus despite Democratic promises of bipartisan cooperation.

President Obama lobbied Republican congressional leaders to support the measure, but the version of the stimulus bill approved Wednesday by the House did not receive any Republican votes. The Senate is expected to start debate on Monday and the bill is already facing resistance from some Republicans. read more..

Odds are that this will pass the Senate, you still have the Snowe/Voinovich/Spectre/Collins factors to deal with. McCain has stated he will vote against it, "in its present form." Graham will go the way of his dear old Dad, so how they factor into the equation is uncertain. Keep in mind, McCain is adept at maneuvering around his past statements and flip flopping. You know, a real Maverick, in his own mind.

Final lesson to the Senate GOP, most of the time your fingers operate independently of each other. However, once in awhile they can come together and form a fist. Losing is acceptable, but do it together. Break ranks and you might as well change your party affiliation to "D," you won't survive a GOP primary in 2010.

(H/T to RobV, over at The 46, for enlightening me to this article with his post, Senate Republicans Vow To Crush Stimulus.)

Continue reading ...

Rasmussen Poll: Public Support for Stimulus Waning

The recent GOP show of force, might be the start of an echo chamber against the pork based, ineffective, and very expensive Obastimulus package. People seem to be waking up to the true contents of the stimulus package, not the false advertising and fear mongering that package it. Public support for the plan is waning.

According to Rasmussen Reports, this week, support for the recovery package, in its present form, has fallen, especially among Independent voters. Last week, support for the package was at 45% with opposition at 34%. The latest Rasmussen numbers indicate a very significant shift, as it stands now, 42% still support it and 39% oppose.

Another concern indicated was that the government would be overreaching. Forty-six percent of respondents were concerned that the Federal government would be doing too much while 42% were concerned they wouldn't be doing enough.

While little has changed among conservative or liberal opinions, the greatest shift in support has occurred within unaffiliated voters. Last week 37% in favor of the plan and 36% opposed, now, 50% oppose it, while only 27% favor it.

Overall voters resoundingly reject a stimulus package made up of only government spending without any tax cuts-70% opposing this idea to 15% supporting. Although, a plan concentrating strictly only tax cuts -like House Republicans proposed- has garnered support. Forty-three percent of voters support this approach while 39% are opposed, with 48% of unaffiliated supporting it and 33% do not.

On a final note, Rasmussen indicates that nearly half of this survey was done on Wednesday after the House vote. There is no indication that this had any effect on opinions concerning support for the recovery plan or not. However, I am of the mind that it is far to obvious to overlook GOP opposition to this bill having some effect.

The Senate had better be listening to these numbers or we might have some new GOP faces come 2010. Ones who go by the political description of Conservative, not spineless invertebrates.

Related Articles:

Most Say Tax Cuts Always Better Than Increased Spending

59% Fear Too Much Government Spending Is Coming

Poll: Stimulus Losing Support With Independents

Continue reading ...

House Conservatives Hold the Line Against Stimulus

Bad news, stimulus bill passed the House. Good news, 177 Republicans voted UNANIMOUSLY against it and had an additional 11 Democratic allies join their ranks. For better or worse, the Liberals, own it.

Cantor and Boehner should earn the gratitude of the tax payers for showing some profound leadership and backbone. They have, at the least, held the line on principles and kept their party on the straight an narrow in a no win situation.

Additional credit to the House GOP, as a whole, for coming together against a very contentious issue and voting like minded. They are going to lose a lot more, but, it is important they voted together. Now there will be immense pressure on GOP Senators to do the same. This might also assist in forcing the stimulus to be crafted more along the lines of tax cuts, less government expansion, and less pork spending, making it a more palatable and realistic solution. These are a lot of "ifs," though.

Related Stories: House OKs $819B stimulus bill in win for Obama

Continue reading ...

Conservatives on Elba Island

In 1814, after abdicating his throne, Napoleon I spent some 300 odd days on the Island of Elba. Elba is the largest island in the Tuscan Archipelago, about 20 km off the coast of Italy. It was Napoleon's time there and what he did after that can provide some great lessons for the conservative movement to learn from.

While on Elba, Napoleon, gained a certain affinity for the local population. Because of this, and to pass the time, he enacted social and economic reforms to improve the quality of life for the people who lived there. He mined iron, created hospitals, increased the availability of drinking water, and issued decrees for implementation of better agricultural practices.

Napoleon's optimism is what kept him going during his 9 month and 12 day stay on Elba. His lust for power and conquest soon returned though. In 1815 he escaped Elba and returned to Europe to reassert himself as Emperor of France. This led to the bloody to the Hundred Days campaign, where he was defeated and exiled to the island of St. Helena, in the Atlantic.

Republicans, like Napoleon, ruled the government in terms of conquest. Arbitrarily doing, spending, and acting as they pleased while in power. Voters, due to this behavior, saw fit to put them on their own Elba.

The GOP must learn to use what influence they have, regardless of how limited, to effect positive change for the people, a lesson that was lost to Napoleon. Attempting to fight against the tyranny of the an expansive government and return to a more purest conservative movement, fundamentally rooted in its classical liberal and Burkean philosophies.

Unlike Napoleon though, if and when, they have the opportunity to return to mantle of power it cannot be done with the zeal of conquerors. It must be done with great care and affinity for the American people. Fighting to return power to the citizens, limiting government, and undoing the damage that is taking place to the core of American culture.

Hopefully we can learn from these historical references. Take away the lessons, as well as the mistakes, people in history have made, and then apply them to our own political situations. If not, the GOP is doomed to exile and extinction on its own St. Helena, the place where Napoleon lived the rest of his days, withered and broken.

Continue reading ...

Colin Powell and the Conservative Identity Crisis

CT

The list of Conservatives jumping ship is growing more and more everyday and to Jacobin glee signaling the death knell of a once great and proud philosophy. The latest victim to “fall to the call” is former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Once upon a time, he was a great bastion of Republican intellectualism and wisdom, an elder statesman and military genius not seen since Patton or Bradley.

This surely should be the sign for us, in the trenches, to give up the fight, move on from our yokel tradition loving philosophy, read Rousseau, cast our lot for Obama, and praise Pelosi as the high priestess and beg her forgiveness.

Not only no, but hell no! This only serves to strengthen the resolve of those who see the folly in the decisions of the great statesman, politicians, and pundits. Whether their reason was the Palin pick, the Bush Presidency, or philosophical values, they are taking the easy road.

If you feel ‘disenfranchised” with the Conservative movement, as many do, tired of its irrationality and its corruption, what are you left to do, divorce yourself from it? No, you make a stand for pragmatic reform where no one else would. That is what being a Conservative is, you don’t defect to the side of your adversary.

What is necessary is a philosophical rebellion against an opponent, both on the Left and Right, who is seeking to take that which we hold dear; the pursuit of liberty for the individual, a balance of the state, and an honest responsibility to our fellow man. This is what spawned our movement, this is what gave life to this great nation, this is the example we should live by.

Amid the Left’s rise to a first world governing hyper-power, Conservatives must become opinionated insurgents. We will have to endure the Left’s sanctimonious quest for political revenge, all the while biting our tongues, being careful not to spew rhetoric. We will have to be patient and resolute, educating ourselves on their mistakes, choosing our battles carefully, refining our movement, and above all else understanding who we are. Some of our most noted names are falling prey to this crisis of identity and look where it has brought them.

-CT


“Happy Hunting!”

Continue reading ...

Oprah and Sarah: Is Oprah Snubbing Her?

C.T.

Is Oprah snubbing Sarah Palin? First off, let me state this; As Conservatives we have to remember that our philosophies are not just inclusive to people who are Conservatives or vote GOP. Echoing Senator McCain's, "Country First." At the end of the day we are all Americans and our Conservative views about liberty and individual freedoms apply to everyone, not just a select few.

Now, my opinion will probably be a lightening rod but you have to be objective about this. First off, Oprah is a hard core capitalist, I like that about her. I despise her political views and opinions, but that is a non-issue. Secondly, it is her right as a business owner to have whomever she wants to have on her show. Thirdly, trying to force her to have Sarah Palin on is a violation of my beliefs. Remember, the show is hers and is fueled by her viewers, if they want Sarah Palin on then I would suggest to Oprah, have her on. If she doesn't it would be an idiotic business move driven by political ideology, but, that is Oprah's financial choice and right as the controlling interest of Harpo Productions, not ours. If she wants the perception of fairness, one week have Senator Obama on then the next week have Governor Palin on. In the end, it is her right not to have her on, but, it is your right not to watch.

C.T.

Continue reading ...

Palin Fact Check about Fiscal Conservatism

C.T.

Okay, let's look at the facts about Governor Palin in a realistic non-partisan view. Difficult with all the partisan rhetoric floating about, but not impossible. You have to be cognitive not emotional, like everyone, including myself, has been about Governor Palin. Let's start with the claims about her being a fiscal reformer. We are going to whom I consider the experts on fiscal reform, conservatism, and small government, CATO and the Libertarians. (No Brookings or Heritage on this one.)

Let's start with the "Bridge to Nowhere," first.

Palin has come under fire for supporting the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Ketchikan before she was against it. Aides said the cost of the bridge soared from $223 million to almost $400 million, prompting her to consider alternatives. [1]

My opinion of this assessment is that her support of the Bridge, at first, is a semantic that is being made into the main issue. If you want to claim a difference in ideological motivation go right ahead, but, it still does not change the end result that she blocked it because of wasteful and unnecessary spending. But because of her support and justifiable ideological criticism from Libertarians, I will give her a "B" on this one.

At best, Palin has been a convert on earmarks (and perhaps not a full convert). As governor of Alaska, she has requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million for next year, according to indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens’ website, the Los Angeles Times reported. As mayor of Wasilla, Palin regularly traveled to Washington to request earmarks. The city obtained funding for several projects, including a bus depot ($600,000) and a water and sewer project ($1.5 million), according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. [1]

On this I do not like the earmark requests for her city, but what I do like is what she did with it, infrastructure. People are missing the concept on being a "fiscal reformer." It doesn't mean you will never accept money from the Federal government, it means you will eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse. It means you will only accept money for or request what your constituents need and use that funding responsibly. Also, by the mainstream Libertarian philosophy the Federal government should only be involved in three areas, 1)National Security 2) Enforcement of Common Law 3) Infrastructure. To me this qualifies for the last. I will giver her a "B" again because of some ideological considerations.

She slashed her salary and cut property taxes by 40 percent because of booming sales tax revenue from new stores. [1]

But Palin also increased the budget by spending on roads and sewers, left the town nearly $20 million in debt and raised the city sales tax by half a percent (she said the money was needed to support construction of an indoor ice rink and sports complex and a police dispatch center). [1]

Again, spending on infrastructure I have no problem with. Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisisana just depleted the state's $1.1 billion surplus on infrastructure repairs. His concern is spending money on highway and port repairs and upgrades will bring in more revenues later. This is sound free market thought applied to government. What I mean is that Governor Jindal and Governor Palin both realized that in order to attract investments you have to make your area appealing and very easy to do business in. A very important part of that is infrastructure development. No one wants to do business in a dump. I give her a "C" on this one because of the "Ice Rink to Nowhere," though.

One of her signature accomplishments as governor was a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil production, infuriating oil companies, according to The New York Times. She accused oil companies of bribing legislators to keep taxes low and, soon after, passed a $1,200 “energy rebate” to each Alaskan from the state’s budget surplus. [1]

I am against overt tax increases on any form of business, but, if the oil companies were up to the shenanigans, I do not blame her for punishing them and then returning the revenues to the people. But, this does smack a little of "stimulus package thinking." On the other hand, it could have been a symbolic gesture for protection of the individual family as well. On this one I will give her an "A-," for thinking about the little guy and gal.

I particularly agree with the phrase I have put in quotes, it sums up how Libertarians should view Palin.

Libertarians should be "cautiously optimistic" about Palin. She has shown a dogged willingness to go to war with the worst elements of the Republican Party, but her missteps on some tax and spending issues means that libertarians should aggressively pressure a McCain-Palin administration to toe the small government line. [1]

Yup, they should view her as "cautiously optimistic," she is not a Libertarian, she is a Conservative Republican. There will be differences as well as common ground. But the idea that they have to keep pressure ratcheted up on McCain and Palin to keep the government small is silly. They will keep it small, but, it will never be small enough for the Libertarians. That is alright,though,because the core of there argument is correct just not lengths they are willing to go with it.

Finally, my overall grade for Sarah Palin is a solid "B," for being a fiscal conservative and reformer. Based on the 1(A), 2(B's) and 1(C) I gave her. In my opinion the Liberal argument is worthless, they gloss over details and are nowhere near the authority on fiscal responsibility, then again neither are the Republicans these days. She fits the old school Conservative Republican and even the Libertarian mold for a fiscal conservative and a reformer. Back in the
80's she would have been just another run of the mill typical Conservative (This is not a bad thing at all). Now she is super star because there are very few like her.

C.T.

Edit: Did a little more research into the Plain Earmark controversy and low and behold, the boys at Q&O, a Neo-Libertarian website, as usual come through with some amazing information.This is an response to an editorial that appeared in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner on (March 2, 2008). Her response (March 5, 2008) on earmarks. The article.

This year, we have requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007. Of
these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new requests. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from approximately $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million. [2]

Bam! Halved earmarks in one year. Sarah, you just got yourself an "A" on fiscal reform. Cause this kid can admit when he didn't have all the facts.

Continue reading ...

Palin Punditry (Part Deux)

C.T.

Okay, I admit, I have been way wrapped up in the Palin frenzy. Nor, do I apologize for it. It was a cathartic release of years of frustration with the Republicans. If I had a dime for everytime I heard a Conservative say, "We need a darkhorse to get the GOP back on track," I would be wealthy beyond my wildest dreams. For many of us we thought that it was Fred Thompson, message good, messenger, not so. (Still love yah Fred!) Then, ironically, out of the wilderness of Alaska steps Sarah Palin. But, why were so many drawn to her instantly? Realistically no one, before a week ago, knew anything about her. I had read some other bloggers and pundits saying , that she would be a great pick, not many but a few. Well, they were on to something.

But the question still remains, why are we so attracted to her? Is it because she is a very attractive woman? Her intellect? Her presence or philosophies? Her family? A little of all that, but, I think there is one more factor that plays out in this more than anything else. She is an underdog and the average American loves the underdog, especially one that fights back to win.

Americans, by nature, like a winner, but they love a winner who is not supposed to win even more. This is Sarah Palin and she was thrust into that role almost immediately. The MSM attacks on her are only going to strengthen support for her in the GOP and potentially among swing voters, Indies, and Hillary supporters. Add that to McCain's, "Country First," motto and you could have yourself a very successful campaign. Everyone might just be getting the message.

Palin seems to be someone we can identify with, especially right now. People feel the government is kicking them around and the media is lying to them. She is representative of those feelings and the more they attack and the more she fights back the more popular she will become. Sarah, if you make it don't forget where you came from, keep that attitude and the American voter will always stand by you.

C.T.

Continue reading ...

Palin Punditry

C.T.

In the past 2 days I think I have changed my posts about four times. It started with the Barackopolis, to some speech I think he gave, to McCain's response to this alleged speech, to this bombshell. Boy is she a bombshell, too. Governor Palin is the epitome of everything good in the American woman; intelligent, wise, tough, successful, driven, family oriented, grounded, uber-Conservative, and not mention absolutely beautiful. I think I am in love. (As I posted on another site, I sound like a Lib swooning over Obama, oh well.) But, not only does she possess all these remarkable qualities, she can serve as a role model for young women in America today who are often so lost, not saying the guys aren't either. She shows that you can still be wildly successful, have a great family, and still be you. She shows that you do not have to abandon traditional family values and sacrifice them for success. She is the mother of five, her most recent addition has Down syndrome and has one child is serving in Iraq, a wife, she is a Governor, and a leader. She is someone to look up to. Not one article I have read on this amazing woman has even touched on this potential yet. Governor Palin goes totally against the status quo. She is not exactly what the Washington elite, both Repub and Lib, think a woman should be and the best part is she is not apologetic for it. Got to love this choice!!

C.T.

Continue reading ...

GOP: Adapt, Improvise, and Overcome

C.T.

With the way Republicans have been the past few years I hate giving them any credit on some apparently successful actions. Usually they suffer from dementia, that has long plagued the Democrats, and end up shooting themselves in the foot.

While the Liberals/Poptards/MoonBats run amok in Denver, claiming to be healing rifts while their power players make new ones, the GOP is in a strategic mind set. They are dealing with their rifts behind closed doors and are apparently meeting in the middle, not the centrist middle, the reasonable middle.

Steve Spruiell, for the National Review, had this to say about the GOP's crafty energy policy that will be presented at the convention.

The global warming vs. climate change debate was part of the effort to find a common ground between McCain, who believes that warming is an urgent threat that requires an aggressive reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, and Republicans who are skeptical of such claims. [1]

The expected fissure between Mr. Maverick and the GOP conservatives popped up and I am sure a lot of people were thinking, " Oh great, here we go again." But, everybody took a breath and seemed to rely on their intelligence, not their emotions.

The chair and co-chair of the subcommittee told the delegates with the biggest concerns to work together on alternative language rather than file a bunch of separate amendments. “Essentially, we re-wrote the first paragraph,” says the delegate I talked to. “We decided to strike the whole thing and come up with something better.” [1]

This led to this draft being used for the climate change agenda.

The new version dropped the sentence that attributed warming to human activity. It also added a line after “measured and reasonable steps” that stated, “Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.” [1]

What can I say? I applaud the energy sub-committee, this little piece of semi-genius is simple and eloquent. They did not try and over complicate the message with legal rhetoric, scientific drooling, or McCainisms. This is a solid conservative way of approaching this issue.

Although not all the delegate committees were sitting around at the end of the day singing Kumbyah. Ironically, the national security group had trouble. One would think that this would be the one area where the GOP would excel and climate change would be where they falter.

Delegates were split into different subcommittees and it was in the national security meeting where members got into heated discussion surrounding the issues of amnesty and English as the official language of the United States. [2]

The debate was filled with words such as a “friendly debate” and “respectful disagreement” but it was clear that behind the friendly terminology there was real dispute among the members, especially with the thorny issue of illegal immigration. [2]

Yes they are having problems in certain areas, but they are being forward thinking about issues, how they construct their stances, and not thumbing their noses at new ideas. I found this very interesting, the GOP is listening to their voting base.

The RNC calls this platform drafting process the most transparent and open in their history. They received over 12,000 submissions from the public via YouTube addressing concerns people wanted to see in the platform. [2]

The GOP does have its challenges, but I think the overall attitude is that they are preparing for battle. Not in the traditional sense of Rovian smears, overwhelming their opponents with money, and lip service. These are the tactics that the Dems are practicing these days, and why not, it is what defeated them in 2000 and 2004. But, the playing field has changed for the GOP; they are more streamlined, they are listening, and they might be applying some good ole organic conservative thought. They seemingly, have adapted.

C.T.

[1]Cooler Heads in the GOP
[2]The RNC Meets to Draft Their Platform: Sparks Fly on the Issue of Illegal Immigration

Continue reading ...

Euro Conservatives and U.S. Conservatives; Do We Have Common Ground?

C.T.


After a brief sabbatical, provided to me by the United States government, I can continue to feed the beast. I have been "jonesing" to write about all of the hoopla with the election but have not had the time or the tools to do so. With that in mind, I will pick up where I left off. This was a post about a good article I came across back in early May. Bruce Walker, a writer for The American Thinker, wrote a very good article titled, "The Decline of Leftism in Europe." Mr. Walker brings to light the rise of conservatism in Europe with the elections of Sarkozy in France, Merkel in Germany, the election of Boris Johnson as mayor of London, Berlusconi in Italy, who is expected to be appointed Prime Minister. This is pretty much the A-list of countries in Western Europe and all are going center right, at the least. This is a fantastic move for Europe and it just may be the thing the EU needs to stop this insane spiral it is presently in. For the United States, this also seems to be a great victory, maybe. First, we are not in November; secondly, Europe's conservatives are a little different from ours.

Looking at our cousins across the pond you find something you would recognize as a Conservative, but there are some fairly distinctive differences. After World War II, British Conservatives started moving towards central planning, or a state managed economy, and state ownership. Whereas in the United States you have a liberal free market attitude amongst Conservatives. Another notable difference is the idea of smaller government and individual freedoms, which Americans, for the most part, are partial to. Conservatives in Britain and Europe tend to support the concept of a strong welfare state, with dependence on the government rather than the individual or free market.

These differences will not tear us apart, nor eliminate our common ground with European Conservatives. Our concepts of the world and how to deal with its problems tend to be more aggressive than our European counterparts. Think about the major opposition the United States has received in Britain. It has mainly come from the British Conservatives. It is not that they did not support military action; their view was that we were moving to hastily and showed no prudence. Again, we have much common ground with them, but we must keep in mind we do have differences.

C.T.

[1] The Decline of Leftism in Europe

Continue reading ...

Burke, the Hope for the American Way of Life

C.T.

Sir Edmund Burke, what does this name mean to most Americans? Not much. Sir Edmund Burke was an Anglo-Irish orator, philosopher, and writer. He was born in Dublin, Ireland on Jan. 12th, 1729, to a Protestant father and Roman Catholic mother. Burke's father was a fairly prosperous attorney in Dublin and the two shared a very distant and cold relationship. His family life, growing up, could be described as very unhappy and controlled by his authoritarian father.Burke was educated in Trinity College and graduated in 1750. He then traveled to England to study law at Middle Temple. He did this on the wishes of his father, but gave up his legal studies in favor of a writing career and essayist. Burke later served in the House of Commons as a member of the Whig Party.

How does this somewhat obscure person have anything to do with the American way of life or its preservence? Edmund Burke is considered, by most, the "Father of Modern Day Anglo-American Conservatism." From his thoughts on the French and American Revolutions, to his crusades against the East India Company, to the plights of Irish Catholics, Burke forged a reputation as a traditionalist, while fighting for the rights of those who he viewed as incapable of defending themselves against tyranny. He was a dichotomy of philosophies and often times he appears to be contradicting himself. This is not the case at all, Burke may have come to different conclusions about seemingly similar situations, but his core philosophies never changed, nor did his application.

To understand Burke and how his ideas can help present day America, you would have to look at his opinions on the French Revolution and his indictments of those who inspired it, the "philosophers." Burke took on the task of defending the pragmatic and traditional order against what was viewed as a noble, progressive revolution which was wholly moral. One might ask, "Why defend the French monarchy, which was so oblivious to the needs of the population and simply abused their positions for their own gains?" It was not the monarchy he was defending; it was the lack of thought put into the French Revolution and the way it was carried out. He was also very concerned with the way it would affect the order of the British Crown and Church.

Burke considered the situation in France to be childish and wrought with emotion, while the revolution in England mature and patient. He observed that the movement of liberty in England was allowed to develop over time and it was not forced upon the government or the people over night. Its natural progression was cultivated and cared for, therefore eliminating much unnecessary bloodshed and chaos. This is not to say that the English had the perfect formula, or that they learned from their own past, especially, when it came to Ireland, Scotland, or even the United States. But, in their own personal history there was a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the governing authority.

Sound familiar? The United States was developing along the lines that the Constitution laid out for us. At times there have been reasons to fight, march, and protest. One is the Civil Rights Movement, done peacefully for the most part, carried out with Christian principles, and delivered with great wisdom. It opened the door for great cultural change. It did more for the rights of Blacks than ten civil wars could have accomplished. Why? Because it was based on strict adherence to peaceful Christian principles and time honored traditions of liberty and freedom for all. Also, and more importantly to Burke, the government had broken its contract with the Black community. Not much of what was promised in the Constitution was being given to them. There was no liberty and justice for "ALL." There was nothing delivered but oppression and violence. Therefore, they had a right and an obligation to seek out those promises. Burke would have applauded this situation, not only for the way it was carried out, but for being a conserving movement which upheld the traditions of the United States, not changed them.

Today, we are trying to force too much change and "progression" to quickly. Most individuals and groups complain and whine about how they are oppressed and disenfranchised by the powers that be. Rather than taking a mature look at history and see how organic our country truly is, we will gladly cut off our arm just to make our foot happy. Burke, himself, was a practical thinker when it came to the individual rights of mankind, but tempered it with wisdom from the past. He wrote, "By having the right to everything, men want everything." He was correct, look at what we perpetrate as caring, everyone is a minority, worthy of special treatment based on little to nothing. Rather than taking a look at the country as a whole and what would benefit the future for all, we are left with a power struggle between races, political parties, religions, and individuals, not Americans. This is not liberty or selflessness, it is selfishness and greed.

Burke's original publication of "Reflections on the Revolution in France," was met with much opposition and treated quite negatively. But it was not until two years after his death was he proven correct. Burke saw reactionary change as a way for a despot or dictator to rise to power under the guise of liberty and freedom for the oppressed. Well, after the execution of King Louis the XVI, the Reign of Terror in which thousands of the French citizenry were murdered or arrested, and the murder of scientists and intellectuals there was the rise of Napoleon.

Can we expect this sort of thing in America? Probably not, but, what you can expect with the sort of radical change is a greatly weakened nation. Possibly a movement to a 2nd rate power in the world. This shift in America has taken place over the past 30-40 years and is speeding up. If you look at the change in the social climate from 1991-2007 it is a different America. No thought was put into this by our so called enlightened minds, they see their agenda as the only way possible and much like Voltaire and Rousseau did in the French Revolution. By Burke's philosophies, we would hold on to and protect traditional values, such as family, religion, free market, etc. and let the organism that is America change according to its needs. Not forcing some Maoist revolutionary theory down our throats. Hence, why people who truly follow Burke's philosophy are called Conservatives, they are trying to conserve what is right and time tested while looking for wise change.

The United States is at its best when we are allowed to operate with initiative, creativity, and liberty. There is no better environment that can foster this type of success we have known and Burke understood this. But he also understood that a society without laws or too much law is either chaotic or oppressive. Unfortunately, we could be moving towards a culture that is made up of big government and big regulation. A second look at Burke by the Republican leadership might help them remember why they were once Conservatives and what that meant. I think most Americans would love a return to some core Conservative values mixed with a little forward but wise thinking.

C.T.

P.S. I hope to be writing more about Burke in the future. I am no expert on the man and I do draw many conclusions about him on a personal level. But, I highly recommend absorbing anything you get your hands on about him. Understanding his philosophies about individual freedoms and responsibilities versus the needs of government and authority are key to this nation's success.

Continue reading ...