The American Jingoist

Digest

Friday, September 3, 2010

The Foundation

“A universal peace, it is to be feared, is in the catalogue of events, which will never exist but in the imaginations of visionary philosophers, or in the breasts of benevolent enthusiasts.” –James Madison

Government & Politics

Warfront With Jihadistan: Obama’s Speech

The teleprompter in chief

Tuesday evening, the Whiner-in-Chief gave yet another prime time speech, this time about ending the war in Iraq. Or was it about the war in Afghanistan? Or the “Bush” economy and joblessness? Whatever the point, Obama declared that combat operations in Iraq are “over” and that it was time to “turn the page” on the war.

Obama did give a strong tribute to U.S. troops, saying that they had “completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people.” Indeed they did, no thanks to Obama. Of course, if removing a terrorist regime is a good thing, then why did Obama oppose doing so? Perhaps Obama could ask the Kuwaitis about how the old Iraqi regime had terrorized people outside of Iraq, as well.

Ignoring the surge that turned the war around, Obama said of his predecessor, “[N]o one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.” Too bad that can’t be said of Obama himself. He continued, “As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it.” While he’s right that there are patriots who honestly opposed the war from the outset, Obama skipped over how the political talking points of congressional Leftists who opposed the war — after initially supporting it — undermined our mission and emboldened our enemies.

We suppose it’s no wonder that he ignored the surge. After all, in 2007, he pontificated, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” Later that year, he said of the surge, “The president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he’s been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed.”

Now that it has succeeded, Obama naturally wouldn’t be eager to remind everyone of his position then. The same can be said for his refusal to even mention Saddam Hussein in his speech. One can only wonder, therefore, whether Obama believes the world is a better place — and the U.S. more secure — without the brutal tyrant.

Moving on to Afghanistan, Obama seemed to hedge a bit on his July 2011 withdrawal timeline, saying, “The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground.” He also spoke of his own Afghan troop surge, saying, “I have ordered the deployment of additional troops who … are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum. As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time.” Limited time being the goal, of course.

“Turning the page,” then, Obama dispensed with national security in his speech about national security and moved into campaign mode on his economic agenda, though he tied it together with crocodile tears about the cost of the wars. Quite rich coming from someone whose one-year “stimulus” plan cost more than seven years of war in Iraq. If he wants us to “turn the page” to his economic policy, we’ll have a chance to give a scathing review of that whole book on Nov. 2.

Quote of the Week

“While the speech may have helped him with Democratic voters, it is likely to undermine confidence in American leadership not only in Iraq and the broader Middle East, but in many other areas of the world. President Obama’s proclamation of his ‘central responsibility’ for economic matters, shoe-horned into a major speech about Iraq — one of the world’s most important international security issues — will only encourage foreign doubts about his Administration’s commitment to finishing the job in Afghanistan, winning the struggle against Islamist extremism, and protecting U.S. allies around the world.” –James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation

‘Restoring Honor’ Rally Draws Crowds, Critics

Author and Fox News Channel personality Glenn Beck held a “Restoring Honor” rally last weekend that filled most of the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. Hundreds of thousands attended from around the country, eager to share the message of restoring hope and honor to America. Beck shared the stage with former Alaska Gov. and 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, but both speakers downplayed the political aspects of the gathering. Beck’s words certainly did have more of a religious tone, encouraging attendees to pray with their families, and to “recognize your place to the Creator. Realize that He is our King. He is the one who guides and directs our life and protects us.”

National media outlets and liberals couldn’t stomach the fact that Beck held his rally on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s historic “I have a dream” speech during the 1963 March on Washington. The media, of course, tried to make it into a race issue, searching for black people in the audience only to ask them what they were doing there. The “Rev.” Al Sharpton accused Beck of co-opting King’s legacy, and he held a rather pathetic little counter-gathering of his own.

The message and tone of the two gatherings were quite different. Many of the attendees of Beck’s peaceful and respectful “Restoring Honor” rally were motivated to seek a change in direction in America — one that is less reliant on government. There were many Tea Party supporters in the crowd, as well as average citizens tired of the high taxation and government intrusion in their lives.

Sharpton’s “Reclaim the Dream” rally was, on the surface, an opportunity to celebrate King, but underneath was Sharpton’s eternal quest to find rampant racism among American whites. Thus, one rally was about the greatness of America, while the other was a gripe-fest about how terrible she allegedly is.

Barack Obama, true to his nature, downplayed the significance of the Beck gathering. First he claimed to have ignored it, but then he told NBC’s Brian Williams, “It’s not surprising that someone like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion” of the American people. This is reminiscent of his various derisive comments about “angry mobs” who are “waving their little tea bags” while they “bitterly cling” to guns and religion. It’s no wonder that Obama’s poll numbers are tanking when he holds the majority of the American people in such contempt.

This Week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ Award

“It’s a free country. I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country, and you got to, you got to respect that freedom.” –Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, objecting to the Glenn Beck rally and typifying the Left’s attitude toward free speech — it’s great only if they agree with it

News From the Swamp: Obama Calls for More Spending

Barack Obama once again focused blame for the ailing economy on Republicans this week, claiming that the GOP was stonewalling a “jobs” bill for political reasons. The legislation in question is a bill that would set up a $30 billion Treasury Department fund to make loans to small business owners through small, healthy community banks. Legislation has already cleared the House, but Senate Republicans are opposed because the bill does not address the expiration of the Bush tax cuts or the undue paperwork and tax burden that the new health care law will place on small businesses.

Obama claimed, “This bill is fully paid for. It will not add to the deficit, and there is no reason to block it besides pure partisan politics.” We’ve heard that one before, most notably when the president said that ObamaCare would not add one dime to the deficit. In a sense, he was correct. It will actually add hundreds of billions of dimes to the deficit.

Republicans have privately admitted that they don’t have the votes to stop this latest liberal boondoggle when Congress goes back to work on Sept. 13. But its passage will provide yet more proof that Obama’s so-called fixes for the economy have only sunk America deeper in debt, and just in time for the midterm elections.

From the Left: Demo Rep. Johnson in Ethics Trouble

Another member of the Congressional Black Caucus is in ethical hot water this week. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a nine-term Democrat from Dallas, violated a number of rules in the distribution of college scholarships set aside by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. The Foundation is a nonprofit funded by corporate and private donations, providing approximately $700,000 every year for the 42 members of the Caucus to distribute in the form of scholarships.

It’s hard to run afoul of the Foundation’s disbursement rules, which are liberal to say the least. Lawmakers have wide latitude in how they disburse the funds. For instance, they can give a lot of small scholarships to many students or even one large scholarship to a single student. There are no stipulations about the selection process either — lawmakers can do it by committee or individually. Among the few requirements are that the student live or go to school in the district represented by the Caucus member awarding the money, maintain a 2.5 grade-point average and not be related to a Caucus member.

Even with all that room to maneuver, Johnson still managed to blow it. Of the 43 scholarships she awarded between 2005 and 2009, 23 are in violation of Foundation rules. These awards totaling $25,000 went to her grandsons, great-nephews and the children of aide Rod Givens. Not only did she violate the anti-nepotism clause, but also in some cases the recipients don’t live or go to school in her district. Johnson predictably played dumb, claiming that she “recognized the names when I saw them,” but that she was unaware that she was violating the rules. This might have been a believable excuse were it not for the fact that Johnson actually chaired the Caucus in 2002 and served on the Foundation board from 2002-2005. As with other scandals involving CBC members Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters, we’re left to determine whether Johnson was incompetent then or lying now.

It’s Miller Time

Incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) conceded her primary race against challenger Joe Miller Tuesday after failing to gain enough ground during the absentee ballot count. Despite having 20 times the campaign cash as her opponent, she is the third sitting senator this year to be fired before the general election. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) was ousted in a state convention and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) lost his Democrat primary. Murkowski trailed Miller by 1,668 votes before absentee counting began, and after 15,000 had been counted she remained behind by 1,630 votes. Miller, a West Point and Yale Law graduate who earned a Bronze Star in the first Gulf War, will face Democrat Scott McAdams in November.

There has been much speculation regarding Murkowski’s next step, including that she might take the Libertarian Party nomination to keep a slot on November’s ballot. It would be generous to call her a moderate, however, and we doubt she or the Libertarian Party would find that a good fit. Miller, meanwhile, won by running a conservative — and unusual — campaign for Alaska. The 49th state is heavily addicted to federal cash, and Murkowski and the late Ted Stevens were experts at bringing home the bacon. Miller ran against such government excess, advocating that we restore the Constitution to its rightful place. In a year that has seen growing protests of government overreach, it’s encouraging that this approach resonated that far north.

National Security

A Decision Made in Cole Blood

The White House proved again that to them terrorist acts are simply domestic criminal acts committed by “foreigners” as the Obama administration just announced a halt to the prosecution of the suspected al-Qa’ida mastermind behind the attack on the USS Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The Cole was attacked on Oct. 12, 2000, by suicide bombers who detonated more than 1,000 pounds of explosives in a small vessel that pulled alongside the ship while it was on a refueling stop in Yemen. The blast killed 17 U.S. sailors and injured 39 others.

Why the sudden change of prosecutorial heart? A military official speaking on condition of anonymity to The Washington Post explained that “the administration does not want a high-profile terrorist tried in a military tribunal before major figures held at Guantanamo Bay start having civilian trials.” Let that sink in for a moment: The Chosen One, through his legal lackey, Attorney General Eric Holder, has decided not to try the terrorists who attacked the Cole on the basis that doing so would introduce even more uncertainty into the execution phase of a poorly contemplated decision. Never mind the evidence linking al-Nashiri to the bombing.

Never mind, too, the palpable link between the Cole bombing and 9/11. Notably, one of the 9/11 hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar — also helped plan the Cole bombing. Additionally, imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who was linked both to the Fort Hood shootings and the Christmas Day “Undie Bomber,” is also tied to the Cole attack. No, apparently the key take-away from the administration’s actions is that an attack on an American warship — one that resulted in the deaths of 17 American Patriots — doesn’t count nearly as much as ensuring that the civil-trial-for-war-criminals agenda remains on track.

Of course, it’s also very understandable why the ironically named (of late) Justice Department would want to shed cases right now, especially in light of its legal offensive against Arizona holding the federal government to task in enforcing U.S. law. But we digress. For its part, Team Chosen has apparently borrowed a line from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”: “Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who.”

As for us, our hearts are with the families of the victims of the attack on the USS Cole. We are truly heartbroken for these families that have now witnessed a full decade of justice denied, and our blood boils at the thought that this injustice will continue.

Middle East Peace Talks, Take 87

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas this week for the latest round of peace talks, the first in nearly two years. The good news is that they had such a good time that they agreed to do it again sometime. Another round of talks will convene on Sept. 14 and 15. To quote the great diplomat Forrest Gump, “That’s all we have to say about that.”

Immigration Front: ICE Enforcement

Washington’s elites are once again having it their way. On Aug. 20, Immigrant and Customs Enforcement Assistant Secretary John Morton wrote a memo to the agency’s head of removal operations, telling him that being in the U.S. illegally is no longer grounds for deportation. Only illegals who pose a security threat or have violent records need now be deported. The memo represents Barack Obama’s announcement of open borders to a waiting world. How much damage can one president create in a single term? Jimmy Carter was a piker compared to this guy.

The agency now has also begun an “outreach” program to illegals closest to eligibility for permanent status. It’s coaching illegals on how to obtain the proper credentials to vote. ICE even sent a form letter to one illegal who had admitted to voting in a previous election, a felony. But ICE’s priority is to get him his U.S. citizenship, not to enforce the law.

ICE workers themselves are so angry about Obama’s dereliction of his duty that their union issued a membership consensus of “no confidence” in the agency’s leaders, something a federal union has never done before. But the drug cartels, whose aim is to turn Mexico into a narco-state on our southern border, are thrilled with the new policy and have already stepped up the terrorizing of residents in Northern Mexico.

The recent massacre of 72 would-be illegals in Tamaulipas, Mexico, is the tip of an iceberg. Not only do the cartels smuggle and murder people, but they also enslave many for various reasons: some are forced into sex slavery and some into the ranks of the gangs’ foot soldiers. This part of the president’s “fundamental transformation” of America is getting ugly.

In other news, the Justice Department has followed through on their threat to sue Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for supposed “civil rights” violations in his efforts to round up illegal aliens. It’s now the third federal suit against Arizona — all because the state is picking up federal slack.

Business & Economy

10th Amendment Uprising Against ObamaCare

More than 20 states are suing the federal government over this year’s Democrat-engineered hostile takeover of the nation’s health care system. They argue (correctly) that Uncle Sam has no constitutional authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. Continuing its pattern of constitutional reinventions, however, the Obama administration claims that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority. (It must be right next to the “federal government can do most anything” clause.) We would point to Article I, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment for evidence to the contrary.

The legal challenges notwithstanding, seven of the states involved in the lawsuit (Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska and Nevada) are accepting subsidies provided under ObamaCare to help employers cover early retirees. Jane Jankowski, press secretary for Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, explained, “Gov. Daniels does not agree with [ObamaCare], but Indiana will seek funds that help Hoosiers when there are no complicated strings or costs attached.”

Meanwhile, the Florida Supreme Court, by a 5-2 vote, nixed a ballot initiative attempting to amend the state’s constitution to say that Floridians have the right not to buy mandatory health care coverage. Citing “misleading and ambiguous language” in the ballot summary, the judges said their “only recourse is to strike the proposed constitutional amendment from the ballot.” In 2004, however, the court resolved a ballot question by having state officials replace the summary with the full amendment text. Strange how recourse options have changed since then.

This Week’s ‘Braying Jenny’ Award

“Unfortunately, there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the health care law] and what isn’t. … So, we have a lot of re-education to do.” –Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

Great idea. Maybe they can even set up some camps to help with the “re-education” effort, à la Chairman Mao’s Little Red Playbook.

Income Redistribution: Record Number Receiving Federal Aid

A new survey shows the number of Americans on the government dole has reached a record high, with one in six now receiving some form of government aid. According to a USA Today survey, more than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid (up 17 percent since December 2007), more than 40 million receive food stamps (a 50 percent jump), nearly 10 million receive unemployment benefits (almost four times the 2007 number), and more than 4.4 million are on other welfare programs (up 18 percent). As numbers have risen, so have costs. Welfare, food stamps and unemployment benefits now carry respective price tags of $22 billion, $70 billion and $160 billion, with Medicaid claiming some $273 billion in federal tax dollars, spiking 36 percent in just two years.

LaDonna Pavetti of the left-wing Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues the government “should be there to support people when the economy can’t.” But the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner points out that government programs are “much harder to unwind in the long term.”

Speaking of government programs, Social Security snagged the spotlight last week, thanks to former Republican senator and current co-chair of Barack Obama’s deficit committee Alan Simpson, who described the entitlement program as “a milk cow with 310 million tits.” An unpleasant way to speak the truth.

Finally, wrapping up the “Recovery Summer” touted by the White House, the Labor Department announced that employers cut 54,000 jobs in August (mostly temporary census workers) and unemployment rose to 9.6 percent. But not to worry. As Joe Biden says, “No doubt we’re moving in the right direction.”

Judicial Benchmarks: Judge Rules Against Gov’t on Drilling Ban

“A federal judge on Wednesday rejected the U.S. government’s request to dismiss an industry lawsuit challenging its deepwater oil and gas drilling moratorium, dealing another blow to the Obama administration,” Reuters reports. After the administration issued its first drilling ban in June, Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., and other drilling companies sued. According to Reuters, “As a result of Louisiana-based Hornbeck’s lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans blocked implementation of the drilling ban on June 22.”

What did the administration do? Why, draw up another ban, of course. However, noting that the second moratorium made “no substantial changes” to the first one, Feldman denied the administration’s efforts to dismiss the Hornbeck suit.

Meanwhile, an oil platform off the Louisiana coast caught fire Thursday, just 245 miles from BP’s Deepwater Horizon. Thirteen people were aboard but no one was injured seriously, and the fire is reportedly out. It appears that little or no oil was spilled, but this will no doubt increase the resolve of those who oppose drilling and want even more regulation. After all, when regulations don’t work, the answer is always more of them.

Regulatory Commissars: Report Cars

Fearing consumers aren’t making the politically correct choices, the Obama administration has proposed grading new passenger vehicles with letter grades from A to D based on fuel efficiency and tailpipe emissions. Currently, the EPA rates a vehicle’s city and highway mileage, along with estimating the annual fuel cost. Under the EPA’s and Transportation Department’s proposal, the only cars that can receive Big Brother’s Official Seal of Approval with an A-plus, A or A-minus are electrics and plug-in hybrids. No word on whether all Chrysler or GM products are automatically granted an A while they’re still owned by the federal government.

As can be expected, grade inflation is awarded in inverse proportion to how powerful the vehicle is, so small, weak-sister econoboxes dominate the top grades while larger family vehicles are at the other end of the spectrum. Not coincidentally, this inversion generally mirrors the sales numbers of the vehicles, with the biggest sellers typically being the would-be lower graded but larger and more powerful vehicles.

Due to the administration’s unrivaled talent for creating unintended consequences, the proposed environmental rules may actually encourage more environmental pollution. Notably excluded are several important factors for evaluating a vehicle’s efficiency, such as longevity and upstream energy usage, both of which are important in comprehensively evaluating Obama’s A+ graded electric vehicles. When the government conveniently excludes non-tailpipe emissions, all the power plant emissions generated in charging the electric cars isn’t counted even though such power plant emissions may exceed the tailpipe emissions of a gas vehicle. We wonder if a grade can be assigned when liars figure and figures are made to lie.

Culture & Policy

Second Amendment: EPA Doesn’t Ban Lead Ammo

In early August, the Center for Biological Diversity and four other radical environmentalist groups filed a petition with the EPA to ban lead ammunition and fishing tackle. Claiming that lead ammunition and fishing tackle “have a devastating effect” on wildlife, they asked the EPA to enact the ban under the authority of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. Recognizing this petition for what it really was, a back-door attempt to restrict gun rights, the hunting, outdoor recreation and shooting community quickly mobilized.

There was one major problem with the radicals’ petition: Ammunition is exempt from regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Undeterred, the radicals claimed that the EPA had the authority to regulate ammunition anyway. In an act unusual for the overreaching and power-hungry agency, the EPA denied the petition last Friday, admitting that it doesn’t have jurisdiction to regulate ammunition under the Act. The agency is still considering the petition as it pertains to fishing tackle.

No one seriously expects this to be the end of the matter. The well funded and notoriously litigious Center for Biological Diversity and its radical cronies will almost certainly file a federal lawsuit. No doubt they will ask the courts to do to lead ammunition what they did to carbon dioxide: require the EPA to regulate something it should leave alone. Common sense has — for a change — prevailed at the EPA. We can only hope it also prevails in the courts.

Around the Nation: Treading on the Gadsden Flag

An Arizona homeowner is under pressure from his homeowners’ association to remove the “debris” from his roof. The “debris” in question is a Gadsden flag flown from his house since earlier this year. Commonly known as the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, the yellow banner with a coiled rattlesnake originated in the Revolutionary War when it was flown above ships. It since has been adopted as a symbol of the Tea Party movement.

The homeowner, who was himself a member of the Avalon Village Community Association until July, says, “It’s a patriotic gesture. It’s a historic military flag. It represents the Founding Fathers. It shows this nation was born out of an idea.” Shortly after resigning due to a dispute with the board’s president, he received the first notice about the flag. Now, even the ACLU has come to his defense, saying that homeowners’ associations don’t have the right to “hijack” their members’ First Amendment rights. Avalon Village, for their part, says they are following a state statute that allows residents to fly the U.S. flag, the state flag, the official flags of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, and various Indian nation flags. A similar threat was rescinded in Colorado, and some retired Marines are fighting to have the flag flown over the state Capitol in Connecticut.

And Last…

Everyone is okay at the Discovery Communications building in Silver Spring, Maryland. For nearly four hours on Wednesday afternoon, James J. Lee held three people hostage at gunpoint inside the building. He had what appeared to be explosives strapped to his body.

Lee was no right-wing lunatic with a gun, but a radical lefty environmentalist who had protested Discovery before. His rambling demands included changing programming to add more shows warning against “giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution” and stopping shows that are “advertising weapons of mass-destruction.” Lee also wanted Discovery Channel to “find solutions for unemployment and housing.” He continued, “Saving the environment and the remaning [sic] species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.” He experienced an “awakening” after watching Al Gore’s environmental propaganda film, ”An Inconvenient Truth.” Does that now qualify it as “hate speech”?

After negotiations failed to placate Lee, police shot and killed him, granting him his wish for fewer people on the planet. We just hope the cops didn’t use lead bullets. That might be bad for the environment.

The Brushfires of Freedom

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, September 2, 2010

“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” –Samuel Adams

The Resurrection of First Principles

A few decades ago, my great aunt, a lady whom I admired, passed away. I was listed as a relative, though not a material beneficiary, of her small estate. An official notice went out to all of our living relatives announcing the date of her estate settlement, but it listed my name as the deceased instead of her name.

In the days that followed, I received many faux messages of condolence from my siblings and cousins, whom I assured, in a manner befitting Samuel Clemens, “The report of my death was an exaggeration.”

Likewise, a few decades ago, the economy was given last rites and the Republican Party with it, and Democrats elected Jimmy Carter to solve the nation’s problems at home and abroad. However, reports of the Republican demise were also greatly exaggerated.

Though Republicans appeared down for the count, constitutional conservatives, The Patriot heart and soul of our nation, never wavered in their devotion to Essential Liberty and Rule of Law established by our Constitution.

From our ranks arose a formidable spokesman for conservative principles, Ronald Reagan.

Fortunately, after four years of Carter and his congressional Democrats, Reagan’s clear articulation of the principles of economic and individual liberty brought the Republican Party back from the brink of extinction. His 1980 election and his leadership as president provided a timeless template for the restoration of our nation’s economic and moral prosperity.

In his 1981 inaugural address, President Reagan reassured the nation: “The economic ills we suffer … will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. … Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”

Ronald Reagan implemented massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies, which reduced inflation to 3.2 percent by 1983 and unleashed a historic period of economic growth. Of course, behind all the right-minded policy was the most important element of the recovery: Ronald Reagan himself. He was a man of character and substance, and he restored American prestige and confidence. His re-election in 1984 was a landslide of historic proportions: He carried 49 states and collected 525 electoral votes, while his overmatched Democrat opponent, Walter Mondale, could carry only his home state of Minnesota and, of course, the District of Columbia.

Reagan’s genius was in his ability to communicate the timeless message of American Liberty with simplicity and purpose. Unfortunately, by the end of his eight years, establishment Republicans of the old-money dynastic variety had retaken control of the party and squandered the Reagan legacy in just a single term under George H.W. Bush.

With the election of the young, charismatic Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992, conservatives once again had to rebuild the foundation of Liberty. It didn’t take long. By Clinton’s first midterm election, they had successfully, for the first time in four decades, seated a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. That majority managed, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, to fulfill almost all the conservative commitments outlined in its Contract with America. In doing so, they also pushed Clinton to the center, forcing him to balance budgets and reform welfare. Unfortunately, though, the Republican establishment ran elder statesman Bob Dole against Clinton in 1996, and like Bush(41) before him, Dole could not match wits with Clinton.

In the run-up to the 2000 election, conservatives had made progress toward restoring the Reagan legacy. Despite this, establishment Republicans still held sway within the Party, and by the end of Clinton’s reign, they had allocated more attention to his extra-marital debauchery than the agenda advanced by conservatives. In doing so, they lost their focus and almost lost the 2000 presidential election to Clinton’s lapdog, Albert Arnold Gore. Fortunately for our nation, Gore could never muster Clinton’s alpha-dog hubris and gravitas.

George W. Bush campaigned on some Reaganesque themes, but he entered office wounded by “dangling chads” in Florida. Bush’s resolve, however, was solidly forged on the morning of 11 September 2001. The devastating attack on our country that day killed some 3,000 Americans and sent our economy into a tailspin. Still, in the months that followed, President Bush exhibited a purpose and resolve unlike anything he had exhibited prior to that day. His great popularity lasted for the first two years of his presidency, during which he enjoyed the unwavering support of conservative Patriots across the nation.

Fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, though, and by the end of his first term, Bush(43) and like-minded establishment Republicans in the House and Senate had abandoned the conservative base to the extent that many of their domestic policies were indistinguishable from Democrat policies. Consequently, they were hamstrung by the midterm elections of Bush’s second term, and as the economy collapsed around them in 2008, Republicans ran a senior member of their establishment club, John McCain, against a young, charismatic unknown, Barack Hussein Obama.

The McCain v. Obama contest had all the excitement of the Dole v. Clinton match, even though Obama is a featherweight when compared to Clinton, with one exception — Obama’s resolve to implement socialist ideology. Given the added campaign benefit of a collapsing economy under an opposing party president, and the good sense to, in the words of his chief of staff, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Obama managed to dupe a majority of American voters.

Thus ends this painfully short history of the ups and downs of the Republican Party over the last three decades. Yet despite the significant reversals due to the malfeasance of establishment Republicans, conservatives have always held fast to the legacy of Liberty bequeathed to us by our Founders, understanding as did Samuel Adams, “It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

Now, as it was by midterm of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, an angry electorate is awakening from its malaise, shaking off its feel-good stupor, and sensing that “hope and change” is a metaphor for rope and chains.

And now, as then, conservatives have been hard at work again, laying the foundation to repair all of the damage done by the establishment wing of the Republican Party. This time around, however, conservative Patriots are establishing an identity apart from being the “Republican base.” There are still Reagan Republicans in Congress — about 120 of them between the House and Senate. But the new conservative movement is now positioned to challenge establishment Republicans, who fake right in campaigns and then run left after election day, forsaking both their commitments to voters and their “sacred oath” to support and defend our Constitution.

Restoring Honor

The “Tea Party” movement has grown from its humble roots a couple of years ago to now include millions of Patriot conservatives across the nation, who, first and foremost, reject the notion of a “living constitution” and instead are firmly committed to the First Principles upon which our nation was founded.

In 1980, the conservative movement had Ronald Reagan to rally around, but in the absence of such a stalwart leader, the movement is rallying around the enduring principles of Liberty that Reagan advocated.

The Tea Party’s influence was abundantly clear across the nation this past week, from Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller’s defeat of establishment Republican incumbent Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Our objectives are aptly summed up in The Patriot Declaration and the less specific but more ambitious Contract from America endorsed by a strong consortium of conservative groups organized by former House Majority Leader and now FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey.

Predictably but regrettably, many establishment Republicans still don’t get it.

In a recent opinion piece for The Washington Post, Michael Gerson, erstwhile speechwriter for George W. Bush, condescends, “Tea party populism is … clearly incompatible with some conservative and Republican beliefs.”

I am not suggesting that Gerson is wrong, but that some Republican beliefs are not consistent with those that are the foundation of our Republic.

Gerson seems most upset about the fact that the majority of conservative Patriots now identified with the Tea Party movement are unafraid to list rebellion among their political options.

Gerson notes, “Far from reflecting the spirit of the Founders, the implied resort to political violence is an affectation — more foolish than frightening. But it is toxic for the GOP to be associated with the armed and juvenile.”

I’m not sure what “spirit of the Founders” Gerson consulted in séance, but the one who wrote our Declaration of Independence also wrote with steadfast determination, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

What’s more, the scribe who later penned our Constitution also noted, “[T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

Like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively, their Patriot descendants understand that the Second Amendment was and remains, in the words of Justice Joseph Story, “the palladium of liberties of a republic.”

I suppose the preceding is an unsettling notion for Beltway bow-tie establishment Republicans, just as it should be for every Leftist disciple of Obama and the Socialist Bourgeoisie nationwide. Get over it.

The Tea Party movement, if it can maintain its identity as a set of principles rather than become an institution, may well succeed in reversing much of the insult done against our Constitution during the last century. However, this will take more than one election cycle, and it will take leadership as bold as that of Ronald Reagan.

In the meantime, for those establishment Republicans who have yet to repent of their ways and join our ranks, those who are as yet unwilling to stand in the gap between Liberty and Obama’s objective to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” I offer these words from Sam Adams: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Chronicle

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

The Foundation

“It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.” –George Washington

The Demo-gogues

U.S. troops in Iraq

Oval Office speech: “[T]onight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country. This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office.” –Barack Obama, in his Oval Office speech about the war in Iraq using the words “ended” and “over” to describe it instead of “completed” and “won”

“I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.” –Obama

That was then: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” –Obama in 2007, opposing the surge that made last night’s speech possible

And now for domestic politics in a speech about national security: “Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.” –Obama, who certainly knows how to make record deficits

Chutzpah: “We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil.” –BO, the guy who placed a moratorium on offshore drilling, which kills jobs and increases dependence on foreign oil

Yeah, right: “I’m not spending a lot of time thinking about a second term.” –BO

“I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” –Barack Obama, taking a shot at the so-called “birthers”

Flip flopper of the year: “I would have voted for [the health care bill]. But I think it can be done better, I really do.” –Florida Senate candidate Charlie Crist last Friday

Later that same day: “If I misspoke, I want to be abundantly clear: the health care bill was too big, too expensive, and expanded the role of government far too much. Had I been in the United States Senate at the time, I would have voted against the bill….” –Charlie Crist

Editorial Exegesis

“For now, we have transformed Iraq from a hostile, terrorist-supporting dictatorship destabilizing the region into a ramshackle democracy that is an ally in the war on terror. To get Iraq to this point, in January 2007 President Bush had to order tens of thousands of additional troops into a failing war, in the teeth of gale-force opposition from the political establishment, public opinion, and the balance of the military brass. To capitalize on the opportunity we have bought in Iraq with blood and treasure, President Obama has to do something much easier: resist a strategically witless urge to turn his back on Iraq as being merely the site of ‘Bush’s war.’ The president’s Oval Office address wasn’t confidence-inducing. Appropriately, he saluted the troops for ‘completing every mission they were given in Iraq,’ and he promised Iraqis they will ‘have a strong partner in the United States.’ But he spoke particularly forcefully of removing 100,000 troops from Iraq, closing or transferring hundreds of bases, and moving millions of pieces of equipment out of the country — indices of ending a war, not necessarily winning it. He talked up the growing capabilities of the Iraqis, but in the spirit of declaring victory — or, more precisely, the end of combat operations — and coming home. He exhorted us to ‘turn the page,’ before arguing that we must honor the troops by uniting around his domestic agenda. In its failure to credit explicitly Bush’s surge for turning around the war, the speech was graceless; in its cursory treatment of Iraq, it lacked strategic vision; and in its attempt to hijack the troops for Obama’s domestic priorities (‘we must tackle … challenges at home with as much energy and grit, and sense of common purpose, as our men and women in uniform’), it was shameless. Altogether a poor performance.” –National Review

Insight

“No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.” –British historian Alan Bullock (1914-2004)

“It is discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.” –British playwright Noel Coward (1899-1973)

“Conservatives were brought up to hate deficits, and justifiably so. We’ve long thought there are two things in Washington that are unbalanced — the budget and the liberals.” –President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

Upright

“Are you opposed to Obamacare or illegal immigration? You’re a racist. Are you opposed to gay marriage? You’re a homophobe. Did you oppose Elena Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court? You’re a sexist. After less than two years of complete Democrat control of government, there aren’t many Americas progressives haven’t accused of some sort of bigotry for simply having an opinion different from theirs. The politics of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ have devolved into exactly what those espousing them claimed they would end. Is this really Democrat’s plan to win votes in November?” –writer Derek Hunter

“The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama overread his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

“Those who mocked George W. Bush for openly declaring his faith in God and sharing that he prays to God for strength squawked about the horrors in Bush’s allowing his beliefs to influence his governance. Apart from the mockers’ misunderstanding of the proper intersection of faith and governance, let me pose another question. Are you more comfortable with a chief executive who, along with the overwhelming majority of Americans, humbly admits to reliance on God or one who projects the impression that he himself is messianic?” –columnist David Limbaugh

“Alan Simpson violated a taboo last week when he likened Social Security to ‘a milk cow with 310 million tits.’ But contrary to the dictionary-deprived critics who accused him of sexist vulgarity, the former Wyoming senator’s transgression had nothing to do with his use of a perfectly acceptable synonym for teat. Simpson’s real sin was ‘belittling a bedrock program,’ as the AARP put it — i.e., showing insufficient reverence for a sacred cow.” –columnist Jacob Sullum

“To those who say ‘I paid into Social Security for years and all I want is what I’m entitled to,’ I reply, ‘You’ve been robbed — get over it.’ If you want to know who robbed you, it’s called Congress. If you’re angry about that then go into the voting booth and throw them out. Meanwhile some poor young fry cook at McDonald’s is having his wages garnished to support the lifestyle of tennis playing Botox dowagers in Palm Springs. Is this right?” –venture capitalist Bill Frezza

Dezinformatsia

The only thing to fear is … fear: “Then there’s the vitriolic fight against immigrants, undocumented ones and in Arizona just people who happen to look undocumented. And, of course, there’s the grand daddy of all prejudice, fear and hatred stoked up against Muslims in this country. Now, it’s gotten so bad that a young man stabbed a cabbie in the neck and face Tuesday after finding out that he was Muslim. … What black person, gay guy or girl, immigrant or Muslim-American in their right mind would vote for the Republican party? They might as well hang a sign around their neck saying I hate myself.” –MSNBC host Cenk Uygur

“The Republican method for winning elections is hate. Hate somebody. Anybody will do. We have seen it this year with immigrants and now, Muslims.” –MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann

On the “Restoring Honor” rally: “The Reverend Al Sharpton, among others, worries that their day and King’s legacy has been hijacked.” –ABC’s Claire Shipman (That’s because he’s a fool and a fraud who’s worried he might lose his phony gig.)

“That [Glenn] Beck is staging his all-about-me event at the very spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his immortal ‘I Have a Dream’ speech — and on the 47th anniversary of that historic address — is obviously intended to be a provocation. There’s no need to feel provoked, however; the appropriate response is to ignore him.” –Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, writing a column about Beck that says we should ignore him

When more doesn’t work, try even more: “More government support is needed until conditions improve. … The economic stimulus they pushed through Congress, for all of the fight, was too small. Standing back is not doing the country or [the Democrat] party any good. We believe Americans are ready for hard truths and big ideas.” –New York Times editorial

Editor’s Note: We offer our congratulations to Newsbusters, a blog dedicated to exposing bias in the “mainstream” media, on their fifth anniversary celebration. Newsbusters is a division of the Media Research Center, and we find their work quite useful when compiling the Chronicle.

Newspulper Headlines:

Which Is Why He’s Talking About It: “Obama Says He Ignored Beck Rally” –MSNBC.com

We Blame Global Warming: “Culinary Institute Grows World’s Hottest Pepper” –Associated Press

Out on a Limb: “Midterm Elections Will Be Referendum on Obama” –Newsweek.com

Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking: “Why Democrats Will Keep the House” –NationalJournal.com

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: “Bad News: Media Interrupts President’s Purchase of Shrimp With Question About Iraq” –HotAir.com

Bottom Story of the Day: “Obama Vacation Back on Course” –Boston Globe

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto)

Village Idiots

That’s pretty selfish: “We’re not giving them this day. This is our day, and we ain’t giving it away.” –Al Sharpton on the “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial in DC Saturday, which was held on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech at the same location

No how: “Trouble today? Ain’t no trouble today. We wouldn’t disgrace this day by allowing you to provoke us.” –master provocateur Al Sharpton

Race bait: “We are going to take on the barbarism of war, the decadence of racism, and the scourge of poverty, that the Ku Klux — I meant to say the Tea Party. You all forgive me, but I — you have to use them interchangeably.” –Rev. Walter Fauntroy, “civil rights” leader and former non-voting representative for DC

Mao’s Little Red Playbook: “Unfortunately, there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the health care law] and what isn’t. … So, we have a lot of re-education to do.” –Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (Great idea. Maybe they can even set up some camps to help with the “re-education” effort.)

They know what’s best for you: “We think a new label is absolutely needed to help consumers make the right decision for their wallets and the environment.” –Gina McCarthy, the EPA’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, on the EPA’s new idea for a letter-grade system for vehicle emissions

Short Cuts

“Putting more and more wolves in charge of guarding the henhouse might characterize the big problems we’ve now created for ourselves. Government is growing. The private economy is shrinking. Those wielding political power see fewer and fewer problems they believe private citizens can solve on our own. Soon, each one of us will have our own personal guardian bureaucrat. The real difference between us and the hens is that the hens are not paying for the wolves’ salaries and benefits.” –columnist Star Parker

“Just once, I’d like to see a government official say, ‘We blew it, and you know what? If you give us another chance, we’ll probably blow it again.’ But so far, my hope has not availed.” –columnist Steve Chapman

“In other words, [according to Obama's statements] Jesus was an important teacher, a really swell guy, a cool dude, and Obama likes him – a lot. This is to normative Christianity what Cheese Whiz is to French cuisine.” –columnist Don Feder

“Who knew that the American public would get accused of bigotry more often after electing an African-American president than before?” –columnist Rich Lowry

Brief

Monday, August 30, 2010

The Foundation

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens.” –Joseph Story

Faith & Family

“As you have now heard 1,279 times, Glen Beck’s ‘Restoring Honor’ rally at the Lincoln Memorial was held on the 47th anniversary of Dr. King’s speech. … Glenn Beck created a non-political (he asked that no one bring protest signs and almost no one did); pro-American, and pro-religious event. … The attempt by the Left to paint the event as racist was pretty seriously undermined by the appearance and speech by the niece of Martin Luther King, Alveda King, a noted Black conservative activist…. Then came the claims that Beck’s call for a religious renaissance in the United States was somehow anti-Constitutional. The First Amendment, as you well know, does not forbid the mention of God in American life — even official American life. In fact, it appears to say just the opposite: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (emphasis added).’ Our Declaration of Independence ends with these words: ‘And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.’ Renewing our ‘reliance on the protection of Divine Providence’ doesn’t seem like such a bad idea, even after 234 years.” –political analyst Rich Galen

Culture

Who says conservatives don’t care about the environment? Unlike the liberal lemmings who showed up for Barack Obama’s coron… uh, inauguration, the conservatives who came to the “Restoring Honor” rally actually cleaned up after themselves.

Government

“If our expectations about politicians and government are lowered, we will then start expecting less from them and more from ourselves, then our prospects for happiness will likely be much improved. Take spending. Clearly we can’t go on like this. … Our massive debt has produced an unease that America may be at greater risk from economic collapse than from terrorists. Excessive debt is terror by other means. Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation has performed a useful service by analyzing the 10-year budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which puts the deficit at $6.2 trillion. Riedl says that’s a phony figure because CBO is forced to make assumptions based on what Congress tells it. The true baseline deficit, says Riedl — based on a continuation of current spending and tax policies — amounts to $13 trillion over the next decade. If ever there was a time when ‘we can’t afford it’ actually means something, this is that time. … Some Republicans, like Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, are offering credible and thoughtful ways to get us out of this mess. Will the Republican leadership follow, or will it simply try to manage the big government liberal Democrats created, cutting only a little around the edges? Lowering expectations of government and politicians is only half the equation. We must then raise expectations for ourselves.” –columnist Cal Thomas

Political Futures

“It’s a bit too early for House Republican leader John Boehner to measure the drapes and pick out new wallpaper. But the Intrade pay-to-play prediction markets are now showing a 76 percent chance of a GOP House takeover in November, along with a 60 percent probability that Republicans will capture at least seven new Senate seats. … What might a newly ascendant congressional Republican majority actually stand for? Republican leaders are expected to publish a governing agenda next month, probably an updated version of the bold and successful Newt Gingrich/Dick Armey ‘Contract With America’ of 1994. Boehner is a key alumnus of that effort. But folks around the country are waiting to see if congressional Republicans will make a strong and aggressive case for a true economic-growth and jobs agenda now, in 2010. The stock market, for example, has known for months that the GOP will capture the House. But investors are not yet confident that the GOP will focus on gross domestic product, instead of mere ambiguous generalities, trying to be all things to all people. Indeed, if the Republicans borrow heavily from the tea party ‘Contract From America’ — and its call for constitutional limits to government, tough spending restraint, free-market reforms and supply-side tax policies — stocks could mount a mighty rally in the weeks ahead.” –economist Lawrence Kudlow

The Gipper

“We speak tonight of an agenda for the future, an agenda for a safer, more secure world. And we speak about the necessity for actions to steel us for the challenges of growth, trade, and security in the next decade and the year 2000. And we will do it — not by breaking faith with bedrock principles but by breaking free from failed policies. Let us begin where storm clouds loom darkest — right here in Washington, DC. … [W]e cannot win the race to the future shackled to a system that can’t even pass a federal budget. We cannot win that race held back by horse-and-buggy programs that waste tax dollars and squander human potential. We cannot win that race if we’re swamped in a sea of red ink.” –Ronald Reagan

Re: The Left

“I recently wrote about leftists’ hatred for conservatives as people, not merely for conservative ideas. Demonization of opponents is a fundamental characteristic of the left. It is not merely tactical; they believe people on the right are bad. (Here’s a test: Ask someone on the left if active support of California Proposition 8 — retaining the man-woman definition of marriage — was an act of hate.) A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives’ motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left — and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs — to say ‘There are good people on both of sides of this issue.’ From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case. In the left’s worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks — opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays. This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say ‘There are good people on both sides of the issue’ because we actually believe it.” –radio talk-show host Dennis Prager

For the Record

“Obama has lost his connection with the American people. He’s aloof without inspiring confidence. On issue after issue — terrorism, immigration, the oil spill, the environment and the ground zero mosque — he seems determined to craft his responses in a way that will annoy the most people possible. Liberals are frantically trying to explain away Obama’s problems. Some want to protect their investment in Obama, and some want to protect their investment in liberalism. So some claim that his mistakes stem from not being progressive enough, while others insist that he’s played his cards right, but we need to wait a bit longer for the payoff. I’m dubious on both counts. Obama has delivered massively for progressives, and it strikes me as idiotic to say that if he only squeezed a bit more liberalism into his first two years, everything would be better. Moreover, I don’t think the payoff is coming, because I think the policies are wrong. But, again, that’s an argument for a different day. What’s clear right now is that the president who claimed to be the personification of a world-historical moment has clearly misread his mandate, the mood and the moment. He’s lost at sea, and not even a bigger boat will save him.” –columnist editor Jonah Goldberg

Reader Comments

“As a daily reader of The Patriot Post, this issue — Mark Alexander’s essay, ‘Birthright Citizenship‘ — is one I disagree with the Post quite distinctly. My primary problem with the entire issue of not granting citizenship to babies born here is the fact that you cannot and should not hold the sins of the father against the child. The whole concept is offensive to me. Why did their parents come here? For a better life, as virtually all immigrants have done since the 1800′s. My main issue is the lack of all political parties from getting the issue settled. Why no guest worker program? America is a country of immigrants and always will be. America’s govt needs to get the path to citizenship spelled out, and soon. Illegal, yes, but I cannot but admire them as they have done what my ancestors did 100+ years ago. They gave it all up for a shot at what America had to offer. I simply can’t hold that against their children.” –Trent

Editor’s Reply: America will be NOTHING more than a Socialist democracy if the Rule of Law codified in our national Constitution is allowed to languish.

“It is actually a sad comment on our culture when laws trump human dignity and history. Mexicans (latinos) were here (in the US) before the Irish, Italians, English… historically. In our Orwellian double speak state of mind we believe that they are wrong for living in the land where their culture originated and ancestors lived. I hate this new nazi standard conservatives are projecting. Human dignity and rights didn’t start with Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the US. Those prinicpals [sic] are found in the hearts of most people. Fear those who worship the government and its laws who lack the courage to change them for they oppose the intent of our founding fathers and are our greatest threat as US citizens.” –Peter

Editor’s Reply: If you want to witness a great indignity to human rights, discard the Rule of Law for the rule of feelings. The Founders did provide a method for amending our Constitution, as outlined in Article V. If you want to change the 14th Amendment and abolish U.S. borders, start a petition. I most certainly do NOT worship government, and clearly distinguish between government and Rule of Law. As for the “nazi” comparison, as you might recall, they were Socialists, and killed millions of Jews and other innocent folks — hardly what anyone is prescribing in the case of illegal immigrants and the law. Ignorance of the law is the greatest threat to the U.S. and its authentic citizens.

The Last Word

“MSNBC’s Monday programming was dedicated to denouncing Sen. Mitch McConnell’s response to a question about whether Obama is a Muslim. McConnell said: ‘We all have to rely on the word of (Barack Obama) — something about as reliable as a credit default swap.’ No, I’m sorry, that’s what The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan said about whether Trig Palin was really Sarah Palin’s child. McConnell responded by demanding that Obama be fired — or at least have his security clearance suspended. No, no — wrong again: That was Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Chuck Schumer, respectively, not taking Karl Rove at his word when he said he had not released Valerie Plame’s name to the press. (It turned out Rove was telling the truth; it was Richard Armitage, and it wasn’t a crime.) What McConnell actually said in response to the Muslim question was: ‘The president says he’s a Christian. I take him at his word. I don’t think that’s in dispute.’ Over at MSNBC, that’s Republican code for: ‘He’s a Muslim!’ North Korean TV’s Ed Schultz hysterically babbled: ‘McConnell gave cover. That’s what he did. He gave cover to all those low information voters out there who still believe this garbage about President Obama being a Muslim. … The Republican leadership just loves to feed the fire.’ Chris Matthews was so impressed with Schultz’s nonsensical argument that he spent the entire hour on NKTV’s ‘Hardball’ making the same one: … The statement ‘I take him at his word,’ Matthews said, was a ‘pitch-perfect dog whistle to the haters.’ He continued: ‘Yes, sure, whatever he says. Right. This is not about belief. It’s an accusation that President Obama is not one of us. The right wing’s attempt to de-Americanize the president.’ … Meanwhile, liberals absolutely refuse to take Republicans at their word when they identify their own children. Or deny leaking a low-level CIA functionary’s name to the press. Or when they deny they are racists. … Accusations of racism apparently do not require the ironclad proof demanded for accusations that someone is a Muslim.” –columnist Ann Coulter

Digest

Friday, August 27, 2010

The Foundation

“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.” –Samuel Adams

Government & Politics

Tuesday’s Primaries and the Core Debate

Tuesday’s primaries in Arizona and Alaska pitted well funded and entrenched incumbent Republicans against upstart Tea Party-backed challengers. The Arizona incumbent survived, but the Alaska incumbent is left hoping to make up ground in absentee ballots.

First Arizona. Sen. John McCain, the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee, faced the fight of his political career against former congressman J.D. Hayworth. Unfortunately, Hayworth turned out to be a weak candidate and McCain’s $21 million media blitz was too much for him to overcome. In the end, the race wasn’t even close, with McCain outspending Hayworth 7-1 and winning nearly 2-1.

Hayworth, now a radio talk-show host, staffed his campaign with Tea Party activists and tried to run to the right of McCain. While in Congress, however, Hayworth had a penchant for earmarks and, after losing re-election in 2006, he participated as a pitchman in a video offering advice on how to get “free money grants” from the federal government. One could argue that earmarks are just part of the game and congressman should fight to get their constituents’ money directed to their own district, but after numerous silly projects have been highlighted over the years, voters are souring on the idea. And pitching “free money”? Not exactly the Tea Party’s core message.

McCain successfully countered Hayworth by running to the right himself. He has been remarkably frugal on earmarks through the years, offsetting any advantage Hayworth might have had on fiscal issues. The senator also moved right on immigration, going so far as to do a commercial along the border in which he called on the federal government to “complete the danged fence.” Of course, McCain’s lifetime American Conservative Union (ACU) rating of 82 is nothing to write home about, and now he’ll be in the Senate for another six years.

In Alaska, incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski trailed upstart Joe Miller by more than 1,600 votes as we went to press. Several thousand absentee ballots remain uncounted, but those are mostly military voters who may lean to Miller. The count may stretch into September.

The Murkowski family has dominated Alaska politics for decades. Lisa’s father, Frank, held one of Alaska’s Senate seats for three terms before winning the governor’s mansion. He then appointed his daughter to fill his seat. Joe Miller, the heavily outspent challenger, is a West Point grad, decorated Gulf War vet and a federal magistrate backed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. If he pulls off the upset, it would count as the second major knockout of the Murkowski clan for Palin, who beat Frank Murkowski in the GOP primary for governor in 2006.

To put it in generous terms, Murkowski is a moderate. Her lifetime ACU rating is a paltry 70 and 2009 only brought that lower. She half-heartedly opposed ObamaCare but refused to rule out a government-run system. She declared in a debate with Miller that the nation could suffer if the government funded only those things enumerated in the Constitution.

That sums up the debate: Are we a nation under the Rule of Law, or the rule of men? Is government limited by the Constitution, or can it, in the words of Rep. Pete Stark, “do most anything in this country.” We know that the debate is over in the Democrat party — to them, government can do anything a majority can pass. Republicans like Lisa Murkowski and John McCain all too often agree. This primary season and the upcoming election, however, provide an opportunity for constitutional conservatives to begin righting the ship.

From the Left: Tea Party Fake

The Tea Party has been so successful this election year that Democrats are resorting to political trickery. We’re shocked — shocked! A day before the primary in the Florida governor’s race, GOP candidate Rick Scott touted the endorsement of the “TEA Party.” As it turns out, the “TEA Party” was a shell group set up by leftists and funded in part by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL). The group ran its own candidates state-wide in an effort to siphon votes away from conservatives. “This is a new low for the fake political TEA party,” said Tea Party activist Don Hensarling. But upon learning the real story, Scott rejected the endorsement — and went on to win the primary against state Attorney General Bill McCollum. Similar Democrat political stunts have been uncovered in Nevada and Michigan, so be warned.

Income Redistribution: ObamaCare Just Getting Started

ObamaCare mandates, among numerous other things, that insurance companies allocate 80-85 percent of premium revenue to patient care, leaving 15-20 percent to cover administrative expenses and profit. This is known as the “medical loss ratio.” Regulators are now working to come up with an even more narrow definition of what constitutes patient care. The law excludes from the definition of medical loss “Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees,” but a proposed bureaucratic rewrite may mean state taxes end up being left in the “profit” category. In other words, insurance companies will be taxed on their taxes. As The Wall Street Journal sums up, “Taxes can’t be sent to Washington and at the same time count as ‘resources’ that should be devoted to patient care, which is why most states exclude tax payments from their own current medical loss regulations.”

With shenanigans like that, it’s no wonder that Democrats are avoiding the legislation altogether on the campaign trail. In fact, Politico reports that Families USA, a key group in pushing for the legislation, has put out a slide presentation for Democrats to use for spin on the stump. “Straightforward ‘policy’ defenses fail to [move] voters’ opinions about the law,” says one slide. “Women in particular are concerned that health care law will mean less provider availability — scarcity [is] an issue.” Another slide concedes, “Many don’t believe health care reform will help the economy.” Finally, a list of “Don’ts” warns against touting ObamaCare’s ability to “reduce costs and deficit.” The focus, says Families USA, should be on improving the law. The best way to improve it would be to repeal it.

This Week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ Award

“It’s not perfect, nothing’s perfect, but I’m telling you, ma’am, it’s a good start. … Mark my words, several years from now you’re going to look back and say, ‘Eh, maybe it isn’t so bad.’” –Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) on ObamaCare, while also admitting he didn’t read the legislation: “I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language. We hire experts.”

National Security

Warfront With Jihadistan: U.S. Role in Iraq Changes

U.S. forces in Iraq, their major combat duties “finished,” have completed their draw-down to approximately 50,000 remaining troops. The U.S. 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, designated by the Pentagon as the last combat brigade in Iraq, completed the “symbolic convoy out of country” from a camp outside of Baghdad to the Kuwaiti border, bringing an “end” to one of the largest redeployments of military forces in recent history. Characterized by the Pentagon as “akin to moving a medium-sized city, people and equipment, without interrupting normal daily functions,” mobilization took U.S. forces to a peak of more than 176,000 troops spread across 600 bases around Iraq. Demobilization reduced troop levels to slightly fewer than 50,000 in just 92 bases.

This week, the Pentagon reaffirmed that the remaining U.S. troops would stay in Iraq until December 2011 to train Iraqi forces and assist with counterterrorism operations as well as to support efforts to strengthen the Iraqi civilian government. In other words, they will continue performing many of the same duties they have been doing for some time. Whether this “new” mission, dubbed “Operation New Dawn,” is successful will hinge on whether Iraq’s political leaders can unify their government after the March elections failed to produce a clear winner. While they fiddle, other economic and societal problems continue to smolder.

While the level of insurgent hostilities is significantly lower than pre-surge levels, it’s still uncomfortably high. A series of bombings over the past two weeks killed dozens, including a U.S. soldier. However, U.S. commander Gen. Ray Odierno said it would take “a complete failure” of Iraqi security forces for U.S. troops to resume (official) combat operations.

These moves and reclassifications, of course, are designed to set up a “major” speech by Barack Obama next week, in which he will no doubt attempt to take credit for a hard-won military victory, numerous political successes, and the status-of-forces agreements that were hammered out by the Bush administration. As Vice President Joe Biden shamelessly said earlier this year, “I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

If nothing else, it will be interesting to note the level to which Obama applies revisionist history (read: lies) in order to bask in the glory of what he called a “dumb war,” and whether he even mentions the gritty and tide-turning troop surge that he insisted would fail. He certainly didn’t want to talk about it while vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard. When reporters tried asking, the commander in chief deflected, “We’re buying shrimp, guys. Come on.”

Administration Hammers U.S. on Human Rights

The Obama administration continued its apology tour last Friday when it submitted a 29-page report to the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, offering a critique of the state of human rights in the U.S. The report is part of the UN Human Rights Council’s “Universal Periodic Review” — the part of the show where nations grade their own records on human rights. Of course, the fact that such virtuous champions of human rights as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Cuba occupy seats on the Council exposes this as a farce.

The administration laments, “We are not satisfied with a situation where the unemployment rate for African Americans is 15.8%, for Hispanics 12.4%, and for whites 8.8%.” Is anyone satisfied with that? On the other hand, the report lauds the election of our nation’s first black president; the passage of ObamaCare, which “makes great strides toward the goal that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care”; and the financial overhaul, which addresses “predatory” and “discriminatory” lending. If he does say so himself!

The report also praises its author’s intentions of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay and ending the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. So the only things Obama finds worth lauding are the passage of leftist agenda items and the personality cult surrounding his own election. For the first time in his life, it seems, he’s actually proud to be an American. Sort of.

‘Non Compos Mentis’: When is a Pirate Really a Pirate?

Recently a federal judge threw out part of a civilian court case against six Somali nationals who fired upon a Navy vessel in the waters along the Somalian coast. His reasoning? Because the pirates did not succeed in their attack, they could not be charged with piracy.

Judge Raymond A. Jackson (a Clinton appointee — surprise!) deemed that since Congress simply referred to the crime of piracy as one defined by “the law of nations” and the only precedent case (United States v. Smith, from 1820) was one where the pirates succeeded, the federal case failed to prove piracy and could be summarily dismissed because the six men (along with a slain counterpart) were thwarted in their attempt to plunder the naval vessel. By that illogic, a would-be bank robber who departed without the cash couldn’t be charged with robbing the bank.

It’s obvious that the judge’s decision makes about as much sense as the original idea among the Somalis to take on the heavily armed U.S.S. Ashland in an unarmed skiff. However, the survivors still face lengthy prison terms on other counts related to the incident.

Business & Economy

Regulatory Commissars: They Knew Drilling Ban Would Kill Jobs

With unemployment hovering at 9.5 percent — real total unemployment, called U6, is much higher — what’s another 23,000 jobs lost? Apparently, not much to Barack Obama. Previously unreleased documents show that his administration issued the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling despite knowing the ban would kill thousands of jobs. According to The Wall Street Journal, the documents reveal that Michael Bromwich, the head regulator of offshore oil exploration, told Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar that the temporary ban “would result in ‘lost direct employment’ affecting approximately 9,450 workers and ‘lost jobs from indirect and induced effects’ affecting about 13,797 more.”

Also, regardless of confirmation from the region of the moratorium’s devastating impact, the government says the ban will continue. That’s right — the beatings will continue until morale improves. Reflecting its typical “we know best” disdain for the peasants, the administration has even claimed the impact wasn’t as bad as industry experts said. Try telling that to those 23,000 former workers.

In related news, House Republican Leader John Boehner has called on Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Tim “Tax Cheat” Geithner, National Economic Council Head Larry Summers, and the rest of the White House economic team. (Senior Economic Adviser Christina Romer and Budget Director Peter Orszag have already abandoned ship.) Pointing to “job-killing tax hike[s],” skyrocketing spending and a penchant for new regulations, Boehner said, “We’ve tried 19 months of government-as-community organizer. It hasn’t worked.” A political chess move to be sure, but we won’t argue that government-as-community organizer is getting rather expensive.

Talking Points Mix-Up

“We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet [and] in my view we have nothing to show for it.” –Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)

Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, was patting the administration on the back for its “stimulus” of the economy — you know, the current economy, the one with the stagnant unemployment and record-low housing market: “No doubt we’re moving in the right direction.” Does that “right direction” include second-quarter GDP growth being revised downward today, from 2.4 percent to 1.6 percent? Biden’s message, of course, is becoming harder to sell than a house.

GM and AIG Repay Government Loans?

With fewer than 70 days until the mid-term elections, the Obama administration has something to cheer about in that GM and AIG seem to have turned the corner. Or have they? GM has announced the largest initial public offering of common stock (IPO) in U.S. history as it attempts to reduce the huge slice of GM equity held by the government. Meanwhile, AIG has completed the sale of some assets in order to reduce its debt to the New York Federal Reserve Bank from $19 billion to $15 billion.

Regarding AIG, there is a tenuous argument that the Federal Reserve Bank is the lender of last resort for regulated financial intermediaries (i.e., banks), and insurance companies are a variety of that business model. Of course, insurance companies are supposed to diversify risk via actuarial analysis and utilize their premium revenue to purchase long-term assets generating repeatable returns. Insurance giant AIG completely violated this business model. Allowing it to access the reserves of the New York Fed is but another example of the privatization of profits and the socialization of losses that is undermining our free enterprise economic system.

GM is an even more troubling case. After ignoring the concept of due process and turning the procedures of U.S. bankruptcy law on its head, the federal government is seeking to dilute its investment via an IPO. There must be many former bondholders whose debt instruments were a secured claim against the company who would love to have such an opportunity. Beyond this, how do we know that the financial reporting released for the company is accurate? The last 20 years have provided many examples of companies whose management decided to commit fraud rather than deliver bad news to their shareholders. Perhaps readers recall names such as Enron, Global Crossing and MCI-WorldCom. Yet those firms can’t compare with the level of fraud that has been perpetrated by Congress and the Congressional Budget Office with regard to the recent health care bill.

Speaking of the auto industry and the government, the Cash for Clunkers program has had an entirely predictable result — prices for used cars have jumped 10 percent over last year. When people traded in their used cars on new cars they likely would have bought anyway under the Clunkers program, the government ordered those assets destroyed rather than resold. That contraction of supply has caused price increases for those who can least afford it. As blogger Ed Morrissey put it, “In other words, the White House spent $3 billion to make used cars more expensive for working-class families. Nice work.”

Around the Nation: Virginia Surplus

What do you do when faced with a $4.2 billion two-year state budget deficit? If you’re former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D), you pitch a $2 billion tax hike, as he did before leaving office. Fortunately for the people of Virginia, current Governor Robert McDonnell (R) is no Tim Kaine. Since taking office in January, McDonnell has eschewed the Democrat playbook of tax, tax and then tax some more by slashing funding for programs, freezing state hiring and reining in spending to levels not seen in several years. As The Wall Street Journal notes, “Total state spending has been reset more or less to 2007 levels. If Congress were to do that, the federal deficit could fall by more than $900 billion, or two-thirds.”

Consistently rejecting any thought of a tax hike, McDonnell asserts that new taxes “will injure our economy, slow the recovery and cost us jobs.” Instead, his approach to fixing the state’s fiscal fiasco has been simple: Cut spending. The result? The state’s $4.2 billion shortfall is now an $87 million surplus. Hmm, so cutting spending and refusing to raise taxes leads to economic recovery. What a novel idea.

Philadelphia Seeks Benjamins From Bloggers

If you ask most bloggers, they’ll tell you they’re not looking to the Internet as a serious moneymaking exercise. But the city of Philadelphia sees it otherwise and is targeting bloggers who use Google AdSense or other revenue-producing vehicles on their websites to register with the city and pay for a $50 per year “privilege license.” The City of Brotherly Love also gives bloggers the option of paying a $300 “lifetime” toll. The fee applies whether they raise sufficient revenue to pay the fee or not, and most bloggers don’t.

There’s no doubt that these small, Internet-based “businesses” are ensnared in a web of regulation that’s intended to raise revenue from traditional brick-and-mortar operations. This racket boils down to government types not being content to see dollars changing hands without getting their take. Worse still, the idea is sure to spread to other cities and states. Look for something similar to be enacted in a blue state or city near you.

Culture & Policy

Judicial Benchmarks: No Fed. Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Federal District Judge Royce C. Lambeth ruled this week that the Obama administration’s rules on embryonic stem cell research — issued by executive order in 2009 — are illegal. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which states that federal monies cannot be used to finance research resulting in the destruction of embryos. Under President George W. Bush, federal funds could be used only on the 21 cell lines already in existence in 2001. Any other research would have to be paid for with — gasp — private donations. One of Obama’s first orders of business, however, was to lift the ban; his executive order allowed research on hundreds of additional cell lines and prompted a lawsuit by Nightlight Christian Adoptions, among others.

In court, the administration made the embarrassing, albeit creative, argument that it was funding work that utilized stem cells created by embryonic destruction, but not the work that leads to embryonic destruction. Judge Lambeth was unimpressed by the distinction. “If one step or ‘piece of research’ of an E.S.C. research project results in the destruction of an embryo,” the judge wrote, “the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding.”

Unsurprisingly, the administration is preparing an appeal of the decision, because, as the Associated Press laments, “Promising medical research is in disarray.” White House spokesman Bill Burton likewise stated, “We’re reviewing it so we can keep this important, potentially life-saving research moving forward in the most ethical way possible.” Of course, the AP and Burton have to use words like “promising” and “potential” because that’s all embryonic stem cell research has been. To date, embryonic stem cells — unlike adult stem cells — have not saved any actual lives.

Ninth Circuit Rules on Government GPS Tracking

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that, according to Time Magazine, “Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.”

The case is that of Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon man whom Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents began tracking in 2007 on suspicion that he was growing marijuana. They snuck into his driveway in the middle of the night and placed a GPS tracking device on his Jeep. A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that such tracking was legal, and this month the whole court let the ruling stand.

Time also reports, “Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month’s decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people’s. The court’s ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled opposite the Ninth Circuit that such tracking requires a warrant. Thus, the issue is likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Village Academic Curriculum: Spending Binge

It’s being called the “Taj Mahal.” The Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools complex — which has been built on the site of the former Ambassador Hotel, where its namesake was assassinated during the 1968 presidential campaign — boasts (among other amenities) fine art murals, an RFK memorial, a public park, and talking benches that lecture on the historical significance of the site.

One might say this is excessive under any circumstances, but even more so in the Los Angeles Unified School District, which is the second largest in the nation and consistently near the bottom rung of educational performance. In fact, the district is always crying poverty; in the past two years, nearly 3,000 teachers have been laid off and programs have been dropped because of a lack of funding. But who needs a quality education when one has a state-of-the art swimming pool?

“New buildings are nice, but when they’re run by the same people who’ve given us a 50 percent dropout rate, they’re a big waste of taxpayer money,” said Ben Austin, executive director of Parent Revolution and a member of the California Board of Education. “Parents aren’t fooled.” Well, they may not be fooled, but they’re certainly paying for it. The school carries a price tag of a whopping $578 million, or roughly $140,000 for each of its 4,200 students.

New York Stabbing of Muslim Cabbie

A Muslim cabbie in New York City was stabbed Wednesday in what leftists rushed to call a “hate crime.” Instantly, the archetypal crazed-right-winger-opposed-to-the-Ground Zero Victory Mosque was named as the culprit. But as with the guy who flew his plane into the IRS office building in Austin, Texas, the guy who shot several guards at the Smithsonian, and the guy who did likewise at the Pentagon, this “right-winger” was just another leftist perp.

Politico’s Ben Smith writes, “The alleged assailant, Michael Enright, is — according to his Facebook profile and the website of the left-leaning media organization Intersections International — a student at the School of Visual Arts and a volunteer for Intersections, which recently produced a statement of support for the Park51 project and is funded by the mainstream, liberal Collegiate Church of New York.” Oh, well then, nothing to see here; move along, folks.

This Week’s ‘Braying Jackass’ Awards

“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qa’ida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations.” –Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the proposed Ground Zero mosque, in 2005

“We are deeply concerned, because this is like a metastasized anti-Semitism. It’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.” –Daisy Khan, wife of Imam Rauf

Shirley Sherrod Update

Former Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod was fired in July after a video clip emerged of her discussing her own racism in the case of helping a white farmer facing bankruptcy. Sherrod is black. As the video of her entire speech revealed, however, she was discussing how she learned from the incident and was fighting her own racism, which is still racism. Whether she’s been entirely successful is still up for debate, as her comments after being fired made plain. And that doesn’t even touch the issue of 86,000 discrimination claims from 39,000 black farmers.

This week, she announced that she would not accept a new position at the USDA, saying she didn’t think she could say yes to a job “at this point, with all that has happened.” She added, “We do need to work on the issues of discrimination and race in this country.” After all, if we didn’t continue working on those issues, people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be out of work, too. And wouldn’t that be a shame.

And Last…

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, was recently found guilty of just one of 24 charges with regard to the attempted sale of the Senate seat formerly held by Barack Obama. We noted his sleazy behavior and the ensuing prosecutorial overzealousness last week. This week found the cartoonish Blagojevich hawking his autograph for $50 and photos for $80 each at the Wizard World Chicago Comic Con. Apparently, he’s looking for money to pay his legal bills. As the Chicago Sun-Times notes, “Despite the presence of some 500 actors, artists, writers, pro wrestlers and models, Blagojevich was touted atop the show’s website and enjoyed prime real estate on the convention floor with a booth near the entrance.” Actually, it’s no surprise that comic book villains compete with heroes for the love of their fans. And Blagojevich, for his part, was simply putting the “Con” in “Comic Con.”

Birthright Citizenship?

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, August 26, 2010

Only if your mother was “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (Ciudadanía por Nacimiento — sólo si su madre estaba sujeta a su jurisdicción)

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” –George Washington

Given the far-reaching implications of illegal immigration, and more recently the Left’s objections to enforcing immigration law in border states like Arizona, the 14th Amendment of our Constitution is receiving some long-overdue attention.

Like every contemporary political debate, the questions raised concerning the meaning of the 14th Amendment are, essentially, about whether we are a nation subject to Rule of Law codified in our Constitution, or we are subjects under the rule of men, subject to a “living constitution” amended primarily by judicial diktat and legislative mischief, rather than amended by the people, as prescribed in Article V.

Does the 14th Amendment mean what its framers intended and the states ratified, or does it mean whatever the courts and Congress have construed it to mean today?

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which pertains to immigration and naturalization, reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

To discern the authentic meaning of this amendment as originally intended by its framers, we must first start with its plain language, and then further examine the context under which it was proposed and passed. Any debate about the authority of our Constitution must begin with First Principles, original intent.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”

This language is plain and easily understood.

“[A]nd subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This language, too, is plain and easily understood, unless there is a contemporary Leftist political agenda, which does not comport with that understanding, in which case benefactors and beneficiaries of that agenda will interpret (read: misconstrue) it to fit their purposes.

So, what does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” actually mean? Beyond the apparent plain language definition, a factual interpretation is supported by the context in which this amendment was framed and ratified.

After the War Between the States, freedmen (former slaves) may have been liberated by Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, but they didn’t enjoy the same rights as those who freed them. Though slaves were in the United States legally, and thus, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they had no assurance of equal rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was designed to rectify this injustice by noting in part, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. … All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

The first definition of “citizenship” in legal references is “nationality or legal status of citizenship.”

The 1866 act defined “persons within the jurisdiction of the United States” as all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring.

However, concern that the Act might be overturned by a future Congress motivated its sponsors to make it more resistant to the arbitrary rule of men, so they proposed the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which upon ratification, would protect the provision of the 1866 Act from legislatures and the courts.

Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

According to University of Texas legal scholar Lino Graglia, the second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull, added that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Thus, in the plain language of its author, those who are not born to American citizens have no birthright to citizenship.

Despite the confidence of the 14th Amendment’s authors that it wouldn’t be subject to legislative and judicial mischief, subsequent generations of legislatures and judges have so twisted its plain language as to all but alienate it from its original intent — as they have likewise done with the rest of our Constitution.

For that reason, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is now proposing a measure to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause by way of another amendment.

The problem is that Boehner and likeminded conservatives still erroneously rely on the Rule of Law, an assumption that our Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the land. Unfortunately, it has been thoroughly subordinated to the rule of men.

Where does that leave the birthright citizenship debate?

Today, more than 20 percent of all children born in the United States are born to those who have entered the United States unlawfully, and who are, by any authentic definition of the 14th Amendment, NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they are not citizens. Yet Barack Hussein Obama and his Socialist Bourgeoisie assert that the “anchor babies” of illegal immigrants are owed all the entitlements of an American citizen.

The near-term consequences of this fallacious assertion have dire implications for the future of Liberty, for the Rule of Law, and for the very survival of our nation. But this is consistent with Obama’s “fundamental transformation” agenda to break the back of free enterprise, which is essential to liberty.

In 1776, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson proposed the national motto, “E pluribus unum” (“Out of many, one”), but that unity will not last much longer if we do not take dramatic action to restore the Rule of Law.

In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt penned these words: “We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Indeed.

Now, writes Graglia, “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry,” making a child born to that immigrant “an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state.”

For the record, according to both the Justice Department and Homeland Security, “A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment.”

So, according to current laws and regulations, consistent with the original intent of both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment as duly ratified on 9 July 1868, the child of a diplomat born in the United States, though that diplomat is legally on U.S. soil, has no birthright entitlement to citizenship.

However, according to Obama and his Leftist cadres, inconsistent with both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, a child born to anyone who enters the U.S. illegally has a birthright entitlement to citizenship.

Which will it be, then: Rule of Law or the rule of Obama?

Texan

Posted August 26, 2010 at 11:55:46 AM

Mark

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:04:39 PM

Marley Greiner

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:05:30 PM

Rifleman

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:07:35 PM

M.L Noland

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:12:30 PM

Bob W

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:13:15 PM

Richard A Johnson

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:14:10 PM

SHmuel HaLevi

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:17:03 PM

William Schenck

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:21:36 PM

Russ

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:24:31 PM

Fred Rosenbaum

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:25:59 PM

Richard L. Kent, Esq.

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:28:32 PM

Norman

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:34:02 PM

karl anglin

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:38:15 PM

Will Stanley

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:39:37 PM

Tom

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:40:57 PM

dale lauffer

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12:57:48 PM

Philip M. Kober, JD, MD, PhD

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:01:32 PM

Trent

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:06:53 PM

Editor’s Reply:

America will be NOTHING more than a Socialist democracy if the Rule of Law codified in our national Constitution is allowed to languish.

Texan

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:10:51 PM

Ed Gilbert

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:18:20 PM

Richard L. Kent, Esq.

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:27:31 PM

Jack

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:28:23 PM

JJO

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:28:55 PM

Texan

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:36:58 PM

Kelly J

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:44:01 PM

Gemma Vigna

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:48:10 PM

J W Cotter

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:49:58 PM

Gordon L. Baldwin

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:52:46 PM

True Patriot

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1:55:57 PM

Editor’s Reply:

“Most” may have good intentions when illegally entering the U.S. However, many come here for the welfare state, to anchor a child for citizenship, or, increasingly, for criminal enterprise. But the debate is not about why they come here. As noted, in this as in all constitutional questions, the debate is and should be centered on Rule of Law vs. rule of men. As for “hypocritical,” apparently you are no longer able to discern the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men. Keep on reading that “living constitution,” and whenever the law is not convenient, just do as Thomas Jefferson feared the “despotic branch” would do: “The Constitution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

And a final note, “True Patriot”? Only if by Truth you mean Pravda! As George Washington warned, “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

Standing

Posted August 26, 2010 at 2:10:31 PM

Ed

Posted August 26, 2010 at 2:21:23 PM

wes1230

Posted August 26, 2010 at 2:23:33 PM

David Batson

Posted August 26, 2010 at 2:23:38 PM

walt boyer

Posted August 26, 2010 at 2:27:57 PM

Ruth Ann Wilson

Posted August 26, 2010 at 2:31:37 PM

Wayne Hines

Posted August 26, 2010 at 2:46:38 PM

Kathy S.

Posted August 26, 2010 at 2:55:24 PM

Texan

Posted August 26, 2010 at 4:01:49 PM

Wade Brock

Posted August 26, 2010 at 4:03:19 PM

Wade Brock

Posted August 26, 2010 at 4:10:29 PM

Peter McDernis

Posted August 26, 2010 at 4:13:55 PM

Editor’s Reply:

If you want to witness a great indignity to human rights, discard the Rule of Law for the rule of feelings. The Founders did provide a method for amending our Constitution, as outlined in Article V. If you want to change the 14th Amendment and abolish U.S. borders, start a petition. I most certainly do NOT worship government, and clearly distinguish between government and Rule of Law. As for the “nazi” comparison, as you might recall, they were Socialists, and killed millions of Jews and other innocent folks — hardly what anyone is prescribing in the case of illegal immigrants and the law. Ignorance of the law is the greatest threat to the U.S. and its authentic citizens.

Austin City Unlimited

Posted August 26, 2010 at 4:27:28 PM

J Gee

Posted August 26, 2010 at 4:45:35 PM

martin potashner

Posted August 26, 2010 at 5:12:31 PM

Sandra

Posted August 26, 2010 at 5:27:28 PM

PBirren

Posted August 26, 2010 at 5:38:44 PM

Mike D

Posted August 26, 2010 at 5:51:58 PM

Jack Peters

Posted August 26, 2010 at 5:55:19 PM