facetwitch's Diary

Tyranny’s Friend

The greatest enemy that exists to freedom is tyranny. Tyranny is above the law, ignores the law, makes up its own rules, steals power from others elected to govern, and defends the actions of lawless men. President Obama has increasingly shown himself to be a lawless man, whether its failing to enforce laws he doesn’t approve of (see DOMA, immigration) or making up his own rules. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. We can’t be both.

The president’s recent appointment of unvetted candidates to head bureaucratic agencies with broad regulatory authority without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate is just the latest example that he is turning us from a nation of laws into a nation of men. This skirting of the Constitution is not only unprecedented in our history, but it fits the very type of executive fiat that is almost exclusive to banana republics.

Liberals, leftists, and apologists for the Democratic Party have tried to downplay the concern by confusing the issue and slyly spinning the president’s non-recess “recess appointments” as some ambiguous legal matter open to broad interpretation. It’s not. The arguments they have mounted are weak and ill-advised. They are made not out of a desire to defend America’s Constitution or the Republic for which it stands, but to defend one single ruler with which they sympathize. President Obama’s actions and their successful defense of them could be the downfall of our representative democracy, bringing an end to the checks and balances that keep our government from abusing power.

The left’s first inclination is to compare anything President Obama does to George W. Bush, because of course Barack Obama ran on four more years of governing exactly like Bush. But any comparison to President Bush’s appointments falls flat. President Bush never made a recess appointment during a pro forma session. In fact, the pro forma sessions were started by Harry Reid to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments. Even Harry Reid won’t dispute this.

The left has also attempted to justify Obama’s actions by blaming Republicans. This argument goes something like, “well, he tried to do it the right way, but Republicans are too much of obstructionists, so he had to bend the law.” Okay, first off, either you have principles or you don’t. You don’t just have principles when its convenient. Secondly, Democrats used the same tactics to bottle up President Bush’s appointments, and yet the conservative leader most vilified and despised by the left in the last 30 years, called everything from “illegitimate” to “Hitler”, never felt compelled to make such an overreach.

More importantly, two of the appointments President Obama made to the NLRB were new names that have not had a chance to be interviewed by the U.S. Senate. In other words, their appointments hadn’t stalled anywhere.

While recess appointments have been ruled constitutional, that doesn’t mean they aren’t ripe for abuse. It’s true that both President Clinton and Bush made over 100 of them, but none occurred while the U.S. Senate was actually in session (pro forma or not). Further, it has been generally agreed by legal advisors to the last three presidents, including Obama’s own Justice Department, that a recess must last longer than three days for a president to enact his recess appointment authority.

Frighteningly, President Obama has thrown all the rules out the window and challenged the Senate’s power to approve any presidential appointment at all. Based on this new logic, he could make an appointment while the Senate adjourns to lunch. Not needing any votes of confirmation, one supposes he could even appoint whomever his leftist heart desires to the Supreme Court. Sure, it all sounds like fun and games to clowns like Jon Stewart, but some of us take this kind of fundamental shift in power seriously.

The left has never been a big fan of the Constitution, seeing it as an obstacle to all the Big Government they are sure we must desire, but let’s take a look at it anyways. Article 1, Section 2 is very clear:

“He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”

Since the nation’s founding, the U.S. Senate has had the power to reject poorly vetted presidential appointees. Even the great George Washington’s nominees faced scrutiny, proving no one is above reproach.

By skirting the U.S. Senate, President Obama has challenged the very core of our system of government, and it was not by accident. If he had acted just one day sooner, the president could have tempered this crisis by at least making an intersession appointment. While still shorter than the usually agreed-upon three day recess, he would have at least had Teddy Roosevelt’s precedent from 1908 to stand on, albeit under completely different circumstances. Instead, the president waited to make an intrasession appointment during the shortest of short recesses. There’s only one logical reason for this, and that’s to permanently seize power from a legislative branch that has repeatedly been a roadblock to much of his socialist-progressive agenda.

If Obama’s actions are allowed to stand, it opens the door for him or any future president (should we be so lucky) to appoint whomever he wants to any bureaucratic or judicial position without the consent of any other elected representatives. Congress, the closest government body we have to the voice of the people, will be weakened to a whisper, and the president will be more empowered to act like a monarch or despot. The decisions of 1 man will be greater than the voices of 535 members of Congress, greater than the voices of 50 states, and yes, greater than the people. Tyranny has a friend in the Oval Office and his name is Barack Obama.

It’s Not About Islam

A SHORT PLAY STARRING OSAMA BIN LADEN BASED ON A TRUE STORY.

Setting: The USS Carl Venson, an aircraft carrier somewhere in the Arabian Sea.

ENSIGN: So this is it. The body of America’s most wanted. Know what’s planned for it?

LIEUTENANT: Shark chum. Take some photos, weigh the son of a bitch down, and throw him overboard.

CAPTAIN: Not so fast, lieutenant. I just received my orders from the president. He wants to make sure Bin Laden has a proper burial in accordance with Sharia Law.

ENSIGN: Are you kidding me?

CAPTAIN: Nope. We’re a civilized country and we’re going to do this civilized.

ENSIGN: Are you kidding me?

CAPTAIN: Nope.

LIEUTENANT: Compared to what some of our men have been through, I’d say dumping him overboard without much fuss is civilized.

CAPTAIN: Sorry, gentleman. I have orders. Shouldn’t take more than 45 minutes.

ENSIGN: That’s longer than it took the second tower of the World Trade Center to collapse.

CAPTAIN: I’m sorry, but the president is worried about retaliation if we don’t give the body an Islamic burial.

ENSIGN: Retaliation from who? Al Qaeda? They hate us anyways.

CAPTAIN: No, from more mainstream Muslims.

ENSIGN: I thought this wasn’t about Islam?

CAPTAIN: It’s not.

LIEUTENANT: What about the 9/11 families who never found their loved one’s bodies in the rubble, let alone the chance to give them a proper burial? Giving the killer such dignified treatment seems unjust.

CAPTAIN: While I’m sure it may be difficult for some of them to understand, we must show the world this isn’t about Islam. That outweighs everything.

ENSIGN: But by conducting a religious ceremony in accordance with Sharia Law, aren’t we letting Osama’s religious convictions outweigh everything?

CAPTAIN: We don’t want angry Muslims rioting in the streets.

ENSIGN: Why would they be angry if it’s not about Islam?

CAPTAIN: It’s not about Islam.

LIEUTENANT: This man perverted Islam. He insulted Allah. He killed thousands of Muslims. There is no place other than Hell for such a man. We should dump his body into the ocean and be done with it. Hitler was Roman Catholic, but obviously he gave God the middle finger. I think most Catholics would have been offended if Hitler had been given a Catholic funeral. But somehow you are saying with Bin Laden it’s the opposite.

CAPTAIN: Hitler wasn’t given any type of funeral. His body was confiscated by the Soviets.

LIEUTENANT: You’re dodging the question.

CAPTAIN: I understand your objections, but you have to see the bigger picture. We wouldn’t want to piss off the Imams. We have to take their sensitivities into account, or it could make an already delicate situation more dangerous for our troops on the battlefield.

ENSIGN: You’re saying we have to take the sensitivities of radical Imams into account but not the sensitivities of Americans, and it’s still not about Islam?

CAPTAIN: That’s right. Islam is peace. Now I want you to meet the Muslim cleric who will be conducting the ceremony…

LIEUTENANT: A cleric who is not about Islam?

CAPTAIN: No, he’s Muslim and he’s brought his Quran. The whole thing shouldn’t take more than fifty minutes. We’ll have the body wrapped appropriately. And of course no women should be present. Sharia is very specific about this. Also, try and look solemn. We’ll be filming it for Al-Jazeera just in case his execution is viewed unfavorably by the Muslim world.

ENSIGN: But it’s not about religion.

LIEUTENANT: Nope. Of course not.

MUSLIM CLERIC: (begins praying) O Allah, forgive Osama and have mercy on him, keep him safe and sound and forgive him, honor the place where he settles and make his entrance wide; wash him with water and snow and hail, and cleanse him of sin as a white garment is cleansed of dirt. O Allah, give this warrior a house better than his house and a family better than his family. O Allah, admit him to Paradise and protect him from the torment of the grave and the torment of Hell-fire; make his grave spacious and fill it with light. O Allah, do not deprive us of the reward and do not cause us to go astray after this.

CAPTAIN: Thank you. Would anyone like to add a word to the prayer?

LIEUTENANT: Yeah. God bless America. Now send this devil back to Hell.

ENSIGN: Amen.

See Teachers Unions Rob Dick and Jane

“For the kids!” teachers union members chanted in Wisconsin while protesting Governor Scott Walker’s modest proposal to make public sector union employees contribute 5% toward their pensions and kick in roughly one-tenth of their health care costs. These are benefits most private sector employees would jump at – assuming they still have jobs in Obama’s economy. But the Left is hot for teachers unions so they have declared such measures the stuff of authoritarian regimes, with many protest signs comparing Governor Walker to Mubarak or worse, Hitler.

Leave it to the misplaced priorities of the Left to make a hero out of John Walker Lindh and a villain out of Scott Walker. So much for the new civility.

Lost in all the hubbub is the fact that a protest for more government goodies at the expense of taxpayers is anything but good for the kids. These kids are future taxpayers after all, and nothing could be more liberating than a vote to remove the massive shadow of big government that will be limiting their opportunities and strangling their future paychecks.

No, if anyone is for the kids in this case, it’s the voters of Wisconsin who elected Scott Walker just months ago to address the cozy and crippling relationship between union special interests and government. In limiting the damage public sector unions can do to the state budget and bringing government costs in line, Walker is shoring up the state’s fiscal health and ensuring future generations won’t face an insurmountable tax burden. Scott Walker is creating more opportunities for these kids while the unions, concerned only with themselves, rob Dick and Jane.

Has anyone seen the unemployment rate for teens recently? It’s almost 25%, a record high since they started keeping track of such statistics in 1948. The greedy teachers unions are basically demanding generous benefits (for only nine months of work) at the expense of the kids by insisting budget gaps be closed with tax increases in the middle of a recession on the very companies who give so many teens their first job. Meanwhile, they expect the rest of us to keep working overtime to pay for more than 95% of their retirement.

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas illustrated the Left’s temper tantrum in Wisconsin perfectly when he tweeted, “Sorry Teabaggers, it’s our turn now.” Our turn? How about the kids turn?

The Tea Party, for those who were paying attention, has been about stopping the massive deficits that so many have rightfully described as generational theft. The union protest in Wisconsin, put together by the president’s own Organizing for America, is the rallying cry of government thieves who refuse to be held accountable to the taxpayers who pay their salaries. Big difference.

Meanwhile, 14 Democratic lawmakers fled the battlefield and crossed state lines in order to prevent a vote from taking place. Say what you will about the Republicans being the Party of No when opposing President Obama’s radical agenda, but at least they showed up and voted. It appears the Democrat Party of Wisconsin represents far worse, a Party of No Shows for No Democracy.

Nothing like running away from the problem, shirking responsibility, and refusing to participate in the process of democracy when you don’t think the vote will go your way. That’s a lesson that should serve our kids well.

Governing in Symbols: Obama’s “Pro-Business” Executive Order Phony, Phony, Phony (Did I Mention Phony?)

After his party’s crushing defeat in the midterms, Jonathan Alter (or was it Howard Fineman) told President Obama that he needed to stop governing in prose and start governing in poetry. Whatever that means. “In Xanadu, did Barack Khan, a stately memorial campaign decree…”

But in all seriousness, President Obama seems to be taking the advice, if not governing in poetry at least governing in symbols. We experienced some of that in Tucson with the awkwardly themed “Together We Thrive” memorial service, where everyone walked away with free Organizing for America swag; that is, everyone except the victims. Now today we are informed the president will sign an executive order that outlines a review process of unnecessary restrictions and regulations that are stifling businesses and job growth.

The majority of America approves, and Obama’s poll numbers are on the uptick. Three cheers for Mr. President, except well… haven’t we been down this road before? For those willing to buy the razzle-dazzle of Obama’s new symbolism, look no further than the president’s past record of placating voting blocs with meaningless, highly publicized executive orders from closing Guantanamo Bay to lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling. It goes without saying that neither accomplished a damn thing. In fact, there are more restrictions to offshore drilling and fewer permits are being granted than ever before. The executive decisions we should all worry about are made in the dead of night, and they don’t come with press releases or photo-ops.

The “pro-business” executive order and Wall Street Journal editorial written by the president are political theater from the master of political theater, cover for the mainstream media to rehabilitate Obama’s image as a centrist (they’ve been calling him that anyway, but when you host a show on MSN-DNC, who exactly is to the left of you?). Remember, Democrats don’t believe they lose elections because of their policies. Democrats believe they lose because of their messaging. Thus, there’s no need to turn the ship around or steer it in another direction due to public disapproval, just strike up the band and attempt to lift the poor saps spirits before they notice we’re headed toward an iceberg.

So we are told what’s needed to insert some sanity into unreasonable government meddling is another executive order that specifies how the government should reasonably meddle. It won’t be long before we get new committees to recommend new regulations on how to regulate the new committees to make sure no one is overregulating the regulators. This is the essence of governing in symbols, and Obama has it down pat.

While the president has clearly mastered governing in symbols, don’t expect to see triangles, for as much as Obama loves symbols, you won’t see him embrace triangulation like President Clinton. Obama’s symbol of choice has always been the circle, and it’s his circular logic that always brings him back to the story arc of government protecting the people from the “excesses” of free enterprise.

Nothing’s changed, despite the new rhetoric. No president serious about eliminating onerous regulations takes over one-sixth of the American economy and places draconian measures on insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, hospitals, and doctors. You don’t grow the size of government by 25% in 18 months and pass the Financial Reform or Food and Safety bills if you are focused on cutting the bureaucratic tape that hampers business opportunities. President Obama has used the regulatory agencies of his administration to come down harder on industry than any president since FDR (and FDR didn’t have near as many bureaucrats at his disposal).

In fact, for all his effort to fool voters, Obama’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal is a tell for his ideological position. In articulating the need for government to “strike the right balance” between freedom and security, he illustrates his lack of understanding the meaning of God-granted freedoms. You could say the Obama Doctrine is the antithesis of Benjamin Franklin’s much-quoted, “Any society that would give up a little freedom for a little security will have neither and lose both.” But Ben Franklin is just some stuffy, old, rich white guy who helped write the Declaration of Independence. What does he know?

If you want to see how most of America views our success as a nation, read the first paragraph of Obama’s editorial. It’s brilliantly written and comes close to describing American Exceptionalism. But there’s a reason it’s the starting point for his article, not the finale. Barack doesn’t see the world this way. To understand the president’s mindset, you have to start in the second paragraph where he writes, “But throughout history, one of the reasons the free market has worked is we that have sought the proper balance… with regulations necessary to protect the public.”

And there are more troubling passages hidden in the gobbledygook:

But creating a 21st-century regulatory system is about more than which rules to add and which rules to subtract. As the executive order I am signing makes clear, we are seeking more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve the same ends—giving careful consideration to benefits and costs. This means writing rules with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens. [emphasis mine]

Question: if the government is creating a new regulatory system, adding rules, and writing rules with more input from experts (experts being statists and special interests), how does this promote free market solutions? It sounds like the same old anti-business, command-and-control economy. In fact, judging by the last paragraph, it is:

Despite a lot of heated rhetoric, our efforts over the past two years to modernize our regulations have led to smarter—and in some cases tougher—rules to protect our health, safety and environment. Yet according to current estimates of their economic impact, the benefits of these regulations exceed their costs by billions of dollars.

This is the lesson of our history: Our economy is not a zero-sum game. Regulations do have costs; often, as a country, we have to make tough decisions about whether those costs are necessary. But what is clear is that we can strike the right balance. [emphasis mine]

In other words, the past two years were a testament to how regulation should work in our country, not an aberration, according to President Obama. The passage of all these monstrosities has “led to smarter rules”. One can only infer from these statements that the president’s 2011 agenda will reiterate the need for government to “strike the right balance” between business and regulation by taking over more aspects of the economy. In other words, more of the same, but this time masked by friendlier language and symbols.

Never Let a Crisis Go Without a Logo

Barack brands a massacre. Because sometimes “Yes, We Did!” just doesn’t seem quite appropriate.

No lie. T-shirts with the phrase “Together We Thrive” were made available for mourners at tonight’s memorial service in Tucson with Dear Leader in attendance. I’m hoping a similar logo won’t appear on the podium when the president gives his political address/eulogy.

PHOTO: OBAMA’S ROCKIN’ MEMORIAL T-SHIRTS PLACED AT EVERY SEAT

You may recall when Lyndon Johnson attempted to brand the shooting of JFK with “Rising Above the Grassy Knoll” tote bags. Epic fail. But don’t feel bad for The One. Feel bad for the families of the victims.

An Assassination Attempt on American Liberty

There aren’t enough words to describe the tragedy that occurred in Arizona when 22 year old gunman Jared Lee Loughner walked into a Safeway in Tucson and shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, along with 19 others. Fortunately, thanks to a fast-thinking intern, quick medical attention, the miracle of prayer, and the luck of where the bullet entered and exited her skull, Rep. Giffords is still with us. Doctors remain optimistic about her recovery, and that is great news.

Sadly, six other victims weren’t as lucky. Thoughts and prayers go out to their families. I hope they are in a better place now where there’s no such thing as a 24 hour news cycle. To use their deaths, as some have done to demonize their political opponents, shows a complete callousness for life and does a great disservice to grieving loved ones. It disappoints me to think the American political process could stoop this low. And yet here we are.

Just minutes after Rep. Gabrielle Gifford was shot, before the blood was dry, progressives began blaming the tea party, Sarah Palin, and conservative rhetoric for this massacre. Was the shooter a member of the tea party? No. Was there any proof he had ever supported Sarah Palin or paid attention to her tweets and facebook posts? No. But such lack of evidence didn’t stop the Left. They had a narrative to push, a narrative laid out nearly a year ago by President Clinton, that somewhere on the right the next Timothy McVeigh was out there and opposing Democrat policies would surely send them over the edge. This is worse than guilt by association. It’s guilt without association, connecting invisible dots to paint dissent as radical and silence opposition.

It didn’t take long for pundits on the Left to take up Bill Clinton’s campaign. Before a shooter’s name was even disclosed, Markos Moulitsas and Paul Krugman had already begun to paint right-wing political rhetoric as the culprit fostering hate in America. In fact, it got so out of control that Sarah Palin became a trending topic on google and twitter during the aftermath of the deadly shooting. Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, where true hate speech flourishes, tweeted, “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.” And that was one of the nicer things that was said all day.

As for Krugman at the NYT, one can only hope he’s ashamed of printing this nonsense:

“We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.

She’s been the target of violence before… she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing.”

In other words, it had to be an anti-Obamacare, tea party member because hey, they ran against her in a tough-contested election. What?! Anyone who refuses to condemn Krugman for printing such false assumptions with no evidence to speak of is clearly as sick as he is, and that brings up a very important point. If the Left really believes that charged political rhetoric causes violent outbursts by deranged individuals, why are they using this same vitriol against Sarah Palin? Either they don’t believe the very hypothesis they’ve been hyperventilating over the past two days or they are hoping something equally despicable happens to the former governor. Which is maybe why this image is making the rounds online:

Now I don’t believe this will lead some sicko to kill Sarah Palin, as disgusting an image as it may be. I do find it extremely distasteful, bordering on an actual threat (you can imagine the outrage if this image was found in the shooter’s home with Giffords’ head depicted instead). It’s surely more egregious than the map liberals are whining about with “targets” painted over congressional districts. But obviously the Left must not believe such over-the-top rhetoric causes disturbed individuals to commit bloody slaughters or it wouldn’t be making the rounds online. Unless they really want to see Sarah Palin assassinated. Which even I highly doubt.

At this point, I would normally spend time defending Sarah Palin and the tea party, dissecting the idiocy of Paul Krugman’s charges, pointing out that one of the shooter’s high school friends said he was an atheist and called him “left wing.” I might also point out that Rep. Giffords was the first Jewish member of Congress to be elected in Arizona and that Jared Lee Loughner cited Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kamph as one of his favorite books. Or that he seems to have been planning this mad act of violence long before Palin’s map or the tea party ever took form. But none of that really matters. Jared Lee Loughner was obviously a sick and twisted individual.

Here’s what does matter. We cannot let a personal tragedy for some become the great American tragedy by senselessly banning forms of political speech or attempting to police the thoughts of our citizens. We cannot become a nation that tries to set guidelines to determine which dissent is appropriate and which is incendiary. To do so would shred the Constitution, limit the right of the people to redress grievances against their government, and shrink the voice of the opposition in the face of an all-powerful state.

Now is not the time to weaken the first amendment for the promise of a little more security for our elected officials. Thousands, no, hundreds of thousands of over-the-top political statements have been uttered by both the Left and the Right over the past few years, yet incidents of violence have been so rare, they are nearly nonexistent. Perhaps one of the best examples of over-the-top rhetoric is that of “truthers” who believe the government of the United States is responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11. Yet rather than force this kind of speech underground, giving it a kind of dangerous legitimacy by banning it, the most effective response is to refute it with facts out in the open, to smoke out the moonbats and let Truth prevail.

Millions of examples of vitriol dot the landscape of American history. So far, no event, not even the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, has caused Congress to re-think free speech or pass a law to limit political discourse as protected under the first amendment. Not only does this incident not rise to the standard of those tragedies, there’s no evidence that the shooter in this case was ever influenced by the statements of any political speech, Democrat or Republican. It’s more likely he was a nut, and like John Hinckley, could have just as easily taken the wrong cue from a movie starring Robet DeNiro and Jodie Foster.

Any effort to limit political speech by this Congress, and you know it’s coming from the Democrats, should be firmly rejected. This is as close to a Reichstag fire moment as we’ve come to in this country recently. Should the first amendment be chipped away to only protect non-offensive, politically correct speech, we really will be entering a new era of tyranny. January 8, 2011 will go down not as the day a sitting congresswoman was almost killed, but as the day American liberty took a great fall.

Yes, the Left’s reaction to this random shooting is a threat to our lives and liberties, and no, I won’t tone down my rhetoric to please Paul Krugman or Ezra Klein. But, then again, I don’t find the Constitution “old and confusing.”

Biggest Disappointments of 2010

Happy 2011! As trite as I find end of year lists (check out this top ten from last year if you don’t believe me), I am going to introduce one more to the already overcrowded field. Please accept my apologies up front, but I felt the need to reflect once more on the pain and agony 2010 brought so many of us (unless you’re that Mark Zuckerbucks nerd). Seriously, if facebook is the story of 2010, we’ve sunk to a new low in banality. So here’s to Twenty O’leven (much easier to say than two thousand and eleven) and the TEN BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENTS OF 2010:

10. US Soccer in the World Cup – The experts told us we should have high hopes for this team, yet we barely advanced to the second round (it took a breakaway goal in overtime) and then lost to Ghana in our first playoff game. Ghana! Most Americans can’t even find Ghana on a map (which could qualify as the 11^th biggest disappointment of the year). Oh well, there’s always next year… er… in four years.

9. Hollywood’s Lousy Movie Releases – In a few weeks, ten films will be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture. Unfortunately, there probably weren’t ten films worth seeing in 2010. Martin Scorsese released his worst effort in years (Shutter Island) and it turns out the critical early favorite is a film about Zuckerbucks and the facebook phenomena. At least it’s not in 3D. Who knows? Maybe next year we’ll get a sequel about ebay or the kindle. There’s also an acclaimed English movie no one will see and a boxing flick starring Marky Mark (who I like, but let’s be honest this couldn’t crack the top ten in any other year).

8. Tea Party Candidates for U.S. Senate – They had solid ideas, but poorly run campaigns by less than stellar candidates combined with the smear tactics of the mainstream press doomed Joe Miller in Alaska and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all was watching Sharon Angle fall to Harry Reid in Nevada. On the bright side, we got Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Still, if the conservative resurgence is going to save America from becoming the next Spain, we are going to have to do better in 2012.

7. Tiger Woods – We loved to root against him in the past, but when he’s struggling to find moral clarity and swinging his clubs more like the man in front of the golden EIB microphone than the Golden Bear, it just isn’t any fun to watch the world’s former greatest golfer lose anymore. Here’s hoping Tiger gets his personal and professional life back on track in 2011 so we can root for the other guy again without feeling guilty.

6. Scott Brown – From the great new hope of the Republican Party and firewall against Obamacare to the disappointing RINO who might end up with a voting record to the left of Arlen Specter, no politician in Washington could disappoint us more in less time without the initials B.H.O. But maybe, just maybe, it will remind conservatives why Massachusetts Republicans can’t be relied on in presidential races either.

5. The Cupcake Fad – Gourmet cupcakes. Designer cupcakes. Five dollar cupcakes. Cupcakes not shaped like cupcakes. Everywhere you turned in 2010 there were cupcakes. Doctors offices, dry cleaners, and barber shops closed at an alarming rate but we got 20 new places to buy cupcakes. Surprisingly, they taste like… cupcakes. Perhaps no one looked sillier all year than a fifty year old man in a business suit licking the icing off a cupcake shaped like a mouse. We’re still a nation of adults, aren’t we?

4. Football in Texas – The Lone Star State prides itself on football. There is no greater church for the Texas sporting fan. And yet for the first time in recent memory, the Dallas Cowboys failed to make the playoffs AND the Texas Longhorns didn’t qualify for a bowl game. There was even talk of a Cowboys Super Bowl at the beginning of the year. HA! Meanwhile, Florida stole the Longhorns’ coach-in-waiting, and the Houston Texans are, well, the Houston Texans. The only bright spot of the year is TCU. Not to take anything away from what they’ve accomplished, but when TCU is the pinnacle of Texas sports, you know it’s been an unusually bad year.

3. Homeland Security – The myopic agency ended 2010 by failing to heed the warnings of a father in the U.K. who tipped off the CIA that his son was planning some kind of attack. You would think such a tip from a credible witness would at least initiate a red enough flag to get the underwear bomber’s name on a No Fly list. Nope. Follow that with the failed Times Square plot and efforts to placate every radical Muslim by calling their religious beliefs “peaceful” and refusing to use the word “terrorist” except when referring to Christian militias. Then initiate a heavy-handed security protocol at the airport that wastes valuable resources on law-abiding, non-threatening citizens and gropes and undresses ten year old children. We’re not any safer and we’re conditioning our kids to give up their liberties and be less vigilant when faced with the all-powerful state. It’s time for this bloated, intrusive, and ineffective government agency to go.

2. The Economy – Too many longtime local businesses have closed their doors. Unemployment has hovered around 10% all year. If you didn’t lose your job this year, you know someone who did. One in six Americans is on food stamps. Obamanomics hasn’t been good for anyone really except Goldman Sachs. Contain. Constrict. Control. Regulate. Resrict. Restrain. These are all words the Left uses to describe government policy and they are all antonyms of GROWTH. Obamanomics is destroying our once-thriving private sector. Look for only mild improvements in 2011.

1. Eric Holder’s Justice Department – They can’t get a conviction against an Al-Qaeda terrorist accused of blowing up two African embassies in 1998, failing on 179 out of 180 counts, but they have the people of Arizona back on their heels for daring to check the legal status of arrested residents. They dropped all charges against two black panthers for intimidating voters outside the polls dressed in military-style uniforms and waving weapons. Most recently, they sued a school district for refusing to give a Muslim teacher a month off so she could take a vacation to Mecca. This is the most political Justice Department in history. What local or state entity will the federal government try to usurp next for failing to give greater influence to special interest groups dear to Mr. Holder and President Obama?

Clinton’s Phony Legacy

It occurred to me last week how strange it seemed for Bill Clinton to be pressing for a tax compromise (along with President Obama) that prevented the tax rates from the Clinton era from coming back to fruition. After all, for years all we’ve heard from the center-left media and the Democratic Party is how great the economy was in the 1990’s as a result of Bill Clinton raising taxes.

Well, with the tax rates expiring and going back to Clinton era levels without action or compromise, don’t we have a chance to test that very hypothesis? If it was the tax rates under Bill Clinton that led to good economic times (and a budgetary surplus), then why is the former president so dead set against allowing them to go back to 1990 levels? Why is Bill Clinton avoiding the tax rates he put into place to endorse the tax rates created by George W. Bush?

I think we all know the truth. Bill Clinton’s economic legacy is a fraud. He got lucky in that 1) Republicans came to power in 1994 and forced spending cuts and welfare reform (I do give Clinton credit for signing that legislation) and 2) the dot.com bubble took place as the internet was developed and companies like google, yahoo, and amazon were created. Of course, the tech bubble later burst, but that was in the final four months of the Clinton presidency, overshadowed first by the Florida recount in an historically razor-close election and a year later by the tragic events of 9/11.

Former president Bill Clinton is petrified of the truth. His tax increases had nothing to do with the booming economy of the 1990’s, and it’s a media myth that would be exposed by raising taxes in this economy with the public paying close attention. During bad times, the damage caused by tax hikes on families and businesses becomes evident. People feel the pain. In a good economy (and especially a bubble economy), the pain is camouflaged. In fact, there may be enough economic momentum to outlast the negative consequences of tax increases in the short term. In the long-term, however, tax hikes still aren’t good – even if they erase the deficit, because tax hikes stunt future growth and punish productivity.

The big news isn’t what Democrats or Republicans gained or gave up in pushing this tax compromise forward. The big news is President Obama and Bill Clinton endorsed George W. Bush’s tax rates over the Clinton tax rates, one to improve his chances of getting re-elected and the other to protect his phony legacy.

If anyone is enjoying a “comeback” in Washington, I’m sorry Mr. Krauthammer, but it’s not President Obama. It’s George W. Bush.

Democrats, Christianity, and Class Warfare

There’s nothing more pathetic really than a Democrat who wraps themselves in the veil of compassion in order to justify class warfare. There’s no moral high ground in this position. For those who believe they are somehow more caring because they desire to “soak the rich”, I have news for you. Taking isn’t the same as giving. It requires no moral courage to propose confiscating a greater share of someone else’s private and personal property. You are stealing, plain and simple. Such behavior isn’t to be celebrated, but condemned.

No man’s house ever got built by tearing another man’s house down. No nation ever prospered by allowing envy, greed, and thuggery to run rampant. The wealth created and produced by individuals doesn’t belong to the state. For the state to lay claim to a greater and greater percentage, to require the individual to labor more and more every year to justify the expansion of government, this is a form of slavery and it robs a man of his dignity. Yet we have allowed this indentured servitude to gain acceptance and dictate how our economy operates.

The result is class warfare and it’s destroying our country. We have reached a point where half the population can vote to steal a greater share of the wealth from the more productive members of society. Once this Pandora’s Box has been busted open, what’s to stop one half from robbing the other completely blind?

If you are struggling to make ends meet and your neighbor down the street is a millionaire living in a 10,000 square foot mansion, is it morally acceptable to break in and steal from them? Do we not have laws against this? If it’s not morally acceptable for you to steal, what makes it desirable for the government to step in and do the same thing?

Welcome to the slippery slope of government sanctioned greed. By always proposing tax hikes on “just the wealthy,” our government, and in particular progressives, are legitimizing theft. They are encouraging neighbors to covet each others possessions. The mantra of the spiritually enlightened is “do unto others as you would have done to yourself.” The manta of the Democrat, especially in Washington, is “Take from the other guy!”

For western society based on biblical principles, the morality is quite clear. Thou shalt not steal. That applies to corporations and governments as much as individuals. While Christianity advocates for the poor and Jesus preached against the false idols of wealth and greed, nowhere in the Bible does it suggest the way to serve the poor is by stealing from the rich. To advocate as much, Jesus would have had to break the Ten Commandments.

The truth is the way to create an economy of abundance that best benefits the least fortunate members of society is to encourage acts of virtue, not discourage affluence. Generosity begets generosity. An economy of abundance is abundant for everyone, but it can’t be forced. Giving has to come from the heart. That’s the true change in humanity that Christ wants us to live by.

Of course, by weakening the property rights of the select few, we’ve actually condoned weakening the property rights of every citizen. The only thing that changes is the threshold to decide where that confiscation begins, who has “too much” according to the all-powerful state.

It was Karl Marx who advocated a progressive income tax scheme. Karl Marx, of course, was an atheist who called religion “the opiate of the masses” and condoned armed revolution to achieve his aim of a Worker’s Utopia. The purpose of a progressive income tax was, according to Marx, not to create a more virtuous or fair society, but to literally divide society by class until the working class was able to seize total control of production from the bourgeoisie. In other words, the purpose of class warfare was the annihilation of the propertied class! Sound familiar?

We have, in essence, unleashed two value systems against one another in America – a progressive tax code based in Marxism vs. the Judeo-Christian ethic this nation was founded on. They are not compatible. One encourages stealing, and the other encourages sharing. One abandons the idea of private property, the other celebrates it. One divides by class, the other says love your neighbor regardless of class or creed.

Rather than emphasize charity, class warfare, as brought about by a progressive income tax, really encourages hoarding and greed. The more you threaten to take from someone, the more likely they are to hold on to it tighter and find ways to hide it from being confiscated.

There’s a reason, after all, so much wealth earned right here under our capitalist system is sitting in secret bank accounts overseas. Imagine if we could inject all that capital back into our economy by simply eliminating the progressive income tax code.

Anyone can be generous with other people’s money, and it’s even easier to be generous with other people’s money when it’s in your own self-interest. If I use a stolen credit card to buy dinner at a restaurant for 100 people, that doesn’t make me a particularly noble person. If I own the restaurant, that makes me the very definition of a Washington scoundrel. If I demand recognition for this “charity” and chastise those who don’t support such a scheme, I can only be Chuck Schumer – or any modern Democrat for that matter.

I would go so far as to argue that government is the most dangerous of all thieves. At least a family in need who gives into temptation sees who they’re stealing from and takes only what is necessary. They’ll probably spend the money locally, propping up small businesses. The government or state, by contrast, redistributes wealth through channels among the political elite and favored special interests. They have absolute power, which corrupts absolutely, and are therefore guaranteed to spend the confiscated sum in the most corrupt manner possible. Fraud and waste go hand and hand.

Theft practiced on the government’s grand scale is treated like a victimless crime, but we are all victims. It’s just no one has to look into the eyes of the families they are stealing from. They don’t ever see the consequences of taking wealth out of communities or tying the hands of small businesses, causing local opportunities to shrink at the expense of propping up Washington. They aren’t accountable for the money that gets wasted, and they never have to spend time with the poor who fail to see their lives improve from such a corrupt system. They simply pat themselves on the back for having the very best intentions of stealing the money in the first place. The bureaucratic machine keeps the trains rolling to the slaughterhouse without ever having to see the horrors of the slaughter.

It is a convenient system for madmen and thieves. Less convenient for its citizens, even the citizen who believes somehow, some way, somewhere down the road, no matter how many years it takes, they are going to see a benefit from this sanctioned immorality. That day never comes.

Donna Campbell (TX-25) Releases Ad Showing Doggett Fleeing Voters

I have been blogging about this race for the past two months or ever since Lloyd Doggett’s opponent, Dr. Donna Campbell, showed up at the Redstate Event. It has provided some excitement and controversy here in Texas, where almost all the serious races have already been decided. Bill White will be lucky to top 40% against Rick Perry. Chet Edwards looks like he’s finished. That leaves TX-23, TX-27, and surprisingly TX-25, which was was one of eight districts the Cook report moved from safe seats to likely Democrat last week much to the chagrin of Mr. Doggett. I continue to believe, especially having talked to friends who are mildly enthusiastic Democrats and hate Rick Perry, that Dr. Donna Campbell can pull the upset here. In other words, and it’s just anecdotal evidence but you can imagine the lagging effect, I have friends who have voted for every Democrat on the ballot in Travis County except Lloyd Doggett.

Why the distance from this longtime Austin legislator? I think it boils down to two words – inaccessible and arrogant. These Democrat friends of mine may not agree with the tea party, but they certainly don’t believe it’s right for their representative in Congress to belittle and/or avoid concerns of his constituents just because they don’t act like typical Travis Heights progressives. It just feels out of touch and so Washington establishment. People on both sides of the aisle are sick of partisan, career-oriented politicians (and it’s one reason people flocked to Obama 08, although the more discerning among us knew his statesmanlike ability to unify differing parties was completely manufactured).

The problem is as much as Rick Perry has come to represent Governor-Crony-for-Life to Democrats, he hasn’t been around nearly as long as Lloyd Doggett. Mr. Doggett really epitomizes career politician. It doesn’t help that his speaking style is more 19th century schoolmaster lecturer than empathetic charmer. And he’s actually got a challenger who cuts an image as far from the establishment mold as possible.

Dr. Donna Campbell uses her latest TV spot, which has been running a fair share during network primetime, to highlight these personality differences with her opponent, including use of the famous footage where Mr. Doggett fled his constituents at a town hall on Obamacare last summer. She then ties his votes to Nancy Pelosi, who rammed most of the far left’s agenda down our throats during the 111th Congress. Doggett, of course, voted with Speaker Pelosi 98% of the time.

It’s an effective ad, and hopefully the last thing voters will remember before they cast their ballot with such a distinct choice. Will they elect the newcomer emergency room physician or the longtime Washington insider who stopped listening a long time ago?