Modified for RedState, original post at http://j.mp/OnTheReport

Earlier today, The Report tweeted about the double standard that seems to exist in politics, where behavior that is deemed unacceptable for a conservative, is determined to be fine for a liberal. Yet, frequently I see those on the right engaging in behavior that just doesn’t make sense. I see people on the right making personal attacks on President Barack Obama or Senator Harry Reid — yet, they oppose the personal attacks against conservatives like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. Effectively, some on the right think it’s okay to defame or make personal attacks against the left, but that it isn’t okay to do this to the right. They’re half correct: it isn’t okay to make personal attacks against, or to defame, the right. However, it’s also unacceptable to do it against the left.

I don’t post about how President Obama is an evil atheist, because he has shown otherwise and even if he were an atheist, the Constitution says that’s totally fine. I don’t write about the sexual escapades of women running for the United States Senate, because once again, these personal attacks are not relevant to their positions on items that actually will affect the American people, such as taxation or job creation.  I believe that true conservatives understand that being respectful is a part of adhering to true conservative values.

In my writing, there’s no double standard. I will hold those on both sides accountable. I’ve called the left out of line, I’ve called the right out of line, and I am willing to call either side out again in the future. I encourage my fellow Americans to do the same.

** Originally Posted at The Report **

Liberals and others opposed to the American people being able to own and use guns often argue that the guns lead to murders happening, and that if we got rid of guns, people wouldn’t be killed. Yet, history tells us that people were murdered well before guns existed. Julius Caesar, for example, was killed in 44 B.C. The fire-lance, which could be considered the first guns, didn’t exist until the 10th century. Murder took place without guns, and gun-free murders continue to take place guns today. Reading the news, there are stories of murder by stabbing, murder by drowning, murder by strangulation, and other means. Criminals do not need guns to kill!

Guns, rather than leading to more crime, actually serve as a deterrent to crime. If you were a criminal on a street with four houses looking to commit a robbery, knowing the owners of three home are armed and that the owners of another are defenseless, you would use common sense to rob the house where the homeowners are defenseless. Further, if someone enters a school looking to kill in aColumbine or Virginia Tech style massacre, they will be able to kill dozens of people if no one is able to stop them. If a majority of people are armed, they’ll be stopped after killing just a few people. While every life is precious, it is a better situation for a few people to be killed than dozens to be killed.

If guns led to crime, the leaders of America would never have submitted the Bill of Rights to be added as amendments to the United States Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This amendment doesn’t force anyone to buy or own a gun, rather it states that people have the right to have guns if they want. It is irresponsible and ignorant for anyone to try to undermine the 2nd Amendment. Further, it is improper:the Constitution can be amended, meaning that if the American people no longer want the right to have guns, there is a proper process to bring about that change.

** Originally posted at The Report **

Last year at CPAC, the man who will become Speaker of the House of Representatives tomorrow, Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), pledged that if the Republicans took back control of the House, all bills would be posted online for the American people to read and provide their feedback to members of Congress.Mr. Boehner even promised to provide the bills 72 hours in advance, to eliminate the potential for shenanigans such as posting a bill at 2:00 PM EST only to have the vote take place at 2:01 PM EST.

Mr. Boehner has kept his promise. The first bill the House is set to vote on is a rules package. The vote will take place on Wednesday, and the bill was made available last week. On Thursday, the House will consider a bill that will cut the budget of Congress. In fact, Mr. Boehner has gone above and beyond his promise to the American people. On January 12, the House will vote on a bill “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law,” that has become known as Obamacare — an act that has been challenged by several states and even ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge as The Report previously discussed. While this bill will likely not make it past the Senate, and would almost certainly be vetoed by President Obama were it to pass Congress, the bill is posted online for the American people to read over seven days before a vote will take place! That is double the time promised by Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Boehner has the opportunity ahead of him to be one of the greatest Speakers in the history of the House of Representatives. Tomorrow, the American people will be able to watch the start of a era in the House of Representatives… literally, as for the first time, Congress will broadcast a live stream on Facebook in addition to normal broadcasts on C-SPAN and other outlets. By adhering to the will of the American people and committing to transparency, Mr. Boehner is the type of leader leader that can help make the United States an even greater country than it is today. It is a shame that during the last four years soon-to-be former Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not embrace the principles that Mr. Boehner does.

Note: The website that bills are currently being posted on is http://rules-republicans.house.gov/

* Also Posted at The Report *

The Huffington Post, FOX News, and even Perez Hilton (a major liberal) today took notice of an interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in which the Justice alleges that it would be Constitutional for laws to be made that directly discriminate against women (or men):

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about.

Unfortunately, Justice Scalia is wrong. This is not the first time he has proclaimed that gender discrimination is legal. In 1996, he was the lone member of the Supreme Court in United States v. Virginia who voted against stricking down the Virginia Military Institute’s policy that did not allow the admission of women. A majority of the court believed that the policy violated the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment.

In suggesting that discrimination against a gender is Constitutional, what Justice Scalia suggests is not only complete inconsistent with the Constitution itself, but also inconsistent with the views of the American people. Justice Scalia’s suggestion goes against true conservative values, which follow the belief that all Americans are equal and reject discrimination or bigotry.

At the end of his post about Mr. Scalia, Perez Hilton asks the question “He’s retiring soon, right?” after noting that it was “troubling that all of this is coming from a current Supreme Court Justice.” Given his inability to properly interpret he Constitution and ensure equal protection is provided to the American people, Justice Scalia’s retirement would likely be beneficial to the country. However, if he were to retire while President Obama is in office, it could lead to the appointment of a far-left, liberal activist justice with even more disdain for the Constitution. A best-case scenario would be for a conservative to be elected President, and for Justice Scalia to resign once a more conservative leader is in office who can ensure that someone is appointed to the Supreme Court who will respect the Constitution.

Cross Posted at The Report – http://j.mp/onthereport

It is speculated by many that when President Barack Hussein Obama returns to the White House from his Hawaii vacation that he might make a push for an overhaul of the tax code that would utilize supply-side economics in order to increase government revenue and address the national debt. The following was reported by the New York Times last month:

President Obama is considering whether to push early next year for an overhaul of the income tax code to lower rates and raise revenues in what would be his first major effort to begin addressing the long-term growth of the national debt.

What President Obama is considering is very much like the supply-side economics (given the nickname “Reaganomics”) that former President Ronald Wilson Reagan utilized in  the 1980s in order to give the United States one of its greatest non-war time periods of economic growth and prosperity. Supply-side economics is based on the concept that by making it easier for producers to supply goods and services, more goods and services will be supplied at more competitive prices. To make it easier for goods and services to be supplied, tax rates are lowered and the government eliminates unnecessary regulation. Government revenue from taxes will increase in the long-run, as a stronger economy will result in there being more money to tax. Essentially, volume makes up for lower tax rates. Would you rather have 30% of $2,000 or 25% of $2,600? The smart answer is 25% of $2,600, which is $650. Taking the other option, while a higher percentage, gives you less money (only $600.)

The concept of supply-side economics increasing government revenue is mathematically sound through the use of theExtreme Value Theorm and the Laffer Curve (shown at left). The Extreme Value Theorm states that for any closed function on an interval from point A to point B, there must exist a minimum and maximum value. The Laffer Curve uses the basic mathematical principle that any real number multiplied by zero will equal zero and the idea that if the government took 100% of income there would be no incentive for anyone to earn money since the government would simply take it all. The Laffer Curve shows government revenue from a 0% tax rate (point A) to a 100% tax rate (point B). Applying the Extreme Value Theorm to the Laffer Curve, it can be concluded the minimum value is zero, and that there must exist a maximum value. t* is the tax rate at which government revenue is maximized. In order to reach maximum government revenue, tax rates must be decreased if they are to the right side of t*, which is where today’s tax rates are.

Under President Reagan, the median family income in the United States rose by $4,000 from 1980 to 1988, government tax revenues increased more than 50 percent, and the number of jobs in the country rose, as did the GDP. The economic policies that some, including former President George H.W. Bush, labeled as “voodoo economics” actually worked. “Reaganomics” was a success, and if President Obama moves forward in 2011 with an embrace of supply-side economics, it will only strengthen our economy and bring greater prosperity to the American people. In fact, if President Obama embraces supply-side economics, in 30 years people may look back and credit “Obamanomics” for getting the United States out of one of it’s worst recessions.

* Also Posted on The Report *

In 2008, Barack Hussein Obama, then just a candidate for United States President put forth a “plan to renew America’s promise.” For $13.95, you can actually buy the book with the plan for the so-called “change we can believe in.” If this was real change that America could believe in, and Mr. Obama wanted the American people to truly read and understand his agenda, it might have been a good idea to just post it to the internet where people can download and read it without paying up. After all, there was (and still is) a recession with high unemployment at the time.

The true change that the American people can believe in is the change that future Speaker of the House John Boehner wants to bring to Congress. The Ohio Republican looks to implement major changes that would provide greater transparency and accountability to Congress. Instead of selling a book about the ideas, Mr. Boehner instead tweeted about them today. Some of these amazing ideas are below:

• Constitutional Authority Statements: Every bill would require a “constitutional authority statement” which indicates what section of theUnited States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact the legislation. This will ensure that Congress does not exert authority that it does not truly have.

• Posting All Bills and Votes Online: Three days prior to a bill being voted on, it would be posted to the internet so that the American people can read the bill with ease. This would ensure that Congress acts in a transparent manner, giving the American people at a minimum, three days to express their support or outrage over a bill that Congress is considering. There would be no more last-minute bills created behind closed doors and passed without the public having a chance to review the bill. The three day rule would also apply to committees looking at bills. Additionally, committee votes would be posted online, enabling the American people to keep their representatives in check.

• No Taxes Hikes to Fund Spending: While the two aforementioned rule changes will likely be acceptable to Democrats, those on the far-left won’t be happy that raising taxes to pay for new spending and earmarks wouldn’t be allowed. Mr. Boehner’s proposal is that new spending should be offset by cuts elsewhere. This would ensure the American people would not be faced with a greater gap between government spending and government revenue each year.

As Mr. Boehner said on 60 Minutes earlier this month, “Washington does not have a revenue problem; Washington has a spending problem.” By following the Constitution, embracing transparency, and not simply hiking taxes to pay for new spending, Congress can come closer to solving its spending problems and Congress will better serve the American people.

* Cross-Posted at The Report *

Michael Moore has been the subject of many negative Twitter posts lately for his recent comments on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann. While one would normally expect that moderates and conservatives are the ones tweeting against the liberal filmmaker responsible for Sicko or Fahrenheit 9-11, it turns out that this time, Moore is so out of line that he’s under fire from people all over the political spectrum.

What did Moore do that could anger his far-left base? He called the rape allegations against WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange “all a bunch of hooey,” ignoring the fact that Assange is accused of having sexually assaulted two women. The Report previously blogged about the topic, with the message that if Assange did not actually commit a rape, then he should be released. This was based on a Reuters report that indicated no actual rape occurred and that the entire thing was over getting Assange tested for sexually transmitted disease/infection. The Reuters report was taken in the context of being definitive and true. It was noted, however, that if Assange actually did rape the women in question, then he should face “arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment for life so that he never has the chance to rape another woman again.”

It now appears, however, that Assange is a rapist and there are more to the charges. One woman said that she and Assange “had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use.” This would be a rape. Another woman said Assange “ignored her appeals to stop.” This would also be rape.

Unlike Michael Moore, The Report takes the position that Julian Assange needs to be put on trial and the case heard so that justice can be served. The media reports are conflicting. Further, you can’t find someone guilty through reading blogs and newspapers. These are serious allegations, as are any rape allegations, and must be properly investigated and tried. If Assange raped two women (or even one woman), and it can be proven in court, then he should be jailed for it. If it cannot be proven that he committed a crime, he should be released. This isn’t about WikiLeaks, it is about ensuring that justice is served. Julian Assange is not a victim in this situation. While he deserves the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the victims here are the two women that he is accused of raping.

The #MooreAndMe hash tag on Twitter was created in order to bring awareness and protest Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann’s lack of understanding of the facts and their failure to recognize that the victim in this case isn’t Julian Assange. Repeated calls have been made for Moore and Olbermann to set the facts straight, but they have failed to do so. Media Bistro has more about the issue.

Per his own Twitter, @MMFlint, Michael Moore is on Maddow tonight on MSNBC at 9:00 PM Eastern Time. Hopefully, some sense will come to him and he’ll apologize and set the record straight. Otherwise, expect the #MooreAndMe campaign to continue.