So, President Obama has decided to channel the populism of Teddy Roosevelt. The liberal media is all goo-goo over his speech in Kansas as one of the defining speeches of his Presidency. Of course, we have heard that one before several times. The fact is that this was not the defining speech of his Presidency but of his re-election campaign. No doubt we will hear more “defining speeches” as this campaign progresses. The mere fact that he has had so many defining speeches illustrates just how rudderless his leadership is and one where Republicans need to take advantage.
Obviously, this is a crass and callous attempt to appeal to his base which envisions some concept of total income equality at any cost in some utopian “green economy” where world leaders come together and solve all the world’s problems through a collective chorus of “Kumbaya.” The speech may have appealed to the Occupy Whatever crowd, but they are hardly representative of the “99%.”
Instead, his “defining speech” was more of the same. We heard how actions in 2001 and 2003 are the main culprits for our fiscal woes today. Absolutely none of his bone-headed policies are responsible; it is large attributable to the Bush tax cuts. He is obviously ignorant of the fact that the “Bushh deficits” as a percentage of GDP were BELOW historical averages. Obama’s deficits, however, have set the country on a collision course with fiscal reality where, unfortunately, very hard choices will have to be made. Just ask Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal and other European leaders after the first verse of “Kumbaya.” Better yet, stay home and ask the governors of California, New Jersey or Illinois. If nothing else, he can ask them on the golf course practicing his putt getting away from the stress of being President.
We heard about evil bankers taking advantage of people who rightfully should never had received a mortgage in the first place. We heard nothing about the use of the housing market by the government as a vehicle in social engineering. Its ironic how the two legislators whose name appear on the banking “reform” law will no longer be in office come 2012- Dodd and Frank. Never mind the fact that this “law” did precious little to insulate the taxpayer from future banking distress, but simply codified the “too big to fail” concept. There is more in that law addressing the trivial contributors to the housing/banking meltdown. Instead, we get compensation czars and Wall Street affirmative action in the executive suite as if more women and minority executives would be less “greedy” or more risk-aversive. Maybe we should have Maxine Waters running CitiBank. We heard nothing about reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and certainly nothing about Bush’s attempt to do so in 2004 supported, ironically, by the New York Times. But then that would bring up some ugly truths as to why those reforms were never enacted- the belief by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others that they were just fine. Frank actually stated that he wanted to take full advantage of the housing bubble to put more minority in homes. Most likely, given his ties to ACORN and their efforts in the same endeavour and an organization that helped secure dubious loans for “the poor,” we can surmise Obama would have seconded Frank.
It is easy to demonize the 1% and millionaires in general. They are America’s favorite whipping boys and always were, even in the days of Teddy Roosevelt. Back then, they were the trusts. We can spend hours debating the efficacy of or even the need for antitrust laws. To summarize, they were “feel good” pieces of legislation, just as Dodd-Frank is and just as Sarbanes-Oxley was in response to Enron. Unfortunately, just as antitrust laws did not benefit consumers by increasing competition, their modern counterparts have simply saddled businesses (that is, job creators) with more regulations and costs that have paralyzed job growth. And we won’t even touch Obamacare or cap-and-trade.
Unfortunately, he failed to truly define the political debate in this country- the size and scope of the Federal government. Instead, he flippantly states that the GOP believes the “losers” must suffer because that is the cost of liberty. Of course, in Obama’s view it is the government who is best suited to pick the winners where every child goes home with a trophy.
If Obama- or any President- wants to narrow the income gap, they would start first and foremost with true educational reform where one size does not fit all. The single largest contributing factor in determining one’s income in life is their level of education. And as others like George Will have illustrated, advances in American educational output stagnated or regressed at precisely the moment the Federal government became involved in K-12 education. The federal government has no business in this area just as they have no business in the construction of some highway interchange in California. Yet, because of people like the Roosevelts, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter, we have the Labor, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Labor Departments and a plethora of other federal bureaucracies that today impact practically every aspect of American life up to and including the number of toilet flushes allowed if Obama’s EPA had its way. While he states that GOP policies have been proven failures- a point that can be debated- Obama is living proof that liberal policies have been even more disastrous not only fiscally, but towards our liberties. But to Obama, liberty is some insignificant afterthought- sort of like clinging to guns and Bibles. The only true solution to this country’s fiscal woes is to fire the President in November, 2012.

It is currently close to a year after a large chunk of the media has falsely and shamelessly accused Rush Limbaugh, Tea Partiers, talk-radio, and Sarah Palin specifically, citing a map upon which she had placed cross-hairs at districts she felt were worthwhile investing energy during elections and which included Giffords’ district.

It mattered not that the blame for the horrific act rested solely on the shoulders of a deranged non-political lunatic whose obsession with his Democratic Congresswoman dated back to at least 2007, a time when Sarah Palin served as the Governor of remote Alaska. Once the fog had lifted and it became clear without the shadow of a doubt that the anti-Giffords Jared Loughner who committed the crime was as disconnected from the right and Sarah Palin as could possibly be, many thought the left would apologize or at least ensure to stick to the facts. However, the left has never tired of their obsession against Palin and continue to blame her for a deranged guy’s act.

Giffords has recently released a book and sadly chose to blame a proven innocent individual rather than supporting the truth. Her husband, whose doing the publicizing, spoke negatively of Palin during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan despite the facts that the shooter’s motives were unrelated to politics and that the usage of targets on a map is an accepted act and had also been used by the Democrat Party.

The liberal tactic in blaming their opponents in the death of others despite their obvious innocence isn’t new. It has been played continuously throughout Bush’s presidency after the launch of the Iraqi war, with slogans like “Bush Lied, People Died” which blamed Bush in the deaths of civilians and soldiers instead of the terrorists who directed car bombs, roadside bombs, and other forms of violence.

Liberals have always been loyal to the ideology that “facts don’t matter especially if they contradict your message.” Thus, minor details such as that far more Iraqis have died during Clinton’s presidency due to Saddam’s systemic murders and gassing of entire neighborhoods than had been killed by terrorists during Bush’s presidency, simply had no significance upon the anti-war crowd. Heralding Bush as a hero who saved thousands of Kurds from unjust suffering simply contradicted their agenda and therefore remained unmentioned by the left. In contrast, Obama’s war in Libya was lauded by the left for its humanitarian and noble mission.

It is stunning to watch the leftists’ reactions once their political opponent can no longer be blamed, whether because of lack of evidence, evidence proving them wrong, or their nemesis no longer being in power. Instead of reversing the blame they’ve heaped upon their opponents and directing it towards the true guilty party, they either disappear without the slightest apology, or remain entrenched in their warped facts despite reality proving otherwise.

This was seen after the details emerged as to who was responsible for the Tucson shooting. The left hadn’t redirected the hatred and anger they had expressed against Palin and the others towards Loughner, the guy truly guilty of the crime. Similarly, once Bush was no longer in office and their buddy Obama had taken over the reins, the death counts, protests, and chants have come to a mysterious end. These reversals indicate not only the falsehood of the original claims but tell us that these liberals have been knowledgeable of the true facts throughout their protests, yet nevertheless chose to proceed with the lies. How disgusting.

Additionally, the left personalize their hatred against political opponents and speak badly of the person/people instead of the ideology, and it often leads to improper behavior. It is therefore common amongst liberals to label their opponents as Hitler and Nazis, and joke of a longing to bring the life of a conservative to an end without receiving any criticism of the others. Since hating the person is deemed the norm in liberal circles, the media hasn’t found it necessary to protest the many death wishes made publicly against Palin and other conservatives since they too carry a personal hatred against conservatives and would have loved to see such threats followed through.

This is the polar opposite of the manner in which conservatives conduct themselves, and conservatives can be proud of their behavior. Conservatives strictly oppose the message and the ideology of the left without mocking or wishing physical ill for its messengers. The demands of fifty one conservative congress members, three presidential candidates, and many other influential conservative figures for Eric Holder to step down from his post as Attorney General is but one example of the exemplary behavior in which conservatives conduct themselves.

The American public in general and conservatives in particular were shocked to discover the details of Operation Fast & Furious, an operation led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in which firearms were sold to suspected gun smugglers in the hope to eventually trace the arms all the way up to the higher echelons of Mexican drug cartels. Although it must have appeared novel to some in theory, reality proved the operation to be disastrous as they lost track of most of the weapons, only to have them repeatedly turn up at crime scenes and has been direct cause of the deaths of at least 200 innocent Mexicans and one U.S. Border Control Agent, Brian Terry. Since only 600 out of the 2,500 guns have been recovered and a majority of those were found only after having been used to commit violence, that death-toll is expected to at least double.

The conservative media deserves much respect and credit for their dedication to the truth, in only reporting information of which were absolutely accurate and of which evidence was available. Despite the information which traced the program directly to the Obama administration, there were no hasty assumptions and finger-pointing as liberals are want to do. Rather, they waited until they had absolute facts before placing any demands directly upon a single individual. What a contrast to Obama’s “I don’t know the details” but “the police acted stupidly” which then required a beer summit in order to undo the damage his hastiness has caused.

Those investigating the details demanded from the federal government two reasonable requests; transparency and responsibility. Transparency is necessary so that those who were responsible for this out-of-control program can be held responsible and removed from their post.

The first individual of which responsibility has been demanded is Erick Holder, Attorney General, whose resignation has been requested by many conservatives in Congress since he was aware of this scandal yet did nothing to counteract it. For some unknown reason, the government has found both requests to be unreasonable. In the latest development, the grand jury indictment issued for Brian Terry’s murder was sealed last week by the Obama Administration, thus blocking the door for additional information to be released. As for responsibility, Obama has not yet demanded a resignation from Holder or anyone else.

The call for Holder to resign isn’t the result of randomly choosing one individual upon whom to pounce and throw some blame. Only after evidence surfaced which exposed Holder and the lies he’d said during the Congressional Hearings, did conservatives call for him to take responsibility for his irresponsible actions. Since the outcry was focused at the action and not the individual, it did not include any “jokes” which demanded violence against Holder. The only demand which has been placed upon Holder is resignation, something which should’ve been self-understood and self-enacted by Holder.

As an aside, it’s pretty ironic that the same administration who wishes to place additional restrictions upon the second amendment rights of ordinary Americans, and the president who has mocked the bitter folks who cling to their guns, hasn’t had any qualms in supplying guns to violent foreigners behind the backs of their government.

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on twitter.

Today I read Paul Krugman’s NYT editorial insulting Republicans for daring to question the religion that is Global Warming.  Krugman presented no real facts or arguments on the issue, instead focusing on the irrelevant detail of the professions of the witnesses at a recent congressional hearing.  I should of course say Climate Change instead of Global Warming as that is the new term liberals came up with when the facts no longer fit their theories.  However this post isn’t about Krugman or even global warming itself, it is about why and how conservatives should always win a debate on this issue.   Liberals always try to frame and change debates so that the other side seems like they must be wrong or delusional, but all we have to do is expose certain truths and their arguments fall apart.

When it comes to Climate Change, conservatives can make 4 different arguments, and only 1 of them needs to succeed for us to win the debate.  Liberals try to frame the debate as an argument over whether global warming is occurring, a scientific debate, and then argue that based on a “scientific consensus” anyone who questions climate change or any policy prescription that goes with it is essentially a flat-earther.  Besides that being not true, it is also a shift of where the real debate should be, whether the policy solutions liberals want to impose make sense (HINT: NO).

Second:  Is Global Warming Man Made?  If climate change is not man made and not caused by Carbon emissions, then there is really no reason to change our behavior since we cannot affect it.  There is plenty of Evidence countering this point, including the fact that Venus is a prime example of Global Warming (no humans there) and the fact that the earth has been hotter in the past (before all the evil human inventions polluted the planet).  Furthermore, there are many sources of Carbon emissions that are completely unrelated to the cars we drive and the light bulbs we use (including cow farting..so we might have to kill the cows).  Now even if it is occurring and man-made, let us move to the next question.

We are speeding headlong toward a time when our Congress will have become just like Mad King George’s Parliament, that body from which in 1776 the American colonists separated with the rallying cry of “no taxation without representation.” Our national government is fast becoming just as unrepresentative of the people as far off Briton was when we went to war to become the United States of America.

Does that seem like a hyperbolic statement to you? At first blush, it might. But a considered look at the direction in which we are quickly heading will prove that, compared to the British Parliament that raised the ire of our forefathers so long ago, today’s Congress shows many signs of the same, oppressive, haughty, disinterested politicians that considered their national government more important than the local’s interests and needs.

Representation is the key word, here. What does it mean? What did it mean then? Of course, the problem was that it meant two different things to the opposing sides of the Revolutionary era, hence the conflict. In England, representation meant that Parliament “represented” the whole of the country and that each member of that body was elected from their home to go forth and become a member of the whole. British politicians generally did not imagine that they were representing their hometown when they went to Parliament.

Read More →

We are speeding headlong toward a time when our Congress will have become just like Mad King George’s Parliament, that body from which in 1776 the American colonists separated with the rallying cry of “no taxation without representation.” Our national government is fast becoming just as unrepresentative of the people as far off Briton was when we went to war to become the United States of America.

Does that seem like a hyperbolic statement to you? At first blush, it might. But a considered look at the direction in which we are quickly heading will prove that, compared to the British Parliament that raised the ire of our forefathers so long ago, today’s Congress shows many signs of the same, oppressive, haughty, disinterested politicians that considered their national government more important than the local’s interests and needs.

Representation is the key word, here. What does it mean? What did it mean then? Of course, the problem was that it meant two different things to the opposing sides of the Revolutionary era, hence the conflict. In England, representation meant that Parliament “represented” the whole of the country and that each member of that body was elected from their home to go forth and become a member of the whole. British politicians generally did not imagine that they were representing their hometown when they went to Parliament.

Read More →