the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
Republicans, so long as I can recall, have faced an endless barrage of attacks from Democrats and their media allies derived from the theme that today’s Republicans are mean, scary extremists not like those Republicans of the past who won elections because they were moderate and civil and whatnot. The only really good Republicans, to these critics, are dead ones (or live ones who lose elections), although past Republicans do come in for some rehabilitation as soon as they can be used as a club against their successors – we’ve already seen some examples of George W. Bush being cited by liberals on issues like immigration and the Ground Zero Mosque controversy.Now, it’s true, of course, that political coalitions grow and change all the time as different issues rise in importance, and that the GOP in particular has been influenced by the growth of systematic conservative thinking on a variety of fronts. But let’s not fool ourselves that this is a new development. In 1854, Abe Lincoln – six years before he became the first Republican president – was already defending himself against Democrat Stephen A. Douglas’ contention that Lincoln’s anti-slavery position on the Kansas-Nebraska Act showed him to be out of step with those sane, moderate Whigs of the past, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (by then, both dead). Please click here for the rest of the post.
Scaling new heights of moonbattery , Huffington Post columnist Manisha Sinha posits that arguments against Obamacare and other Federal intrusions on states’ rights have their roots in the pro-slavery movement, ca. 1840-60.Please click here for the rest of the post.
Some moments have come to define this administration’s level of incompetence and detachment from reality. For Janet Napolitano of Homeland Security, the defining moment is when she claimed “the system worked” shortly after a man came within seconds of blowing up a commercial airliner having only been narrowly thwarted by other passengers. She soon retracted her statement, however the damage had essentially been done. Coming from the administration that referred to the wars as “overseas contingency operations” and terrorism as “man caused disasters,” it became clear that they cared more about process than substance. What was important to them was correctly completing arbitrary screenings as opposed to making sure that terrorism is thwarted. It’s really a typical liberal mindset: The intentions far outweigh the results. Practical real-world application of experience is replaced by academic experimentation.Please click here for the rest of the post.
Anyone following the race for Texas Speaker knows that it is possible (and critical) to knock off liberal Republican Joe Straus, but that to do so requires unifying behind a single conservative alternative. Anyone, that is, except for State Rep. Warren Chisum. Or does he?As quick background – Warren Chisum is a Democrat-turned-Republican who has been in the Texas House since 1989, representing a West Texas district (88) north of Amarillo. He’s old school Texas politics – where “conservative” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. In October, he announced a challenge to incumbent speaker Joe Straus, a liberal Republican who was given power by 65 Democrats and 11 pathetic Republicans two years ago. After announcing, Chisum gained absolutely no traction – and frankly, after garnering a few early supporters, has been absent from the fight and rumored to be traveling and away from the state.Please click here for the rest of the post.
Having spent the weekend sharing some of the news about the union-pension Ponzi scheme and the attempt to keep the truth from the American people, it is only fitting that the Guardian UK should run this story today:”More than 100 American cities could go bust next year as the debt crisis that has taken down banks and countries threatens next to spark a municipal meltdown, a leading analyst has warned.”Please click here for the rest of the post.
The United States of America keeps the United Nations afloat. In 2009 we were assessed 22% of the budget of the UN, and paid out slightly under 24% of what was collected, thanks to the Tax Equalization Fund system*. So in practice we paid about a quarter of the UN budget. Without us, the UN has to do some serious belt tightening.So if we’re going to keep alive the UN as we know it, spending $598,292,101 in a direct assessment and surely more in other expenses, we’d best make sure we’re getting our money’s worth. The Obama deficit has gone through the roof and we simply cannot afford frivolous luxuries anymore. If the UN is not achieving its mission, it’s time we stopped paying for it.This month I believe the UN has finally crossed the threshold of uselessness, and it’s time we defund it.Please click here for the rest of the post.