There’s not much one can add to the simplicity of this message. Barack Obama’s children go to school and enjoy the protection of armed guards. Why should your kids have any less? This video courtesy of the National Rifle Association’s NRA Stand and Fight website:
Archive for the ‘video’ Category
Once again, James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas were out there catching lefty hypocrisy on video. This time, they were demonstrating how the same people who can’t wait to publish the location of registered gun owners don’t like any attention coming to their own homes. Some of the people have armed guards outside to protect them given the recent backlash against the new organization, but naturally, none are willing to place a sign saying “Gun-Free” in their yards. Why not? I would think they’d invite the attention, but no, they’re liberals which means they’re free-riders who wish to have the status of their gun ownership in doubt. As you will remember, the Journal News and Star Ledger published pin-maps of registered gun-owners in their respective areas. Now, these same people don’t want their homes labeled as “gun free.”
Imagine that you’re a doctrinaire leftist who believes that people shouldn’t own guns, to the extent that you’re willing to publish a pin-map of all those who do, in order to bring pressure(and perhaps harm) to those gun-owners. To then be shocked and surprised when there is a public outcry over your publication is obnoxious. Now, confronted by O’Keefe’s group posing as anti-gun activists, you see their reactions. These are hypocrites. They don’t wish to advertise their own status as unarmed homes, but would instead like to leave the matter in doubt. Why?
Simply put, they benefit from all those who are armed, and they benefit from the doubt as to whether a given home might have become armed since their publication. They want the benefits of criminals believing they may be armed, but not the responsibilities of being armed. This is the height of hypocrisy. It also demonstrates the pure cowardice of the leftists in media. I would have a good deal more respect for their position if they’d accepted O’Keefe’s signs, proclaiming proudly that theirs are gun-free homes. At least that would be putting their money where their mouths are, but no such character was exhibited in this video. Mostly, at the homes of the Journal News and Star Ledger folk, O’Keefe’s band of spoofers were turned away.
So much for commitment to their espoused ideals.
As a resident of Central Texas, I’ve been familiar with Alex Jones for more than a decade. When I first heard him, he w as on KLBJ-AM radio in Austin on weekends, as well as a daily Internet broadcast. Jones has always been easily convinced of conspiracies, and while he bumps into a number of real ones, he never seems to have the self-restraint to realize that not everything is a conspiracy, and not everything bad that happens is strictly the result of some conspiratorial actions of some shadowy elites. I knew I could never listen to him again once he proposed that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition. All of the video from that day shows the real cause of the collapse, and it wasn’t a thermite plasma device, or a series of smaller explosives, but the structural failure of steel load-bearing members weakened by heat and bearing much greater and more asymmetric burdens then they had ever been designed to bear.
It was from that moment on that I dismissed Alex Jones as an overblown crackpot. The sad part is that he does more damage to his own credibility than his adversaries ever could, and it’s too bad because Jones is right about a number of things on the issue of freedom, and the never-ending growth of government. On Monday night, he appeared on Piers Morgan’s show on CNN and scored some excellent point before melting down and making a complete ass of himself. The freak-show may have been entertaining in some respects, but ladies and gentlemen, he is a loose cannon, and conservatives shouldn’t rely on him to carry the banner of liberty. I get as angry as the next conservative when I see what the left is doing to our country, but most of us realize you can’t win an argument if you appear to be off your nut. Jones never saw that memo.
The first thing Jones should have known was that he was being set up like a carnival side-show freak. If Piers Morgan had wanted a serious debate about guns, there are much more authoritative sources he might have interviewed. John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime would have demolished Morgan without challenging him to a boxing match. As soon as Morgan began pummeling Jones over his beliefs about 9/11, it was clear that his entire aim was to discredit gun-owners by association with the likes of Jones. Of course, by then, Jones was quite angry because he knew he had been set up, but the problem with Jones is that he never knows when to shut up, and his own kooky pet theories know no bounds. One would think that with his conspiratorially-tuned mind, he’d have been looking for a big ambush after his run-in with TSA on his way to this interview.
It’s not to say that Jones doesn’t air real issues of consequence, like the extensive coverage he gave to UN Agenda 21 long before it got any mainstream media coverage. Jones is a constant critic of TSA, and the Department of Homeland Security, but one needn’t be a conspiracy nut to see that those agencies are fatally flawed and reprehensibly managed. Jones seemed determined to point out Morgan’s hypocrisy, and yet with his inability to maintain his composure, a lacking he’s suffered for all the years during which I’ve been acquainted with his work, he comes off sounding like a ranting loon, and if there was a conspiracy this day, Jones was too incensed to see how he is being used as a propaganda score against the very cause he went to CNN to defend.
I think Alex Jones firmly believes he is doing as he should, and that he believes he is advancing the fight for liberty in America, but each time he gets drawn into one of these battles, he looks the part of the fool he had been selected to play, and he never quite seems to recognize that in the mainstream of America, he’s not going to score points with average viewers by screaming at the interviewer. Instead, he looks like a raving maniac to most viewers. Rather than ranting, he should have mentioned the stories in support of his thesis that big multi-national corporations are helping government to disarm Americans, like Bank of Americaca that seems to be hostile to gun manufacturers banking with them, or how the Obama Administration is on record as seeking the assistance of big business in getting rid of guns. Instead, he sat there flipping verbal channels like the ultimate expression of ADD/ADHD, and in so doing, squandered an opportunity to speak to the issue at hand in a cogent, sensible manner.
Jones went to the interview armed with crime statistics, but as he rightly complained, Morgan was prepared to pepper him with factoids on the subject of mass shootings. The problem is that sensing the snare, like a trapped animal, he exploded in rage, and rather than making his best arguments, he came off as a clown or a nut. It’s not to say he didn’t say anything correct or worthwhile, but that the way he said it in combination with all of his extensive conspiracy theories made him look like a raving maniac. It’s too bad, because he made some great points until Morgan got him off-kilter, and from there on, Jones was in purely ballistic trajectory. He spews tenuously-linked tidbits of stories, strung together like a flow of lava from an erupting volcano, and it makes Jones seem unbound and disorganized like a library shelf full of books suddenly deprived of their bindings, but that is also the nature of many of his conspiracy theories.
Here are parts 1 and 2 of the interview, as aired on CNN, H/T
Again, I think that Jones is probably sincere in his efforts, but sincerity is not a substitute for reason. I think he’s right when he asserts that a gun ban will result in greater violence, and I also know he’s got an important story to tell about such things as the seeming correlation between some psychiatric medications and mass shootings, as WND reported on Monday. As you can see by that article, WND was careful not to assert that the linkage is certain, but they relied on a variety of cases that are well documented and sourced, rather than innuendo and supposition.
In stark contrast, Jones frequently relies on a trail of bread-crumbs that he spots on a bakery floor, making more of them than might be reasonable. Again, it’s not to say that Jones and his website don’t present important information, as they were among the first to run the story on the unbelievable amount of small-arms ammunition being purchased by the Federal Government, numbering nearly two billion rounds, for the Department of Homeland Security and other civilian agencies. In Jones-speak, that’s enough to kill every man, woman and child in America nearly seven times over. As I said, it’s not that he covers all nonsense, or that all of them are made-up, fanciful conspiracies about globalists, but it is to say that it’s hard to pick your way through it all to separate the wheat from the chaff, and all too often, there’s a good deal more chaff than hard news.
I rather like Alex Jones, in the same way I liked the entertainment value of other loudmouths in media from time to time, not as a steady diet, but as a diversion. I know that with Alex Jones, what you see is what you get, and most of the time, it’s not smoke indicating fire but steam warning that the pot is boiling. Watch and listen to Jones at your own risk. At times, he says some very sensible things, things I have said myself, for instance indicating today in his interview that no entity has committed more murder than statist governments over the last century or so. It’s undeniably true, and it’s likewise true that in each of the countries in which that occurred, the people had been more or less disarmed without significant struggle. You see, Jones will say that with the passion it deserves, but when he then follows-up with one of his more outlandish theories, it wastes it all. One might be tempted to take him seriously if he didn’t follow up every good point with two bad ones, an absurd one, and a challenge to a boxing match.
The most disconcerting thing about Jones is that he doesn’t understand the power of propaganda when he is made into its instrument for the other side. CNN will make the most of Monday’s freak-show, and haul it out every time something bad happens and they want to discredit patriots, Tea Party folk, libertarians, Republicans, and conservatives. They will hold Jones forth as exemplar of the nuttiness of the so-called “right,” but naturally, he’s not representative of any of those groups. He’s one man, with a very loud mouth, and a microphone, and he appeals to some people, particularly young men, under thirty, because he’s angry and he’s loud and he’s obnoxious, but he is not the voice of reason. Most of his audience outgrows him like a pair of high-water pants, wanting more depth and substance than the yelling man from Texas can provide. If only he would stick to what he could prove, ditch the bizarre theories, and tone down the yelling a bit, he might just find himself with a larger audience, but after nearly twenty years of his yelling, conspiratorial rants, there’s not much chance of that.
Joshua Boston is the former Marine who published a letter on December 27th, informing Senator Dianne Feinstein that he would not obey any law that demanded he register or surrender his firearms and his right to bear them. Corporal Boston’s letter was a response to all the talk about gun bans, and particularly Feinstein’s proposed legislation. CNN interviewed him, and he figuratively stuck to his guns, telling the CNN interviewer that an unconstitutional law is no law. The interviewer naturally seemed argumentative, but that’s to be expected when a Marine talks to the press. Watch the interview here, courtesy of Mediaite:
Feinstein’s office responded, saying she respected the Corporal’s service, but like most leftists, I believe the Senator from California is lying through her teeth. If she had any regard or respect for Corporal Boston or any of the millions of other veterans who have worn the country’s uniform, fought it battles around the globe, and kept the nation secure against all threats, she wouldn’t be considering this sort of legislation. Among other things, in his interview on CNN, Boston said:
“Whatever happens happens. I have a right granted to me by the Second Amendment in our bill of rights and it says ‘shall not be infringed.”
In his original letter, Boston in part made his case this way:
“I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.”
What I find interesting in this interview is the demeanor of the CNN interviewer, who seems to hold his remarks in contemptuous, laughing disdain.
“The law is the law, right?”
As the 8-year veteran observes, an unconstitutional law is no law.
This is another example of what I explained in my piece on Sunday about Confronting Ignorance About Guns. These people in the newsrooms are frequently factually ignorant of almost everything relevant to the issues they cover, and it is perfectly understandable why conservatives and conservatism never seem to get even-handed coverage in media.
To his credit, Cpl. Boston acquitted himself well in the interview, and he did the Marine Corps proud.
In a speaking engagement that looked suspiciously like a campaign stump speech, on Wednesday, Barack Obama implied that if Republicans attempted to tie the debt ceiling to the budgetary negotiations, he might ignore them, stating “We’re not going to play that game.” All along, Obama has shown a willingness to exceed his constitutional authority. Since the Debt Ceiling debacle of 2011, there’s word circulating in leftist circles that under the 14th Amendment, there is some authority for the President to ignore Congress in order to satisfy the payment of our debts, but no such authority exists in the 14th Amendment. This is a troubling proposition, and the fact that our Prevaricator-in-Chief now makes these kinds of implications portends potentially lethal danger to our republic. Obama has made little secret of the fact that he detests the prohibitions on excessive government authority in the US Constitution, but ladies and gentlemen, if he hasn’t gone too far already, this should be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.
To help you understand what this ludicrous, malevolent narcissist has in mind, let’s first view his speech to the Business Roundtable on Wednesday. The most interesting remarks come after the 13:00 mark, but the whole of the speech offers insight into the maniacal thinking of this man. He is going to destroy this economy to exact his revenge, and none should be in the mood to let John Boehner make deals with this sort of mindset:
As to the proposition that the 14th Amendment provides some authority for the President to circumvent Congress, this is a preposterous claim. The relevant sections of the Fourteenth Amendment states:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article
Notice that section 4 was intended to deal specifically with war debt accrued by the Union in fighting against the confederacy during the civil war. The leftists who advocate on behalf of section 4 as a proscription against a debt ceiling are lunatics. It not only requires the setting aside of the context of the amendment, but also ignoring the subsequent section, that specifically empowers Congress to enact legislation pursuant to this amendment.
In Article I, Section 8, the following are to be found among the specifically enumerated powers of Congress:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
Notice that all of these powers that are in fact granted to Congress in financial and fiscal matters fall within the context of the following statement, concluding Section 8:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
There is no mention of a Presidential role in this process, apart from his ordinary Article II authority to veto or approve legislation. Nothing in Article II provides the President authority to coin money, borrow money, or appropriate funds. No imaginary, tortured rationalizations of the 14th Amendment permit him to touch this apart from signing or vetoing legislation that comes before him. If he attempts what the leftists are suggesting, he is in open violation of the constitution, and this must be confronted.
Naturally, given the track record of Barack Obama, there’s little to suggest that he wouldn’t merely claim the authority, act on such basis, and then simply let Congress try to stop him in court. This would essentially create a window in which we would be reliant upon John Boehner and the Republicans to stop him, but the tepid leadership we’ve seen to date suggests they would present no obstacle to this imperial president.
My friends, there is nothing so dangerous as a demagogue acting as chief of state, and his inclinations toward dictatorial actions provide plenty of cause for concern. Not only must we rid ourselves of John Boehner, but we must also be willing to make a stand against this president in the name of the constitution. Our nation is dying a slow death, but rather than acting responsibly, Barack Obama is rushing to be the first man to throw a shovel-full of dirt on its grave. John Boehner is weak and tepid, a pallbearer to our premature national funeral, and he seems more concerned with his own political survival. We are in deep trouble, but we must stand on behalf of our constitution, or risk losing it.
After two weeks of battling against a machine stacked against him, Congressman Allen West(R-FL) conceded the race for District 18 in Florida on Tuesday. They had to find a way to get the count to within the 0.5% required by Florida statute to trigger an automatic full recount, and after analysis, they no longer believed that would be possible. As West noted, there were substantial irregularities. There was a good deal of evidence that there were shenanigans with the vote itself, as well as with the count, but the early vote recount that completed Sunday morning, but was not uploaded to the state before the noon deadline would not have made enough of a difference to trigger the full recount.
You can read the statement of concession here.
He appeared briefly on Fox to share his decision, H/T BarracudaBrigade:
West fought a hard race, and the volunteers who worked tirelessly to see to it that there was a fair process in place should be lauded. The fact is that after the redistricting, it was going to be an uphill battle, and as many have noted, that really sewed the seeds of this defeat. In the redistricting shuffle, Col. West drew the short straw. That should be as disconcerting as anything about this race.
Sarah Steelman, the candidate for Senate in Missouri who was defeated in a multi-candidate election in the primaries had some a few words to say about the NRSC(National Republican Senatorial Committee) and the failures in recapturing the Senate in 2012. She points out accurately that the the only Senate pick-up by Republicans was Deb Fischer, a candidate backed and endorsed by Sarah Palin. Steelman herself a candidate for Senate in 2012, had Palin’s backing in the primary, finishing behind Todd Akin who went on to blow any chance of winning by making a widely reported remark about “legitimate rape.” Akin should have exited the race at that point, because whatever his meaning, he was going to be shouted down by the left and propagandized to the hilt. Steelman chose to focus on John Cornyn and the NRSC in this segment because of the tendency by the NRSC to back people who are a good fit for the Republican country club sort that populates the Senate. She also had an aside for Governor Romney. View the video below, H/T Sarahnettoo:
There really isn’t much to add to this. I’d ask all voters to consider the implications of this video appraisal of the Obama presidency thoroughly. The facts are shocking. The creator of this video compilation did a fantastic job. Take a look. This is what I meant by “Becoming the Media:”
Take a little time and listen to Mr. L’s Tavern from Thursday, the 13th of September. His commentary is on the money. It’s disgusting that our lame-stream media won’t offer honest appraisals like this, but it’s the reason they’re slowly losing the last of their readers and viewers. Mr. L takes on the coddling of Islamic supremacists, as performed [again] by Barack Obama and his foreign policy. It’s a disaster for this country, and whether you believe he is simply naive, or you believe that Barack Obama is actively engaged in undermining this nation, it’s impossible to dismiss what Mr. L explains in this installment of his show:
Be sure to check out Mr. L’s Tavern for more great commentaries!
Speaker of the House John Boehner(RINO-Ohio,) has never appreciated conservatives. In point of fact, he’s the most anti-conservative Republican currently serving on Capitol Hill, and it’s disgusting to see this man continue to defame and denigrate conservatives and conservatism. In an interview “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren, Boehner reveals his true feeling about conservatives. Watch Speaker “Born-in-a-Bar” as he explains to Greta why Paul Ryan is a “practical conservative,” but he’s not a “Knuckle-Dragger,” because he voted for TARP. In John Boehner’s world, “practical” translates into “go-along-to-get-along.” I guess this tells us what he thinks of all of those who opposed TARP:
Great! It’s not bad enough that the left refers to staunch conservatives in such terms, but now we know how the highest ranking Republican now serving in the Federal Government views us. “Knuckle-dragger?” This guy has been sabotaging conservatives since he became Speaker of the House. I think he should caucus with the Democrats, at least for the sake of philosophical consistency. He’s apparently moving from the fifth column over into the fourth, as he continues to spit in the faces of conservatives.
The only good news to come out of this interview was that at least Boehner didn’t cry about it.
Disgusting. Can we please have new leadership in the House? Some leadership? Any leadership? Allen West(R-FL) won his primary yesterday. What are his plans for the next two years if he is able to win his seat in November? “Speaker West?” That has a nice ring to it.
John Boehner should go home to Ohio and stay there. In my view, this is the kind of alleged “leadership” the Republicans do not need. He’s not conservative, and while we’ve known that for some time, this is the first instance in some time through which Boehner has made clear his feelings on grass-roots, Tea Party conservatives.
I’m sick of seeing this jack-ass and his tough talk for conservatives while crying over changes in wind speed and direction on Capitol Hill. Maybe Boehner can tell we “knuckle-draggers” what TARP did for the country, apart from creating a big slush fund from which the Party of Washington bailed out all its friends. If ever there had been a cause for crying, the day this guy was elected speaker, we should have bawled like babies.
You have to admire his approach to “party unity,” don’t you?
Governor Palin appeared on Fox with Eric Bolling to talk about the Ted Cruz victory, as well as other matters. Bolling asked her about a remark by lobbyist and former Senator Bob Bennett(R-UT) who had said that the “Tea Party wave is receding.” Gov. Palin responded: “Bless his heart, he’s a little out of touch… Bolling also asked Governor Palin about the convention, and she said “I just want to help,” but that “sometimes, helping means you step aside,” apparently meaning that Governor Palin won’t be part of the convention as a speaker, at least as it stands. Here’s the video, courtesy of the Barracuda Brigade:
On Tuesday evening, after sending out a congratulatory message to Ted Cruz on his Senate run-off victory in Texas, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin went On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. She discussed a number of issues, from Chick Fil-A to Ted Cruz, and the GOP convention, as well as Dick Cheney’s insulting proclamation. Gov. Palin had a number of interesting things to say, and you should watch the video. Pay particular attention to the way she answered the question about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s remarks about her qualifications for the office of President. She also gave Mark Levin credit for providing the basis of her curiosity about Ted Cruz, who she had endorsed.
“Well seeing as how DICK, excuse me, VICE PRESIDENT Cheney, never MISFIRES…”
By the time I finished laughing, the segment was nearly over, so I replayed it once more.
As ever, Governor Palin was on point, and right on time. As she continues to campaign for conservatives in key races, the establishment continues to take their shots at her, calling her “irrelevant,” telling us her endorsements “aren’t worth snot,” and that she wasn’t qualified.
After a while, it should beg the question: Who isn’t qualified? Who isn’t relevant? Whose endorsements aren’t worth snot?
I understand the Governor’s sensitivity to the question of her children, and the tendency of media to cause pain and injury particularly to Republican politicians’ families, but I don’t understand her refusal to discuss this case, which seems to be about nepotism. What the media seems to be asking her is not about her daughter, per se, but about Haley’s own conduct. She became rather angry at the mention of her daughter, 14, who works in the gift shop at the State House, but what bothers me in all of this is that while the media naturally behaves like sharks smelling blood at the first hint of “impropriety” among Republicans and conservatives, the reporter was not really asking about the Governor’s daughter so much as how she came to get the job in the gift shop, and whether there had been something improper in hiring her. While I find it despicable when media attacks the families of politicians, and in fact, I don’t consider the families of politicians in supporting them, since we don’t elect the family members to serve, I tend to stay far away from discussing their families at all. I avoid particularly their minor children, but all children in general. It’s simply a ridiculous thing to do in all but the rarest of instances. This may be one of those rare cases, because it’s not about Governor Haley’s daughter at all, but instead about Haley herself.
What the reporter questions in this video clip is nothing at all about Haley’s daughter, personally. Here’s the video, as well as the text version of the exchange(H/T Tammy Bruce):
“Y’all are not allowed to talk about my children,” Haley responded.
Kittle pressed on, asking Haley if the story really wasn’t about nepotism – whether the governor had helped her daughter get the state job.
“None of that is true,” Haley responded. “That’s what makes me angry. Not only is this a story about my daughter, it’s a story that is based on false facts and none of that is true. Do not attack my children. Do not even talk about my children.”
Kittle then asked if the issue wasn’t about what the governor had done, not her daughter.
“I’m not going to talk about it anymore,” Haley said. “My children are off limits.”
It’s all well and good for the Governor to say to the press that her children are “off limits,” and they should be, but this story isn’t really about the Governor’s daughter inasmuch as it seems actually to be a story about Governor Haley and the insinuation of the reporter’s question is about the possible undue influence of the Governor in securing her daughter that job, roughly one-hundred feet from her own office door. To everybody but perhaps Haley herself, this story isn’t about a kid working a summer job in a State-run gift shop, but instead about the influence of the Governor in placing her child in a job there. If we imagined for a moment that this had been her husband, rather than her minor child, the same question would stand. Had it been her brother-in-law’s ne’er-do-well second cousin’s great aunt Imogene(any resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental,) it might raise fewer eyebrows. When it’s the first-degree relative of the chief executive of the state, whether minor child or septigenarian parent, there are going to be questions, and there should be.
Frankly, I’m astonished that the Governor of South Carolina is so ill-prepared for the question, and maybe that’s the problem: Did it never cross her mind that there might be something improper about her daughter(OR ANY RELATIVE,) obtaining employment in a state job in a location well within the bubble of the Governor’s security detail and watchful eye? I’m betting that many Americans would love to have that arrangement to keep an eye on their teenagers during the summer months, but most of us cannot, since many employers forbid the sort of arrangement precisely because it gives the appearance of impropriety.
I’m not one who blows his stack at the mere appearance of impropriety, since I don’t care that much about appearances, although I am keen to expose actual impropriety, but so is the mainstream media, at least when Republicans and conservatives are the ones under examination. This is why Haley really must answer the question, because it’s not really about her daughter, and it hasn’t anything to do with her family except by virtue of her influence.
There will be those who might think I’m being unfair in singling out Haley, or that I should ignore the story because Haley is a Republican, or something of the sort, but the truth is that when this came over the transom, it was given to me by a conservative worried about the potential scandal implicit in the matter. Yes, fine, okay, it’s not absconding with the treasury or something of that nature, but the part I find disturbing about this is how Haley used the line “my children are off limits” to close off further questioning when it is clear that her daughter isn’t the object of this story. It’s a question of character, and this goes to the heart of the matter with respect to the sort of nepotism that characterizes corrupt government.
Let me be clear: I am not calling Nikki Haley corrupt, and indeed, without further information, it is impossible to know for certain. If I were a reporter in South Carolina, I would ask some pointed questions about the matter, and I would do so in a way as to avoid going after or even seeming to go after the Governor’s daughter:
1.) Was the position properly posted on the appropriate state website and otherwise announced in applicable media?
2.) How many applicants were considered, and were they competitively evaluated?
3.) What were the screening criteria applied to applicants?
4.) Does the state’s job application require the listing of relatives also employed by the state, as is the case in many states, including my own?
5.) Did those charged with screening the application notice the relationship, and did that person or persons apply the State’s ordinary ethical hiring practices in evaluating the matter?
You see, this isn’t a family business, in which one can hire one’s kid without repercussion. It’s a state job, and that means that somebody along the organizational hierarchy who is charged with supervising the employee is answerable to the Governor. How did those in all the intermediate positions handle this application? These are questions that ought to be answered by Nikki Haley, for the sake of the credibility of her office. This petulant “my children are off limits” business is fine so far as it goes, but where it doesn’t extend is into a matter like this. All these same questions are applicable had the relation been a sister or brother, or anybody else of close relationship to Haley.
None who read this blog would say that the Obama daughters should be given a summer job as a tour guide in the White House, because the stench of such a thing would waft up to the rafters. In the same way, and for all the same reasons, we shouldn’t take Haley’s indignant dismissal of the questions as evidence of a defensive mother, as she intended, so much as the reaction of a defensive politician. Assuming the facts of the story are basically accurate, it is easy to suppose that Haley didn’t give it much thought, and might even have figured it was a good thing for her daughter to take a summer job so close at hand, but the problem is that had it been anywhere else, nobody would likely have uttered a word.
One of the things we discuss a good deal on this website is the GOP establishment, and what I can tell you is that much of what you see and experience as a corrupt political establishment begins with things as innocuous as this. Those who truly have a servant’s heart know this, and they studiously avoid the appearance of conflicts and impropriety not merely to avoid some statutory ethics rules sink-hole, but because they earnestly believe it is wrong in all cases to gain such advantage, even for one’s minor daughter, even in a minimum wage, summer hire job, just down the hall.
The truth is likely that Haley probably didn’t give it much thought, but that may be the most troubling aspect. Whether a child, a parent, a sibling, or a spouse, our public officials ought not permit such things to happen, because no matter how one slices it, it stinks to high heaven. The fact that it’s one of her children is irrelevant except as a simple fact in the case, but the unambiguous part of the story is that rather than face up to it and say, “You know, I was thinking like a parent, and not as your Governor, but I’ve corrected that, and my daughter is no longer employed there,” it would likely all go away, and people would understand it. I could understand it, and so could most of my readers. What I can’t understand is the proclamation that her “children are off limits,” as a means by which to obfuscate the matter in which it having been her child, as opposed to any other close relative, is not the controlling or even vaguely interesting fact in the case. Governor Haley, we know your children, and indeed your whole family is not the Governor of South Carolina, but in seeking employment, they necessarily carry a strong advantage over others seeking the same jobs.
This isn’t about the Governor’s child at all, but entirely about the Governor and her judgment in such matters. After all, it’s not very far, ethically speaking, from a job for a relative to a contract for a friend. While nobody is alleging the latter, still it is interesting to see the Governor try to obfuscate the matter of the former, and I don’t understand why some Republicans think this is proper behavior, or why it’s acceptable for Governor Haley to use her children as a shield in the matter, when it’s clear that this isn’t about her kids at all. It may be that the Governor had done nothing wrong, and that she had nothing to do with the hiring of her daughter, and nobody at the gift shop knew it was Haley’s daughter who had applied for the job, and perhaps she got the job solely on an honest, competitive basis. At present, we don’t know, and the Governor isn’t willing to talk about it. Should we pretend it all away because she’s a Republican? I think not. While I have no intention of assisting the Democrat media machine in going after Haley, I also think we need at least a simple explanation, and just the facts will do. Nobody is after her kids, and using them as a shield simply isn’t acceptable.
At the Ted Cruz rally at The Woodlands on Friday, Governor Palin made mention of a candidate who hasn’t been getting a great deal of national attention, but who deserves the support of conservatives and Tea Party folk everywhere. One of the things her remarks made clear is that too often, we surrender supposed “blue” states on the basis that we should not waste our precious resources campaigning in places that have been written-off as simply too far gone. Governor Palin is right about this, and going back even to 2008, when she wanted to spend some time in Michigan, but the McCain Campaign had decided it was not worth the effort, Governor Palin has never been one to cede anything to the left, leaving them a victory by default. In fact, this is what has made her so precious to many on our side, because it is this unrelenting fighting spirit that we have often lacked. It’s been the habit of the GOP establishment to write-off such places, but she’s right: We must fight for every one. In her speech on Friday, she mentioned a candidate for Senate in the State of Maryland, a deep, deep blue state in which mathematically, no victory should ever be possible for a Republican, never mind a conservative, but maybe that’s our problem. Perhaps we abandon the men and women like Dan Bongino too easily, and maybe that’s why we seem to be perpetually on the defensive.
We fight over our “Red” states, and some “battleground” states, and we walk away from “blue” states because it just seems so impossible, but we must ask at some point: Is it? Is it really impossible to deliver a message of freedom and liberty and the vast potential that is the America we love to all her people? More, aren’t we committing a grave moral error when we abandon the people of those states as veritable Don Quixotes, damned forever to tilt at the windmills of a hopeless political imbalance in their states? Yes, I am fortunate enough to live in a “red” state, but then again, I am actually a transplant from a “blue” state via a “battleground” state and my service in the Army. The reason I decided together with my wife to remain in Texas two decades ago is because I looked at the increasingly hopeless prospects of the states in which I had spent my youth, and decided there could be no way I would willingly damn my young family by dragging us back there.
The problem is what Mark Levin likes to point out, likening the left to a swarm of locusts: Once they strip a place and make of it an economically barren and politically devastated wasteland, they move on to more promising areas, turning them each in their turn to the sort of disaster they had created on their previous stops. I often meet folk who have come to Texas from other places around the country, and some of them ask me how I have adapted to Texas. My response is always the same: “Don’t try to make Texas into the same sort of place you had left behind, but instead make yourself into a Texan.” Many of them are taken aback at the notion, and they ask me what I mean, and I explain to them that so many come here from deep blue or battleground states, arriving here to set about the business of turning Texas into what they fled, never stopping to consider the insanity of the notion. Why would one try to recreate here the very things one has so recently escaped?
Another problem we face is that in leaving these “blue” states to the left, not only are we abandoning some of our most stubborn brethren, who refuse to be run-off from their homes, and who fight tooth and nail for every inch of political ground, but we are also rejecting our own thesis with respect to warfare, whether real or political. You see, one of the things we conservatives have acknowledged vis-à-vis the war on terror is that for the sake of our country’s safety, it is far better to fight the thugs and terrorists and tyrannical despots on their ground, rather than waiting for them to arrive here, on ours, because naturally, given the time, they will attack us at home. By our failure to contest ‘blue’ states, they needn’t spend any time or effort defending their own ground, because we don’t press our attack there any longer, leaving them free to go on the offensive in every red precinct in the country.
As I have explained before, our political strife in this country is a war, in fact, restrained for the moment to the sphere of politics, but the strategies employed are no different. Governor Palin mocked Barack Obama for suggesting that Texas would be a blue state, and for the time being, that’s true, but as her words also warned, the only thing preventing that from coming true over the longer run is us. If we permit the GOP establishment and all the Austin cronies to turn Texas to their purposes, and if we don’t begin to fight the radical left, not only in Texas, but in places like Maryland too, we are going to slowly lose.
It is stunning to think that only a generation ago, California voted for Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president of my lifetime, and perhaps the lifetimes of most Americans still living. Conservatives don’t seem able to win in California any longer, and it is the locust-like nature of the left, combined with our own unwillingness to battle them that explains the problem. We ceded that ground, as we have ceded New York, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts and a number of others. We’ve simply walked away. We’ve effectively said “tough luck, we’re saving our own skins” to our conservative brethren in those states, leaving them to grasp at the last straws of their political and economic freedoms, yet we wonder why we see the left infiltrating those places that had been our great strongholds. There had been a time not so long ago when places like Virginia or North Carolina would never have been in question. Now?
Ladies and gentlemen, as I write this post, I am re-watching at the video of Dan Bongino, linked by Governor Palin on her Facebook page, and I want you to see this too. Here is the video, and at its end, he makes the same point:
Here is a man who is fighting like Hell for the last bit of logic and the last bit of sanity remaining in his state, and when you hear his passion, and when you see the fire in his belly, I want to ask all of you, my conservative brethren, most of us ensconced in deep red territory, how is it that we walk away from fighters like this man, abandoning them to a hopeless battle in which we had surrendered the flanks: Is he not championing precisely the things in which we believe? Like many of my readers, and like Gov. Palin, I’m not much inclined to give anything to the left, and I’m certainly not of a mind to leave such a man standing alone, speaking the truth in a state in which, without our help, he will never be heard over the din of the locusts. It’s time we do something about that, and being conservatives, our country and our culture under attack on all fronts, there is no time like the present. We shouldn’t wait for somebody else to rescue us, because if we don’t do it, none will. If you’re in Maryland, go help get this guy elected, and if you’re not in Maryland, contribute to that effort any way you can. Start here. Then, let’s fight the left everywhere. All we’re doing at present is “holding onto our positions,” but we’re not advancing the war by pressing our assault on their leviathan. It’s time to change the formula. It’s time to make the case. It’s time for us to reinforce our flanks, but surge and break through at the front. This is total war, waged for now in words and votes, but if we fail to engage on all fronts, we will lose the country.
On Friday, I drove the two-and-one-half hours from my home to the Ted Cruz rally at The Woodlands, just North of Houston. The venue was Town Green Park and the speakers included a number of Tea Party leaders, like Amy Kremer, and also Senator Jim DeMint(R-SC.) Ted Cruz gave a very encouraging, impassioned speech about what he would do if elected to the Senate, and he appropriated Barack Obama’s catch-phrase “Yes, We Can” in a little dialogue with the crowd, asking the crowd “Can we repeal Obama-care?” On cue, the crowd responded with a thundering “YES WE CAN!” Cruz exuded confidence, but the truth is that with early voting now ended, the real crunch is on from now until Tuesday to turn out the vote across Texas on his behalf. In her customary form, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made her speech to thundering applause and enthusiastic support. It was a remarkable speech, and Palin was fiery with the energy and passion that have made her the premiere speaker in the Republican party over the last four years. Conservatives turn out for Sarah Palin, and there’s simply no escaping that fact.
(Note to GOP establishment: You may want to rethink this plan to exclude her from the convention in Tampa next month.)
I was also heartened to see so many of my friends from TxO4P on hand, including Josh Thuma, who was so enthusiastic in Indianola, Iowa last September, so it was no surprise that at The Woodlands, he followed up in similar form, waving signs and cheering-on all of the speakers. I saw Cynthia Dixon and Del Parker, and some other faces I recognized, so I decided that rather than spending my time trying to capture the event, I would simply join in the fun. It was a good time for all, and Jim DeMint gave an excellent talk about needing help in the Senate, meaning he want more constitutional conservatives. He went on to extol the virtues of Ted Cruz, introducing the candidate to great applause, and Cruz made mention of the effort to repeal Obama-care, saying he would work every day until it had been repealed, killing off the notion of replacement: “Every last word…” must be repealed, vowed Cruz. The crowd roared in approval.
Cruz went on to introduce Governor Palin, and the crowd’s cheering was so loud from my vantage point that I couldn’t hear the first few words of her speech. As always, when Governor Palin speaks at such an event, she speaks as much for those gathered as to them. This event was no different, and she focused in particular on three themes, including the wreck Obama has made and is making of the country, and the intractability of the permanent political class in the mission to restore our constitution, and naturally, how Ted Cruz will be an important player in that fight. She mentioned that she intended to try out Chick Fil-A on her way back to the airport, and as always, Governor Palin made good on her word, later posting this on her Facebook page:
She wore the boots Governor Perry gave her on a previous visit to the Lone Star State, saying “at least in that one case he made a good decision,” but also gently chiding Perry for his present support of David Dewhurst in the primary against Ted Cruz. She mocked Obama’s assertion of last week in Texas that he’s seeing “shades of purple,” implying that the state might one day go Democrat. With the amnesty-by-executive-order that Obama has put in place, there can be little doubt that is part of his aim. Governor Palin exhorted the crowd to not let Texas go purple or blue. Said the Governor:
“There will be an Alaskan-sized blizzard on the Brazos before Texas turns blue for Barack.”
“Damn straight.” (So said many in the crowd.) She also went after the “lap-dogs in the media practicing yellow journalism,” but then she shifted her focus to the permanent political class in Washington DC that has managed to confound some of the efforts of the Tea Party patriots who sent more conservatives to the House in 2010, managing to co-opt some of them. She was brilliantly on point as she made clear that politicians in both parties have failed to carry out their constitutional responsibilities, passing Obama-care over the objections of the American people, and failing to enact a budget in four years, but she reminded the crowd:
“There’s nothing wrong with America that a good, old-fashioned fair election can’t fix.”
She then explained that she was supporting Ted Cruz because he is a common-sense, constitutional conservative, saying “Ted Cruz represents the positive change we need.”
You can watch the video here, courtesy of the BarracudaBrigade:
As has been the case at events in which Gov. Palin speaks, after the conclusion of her remarks, and to the cheering of the crowd, she and Todd went off-stage and to the rope line, where she signed autographs for a long while, and as usual, the rope-line was mobbed.
I don’t have a firm grasp on how many people were in the park for the event, but I would guess there had been well over one-thousand, perhaps closer to twice that number, despite the sweltering heat. One thing is certain: Texas really is Palin country, and all who want to support a common-sense, constitutional conservative in this election ought to follow Governor Palin’s lead. With early voting over across the Lone Star State, what remains is election day, Tuesday, 31 July. Let’s get out the vote and put Ted Cruz over the top!
GovernmentGoneWild has put out a new video, detailing what happens if you surf over to your favorite search engine and watch what it auto-suggests when you begin to type:
“how do I qualify for”
It works, and the video is right. What’s stunning is that in the top ten suggestions, I don’t see:
“how do I qualify for a job?”
There’s really not much I need to add here. The video says it all, and it’s not good. I urge you to watch this and send it to your friends and family. You may wonder why our country is in decline, but if you want to know one of the big reasons why our country is mortal danger, this video holds the answer. (H/T CutiePi2U on Twitter)
Let me begin by saying that the veracity of the people involved in “reporting” this story is suspect, and as a consequence, I am bringing the story to you on the assumption that it is probably garbage. Nevertheless, if it should turn out to have some basis in fact, it would be an electoral disaster for the GOP if disclosed in late October, for instance, and having encountered it, I would be remiss if I failed to at least mention it. Catherine Crier, who I don’t see as a particularly credible source, was on the race-baiting moron’s show(Al Sharpton) on MSNBC. She admitted it was sheer speculation, but I bring it to your attention precisely because this is the sort of thing about which many conservatives have worried with respect to Mitt Romney’s candidacy. We’ve been told he’s “squeaky clean,” and that may well be the case, but the Democrats are driving at this Tax Return disclosure business relentlessly. Crier suggests that Mitt Romney might have been one of those who took amnesty in order to stay out of legal jeopardy back in 2009, when Barack Obama put the IRS on the trail of Americans with undisclosed Swiss bank accounts.
What I found peculiar at the time was the focus on a single banking entity. When the government does something of that sort, they’ve either been tipped-off, or they have a specific target in mind. Of course, we are talking about Catherine Crier, appearing as a guest on Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton’s show on MSNBC, which is to say that it isn’t exactly iron-clad, and Crier in no way offered a source, but the theory was advanced on Slate on Tuesday and over at the ludicrous HuffingtonPost as well. HuffPo is continuing its coverage as I write this.
Here’s video of Crier on Sharpton’s circus(H/T Mediaite):
As is clear, conservatives should view this allegation with the appropriate skepticism. The source of the information is far too unreliable to be taken all that seriously, never mind at face value. Still, it should be a concern, and it is one of the reasons that early in the primary season, I was pushing for the disclosure of Romney’s tax returns. He ultimately provided two years, being the 2011 and 2010 returns. The return that would reveal whether he had been one of those accepting an amnesty deal from the IRS would have been from 2009, so we do not know with certainty.
We also know the Democrats want ammunition to use against Romney, and that in part, this demand for more years of tax returns is primarily a fishing expedition, and an attempt to get him to disclose that which might hurt him. He doesn’t need to have done anything illegal, but simply something Democrats can paint as morally questionable or hypocritical. That would be enough to severely damage the Romney campaign. That said, I wouldn’t be inclined to comply with the Democrats’ demands for additional disclosures, particularly if I hadn’t anything to do with the allegations Crier tried to imply. Here is the problem, however, and it is the only nugget in all of this that would suggest there could be some actual smoke, if not fire: Back in January, when Romney disclosed his 2010 return, it included a disclosure of a Swiss bank account. That account was indeed with UBS, the bank that had been examined and bullied by the IRS into disclosing some 4,400 American customers. BusinessInsider is now carrying the story, and they’re pushing it further still.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I urged the release of Romney’s returns following his father’s example, way back in January. If there is any connection here, Romney might well be able to conceal it a while, but I would fully expect this to become Obama’s “October surprise,” his last hole-card. Even if it were true, Romney wouldn’t have violated any laws, because he would have accepted the amnesty to avoid legal consequences, but I must also say that if he actually has this problem, and if Obama’s campaign leaks it to the press in the closing days of the campaign, Mitt Romney will not be elected. There will be no time to spin it, soften it, or clear up the fact that he had ultimately complied with the law. Instead, it would be a 24×7, non-stop “Breaking: Romney is a Crook,” with the media fairly jeering on Obama’s behalf, and the Obama administration would have its second term.
This explains why the Democrats are on this fishing expedition, but then again, if it is true, the Obama campaign already has that information, and is sitting on it for the big ambush in late October. I can understand why Governor Romney wouldn’t want to disclose his tax returns, even if he had done absolutely nothing wrong, but the problem here is that if it were true, and if such a disclosure were to occur late in the campaign, we would have no viable horse for this race, and we will see Obama destroying the country another four years. Of course, Governor Romney doesn’t need to release his entire 2009 tax return. In my view, if he wants to answer any question, this would be it: “Did you accept amnesty under the 2009 Voluntary Disclosure Program?” Naturally, even if he answers “no,” there are those who will play up the “denial,” but here’s the other problem: Given the sorely lacking credibility of the sources in this story, and on the highly dubious proposition that Romney does has some “splainin’ to do” with respect to this so-far unfounded accusation, should Obama catch him out in late October, the Republican Party will burn, and I will be among those wielding torches.
When you consider all of this, you might wonder why I’d report it at all, but my reasoning is simple: The Republican Party has exhibited a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and with all that is at stake in this election, I’m now accustomed to being disappointed by the GOP establishment. With all of my friends who have swallowed their pride and grudgingly gone along with Romney for the sake of defeating Obama, if Mitt blows it now over something like this, there will be literal Hell to pay. I am in no way willing to take the word of this collection of leftist ghouls for anything, but ladies and gentlemen, trust Mitt Romney if you please, but I’ll be keeping an eye on this. I fully recognize the Obama campaign’s desire to trap Romney with this, but I also know that if there’s anything to it, I don’t want my readers to be blind-sided in October. If Romney can refute this, he should, because while it would never alleviate the clamor in the press, it would at least put at ease the minds of those he expects to support him in November.
I watched the Huckabee Show on Fox News this Sunday, and while Scott Pruitt, and Ken Cuccunelli(Attorneys General for Oklahoma and Virginia respectively,) both acquitted themselves reasonably well, Pam Bondi, the Florida Attorney General, and Huckabee himself, looked foolish. In truth, however, Cuccinelli said some troubling things, both in this appearance and earlier on Fox and Friends. I can even permit that Huckabee was playing dumb for the sake of dragging out answers to questions to which he really knew the answers, but if I was a Floridian, I would know that my state had been cursed with the dumbest Attorney General to appear regularly on TV. After discussing with the panel the absurd logic implicit in Roberts’ decision, and after positing the notion that Roberts had bent to pressure in switching his vote, Bondi went on to state that she believed Justice Roberts was of the highest integrity. What?
I don’t understand how one can be both the sort of noodle who wilts under pressure and simultaneously maintain one’s alleged integrity. The two notions simply don’t fit in the same conceptual soup. If one is true, the other is almost certainly false. She explained that Roberts was seeking to maintain the integrity of the court, but she didn’t explain how voting in what he knew to be exactly the wrong way accomplishes that end. I believe Pam Bondi is confused about the meaning of the word “integrity.” Being on Mitt Romney’s Health-care task force, this doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in that candidate’s promises.
(Fox News hasn’t made this segment of the Huckabee show available on-line – if they do, I will post it here.)
Pam Bondi is, after all, the same AG who bent to political pressure along with her governor, appointing a special prosecutor for the Trayvon Martin case, going after George Zimmerman for murder when all the evidence in-hand really suggests a murder charge is not warranted. In truth, Bondi’s appearance on Huckabee was riddled with similar incongruities in her apparent thinking, and one wonders if she’s qualified to be Attorney General in a State the size of Florida simply on the question of her mental capacity. Being charitable, she spoke like an empty-suited politician, full of hot air, most of it without any discernible meaning, and all of it intended to serve some aim other than to discuss the outcome of this case. Does she have other cases pending she expects to be elevated to the Supreme Court, hoping to win “nice points” with the wayward Chief Justice? Your guess is as good as mine, but after listening to her spewing gobbledygook, I really wanted to turn the channel, though I wound up suffering through the segment until the bitter end.
Another disappointment in the discussion, that I think would apply across the board to all the participants is how they all claimed this had not been foreseen, and that nobody had briefed on the issue of taxes, instead focusing on the commerce clause arguments. This is simply not true, because Landmark Legal Foundation, spearheaded by the brilliant Mark Levin, spent many pages in the Landmark amicus briefs (Here and here) discussing this very matter, taking great care to show how the penalty could not fit into the definition of any of the constitutionally allowable forms of taxation Congress has the power to impose. I like Ken Cuccinelli, and I think he’s a good Attorney General, but I wonder if in this case, he wasn’t a bit asleep at the switch. The same is true of Scott Pruitt. Wake up, fellas!
As for Huckabee, for a guy who has been “working tirelessly” to kill Obama-care, I would have expected he would know the issues a good deal more thoroughly than he did. After all, he did serve as governor of Arkansas, so one would tend to expect he’d have a little more sophisticated understanding of the legal matters, but I suppose it is possible that he was playing dumb to draw out answers, but honestly, that’s not the impression I got from his statements. It made the segment all the more baffling, and doubly disappointing. I kept waiting for him to break out the guitar and sing the Obama-care Blues.
I suspect our troubles with this law are worse than we may have imagined. The more I watch, the more I notice the tendency of some to shrug their shoulders and to tell us to “get used to it.” I have noticed that there is also a tendency to to paint this as though there is some positive, and I was surprised at Ken Cuccinelli’s attempt to tell us about “silver linings” to this decision. Watch this schlock from Fox and Friends:
What? There is no limit in this decision. The commerce clause was not restrained. There is no majority decision in restraining the commerce clause. It’s astonishing to see this, and while I know Mark Levin holds Cuccinelli in high regard in most instances, Levin has completely debunked these alleged “silver linings,” as has been discussed here already. Here is the first few minutes of Levin’s show of Friday, 29 June, 2012, to explain why Cuccinelli is absolutely wrong about his “silver linings” thesis:
The evidence of what Levin is saying is plainly evident in these two amicus briefs filed with the court going all the way back to 2011, both in the Florida suit, and the Virginia suit. No two states’ Attorney Generals should have been more prepared for the tax argument than AG Bondi and Cuccinelli, but they’re pretending that this material hadn’t been covered, and was completely unforeseen. Why? What’s the coverup? This is an embarrassment. Surely, somebody bothered to point this out to these Attorneys General before they embarrassed themselves all over Fox News on Sunday.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t pretend to have any special insight into this case, but I can read, and I can listen. What I’m reading and hearing these days from our ostensible leaders is that we ought to just suck it up, “accentuate the positives”(while pretending there are some,) and prepare to live with it. “But be sure to vote for us in November if you’re really, really mad!” There’s no excuse for these Attorneys General not knowing the briefs in this case, inside and out, and the fact that they don’t means they’re spending too much time in front of a camera and too little time practicing law. I realize they have clerks and associates, and junior attorneys to handle some of this, but let’s not ignore that while Mark Levin has been providing them the answers right along, they’ve been oblivious to the details. Mark Levin is a hero in this, and his Landmark Legal Foundation is doing great work, despite the fact that neither the court nor the states’ AGs seem to be paying enough attention, and if you want to know the difference between the leaders we have, and the leaders we ought to have, you need look no further. Dr. Levin would decline such a role, but that merely means we need to listen to his counsel all the more closely. I suspect he would be much more generous to these Attorneys General than I have been in this posting, but only because he is much more gracious than I.
I have maintained that in all such cases, we can discern who is with us, and who is against us, or at least those who may be ambivalent to the outcome. It’s becoming clearer in the wake of this ruling, and I think we conservatives should begin to recognize that when it comes to guarding our constitution against the statist hordes, we are all alone. It’s we conservatives against them all.
Mitt Romney doesn’t seem able to help himself. Every time he’s given an opportunity to distance himself from his progressive politics, he sidesteps it and goes on to reinforce the view of him as a liberal Republican. Let’s stop kidding ourselves about all of these claims that he’s really a conservative. He’s not. He wasn’t a conservative when he ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy in his attempt to capture the US Senate seat in 1994, and he wasn’t a conservative when he ran center-left in his gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts in 2002, and he wasn’t a conservative in his governance there. There is no evidence by which to conclude this cat has changed his stripes, and I have lost patience with all of the excuse-makers who pretend that Mitt Romney is a conservative.
Watch the video here(Note-the recording volume was very low):
Whether it’s Romneycare, or his willingness to pander to leftists on the question of the “progressivity” of the income tax, Mitt Romney is no conservative, and he isn’t fit to serve as a Republican president. Perhaps he should reconsider and run on the Democrat side, and challenge Obama for that party’s nomination, because he certainly seems better suited to it. I don’t think we should send another big-government liberal to replace the one we have. Rather than just changing teams, it’s as though it’s the same old team: The party of Big Government.
It’s true that he wants to cut taxes, but his plan entails all the usual gimmicks that phase in entitlement reforms long after it will matter. Talk about cutting the rate of growth in benefits, or delaying benefit eligibility by raising the Social Security retirement age is simply more pie-in-the-sky nonsense to which we will never be witness, because by the time it will go into effect, even if Romney won and served eight years, few of those changes will have been implemented, and in the mean time, we will see our country continue to slide into the pit of indebtedness.
We can’t afford any more big-government liberals, whether they have a “D” or an “R” next to their names, and what Romney is offering here is more tinkering around the edges that will do just a little to stimulate economic growth, but will continue to borrow at an unabridged rate, and what we will get as a result is another lost decade, and perhaps the death of the Republic. At best, Romney promises to undertake actions and implement policies that will act to slow our decline, but that’s all he’s really offering. I remain unimpressed, and the fact that he’s neck-and-neck with Santorum in his home state of Michigan demonstrates that many conservatives agree. Mitt Romney is no conservative, and his unwillingness to make even the moral argument for eliminating progressivity in the income tax system says all I need to know about what sort of president he will be.
Romney’s good for only one thing, and that’s “minding the store,” but what he won’t do is to improve its efficiency, or do anything to stave off bankruptcy. He’ll keep things going because that’s all he knows how to do, but he lacks the passion and vision, and frankly, the philosophical clarity to lead the country away from the brink of disaster.
This is absurd and ridiculous. Here we have candidate Mitt Romney doing his best Barack Obama imitation, but Ron Paul won’t take the slightest swipe at him in a debate? I’m sorry, but this sort of class-warfare rhetoric has no business in a Republican nomination fight, and to hear this from the mouth of Romney tells me all I really need to know. He doesn’t want the 1% to get the same charitable deductions and home mortgage deductions as “middle-class” Americans? I have a question for Governor Romney, who is unwilling to make the logical or moral argument for keeping one’s wealth:
Why not, Mitt? Why are you ashamed of your wealth? Why are you afraid to claim a right to your property and wealth? Why does greater wealth imply a lesser claim to it? This is bizarre and absurd, and it’s another reason the Republican party should never nominate this self-defeating fool. He’s already ceding the argument to Barack Obama. If he’s willing to go this far now, what will he do if he gets the nomination? Grovel? Will he openly apologize for his personal fortune? Will he apologize for the fortunes of others? This man doesn’t deserve to keep his own wealth, because he doesn’t know how to logically defend it against jackals.
This is despicable. Mitt Romney should be ashamed.
Thursday, my inbox took a long time to refresh. Somebody sent me a video along with some background information. The story comes from Michigan, where Debbie Squires is the Associate Director of the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association. Apart from the ten-dollar title, Squires is another blooming edu-crat who believes that the educational establishment knows what is best for your children. In fact, by listening closely to what she has to say, you discover that she also thinks that she and other professional educators know what is best for you. This smarmy, arrogant testimony before the Michigan House Committee on Education evinces a deeply rooted contempt for parents, tax-payers, and also for children.
Here’s the video:
This is simply astonishing. What we have here is an admission that they believe they know better than you, know your children better than you, and should have absolute control over education, without respect to dissent, political or social minorities, or any other input. She has said here that if you don’t like the curricula or policies of schools, your only recourse is to go to the polls and vote. That is your public education establishment telling you that they don’t need to be responsive to parents directly, but only indirectly through the electoral process. I have a suggestion for the people of Michigan, and for anybody else who encounters this attitude among such people: Vote for elected officials who will fire the edu-crats.
In my own life, raising my own daughter, I have run into such people. The only proper response is really to remove your children from harm’s way, which means to get them out of the clutches of people who see you as an obstacle. Education doesn’t belong to these professional nit-wits, and I am tired of the smarter-than-thou position they most frequently adopt as they preach from the bully pulpit parents and taxpayers have provided about their superiority in knowing how best to educate our children. If they’re so damned good at it, why are our kids doing so poorly when measured against the rest of the industrialized world? The attitude Ms. Nanny State expresses is far too common among those who say they are professional educators.
My wife and I were our daughter’s first teachers. She learned how to count, and how to read, and how to spell, and do mathematics from us. She arrived on her first day in public school more prepared and more focused on learning than her peers, because her mother and I knew the secret to education without having the benefit of even a higher education at that point in time in our lives. We didn’t need an edu-crat to tell us. We didn’t need a social worker to guide us. We simply did as we had thought would be prudent in preparing our daughter to step forward. This idea that “professional educators know best” has become a racket, and unfortunately, I think it has gained ground as too many parent have surrendered their sovereignty and their authority over the question of the content of the education their children will be delivered. All too often, it is based on lowest common denominators of class progress, meaning that the best and brightest are held back by the least prepared or least able.
After three generations of telling parents they don’t know best, and shouldn’t be involved, the education establishment has managed to push enough parents away from the process of educating their children that they can now claim: “Well, parents aren’t involved anyway.” It’s true. Most parents deliver their children to the gaping maw of the public school system with the uncritical, unthinking indifference that is required for people like Ms. Squires to subsist in the system. She’s not accustomed to having her authority challenged, but I will assert that if parents were so-inclined, they can educate their own children to a higher proficiency and to better result than any combination of teachers in the public school ever will. After all, if I’m a decent parent, I don’t need the state or its edu-crats dictating the education of my child. I know the needs of my child, and if I don’t, it calls into question the legitimacy of my claim to my competence as a parent. Maybe that’s the point in all of this.
Note: Thanks to ‘Jake’ for the video, and also to ‘Tom’ who just indicated to me this story may have gotten first coverage on the Blaze, here.
Governor Sarah Palin appeared on Follow the Money on its first episode, and now on its last interview with host Eric Bolling. She was asked about her ability to unite people, and she was asked about the media. She also reflected a certain level of humility with respect to her influence. In the end, she was asked about the notion of a brokered convention. Bolling was not to be deterred, so he pressed on and asked Governor Palin if she was chosen if she would run, and she responded in a manner that has everybody talking.
Watch for yourself:
Governor Palin appeared on Fox and Friends on Wednesday morning to discuss a variety of issues, including the Republican nominating process. In this segment, she discussed the question of whether Mitt Romney was “conservative enough” for the party, and also explained why she thinks it is important for the candidates in the race to contrast themselves against Barack Obama. It’s an interesting segment, during which she also explains what she means by “the establishment.”
Video courtesy of FoxNews: