Monday evening, on Sean Hannity’s show, Governor Sarah Palin took on the issue of the government shutdown, explained that the partial shutdown of the government is a necessary result of our broken budgetary process, but that it’s certainly no Armageddon. She had a special aside just for Barack Obama(video courtesy SarahNet):
Given the direction of our republic into complete cultural, economic, and political collapse, it may be that drastic circumstances must call for equally drastic measures. On Friday night, Hannity aired a one-hour special with a studio audience on Fox News Channel that featured Mark Levin and his latest book: The Liberty Amendments -Restoring the American Republic. Hannity put up Levin’s proposed constitutional amendments for review by the esteemed studio audience, but the first matter to be examined was Levin’s proposed method of amending the constitution: Rather than wait for Congress to repair itself, a hope based entirely in futile notions about the ability of the American people to somehow force the change, he instead argues that Article V of the constitution already provides the means by which to amend it without the approval or consent of Congress or any other branch of the federal government. He is proposing an amending convention, convened by two-thirds of the states, with any produced amendments requiring ratification by three-fourths of the states.
For those who are somewhat confused about all of this, I would refer you to Article V of the US Constitution that provides for the two legitimate procedures by which to amend the constitution:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”(emphasis added.)
Bluntly, two-thirds of the legislatures of the states can initiate this process. Three-fourths have the ability to ratify them, just as if the Congress had proposed them. The difficulty of this process alone makes it entirely unlikely that the process might become a so-called “runaway convention.” As Levin responded on this point when asked during the course of the Hannity show, the simple fact is that there is nothing revolutionary about this process except that we, the people, have never initiated it, and it could be initiated at any time. Perhaps it is time we start.
Some of the comments on my last article on this subject seemed to raise the same objections, and while I understand the reservations, the simple truth of the matter is that if the statists existed in sufficient numbers that they could hijack this process, they would have initiated it themselves some time ago. There are clear dangers, but I think what Levin has here accomplished is marvelous for one particular reason, as became clear in a question from Breitbart’s Joel Pollak during the course of the show: The eleven amendments Levin proposes do not confront any political issue in particular, apart from perhaps taxation. Instead, they are all structural and procedural issues with respect to the federal government. Rather than attack a particular issue where the federal government can be shown to be out of control, they each confront defects in the original document, or in one case, reverse a defect imposed by previous amendments.
In focusing so tightly on the constructs of our federal government, Levin avoids the pitfalls of specific divisive political issues, leaving them to be resolved by virtue of a political process amended and restored to the framers’ intentions. In this sense, the proposal is at once elegant and simple. It is elegant inasmuch as it addresses the central failings of our national political process and the aggregation of power in the federal bureaucracy, and it inserts new forms of protections against a runaway federal establishment that imposes law and regulation with no effective check by those it purports to serve. The reversals born of such a slate of amendments would be slow but intractable, as power would necessarily begin to shift from the central government to the states. His proposal is simple because it relies on a process that is already part of our constitutional system, and need not be invented, nor rely on the approval of the federal establishment that would naturally resist it.
One of the criticisms that was raised had been about the repeal of the seventeenth amendment. Terry Jeffrey of CNSNews.com asked if returning the selection of Senators to the states’ legislatures wouldn’t hurt the civil engagement of the populace. My answer would be somewhat different than Dr. Levin’s, because I would tend to consider it this way: Which elections need the most bolstering in terms of civic participation? National or state and local? I would suspect that if electing one’s state representatives and senators would be crucial in electing members of the US Senate, interest in state legislative elections would be certain to grow. I might also point out that in many respects, this might well serve conservatives most of all, since it is we who tend to show up reliably in off-year and state/local elections. The so-called “low information voter” does not. To the degree this would draw more to the process, it may also help reduce the total number of such uninformed voters by engaging them in their state governments, thereby lifting the veil of ignorance behind which they may now suffer.
Indeed, one could argue that the seventeenth amendment had been contrary to the framers’ intent, not merely because it repealed their process, but because of its net result in muting the states as voices in the federal government. It is fitting then that even in Article V, the point is demonstrated by its closing clause:
“…no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”(emphasis mine.)
It could be said hereby that the seventeenth amendment deprived all the States of any form of suffrage in the US Senate. After the seventeenth amendment, States effectively have no direct suffrage of any form, thus rendering them voiceless in the federal government that had been their creation.
Naturally, there were ten amendments more than the repeal of the seventeenth discussed, including an interesting proposal that would permit the overturn of federal regulations by the states. There were also term limits for Congress, and there were term limits for the federal judiciary. There was even a method by which the states could overturn Supreme Court decisions. What all of these proposed amendments share is a singular focus on the construction and process of the federal government. That is a brilliant approach to reform that would have the effect of more slowly and carefully reversing our course.
I’ve given a great deal of thought to Levin’s proposal, as I have proposed some of these same ideas in some form in the past. As Levin points out, the Congress and the Courts, never mind a runaway executive have no reason whatever to reform themselves. If they are to be reformed, we will need to be the instigators. This then ought to be our mission, the effort of our time. If we are to be blunt about our nation’s prospects on its current course, it must be admitted that the future looks bleak. None should think this is a project that will be done in a year or in an election cycle. The fact is that this process begins with local and state politics. It means getting our state legislatures in shape so that the delegates they would send must be of a mind to author the kinds of amendments that Levin proposes here.
I realize there are risks implicit in any move to convene delegates for the purpose of amending the constitution, but the simple fact is that the constitution has been amended in a de facto methodology by the results of extra-constitutional rulings of the court, outrageous legislative initiatives in Congress, and the tyrannical fiat of executive whimsy that threaten every right of the American people. We are already nearing the precipice from which there will be no return, where plummeting into the abyss will be merely a matter of inertia. If George Mason insisted on this second procedure as the last effective rampart against federal tyranny, then I say we must exercise it. The only alternative is almost too terrible to imagine, and violence will be the only feasible outcome. There are many who make bold oaths, explaining that they would be happy with that occasion, but I wonder how much of that is bravado. Perhaps it is easier for some to make idle pronouncements than to stand forth and make serious efforts aimed at avoiding that sort of catastrophe.
When I consider even the simple repeal of the seventeenth amendment, I realize Levin is right. Such an amendment could never pass a Senate now subservient only to the Washington DC establishment, so that to restore the voice of the states, it will require their insistence and instigation. If you missed this episode of Hannity, I hope FNC will make more of it available. Here is the opening clip:
Paul Ryan talked with Laura Ingraham about a possible, future labor shortage if the amnesty bill is not passed. Right this moment, millions of American citizens are un/under-employed, and this guy is worried about a future labor shortage? I guess after being portrayed by Democrats as throwing Granny off the cliff, he’s take up the real work of pitching US citizens and legal residents over the cliff in earnest. This ridiculous man, who had been the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate only seven months ago actually believes this is the answer. What he’s not willing to say, at least not directly, is that he wants illegals legalized so they can be new slaves and beneficiaries in the growing government welfare-state. Listen to this pandering RINO disgorge his platitudes and clichés:
Ladies and gentlemen, we must kill the bill, and we must kill it in the Senate. Rep. Steve King(R-IA) along with Louie Gohmert(R-TX) appeared on Hannity Thursday to explain why we must kill the immigration reform bill in the Senate: If this makes it to the House, Boehner will take up the bill, and it may be extensively amended before passage, but the bill will need to go to conference first because the two bills will be substantially different. After the conference bill is finalized, there will be a vote for final passage, and it is at that time that Boehner and the GOP leadership in the House will screw us with a vast majority of Democrats and a few hands-full of RINOs voting for the conference version. Then we’ll have our amnesty, and Boehner will appear as though his hands are clean. Here’s Gohmert and King on Hannity:
The two Congressmen reiterated my point of yesterday: There should be no discussion of amnesty/legalization of any kind until the border is secured and enforcement has been significant and effective for a number of years.
We must prevent this scam from going through. I have my own doubts about whether the Senate version of the bill if amended with security-oriented provisions will stand up, because the amendments being added introduce new appropriations, but the Constitution requires that any new appropriations or taxation must originate in the House. We already know that these weasels pay attention to the constitution if and when it suits them, so I would not be surprised to see some game-playing on technical grounds if that’s what is needed to stop enforcement of security provisions.
Keep the pressure on them! I checked by a few of the Republican “Gang-of-Eight” Facebook pages, and noted that they are getting hammered by patriotic Americans everywhere. Let’s remind them whose country this is, and what their duty to the American people is supposed to entail.
Don’t forget to go by and sign the border security petition from Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX)Petition Here
Last week, I brought you a video from the National Prayer Breakfast speech of Dr. Benjamin Carson. His words were heartening in many respects, and many in conservative media leaped at the notion of his political potential as a candidate. I thought at the time that it was a bit of a fad, and I was therefore surprised to see Hannity run a full hour-long show on FoxNews devoted to talking with Dr. Carson. (You can see the full video, here in parts 1 and 2.) I am glad Hannity had him on because my own caution seemed justified by something Dr. Carson said. As I listened to him address the question of health insurance, it struck me as odd that he sees an inherent conflict of interests between an insurance company seeking to make a profit and its customers seeking health coverage. When I hear such things said, I often dismiss them as the vapid utterances of mindless politicians, but since Dr. Carson has been receiving so much press, including on this site, it’s time to address the matter. What Dr. Carson the practitioner of health-care seems to think about insurance is a common misconception, and it offers one more reason why conservatives must be cautious in their choices of leaders.
Dr. Carson said on Hannity’s show that there exists an inherent conflict of interests between health insurance companies and their insured clients. This is not true. The actual conflict begins a good deal sooner in the process, and as I think you will see, exposes a wider misunderstanding of the problem. Ask yourself this: Who are the majority of purchasers of health insurance? If you said “individuals,” you’re wrong by a mile. The truth is that the largest purchasers of health insurance are institutions, including the Federal and states’ governments, and corporations. The problem here is that the people who consume the service are not the people directly paying for it. Any time you break the connection between the end user and the provider of goods and services, you effectively destroy likewise the natural market signaling that provides feedback in both directions.
As an example, imagine you are a smoker looking for health insurance. If you were approaching insurance companies directly, they would undoubtedly quote you a price many times higher than the one they propose to a non-smoker. Obese? Same thing. This would mean that as a matter of natural market forces, you would either amend your behaviors and condition, or you would bear the burden of higher prices. Insurers would naturally consider everything about you in determining what they would charge for a policy, but perhaps more importantly, you would be free to shop for insurance among many providers. This would act as a restraint upon overcharging, and would also cause them to offer special discounts if you lived an exceedingly healthy lifestyle. In short, personal responsibility would have a good deal to do with how much you pay for health insurance, as it should in a free market. At the same time, a particular company’s profitability would hinge on making consumers happy with their coverages.
What many people ignore is that if one had to pay cash for the whole bill each time one became ill, or injured, most of us would go untreated indefinitely, because few of us have the resources to pay cash for extensive or invasive health-care procedures. Dr. Carson talks a good deal about Health Savings Accounts, but such plans are more useful for mundane purposes of a less critical nature than their utility in life-threatening circumstances. While I support Health Savings Accounts, I believe insurance is a necessary hedge against calamities. If we change our focus from health-care insurance for ongoing maintenance, to a paradigm in which what we insure against are catastrophic circumstances, while letting things like HSAs pick up the slack for ordinary health maintenance, in a market environment, one would see the market begin to perform in a natural fashion. Unfortunately, this means that people would need to shop for insurance like they do any other commodity, and seek out the best deals on their ordinary health maintenance and preventative care, and most Americans have become far too complacent about such matters, expecting it all to be automatic.
The truth of the matter is that if Americans want health-care to improve markedly in the United States, while restraining the growth in costs, without resorting to some sort of death-panel or other government-mandated rationing mechanism, there is a mechanism, however imperfect: The free market. Unfortunately, since the advent of Medicaid and Medicare, and even widespread employer-purchased health benefits(prompted by government wage and price controls,) we haven’t had a free market for health-care in the United States, never mind health insurance. The government is now the largest consumer of health-care services in the country as a direct payer, by many times over, and yet there is still an illusion held by many who receive health-care services paid for or otherwise subsidized through government payments that they are in control of their health-care. They’re not.
If Dr. Carson’s criticism of corporate health insurance providers were true, then it must be even more thoroughly the case that no institution more than government would wish to avoid costs by denying care. Do you need evidence? Consider Paul Krugman, longtime leftist economic propagandist and one-note statist, quoted as follows in a piece at Western Journalism:
“We’re going to need more revenue…it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well…And we’re also going to…have to make decisions about health care, not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits…death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.” -Paul Krugman
What Krugman is saying is entirely true, but only ifgovernment becomes the source and payer for health-care, because otherwise, the free market would regulate prices in the same manner it does for virtually everything else. Some will object, insisting that “health-care is different,” just as they have insisted that every other human need is different, from food to housing to education to Internet service to cellular phones. All of these claims are equally wrong, and equally immoral. These claims all begin by demanding that some basic human needs be met, and all of them end with a gun to tax-payers’ heads. Allof them.
I admire a number of positions taken by Dr. Carson, and I have no objections whatever about his participation in the public policy debate, but at some point, if he wishes to keep my attention, he will be required to offer more than platitudes and generalities about Health Savings Accounts. He devoted several lines of rhetoric to the attack of ideologues, but I am always cautious when people attack broad sets of philosophically bound principles in vague terms. I am curious to hear more from Dr. Carson, but I hope there will be a good deal more specificity. Talk of presidential runs and other such notions are fanciful and premature at best, and while I’ve heard a number of truncated statements about various topics from Dr. Carson, what I’ve not heard is a guiding philosophy that informs his opinions. Absent that, I have no grounds upon which to base any opinion of his suitability to any office, much less his qualifications to be President of the United States, and I find it unseemly that Hannity and others would talk of Dr. Carson in presidential terms given that we know so little about his positions. It may turn out that Dr. Carson is wonderful in all respects, but we already have a President who sailed into office through the propagation of vague, nice-sounding generalities, and I do not believe we can afford another.
Karl Rove appeared on Hannity on Tuesday night to deflect criticism that he’s an agent of the establishment at war with the Tea Party. I don’t buy it, and I believe his own professions in this clip should give you a sense of how he views the rank-and-file conservatives in the country. You see, he explains that it’s the goal of his “Conservative Victory Project” to support “the most conservative candidate who can win.” You may well notice that there exists a mile of wiggle-room in that statement, and it’s made from a deeply held sense of arrogance that is simply undeniable. If you watch carefully, at roughly 3:43 into the clip from Hannity’s show, as Sean asks him a question about the reaction to the Time article, you will see what “Tokyo Rove” thinks of Mark Levin, shrugging him off in derisive dismissal(screen-capture at left.) Watch the segment:
Rove attacked the motives of a wide range of people in the Tea Party movement, both in the blogosphere and in activist endeavors, as seeking some financial end. The irony of such a claim is galling. Mr. Rove insists that his new group exists to support “the most conservative candidate who can win.” This prompts a few questions in my mind, and I’d like to see them answered by Mr. Rove or any of his numerous establishment apologists:
Who decides what constitutes the “most conservative?” According to whose standard? Karl Rove’s?
Who decides who is able to win? According to whose calculations? Karl Rove’s?
What do we know about Mr. Rove’s success rate in his selections of candidates?
You see, when I answer these questions, I come to several conclusions, and none of them support Mr. Rove’s fanciful explanation on Hannity’s show. Karl Rove has shown no understanding of conservatism. His relentless appeal for immigration reform, his attacks on other conservative causes, candidates or efforts, and his involvement in the Bush administration with the passage of very liberal programs suggest to me quite strongly that Karl Rove is not an appropriate or even qualified judge of conservatism in any respect.
Since when is Mr. Rove the final arbiter on who is able to win? He told us throughout the primary season that only Romney could win, and through the general campaign that Romney would win, and that it might be a big win(though he did not quite go down the fantastic rabbit-hole with Dick Morris who predicted a Romney landslide.) Still, if 2012 is the measure of Mr. Rove’s ability to pick winners and losers, I’d say he did pretty poorly, and on his performance in 2012 measured against his own predictions and his own direction of funds, I would suggest that a blind-folded ape flipping coins could have done as well, and probably much better. For somebody who now indicates he supported Steelman in Missouri, it’s funny that he twice refers to her as “Deb,” though her name is Sarah. I can’t say it adds much to his credibility.
Hannity’s apologetic interview with Karl Rove does nothing to convince me that Rove intends anything but that which has already been said. His history of efforts against the grass-roots of the Republican Party are evidence enough for me that what he’s after is not conservatism, and certainly not victory. Translated, “the most conservative candidate who can win” means: “Vote for the people we recommend, or we’re going to destroy your candidate, depriving your candidate of just enough votes to make them lose.” It’s clear to me that Rove and his bunch would just as soon lose as have an actual conservative win office, and I’m not inclined to believe a word Mr. Whiteboard has to say in his own defense. Sure, the article at the beginning of this latest flap appeared in the New York Times, and I’m certain there’s a bias there, but it hardly excuses Rove’s past actions, and doesn’t explain away his current ones either. One of these days, conservatives will begin to catch on that an “R” following somebody’s name doesn’t necessarily imply the first damned thing about their philosophical leanings.
On Friday night, Sean Hannity aired a special presentation called “Boomtown,” featuring Peter Schweizer and Stephen K. Bannon. The point of “Boomtown” is to expose the naked corruption of the rich and powerful who now hold sway over the Federal Government. From crony capitalism to old-fashioned cronyism and nepotism in government, the two explained how thoroughly broken our Federal government has become, and how frequently its machinery is placed in service of the accumulation of vast wealth for those who are on the inside. Cautioning viewers that these criticisms apply equally to Democrats and Republicans, their point was well made. Here’s the video:
What one must conclude from this film is what Sarah Palin warned us during her speech at Indianola, IA: Too much of Washington DC is corrupted by the kickbacks, the insider deals, and the special set-asides for lobbying corporations. Many conclude that this means money must be gotten out of politics, but that cannot and will not happen. Instead, in order to cure the problem, government must be gotten out of business, but as Bannon and Schweizer explained, that’s not going to be easy because so many there are so firmly invested in the process of using government and the law as tools of self-enrichment.
To change any of this, the American people will need to become informed in order to demand sensible changes resulting in a different culture in Washington DC, but the solutions will not be easy. It is going to require leadership committed to reforming the way government operates, and for all the talk of people like Nancy Pelosi who in 2006 lamented the “culture of corruption,” even after four years of her tenure as Speaker of the House, the swamp she claimed her party would drain has filled to overload with shady, corrupt practices and widespread graft. It’s a bipartisan problem, and this is why in the final analysis, Boehner and crew continue to go along with the President’s out-of-control spending: Everybody is profiting from it in Washington DC, because while unemployment throughout the country remains nearly 8%, and home values continue to be stagnant or on the decline, in Washington DC, everything is booming because they’re collecting your money and spending money they’re borrowing with the American people held in bondage to make payments on their self-enriching excesses.
We may never get the money out of politics, but we will improve the trajectory of our country if we can get the government out of business by prohibiting to it the sort of corruptions that are now routine procedures in Washington DC. If we love our liberties, it is time to grasp the notion that a government vested with so much power to intervene in the free market is the inevitable birthplace of tyranny.
On Friday evening, former Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin appeared on Hannity on FoxNews to discuss a range of topics, relating to the vile attacks she and her family have endured over the last four years since John McCain chose her to be his running mate. Hannity prefaced the segment with a number of disturbing video clips of various media personalities saying the most obscene and ridiculously insulting things about Gov. Palin and other members of her family, and given the nature of some of the things that have been said, I remain amazed at her poise and strength of resolve in confronting it all. Bill Maher, and David Letterman, among others headline this bunch of shameless media vermin, but Governor Palin was most perturbed by the attacks on her children.
Perhaps the most shocking of attacks has been on her young son Trig who was born with Down Syndrome, and has been the focus of disgusting ridicule and ridiculous conspiracy theories. As a parent, it’s horrible to witness attacks of any kind on your children, but the despicable attack on a child with special needs is particularly abominable. Frankly, I consider the purveyors of this alleged “comedy” aimed at defenseless children the signature of pure evil. Here’s the video:
Naturally, there have been attacks on all her kids, and some of them stunningly vile. The question of President Obama’s hypocrisy came up, since one of the SuperPACs supporting him accepted one million dollars from professional pig Bill Maher. Hannity also highlighted Bristol Palin’s blog in which she asked President Obama directly: Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call? The hypocrisy is evident, but that’s not particularly bothersome to leftists, who must adopt every manner of contradiction in logic and morality to hold their positions. The Governor’s eldest daughter did an excellent job of demonstrating the clear hypocrisy through his remarks to the press on the Sandra Fluke story.
The left loves to profess their love and reverence for the rights and dignity of all women, but when it comes right down to it, what’s really important to leftists is ideology. Women only qualify for their respect if they happen also to be leftists.
Governor Palin appeared on Fox News with Sean Hannity on Thursday evening. They discussed a wide range of topics, including the controversy over the Barack Obama Campaign’s unwillingness to urge an Obama SuperPAC to return a million dollars donated by Bill Maher in light of his long history of misogynist remarks over the years, including some aimed at Governor Palin and other women, including Rep.Michele Bachmann (R-MN). This highlights the hypocrisy on the left, as they continue to pummel Rush Limbaugh for remarks that are tame by comparison to anything Maher has said.
The video is in two segments:
In the second segment, Hannity asked Governor Palin about the Breitbart tape:
On Wednesday evening, Breitbart.com revealed a video on Hannity that provides clear proof of Barack Obama’s radical ties. In this case, the radical in question is Professor Derrick Bell, who was the first African-American to obtain tenure as a Law Professor at Harvard University. He was also a radical, and ideological model for Barack Obama. The most important thing to note may be that the video was hidden through the 2008 presidential campaign so that Barack Obama would never be called to answer for the association with Prof. Bell. The reason they wanted to hide it is clear: It shows a warm embrace between an acolyte and a mentor, the former showing his love and devotion to the latter.
Here’s a clip from Breitbart:
This video is just the first installment of what promises to be a heavy season of vetting for Mr. Obama if Breitbart’s crew is able to pull this off in the wake of Andrew Breitbart’s death. So far, Joel Pollak and the rest of the staff writers have been churning out work with a remorselessly driven, dedicated fervor. I think Andrew Breitbart assembled one of the best outfits in the business, despite critics who have tried everything possible to discredit the organization. I expect it will worsen. In this case, BuzzFeed actually released a highly-edited version of the video hours ahead of the release, all to give a chance to cause it to be covered differently than it might have been. It was a way of trying to soften its impact.
This is hardly the last bit of video we will see from Breitbart.com in vetting Barack Obama. Andrew may be gone, but his fighting spirit lives on in all the wonderful folks there who seek to bring you all the important news few outlets in the mainstream media will cover.
Sarah Palin was on Hannity’s radio show this afternoon to talk about the primary race, the attacks on Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney, and a host of related issues. She referred to the media smears as being “Joe McGinnissed,” and on the subject of the media, she called them “dumb arses.” Audio via DailyCaller:
Speaking to Sean Hannity Friday night, on the grounds of the Iowa State Fair, Governor Palin made quite clear the dissatisfaction of voters with Washington’s politics-as-usual. At one point, she explained that the American people had been very clear in their support of Cut, Cap and Balance, but now “We’re telling Congress: Cut the crap, and balance, please!”
Apart from that, the news out of the interview may have been the adoring crowd gathered for the time she was on-stage. It’s fairly clear that there is a hunger for a candidate who will speak the plain truth about the problems confronting the country. Asked about Thursday night’s GOP debate, she mentioned Newt Gingrich and his rebuke to the press and their “gotcha questions.” The crowd responded enthusiastically, sensing that Mrs. Palin isn’t the ordinary politician. Rather than slam some of the other republican candidates, she actually took the opportunity to praise one specifically, and all of them generally. At one point, she even explained she’d be willing to vote for anybody except Obama.
This is a decidedly different tone from the ordinary politics to which we’ve all become accustomed. While there’s no doubt that she is more than able and decidedly willing to mix it up with wayward Republicans, when she sees grounds upon which to praise them, she lavishes it on them graciously. This makes one remember Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment, and it should serve Mrs.Palin well in the future.
Earlier in the day, arriving at the Fairgrounds, she was mobbed by admirers who clearly couldn’t wait to be in her presence. It’s another sign of the Governor’s enduring popularity in the American heartland. Her peculiar ability to interact with people has always served her well in politics, but also in general.
All of this still leaves in question the matter of her own immediate plans, and as she pointed out, she still has that “Fire in the belly.” As Americans look on in hope and admiration, many of them have that growing fire too, and it’s aimed at restoring a nation that’s been led astray by an insincere shepherd who many now believe has turned out to be nothing more than another wolf. The next thirty days and more promise to be exciting as Governor Palin continues her One Nation tour. What’s next, or when an announcement might come is anybody’s guess, but one thing is certain: Sarah Palin is going to keep the press guessing as her would-be opponents for the nomination continue to hope she’ll just go away. The view from here is clear: She’s here to stay.
None of this is news to you, who’ve been reading this blog. If you’ve tuned to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, or Levin, among lesser lights, you cannot possibly have missed this. Governor Palin warned against the irresponsibility of inaction, on her own Facebook page and during Fox News appearances. Millions of thoughtful Americans made it clear that the Budget Control Act didn’t go far enough. Washington sneered at them, and Speaker Boehner told Republicans to “get your ass in line.” President Obama, for his part, continues to mouth aimless, meandering platitudes. His Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, promised repeatedly that this would not happen. Happen, it has, and now America can count on even worse economic news. It’s going to take real, solid, unwavering leadership to restore all that has been broken in the last three years, and more.
America is not dead, but the policies of Barack Obama, combined with the moral diminution of our nation, have taken her down to her knees. Appropriately, many Americans have noted our position and prayed. I know faithful conservatives who prayed daily for the President and the Congress to find the courage to do what was necessary and proper to safeguard the fiscal and financial state of our Union. As in all things, such prayers may not be answered on a schedule most convenient to mankind, but this doesn’t mean Americans should despair and surrender their country. At least three years of mostly Keynesian solutions combined with innumerable reflexive statist proposals have brought us to this. The shocking truth is this: Barack Obama is not fit for the presidency, and neither are any who timidly sided with the Budget Control Act and its additional blank checks for Obama.
On Thursday, when the Dow slid over 500 points, the chattering class told you this was about Italy, and Europe generally. While there is no denying that these had an effect on the markets, what’s inescapable now is the conclusion I offered you on Friday morning: The market is revolting against three years of an impossible policy of borrow-and-spend and its immediate implications for our own economic future. It also signifies the bankruptcy of a philosophy rooted in early 20th century progressivism. Last night, as the S&P downgraded our credit rating, the truth became apparent. What we witnessed on Thursday was the movement of smart money in response to an impending threat. All day Friday, the White House worked to stave off this downgrade until the markets had closed, hoping to take advantage of the cooling of passions weekends often provide to nervous markets. They succeeded in large measure, and it was not until after the last echos of the closing bell had faded into memory when the first tremors from Washington began to move the earth beneath our feet.
This isn’t an ordinary event, yet in the hours leading up to its final exclamation point, the narrative from Washington had already begun to work its way into the media at large: “This is no big deal. There’s no crisis. There’s no reason for panic. It won’t mean higher interest rates.” Any who have been deceived by past admonitions to abstain from worries should now carefully consider the sources of those remarks. All needn’t be lost, but we, the American people, must resolve and plan to repair this, and it will take a coalition-building servant of tremendous dedication to lead us in bringing this economy hard-about.
We shall see up and downs; rises and falls, but we must measure the course ahead with care, and not turn to panic or despair. We will have a chance to begin setting this right when the elections come mercifully upon us in November of 2012. It is for this coming political season that you must preserve your devotion, energy, and passion. Any silly liberal can(and will) run screaming into the night in fear and trepidation. We must be what we are: The solid foundation upon which this nation still rests. We must have steel spines and strong constitutions. Each of us.
To restore what has been wrecked by the ultimate drunken-drivers, we’ll be faced with challenges as few of us will have known. That doesn’t mean certain failure, but instead only that we must give it our all. Given the character of my audience, as I have been so fortunate to come to know it, I am well-versed in their capacity to do what is right, rather than what is easy. We’re coming to that crossroad at which we will now be compelled to choose what sort of nation we will be. Will we accept endlessly-mounting debt, at each increment yielding a bit more liberty and a good deal more of the futures of our children?
I am reminded of Patrick Henry’s famous speech, and encouragement may yet be found in the fact that our situation is not yet nearly so dire as the one he described. We are not imminently at the point of arms, and there’s no reason we need ever be if only we will make full use of our power in the political battles before us. Substituting political decisions in place of that context, let us remind ourselves of his staggering admonition:
“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.”
We needn’t go further than to admit that our situation is not nearly so desperate. We have no need of arms, but instead we have a desperate need of people to rise and challenge our adversaries in politics. Our adversaries names are not only Obama and Reid and Boehner, but also John Doe and Joe Sixpack. We must look to our own homes and hearths and know what is in and amongst us. We must mend the fences between neighbors. Go out this day and find one honest person, and tell them what you propose. For my part, I will do so also, and this is what I shall say:
There is no avoiding the truth any longer. We must reform all that is broken with the people in Washington, and if it means replacing them all, every one, then we must do so, as many as we can, in the coming elections. We must find diligent and honest servants, and we must advocate their cause in our own names. We must seek out such leaders as we’ll need, starting most immediately amongst ourselves. We can choose leaders to help guide us at the top, but no leader can carry on her back the combined weight of the world’s problems. A leader must find equally firm character in those who will be led, or their purpose is in vain. Where shall we start? Where have we Americans always started? In our families, among our neighbors, in our churches, and in the town square are the first steps Americans have always taken toward reform, because we know that for reformation and restoration, this healing tide must flow from within us.
Be of good cheer, despite the screaming headlines. Be solid for those who will need your resolve. Be mindful that when you advocate on behalf of a candidate, or an issue, those who are truly undecided will be watching not only for the logic of your argument, but also for the manner in which you make it. They who have sat too long straddling the fence, half in terror and half in comfort at the prospect of dismounting their perch will need to know they’re stepping onto solid ground. We must be that solid ground.
What must be recognized is that this downgrade isn’t a cause, but an effect. We must see even the debt that has brought us to this debacle also as an effect. The cause at the root of our troubles doesn’t lie with the various issues we see emerging in our time, but with something fundamentally broken in what we’ve allowed our country to become. There are great dangers ahead, but none of them need destroy us. None of them ought to be the cause of our demise. They will mostly be mere effects of what actually threatens our republic.
Glenn Beck had it right in his 8-28 project of 2010, when he said that we must restore our honor. The “fundamental transformation” we must find cannot originate in Washington. I’ve been interested to watch, as the new campaign season approaches, who is and who isn’t taking firm and public stands on these arguments in Washington, or elsewhere. I’ve been watching for signals that an honorable and courageous candidate for President will emerge, and while there have been some hopeful signs from a few of those who have announced, I believe the best is yet to come. Who shall lead us? You’ve already had a hint. On the 28th of August, 2010, before a multitude assembled, she spoke not of politics but on the real meaning of American honor:
Who Shall Lead?
“We will always come through. We will never give up, and we shall endure because we live by that moral strength that we call grace. Because though we’ve often skirted a precipice, a providential hand has always guided us to a better future.
And I know that many of us today, we are worried about what we face. Sometimes our challenges, they just seem insurmountable.
But, here, together, at the crossroads of our history, may this day be the change point!
Look around you. You’re not alone. You are Americans!
You have the same steel spine and the moral courage of Washington and Lincoln and Martin Luther King. It is in you. It will sustain you as it sustained them.
So with pride in the red, white, and blue; with gratitude to our men and women in uniform; let’s stand together! Let’s stand with honor! Let’s restore America!”
Many will have failed to notice that Governor Palin had been telling us this all along. Some will pretend not to have heard it, not wishing to confront that which they know lies within them. The Obama disaster isn’t the cause of our troubles, but instead has merely exposed the source of our disease. Ridding ourselves of his disastrous economic and social policies will not, by itself, repair what is broken. As Sarah Palin pointed out to the assembled hearing of a multitude, “It is in [us].“ We must repair ourselves from the inside, first, and that means honor and integrity in all we do; in our families, among our neighbors, in our churches and our workplaces we must become as honorable as the names of our cherished beliefs demand. At every junction, at every intersection in which one must choose between what is comfortable and easy, or that which is more difficult but right, we must be the people who will choose the latter.
It’s your country. You choose. I’ve asked what sort of freedom it is that you seek. Did others think that by avoiding the choice, they would avoid the consequences of not choosing? Surely not. What your comments and emails reveal is that my readers and millions more have chosen, and I thank you, but there is much work to be done. Let each of us go to it.