Hope & Change I Wish For Someday

The vid is an interview Glenn Beck had with Mliheil Saakashvili, President of Georgia, and I was very impressed for many reasons, As I watched I thought how would a Frank Luntz conservative focus respond to his message. I imagined the graph line shooting to the top and pegging as they heard the man speak. I supported Fred, but he didn't show passion for freedom and core values when he spoke the way this guy does.

Here is two quotes from this guy:

It is time for the government to be afraid of the people and not the other way around.

The government is going to help you in the best way possible by doing nothing for you, but by getting out of your way. I exaggerate, but you understand. Of course we will provide the infrastructure and help get rid of corruption, but you have all succeeded by your own initiative and enterprise, so you should congratulate yourselves.

Here are examples of what he did when he first took office.

We fired the entire police force of the country. And that was one of the most corrupt police forces throughout the European continent. We fired more than 40,000 people.

We recruited new people within several months. But here`s what the result is. You know, the previous police force had only five percent of population`s trust and confidence, according to the Gallup poll. Now we have more than 70.

So police moved from being universally hated to being universally loved by the people and having support of the people. And there are other radical reforms which we also applied -- cutting red tape, you know, downsizing the government`s functions.

one of the main things is to develop people`s initiatives, to empower people, to give them the sense that they are the ones to build their own country. They shouldn`t be looking at the government, because in our case, the more government intervenes, the worse it is.

You know, we cut red tape. You know, what`s our resource? We don`t have much of oil and gas, what`s our resource in our part of the world?

Our resource is having no red tape, having no corruption, having an efficient government. A small government, because big government, as a rule, means, in our case, corruption and inefficiency. Basically empowering people, giving them initiative, and basically encouraging initiative, because after all, after so many years of communism, after so many years of inaction, after so many years of cynicism and cynical rule, you need basically a new mentality to tell people, well, we are on our own. Our government is there to help when it can, and most of the times we can help ourselves to build our own country.

And after all, when people don`t give credit to some smart leaders, or smart governments, but saying, OK, this is up to us, this is our country, we have to build it, you get an entirely new nation. And that`s exactly what we are seeing in my country, in my part of the world.

You know, you succeed by giving people more freedom. Freedom is the key word. Encouraging initiatives is the other thing, and having a government that knows its place and doesn`t want to overplay its hand, but also can be very efficient when it`s necessary to encourage that freedom is something that really helps and gets the results.

It's unfortunate that there is no choice like this for me when I vote in November. Of course there are big differences between the eventual Democratic nominee and John McCain, and I could never vote for the Democrat when I think about who will be the next CinC. Some of the things I disagree with Pres. Bush about are going to remain a disagreement for me with Pres. McCain. I do have high hope for a certain Governor of the state of Louisiana to one day run for POTUS. Unless something happens that changes him for the worse, I believe Bobby Jindall understands having a government that knows its place and doesn't overplay its hand.

Say it aint so, John. Take it back what you told Imus

On April 28, 2006 Don Imus show John McCain said the following:

I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government.

George Wills wrote a piece in the WaPo about this conversation McCain had with Imus. Some salient points in his piece:

On April 28, on Don Imus's radio program, discussing the charge that the McCain-Feingold law abridges freedom of speech by regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech, John McCain did not really reject the charge.

McCain seems to regard unregulated political speech as an inherent invitation to corruption. And he seems to believe that anything done in the name of "leveling the playing field" for political competition is immune from First Amendment challenges.

the stark contradiction in McCain's doctrine
In the language of McCain's Imus appearance, the government is very much not "clean," but it is so clean it can be trusted to regulate speech about itself.

McCain favors judges who think the Constitution is so radically elastic that government regulation of speech about itself is compatible with the First Amendment. Can President McCain be counted on to nominate justices who would correct such constitutional elasticities as the court's discovery of a virtually unlimited right -- one unnoticed between 1787 and 1973 -- to abortion?

McCain told Imus that he would, if necessary, sacrifice "quote First Amendment rights" to achieve "clean" government. If on Jan. 20, 2009, he were to swear to defend the Constitution, would he be thinking that the oath refers only to "the quote Constitution"? And what would that mean?

On March 11, 2008 President George W. Bush attended and spoke at the National Religious Broadcasters 2008 convention in Nashville, TN.

Here are some of the salient points he made in this speech

The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away.

We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don't agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don't acknowledge that you are the balance; that you give voice. The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we're strengthened by diversity of opinions.

We love freedom in America, and we're the leader of the world not because we try to limit freedom, but because we've helped to spread it. You and I know that freedom has the power to transform lives. You and I know that free societies are more peaceful and more prosperous. You and I know that if given the chance, men and women and children in every society on Earth will choose a life of freedom -- if just given a chance. Unless, of course, you don't believe freedom is a gift from the Almighty. The liberty we value is not ours alone. Freedom is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to all humanity.

It is no coincidence that the region of the world that is the least free is also the most violent and dangerous. For too long the world was content to ignore oppression -- oppressive forms of government in the Middle East, in the name of stability.

The result was that a generation of young people grew up with little hope of improving their lives, and many fell under the sway of violent extremism. The birthplace of three of the world's great religions became the home of suicide bombers. And resentments that began on the streets in the Middle East killed innocent people in trains and airplanes and office buildings around the world.

My President is often roundly accused of speaking poorly and incoherently. Yet these words in this speech were quite crystal clear to me in their meaning. I only wish these words had come to the forefront of his brain when the McCain-Feingold bill was placed in front of him for his signature to become law.

Recently at RedState I read this comment

If conservatives decide to attack McCain and try to make him lose (by not voting for him and by doing Democrat's dirty work) then there is no reason they should expect a seat at the table.

If the table is the Republican Party, and this new Republican Party becomes destructive to certain unalienable Rights, then not only do I not expect a seat at the table. I do not want a seat at the table.

Today in Nashville Pres. Bush showed John how to talk about core principle values. I realize John has been busy lately, but maybe he has a friend who can call John’s attention to this matter. There is still time between now and November, and I don’t think John taking it back on his quote First Amendment statement to Don Imus will cause all of the moderates and independents to stop supporting him.

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Kenyans Want To Get Hillary's Goat & Hope She Has A Cow

I ran across this headline from Reuters today, Clinton faces Kenya cattle fine over Obama photo An excerpt from the article

Wajir elders resolved to file an official complaint with the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, dropping earlier plans to hold a protest after Friday prayers.

They said they would also convene a traditional Somali court to investigate the matter. It can impose fines that are payable in cattle, goats or camels.

"We will go ahead with this case whether Senator Clinton or Democratic party leaders turn up or not," said Mohamed Ibrahim, a member of the clan that hosted Obama during his trip. "But this whole thing can be avoided if only an apology is made."

In addition to to Wajir elders, Hillary also has a group of Somali immigrants in Minnesota who are upset.

Omar Jamal is head of the St Paul, Minnesota-based Somali Justice Advocacy Centre.

His lobby group, which works with Somali immigrants in the United States, has also demanded an apology from Clinton's camp.

"They are trying to make a link between a man who could be the next U.S. president and a country with al Qaeda terrorist activities. They're trying to tell citizens, look who you might be voting for," he told Reuters by telephone.

I just don't know quite to say about Hillary's problems here. I just have questions. Are these people going to get Hillary's goat? Is Hillary going to have a cow over making things right?

Maybe it is just me, but this flare up strikes me as something very similar to the Danish cartoon flap. The idea that a free press can publish an image that offends because they are a free press is a concept some cannot grasp. Perhaps this is because they have never lived in freedom. They just don't understand how it is possible to both be offended and defend the free speech rights of those who offend them.

As for the accusations of Minnesota based Omar Jamal about all I can say is HUH? The Clinton campaign is not trying to make a link between a man who could be the next US President and a country with al Qaeda terrorist activities. Any links that exist are there because of the decisions and choices that Sen. Barack Obama has made. The Hillary campaign did not tell Obama to travel to that village and get photographed in the Somali garb. The Hillary campaign did not tell Obama to travel to Kenya to campaign for the guy running for President there who had the support of the Kenya muslims because he promised them that if elected he would impose sharia law and madrassa schools. Obama makes the links himself not the Hillary campaign.

Now the part about them trying to tell citizens look who you might be voting for, he is absolutely correct.

The next President of the United States will be a War President.

Choose wisely, because your life does depend on it.

Who Is Driving This Bus, Barry?

At Tuesday night’s debate in Ohio, Barack Obama had this to say:

Senator Clinton equates experience with time spent in Washington. The American people don't find that an accurate measure. The decision to go into Iraq was the most important in a generation.

Once we drove into the ditch, there were only so many ways to get out... She was ready to give in to George W. Bush on Day One on this issue.

an excerpt from The poverty of international journalism
John Barbieri (2008-01-22)
The U.S. has keenly been trying to build up allies in East Africa and the Horn of Africa to counterbalance other perceived ‘threat’ countries in the region. These key U.S. allies include Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Uganda and the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia. These allies are meant to act as a counter-balance to the ‘threats’ of Sudan (the Bashir regime), Eritrea and the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) in Somalia. The Bush administration has clearly supported incumbent Kibaki due to the fact that his government has been one of these key allies in the ‘war on terror’ in the East and the Horn of Africa.

A Timeline

June 2006
The Islamists seized Mogadishu, the capital raising concerns that fundamentalists were gaining increasing influence in the Horn of Africa nation, without an effective central government since 1991.

Raila flew to the US, where he held talks with Senator Barack Obama, one of the candidates seeking the Democratic Party ticket to vie for the American presidency.

Aug 28, 2006
There are signs of tension between Sen. Barack Obama and African leaders. On Monday, Obama stepped up his criticism of government corruption in Kenya.

But as CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, the government fired back, saying Obama is a stooge for an opposing political party.

After remaining largely silent, the government of President Mwai Kibaki is beginning to respond, suggesting that Obama may have fallen under the spell of opposition leader Raila Odinga.

A potential presidential candidate himself, Odinga's been at Obama's elbow here fairly often and is a member of the Obama family's Luo tribe.

"Sen. Obama has to look at critically about where he's receiving his advice from," said government spokesman Dr. Alfred Mutua. "Just because somebody, somewhere wants to run for president and is using Sen. Obama as his stooge, as his puppet to be able to get to where he wants to get to."

September 26 2006
Ethiopian troops were reported to have moved into neighbouring Somalia yesterday to protect its weak transitional government a day after fighters loyal to an Islamic movement took control of a key Somali port.

December 8, 2007
The Ethiopians gave no reason for their departure Saturday from Somalia, though they had been under pressure from rights groups to vacate civilian houses.

January 7, 2008
Soon after the Dec. 27 vote, Kenya's election commission announced that President Mwai Kibaki (pronounced muh-WHY key-BAH-key) had been narrowly reelected. Immediately there were charges that the votes had not been counted honestly. Kibaki's rival, Raila Odinga (rah-EE-lah o-DIN-gah), called him a thief who stole the election and demanded that Kibaki step down. The head of the election panel later said he was pressured into making a quick announcement, and that he is not sure who won the election.

Who is Raila Odinga?

International media reported widespread violence erupted throughout Kenya’s rural areas after the nation’s electoral commission declared incumbent President Mwai Kibaki defeated challenger Raila Odinga, and Odinga’s supporters claimed the voting was rigged.

But Solomon Kimuyu, a Dallas resident who has maintained his Kenyan citizenship, said he saw televised images of the violence long before the polls closed, just prior to a media blackout in Kenya. And he asserted members of Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement with close ties to the National Muslim Leaders Forum orchestrated much of the rioting.

Muslim extremists tied to the opposition party pledged long before the election that if certain conditions were not met prior to the Dec. 27 voting, violence would result, he insisted.

While violence in Kenya has been portrayed as a spontaneous reaction to injustice and vote fraud, Muslim radicals planned much of it in advance, Kimuyu insisted.
And while “we will never know” if the election was rigged by the party in control, he maintains voters unquestionably were threatened and harassed by Muslim supporters of the opposition party.

“People were prevented from going to the polls, and people were prevented from counting votes,” he said.
He also pointed to a controversial document the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya posted on its website. It was purported to be a memorandum of understanding between Odinga and his party and the National Muslim Leaders Forum. The document appears to have been signed by Odinga and Sheik Abdullah Abdi on Aug. 29, 2007.
The posted document states Odinga agreed to rewrite Kenya’s constitution within six month to declare Sharia, or Islamic law, legally binding in the country’s Muslim-declared regions in exchange for the Muslim leaders’ endorsement. It also includes provisions banning open-air Christian meetings in Kenya’s northeastern and coastal areas and ordering primary schools in those regions to conduct daily madrassa classes promoting Islam.

Given the statements that Barack Obama has made about Pres. Bush and Sen. Clinton, and the current US policy of building up allies in East Africa and the Horn of Africa, one has to wonder why Barack decided to choose sides in the Kenya elections. Who is driving the bus into the ditch with respect to Kenya, Barry?

A Conservative Looks At Carbon Cap & Trade

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

source

All of the candidates left in the race to become the next POTUS, both Ds and Rs, say they are for carbon cap & trade legislation. They say it is the Gospel truth that man made global warming exists, and resistance is futile. You must put in place policies to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone who causes the harm is going to have to pay something, and the people that solve the problem are going to profit. They say it is Gospel truth that there is a real value into putting a price on causing harm. The Cap & Trade legislation is a partnership between the US governement and US businesses in setting this price on all of these greenhouse emissions that are causing harm.

What do the candidates say?

As President, I will put in place a market-based cap and trade system to reduce carbon pollution. Here's how it will work: the federal government auctions permits for 100% of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions. Companies purchase those allowances but they can be traded, borrowed, banked, bought, and sold. The market will determine the cost of carbon pollution and companies will be rewarded for cutting emissions.

Hillary Clinton

As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming-an 80% reduction by 2050. To ensure this isn't just talk, I will also commit to interim targets toward this goal in 2020, 2030, and 2040. These reductions will start immediately, and we'll continue to follow the recommendations of top scientists to ensure that our targets are strong enough to meet the challenge we face.

In addition to this cap, all polluters will have to pay based on the amount of pollution they release into the sky. The market will set the price, but unlike the other cap-and-trade proposals that have been offered in this race, no business will be allowed to emit any greenhouses gases for free. Businesses don't own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution. It's time to make the cleaner way of doing business the more profitable way of doing business.

Barack Obama

I support the simple, but powerful solution known as "cap and trade," which is at the core of bills I have introduced in the past two Congresses, as well as some currently under consideration.

The goal is to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by electric power plants, transportation and manufacturing by creating a cap and trade system where companies would have pollution allowances that they could sell if their emissions fall below limits, or buy if they found they could not meet requirements. The trading is aimed at reducing the economic impact of putting limits on carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, the leading greenhouse gas.

John McCain

Maybe it’s just me, but I find this position by the candidates approaching an article of faith of a religion instead of a political debate. The skeptics of man made global warming can no longer debate with the proponents of man made global warming. Glenn Beck had Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute as a guest. Here is a portion of the transcript.

BECK: Next week, right here in New York City, the first-of-its-kind global warming conference is scheduled. It -- I mean, it has a suspiciously important-sounding generic title, The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. But this one is different. This one is for the other side.

Joseph Bast, who is the organizer of the event, says that he has got hundreds of experts on science, politics and the economics of global warming coming to this, including the president of the Czech Republic, who I absolutely love, who is giving the keynote speech. He`s attending, and it will be "hard for journalists and policymakers to ignore the event."

Really? Quite honestly, they have been doing a pretty good job of ignoring the other side so far.

I live in New York. I`m a global warming skeptic. And yet, I haven`t heard about this until today.

America, I promise you this -- the mainstream media can ignore this conference all they want, but this program will cover this conference like it`s the second coming of Jesus Christ. I promise.

Joseph Bast is the president of The Heartland Institute.

How frustrating is it, Joseph, that you can`t -- I mean, you are actually buying full-page ads in "The New York Times" and other papers to let people know that this is happening, right?

JOSEPH BAST, PRESIDENT OF THE HEARTLAND INST.: That`s right. And it is a little frustrating. I mean, we have hundreds and hundreds of scientists who dissent from the so-called consensus on global warming, but the media acts as if every single one is on the payroll of an oil company and therefore is just a front for a special interest group.

BECK: Well, I mean, let`s be honest here. First of all, GE owns NBC. They did a whole week of global warming specials and everything else.

I mean, the other side is financed by people who make money as well. They always accuse you at The Heartland Institute of being financed by big oil. What is it, 4 percent one year you took from Exxon? What is it?

BAST: Exactly right. In no year have we gotten more than 5 percent of our budget from Exxon. They haven`t even contributed to us in 2007 or 2008. This conference is entirely funded by individuals and foundations. So there`s no corporate funding at all.

BECK: OK.

You invited Al Gore to come. He`s not coming.

BAST: That`s right. He turned us down.

BECK: Yes.

BAST: Al Gore doesn`t believe in debating.

BECK: Yes.

Is it -- you would think that if it was so easy to debate, if it was so clear, you wouldn`t have to demean people. You wouldn`t have to smear their reputations. All you would have to do is lay out the facts.

Why is it, or has there ever been an actual civil debate on both sides where you could listen to both sides and say, OK, I happen to believe this one?

BAST: There used to be those debates actually back in the early 1990s, when The Heartland Institute began writing about this issue. I would be invited to conferences and there would actually be pro and con debates.

I think the other side, the alarmist side, lost those debates so often that they have just given up. The word is out now. Any time a skeptic is on the program, the alarmists decide not to attend.

BECK: Is it true -- no, go ahead.

BAST: Since yesterday -- yesterday in Denver, there was a debate. Our guy had to debate an empty chair. So that`s pretty common.

So how does anyone who wants to argue a political issue win if the other side believes their position is the Gospel truth? It is analogous to a heretic arguing with a church he belongs to. The church will excommunicate him because of his loss of faith and hope. Here is the deal for me. The US government is not a church, and the first amendment forbids making any law that establishes a state religion. I feel like the man made global warming crowd are coming real close to being a religion.

The buying and selling of carbon credits smacks a lot to me of a practice going on in the catholic church 500 years ago. Back in the day they were concerned about salvation of one’s soul through good works. They had a plan of buying and selling indulgences. Everyone who causes the harm (the nobility) is going to have to pay something, and the people that solve the problem (the priests) are going to profit. A heretic priest by the name of Luther took strong exception to this practice, and the Protestant Movement took hold.

I concede there are some (pliny et al) who debate man made global warming theory, and I applaud this. I do worry, especially with some of the supporters of Obama, that debate is being replaced with religious devotion. Some examples of what some supporters of Obama say:

This is not a campaign for president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world.

Rep. Elijah Cummings

I'll do whatever he says to do. I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.

actress Halle Berry

The democratic Party?

I purposely used a small letter ‘d’ for democratic in my title to address the question of whether or not the Democratic Party in words and actions promotes democracy.

DEFINING DEMOCRACY

In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom.

In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens. The essential elements of constitutional government include majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law.

Watching The Glenn Beck Show on Feb. 22 with guest, Jonah Goldberg was very eye-opening to me about the history of the Democratic Party, and how by their words and actions they are contrary to some of the pillars of democracy listed above. I encourage everyone to read the entire transcript to appreciate the entire discussion between Glenn and Jonah. For those who don’t have the energy and time to read the entire transcript I want to provide some of the highlights below.

GOLDBERG: It is -- it is amazing. But to call yourself a progressive, "The New York Times" liberals call themselves progressives. Everyone calls themselves progressives. And Hillary Clinton does. And no one seems to care what the actual progressives did. And the actual progressives were state-ists run amok.

Hillary tries to get away by saying, "Well, liberal has come to mean big government." The progressives were the original big-government people.

BECK: But in a spooky sort of way.

GOLDBERG: Yes, they believed -- progressives come of age, what I call in the book, of this fascist moment. But they believed that the age of the individual was over, that we had to redefine ourselves only through the collective, through the group and through the state. And therefore, the individual had to be crushed. The concept of the individual had to be crushed. We all had to work towards the larger collective endeavors.

BECK: Let`s look at Hillary Clinton. She said, April 24, 1996, "As adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn`t really any such thing as someone else`s child."

She has also said, from "It Takes a Village," "Videos with scenes of commonsense baby care -- how to burp an infant, what to do when soap gets in his eyes, how to make a baby with an earache comfortable, could be running continuously in doctor`s office clinics, hospitals, motor vehicles or any place where people gather and have to wait."

This smacks of "1984."

GOLDBERG: Right. And that`s the relevance. You know, our image of "1984," the giant Jumbotron TVs in all public places saying, "Work makes you free" and all that kind of stuff.

Well, Hillary Clinton`s vision is to have the big Jumbotron TVs and still give the message of the state. But it`s not this mean Orwellian thing. It`s this nanny state, hug you, love you to death kind of vision.

BECK: Right.

GOLDBERG: But still to me, it`s still a tyrannical vision. And you know, this notion that the quote from Hillary Clinton, where she says, you know, we have to move beyond the idea that there`s any such thing as somebody else`s child, this was central to the progressive vision.

The whole idea of progressivism was to crack the outer shell of the nuclear family, get rid of the sovereignty of the nuclear family, get rid of this concept of local communities. Everything had to be in relationship to the state. Mussolini defines fascism as, you know, everything in the state, nothing outside of the state.

The early feminist progressives were all about liberating children from the tyranny of the family and reorienting them toward the state.

BECK: When people try to shut you down by calling you a fascist, doesn`t that make them more of a fascist, no matter what I`m saying?

GOLDBERG: There`s a weird catch-22. It`s this -- because the use of the word "fascist" in American political culture is essentially, it`s a way to silence people. It`s a cudgel. It`s a way to shut someone up. "Oh, he`s a fascist."

When Al Gore says his critics on the Web are digital Brownshirts, when he says people who disagree with him on global warming are like Holocaust deniers, it`s his way of saying, "Oh, you don`t have to listen to these people. They`re crazy. They`re illegitimate. They`re evil. They`re bad. They`re fascists."

And so in that sense, if you want to call it fascism or not, it`s undemocratic to simply demonize anyone who dissents from the popular, conventional view that people like Al Gore are putting out. You know, when you call them a fascist, basically what you`re doing is you`re saying we don`t have to listen to them anymore.

BECK: We were never like this. We were never like this until Wilson and FDR.

GOLDBERG: Yes.

BECK: This is a totally new concept. And it really stemmed from seeing the great success in Italy. Seeing -- I mean, I`ve read things about the scholars that went over and looked at Stalin and said, look at what he`s doing. Look at what he`s doing for industry, look what he`s doing for people.

This is the future. OK, he`s killed a million people at the time, but he had to do it for the good.

GOLDBERG: You`ve got to break some eggs to make an omelet.

BECK: Yes.

GOLDBERG: No, Woodrow Wilson says it quite plainly. He says the essence of progressivism requires that the individual marry his interests to the state. Those are his words.

It`s the idea that the individual has to define himself in relationship to the state, that he gets his livelihood, his meaning -- FDR comes out what he calls the second Bill of Rights in 1944, addresses the nation and says basically what he wants to do is basically overturn the Bill of Rights. Remember, the Bill of Rights is negative rights. It says the government has no right to take your gun away, has no right to go into your home, has no right to bridge your speech.

He wants to create the second Bill of Rights, which are all positive rights. You have a right to a home, you have a right to a job. It`s things government can give you, and that you can demand from government, and if government isn`t giving you these things, if it isn`t giving you these trinkets, then the government has violated your rights.

It is a radical redefinition of our Constitution and our understanding of what makes a citizen in this country.

BECK: ...How do you stop this?

GOLDBERG: The logic of conservatism says that there are no final -- there are no perfect solutions to anything. It`s just going to take a long argument.

I mean, this argument has been going on in America for a century now. You know, during the Cold War, this was an intense argument.

You had liberals constantly looking to places like the Soviet Union as a model. You know, saying that it was a better place. You still have these incredibly sand-poundingly stupid people talking about how Castro has a better model. You know?

BECK: I wonder who that is.

GOLDBERG: And all you have to do is just -- you have to just keep having the argument, you have to keep focus -- it`s a door-to-door fight.

BECK: Right.

GOLDBERG: And saying, you know, it`s first principles, and even if freedom makes things harder, it`s better to have it harder than to not have it free.

After sleeping on it, and reading the transcript, I have reached the conclusion that the Democratic Party since the time of President Wilson to the present does not in words and action reflect democratic principles. Democratic principles are reflected by conservatives like Fred Thompson whose words speak about the importance of core first principles, and his actions show that it is better to have a system of governemnt that is harder than to not have it free.

A Conservative Looks At Clean Government

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

source

All of the candidates left in the race to become the next POTUS, both Ds and Rs, say they are for change. They say Washington DC needs to be cleaned up from all of the shady business dealings involving evil lobbyists. John McCain once told Don Imus that if he had to choose between “so-called free speech” and clean government that he would rather have clean government. I respectfully disagree with his premise of choosing either free speech or clean government. I believe, as a conservative, that “WE THE PEOPLE” deserve both.

I actually agree somewhat with the candidates’ assertions that there are a lot of shady deals going on in the nation’s capitol. I simply strongly disagree with the candidates’ solutions. The 1st amendment protects the rights to petition the Government for a redress of grievance. This is what lobbyists do. Lobbyists petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So more government regulations, and more government involvement in more aspects of one’s life increases rather than decreases the numbers of lobbyists. This increasing the regulations and oversight in DC is analogous to raising the thermostat setting when your house is too warm. Dillinger was once asked why he robbed banks, and he replied because that is where the money is. The same reply can be made by those who lobby Congress. The more power that Congress assumes in regulations and oversight the more lobbyists are drawn to them. This is analogous to how fresh fecal material draws flies.

Another consideration that is important is the perception “WE THE PEOPLE” have of the prominence and control we allow the Federal government to wield over us. I heard a reporter in New Orleans say that voter turnout there appeared to be lower than expected because many of the residents no longer believed the Federal government can fix all of their problems. I didn’t have the same reaction as this reporter, because IMO it is good and healthy to lower one’s expectations on the Federal government’s role in one’s life. This is true not only for those who have been mugged by reality in the wake of a hurricane season, but also for many fundamental Christians who get too engrossed in pressing the Congress and SCOTUS to deliver the laws and controls on everybody’s life that matches their beliefs.

I recently read an article by Mart Laar about the miracle of Estonia. Estonia is an eastern European country that won independence from the USSR in the ‘90s. Estonians were very poor from years of communist tyranny, but they were rich in ideas and visions of creating a capitalist democratic republic geared toward promoting economic growth. Very early on they chose to limit via the rule of law the bottlenecks created by excessive regulations, soft loans, subsidies, and tariffs. By eliminating these bottlenecks they removed the opportunities that would otherwise exist for corruption in government, bribery, and political muscle trampling on free market competition.

While I do not envy the survival level life they endured at the start, I do envy that they completely scrapped the communist model to create from scratch a new capitalist democratic republic. WE THE PEOPLE do not have this situation of starting from scratch here. I think we can get cracking on deregulation. This will require making Congress an economist-friendly instead of economist-free zone by an electorate who lean on the Federal government less in their pursuit of happiness.

Revising & Extending My View of Sen. John McCain

One month ago I posted a blog with a laundry list of why we can not trust a McCain administration to produce consistently strong economic policies. At that time all of the Rudy and Mitt supporters recommended, and it made it to the top of the list of recommended blogs. Now Rudy and Mitt have joined Fred in dropping out of the race, and they all are now supporting Sen. McCain. In fact many of the top economic advisors for these campaigns are now involved in McCain's campaign.

By the company that he is now keeping, I am encouraged to revise and extend my remarks.

Taxes

John McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He wants to cut spending. I now applaud him on taxes, and his administration can be trusted on taxes.

Entitlements

John McCain does not want entitlements expanded. I now applaud him on entitlements, and his administration can be trusted on entitlements.

Regulations

John McCain still wants very tight regulations, and he will sign bills into law that reach his desk to regulate industries on greenhouse gas emissions, that regulate car makers with tougher CAFE standards, setting prices on prescription drugs by HHS, and mandates on health insurance industry. We need to keep enough conservative Senators in the US Senate to filibuster these kinds of onerous regulations so they do not move out of Congress to the White House. These regulatory burdens will cost us billions of dollars annually with especially large increased costs of electricity and gasoline.

The political speech laws affecting political campaigns are already law, and I hope the SCOTUS will rule against them.

The regulations with respect to illegals will need to be blocked in Congress. If the McCain-Kennedy bill is resurrected after a temporary period to declare borders are secure now, then the net cost to taxpayers of retirement benefits for amnesty recipients is likely to be at least $2.6 trillion.

SUMMARY

We the people do not get to elect anybody in this election who has executive experience managing a large government bureaucracy or a large private business corporation. I am disappointed, but what doesn't kill me will make me stronger. I realize more than ever that there are better ways to pursue happiness for myself than to lean and rely too much on the Federal government saving me.

I now believe John McCain is the better choice than whoever is selected by the Democratic Party, and I will vote for John McCain in the general election. I will also continue to be critical of all of the politicians who by their own words and actions will cripple US economic growth.

I hope my revised and extended remarks do not irritate anybody too much. I can't develop amnesia, and say that I agree completely with Sen. John McCain in every way shape and form. I can declare now that he has my vote in November.

The Face Of The Republican Party

This is not another John McCain drive-by hit piece so please read on.

After Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2008 I now believe that Sen John McCain will win the GOP nomination for POTUS 2008. When this happens Sen. John McCain is de facto the face of the Republican Party. I have watched the political career of John McCain for many years, and I have observed many different faces of McCain. Many blogs have been written about the maverick, John McCain, and the legislative accomplishments that he is mostly remembered for.

I would like in this blog to highlight the one face of Sen. McCain that I hope he can call more attention to. This is the face of the politician who opposes increased entitlement spending in a failed Medicare system. These are Sen. McCain's words:

I strongly opposed adding another unfunded entitlement to the fiscal train wreck that is Medicare by providing all seniors with a costly drug benefit, even those, like me, who can more than afford to pay for their medicine.

I want to see more of the face of the politician who opposes increased subsidy spending for ethanol. These are Sen. McCain's words:

In the early 1980s, ethanol subsidies were used to prop up America’s struggling corn farmers. Unfortunately, the ‘trickle down’effect of agricultural subsidies is clearly evident. Beef and dairy farmers, for example, have to pay a higher price for feed corn, which is then passed on in the form of higher prices for meat and milk. The average consumer ends up paying the cost of ethanol subsidies in the grocery store...The Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office and the
Department of Energy all acknowledge that the environmental benefits of ethanol use, at least in terms of smog reduction, are yet unproven...ethanol is an inefficient, expensive fuel.

If what I describe above does become a prominent message of Sen. John McCain, then I believe he has a chance to get some conservatives enthused about his candidacy. He already has persuaded Sen Tom Coburn's support. Sen. Coburn still strongly disagrees with his colleague, John McCain, on campaign finance reform legislation, but perhaps Sen. Coburn working with McCain can make it possible to change his mind. I heartily agree with Sen. Coburns words on this subject:

Ethics-based reform is desperately needed in Congress but regulating the lobbying industry is only treating the symptoms of the disease. The problem in Washington, D.C., is not the lobbyists. The problem is members of Congress.

When a disgraced lobbyist described Congress and its budget process as an “earmark favor factory,” most Americans were reminded that earmarks are a key aspect of the culture of corruption in Washington, D.C. Corruption scandals involving members of Congress revealed that earmarks are the gateway drug that leads to spending addictions.

The climate in Washington has provided lobbyists the ability to wine and dine congressmen in a culture where votes and influence are bought and sold. Congress does not need to reform the lobbying industry as much as it needs to reform itself.

I believe disclosure and transparency is the best disinfectant against corruption because I trust the wisdom of the electorate far more than I trust politicians. By forcing disclosure and transparency, the public will be able tie together the nexus between gifts from lobbyists with the “special interest” earmark from a congressman in return.

If politicians have to report on everything they do, the public will be aware of their transgressions and consequently corrupt politicians will be thrown out of office.

I am not yet ready to announce any support or enthusiasm for voting for John McCain for POTUS '08, but I am offering a suggested approach for the McCain campaign to employ in winning support from like-minded conservatives.

Which One Resembles Gollum Most?

Fans of LOTR know all too well the character Gollum and his obsession with the ring. In American politics the "ring" is winning the Presidency. Of all the candidates running for this office in '08, Hillary and John seem to me as the two who have obsessed and worked longer and harder at becoming President than anyone else.

George Will recently wrote a piece where he observed

If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice.

Note the word stylistically, because there are differences between them on the issues.

I personally hope that this autumn voters must not choose between two sitting US Senators. We the people usually choose a President as someone who has not been residing in Washington DC for the last 16 years.

The ones who are most pleased with this choice between John and Hillary currently reside in Washington, and Dana Milbank has written a book and this WaPo article referring to them as "Potomac man." an excerpt

In the tongue of the Piscataway Indians who first occupied these shores, the very word "Potomac" means "where the goods are brought in." To this day, the savages who live here are a breed unto themselves -- Homo politicus, or Potomac Man -- and they continue to bring in the goods in strange and sometimes scary ways.

There still is an outside chance that things will work out differently. I certainly hope so. If this is the choice I am left with I will in the parlance of Dana Millbank vote for the "heretic John" instead of the "blood avenger Hillary."

Bill O'Reilly, I Applaud These Secular Progressives!

This week on my commute to the office I heard this interesting interview on NPR radio. It was part 5 of a 6 part series
The report is that French President, Nicholas Sarkozy has appointed Muslim women to his cabinet.

After taking office, President Nicholas Sarkozy announced the appointment of the first Muslim — who is also a woman — as justice minister. Rachida Dati, 41, was the 12th child of a Moroccan laborer and an Algerian mother.

The foreign undersecretary for human rights is Senegal-born Rama Yade. The undersecretary for urban affairs is Fadela Amara, an activist from the immigrant housing projects.

Amara, 43, known as the ghetto warrior, organized the first town hall meeting in this desolate, graffiti-laced project. Facing a mostly female audience, Amara lashed out at sexist patriarchal cultures that, she says, harm young women.

She tells the audience members that they must speak out and denounce violence against women in the ghetto — and against the growing number of forced marriages. And, Amara warns, they must be more vigilant against Islamist preachers who pollute the heads of young men with fundamentalism.

The daughter of Algerian immigrants, Amara was a political activist as a teen.

After a young Muslim girl was burned alive by a Muslim thug who thought she was too independent, Amara founded a movement with a provocative name: Ni Putes Ni Soumises, or Neither Whores Nor Submissives.

It put the spotlight on abuse of women in the high-rise ghettoes.

After I got home from working I let Google be friend again, and I googled "Ni Putes Ni Soumises", and I found this web site. I clicked on the little Union Jack flag and the screen refreshed with English text.

I came across this petition on the site

Towards a new feminist struggle

Because we want to defend women’s right to decide over their body. Because we believe gender should not determine a person’s destiny. Because the principles of secularism and mixity guarantee the equality between the sexes. Because the most urgent battle to secure the emancipation of women is the fight against fundamentalism and obscurantism.

Today, facing the threats against our lives and our rights, we can no longer remain silent without becoming accomplices.

The law of silence has relegated many victims of violence to humiliating circumstances, whether in the private or the professional world. Those that speak up are singled out, in the ghettos or elsewhere. Across the world, women and men are speaking out against the tyranny of archaic traditions. It is a universal struggle towards a free, democratic and egalitarian society.

Cultural relativism and the “respect” for different “cultures” have allowed violence against women in ethnic minority communities to continue unchecked. In the name of “respect” for different “cultures” and freedom of choice, the principles of human rights have been compromised by tolerating violent acts against women such as polygamy, genital mutilation, forced marriages, so-called “honour” crimes, etc…. Bilateral agreements have turned the West into an accomplice of sexist traditions that relegate adult women to the status of minors.

Under the pressure of fundamentalists mixity is coming under increasing attack.

Now is the time to join the struggle for women’s rights, sexual equality and against all forms of discrimination and violence. The anniversary of the Veil law, which legalised abortion in France in 1975, is symbolic : it is a reminder that the law touches everybody, male or female. Secularism is a non-negotiable value of our struggle against violence and the principle that fuels our aspiration to create a more just and equal society.

We call on women and men, from here and elsewhere, to join our fight for the emancipation of women and men across the world. It is in our interest to carry the torch for those that fought for women’s rights before us. A democratic society is one that upholds women’s rights. We call on all women and men to stand up and fight to ensure that all women can take advantage of their rights.

Join us for the international women’s day demonstration!

The collective for a new feminist resistance

If you want to support us by your signature please send an e-mail to : sihem.h@niputesnisoumises.com

Well, first of all I am not applauding this secular group for the first sentence of the petition which promotes women to have abortions if they choose.
Second the translation word from site "mixity" should really be "misogyny"

I do applaud this group for standing up against hatred of women. I applaud this group for acknowledging how the Muslim ghetto law of silence humiliates victims of violence, and for speaking out against the tyranny of archaic traditions.

I agree with them that cultural relativism and the “respect” for different “cultures” have allowed violence against women in ethnic minority communities to continue unchecked.

I applaud them for standing up against violent acts against women such as polygamy, genital mutilation, forced marriages, and so-called “honour” crimes.

Amara, president of this group is a firm believer in the secular values of mainstream French society, and she demands that France live up to its ideals of liberty, equality and brotherhood for all its citizens. I applaud her for this.

What they want is acceptance and inclusion in French society. For example, rioting ghetto youths don't brandish religious symbols but rather their French ID cards.

This desire for inclusion was also expressed by French Muslims surveyed in a major Pew poll in 2006, in which 78 percent said they want to adopt French customs.

And the 2004 law banning headscarves in schools was much more sharply criticized abroad than by French Muslims.

I also find it noteworthy that it took a new conservative victory in France's elections to get these appointments into the Cabinet. The liberals didn't want to include them. They wanted them to be pitied poor ghetto dwellers who depend on the state for their every need.

I hope that as you read my diary your displeasure over the issue of abortion does not blind you to other good and worthy goals of these folks.

I Hope The Next POTUS Gets It Like W Does

Today at the White House President Bush met with Elsa Morejon, Wife of Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient Oscar Biscet in the oval office. Oscar is a prisoner in a Cuban jail.

The link to the video is HERE.

You can read the entire release HERE.

Part of what Pres. Bush said

We have a comfortable life here in America by and large, and it's hard for us to imagine what it would be like for -- to live in a society as repressive as the society of Fidel and Raul Castro. This good woman has had to suffer through days and weeks of deprivation and worry because the love of her life is in a Cuban prison -- simply because of his beliefs. It's my honor to welcome you here.

My call is for the world to help women such as Elsa. My call is for those who believe that the Cuba of today is a hopeful place, to recognize the realities. This is a country that has got political prisoners who are languishing in the jails, who are mistreated in the jails. Our message is, is that political prisoners ought to be free, and so should the Cuban people: free to express themselves and free to realize their God-given talents. So I want to welcome you.

I put in boldface to point out how we the people of the United States of America can not appreciate our own circumstances and situations compared places in the world sometimes. Cuba is in the same horrible spot for freedom. According to this Heritage Foundation report only North Korea is worse off than Cuba.

Pres. Bush has provided more money for democracy funding, radio marti, tv marti, etc... In fact $45 million just for 2008, than any previous administration.

Too often people want to slam Pres. Bush for not fighting the press and the US politicians as savagely as he should. And I can't disagree with many of the comments I have read about Pres. Bush in this regard. But I will say this as a credit to our President. He knows the world and the places in the world where people are truly suffering. I hope the next POTUS 'gets' this like 'W' does.

Sen. John McCain: "Proud Republican - Yes Proud Conservative - No"

Sen. John McCain is a proud Republican. He is a lifetime member of the href="http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/">Republican Main Street Partnership and they awarded him the Chafee Award.

Main Street was proud to present Senator McCain with our Chafee Award for his leadership on issues of critical importance to centrist Republicans across the nation.

Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, Executive Director of Main Street

Proud Republican? - Yes Proud Conservative? - No

Sen. John McCain 2006 ACU rating in the US Senate is higher at 65 than any Democratic Party Senator. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has an ACU rating of 64. There were only 8 GOP Senators who had a lower ACU rating than McCain. That list includes:
Lincoln Chafee 24
Olympia Snowe 36
Arlen Specter 43
Susan Collins 48
George Voinovich 56
John Warner 64
Richard Lugar 64
Ted Stevens 64

Proud Republican? - Yes Proud Conservative? - No

Sen. John McCain's stated position for opposing the Bush tax cuts.

I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.

Proud Republican? - Yes Proud Conservative? - No

On a February, 23, 2005 edition of Meet the Press
Tim Russert:

Would you support as part of the solution to Social Security's solvency problem, that you lift the cap so that you would pay payroll tax, Social Security tax, not just on the first $90,000 of your income, but perhaps even higher?

Senator McCain:

As part of a compromise I could . . . I'm proud of the job that Senator Lindsey Graham has been doing in his leadership position on this issue and showing some courage.

Proud Republican? - Yes Proud Conservative? - No

Sen John McCain's leadership brought passage of an "incumbent protection act", officially named McCain-Feingold. Pat Toomey at Club for Growth put it this way

In defense of the provision banning issue advocacy ads that mention a candidate 60 days before an election, McCain said, "These ads are almost always negative attack ads, and do little to further beneficial debate and healthy political dialogue." In his brief to the Supreme Court, Senator McCain continued along the same lines: "These ads are direct, blatant attacks on the candidates. We don't think that's right."

Thus, Senator McCain and his partner in crime, Senator Russ Feingold, have anointed themselves the arbiters of appropriate political speech, worthy of deciphering which speech is "right" and which should be permitted in American political debate. To this day, Senator McCain remains responsible for the greatest modern infringement of political free speech. While bestowing significant advantages upon incumbent office holders, this feat has created neither a less corrupt political domain nor a more democratic one.

Proud Republican? - Yes Proud Conservative? - No

In a room just off the Senate floor Sen. John McCain had the following to say to Sen John Cornyn

F- - - you! This is chickens- - - stuff! You've always been against this bill, and you're just trying to derail it. I know more about this stuff than anybody in this room.

Talking this way to John Cornyn who has an ACU rating of 96.

Proud Republican? - Yes Proud Conservative? - No

Sen. John McCain gave a speech in Seattle WA. just shortly before his formal announcement that he is running for POTUS. After the speech, McCain was asked by an audience member if he was "sucking up to the religious right." He drew laughs by responding: "What's wrong with sucking up to everybody?"

Proud Republican? - Yes Proud Conservative? - No

Sen. John McCain may very well win the GOP nomination, and I will hold my nose, and vote for him as the lesser of two evils. But nobody, and I mean nobody is ever going to convince me that John McCain is a "Proud Conservative". I disagree with some that think he is not a Republican. That is ridiculous. He has campaigned hard for Senate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, and Norm Coleman. He has also campaigned hard for the "Trojan Horse S-Chip Republicans" that Michelle Malkin has written an excellent blog about. For those reasons I can call McCain a "Proud Republican". This kind of Republican "Brand" is offensive to me, but we only elected 2 conservative Presidents in the 20th Century, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. It is just so rare to enter the booth at a polling site and proudly cast the vote. It's much more frequent to slither into the booth, hold your nose, and choose the lesser of two evils.

Here's Why McCain Is The Worst Choice

Can we sufficiently trust a McCain administration to produce consistently strong economic policies? Unfortunately, both his rhetoric and record suggest that the answer is NO.

From Club for Growth white paper

Taxes

The reduction of tax rates on income and investment is a cornerstone of limited-government philosophy and economic growth. When the most important pro-growth tax cuts in a generation were proposed by President Bush in 2001 and 2003, Senator McCain vigorously opposed them. The depth of this opposition goes a long way towards tarnishing the Senator's fiscal credentials.

First, it is notable that Senator McCain stood so astride the Republican anti-tax position that he was one of only two Republican senators to oppose the 2001 tax cuts and one of only three GOP senators to oppose the 2003 reductions.

Second, Senator McCain's stated reason for opposing the Bush tax cuts rhetorically allied him with the most radical anti-growth elements of national politics. Senator McCain argued, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." Senator McCain's eager embrace of grossly inaccurate class-warfare demagoguery demonstrated, at best, a painful ignorance of pro-growth economic principles.

Third, Senator McCain not only voted against the Bush tax cuts, he joined leading liberal senators in offering and voting for amendments designed to undermine them. All in all, Senator McCain voted on the pro-tax side of 14 such amendments in 2001 and 2003. These included such odious measures as:

* An amendment sponsored by Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) to prohibit a reduction in the top tax rate until Congress enacted legislation to provide a prescription drug benefit
* An amendment sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) against full repeal of the Death Tax. This vote is in keeping with Senator McCain's 2002 vote against repealing the Death Tax
* An amendment sponsored by Tom Daschle (D-SD) and co-sponsored by Senator McCain to limit tax reduction in the top tax bracket to one percentage point

Finally, John McCain recently claimed that he has never voted for a tax increase, but the congressional record tells a different story. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee in 1998, he sponsored and voted for an enormous 282% tax increase on cigarettes.

Senator McCain's vigorous opposition to and misguided rhetoric against the most pro-growth tax cuts in twenty years should make economic conservatives very worried about the tax policies that would emanate from a McCain presidential administration.

Entitlements

During his 2000 presidential campaign, Senator McCain's plan for Social Security reform included a pledge to incorporate personal retirement accounts within his first year in office, and correctly criticized the inherent unfairness of the current program which forces "workers to give a portion of their hard-earned money to finance a system with low or negative returns for themselves."

This positive stance on personal accounts though, is marred by his willingness to raise Social Security taxes as part of a package that would include personal accounts. On a February, 23, 2005 edition of Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Senator McCain if he would support "as part of the solution to Social Security's solvency problem, that you lift the cap so that you would pay payroll tax, Social Security tax, not just on the first $90,000 of your income, but perhaps even higher?" Senator McCain answered, "As part of a compromise I could . . . I'm proud of the job that Senator Lindsey Graham has been doing in his leadership position on this issue and showing some courage."

Raising Social Security taxes in this manner is not a sign of courage. It could constitute a massive tax increase and prove devastating to economic growth in this country. Furthermore, Senator McCain's support for Lindsey Graham's proposal to raise Social Security taxes contradicts his own observation about the woefully poor return workers receive. Raising taxes would only make that return worse. As Senator McCain hinted in 2000, it is not Social Security taxes that are too low, but the below-market return on those taxes that should most concern policy makers and taxpayers alike.

John McCain's support for raising Social Security taxes demonstrates that even his pro-growth positions tend to be muddied by a heavy anti-growth undercurrent. Unfortunately, this undercurrent can sweep away the good with the bad.

Regulation

Most egregious is Senator McCain's leadership role in two bills that would have drastically restricted free enterprise. The first was the Patients' Bill of Rights, which he sponsored with Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and former trial lawyer John Edwards (D-NC). The bill allowed the government to impose a set of onerous mandates on insurance coverage instead of allowing individuals to make their own decisions about healthcare plans in the marketplace.

Two years later, the Arizona maverick took a another swing at the free market with the Climate Stewardship Act, a bill he sponsored with Joe Lieberman (D-CT) to require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 2000 levels by the year 2010. This intrusive bill was projected to cost $76 billion annually by 2025, with huge increases in the cost of electricity and gasoline according to the Department of Energy.

Unfortunately, these two bills do not close the book on Senator McCain's regulatory indiscretions. Over the years he has voted for a number of other big-government bills. These include:

* Voted for an amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set prices on prescription drugs under Medicare
* Voted against a bill that would prohibit an increase in CAFE standards
* Voted for an amendment that would prohibit oil drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska
* Voted (along with all of his Senate colleagues) in favor of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, an overreaction to corporate malfeasance that imposed heavy financial burdens on companies

Much like his record on taxes, these terrible votes cast a dark shadow on Senator McCain's positive votes. His anti-growth votes are exacerbated by his characteristic vociferousness in cases like the Patients' Bill of Rights and the Climate Stewardship Act. His occasional eagerness to support and encourage increased government regulation suggests a troublesome mistrust of the free market.

Political Speech

Senator McCain was the driving force behind the ultimate passage of the McCain-Feingold Act, a bill that imposed grossly unconstitutional restrictions on citizen participation in the political process.

Over the ten-plus years since Senator McCain first introduced campaign finance reform legislation, he has pursued his trampling of the First Amendment with a vengeance. On a April 28, 2006 taping of The Don Imus Show, McCain cavalierly admitted as much: "He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform . . . I know that money corrupts . . . I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

In defense of the provision banning issue advocacy ads that mention a candidate 60 days before an election, McCain said, "These ads are almost always negative attack ads, and do little to further beneficial debate and healthy political dialogue." In his brief to the Supreme Court, Senator McCain continued along the same lines: "These ads are direct, blatant attacks on the candidates. We don't think that's right."

Thus, Senator McCain and his partner in crime, Senator Russ Feingold, have anointed themselves the arbiters of appropriate political speech, worthy of deciphering which speech is "right" and which should be permitted in American political debate. To this day, Senator McCain remains responsible for the greatest modern infringement of political free speech. While bestowing significant advantages upon incumbent office holders, this feat has created neither a less corrupt political domain nor a more democratic one.

Summary

However, McCain's maverick moralism often manifests itself in the form of more government, less freedom, and a distrust of the individual and the free market system. This is dramatically the case in his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his class-warfare rhetoric, his occasional support for large-scale increased government regulation, his willingness to raise Social Security taxes, and of course, his abysmal record on political free speech.

Senator McCain's outspoken pursuit of anti-growth and anti-free-market policies in the realms of taxes, regulation, and campaign finance reveals a philosophical ambivalence, if not hostility, about limited government and personal freedom. This ambivalence, combined with a rebellious nature, often leaves taxpayers the victims of his latest cause célèbre. The evidence of his record and the virulence of his rhetoric suggest that American taxpayers cannot expect consistently strong economic policies from a McCain administration.

from the Heritage Foundation research paper on the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill

The Senate is currently considering a massive immigration reform bill, the "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007" (S. 1348). This bill would grant amnesty to nearly all illegal immigrants currently in the United States.

The fiscal consequences of this amnesty will vary depending on the time period analyzed. It is expected that many illegal immigrants who are currently working "off the books" and paying no direct taxes will begin to work "on the books" after receiving amnesty, and therefore tax payments will rise immediately. By contrast, under S. 1348, benefits to these immigrants from Social Security, Medicare, and most means-tested welfare programs (such as Food Stamps, public housing, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) will be delayed for many years. In consequence, then, the increase in taxes and fines paid by amnesty recipients may initially exceed slightly the increase in government benefits received. In the long run, however, the opposite will be true. In particular, the cost of retirement benefits for amnesty recipients is likely to be very large. Overall, the net cost to taxpayers of retirement benefits for amnesty recipients is likely to be at least $2.6 trillion.

I don't need to disagree with my friend gamecock about McCain's Gang of 14 compromise because McCain's record and rhetoric on economic policies alone are sufficient to discourage electing this man to be our next President.

What Will I Do If Fred Drops Out?

Fred is IMO the only true conservative candidate running this year. In my lifetime only two true conservatives have won the Republican nomination, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The Democratic Party tried to talk Eisenhower into running as a D. Nixon did government price controls on gasoline as just one example of a non-conservative move. Ford favored detente and peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union. George H.W. Bush raised taxes. Bob Dole supported all kinds of corporate welfare. George W. Bush supported amnesty for illegals. Voting for a moderate Republican in the general election is not a new prospect for me.

I still prefer to vote for a moderate Republican than a Democratic socialist. Here is how I analyze the four moderates from least favorable to most favorable.

John McCain has over 30 years of service in the US Congress, and he has strongly supported the elections of fellow Republican candidates for Congress. In terms of supporting the Armed Services and their operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other hot spots around the world his Presidency will be like a third term for W.

Mike Huckabee has a gift for public speaking and winning passionate support for his candidacy. He has the ability to passionately stand up for his Christian faith and values. In terms of ESCR and pro-life issues his Presidency will be like a third term for W.

Mitt Romney has a lifetime of living the American Dream. He has experience as a business executive and improving every business endeavor he has been involved with. Mitt would bring a fresh new change to managing the Executive Branch of the US Government.

Rudy Giuliani has the experience as the Mayor of New York City of improving the government bureaucracy dramatically. He reduced the size of the workforce while improving the quality of the work. He reduced the size of the city taxes while increasing the incoming revenues. Rudy is a law and order guy who is unapologetic about not suffering fools lightly like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. As the only candidate who actually worked for Ronald Reagan, Rudy would be most likely to bring back the spirit of optimism for America that Reagan gave to us.

I'm not going to take my ball and go home. I'm not going to whine about any unfairness of the process. The election process is what it is, and I salute anyone who is able to subject themselves to this ordeal that I personally couldn't stand.

Perhaps some of you disagree with my opinions about the number of conservatives the GOP has selected over the last 56 years. That's my opinion, and I am a persistent cuss.

Barak & Hillary Use The Same Playbook

There have been some blogs that intend to show some differences between Barack and Hillary. I'm writing this one to point out similarities between the two.

Similarity #1. Both Hillary and Barack are graduates of the same school of Saul Alinsky Chicago south side politics. The American Thinker has posted this about Hillary, and this about Barack.

Here are some rules for this style of politics written in this book by Saul Alinsky. Hillary wrote a thesis about Saul Alinsky.

The eighth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 128):

Keep the pressure on.

Once you identify a potent adversary, seize every word, every event -- no matter how trivial - and turn it around to your advantage. Make a big deal of it. Keep doing it. Over and over again. Eventually, you will wear down your opponent and win. And the bloodless revolution succeeds.

The tenth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 129):

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

The operations of the revolutionaries must be cohesive, organized and constant. An action causes a reaction, which causes another reaction to the reaction, "ad infinitum."

Alinsky's 13th tactic: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. (p. 130

The Saul Alinsky method of community organizing:

The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent "self-interest" in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.

The first American Thinker article refers to another Saul Alinsky model from his book that he calls political jujitsu.

The only reason that Hillary Clinton keeps up the public façade of "moderation," and doesn't dare to go on record with her deep disdain for our military is that she is following the Alinsky model, which admonishes revolutionaries to milk their white, middle-class backgrounds and appearances to achieve the political power necessary to carry out the socialist revolution.

They are using Alinsky's "basic tactic in warfare against the Haves," which Alinsky refers to as "political jujitsu." (Rules for Radicals, p. 152) This tactic advises the Have-Nots to "club the enemy to death with his own book of rules and regulations." (p. 152)

Similarity #2 Both Hillary and Barack have received lots of money from George Soros to run their campaigns. I don't think George Soros cares whether Hillary or Barack win because from his viewpoint they are really one and the same.

The second American Thinker article does point to one distinction between Hillary and Barack

Barack Obama seems to have effortlessly achieved voter adoration, fresher, younger, more at ease within his own skin than she will ever be. He would appear to be as much a natural as her own Bill. It may appear to a great many observers that Barrack Obama is just one incredibly audacious, even lucky, albeit frighteningly charismatic dude.

These personal qualities are not the sole reason he is where he is, and I suspect the wily Mrs. Clinton knows this full well. I suspect it must bother her that Obama also appears to have mastered the playbook used by her own political teacher, the legendary amoral guru of left wing activism, Saul Alinksy.

Hillary has met not only her match in Alinsky tactics, she has met the master of bloodless socialist revolution, in my opinion.

Obama's Alinsky Lessons

Barack Obama had just graduated from Columbia and was looking for a job. Some white leftists were looking for someone who could recruit in a black neighborhood in the south side of Chicago.

Obama answered a help-wanted ad for a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, very accustomed to a vagabond existence, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community.

Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to "rub raw the sores of discontent," in Alinsky's words.

In these methods, euphemistically labeled "community organizing," Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere.

Is it any wonder, then, that Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu is making mincemeat of the woman who merely interviewed Alinsky, wrote about him, and spent the next 30 years in corporate law and in the lap of taxpayer-funded luxury in government mansions?

I fervently hope and pray that the voters in November reject this infusion of socialism, and not elect either of them President. Myself and many others here have lived long enough to remember to rue the days that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were elected President. We have survived their Presidencies, but I truly fear the future of this country with a President Barack or a President Hillary.

Blind Faith - Ayaan Hirsi Ali Book Review

In the Sunday January 6, 2008 NYT Book Review section Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written an excellent book review of a Lee Harris book, The Suicide of Reason. In her own gentle yet firm way she applauds him for writing of a very important development, and then slams him down for his conclusions. I encourage everyone to read the entire article, but I will place in this blog what I thought were the highlights of this review.

Harris, the author of “Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History,” devotes most of his book to identifying and distinguishing between two kinds of fanaticism. The first is Islamic fanaticism, a formidable enemy in the struggle for cultural survival. In Harris’s view, this fanaticism has acted as a “defense mechanism,” shielding Islam from the pressures of the changing world around it and allowing it to expand into territories and cultures where it had previously been unknown.

The second fanaticism that Harris identifies is one he views as infecting Western societies; he calls it a “fanaticism of reason.” Reason, he says, contains within itself a potential fatality because it blinds Western leaders to the true nature of Islamic-influenced cultures. Westerners see these cultures merely as different versions of the world they know, with dominant values similar to those espoused in their own culture. But this, Harris argues, is a fatal mistake. It implies that the West fails to appreciate both its history and the true nature of its opposition.

Nor, he points out, is the failure linked to a particular political outlook. Liberals and conservatives alike share this misperception. Noam Chomsky and Paul Wolfowitz agreed, Harris writes, “that you couldn’t really blame the terrorists, since they were merely the victims of an evil system — for Chomsky, American imperialism, for Wolfowitz, the corrupt and despotic regimes of the Middle East.” That is to say, while left and right may disagree on the causes and the remedies, they both overlook the fanaticism inherent in Islam itself. Driven by their blind faith in reason, they interpret the problem in a way that is familiar to them, in order to find a solution that fits within their doctrine of reason. The same is true for such prominent intellectuals as Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama.

Harris’s book is so engaging that it is difficult to put down, and its haunting assessments make it difficult for a reader to sleep at night. He deserves praise for raising serious questions. But his arguments are not entirely sound.

I disagree, for instance, that the way to rescue Western civilization from a path of suicide is to challenge its tradition of reason. Indeed, for all his understanding of the rise of fanaticism in general and its Islamic manifestation in particular, Harris’s use of the term “reason” is faulty.

Enlightenment thinkers, preoccupied with both individual freedom and secular and limited government, argued that human reason is fallible. They understood that reason is more than just rational thought; it is also a process of trial and error, the ability to learn from past mistakes. The Enlightenment cannot be fully appreciated without a strong awareness of just how frail human reason is. That is why concepts like doubt and reflection are central to any form of decision-making based on reason.

Harris is pessimistic in a way that the Enlightenment thinkers were not. He takes a Darwinian view of the struggle between clashing cultures, criticizing the West for an ethos of selfishness, and he follows Hegel in asserting that where the interest of the individual collides with that of the state, it is the state that should prevail. This is why he attributes such strength to Islamic fanaticism. The collectivity of the umma elevates the communal interest above that of the individual believer. Each Muslim is a slave, first of God, then of the caliphate. Although Harris does not condone this extreme subversion of the self, still a note of admiration seems to creep into his descriptions of Islam’s fierce solidarity, its adherence to tradition and the willingness of individual Muslims to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the greater good.

In addition, Harris extols American exceptionalism together with Hegel as if there were no contradiction between the two. But what makes America unique, especially in contrast to Europe, is its resistance to the philosophy of Hegel with its concept of a unifying world spirit. It is the individual that matters most in the United States. And more generally, it is individuals who make cultures and who break them. Social and cultural evolution has always relied on individuals — to reform, persuade, cajole or force. Culture is formed by the collective agreement of individuals. At the same time, it is crucial that we not fall into the trap of assuming that the survival tactics of individuals living in tribal societies — like lying, hypocrisy, secrecy, violence, intimidation, and so forth — are in the interest of the modern individual or his culture.

Harris is correct, I believe, that many Western leaders are terribly confused about the Islamic world. They are woefully uninformed and often unwilling to confront the tribal nature of Islam. The problem, however, is not too much reason but too little. Harris also fails to address the enemies of reason within the West: religion and the Romantic movement. It is out of rejection of religion that the Enlightenment emerged; Romanticism was a revolt against reason.

Both the Romantic movement and organized religion have contributed a great deal to the arts and to the spirituality of the Western mind, but they share a hostility to modernity. Moral and cultural relativism (and their popular manifestation, multiculturalism) are the hallmarks of the Romantics. To argue that reason is the mother of the current mess the West is in is to miss the major impact this movement has had, first in the West and perhaps even more profoundly outside the West, particularly in Muslim lands.

Thus, it is not reason that accommodates and encourages the persistent segregation and tribalism of immigrant Muslim populations in the West. It is Romanticism. Multiculturalism and moral relativism promote an idealization of tribal life and have shown themselves to be impervious to empirical criticism. My reasons for reproaching today’s Western leaders are different from Harris’s. I see them squandering a great and vital opportunity to compete with the agents of radical Islam for the minds of Muslims, especially those within their borders. But to do so, they must allow reason to prevail over sentiment.

To argue, as Harris seems to do, that children born and bred in superstitious cultures that value fanaticism and create phalanxes of alpha males are doomed — and will doom others — to an existence governed by the law of the jungle is to ignore the lessons of the West’s own past. There have been periods when the West was less than noble, when it engaged in crusades, inquisitions, witch-burnings and genocides. Many of the Westerners who were born into the law of the jungle, with its alpha males and submissive females, have since become acquainted with the culture of reason and have adopted it. They are even — and this should surely relieve Harris of some of his pessimism — willing to die for it, perhaps with the same fanaticism as the jihadists willing to die for their tribe. In short, while this conflict is undeniably a deadly struggle between cultures, it is individuals who will determine the outcome.

The concluding remarks by Ms Ali remind me of America's history in dealing with tribes of native Americans. We had individuals then who determined the outcome of whether or not citizens must accommodate tribes who attacked and scalped western homesteads. Reason won over romanticism, and rightly so. No apologies should be offered or required for our adopting a culture of reason over romanticism.

Ahead of the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein’s policemen dressed as suicide bombers for a parade in Baghdad.