Bobby Jindal’s response to Obama’s pseudo State of the Union address may have been more effective than the pundits give him credit for. Why else would the White House send out Vice President Joe Biden to try to undermine Jindal’s credibility? According to the Vice President, people shouldn’t take Jindal’s arguments about the proper size and scope of government seriously because Louisiana is currently losing jobs at the rat of 400 per day under Jindal’s leadership. The trouble for Biden is that nothing could be further from the truth. Last month, at what is supposed to be the height of our national nightmare, Louisiana was the only state in the country with a net job gain.
The point of this story is not the undeniable truth that Biden committed his 11,257th gaffe in the last six months or the undeniable truth that we can’t believe what the White House is saying. Nothing could be more “dog bites man.” The point of this story is that people can thrive when their leaders are committed to limited government, controlling spending, keeping taxes low, and trusting its own people. That’s what Jindal has done in Louisiana with positive results at a time when the rest of the country is struggling. The White House can’t let that story get out, not if it continues and especially not if it’s the one they have to run against four years from now.
For 18 years the Pentagon has forbid the publication of photos of American soldiers KIA (Killed in Action). In 1991, Bush 41 put the ban in place. Now, the Pentagon is lifting that ban.
What’s the big deal? Back in Vietnam, the press liked to use the many flag-draped coffins coming off of ships to reinforce their anti-war opinions. It was bad for troop morale, it was not respectful to the families of the fallen, and when used for political purposes as it clearly was by 1970, it’s down-right immoral. No one likes war, but some see that it is occasionally necessary to preserve the interests of the state, our freedoms, and our way of life against those who know nothing else but brute force. If you don’t agree with a war, vote for the other guy. We obviously did vote for the other guy last year and the 18 year policy is being overturned by Robert Gates at the Pentagon, with an exception for the wishes of the family.
This is Vietnam-style politicization of war rearing its ugly head again. It brings the reality of war home without any context – just spurning grief and outrage over the sad images. There can be no other reason for lifting this ban than to give fodder to anti-war appeasement types who’d rather acquiesce to the world’s troubles than confront them, counting coffins with moral indignation while planting the seeds of inaction and dissent the next time war becomes inevitable.
Obama famously said throughout the campaign and again on Tuesday night that no one who makes less than $250,000 will get a tax increase. At the same time he claims that the budget deficit will be cut in half by the end of his first term. The numbers, however, don’t add up. Leaving aside the fact that tax revenues are dynamic rather than static for the sake of argument, even if one assumes a static model, the numbers still don’t add up. From today’s Wall Street Journal:
But let’s not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let’s go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable “dime” of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
The conclusion to be drawn is that tax cuts on the wealthy will not pay for what we have already spent, let alone what Obama wants to spend for health care, urban affairs, education, and other pet projects announced on Tuesday night. Nor will superficial cuts. Obama will be forced to raise taxes on the middle class unless he stands up and decides to slash many of the programs in Washington, including much of his porkulus bill.
The Republican Party was moderately successful in pushing opposition to the stimulus package. Although a losing battle, the Republicans were able to make some headway in the war against the new liberal onslaught by laying down the gambit, providing near-unanimous opposition to a $775 billion plus Porkulus package, and do some damage to Obama’s election-day popularity (which, according to reliable polls, is starting to take a hit). Still, in the end, the Porkulus bill passed, and the Democrats won the biggest expansion of government in 40 years.
Yesterday, the Democrats in the House passed a $410 billion omnibus budget for fiscal year 2009. The bill was passed with barely a whisper from the Republicans, and again with little debate. The bill passed 245-178, including 16 Republicans who voted for the budget and 20 Blue-Dog Democrats who voted against it. This in a bill with over 8,000 earmarks (after The One told us that there will be no more earmarks — oh wait, that’s in next year’s budget. Right.) and an increase in federal domestic spending of 8% over last year (amounting to $32 billion). It is apparent with both this and the stimulus that the GOP needs to reassess its tactics and think about what will best change the course to get public opinion on the side of the GOP to try to stop some of this Obama Magic. To that end, Byron York has a piece in today’s DC Examiner about the GOP’s idea for a new approach (H/T Gateway Pundit) that has been formulated since Obama’s address on Tuesday night.
Need some bailout money? Visit the Bank of Obama, a website started by three guys at a bar (where many good ideas start), and you can get your own Bank of Obama Bailout check. Of course, in the spirit of capitalism, they will mail you the check for a small fee. Got to give them points for creativity!
Unranked bubble team Providence College defeated #1 Ranked Pittsburgh in NCAA Men’s Basketball last night, 81-73. It was one bright shining moment before Emperor Zero took the stage to play Caesar for an hour (I was waiting for San Fran Nan to hover the laurels over Zero’s head and whisper “Remember thou art mortal”).
This was the second time Providence defeated a #1 ranked team in its history. For most of the game, the Friars were beating Pitt by double digits. No one saw this coming! Yet, it was exactly what PC needed in order to get some notice as a bubble team – a late season win against the top ranked team who happens to be in the Big East.
Though I went to neither PC or URI, I always found it easier to root for PC as far as Rhode Island college basketball goes. From the shouts of “safety school” from the PC fans to the completion of the “U-R-I” chant with a clever “N-E” when the two teams play each other, the Friars are just an easier team to like. So, I generally don’t really care how URI is doing this year, but I like the Big East and have PC as the closest thing to a home team to root for. So, last night was pretty awesome, until one changed the channel and saw our Most Merciful and Beneficent Savior tending to his flock.
Since the idea of a new “Tea Party” to protest the redistributionist economic policies of the Obama Administration was proposed by Rick Santelli on CNBC, the movement for a Tea Party USA has spread across the country. More and more protests continue to pop up, including in Chicago, California, Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wyoming, and Washington, DC, as well as other cities. The movement is also starting to get some organization, utilizing social media technology such as Facebook and Twitter to spread the word, organize, and bring out people to protest. The movement has started to catch notice in Conservative circles in Washington, with Sen. Jim DeMint commenting favorably on the movement to World Net Daily:
I would think it’s time to start thinking about peaceful demonstrations. The power of the people is there. Freedom is in the people’s hands right now, and it’s about to slip through. Really, I think the hope right now is not in Congress to make the right decision, because they’re not. It’s just whether or not the American people are going to stand up and say enough is enough.
This type of grassroots movement would not be possible without the Internet. Santelli’s video gained wide play on YouTube and through the blogosphere. Sentiment on the stimulus and the idea for a Chicago Tea Party circulated on Facebook and Twitter, and now protests are being organized in many cities around the countryover the biggest expansion of government in history, and the manner in which it was rammed through. The Rightroots Internet movement is allowing Conservatives across the country to band together and fight for our common cause of liberty and limited government. It is and will be one of our most powerful weapons in the years to come as we fight the Obama Administration in particular, and liberals in general.
You have to give Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) credit for consistency. I do not like the man or agree at all with his politics, but he is consistent in his views on the separation of powers, no matter who is President. Granted, he tends to believe in the supremacy of the legislative branch in his views, but those views are interesting nonetheless. Today, Byrd attacked the Obama administration for engaging in a “power grab.” Specifically, Byrd does not approve of the appointment of various “czars” to oversee health care, energy, climate change, and urban affairs. Rather, Byrd sees those positions as rightfully belonging to the various cabinet positions which are under congressional oversight. In a letter to Obama today, Byrd wrote that the creation of these offices:
…can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials. As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.
It is an interesting constitutional question in regards to what constitutes an executive position that is under congressional oversight and how much authority and scope can be assigned to non-legislated presidential advisers. The constitution says nothing of Presidential ad visors, only officers of the United States established by law, and these officers are under congressional oversight. It seems to me that, under Obama’s czar system, a President could skirt the oversight in general by appointing a limitless number of “czars” to oversee all aspects of government. Where I think Byrd may have a point is that it may be unconstitutional if Obama assigns duties to these advisers or “czars” that by statute rightly belong to cabinet-level officers such as the Secretaries of the Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the head of the EPA. In any case, it is refreshing to see, by at least one member of the Democrat party, a continuance of the arguments regarding checks and balances that help to keep a healthy Republic, and that there is at least some consistency in the Democrat party. Right or wrong, Byrd’s position appears to be principled.
Liberals are liberals, no matter where they are. Yet, there has always been a divide between Democrat liberals in Washington, and Democrats who run the various states as Governors. This dynamic goes beyond liberals. Conservative Governors also tend to have a completely different perspective than Republicans in Washington. This is primarily due to the fact Governors are directly responsible for what happens in their states, have no leeway to run huge budget deficits, and tend to be very pragmatic. Governors, especially in the Democrat party, are also less beholden to liberal special interests (for example, you are much more likely to find a pro-life Democrat Governor than a practical pro-life Democrat Senator; once a Democrat joins the Senate, they essentially sell their souls).
Sen. Chuck Schumer and others have criticized Republican Governors such as Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, and Mark Stanford for refusing to accept some of the stimulus money. Yet now, two Democrat Governors have joined the Republicans in deciding not to accept some stimulus money. Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) and Gov. John Lynch (D-NH) are planning to refuse some of the stimulus money, as they do not want to end up with federal mandates for which there is no money down the line. While not opposing the stimulus or their new President, these Governors are being pragmatic in looking out for the interests of their state, and realizing that some stimulus provisions are not in their state’s interest. This should provide an easy talking point for Republicans when faced with this question by the press. It also illustrates the complete uselessness of provisions in the bill, when even big-government liberal governors can’t stomach some of the provisions.
Tonight’s speech made it clear that President Obama is going to do everything in his power to drastically increase the role of government in health care. This is disappointing seeing as that approach hasn’t exactly worked well in other countries. Whether it’s rationing in Canada or utilitarian cost concerns squeezing the respect for life out of the British system, the world is rife with examples of government interference ruining the quality of health care.
Now, that I’ve mentioned health care, I have my excuse to post another Steven Crowder video. This one contains his take on Canadian health care. It’s an old one, but it’s new to me.
President Obama’s Address to the Joint Session of Congress, the first of his administration, is tonight, Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 9:00 PM. LiveBlog will be here, starting at approximately 8:45 PM, EST.
We welcome all readers to contribute during the LiveBlog session.
In principle, this illustrates a fundamental problem I have with Libs: don’t cut programs you knew you couldn’t have sustained in the first place, but find new things to tax: like pot! Yet another excuse for legislative stoners in San Francisco to get their issue in the news, while finding new ways to punish the act they are condoning — legalize it to tax it! Plus, why would we want to follow the lead of a state in such absolutely horrible economic shape? Right. California’s nearly bankrupt – no wonder they want an easier way to get high!
However, you realize why pot may never be a nationally legalized substance, right? All of its supporters are potentially too lazy, spaced, and concentrate a little too hard on small shiny objects to get their act together. Once they have an idea they can all agree upon, it’s time to feed the munchies (which can be overwhelming at times) at a neaby fast-food joint at which they will think of something else to do.
On top of all the social and philosophical reasons why I’m not in favor of legalizing pot, I’ll parrot what my sister once said: “If you legalize drugs make sure those who use them have separate health insurance and car insurance!” Truth. Illegal drugs (even the comparably wimpy ones like pot) are unfortunately for those who are experiencing a weakness; weakness in spirit, weakness in inhibitions, weakness in peer-situations. We should not coddle the weak as such, while at the same time taking moolah from their back pockets to fund bad policies.
While not saying that he would, RNC Chairman Michael Steele said on Your World with Neil Cavuto that he was opening to withholding funding to Specter, Snowe, and Collins in future elections if the state parties wished. Granted, the state parties typically favor incumbents, but this is a far cry from the RNC of a few years ago that insisted on support for Specter, Chaffee, and other RINOs no matter what. It may in fact amount to nothing, and the RNC may end up funding Specter in the primary in 2010. Then again, it would be perfect justice if these RINOs were not to receive any further funding, and would send a message that, if nothing else, the GOP was serious about it’s calls for fiscal responsibility.
Axis of Right will be hosting a LiveBlog of President Obama’s Address to the Joint Session of Congress tonight at 9:00 PM EST. Pre-Liveblog will begin shortly before. Please join us, and feel free to participate! You can sign up for a reminder by clicking here.
Currently, the highest tax bracket is for those making over $250,000. Under the Bush tax cuts, they are taxed at a rate of 35% (still too high in my opinion). This figure will increase to 39% when the Bush tax cuts expire, or when Obama raises them, whichever comes first. Yet there are elected Democrats who believe that giving nearly 40% of one’s income to the government is not enough. Congressman Jerry McNerney (D-CA) is one such Democrat. From Instapundit, via the Anchoress:
When I got my time with him, I explained to him that even people who make $150k in Northern Cal. are not “rich” and should not be taxed as if they were. (A 1400 sq ft, 40 year old home here goes for over half a million, even after the housing slump. Then you add in real estate taxes, state income taxes, 10% sales tax, gas prices, utility costs, etc.) I also expressed my concern that about half the people in the country now pay no income taxes, so there is overwhelming incentive for them to keep voting for democrats and therefore higher taxes for the rest of us. He told me that he thought tax rates should go up for the very rich and that the top marginal tax rate should be 90%. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, so I asked in a voice that many in the room could hear if he really meant 90%, and he said yes.
It may seem unrealistic that the top marginal tax rate could be 90%, but it has happened before. Prior to the Kennedy tax cuts, the top marginal rate as enacted by Roosevelt was over 90%. Even Kennedy’s Tax cuts only brought the top marginal rate down to 70%, where it remained until Reagan cut it to 28% in the early 1980s. It is clear that the Democrats want to return us to the glory days of Roosevelt — the days of endless Depression and unemployment consistently above 15%. The way the market has been going since the beginning of Obama’s term, that may not be out of the question.
The reason we care about politics is because we want our country and our world to be as strong, secure, free, prosperous, fair, decent, and good as it can possibly be. Obviously, one component of furthering that ideal is electing people who share our worldview to positions of authority. It isn’t the only way however. Culture is just as important as politics, if not more so. That’s why I was delighted to see Andrew Breitbart’s piece in today’s Washington Times on the need for conservatives to gain a foothold in Hollywood.
Gaining relevance and influence in that cultural cesspool is not something that can happen overnight, but a gradual increase in conservatism’s presence over the long term would go a long way. Hollywood sends messages to people that get their information from few if any other sources. Controlling even a tiny portion of that message, as opposed to the zero conservatives now control, would expose people to a conservative message, possibly for the first time in their lives. Since conservatism is a philosophy in tune with human nature, it would not be difficult to gain followers once conservatives are able to send their message. At that point, when more Americans value the notions of faith, life, patriotism, family, self-reliance, hard work, and respect for others, American culture would undoubtedly strengthen.
As George Weigel details in Witness to Hope, the authorized biography of Pope John Paul II, the former Pope always believed that culture was the essential ingredient for a society to thrive and with good reason. One of the reasons Poland and other east European nations were able to gradually overthrow their Communists oppressors because their cultures were solid. Changing a society can be accomplished from through political action. That’s why we care. But the change is a lot easier to accomplish when it flows from a people well-grounded in a healthy culture.
Actually building that culture, whether in Hollywood, academia or elsewhere, can be quite difficult though. Those of us who teach in a public school, or sit in that Intro to PoliSci course while the professor relives the 60s, or are even trying to make it in Hollywood need to speak up. There are more people like you and I out there than you know. Time to step it up!
The Boston Globe today ran a story about people who recently lost their jobs. Rather, however, than talking about real hardships experienced by people, they are instead glowingly focusing on people who feel “liberated” (Hat Tip: Mrs. Sal) and are doing such things as taking art history classes, going to museums, and spending time with their kids. Now, none of this per se is necessarily bad, but these people are receiving government unemployment. It is one thing for someone to get a corporate severance package and have some emergency fund money that they themselves have saved, and decide to take a month off to clear their heads. Collecting unemployment from the Government, however, means that taxpayer money is going to people who are going to museums and taking art history classes.
These people will have six months of living off the welfare dole before they need to get a new job, or as some stated in the article, just not get a new job at all. That length of time will likely be extended by the Obama administration, so these high-society welfare recipients will be able to continue living off the government dole. So, why work? The government will pay for everything anyways. It’s no wonder that the market is reacting to everything the Obama administration is doing by tanking on a daily basis, as of today to 1997-levels.
It is worthwhile to sometimes step back and reflect on our system of government, what it means, and how unique it is in the history of civilization. Conventional wisdom states that we are a democracy. First, there is the misconception that we are a Democracy (rather than a Representative Constitutional Republic). This video redefines the political spectrum, extols the virtues of our Representative Republic, and compares it to other forms of governance.
This video should be shown (but never will be) to every student in America, if not every citizen. We live in the greatest country in the world today, in that we have balanced the will of the people with the rule of law, creating a Constitution which enshrined our rights that the government cannot take away, even if the majority wished to. Yet Republics are always in danger of ceding rights to the governing class, as we have done more and more over the past 100 years. We must remain ever vigilant to ensure that our freedoms are preserved and that our Constitutional Republic continues to thrive.
Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House takes issue with the current attempt by the GOP to harness the populist anger over the stimulus bill and the prospect of higher taxes that began with the protests in Seattle and Denver last week, and continued with Rick Santelli’s mention of a Chicago Tea Party. Moran argues that populist movements are destined to have unintended consequences and collapse under their own weight, and instead proposes that the GOP adapt a politics of optimism. This politics of optimism would argue that better days are ahead, that American exceptionalism is what made this country great and will continue to make this country great, while offering practical policies based in Conservatism to solve the GOP’s problem.
Moran does have a point, but he is also missing the value of harnessing populist sentiment. Obama, who Moran looks to as a model, spent much of his campaign attacking the policies of Bush and harnessing the talking points of those with Bush Derangement Syndrome. The GOP, as usual, should look to Reagan as a model. Reagan was the eternal Optimist, who restored the sense of American Exceptionalism in the wake of the Jimmy Carter era. Reagan did harness the Carter malaise and coupled it with the well-known Reagan optimism for our future and turned it into an electoral landslide. There is room for both strategies, and indeed both strategies are necessary.
I do take issue with Moran’s assertion that the GOP must reject the “Rovian Strategy of using wedge issues to cleave the electorate over gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues” which, according to Moran, got us elected but led to our defeat. Yet there is no evidence anywhere that these issues eventually led to our defeat. The nation is essentially 50/50 on abortion, and anti-Gay Marriage amendments passed in such a liberal stronghold as California. The GOP rejecting the social wing of the party does so at its own peril. It plays an important part in defining the GOP’s identity, and makes up a significant portion of its electorate.
The politics of Optimism will play an important role in creating a new governing coalition. What Moran misses, however, is that poticial movements happen in stages. Before we present our optimistic view of the future, we must point out what is wrong and tap into that populist sentiment he derrieds. Then, our optimsim will contrast starkly against the current administration and its policies and demeanor, and provide us a platform for winning back the hearts and minds of the American people.
Despite what’s been flying out of Eric Holder’s mouth, the United States is not a nation of cowards. If you want to see a nation of cowards, look no further than Sweden. Last week, the Scandinavian Socialist Paradise decreed that their country’s upcoming Davis Cup match with Israel will have to be played in an empty stadium. Apparently, some kind of “protesters” could somehow pose a threat to the players’ safety.
So rather than securing the stadium and promptly arresting any troublemakers on the spot, Sweden pre-emptively waived the white flag of surrender. President Bush warned us shortly after September 11, 2001 that terrorists’ ambitions was not merely to kill, “but to disrupt and end a way of life.“ In Sweden, fans cannot even attend a Davis Cup match because the government is too afraid to confront radical Muslims. Life seems pretty disrupted. I think we can now officially call Sweden “conquered.”
A bill has been introduced into the Minnesota State Legislature to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18, as well as to allow children above age 16 to be served in restaurants and bars when accompanied by their parents. The reasoning for the bill is due to the economic hard times to provide a boost to local liquor stores, bars, and restaurants. I agree with Ed Morrissey’s take on the dubious economic impact, and don’t necessarily agree with the 16+ provision, but must take issue with his feelings on the drinking age. I have always been an opponent of a two-tiered system for determining adult-status under the law. My logic has always been that as an 18-year old:
You can enter into a legal contract
You can get married
You can vote
If arrested for any crime, you are tried as an adult (sidenote: Ed Morrissey’s take that it is somewhat ironic that someone can be arrested as an adult for illegally purchasing alcohol as a minor. It is somewhat problematic where the penalties and criminal procedures for an 18 year old purchasing alcohol are stricter than for those of a 16-year old)
You can buy and own a gun
You can fight in the military and die for your country
Yet, with all of the above, you cannot have a beer. The arguments against 18+ drinking have always focused on other illegal behavior (increases in drunk driving, 18 year-olds will buy for 16 year-olds, etc.). I say that the best approach would be to lower the drinking age, and punish the illegal activity more strongly. Make harsher penalties for buying alcohol for a 16 or 17 year old, enforce it heavily, and make stricter penalties for drinking and driving. The alcohol laws don’t make any sense, and Minnesota would be right to lower it’s drinking age to 18.
The Dems have been trying to have it both ways by using the “greedy” label on Republicans and business in general for over a hundred years now. Recently they’ve flipped the greed issue on the Republican Governor’s lack of greed as a way to publically rebuke them about possibly sending back some of that Stimulus cash!
There’s a difference between self-interest and greed in my book. Self-interest is using the means at your disposal to try to enhance one’s own economic security in this insecure world. Greed is taking from someone else to do that same thing without their expressed permission. We often confuse the two, especially in hard times. We haven’t had a zero-sum economy since the days of the Plague (if I earn a dollar, someone else didn’t necessarily lose a dollar), but some of us still think that way.
Psychologist Carl Jung once promoted the theory of shadow – not the opposite of something, but an unconscious negative imprint an emotion makes. I believe the opposite of greed is charity, but I believe the shadow of greed is envy. Why do we want to nail CEOs to the wall and soak the rich every time there’s an economic downturn? Because we are envious of their wealth and want to wallow in the mire with those who can still smile while we mope in our pity party. Misery loves company, and freedom means making choices that don’t always turn out right. The Dems have made an industry out of class envy, which is the essence of class warfare. If I’m not mistaken, along with greed, envy is also one of those Seven Deadly Sins one should avoid in the ebbs and flows of life. Maybe the Dems should try thinking about ways to make more rich people, not more poor dependent ones who feel the need to vote for them to stay secure — that’s very greedy.
The stock market is down 10% since Obama’s inauguration. The deficit has just been tripled by the stimulus. So what is Obama’s plan? He is proposing to balance the federal budget by raising taxes on both the wealthy and businesses, as well as cut funding to the military in Afganastan and Iraq. All of this to pay for Obama’s domestic priorities, including Universal Health Care. Raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy during a recession? Businesses and the wealthy are the ones who create jobs, and raising taxes on them will do nothing but continue to hurt the economy. If he gets his way, expect the trends of the last month to continue.
Four hundred BBC employees have signed a petition to overturn the BBC’s recent decision not to broadcast a pro-Palestinian propaganda special “Gaza Humanitarian Aid Appeal.” The employees argue that by not airing the special, the BBC is effectively taking sides in the conflict. Apparently, the BBC would never dream of broadcasting one-sided coverage in the Israeli-Palestinian terrorist conflict.
Give the BBC employees credit. Though they don’t seem to know it, but the BBC employees just did what most American MSM journalists would never do: admit their rooting interest in the news they claim to cover objectively.
The idea for a “Chicago Tea Party” is growing. Since CNBC’s Rick Santelli’s rant on Thursday, this website has popped up and news about other tax protests (not revolts just yet) are proliferating everywhere except in MSM coverage– they don’t seem to care or notice.
Question, though, if this is to morph into ”Tea Party USA” as some have urged: Will this be a “symbolic” toss of some kind or will something actually be dumped into Lake Michigan or the East River? Will it be suggested that people refuse to submit their taxes this year or next year? Will nationwide boycotts of newly taxed products emerge across states whose legislatures have raided their pockets in new and clever ways?
If this is a real movement, it’s obviously still in its infancy. Lots of passion and frustration exist, but not really a lot of organization, leadership, or plans just yet. Marches are cool, but can easily be shrugged off by the Obama Nation simply saying ”Isn’t free speech wonderful!” I’m all for this movement in principle and would join a nearby march. But what is the movement’s ultimate political goal? Some taxes must be payed to maintain a civil society and boycotts tend to hurt the local guy selling the product rather than the tax agent himself. We’ll see where this goes in the coming months. Thus far, however, I like the gumption and idealism behind these protests.
Staying home on Friday night isn’t always a bad thing. At least not when you happen to stumble upon “Revenge of the Nerds” (undoubtedly with the best parts edited out but oh well) while flipping through the channels, which is exactly what I just did. Now you have too. Without further ado, here’s the flashback part of this 80s flashback.
Free speech is a wonderful thing. It is the cornerstone of our Democracy, and allows for people who disagree with the current governing party to freely express their ideas and engage in the conversation, with hopes of convincing enough people to go along with their views to carry over to the voting booth each election. The right to free speech has recently come under fire, through threats of the fairness doctrine and censoring of both talk radio and the Internet. Two pieces today struck me in this regard.
The first, an open letter from Rush Limbaugh to Barack Obama, published in the Wall Street Journal, set forth the intent of the framers of the constitution in regards to free speech, continues by explaining the place of talk radio in our culture, and concludes with asking Barack Obama to uphold free speech on the airwaves and not bow to political pressure. The second is from The Anchoress, in which she points to yesterday’s incredible CNBC segment, now dubbed the “Chicago Tea Party” segment, and then warns of the danger in sacrificing our freedom to speak:
If we lose our freedom to speak out – to opine loudly, to mock, to question, even to demand – then we have lost everything. And the truth is, we have already – thanks to political correctness and self-censorship – fallen into the mindset that our speech should be controlled, measured and unfree. And that is why Rick Santelli’s rant today was riveting, and fascinating, and incredibly necessary.
Speech is one of the most precious liberties that we have. It is what gives the Drive-By Media their right to be in the tank for Obama, it is what gives blogs as diverse as the Daily Kos and Ace of Spades (not to mention Axis of Right) the ability to say their minds and engage in the debate, and it is what gives talk radio the right to exist and protest the current administrations policies over the airwaves. Lest we become like communist Russia, let us not give up that right so easily.
The D.C. Voting Rights Bill is a perfect example of why Democrats should never be taken seriously when they accuse other people of violating the Constitution. Article One, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states:
The House of Representatives shall be composedof Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States . . .
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not . . . and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
The idea of giving D.C. a vote in the Chamber may have merit. I oppose the idea, but recognize the valid reasons one would have for supporting it. The trouble is, the Constitution forbids it. The appropriate mechanism to give D.C. a vote in the House is not legislation that clearly violates the Constitution, but rather a Constitutional Amendment or statehood for D.C.
This is not a small point. Our God-given rights are preserved by the Constitution. In order for the document to have any meaning at all, it must be respected whether we agree with a particular provision or not. The Democrats spent a good portion of the last eight years hysterically and falsely accusing President Bush of trampling all over the Constitution. Now that they are in power, Democrats are recklessly ignoring Constitutional provisions that are actually in the document. It’s cases like these that show us why, when it comes to discussing the Constitution, Democrats are not to be taken seriously. Then again, we knew that already.
For the past few weeks since Obama’s Inauguration, I’ve felt like I’ve been living in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. With the proposed restrictions on Speech with the Fairness Doctrine, the Orwellian rephrasing of language, and the possible civilian army. Now, with a government proposal for a national mileage tax to replace the gas tax, utilizing a GPS device in every car in the nation, Big Brother will soon be watching.
The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.
The idea of taxing mileage has come as people are buying more fuel efficient cars, mostly because of government scare tactics over global warming. Because of this, people are spending less money on gas, decreasing government revenues from the gas tax. It is apparent that this administration means to tax us to death. They will stop at nothing to come up with new ways to rob our hard earned money. But be careful not to say anything or do anything that they don’t want you to do. Big Brother is watching.
Here’s one from the Funny Because It’s So Politically Incorrect And So True Department. The following, the Qur’an Challenge, is the first Steven Crowder video I saw tonight. Undiplomatic does not even begin to describe the clip, but it is hilarious and there is a lot of truth in there.
His other videos are just as entertaining. Something tells me this isn’t the last time I post a Crowder video.
