Yesterday I pointed out an entertaining portion of Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in the case that barely upheld the 2nd Amendment. While I thought it was a great opinion, I found a better version at IMAO.us. Today, I point you to Frank J., who shows that he has more than enough common sense to be a Supreme Court Justice: In My World: The Heller Decision
We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment...
Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects
only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with
militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS,
J., FLAMING HOMO, dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an
individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a
militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as
self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.
Having basic reading comprehension and not having our heads shoved
up our asses, we agree with the latter. Furthermore, we have determined
that anyone who agrees with the D.C. law is a little preening little
nancy and should be beaten or shot for being a pinko. See Findings on the Tiny Penises of Gun Haters...
Guns are awesome. See any action movie. America is awesome. Therefore,
anyone against guns is against America, and people against America
should be injured and forcefully ejected from the country. See Ronald
Reagan's Treatise on Dealing with Hippies. In this spirit,
I've shot dead the four dissenting Justices and buried them out back.
See suspicious mounds of dirt behind the Supreme Court. This makes this
now a unanimous 5-0 decision, and Justice Kennedy smartly lives another
day.
By the way, every good American should have IMAO bookmarked and should visit it daily. Frank is the funniest person I've read in right-wing politics - check it out!
I lived in Madison, Wisconsin for about three years - the time period surrounding my one year at the University of Wisconsin. Even after graduating from Arizona State University this spring, I'm still about the biggest Wisconsin Badgers fan you'll ever meet. The city is beautiful during the non-winter months and it's one of the best college atmospheres in the world. Sometimes I miss it.
But I don't miss the communism. From Van Helsing at Moonbattery:
Madison, Wisconsin — which competes with Ann Arbor for the title of
the Berkeley of the Midwest — has solved both high gas prices and the
imaginary global warming crisis in a single blow: by proposing a ban on drive-through windows.
Explains Eric Sundquist of the Madison Plan Commission, who doesn't
want to permit a new Starbucks to have a drive-through window:
Given the concern about all the carbon going into the
atmosphere, I'm not sure we should be building more places for people
to sit idling in their cars.
There is seemingly no end to the behaviors that those on the left seek to prevent you from engaging in. I wonder if the communist quoted in the story complains so vehemently about the actual property damage, destruction and smoke emitted at Madison's famous annual Hempfest? Methinks probably not.
Democrats have worked hard to ensure that Americans pay as much for
gas as Europeans do. After a quarter-century of gas tax hikes, a ban on
drilling for oil and a complete destruction of the nuclear power
industry in America, I guess liberals can declare: Mission accomplished!
In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, "We can't drill our way out of this crisis."
What
does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, "You can't eat
your way out of being hungry!" "You can't water your way out of
drought!" "You can't sleep your way out of tiredness!" "You can't drink
yourself out of dehydration!"
Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn't going to increase the supply of oil?
It
is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if
they have a plan. Their plan is: the permanent twilight of the human
race. It's the only solution they can think of to deal with the beastly
traffic on the LIE (Long Island Expressway).
Conservatism Today: It's like the Supreme Court would be, if I got to pick all the judges.
The Supreme Court today struck down the District of Columbia's ridiculous regulations which banned handguns and required shotguns and rifles to be kept in a manner inconsistent with their effective use -- disassembled and under trigger lock. So people who know how to read, and therefore understand what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means, are supposed to be overjoyed over this 5-4 ruling today?
Not me. This is asinine! Now I normally try to look at the positives, but there aren't too many positives to look at when you realize that we were one freaking vote away from losing our 2nd Amendment rights.
With the court split evenly ideologically (4 liberals, 4 conservatives and 1 intellectual ball of mush, Anthony Kennedy), one guy, the intellectual mushball, is the deciding vote on everything that matters to us as U.S. citizens and supposedly free people. He got this one right, but he sure missed yesterday when he ruled that it is never appropriate for the state to kill child rapists. Where am I supposed to find the positive side of the fact that the laws of the U.S. are currently being determined by the mental coin-flipping in Anthony Kennedy's empty head!?
Is this really what the authors of our Constitution envisioned? A country led by the whims of one unelected robe-wearing man? Of course not! But this is where we stand today.
If there is anything to be pleased about today, it's that Justice Antonin Scalia is still alive and well, and he's still condescending to liberals in every opinion he writes. Today's opinion is a classic where he basically gives the four dissenting justices a lesson on how to read and understand basic English. You can probably skip this if you aren't as amused by and appreciative of the agility of Scalia's mind as I am.
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding.
But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom.
It would be rather like saying, “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
And this should further remind us of the peril will face if we elect Barack Obama.
But of course, rulings like this one and the ruling granting habeas corpus right to enemy combatants, come directly from appointing judges who hold the philosophy he holds, as John Hawkins of Right Wing News pointed out recently:
A constitutional law professor should, one would think, understand the
role of the federal judiciary. As should be apparent to anyone with a
clue, and I don't include Senator Obama in that particular group, what
he is claiming isn't anywhere close to the traditional role of the
federal judiciary. What he is advocating is legislation from the bench
based on emotion and empathy, not the Constitution.
Here, in plain English, is the role, of the federal judiciary
found in an introduction to the US Federal Court System for Judges and
Judicial Administrators in Other Countries. It may be something a
particular constitutional lawyer may wish to avail himself of:
The federal judiciary is a totally separate, selfgoverning
branch of the government. The federal courts often are called the
guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect the rights
and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and
impartial judgments, they determine facts and interpret the law to
resolve legal disputes.
The courts do not make the laws. That is the
responsibility of the Congress. Nor do the courts have the power to
enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many
executive branch departments and agencies. But the judicial branch has the authority to interpret and decide the constitutionality of federal laws and to resolve other disputes over federal laws.
Not a thing in that brief description approaches the Obama criteria for federal judges.
And folks, given the fact he may win this election, that should scare you half to death.
It's touching that Obama seems to care for young child rape victims more than the criminals who victimize them, but if you're going to appoint judges who promise to interject their own opinions into law, you're part of the problem. By the way, Obama voted against confirming two of the four dissenting judges in this case. Had Obama been choosing judges the last eight years, the vote would have been 7 to 2.
Conservatism Today: It's like Obama's energy policy, but without the illogic. Or the harm to the U.S. economy and its people. OK, so it's nothing like Obama's energy policy.
UPDATE: Looks like the McCain camp made a video on it:
This is the issue McCain should be killing Obama on. The difference between McCain's and Obama's attitude on energy is best summed up by McCain supporter Rick Gorka's comments here at the Monterey County Herald:
"Sen. McCain is putting forward
a plan of action, whereas Sen. Obama has been the Dr. No of energy,
refusing to take a stand to help out Nevadans," Gorka said.
I've never read the Monterey County Herald before, but on a side note, there ought to be a job opening today at the Herald after the idiotic headline someone placed on that article. The article is all about Obama saying 'no' to any form of energy that isn't made out of something that we should be eating instead. But some copy editor decides to slap on the headline, "Obama views nuclear power as an option," as if to imply that he isn't the joke of a presidential candidate that he would be if he thought nuclear was a bad option. Then we read the first line.
Barack Obama said Tuesday that
he would not take nuclear power "off the table" as a possible energy
option, but blasted John McCain's proposal to build dozens of new
reactors in the U.S.
So, he views it as an option, but blasts anyone who proposes we use it? That may be considered viewing nuclear as an option, but not as a good option. This is the message this hack headline writer got out of this piece? And I can't find full-time employment (if I wanted to) in the newspaper industry?
Then Obama has an argument with himself over his own idea. I wish, just for fun, I could listen in for awhile to the voices arguing inside Obama's head.
The senator also said he remained open to supporting "clean coal" as a potential alternative to polluting fossil fuels.
The comment raised the eyebrows
of environmental activist Scot Rutledge, who told the candidate the
term was commonly used by the coal industry for a production process
that is not considered clean by many in the environmental community.
He asked Obama to pledge not to use the term.
Obama didn't directly agree to the pledge, but said Rutledge had a "fair point."
"If the technology is not there to sequester the coal — and,
right now, frankly it is not where it needs to be — I don't think we
should be creating new coal plants with old technologies that are, at
best, going to be obsolete," Obama said.
We're supposed to trust this man to negotiate with our enemies when he can't hold on to a position when he's countered by the vapid comments of an environmental moonbat?
In Europe and elsewhere, they have been expanding their use of nuclear
energy. But we’ve waited so long that we’ve lost our domestic
capability to even build these power plants. Nuclear power is among the
surest ways to gain a clean, abundant, and stable energy supply, as
other nations understand. One nation today has plans to build almost 50
new reactors by 2020. Another country plans to build 26 major nuclear
stations. A third nation plans to build enough nuclear plants to meet
one quarter of all the electricity needs of its people — a population
of more than a billion people. Those three countries are China, Russia,
and India. And if they have the vision to set and carry out great goals
in energy policy, then why don’t we?”
Now, I don't like this habit of saying "if someone in another part of the world does something, why shouldn't we" as McCain does here. But if it's a good something, I suppose I can overlook it.
Sure, his oil policy may be a contradiction wrapped in an enigma covered with pixie dust wishes, as the Denver Post points out:
The Arizona senator has endorsed a policy
that would allow individual states to decide if they want to allow
offshore oil drilling. While some might, others probably would not.
McCain tries to get around this problem by saying he would offer to
share offshore oil revenues with states that would allow drilling. His
proposal is more of a hope than a promise. The senator is a bundle of contradictions
in other areas, as well. He wouldn't mind oil rigs off the coast, but
he still wouldn't allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, a place so remote almost no one would see them.
But given the competition, that's still far superior to this:
Obama's policy proposals are almost
mystical. He supports the goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gases by a
breathtaking 80 percent over the next 40 years. He would achieve this
target by what might be called a "Goldilocks" approach to energy. The
nation would somehow use the "just right" balance of conservation,
biofuels, wind power and solar energy to make up for any reductions in
oil consumption. Nowhere is there a mention of nuclear energy or the
role it might play in the country's future.
Nor is there a hint of increasing oil supplies. The message is
plain: If the nation turns this fall to Obama, he will figure out a way
to provide for the nation's energy needs without resorting to more oil
exploration or the requirement to build more nuclear power plants. It
also should be noted that nowhere does Obama acknowledge that this
nation's population will increase by 100 million or so energy consumers
before midcentury.
We're choosing between an imbecile and a man with no clear ideology underpinnings. It's enough to make these diatribes daily, and necessary for my sanity.
One of the more instructive elements of this election year has been the exposure of the abundance of racism that exists in lefty politics. Many of us always knew this to be the case. I mean seriously, how can you advocate making hiring and enrollment decisions based on race and then claim that you believe all people are equal regardless of race? When all you think about is the politics of race, how could you possibly avoid sometimes judging people on the color of their skin, as opposed to the content of their character?
But now even people who can't follow that bit of pristine logic are beginning to see just how racial many old-time lefties really are. Case in point: Ralph Nader.
"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to
being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American,"
Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I
haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in
the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's
keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He
doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?
I agree with Nader that Obama is pretty much like any other Democrat we've seen in recent elections, but what a disturbing comment about what Nader thinks a black candidate ought to be talking about. To Nader being black apparently means living in the ghetto; being black means having old, run down housing; being black conjures up images of weekly trips to the local payday lender or loan shark.
<
Asked to clarify whether he thought Obama does try to "talk white," Nader said: "Of course."
Because apparently "talking white" means avoiding those other issues that only apply to black people?
"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American
politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe
the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural
areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to
be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is
going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."
This statement is striking in its similarity to Michelle Obama's Senior Thesis, in the viewpoint that a black person must always identify first with "the black community," (whatever the hell that is) and ought always represent the biggest failures of his race. It's not too surprising to me that Nader, the "King of Arrogantly Telling People What to Do," is now telling Obama what "a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should" do. But hopefully it's an eye-opener for Obama fans about what kind of tool this guy always has been. Apparently to Nader being black also means being poor; it means being weak and needing the Almighty Law to save your ass.
Or is Nader just jealous because Obama has blocked him from another Green Party run by staking out the most far-left territory we've seen a candidate take since Jimmy Carter?
(NYU researchers) found that... the reason for this happiness disparity can be
distilled to the separate ideologies of liberals and conservatives.
The authors argue that a conservative belief acts as a psychological
buffer in a world of increasing inequality. The idea is that
conservatives tend to rationalize inequality as the result of a fair
process in a meritocracy, whereas liberals tend to see inequality as
inherently unjust.
..(N)ot only do
right-wingers report greater life satisfaction across cultures, but the
gap widens in those countries where quality of life is low.
Finally, the authors looked at U.S. data spanning the past 30 years,
and found that increasing economic inequality is associated with the
decrease in the nation’s overall happiness. But noted they found that
liberals’ self-reported happiness decreased more steeply than that of
conservatives.
I previously discussed some of this in Conservative Living: The Key to a Successful Life. A liberal friend on my favorite political discussion board responded by writing, "When you don't worry as much about the ethical or moral effects of your life, you do tend to be happy."
That's a common, but wholly incorrect response from the left. When I look at the moral and ethical effects of my life, I'm pretty happy. I guess I understand how some liberals might not be. But the reason I don't worry about the ethical or moral effects of my life is because I already know what they are, and they aren't worrisome.
The bigger reason I'm happy, is that I don't worry about the moral or ethical effects of other people's lives. As long as you aren't harming someone else, I pretty much couldn't care less what you are doing. It's simple self-reliance, a trait that those of us on the right believe in and the left seeks to obliterate.
Note that the article had more bad news for liberals. They are going to get more unhappy.
(I)ncreasing
economic inequality is associated with the decrease in the nation’s
overall happiness. But noted they found that liberals’ self-reported
happiness decreased more steeply than that of conservatives.
At
some point, other than flat-out stealing people's money and giving it
to others, I'd like liberals to explain how they expect to stop the
increase in economic equality.
It
doesn't take a brain surgeon to tell you that the poorest person in
America next year won't be much richer than the poorest guy this year
is. But money grows if not squandered, so the richest person in America
will nearly always be richer than he was the year before.
It must suck when such obvious realities make you sad. Grow up, people.
Taking a break from beating up American oil companies, the Times and reporter Larry Rohter at least had the decency to report Obama's hypocrisy:
Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the
influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has
powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to
domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has
advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a
time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the
parties and their presidential candidates.
Rohter avoids editorializing, but this begs the question: What would Obama be saying if John McCain had "advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to" the U.S. oil industry? He'd use it to call McCain "Bush III" again. It's OK to be in the pocket of Big Corn, which provides inefficient, expensive energy, but unacceptable to represent the interests of Big Oil and its more efficient, less expensive energy (not to mention representing consumers' wallets). It's OK to be beholden to Big Agriculture, the most subsidized industry in the country, but not Big Oil, one of the best examples of managing to consistently run a profitable business despite constant government attacks and obstacles?
In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that
embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because
right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile
nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more
difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is
creating security for the long term.”
Obama again gets it bass-ackwards. America's oil dependence is caused by people like him who have voted to prevent more drilling and voted to subsidize alternatives that are inefficient. As opposed to "ultimately help(ing) our national security," people like Obama increase gas prices and food prices at the same time. Now we have food riots around the world due to rising grain prices, and the President has to beg Saudi Arabia to increase oil production. This is good for national security?
Did I mention that ethanol is inefficient?
Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual
government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free
trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the
United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which
packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to
produce.
“We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a
sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn
ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and
contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview
with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is
wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is
much more efficient than corn ethanol...”
Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of
energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is
more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices
in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more
efficient source.
Here is one area where McCain has drawn a clear line between himself and Obama.
Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax
groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that
benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers.
It's amazing how some people continue to reach the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons. Why can't we simply say that the U.S. government should not, as a principle, be in the business of making one group of people benefit at the expense of another group. If ethanol helped small farmers more, it would still be wrong to subsidize it. The Constitution was not created to allow government to shift money from one segment of the population to favor another. We've allowed it with MediCare, Social Security and various welfare programs, and if people want to keep those in place, that's fine to the extent it doesn't bankrupt the country. But we need to stop looking to the government to prop up businesses that can't compete on their own, and stop using government to coerce people to invest in produce that isn't yet economically sound.
As Michelle Malkin reports, John McCain seems to be back to his usual self on the immigration issue, saying one thing to conservatives and something entirely different to Hispanic audiences. The Democrats have already called McCain on the pandering earlier today.
John McCain’s favorite words of the evening were Comprehensive
Immigration Reform. But he started out first of all saying if he is
gonna win the Presidential election he will need the support of the
Latino community.
He said ” My state has been enriched by the Hispanic culture in Arizona.”
Then John McCain asked a question “Did you know this? I bet some of
you did not know that Spanish was spoken in Arizona before English”
…Loud cheers from the audience.
Then he said “I want to have some straight talk about our
relationship with Mexico,our closest neighbor and dearest friend” He
talked about the Mexican President fighting the drug cartels.
Then John McCain aid the exact thing I came to hear, he said “I was
proud to work for Comprehensive Immigration Reform and If I am elected
President I assure you that in 2009 I will ask Congress to pass
Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” (The crowd goes wild) “It is a
Federal Responsibility” he said and continued ” we also need a
temporary guest worker program”
That's a disturbing sequence there, if the first-hand account is taken at face value. For the Democrats to rip anyone for pandering is funny in a pot/kettle sort of way, but they are dead right. Usually McCain is a straight shooter, but when it comes to Hispanic issues he is all over the place and has been for some time.
I think we may be screwed on immigration if he wins this fall. I can't trust him on this issue.
Most of all, I'm voting Democrat because I like the ideas they have
over in France, but I don't feel like moving there. I'll threaten to
move, but I really won't. After all, I have a good job, healthcare,
lower taxes, free speech and a social framework that promotes family
structure. And all of it is defended by the most effective fighting
force on the planet.
If only the institution of far-left values resulted in a
great country. Oh, well. That won't stop me from voting Democrat,
though. After all, I'm voting Democrat because thought isn't one of my
strong suits.
We're moving into our new condo today, which is why I haven't been around the last couple days. Here are a few stories I enjoyed this morning to keep you busy until Monday:
Power Line chimes in on a great speech by President Bush calling out the Dems on oil. Bush is effective when he does this, but he needs to do it more often.
Obama's consistently shows a concerning lack of knowledge regarding American history when he speaks without notes. A president need not be a great historical scholar, but when your ignorance causes you to reach the wrong conclusions - like conferring rights of U.S. citizens to enemy combatants - there's a problem.
Obama's unfavorable comparison of the legal treatment of the Guantanamo
detainees with that of the Nuremberg defendants suggests either that he
does not know what he's talking about, or that he feels free to take
great liberties with the truth.
Welcome to Conservatism Today. It's like liberalism, but without the decadence, despair and defeat.
I see that Kooky Qadhafi emerged from his hole long enough to weigh in on the upcoming U.S. Presidential election. Fittingly, the occasion was a speech marking the 22nd anniversary of Ronald Reagan's air raid on Libya. Ever since Reagan's raid, Qadhafi has only been allowed to be a state sponsor of terrorism during Democrat administrations. Under Republican administrations he is forced to denounce terrorism and is only allowed to speak in public once a year, for no more than 15 minutes. And he has to wear an ankle bracelet. Surprisingly, Qadhafi is not very fond of Reagan. Much like so many American liberals, Qadhafi compared the greatest president in American history to Hitler and Genghis Khan, among others:
In the days of crazy Reagan, the
American president issued a presidential order to launch a war against
Libya, for example, a presidential order to besiege Libya, a
presidential order to boycott Libya, and so on. Is this a democracy or a dictatorship?
My response was
simple: Whenever our ships or planes were fired upon or otherwise
deprived of rights granted sovereign countries in international waters,
the navy was to respond in kind. "Any time we send an American anywhere
in the world where he or she can be shot at, they have the right to
shoot back," I said. One cabinet member asked: "What about pursuit?" He
wanted to know the extent to which our planes should be permitted to
pursue Libyan planes if they harassed our aircraft or ships in
violation of international law.
The
admiral stopped, cleared his throat, and looked over at me, waiting for
an answer from me, and suddenly it was very quiet in the room. "All the
way into the hangar," I said. A smile broke out on the admiral's face,
and he said, "Yes, sir."
But I digress. After Qadhafi's obligatory dig at Reagan, he got to the real reason for his speech: his hope that Obama "will change America from evil to good, and that America will establish
relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the
Arabs."
So Qadhafi, nearly word for word, repeats the refrain of today's liberals. Only he goes slightly further than they do.
Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had
studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded
this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and
they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns
to enable him to win the American presidency.
Yes, according to Obama-supporter Qadhafi, Obama is a Muslim. People within a particular group are always more adept at spotting one of their own than others outside that group. And isn't it comforting to know that if we elect Obama we will finally have a president that the Arab world prays for?
Qadhafi goes on to hope for exactly what I have feared, that Obama's pro-Israel rhetoric is "merely an elections lie," that when it is all over he will say:
"No, this was just elections propaganda... This was propaganda, and you thought I was
being serious. I was fooling you to get your votes."
Following the speech, American troops led a handcuffed Qadhafi back to his hole, and ordered him not to come out until the same time next year.
In the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan embraced the ideas of a small group
of economists dubbed "supply-siders." They argued that lower taxes and
slimmer government would stimulate growth, enterprise, harder work and
higher levels of saving and investment. These views were widely
ridiculed at the time, dismissed as "voodoo economics."
Reagan did succeed in lowering some taxes. But a
Democrat-controlled Congress weakened their impact by raising
government spending sharply, resulting in large budget deficits.
A quarter of a century later, many more countries have
cut taxes and reined in heavy-handed government intervention. How far
have they gone down this path, and with what success?(...)
The early supply-siders were right. My findings firmly reject the
widely held view that lower taxes inevitably result in cuts in public
services, slower growth and widening income inequalities. Today's
policy makers should take note of how tax cuts and the pruning of
inefficient government programs can stimulate sluggish economies.
Marsden's study shows countries with the lowest tax burdens outperforming their high-tax counterparts across the board.
Yes, Reagan was right. The supply-side logic is so obvious, it annoys me to no end that we still are debating this point. Fortunately, real life keeps slapping the other side upside the head.
I had to disagree with Rick Moran yesterday about assigning blame on the oil crisis, but the Right Wing Nut House blogger is back in fine form today: Addicted to Bush
No, no, and I say no again. I cannot – will not – accept this affront
to the sanctity of our republic. Bad enough that Hillary ran this year.
But three presidents from one family? Makes us look like a goddamn
banana republic. I don’t care how competent Jeb is. I don’t care if
people think he’d be the best president to come along since Michael
Douglas played that guy who got to do the slap and tickle with Annette
Benning (“I’m going to get the guns.”). I will pray to the political
gods that they spare us the prospect of another Bush – Jesus I don’t
believe I’m saying it – ANOTHER BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
We have suffered through rah rah Bush and now compassionate
conservative Bush with a guy possessing the morals of an alley cat and
the hormones of a teenager in between. No wonder people are going crazy
over Obama. The guy seems almost normal by comparison. Who cares if he
hangs around with bigots, crooks, radicals, and terrorists? At least
his name doesn’t conjure up nightmares of dynastic wars as one branch
of the Bush family eventually splits off and we have our very own “War
of the Roses...”
It used to be that children of privilege either spent their lives in
dissolute hedonism, burning through the family fortune as fast as their
self-destructive behavior would let them. Or, they were groomed to
enter the family business in order to protect the assets of those who
came before them.
The Kennedys and Bushes enter politics and run for president for
exactly the same reason. And from my point of view, it’s no way to run
a republic.
I actually think Jeb is the best of them, but Rick's right. A third Bush should be avoided on principles alone.
In the interest of helping my readers, I just finished reading Michelle Obama's senior thesis. There's an hour of my life that I will never get back.
What on Earth would make me do such a thing? Two things that happened today made it clear that Obama is trying to redefine herself to the American people as a woman who holds mainstream ideals: A New York Times article, Michelle Obama Looks For a New Introduction and her appearance on The View.
In the Times article, Obama dismisses rumors of the alleged "whitey" tape.
“I mean, ‘whitey’? That’s something that George Jefferson would say.
Anyone who says that doesn’t know me. They don’t know the life I’ve
lived. They don’t know anything about me.”
Actually, while I don't believe such a tape exists, I have been struck by the fact that nobody has come out saying, "I know Michelle Obama, and Michelle Obama would never say those things!" That's because everyone has seen how people talk in that church she spent 20 years attending.
The Times article then says that a columnist at Slate, Christopher Hitchens, claimed "with scant evidence" that Obama's ideas were at one time influenced by black separatism. It then quotes from her thesis:
“The path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton,” Mrs. Obama
wrote in the introduction, “will likely lead to my further integration
and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that
will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society, never
becoming a full participant.”
The Times also quotes a Princeton professor who says her thesis is being misread. So I decided to read it for myself.
First off, there is plenty of evidence that Obama is influenced by black separatism at the time of the writing. She praises the ideas of separatists like Stokely Carmichael and the work of the "Black Power" movement. Black separatist views color all her judgments of what is "positive." Also, people who define everything in life in terms of a "black community" versus a "white community" are almost exclusively separatists.
The bigger issue, given that her adult life shows that she has worked well with different people (including whites) is just how out of the mainstream it is in its liberalism. "Liberal", as defined by Obama in the thesis, means "open-minded." I rarely find many liberals who are open-minded to my thoughts. She describes herself as growing more "conservative" during her time at Princeton. By "conservative" she apparently means "greedy," because her example is that she finds herself looking forward to a high-paying job after college.
Good qualities, to Obama, include a desire to help the black community above any other community and sympathy toward the black lower class. These ideas constitute "a positive relationship with the black community." In fact, she argues that a separationist is more likely to have a realistic impression of the plight of the black lower class. We are left to assume that dealing with people based on the content of their character, as opposed to the color of their skin, would then be construed as having a negative relationship with the black community.
And I'm sure that helping someone out of the prison that is a life of welfare is not what she means by help. But that's probably because she's so "open-minded."
If you're looking for anything in the thesis that is openly inflammatory and racist towards white people, you won't find it.
If you're looking for anything that fits the beliefs of mainstream America, you won't find it either.
As to her appearance on The View, I thought she came off well. There was no reason to think she wouldn't. She's an intelligent, good looking woman. She has learned from years of practice and assimilation with people outside the "black community."
If only there wasn't so much evidence that she hasn't preached what she's practiced in life. Or raised her children under the guidance of a pastor who preaches the opposite of what she practices. Don't be deceived.
Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse is one of my favorite political analysts. I have his website bookmarked in a category that I call "thinkers," because he is one of the very few bloggers who consistently make in-depth, thought provoking posts. I point this out so you'll understand just how much it pains me that my first mention of Moran at this site is a vehement disagreement with his analysis in: WHO’S TO BLAME FOR HIGH GAS PRICES? LOOK IN THE MIRROR, AMERICA
As both the right and left engage in their favorite pastime – The
Blame Game – when it comes to assigning responsibility for the mess
we’re in with gas prices, I’ve been doing a slow burn about both sides’
singular avoidance of placing blame on the one group who truly deserves
it.
Every red blooded American who has voted over the past
30 years – Republican and Democrat – for federal lawmakers who
promised, in effect, that this day would come bears the primary
responsibility for high gas prices.
We the voters made
con(s)cious and deliberate choices to elect presidents, members of
Congress, and state legislators who ran on a platform that condemned
nuclear power and swore to oppose the building of any more plants. If,
over the last 30 years, we had replaced the majority of our oil and
coal burning plants with nuclear powered generators, we could have
saved about half a million bbl a day or 5% of the total imports of 10
million bbl a day...
We, the voters, also made conscious and deliberate choices in
electing everyone from members of Congress to local selectmen who would
oppose the building of new refineries... We the voters also made conscious and
deliberate choices to elect members of Congress, governors, and state
legislators who promised not to drill offshore of all but a handful of
states.
Moran mocks those who play "The Blame Game." But surely he is aware that, especially in an election season, it is important to look at where we are on the issues and decide where to assign blame, and to whom we should give props. This is important because it lets us know who we should re-elect and who we should send packing. Of course, we would all like to see a little less public blaming going on among the parties involved and a little more problem solving, but that doesn't mean we don't need to assign blame.
Moran then decides to play it himself, and places it on all of us. Certain voters made the conscious decision to elect people who would pursue policies that put us in the position we're in, yes. But are those voters "we the voters?" I think not. By Moran's logic here, nearly everything that has ever happened in this country was a result of "we the voters," notwithstanding the fact that we the voters tend to disagree with one another on every issue known to man. If we can't distinguish between the people who actually voted for people who put us in the situation we're in and those who did not, politics refuses to make sense and categories are meaningless.
Generally speaking, there is a group of people who have consistently fought for the policies that Moran mentions that got us here, and that group of people has a name: Liberals. They tend to be found in the Democrat party.
There is also a group of people who opposed those policies vehemently over the last 30 years and, almost without exception, those people are called conservatives. They can sometimes still be spotted wandering around the Republican party with a dazed look on their face, wondering what the hell happened to their home.
Rush Limbaugh has been talking about this for 20 years. Are his loyal listeners part of "we the voters" who are to blame?
Among the more obvious places to put blame, he mentions: Bill Clinton vetoing drilling in ANWR against a Republican congress, the 2007 Democrat congress energy bill that turned focus from oil to ethanol and is starving people worldwide as we speak, and the environmental left's refusal to allow more nuclear power which began under Carter.
But the biggest affront I take at being considered one of the "we the voters" who are to blame for this mess is Tate's #1 reason.
1) Defeat of President Bush's 2001 energy package According to the BBC, "Key points of Bush('s 2001) plan were to:
-Promote new oil and gas drilling
-Build new nuclear plants
-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels
A New York Timesarticle, dated May 18, 2001, explained:
"President
Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing
new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that
the country had a future of 'energy abundance if it could break free of
the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental
advocates.
Mr.
Bush's plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the
report of an energy task force containing scores of specific
proposals... for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range
of new energy technologies."
[The
Bush plan] "mentions about a dozen areas including land-use
restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas
attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear
plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline."
The
article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the
President, "this great country could face a darker future, a future
that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas
pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California" if his
plan was not adopted in 2001.
The Times account continued:
"Mr.
Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter
of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to
foreign oil suppliers...Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying
out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives..."
Just
as President Bush's predictions have been born out, the article quoted
from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:
"World
supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are
cyclical, reserves are plentiful," he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said
"exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated
ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality."
But, as a later Times article notes,
"the president's ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy
politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the
way the White House had created the plan."
I love seeing examples of Jimmy Carter's 'wisdom.' They never get old. Or less damaging.
But the point is, many of "we the voters" have been trying to avoid this day for decades. Liberals have not listened, and they deserve to take the blame.
On
a personal note, that would be two days in a row that major
conservative blogs have linked to me, the other being John Hawkins of
Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News.
A.J Sparxx at PoliPundit wrote a thought-provoking post last weekend that I've been waiting to comment on: Definition of a Conservative
In it, Sparxx quotes Lyn Nofziger, who got his start in politics under Governor Ronald Reagan, and helped campaign for Reagan, Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. (It is Nofziger, not Nofgizer.) Nofziger was a part of Reagan's "Kitchen Cabinet," a group of Californians who rode Reagan's coattails to the national political scene. His definition of a conservative is the best, most succinct one I've ever seen:
“Allowing for differences I would define a conservative, first as
one who believes in the Constitution as it is written. That takes care
of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the
government, the right to keep and bear arms and, in the words of
William O. Douglas in one of his saner moments, ‘the right to be let
alone.’
“Second, a conservative believes in small, limited
government at every level. Along with this he believes strongly in
individual responsibility. That is, a person or a family should take
care of itself and turn for help to government only when all other
means have been exhausted. It also means that society, before
government, has a duty to take care of its own. Government should be a
resource of last resort.
“Third, a conservative believes taxes
should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited
responsibilities of government such as providing for the common
defense, catching and incarcerating criminals, minting money and
filling potholes. Taxes should not be levied for the purpose of
redistributing wealth.
“That’s about it.
“I know
there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am,
but I’m not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative.
Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am.
In both cases there are questions of individual rights and
responsibilities which are arguable.
“One other thing I think
a conservative believes is that the parents, not government, are and
should be responsible for the upbringing and behavior of their
children.”
That's it. Sparxx asks in his column whether or not a person can be pro-choice and still be a conservative. The answer is: absolutely he can. The abortion issue hinges on individual morality, which for most Americans is dependent on their understanding of the Bible. I'm pro-life, in any case except where the doctor believes childbirth is likely to result in the death of the mother. I think it's unconscionable to abort a child while good families who can't have kids of their own sit on waiting lists to adopt. But reasonable people can disagree.
What a conservative cannot agree with is that abortion should be legal because five people in black robes think the Constitution says we have a right to do so. It clearly doesn't. The Constitution, as written, says that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is to be left to each individual state to determine. If the people of my state decide that abortion-on-demand should be legal, then I believe they have spoken. I can then either accept that fact, or (if what other people do bothers me that much) lobby to change people's minds, or move to a state where the people do not believe that abortion should be legal. That's the beauty of federalism.
Simple. If only the Democrat Party didn't fight so hard to suppress democratic ideals. If only liberals weren't so illiberal to dissenting views that they ceaselessly work to overturn the will of the people by unelected judges. If only progressives weren't so opposed to the most progressive constitution the world has ever seen. Democrats, liberals, progressives... I love how the words we use to describe leftists have no correspondence to the ideas they actually believe in. What fun would politics be if it weren't so damn confusing to average Americans? How would a leftist like Obama ever be elected to a PTA board, let alone President of the United States, if not for leftists stealing descriptions from those who actually represent them.
As Nofziger noted, conservatism is against government as the solution to problems in most people's lives. A conservative believes that people should help others who are less fortunate out of their own free will, not by having government play Robin Hood.
The main problem with most non-kooky liberals is that they equate government with charity. Giving is good, and as I noted earlier this week, conservatives give way bigger than liberals do. Stealing from people to give to others is bad. This is what liberals do through taxes.
Taxes are necessary for the common good (I mean that in a totally non-Marxist way), but I have a problem with taxes when the government asks for more of my money than God does. No American should ever pay more than a tithe of his increase (ten percent) to the government, except by his or her own free will. With over 80% of Americans calling themselves Christians, this should be pretty simple to pass. I don't know a Christian who thinks the U.S. government should be viewed as more important than God. An amendment outlawing taxes above 10% would be a great step to making Americans freer and more prosperous.
What does God do if a person decides to pay less than 10% to others? He forgives you. What does our almighty government do? Imprison you.
The fact is, nobody succeeds by living liberal values. Look at all the big liberals out there: Warren Buffett, George Soros, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Oprah, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin.... Every single one of them succeeded in highly competitive fields. They succeeded because they worked hard. They didn't succeed because of government handouts. A successful liberal is, by definition, a hypocrite.
What does success mean to you? Is it wealth or fame? We see plenty of liberals achieve these things, but they do it by competing better than others in a free market. Alec and Susan worked their asses off to get where they are today. Is that what they advise the rest of us to do? No, they tell us that the government is supposed to care for us. The only time we see successful liberals living their liberalism is when we see them struggle with drug abuse, divorce, poor family relationships, sexual deviancy, abusing their children (yeah, I mean you Alec) and general bad behavior. The successes come from living as a conservative, the failures from living as a liberal.
But Bill Gates is guilty. He has so much, and so many people have so
little. Never mind that he earned his billions of dollars by providing
technology that has made trillions of dollars for humanity. And Susan
Sarandon and Alec Baldwin have an empty feeling because they've made
millions by pretending to be someone they aren't (which, incidentally,
is why we liked them in the movies. Can anyone imagine anything more
annoying than paying to see these two jokers act like themselves?).
Is success having a loving family, one that will be with you through the best and the worst times? Liberalism has done more to destroy the family than any disease ever could. Like Hillary said, "It takes a village." Who needs a family, and what liberal would want the family involved when most good families tend to disagree with liberal solutions? Is success being content with your life? Has anyone ever met a happy, contented liberal? I haven't and I'm not holding my breath.
What about the trial lawyers, you ask? Yes, they are mostly liberals, and yes, they exist largely because of our government, and yes, many of them would be considered successful. But no, they don't live by liberal ideals. Do they sit around waiting for government to make them partner in their law firm? No, they work 60-80 hour weeks if they're good, until they reach the pinnacle. Then they donate money to liberal organizations that teach government dependency.
Hypocrisy sucks. So does liberalism. Conservatism is what liberalism is not. It is all that is right and good in this world.
Obamessiah smiled, and the group nodded approvingly.
And then, using the authority vested in Him under the recently
passed Federal Food and Drink Fairness Act, He sent his disciples to
the homes of the obscenely rich local gentry to confiscate their food.
"My personal opinion is I would argue that McCain is probably the
better candidate for the economy and that is more or less because of
his tax policies," James Caron, head of global rates research at
investment bank Morgan Stanley in New York, said at the Reuters Summit
this week.
"In this environment that we're in right now, the last thing you
want to have is higher taxes and taking money out of the consumers'
pockets," he added.
But that doesn't mean they think McCain will win.
Wall Street may like McCain but it is betting on the Democratic senator from Illinois.
The securities and investment industry has given more campaign
contributions to Obama than any other candidate, totaling nearly $7.91
million and exceeding McCain's $4.15 million.
And Corporate America as a whole likes the Democrats.
For the first time in a generation, most major U.S. business sectors
are donating more campaign money to Democrats than to Republicans,
according to a political fund-raising watchdog group.
Businesses donate most to those who they expect to be in the position to cause or prevent trouble for them. It's another bleak sign of the times when Wall Street is betting on Democrats, and it makes you wonder just how bad the financial situation is for GOP candidates nationwide. This quote shows that the economy is yet another issue that McCain couldn't capitalize on as much a less maverick-y Republican:
But Kaufman, president of financial consulting firm Henry Kaufman &
Co, quickly added: "I was a little bit dismayed when Senator McCain
said flippantly that he does not know too much about economics but
carries Alan Greenspan's book under his arm. That does not encourage
me."
Yes, but Obama knows even less about economics and carries a copy of Paul Krugman's latest NYT editorial under his arm.
Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room has an excellent piece on the Democrat Party's continued refusal to do anything to help the American consumer. The final paragraph, however, echoes the same old concerns I have about McCain.
McCain should beat Obama like a rented mule with this issue and he will
win over the bitter clingers whose weekly household incomes are being
hobbled by high gas prices. It is a winning issue, because people care
about the freakin’ endangered blind mole-rat right up until the time
they figure out that the rat is the reason they can’t afford the gas to
get to work to feed the family. Then they’ll want to run the little
bastards over.
Yes, McCain should beat Obama with this issue, as he should with every issue, but McCain is McCain and therefore he continues to play Democrat on energy policy.
I still can't make up my mind whether we somehow managed to nominate the only Republican capable of winning the election in this obviously anti-Republican cycle, or whether we managed to nominate the only Republican who can't dominate Obama because he can't effectively argue in favor of conservative principles.
Recent Comments