Meeting at a school house in Ripon on February 28, 1854, some thirty opponents of the Nebraska Act called for the organization of a new political party and suggested that Republican would be the most appropriate name (to link their cause with the Declaration of Independence). The group also took a leading role in the creation of the Republican Party in many northern states during the summer of 1854. While conservatives and many moderates were content merely to call for the restoration of the Missouri Compromise or a prohibition of slavery extension, the group insisted that no further political compromise with slavery was possible.
The February 1854 meeting was the first political meeting of the group that would become the Republican Party. The first meeting by a group that called itself "Republican" took place later in 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. Both cities, along with Exeter, New Hampshire and Crawfordsville, Iowa, bill themselves as the "Birthplace of the Republican Party," however, Jackson is most often associated with this idea, as the event taking place was the first official Republican Party meeting.
The modern Ripon Society, a Republican think tank, takes its name from Ripon, Wisconsin.
Fittingly, Publius writes today in Big Government: "Today, in 1854, the Republican Party was organized in Ripon, Wisconsin. Odd that today, in many ways, the future of the GOP - and the nation - rests on individuals from the same state."
It is high time this Party return to the "revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people" as Reagan spoke of, and as conservatives actively seek today!
More and more, we hear this phrase ‘social conservatives’ tossed around, and in more instances used as a negative connotation against those observers of traditional values. Furthermore, this phrase is seen by some as a force that stunts the growth of the conservative movement, and falsely so. Let me break this lightly…the problem is not, nor ever has been, with 'social conservatives’, and the mere labeling is a joke! You're either conservative or you are not. Either principles, morality and traditions, as the Founders implied, as Bastiat and Burke inferred, factor into being a conservative, or you fall into some other category. Sadly, most Republicans can't even live up to this prescription. And to be perfectly honest, so as not to appear to be 'holier than thou', I absolutely struggle, yet aspire, to reach these truths...but I know it's what is honestly prescribed to be principally conservative. If one says, "I'm fiscally conservative, but socially liberal" that is an honest statement...but it doesn't make you a 'Conservative'.
In his book The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk discusses Edmund Burke’s thoughts on the negative elements that detach man from Divinity, but to be wise in acknowledging that the establishments of positivity alone do not gain Providential favor; rather, overcoming ones vices through these principled establishments set man on a more righteous path. This idea is among many of Burke’s that present a perfect example of the social principles all conservatives should embrace:
Ours is a moral order, then, and our laws are derived from immortal moral laws; the higher happiness is moral happiness, says Burke, and the cause of suffering is moral evil. Pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, disorderly appetites – these vices are the actual causes of the storms that trouble life. “Religion, morals, laws, prerogatives, privileges, liberties, rights of men, are the pretexts” for revolution by sentimental humanitarians and mischievous agitators who think that established institutions must be the source of our afflictions. But the human heart, in reality, is the fountain of evil. “You would not cure the evil by resolving, that there should be no more monarchs, nor ministers of state, nor of the gospel; no interpreters of laws; no general officers; no public councils…. Wise men will apply their remedies to vices, not to names.” … “When we know, that the opinions of even the greatest multitudes are the standard of rectitude, I shall think myself obliged to make those opinions the masters of my conscience. But if it may be doubted whether Omnipotence itself is competent to alter the essential constitution of right and wrong, sure am I, that such things, as they and I, are possessed of no such power.” Now and again, Burke praises two great virtues, the keys to private contentment and public peace: they are prudence and humility, the first pre-eminently an attainment of classical philosophy, the second pre-eminently a triumph of Christian discipline. Without them, man must be miserable; and man destitute of piety hardly can perceive either of these rare and blessed qualities. For solitary man in search of spiritual peace, for society in search of permanent order, Providence has furnished means by which mankind may apprehend this moral universe. Tradition and prescription are the guiding lights of the civil social man; and therefore Burke elevates to the dignity of social principles those conventions and customs which, before the eighteenth century, most men accepted with an unreflecting confidence.
Would those who differentiate ‘social conservatives’ as being separated from the core of conservatism also castigate the “father of modern conservatism”?! Perhaps those who tout “the era of Reagan is over”, or adhere to the ‘new’ notion that the Republican ‘big tent’ no longer has enough room for prescribed social values, might reconsider the principles, morality and traditions of conservatism before their professed separation and abandonment, which would otherwise lose the battle against the forces of the Left, ultimately leading to tyranny. These values should not be compromised, nor could such a dismal outcome be afforded.
We get it, and they know it. No political power or special interest is so great that they overshadow the threat to our very existence as a nation. Just ask the responsible legislators of Wisconsin!
Lest we forget, five years ago, a freshman Senator said: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure," he said. "It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills." Now that freshman Senator is in the White House asking for the very thing he adamantly opposed. THAT is leadership failure, sir!
We need not raise the debt limit, but begin tackling the debt by limiting excessive and unnecessary federal spending, including real reforms in entitlement spending, while paying down outside debt obligations with current projected revenue. Avoid defaulting the responsible way.
On Libya, while slaughter is occurring daily, Obama remained hesitant to criticize Gadhafi, perhaps due to their ‘kinship’? And the MSM continues to provide excuses.
On Obama’s recent ‘jobs tour’, one MSM report temporarily breaks rank and tips us off to the fact that “In eight trips outside Washington since Election Day, Obama - who frequently says he uses such travel to better understand the lives of Americans - has held almost no formal meetings with groups of unemployed people or organizations that advocate for them. White House officials were unable to give a single example of him on these trips interacting, even in private, with a person who had recently lost a job…”
The list goes on and on and on…both continue to be on the wrong side of the American citizenry.
But let’s end this on a positive thought (PLEASE!). Where Obama wavers on Libya, Palin sores. Expounding on Palin’s decisiveness and reflecting on Obama’s latest whim, Jeffrey Lord brings the point home in this anecdote on the ‘what if’ fears of the Left! As Rush commented today, "could you imagine the outcry?" Oh, the irony…
ADDENDUM: More of the 'on and on and on'...
Early in his presidency, we were told that we had to pass that economic stimulus law to save the economy and create or ‘save’ jobs…now, not only are we in a fiscal hole, but the CBO informs us that ‘each’ of those jobs cost a minimum average of $228,055!!! And guess who’s collecting those salaries? You got it: the public sector workforce. In Wisconsin alone, three-fourths of stimulus-related jobs went to public sector unions. I guess that makes sense in a ‘bribe your constituents’ sort of way! And the media condones the current practice with ‘anti-union’ or ‘union busting’ headlines.
Aside from the related rationale in a previous post, there may be no better advocate for the complete dismantlement of ALL public sector unions, starting with the NEA, than from its former top lawyer, Bob Chanin. Listen to his speech given at the NEA’s annual meeting in July, 2009, and tell me this isn’t so…
“Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.”
“And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.”
No creative ideas, no merit, and no vision for public schools, nor a care for the children that attend them. Despite what many among THEM would have US believe, it is ultimately about POWER that through collective bargaining, regardless of ideas, merit, vision or lack thereof, is granted to them from the state to the detriment of taxpayers. In a nutshell, they don’t give a damn about educating your kids, they just want to get paid MO’ MONEY! Thanks for being SO HONEST, Mr. Chanin.
From Tunisia to Egypt, now Bahrain and Libya, the question continues to allude many: What’s happening in the Islamic World? Everyone’s guessing what these uprisings are about. Are they unique unto each given country, or do they share a common disdain for their rulers? I believe it to be a little of both. And, despite Western understanding and media intentions, these ‘democratic revolutions’ are far from what we recognize as “democratic” (I’ve read some who question using the term “revolution” as well). In any case, something indeed is going on in this part of the world that has never known Democracy, but has always been surrounded by, and in some cases embraced, authoritarian forms of government, usually of the Islamic variety.
Out of all people to listen to during these uprisings, it would appear that the ideological Ayatollah Khamenei (Leader of the Islamic Revolution) has an ‘answer’ of sorts: “The recent popular movements are primarily against the dominance of arrogant powers.” Well, I’d say that much he has right, but he should also take a look in the mirror! Then the Ayatollah continues with his usual rhetoric: “He went on to say that the dominant powers' plots against Islamic countries have created discord among Muslim nations, calling on the Muslim nations and governments to become vigilant and stop the “great Satan” [the US] from interfering in their destinies. “If governments become united with their peoples, no power can take control of their nations,” the Leader continued.” Of course, the Ayatollah makes such comments striving for a 21st century Caliphate among these prominently Islamic countries.
Brandon Place, writer for suite101, doesn’t name the Ayatollah or any given leader as the Caliph to lead such a union, but rather gives an informative and analytical look at one possible direction for the region, asking, “Are the Middle East and North Africa on the verge of returning to the Caliphate, an Empire of Islam?” He goes on to explain: "As many of the nations of the Middle East and North Africa go into some form of revolution or social unrest at the start of 2011, what may be happening is not just about one nation or country, but about the region as a whole. The world may be one dynamic leader away from seeing a return to the Empire of Islam in the Middle East and North Africa. The world may be witnessing a return of the Caliphate." Since the beginning of these uprisings, we’ve heard mention of this concerning scenario, mostly discredited by the mainstream media…but then again, look where they’ve gotten us so far!
So, considering this, and simply recognizing that ‘something’ is going on in the Islamic World, where does that leave the Obama administration on its handling of foreign policy in the region? What we’ve seen thus far may be even more indistinguishable than attempting to understand these uprisings! Here’s Obama’s wavering scorecard so far:
Egypt: an allied nation with obvious problems in government, extending in large part to its leadership. So what does the Obama administration do? Instead of solidly encouraging the government to make necessary reforms, Obama himself exacerbates the issue by cheerleading the unrest at the risk of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power, sometimes wavering back and forth on who to support (protesters or Mubarak), then championing credit for something he had nothing to do with (oh, wait…I bet he thinks that speech supplied the ‘hope and change’), as the MSM continue to distort the administration’s role, the comments on the streets, and the all-encompassing coverage as ‘peaceful’ and ‘democratic’.
Iran: to the common American, an obvious enemy and threat to other parts of Europe and Asia, particularly Israel; to the Obama administration, still holding out for ‘reasoning’ and ‘diplomacy’ apparently. Towards the beginning of Obama’s administration, the world watched as Iranians defied Ahmadinejad, striving for a more democratic form of government. Obama said little then, and now less than a year later, he damn near ignores the plight of the Iranian people, once again leaving them to the devices of that deranged regime. Mr. President, if you want to encourage revolution, this is definitely where the encouragement should be!
Similar comparisons can be made between Bahrain (ally) and Libya (enemy): The administration does seem to approach the Bahrain uprising more cautiously, as the country houses the U.S. Fifth Fleet, but still asks that the government show restraint during protests, expecting its ruling body to contain unrest and restore order. Yet with the Libyan protests, the administration remains somewhat subdued while Gadhafi’s forces kill hundreds. Something’s extremely wrong with your policy when those outside the administration, like Sarah Palin, can speak out for Libya’s freedom, but our President remains near mute, choosing to instead send Sec. Clinton out to the cameras for some civil verbiage. (As I’m writing this, he’s finally responded...Bravo, Barry.)
Apparently, it’s possible to get a pass from our administration as long as you’ve been a longtime enemy of America, but we’re going to show ‘boldness’ by inciting near riots on allied soil, requesting governmental restraint while encouraging ‘peaceful’ revolution, and risk that our allies join our enemies when fundamentalist entities manipulate their ‘reformed’ governmental bodies.
The fact is though, this isn’t surprising anymore. When you invite China’s leader, one of the biggest violators of human rights, to a White House steak dinner (note: the 2009 Nobel Prize winner hosts a dinner for the man who’s imprisoned the 2010 Nobel Prize winner), yet you snub Israel along with the ilk of the UN for daring to build housing for its own people on its own soil, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to realize that the rest of your foreign policy will be a debacle. Compound that with NO mention from Obama yesterday of the four Americans that were killed by Somali pirates, once again sending Hillary to the media hounds. Allen West isn’t afraid to confrontthis, and as ALWAYS, conservative clarity towards these terrorist continues to be a single steadfast solution: “crush them like the cockroaches that they are!”
To use a phrase from Obama, “Let me be clear,” the Obama administration is NOT ‘clear’ on any specific policy towards the unrest in the Muslim World, nor how to deal with Somali pirates, nor despots world over. To be fair, the previous few administrations had similar downfalls; however, not of these epic proportions of uncertainty, one after another with inconsistent treatment. The failure to instill a concise foreign policy is not only illustrative of the administration’s chaotic domestic policy (basically, ‘Democrat’ or ‘enemy’, support it; ‘Republican’ or ‘ally’, oppose it), but poses severe risk to our national security and the U.S. leadership role in the world. But as some might say, including myself, what would we expect from the leader of an administration intent on lowering America’s influence in the world?
If it’s not yet apparent to all Americans, let me spell it out: Our President and the Democrat Party have declared war on fiscal responsibility through their eternal devotion to their largest constituency: public sector unions!
Jonah Goldberg points out in his latest L.A. Times Op-Ed that “A crucial distinction has been lost in the debate over Walker's proposals: Government unions are not the same thing as private sector unions.” Precisely. As Goldberg explains, private sector unions were born out of an adversarial relationship between labor and management, unlike government unions, who had no such narrative. The government doesn’t exist for the benefit of a profit as a corporation does. Does it? No! And even before Kennedy lifted the ban on government unions, civil service regulations and similar laws had guaranteed satisfactory working conditions. “The argument for public unionization wasn't moral, economic or intellectual. It was rankly political.” Goldberg elaborates:
“Why would local government unions give so much in federal elections? Because government workers have an inherent interest in boosting the amount of federal tax dollars their local governments get. Put simply, people in the government business support the party of government. And this gets to the real insidiousness of government unions. Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they've acceded to many of their governor's specific demands — that workers contribute to their pensions and healthcare costs, for example. But they don't want to lose the right to collective bargaining. But that is exactly what they need to lose. Private sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with politicians over taxpayer money, putting the public interest at odds with union interests and, as we've seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government.”
Similarly, and going a step further, Mark Levin focused yesterday's monologue, and a good majority of the first hour, on the union at the helm of this current debate (the NEA) and its parallels to communist maneuvering.
Shane D'Aprile reports in The Hill that “Sen. Jim DeMint told supporters Tuesday the ongoing budget battle in Wisconsin offers a preview of what organized labor has in store for 2012.“ And he's absolutely right! "In a fundraising appeal to supporters of his Senate Conservatives Fund, DeMint said the union-led protest against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's budget proposal "demonstrates how dangerously beholden the Democrats have become to their out-of-control union bosses.""
The sentiment is shared in Mona Charen's NRO piece: “In Wisconsin and other states facing severe budget crises, we are witnessing the clash of special interests against the public interest.” She further exposes these teachers as 'rent seekers' and concludes that "the protests, with their attendant disdain for the school kids (so many teachers fraudulently called in sick that schools in Milwaukee, Madison, and Janesville had to close), serve as huge neon signs alerting the sleeping electorate to what has been happening to their tax dollars."
And now, it appears that cowardice has spread to the Indiana Democrat legislature, as they've fled under a deadline to consider a right-to-work law, as John Hayward writes in Human Events: "The name of the Democrat Party seems increasingly inappropriate, since they have very little interest in democracy when it thwarts the agenda of their most powerful constituents. Let the voters of every state learn this important lesson: the only way to ensure functional government is to burn the Democrat Party down, until so few of them remain that they are no longer necessary to establish a quorum. Then you’ll be able to conduct state business without worrying about their temper tantrums."
Despite Democrat’s insistence that this will reflect poorly on the GOP, Rasmussen finds that “a sizable number of voters are following new Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s showdown with unionized public employees in his state, and nearly half side with the governor.” Also, in a Fox News report, one economist reminds us that "there's a perception that was not present in 1995 that public employees are almost a privileged class."
The public unions may profess that their ‘democratic’ or ‘Egyptian-style’ campaign of protests concerns their collective bargaining 'privilege' (it's not a ‘right’), but a deeper look at the issue shows that the ‘bargain’ between union and government is yet again a collective rip-off of the private taxpayer.
ADDENDUM: From Herman Cain's facebook page: "Governor Scott Walker issued his first-ever "fireside chat," detailing his plans to save the state of Wisconsin and get their financial house in order."
Yesterday was President’s Day, and today we celebrate George Washington’s 279th birthday! What a long road this nation has travel since our first President, and, particularly in our present state, what lessons we can continue to learn from the enduring legacy of such a humble and faithful public servant.
The profound greatness of George Washington has been celebrated throughout the annals of history and multitudes of publications. His leadership is demonstrated throughout his life, from a young British colonial officer, rising to military prominence as Commander of the Continental Army, to urging the establishment of a government capable of securing the liberties won during the Revolution and onto presiding over America’s Constitutional Convention. His military and political careers were substantial prior to being selected as the first President of the United States. But upon the unanimous approval of his colleagues in 1789, Washington expressed a great reluctance to again enter public service when the nation called upon him to serve as chief executive under the newly adopted Constitution:
“... my movements to the chair of Government will be accompanied by feelings not unlike those of a culprit who is going to the place of his execution: so unwilling am I, in the evening of a life nearly consumed in public cares, to quit a peaceful abode for an Ocean of difficulties, without that competency of political skill, abilities and inclination which is necessary to manage the helm. I am sensible, that I am embarking the voice of my Countrymen and a good name of my own, on this voyage, but what returns will be made for them, Heaven alone can foretell. Integrity and firmness is all I can promise; these, be the voyage long or short, never shall forsake me although I may be deserted by all men. For of the consolations which are to be derived from these (under any circumstances) the world cannot deprive me.”
From 1789 – 1796, he held the highest office in the land. The office of president had in fact been designed with his virtues in mind. Humbled, yet steadfast, Washington was aware that virtually every action he took established precedence. And with this realization, he maintained a reverent tone for this office, remembering from the beginning, and at all times, the role of Providence:
“Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.”
Mindful of the importance of his decisions, he enlisted highly qualified men to form his cabinet and often called upon them for advice. And even in these times preceding political parties, two of Washington’s renowned cabinet members, Hamilton and Jefferson, were among the first of rival factions. Nevertheless, Washington sought to unify his colleagues for the sake of the nation. Although never officially joining the Federalist Party, he supported its programs to pay off all state and national debt, implement an effective tax system, create a national bank, and maintain good relations with Britain, preferring to remain neutral in the later wars of Europe. Washington guaranteed a decade of peace and profitable trade, with a vision of a great and powerful nation that would be built on republican lines using federal power. He sought to use the national government to improve and expand this new civil society, to found a capital city (later named Washington, D.C.), to promote knowledge and commerce, to reduce regional tensions and promote a spirit of American patriotism and unity. "The name of American," he said, must override any local attachments.
In September 1796, worn by burdens of the presidency, George Washington announced his decision not to seek a third term. Washington's “Farewell Address” was an influential primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against the forces of geographical sectionalism, political factionalism, and interference by foreign powers in the nation’s domestic affairs. This warning was principally concerning to him for the safety of the eight-year-old Constitution. He urged Americans to subordinate sectional jealousies to common national interests. Writing at a time before political parties had become accepted as vital extra-constitutional, opinion-focusing agencies, Washington feared that they carried the seeds of the nation’s destruction through petty factionalism. Although Washington was in no sense the father of American isolationism, since he recognized the necessity of temporary associations for “extraordinary emergencies,” he did counsel against the establishment of “permanent alliances with other countries,” connections that he warned would inevitably be subversive of America’s national interest. Washington’s concerns carry a timely message for all generations:
“The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts – of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.”
Emphasizing the maintenance of Constitutionality:
“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions, that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country, that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable; liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.”
Washington even elaborated with predictions all too familiar:
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
In all capacities, and as a private citizen between and after his several public offices, Washington, more than any American contemporary, was the necessary condition of the independence and enduring union of the American states. It was in mere honest recognition of this that time bestowed upon him the epithet, ‘Father of our Country’, and that in 1799, upon his death at the age of 67, the memorial address presented on behalf of the Congress of the United States named him "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen."
Here’s to our First and Greatest President: George Washington.
Sources: Library of Congress, National Archives and Records Administration, Wikipedia, U.S. Government Printing Office, PBS
Concurrently, Republican Senators should attach the part of Gov. Walker’s proposal dealing with collective bargaining to a non-spending bill that can be passed without a quorum! Pass the spending cuts when they decide to come home with their tails between their legs.
DONE!
P.S. Pull the funds from these Senators' state credit cards while they’re still hiding out and NOT WORKING. In the case that they're not using said funds towards their 'hide-out', start ethic investigations into where exactly the money IS coming from...ehem, the UNIONS!
As I’m sure all are aware of by now, no thanks to the lamestream media, AFP called on tea partiers to descend on Madison, WI today to give support to Gov. Walker’s plight for fiscal sanity. Even with the sparse coverage, one can still find some details beginning to trickle out (this time, no thanks to a particular search engine!):
Also, an I Stand With Walker website and associated Facebook page was started subsequent to the announcement of the rally.
I, among many, offer prayer for the safety of our brothers and sisters over this weekend who bravely confront the massive force of the public unions squatting at Madison’s capitol building.
Gateway Pundit reported yesterday that Andrew Breitbart, Herman Cain and its own Jim Hoft were among the speakers. Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher was also reported to be speaking. I still have yet to find any speeches posted online, but here’s proof that Andrew Breitbart was indeed there:
Hopefully, there will be speeches to come that I can post as Updates.
Also, here’s a really great radio interview with Herman Cain yesterday discussing the WI protests and counter-rally:
Like I said, updates to come later...in the meantime, stay aware and keep supporting Gov. Walker through email, phone, fax, facebook, twitter, whatever comes to mind!
UPDATE: Breitbart's speech has finally shown up...
And here's another piece that NRO's Katrina Trinko has posted to illustrate the courageousness of Gov. Scott Walker...this should make us all feel a little more confident! “He didn’t flinch,” Mr. Walker said of Reagan. “Obviously, I take a lot of inspiration from that.” Right on, right on...
UPDATE: Herman Cain's speech has shown up as well!
Be sure to check out the latest WSJ 'Question of the Day'. The majority of Americans say NO! (mini-update: On the 'day' the poll was taken, 60% of respondents said 'NO'...however, since WSJ has left this open beyond the actual 'day', union sympathizers have caught on to the poll and driven its numbers in their favor...in other words, it's no longer a valid poll.)
And I'll let the governor have the last word, as I'm slowly drifting from the topic of the rally back into the larger debate...here's his appearance with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
Before laughing at the notion of modern socialists’ concerns about religion in our secular age, or making the argument that the new ‘state religion’ could be equated to ‘environmentalism’, let’s get to the point of this passage. As a free people, just because we believe that the government should NOT run every institution of our life, does not mean we object to those institutions’ existence. Yet this is the false accusation that we constantly here cast towards conservatives, particularly in the area of education, which we can plainly see Bastiat’s age struggling with as well.
Now in thoroughly explaining that, I refer you to the following: “Unionized teachers outnumber other government workers and run the schools in every state; why do we keep on accepting their decades of miserable results?” “It's the Teachers, Stupid!” by Jack Curtis http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/its_the_teachers_stupid.html
“Adam Smith prophesied when he wrote The Wealth of Nations, saying of professors in 1776:
If the authority to which he is subject resides in the body corporate, the college, or university, of which he himself is a member, and in which the greater part of the other members are, like himself, persons who either are, or ought to be, teachers; they are likely to make a common cause, to be all very indulgent to one another, and every man to consent that his neighbor may neglect his duty, provided he himself is allowed to neglect his own.
Professor Smith didn't have to see teachers' unions to comprehend featherbedding.”
“Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of pubic employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”
If we’re honest about this, we should be able to admit that from top down, Obama, union leaders, teachers, all are substantially wrong and out of line to respond in such a manner against a governor’s intent to legitimately control his state’s budget through all sectors, including public. And to leave schools closed and children out indefinitely in the pursuit of some grand progressive movement that wants the government to pay for entire pensions instead of the individuals contributing themselves, is it really no wonder that “teacher” in and of itself becomes a confusing term?
Following suit with Judge Vinson’s ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional, Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell is the first to announce that being bound by his oath of office and the federal judge’s decision; he will not implement it. Alaska Rejects 'Obamacare'
I hope other governors have the courage and conviction to refuse implementation of this overreaching and unconstitutional plunder.
And it appears that the governors of Florida and Wisconsin have already made similar statements following Judge Vinson’s ruling. Gov. Parnell’s public announcement appears to be what has triggered the administration’s need to ask the judge for ‘clarification’. “Alaska Governor follows his oath of office -- Will not implement unconstitutional law” by Joseph Smith http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/alaska_governor_follows_his_oa.html “What is clear is that Obama and the Democrats have staked this Presidency and their party to the ObamaCare regime, and they will brook no opposition.” Fortunately for us, we have many fearless newly elected governors who will not comply with lawlessness and are ready to battle for Liberty!
Congressional assistance never hurts either...who just voted to pull the plug on funding Obamacare…AND MORE! “In rapid-fire action Friday, the Republican-controlled House voted to strip federal money from President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul and from Planned Parenthood and to bar the EPA from issuing global warming regulations.” “HOUSE PASSES AMENDMENT TO DEFUND OBAMACARE” by Jonathon M. Seidl http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-gop-passes-amendment-to-defund-obamacare/
We knew Obama would get involved in this, but we could see his and the Dems fingerprints all over it from the beginning. So just like the aggressive moves of the DOJ against Arizona and the EPA against Texas, Obama sics the DNC on Wisconsin. “Obama’s Assault on Wisconsin” by Keith Koffler http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/02/18/obamas-assault-wisconsin/
These public sector employees are getting better pay, better pensions than the private citizens employing them! Gov. Walker is looking at one of two scenarios: layoff several thousand public employees (mostly teachers) to make up for the budget shortfall, or make smaller pinches across the board that allow everyone to keep their jobs, while reducing the debt of the state. He chose to wisely pursue the latter, knowing that in any case he’d have to take on monopolized unionism. Keep in mind that this ‘pinch’ asks of the public sector employees to pay about half of what their private sector counterparts are paying for benefits. Governor Walker Introduces Budget Repair (02-11-11) http://www.transition.wi.gov/journal_media_detail.asp?locid=177&prid=5622
And with Obama getting involved, his double standard towards unions persists. He constantly insists that to get out of this debt crisis everyone must share in the pain, “Everybody’s got to give.” But when it comes to public sector unions, not so much? In Obama’s mind, they should be exempted from feeling the pain. Why? Well, it probably has something to do with the fact that they’re a major constituency group, dependent on gov’t subsidies; therefore, he can’t afford for them to be affected and ticked off. Apparently, when it comes to ‘everybody giving’, we can’t rely on the public sector, like we ALWAYS have on the private.
Michelle Malkin’s latest column begins with “Welcome to the reckoning.” This lady is doing a FANTASTIC job in exposing the high stakes that not only Wisconsin’s facing, but that we’re ALL facing in this debt struggle, climbing out of it, and defeating the monopolized forces that stand in the way of an honest and REAL recovery. Apocalypse Now: Wisconsin vs. Big Labor; Plus: More out-of-state union recruiting & another teacher speaks up for Walker; police order for AWOL Dems; America agrees: End public union monopoly http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/18/apocalypse-now-wisconsin-vs-big-labor/
These people making ridiculous statements in the streets are teaching students? God help us. The children are being used as pawns, and the NEA, SEIU, Democrat Party, special interests don’t give a damn about ‘the children’.
While Sen. Sessions was questioning Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner today in a Budget Committee hearing, Geithner admits that Obama’s budget is “unsustainable”! The president’s OWN GUY admits this WILL NOT WORK!
And Geithner’s rebuttal: “What’s the alternative plan?” Oh, let’s see…how about NOT SPENDING WHAT WE CANNOT AFFORD!! Unbelievable. I guess this is as good as we get with a tax cheat sitting as our current Treasury Secretary. Rubber stamp Obama’s plan and send it on to Congress, no questions asked…
Perhaps "deeper" into the meaning of this confession is what else Geithner says: "We'll be able to see from the House, we'll be able to see from this body, whether you people can find the political will here to go deeper..." Sounds like he just tipped us off to what the next inevitable step will be, as we know Obama won't sign off on the amount of cuts Republicans are going after: a SHUT DOWN.
So the new ‘Obama Doctrine’ for the Middle East appears to promote revolutions for our allies overseas, while discouraging needed revolts for the hostile governments of our enemies. Let’s take a look at how that’s working out, shall we…
‘Peace’ in Tunisia?
‘Civility’ in Egypt?
Also to note, it was reported that the thugs were shouting “Jew! Jew!” during the time of the assault. Jewish-hating rapists: NOT CIVIL!
BTW, I never heard Obama pushing for the Coptic Christians to have a place in the new government that he’s taking credit for helping usher in. How’s that for Democracy? What else…
“Protest actions in Tunisia that spread over to Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, and now to Iran were not spontaneous at all; neither were they conditioned by the aspiration of the Arab world for democracy.” Due to instability, new Middle East will be fraught with more threats than former one http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/world/detail/61537/Due_to_instability_new_Middle_East_will_be_fraught_with_more_threats_than_former_one “For long no one has been fascinated with the words “freedom”, “democracy” and “progress”. On the contrary, they are becoming an excuse for people who are reluctant to work and change their lives, and are waiting for “manna from heaven”."
So, where does all this leave Israel? Well, apparently, as illustrated in the administration’s latest move, sold down the river! “Obama’s anti-Israel agenda” by Jeffrey T. Kuhner http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/17/obamas-anti-israel-agenda/ “President Obama is siding with Israel‘s enemies. He is slowly fracturing America’s long-standing alliance with the Jewish state and leaving it isolated on the world stage.”
Basically, Obama is taking his community organizing domestic agenda of agitation and dismantlement ABROAD!
In an effort to close Wisconsin’s $3.6 billion budget gap and prevent up to 6,000 layoffs for state employees, one solution that newly elected Gov. Scott Walker apparently had the ‘audacity’ to introduce was a bill that would effectively limit union workers’ collective salary bargaining rights. “Controversial budget bill passes committee, moves to Senate” by Mary Spicuzza http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_4e64e866-39d3-11e0-879e-001cc4c002e0.html
For introducing such a bill, here’s what Walker gets from the government-dependent union wing of the Democrat Party (with a nice comparison of the head hypocrites call for ‘civility’):
Then we’ve got high school students who admit teachers brought them to the protests but have no idea why they’re there!
And the Democrat Senators who are supposed to vote on the bill...they got on a bus and left the state! “Budget Battle: GOP Senator Says Dems Have Left State” by Jay Sorgi and the Associated Press http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/116390569.html
