They wanted a "clean" debt ceiling vote; they got it!

For the last several weeks, we've heard Obama and Democrats drone on and on about a "clean" debt-limit bill.  Well, ya wanted it, ya got it!  On Tuesday evening, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), sponsored a bill to unconditionally raise the debt ceiling, with the vote scheduled to commence after the close of American markets.  So how did it go?  As The Hill reports: 

The House overwhelmingly voted down an unconditional increase to the $14.3 trillion debt limit Tuesday, as the Republican majority delivered a symbolic rebuke to President Obama ahead of a meeting at the White House. The vote was 318-97, with 82 Democrats joining every Republican in rejecting legislation that would have authorized $2.4 trillion in additional borrowing by the federal government.

The bill put House Democrats in an awkward position after 114 members of the caucus signed a letter by Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) calling on Republicans to bring a “clean” debt-limit measure to the floor. Many of those Democrats reversed themselves when it became clear that Republicans were granting their request only to see the legislation fail. 

Of course it failed, partially because Republicans have the majority in the House, but wholly because it's a ridiculous notion to unconditionally raise the debt ceiling, period.  Although this is a good start, the real test will come months from now when we're down to the 11th hour.  Then we'll see who's willing to stand on Principle, supported by the majority of Americans in poll after poll, and who will waver with some contrived deal resembling that charade of a 2011 budget that the GOP leadership folded on last month. 

“This vote, a vote based on legislation I have introduced, will and must fail,” Camp said in a floor speech. “Now, most members aren’t happy when they bring a bill to the floor and it fails, but I consider defeating an unconditional increase to be a success, because it sends a clear and critical message that the Congress has finally recognized we must immediately begin to rein in America’s affection for deficit spending.” 

It's definitely about time, but uhh...I'd say it has more to do with 'Congressional affection' as opposed to 'America's affection'.  Just saying...

Inspirational?

Nope, can't say Obama's long-awaited visit to tornado-ravaged Joplin, MO was inspirational.  It was anything but, as Gateway Pundit succinctly informs:

Obama posed for pictures then boarded an aircraft for Joplin.

While in Joplin he will take a 10 minute tour of the town in his car.
He will speak with the tornado victims for 10 minutes.
He will then give a 10 minute speech at Missouri Southern University.
Then he’ll get the hell out of there… After he pauses for more pictures.

Hmmm, what was the rush?  Well, perhaps he needed a good nights sleep for Memorial Day's festivities?  The Lonely Conservative reports, "After spending a few hours Monday morning observing Memorial Day, President Obama, the Commander in Chief, decided to hit the links and spend the rest of the day on the golf course."  The site also focuses on Nile Gardiner's UK Telegraph article, "Barack Obama's decision to play golf on Memorial Day was disrespectful and hardly presidential." 

This man spent more time playing golf than he spent with veterans and servicemembers' families on Memorial Day or touring the devastated remnants of Joplin, MO (of course, a week after the completion of his European tour).

This is beyond a disconnect or even bad judgment...this is inexcusable.  Yet, the liberal media hasn't batted an eye.  Another pass for Obama.  I know in their eyes and his, Americans aren't as exciting as the British monarchy or the social utopias of Europe, but Americans of all stripes should take the multitude of repugnant actions and reactions similar to these under consideration when entering the voting booths in 2012, don't you think?

ADDENDUM:  As one might imagine, Levin had a few things to say about Obama's inexcusable behavior on Tuesday's show...

You can't spin me right round, baby

Came across an interesting AP article entitled, "GOP presidential contenders drift to the right":

"In the first presidential election since the tea party's emergence, Republican candidates are drifting rightward on a range of issues..."

Good!  But wait, the AP's not finished with that sentence...

"...even though more centrist stands might play well in the 2012 general election."

Says who?  The Associated Progressive?  Or in this case, as Levin refers to them, "the Associated Depressed"?  This liberal news outlet has become a well known source of Democratic sentiment, so it comes to no surprise that this entity would portray conservatism as 'extreme', and attempt to play on Republican fears, particularly those of the establishment, with quotes like this:

"But the eventual nominee will face President Barack Obama in the 2012 general election, when independent voters appear likely to be decisive players once again."

We're shaking in our boots, boys.  Independent voters will play the same role as they always do: their decision is based on whoever's vision appeals to them the most.  The establishment position that McCain was ready to advance didn't suit them in '08, so they went with Obama's illusion.  And now he's shown EVERYONE, independents included, that his vision sold to Americans prior to his election is far from his actual statist conscience.  Adding to the disenchantment of independents is his sorry economic policies that have ravaged the citizenry with higher fuel and food prices, as well as a declining housing market, not to mention his antagonistic foreign policy.  All the eventual Republican nominee needs to show independents is decisiveness that benefits the People, but with conservative principles this time, instead of liberal ideology, or an establishment mindset for that matter.

Nonetheless, the AP, and the Pew Research Center, and a host of other old media outlets that I'm not even addressing here, continue to propagate the notion that conservatism, not liberalism, is the radical position with coercive language that's unequally applied to the Left, "Those independents may be far less enamored of hard-right positions than are the GOP activists who will wield power..." or "Many of them "take extremely conservative positions on nearly all issues," Pew reports."  What's 'hard' or 'extreme'?  The only thing extremely hard is the maintenance of Principle that exceeds far too many politicians' abilities...and the same can be said of the media!

As one progresses through this article, it becomes apparent who this discussion is addressed to: the crème de la crème of establishment hopefuls (Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Gengrich) as they make perceived right turns on their previous positions and inconsistencies.  Then of course, they can't go without dirisively dragging Paul Ryan's plan into the mix:

"The Republican Party's rightward drift is causing headaches for the presidential hopefuls on the issue of Medicare, a potential minefield in the general election. House Republicans passed a bill that eventually would convert Medicare to a less costly, less generous program. It would help older Americans buy health insurance, but it no longer would provide benefits based mainly on a patient's needs rather than costs."

Anyone catch that "to each according to his need" Marxist expectation of the welfare mentality in that last sentence? The AP considers the Ryan plan for Medicare less generous in overlooking a patient's needs rather than costs, but doesn't consider the current monopolized system that increases cost, which is hidden from a patient because someone else pays for it, and decreases quality through disincentivizing physicians to deliver the best care at the lowest price.  The Ryan plan is a refreshing improvement on both the current system and Obama's plan of more bureaucratic obscurity, and this is a sentiment shared by a couple of Republicans that is buried in this article...

"If anything, "mainstream Republican leaders are pushing the party too far to the left," said Sid Dinerstein, GOP chairman in Palm Beach County, Fla. The House plan for Medicare is the only one that makes sense, he said, and GOP candidates "should become articulate and knowledgeable in talking about it." Louisiana's Republican chairman, Roger F. Villere Jr., agrees. "The conservative issues are the correct issues," he said. The presidential candidates should embrace the House stand, he said, and persuade voters they care more about saving Medicare than the Democrats do."

The AP takes it upon themselves to speak for independents' concerns when they are far from an assumed middle; and in doing so, they also advance the limitations that the mainstream media would impose on our choices as viable Republican candidates.  No matter how they want to spin these establishment candidates right round, it just doesn't work on those atune to Principle.  And what the AP won't tell you is that for all the reservations they think independents have towards conservatives, there's a reason why independents are not simply liberals.

Hunting a dying breed: the not-so-great American RINO

The all too familiar RINO…their rarity has yet to become a common distinction, but in the current political climate, they’ve shown themselves to be a dying breed, and the potential is out there to actually put a few more on the endangered list.

With the vote forced on Ryan’s Plan in the current makeup of the Senate, there was only one outcome to be expected at this moment in time. But whether a legislative long shot or within reach, there always seems to be a renegade pack of RINOs that all too often turn against their own – even in those instances where the leadership actually drives the herd towards the lush prairies of Principle – to instead stampede towards the Democrat watering hole.

Some would of course blame the hunters (a.k.a. ‘tea party’) for running off the establishment trophies, and leaving the field to be rooted by the wild swine and other vermin, but this is a false assumption. For in many instances where it may have been possible to have a more bountiful field, those same muddled RINOs would have assuredly enabled, sometimes feverishly joining, their noxious associates, as we just witnessed with the Ryan budget vote.

Weasel Zippers was hot on the trail of the predictable lemmings with hilarious commentary to boot! First down that worn trail was one of the Maine twins, Susan Collins, soon followed by Massachusetts’ long-lost Kennedy, Scott Brown, and the other twin, Olympia Snowe. Then bringing up the rear, the icy Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, to which Weasel Zippers responded with an affirmative, “The herd is now complete.”

Now, the opportunities were missed or underestimated or a combination of both towards unseating Collins and Murkowski; however, another chance arises to right the wrongs of Brown and Snowe. We can assuredly depend on the establishment to play the numbers game, rule out any chance of conservative opponents in the primaries, and only consider Party over Principle when supporting these two; but with liberal Republicans like these, truly Party unity suffers as much as Principle! So let’s take a stroll down memory lane to perhaps draw something from the historical lineage of these two seats.

Massachusetts, home to the Adams family, John Hancock and several other Founders, and although home to the first colony, was the sixth to reach statehood of the original 13 colonies. Within its structure of government, we’ve seen a laundry list of parties seated in its Class 1 Senate position from Federalists starting in the late 1700’s through the turn of the 19th century (including George Cabot and John Quincy Adams), Whigs toward the mid-1800’s (notably Daniel Webster), Republicans from mid-1800’s through the turn of the 20th century (including Charles Sumner and Henry Cabot Lodge), then almost exclusively Democrats from the early 1900’s through the turn of the 21st century (including the Kennedy boys, 47 years for Teddy!). In 2010, the opportunity was ripe as the winds of change, or rather what was perceived as responsibility, blew through Massachusetts, and the stage was set for a very popular Republican, who lured tea party support along with the rest of Republicans, to become the first elected since the 1940’s. Scott Brown became Massachusetts’ 27th U.S. Senator to hold the Class 1 position, but has unfortunately, and rather rapidly, proven to be quite the Republican In Name Only.

Maine, originally a district of Massachusetts until reaching statehood in 1820, has also seen its mash-up of parties throughout its Class 1 Senate seat’s history, but actually with far more Republicans in its past 150 years than the few scattered Democrats. Hannibal Hamlin, a Democrat-turned-Republican, became the first Vice President from the Republican Party (under Lincoln). He soon turned Radical Republican, and after being replaced on Lincoln’s second bid for the more Southern-sympathetic choice of Andrew Johnson, finally returned to represent Maine as a Republican Senator for two more terms until his retirement. Hamlin handsomely ushered in a half-century of sustained national influence for the Maine Republican Party, to which Senator Owen Brewster was one of the final beneficiaries. Brewster was solidly conservative and a close confidant of Joseph McCarthy, which also in part led to his political demise as the communist routing became unpopular (too bad, b/c McCarthy’s been vindicated with regard to communism’s influence in America!). In any account, this strong Republican reign was followed by a bought-and-paid-for Republican (thanks Howard Hughes), who was defeated and seceded by a couple of liberal Democrats, eventually leading to the election of one liberal Republican, Olympia Snowe.

Add the contemporary political climates of both states, and we are presented with two distinct stories.

First with Brown, Massachusetts has seen its fair share of Republicans and Democrats; it just so happens that the latter has been where its current compass lies. Taking that under consideration, as well as the duped tea party support, it’s better understood why a faux-Republican was able to seize victory in a state that’s supported the progressive Democrat agenda for the last half-century or more. So for now, residents of Massachusetts like their Democrats progressive and their Republicans watered down, as polls are showing Scott Brown is in strong shape to win re-election with no real opponents on either side to challenge him. Nevertheless, those Founding Fathers of Adams and Hancock must be looking down on this cradle of once-independent land and weeping for an awakening of its countrymen to once again know the true meaning of self-reliant, principled liberty. It will take short of a miracle, or a conservative that can appeal to independents as Reagan did, to unseat this RINO; but all things are possible, and Massachusetts patriots must remain vigilant in their struggle for conservative reform.

As for Snowe, a more profound opportunity may present itself. Not only has history shown a strong showing for Republicans in this position, but voters are thirsting for a principled choice, and the right conservative could even appeal to a section of our union that has been written off by the establishment. In March, polls showed that only 1 in 3 Maine Republicans would re-elect Snowe in 2012, and this time around she has multiple challengers. Now, those challengers still have significant hurdles to exceed before thinking of toppling this powerful RINO; but at least one Republican challenger, Scott D’Amboise, is illustrating his seriousness with the hiring of two consulting firms that brought conservative victories to several of the 2010 mid-term elections, so there is a glimmer of hope on this front. Again, those who’d stand for principle and liberty over the moderate enablers of tyranny need not let their guard down, for this will indeed be a battle.

The simple fact that Republicans currently hold these seats is a testament to something amidst, but it is up to a vigilant constituency and the competing candidates to get the honest information out before the primaries, and not allow the Leftism, or the entrenched establishment and RINOs themselves, to demagogue, mislead, and intoxicate the voters. The extinction of two not-so-great American RINOs, as well as a host of leftist vermin, is within the realm of possibilities come this next election, if and only if the People get their minds set towards a goal of saving and restoring this great Republic.

Reinforce fact to extinguish fiction

But, but, but...but Jonathan, listen to what Congressman Ryan is telling you!



"What we're proposing for 54-and-below-year-olds is Medicare goes out and creates options of coverage for seniors to pick from.  Medicare doesn't negotiate with the insurance companies.  People select from a list of plans EXACTLY like we do as members of Congress and federal employees, exactly like the current Medicare Advantage plan works today, or Medicare prescription drugs, or Medigap insurance works today.  And then Medicare subsidizes the senior's plan; more for the poor and the sick, less for the wealthy."

Yes, it takes more time to say than the Democrat line "Republicans wanna kill seniors"; but at some point -- albeit in the not-so-distant future, as the Senate voted down Ryan's budget proposal yesterday, faring better than Obama's however -- we must discuss this, among a variety of issues, in a  knowledgeable and rational fashion, not in fragments but coherent sentences, and fess up to a system that is imploding!

The media backs the Democrat do-nothing conclusion, which leads to no solutions.  I'll say it again: it is time for elected Republicans to do what they were sent to Washington for, as well as GOP presidential contenders to back up their conservative credentials, by getting the facts out, not allow Mediscaring and demagoguery to rule the day, and get behind Ryan's Plan as solidly as the Party was just a few short weeks ago.

Ryan brings up another issue in this piece concerning Democrats who might want to do something but are unwilling to face "party retribution from their own leaders."  Although not currently elected, here's Bill Clinton supplying a perfect example of this: a glimpse of bipartisanship when he thinks he's off camera...



...but back to partisan divides for the lights, camera, action!



Republicans must cut through the demagoguery to get the message of Ryan's Plan to the People, and they can do that if they ALL unite to extinguish the spin by reinforcing the facts.  Let's revue...here's what you need to know (and it's under 5 minutes, if you can focus your attention on something longer than the mainstream media believes you're capable of!)...

Mediscare in New York

Sounds like a monster-flick (kinda) that took place in NY-26! Where? What happened there? Exactly. However, the liberal media wants you to think that this singular special election in New York spells the end for the GOP or somehow trumps the historic landslide of November 2010 (that the biased media was conveniently near silent on), because it is a seat captured by its numerous Republican predecessors. The Democrat win was accomplished through a number of tactics; and if one travels over to William Jacobson’s Legal Insurrection site, he accurately describes the lessons we should learn from the mistakes made. But aside from such ploys as a fake tea party candidate who siphoned off Republican votes (which actually had a more significant effect than the media and Dems would have you believe), another notable tactic is one that we’re sure to see a lot more of: Mediscare (a.k.a. “scaring the hell out of seniors”), particularly as the liberal media has seized on this. Right down the line, the Democrat talking point on how this is a referendum on Paul Ryan’s Medicare Plan is passed from one pundit to another, cascading across the liberal media, supporting the Democrat lie about Medicare and Ryan’s plan. But instead of sitting back and allowing the lies to simply promulgate, Ryan made a series of rounds this morning responding to these distortions, from MSLSD…



As an aside, I know the argument of the inability to produce quick, concise explanations is always said to be the downfall of conservative ideals, and I understand that to a degree with individual’s attention span…BUT, Ryan is one of the few who is successfully capable of executing this perplexing task, which is displayed in this case, only taking a couple of minutes to explain this. America, are we that ADHD that we cannot pay attention for more than a few minutes, even as our nation crumbles from the immense weight of debt?! But I digress…to FOX…


Rethink that last question, Rep. Ryan…at least a V.P. position! But moving on…

So, despite the facts that Ryan articulates, we have one election up North, and apparently that’s enough of an excuse for the leading crop of RINOs to throw Ryan’s Plan under the bus. From Politico (the liberal publication that RINOs just love to talk to), “a handful of Senate Republicans, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine, have said this week that they won’t vote for the Ryan plan when it hits the Senate floor.” Before turning their backs on Ryan, these weak-minded Senators need to take into account the reasonable perspective that a Washington Examiner piece puts nicely into context:

"You can stop reading political news for the next 18 months, the Democrats have already guaranteed their White House victory and House takeover. At least that is what the liberal media wants you to believe. The top Politico headline reads: “Democrats crack 2012 code” and goes on to report: “Democrats now appear to have found a political weapon that’s capable of evening out the fight: Medicare.” As if Democrats just started attacking Republicans over Medicare yesterday. The reality is a bit different…

As AEI’s Henry Olsen notes at The Corner, GOP candidate Jane Corwin underperformed among blue-collar voters. But instead of abandoning House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan, Olsen says this means they need to go on offense: “Eric Cantor’s recent statements that Ryan’s plan is the only way to protect Medicare is a step in the right direction, Republicans need to fight the war over the future of Medicare fiercely and intelligently. Perhaps tonight’s debacle will be the wake-up call they sorely need.”

This is dead on. The Democrats do-nothing Medicare plan cuts doctor payments by 30% in 2012 and would cause 25% of all hospitals to go bankrupt by 2030. The Ryan plan actually pays doctors for the health care they provide. If blue-collar voters know these facts in 2012, Republicans will do just fine."

But of course we see far too many times that these tactics, like Mediscare, work with either citizens who never get the necessary information, which the above article nudges Republicans to correct, or the weak of mind in elected office…and speaking of…

Now Harry Reid views this singular win, backed by the media propaganda, as an opportunity to force a vote through the Senate on Ryan’s budget proposal. From ABC: “Democrats believe the political fallout from Rep. Paul Ryan’s controversial budget proposal was evident in their victory in last night’s special election in New York – and on Thursday they hope a Senate vote on Ryan’s plan will cause even more problems for Republicans up for re-election next year.”

This morning, while Rush encouraged the wishy washy GOP to “get a grip” on the Democrat’s fraud win, he also urged more Republicans in Congress, as well as the 2012 Republican candidates, to pay attention at how the media and Democrats are reacting, to not fall for the scare tactics, and to step up by courageously supporting Ryan’s Plan, instead of backing away, if they desire a real national recovery based on conservative principles.

“We can't do it alone on talk radio, nor can he do it alone -- and he can't pull it off at town hall meetings alone. He's not gonna reach enough people. It is true that when he speaks to seasoned citizens groups, once they hear what the truth is they're for it. Because it doesn't affect 'em! There's not one seasoned citizen that's affected by the Ryan plan. The Democrats are lying about this from sunup to sundown, and then some. Not one Medicare recipient will be affected by the Ryan plan. It's all down the road. Nothing unfair about it at all. If the party doesn't have the guts to stand up and stop this demagoguery now...

If any Republican running for office in 2012 cannot articulate, defend, explain, conservative principles, they're gonna lose. November 2010 was unique. That was an anti-Democrat, anti-Obama vote. And it could be on the national presidential level, could be the same thing in 2012, depending on the economy. But you start getting in these local congressional races and so forth, and it's gonna matter who you are, what you stand for, and you better not be bashful, and you'd better not be afraid of being conservative, and you'd better not be afraid of saying so, and you better be able to say so. Conservatism didn't get beat here.

If you are a Republican running for office in 2012 and you are a conservative, be proud of it. Don't be bashful. Be able to defend conservatism. Be able to articulate it. Do it with energy, affection, excitement. It will carry you. Really no mystery here. But you can't get elected sitting around taking no chances, figuring everybody's gonna vote against the Democrats again.”

Also, we shouldn't leave it up to the few reliable journalists, like Neil Cavuto, to explain away the ridiculousness of crap like this:

Obscured targets in the 'zebra' field

Ran across an interesting American Spectator article by J.T. Young entitled, "The Republicans' 'Zebra' Field" that may give us a glimpse into a possible dare I say 'strategy' (however accidental it may be):

"Focus on Republicans' lack of a 2012 presidential frontrunner overlooks the situation's real advantages. Prevailing opinion is that the absence of a frontrunner indicates a weak candidate field, which will prevent Republicans from making November after next the contest of sharp contrasts they could win. However, current trends and historical precedent forcefully argue both assumptions may be wrong. Republicans may be about to follow the Democrats' pattern that has worked for their last three successful presidential candidates."

Young elaborates on how past incumbents usually have an opportunity to redefine their presidency and alter their record by quickly going on the attack and in turn defining an opponent; but this opportunity is an impossibility "with no leading opponent to attack."  Young continues, "This not only protects the field now, it also increases the chance the nominee will be stronger. The herd of Republican candidates does not just obscure its members. It also encourages more to enter"  His point is well-taken when considering the "wide-open field is atypical for Republican presidential primaries."

The last three successful Democrat presidents (Carter, Clinton and Obama), all made use of this incumbent challenging strategy, largely "unknown and undefined -- in clear contrast to the incumbents they beat."

Young's take is an interesting one to consider indeed, particularly at a time when GOP contenders are still entering the arena.  This issue has the possibility of being even more compounded for Democrats if other unannounced or previously thought 'not running' Republican candidates step into the race.

"Democrats may find they have stepped into what has historically been the Republicans' problem -- facing a field of "zebras." In a herd, zebras' stripes blend the group together, obscuring the individual and confusing the attacker. In their contest, zebras don't have to kill their predator, just outrun it. So too, in a presidential contest. What is starting off as a contrast of grays, may still be black and white at the end: when it really counts."

In all probability, if the Obama campaign can't target one single individual, it'll target ALL contenders, particularly with the liberal media in tow.  But hey, that's fine as long as it helps deplete that billion dollar war chest that Obama is amassing to buy his way back into the White House!

Who’s Jon Huntsman?

Well, he’s only the former Ambassador to China under Obama, who wants to run as a Republican candidate for president, silly.

Chet Arthur’s American Thinker article helps us to understand exactly who this wordsmith is: “The United States has a generational opportunity to reset our position in the world based on affordability.” Reset…reset…where have I heard that before? Oh yeah… 

“Recall, Hillary Clinton famously presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with the red, plastic "reset" button. It meant that we would let the Russians take a Mulligan on their brutal aggression against Georgia in 2008. We wouldn't mention anything about those Russian journalists who keep turning up, mysteriously dead. We wouldn't get pushy about Russian pressure against Ukraine.

Let's just reset. The only problem with resetting with the Russians was that Hillary got the spelling of the Russian word for reset wrong. Her State Department cookie pushers translated the word in Russian as "overcharge." Well, we are still paying the Russians to dismantle their nuclear arsenals (the effect of which is to allow them to modernize their rusting missile silos and send us the bill. So, overcharge is exactly what they are doing to us…” 

After further questions regarding his use of the word, as well as what we’re sure to hear from the establishment media concerning his inflated skills as a diplomat and fluency in Mandarin Chinese, Mr. Arthur ends this piece with the most important questions of all:

“In short, what did we Americans gain from his having been President Obama's choice to represent us in China? It seems that when Obama was riding high, Jon Huntsman was riding behind him in the saddle. When the ride got rougher, Huntsman jumped off and claimed he was only going along to serve his country. If only Charlie Crist could speak Mandarin. Wouldn't he be the perfect replacement for Jon Huntsman in Beijing?”

Sound like a ‘serious’ candidate to you, now that you know more about “Who?”

ADDENDUM:  Besides working under Obama and cozying up to China, it's a stretch to even consider the guy a conservative when he extols the virtues of Cap & Trade...



...which he now seems to be backing away from as he eyes a Republican presidential candidacy.  And this is only one of several liberal-leaning approaches he'd take towards leadership.  Check out this GREAT ad produced by Verum Serum on Huntsman's views towards climate change, a healthcare 'right', and the stimulus, among his bold ideas...



yeahhh...NO!

Paul, Johnson, and their friend, Amnesty

For my libertarian friends, we find much agreement on economic matters, while disagreeing on many social issues and foreign affairs; and though that might be simplifying it a bit, there lies much of the differences between the two political philosophies. Nonetheless, we have a couple of libertarians who wish to be elected president through the Republican primary process. Ok, something you’d never see in the Democrat primaries, but fine, let’s just go with that for a moment. A particular report has come to my attention concerning Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, and what appears to be their new friend, Amnesty (well, maybe not so ‘new’ for Johnson).

Kevin Williamson reports in a National Review piece that “a strange thing is afoot in the little libertarian corner of the Republican presidential primary: a race to the left on immigration,” specifically of the illegal persuasion.

Williamson points out that until recently, Ron Paul has been “something of an immigration hawk — no amnesty, no birthright citizenship, no welfare benefits,” pseudo-citizenship without the benefits; but today, “he is calling for amnesty in the form of “green cards with an asterisk,” something just as weak as the very “comprehensive immigration reform” that he criticized Bush for.

Williamson further illustrates Paul’s softening of principle from then:

“We cannot continue to ignore the cultural aspects of immigration,” he wrote. “We rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally.…Today, however, some immigrants travel between countries frequently, enjoying the benefits of America but showing no desire to become Americans. Some even display hostility toward America and our ideals, joining the chorus of voices demanding that the United States become a multicultural society that rejects our own history. It is this cultural conflict that soon must be addressed, and the president’s amnesty proposal simply turns a blind eye to the problem.” But now, “In his new book, Liberty Defined, Paul instead praises the “superior” work ethic of immigrants and cites anti-Hispanic prejudice as the source of immigration hawks’ energy…” Didn’t we just get finished describing his former hawkish stance?

Confused? Well, you’ll be even more so from the likes of Gary Johnson. The former New Mexico governor (what’s up with these squishy border guys?!) is described as “more of a libertarian purist” when it comes to his socially liberal outlook, unlike Ron Paul. Also unlike Paul, Johnson lumps legal and illegal immigration in the same lot, like almost all in the Democrat Party and liberal media, and views them in pure calculations: “I’m completely pragmatic, and it’s a matter of commonsense cost-benefit analysis. What are we spending, and what are we getting? Immigration is a really good thing, the basis on which this country was founded. Yes, there are welfare services being provided that I don’t think should be provided, but these are issues that are relatively easily dealt with — rather than building a fence across 2,000 miles of border, or having the National Guard standing arm-in-arm across 2,000 miles of border.” Illusive, huh, with the ‘country founded on immigration’ reference, when he knows good and well that the Founders had no toleration of this literal ‘run of the border’. And did you notice that classic liberal jab in there at the end with the mere mention of a fence or troops to help secure the border as some kind of preposterous right-wing notion?

Besides both men being vocal critics of the military, questioning whether we should have even fought the Civil War, or talking about disbanding the CIA, their softening towards amnesty digs them deeper in the hole on the Republican ticket.

Kevin Williamson poetically ends this piece (and with a nod to Russell Kirk):

“Libertarianism especially runs into trouble when it runs up against borders. The purely economic-minded believe that the only problem with unrestricted immigration is the presence of the welfare state, but that view is in error: Human beings are economic actors, but they are not merely economic actors. A human life is not the sum of a man’s economic actions, and a nation is not its economy. Libertarianism offers some pretty good guidelines for running a national economy; as a model of international order in 2011, it is fantasy, and ideological folly. Russell Kirk made famous H. Stuart Hughes’s statement that conservatism, properly understood, isn’t an ideology but “the negation of ideology.” When it comes to immigration, the two libertarian standard-bearers in the Republican primary offer a reminder of why ideology sometimes needs negating.”

Netanyahu addresses Congress

"Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East, Israel is what is right about the Middle East!"

Here's the must-watch speech of the day...from a genuine leader.

I like the way The Right Scoop put it:

"Wow. This speech had more truth in it than Congress has heard in years. Netanyahu stood up, just as he promised, and told the unvarnished truth about what it will take to make peace with the Palestinians"

Here's a LINK to one of the clearest videos I could find (unfortunately, embedding has been disabled).

This speech is a great example of the moral clarity that WE have been waiting for.

Bibi and Barry

Even in their youth, a picture is worth a thousand words...

In other contrasts, while Netanyahu sent prayers to the tornado-devastated city of Joplin, MO during his AIPAC speech, our global-citizen-in-chief was laying claim to yet another international heritage, adding 'Irish' to the list of African and Arab, with 'the beast' providing the punch line...

Oh, and he'll get to Joplin next week...

The contrast between a leader and a lightweight: Priceless.

How we Cain work it out

As I sat in the bleachers over the weekend, listening to consecutive announcements, watching the tube and the blogosphere erupt into various levels of emotion (which the Village Voice did an excellent job of capturing by the way!) with the confirmed departure of establishment hopeful Mitch Daniels from the GOP arena and Tim Pawlenty's ‘official’ presidential announcement today, which will more than likely shift the establishment’s attention to, I was particularly struck by the man most pundits have written off as the underdog, referred to as a “joke”, as “unelectable”, attempted to make an Alan Keyes or Ron Paul candidate, when his appeal to regular folks is quite the opposite from the fringe. When in all actualities, that man has served his country in the Navy as a mathematician in ballistics, chaired a Federal Reserve Bank, risen to the heights of business success as a CEO, expressed his common sense beliefs through the airwaves, and now redefines this race through not only unwavering conservatism, but straight-talking common sense solutions to the problems our Nation and its People face…that gentleman’s name is Herman Cain.







Prior to Saturday’s announcement, Friends of Herman Cain had already released this first official announcement:


Then following Saturday’s announcement, Cain appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:


Several outlets jumped on Cain for appearing not to be familiar with the ‘right of return’ lingo of the foreign affairs gurus, somewhat reminiscent of Gibson’s ‘gotcha’ question to Palin about the Bush doctrine (minus the glasses-on-the-tip-of-the-nose elite scowl, of course); but to refer to this as some kind of devastating blunder is a bit of an overblown stretch. Can we say “altogether unclear foreign policy” of Obama’s? Or better yet, unclear on basic ‘rights’ or ‘wrongs’, as well as allies or foes? But Cain continued Wallace’s questioning by stating that it’s Israel’s prerogative as to what terms Palestinian’s can return to what’s now Israeli land. However, I think the poignant declaration of the conversation was at the beginning of Wallace’s foreign affairs questioning: “What would President Cain offer the Palestinians to make peace?” To which Cain responded, “Nothing…because I’m not convinced that the Palestinians are really interested in peace.” Hallelujah! These are not a politician’s words, but an honest man’s words who has a grasp on the common sense of reality.

As Cain turns his presidential aspirations towards Iowa’s straw poll and winning over the impending caucuses, Martin Sieff published a piece that’s sure to piss off Establishment Republicans, while rallying conservatives within and outside the Party, posing the question, “Could Herman Cain Be the Next President Ronald Reagan?”. After vetting all the wrong turns of the many establishment candidates, Sieff addresses the qualities that Reagan brought to the 1980 campaign: his lifetime of experience and his skill as a communicator. Huh, real-world experience with articulation to boot…here’s a great example of the sought-after qualities that conservatives desire when declaring against the Establishment that the era of Reagan is indeed NOT over!

Only Herman Cain, who officially announced his candidacy on Saturday, of the current crop of Republican candidates has the moral stature, the record of achievement, the outspoken wit and candor, and the simple courage to speak his mind that were the hallmarks of the Great Reagan. Only he has proved to be an eloquent and effective public spokesman without fear or hesitation in championing those same principles.

Beside expanding on these comparisons, with brief mention of Cain’s role in helping to sink HillaryCare back in ’93, Sieff gives attention to both the liberal media and Republican establishment’s reactions to Cain’s candidacy:

Like Reagan, Cain is charming, reassuring, good-natured and delivers knock-out punch-lines. He really is another Great Communicator. If anything, Cain is being taken seriously by the liberal media far more quickly – to their credit – than he is by the Jurassic Dinosaurs ruling the GOP – the same geniuses who gave you Bob Dole and John McCain, and who never dared raise a peep when George W. Bush rolled up a then-record federal debt, produced his prescription program fiasco and plunged eagerly into liberal nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, conservatives, How’d That Work Out for Ya?

Black conservatives have especially outstanding track records of sticking to their guns and their principles when they rise to positions of real responsibility. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is the stand-out example of that. So is Tom Sowell. Cain has always shown that quality too. That is why he offers the best hope of rescuing this great nation from financial meltdown and ruin.

Then Sieff makes an offer that I hadn’t anticipated in this article: “Cain’s ideal running mate, therefore, would be Rep. Paul Ryan, who has shown more courage and willingness to put real rein-in-the-deficit measures on the table that would work in the real world than any other Republican. And that is why Cain-Ryan would be the GOP dream ticket for 2012 and the only real hope conservatives have of sending the president back to the arms of Rahm Emanuel in Chicago after only one term.”

All one needs to do is look at the principles behind that ticket to understand how that’d definitely work out for the future of America!

ADDENDUM:  Cain's appearance on Hannity (05-23-11):

Netanyahu schools Obama

Refreshing to see and hear a REAL LEADER!

“Negotiations based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality, and that the only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality and unshakable facts.”



Netanyahu gives a definitive ‘NO’, rejecting 1967 border talks in front of the press.

“It’s not gonna happen. Everybody knows it’s not gonna happen. And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly, ‘It’s not gonna happen’.”

Doesn’t this ‘stance’ remind you of his Paul Ryan moment in that so-called ‘Healthcare Summit’?

Republican candidates: TAKE NOTE!

A Durable Peace: Israel and Its Place Among the Nations @ Amazon.com

I’ll see your Daniels and raise you a…Perry?!

It’s interesting to observe the alignments within the Republican Party that are occurring as potential candidates step forward, or in the particular instances about to be addressed, BEFORE they officially step forward and as they’re pursued.

With each passing day, it becomes more apparent who Establishment Republicans are backing, as we’re not only informed by our on alternative outlets, but by the liberal media that seems to stay in close contact with establishment operatives. Take for instance this Politico story, “GOP Elite See Daniels as 2012 Savior”: 

"Top Republicans are increasingly convinced that President Barack Obama will be easily reelected if stronger GOP contenders do not emerge, and some are virtually begging Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to add some excitement to the slow-starting nomination race. It’s a sign of the GOP’s straits that the party is depending on the bland, wonkish Daniels for an adrenaline boost." 

The “bland, wonkish” Daniels appears to be the Republican Establishment’s hope after Barbour bowed out. Unnamed “party activists and strategists” are pushing Daniels, as well as close friends, the Bush’s, Boehner is plugging Daniels, along with other mentioned GOP campaign consultants…Establishment Republicans? Check!

More fuel to the fire has surfaced on Daniel’s moderate rhetoric. RedState reports that back in ’09, giving a speech to a known liberal Republican group, Mitch Daniels sounded as wonkish as he sounds today: Stop disagreeing with Democrats.

It’s interesting that the RedState piece is written by a former Daniels supporter, until “he started saying crap like this.” 

Leon Wolf points out, “So, as Republicans were gearing up for their biggest electoral victories in 16 years by fighting Obama and the Democrats tooth and nail on every aspect of their agenda, Mitch Daniels was telling everyone that the way to victory was to forget what a wedge issue even was, and just be nice so that people will like us again. Since then, Daniels has demonstrated that having a political tin ear in his case is a congenital defect rather than an isolated occurrence, telling social conservatives repeatedly to get to the back of the bus…” 

Now, Wolf makes the point that he believes Mitch Daniels is incapable of building the necessary coalition to win a national election; and while you’ll get no disagreement here, there does exist another issue not touched on: beyond naiveté, Daniels ignores, and even after acknowledging, dismisses, the coercive nature and subsequently destructive goals of Statism.

And to add yet more kindling, of all the publications out there, The Huffington ‘Puffington’ Post divulged a damaging little tidbit that points to Daniel’s pre-gubernatorial support for universal healthcare: 

"The candidate said he favors a universal health care system that would move away from employee-based health policies and make it mandatory for all Americans to have health insurance. Daniels envisioned one scenario in which residents could certify their coverage when paying income taxes and receive a tax exemption that would cover the cost. "We really have to have universal coverage," Daniels said." 

Suddenly those Romneycare woes and the Gengrich mandate-n-fumble are put in perspective with this nice guy. Yes, it does appear that Daniels is on fire…but definitely not one of desire.

Backing up a bit, Rush caught wind of the Politico piece on Wednesday’s show, and had a little nudge, a little punch, to add for the Establishment: 

"So, folks, the word's gone out, the inside-the-Beltway Republican elites, the RINOs, they are scared to death that some conservative is gonna get the nomination, and they want the exciting Mitch Daniels to ride in, announce, and save the day.

Let me throw a name at you out there, and this person's toying with getting in the race. And there are some Republicans who are trying to convince this person to get in the race, and there is a lot of excitement attached to the possibility that this person will get in the race. Well, who do you think I'm talking about? You have a look on your face in there as though you know who I'm talking about. Texas Governor Rick Perry. Texas Governor Rick Perry is lurking out there, and he has the potential to light this up.

If Rick Perry decides to get in this, folks, then you can wipe away all the conventional wisdom that's out there heretofore and to date, 'cause it's a brand-new day, and it starts all over again. And the Republican elites do not like Rick Perry."


Of course, Gov. Perry has said on numerous occasions that he has no inclination to run, that being the Governor of Texas is the best job one could ask for. But it appears he now has more than a few individuals with Republican weight urging him to take the plunge, and the circuits are paying attention.

From RealClearPolitics, “Rick Perry Presidential Push Quietly Gains Steam”:
“As many grass-roots Republicans remain in search of a conservative candidate with the pizazz to go toe-to-toe against President Obama, a man from deep in the heart of Texas who was tea party before the tea party was cool appears to be giving the presidential race some thought. Gov. Rick Perry has insisted on multiple occasions that he has no interest in the presidency, but RCP has learned that political associates have begun to nose around quietly on Perry's behalf.” 

And also, “Perry's Actions Suggest a Serious Look at 2012”:
“Texas Gov. Rick Perry may say publicly that he's not interested in running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, but his actions suggest something different.
After RealClearPolitics broke the news Tuesday that Perry's aides quietly have begun to make inquiries on the governor's behalf as he contemplates a bid, reporters attending his speech before a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Dallas noticed a few interesting things. Chief among them, as CNN reported, was that Perry said the GOP field is not yet settled and described the ideal candidate as someone who sounded . . . exactly like himself.” 

From the Washington Times, “Perry performance fuels talk of 2012 draft”:
"He’s not on the ballot for 2012, but Texas Gov. Rick Perry strongly impressed a gathering of top Republican officials here Tuesday, with many high-ranking GOP officials saying the governor would be their top choice if he entered the presidential race. “I would love to see a movement to draft Rick for the nomination if that’s the only way we can get him to run,” said Republican Nation Committee general counsel Bill Crocker after Mr. Perry delivered a luncheon address that had several hundred party officials attentive throughout. “The comments I got after his speech made it clear I am not alone,” Mr. Crocker said at the meeting of GOP state chairmen and other RNC members."
And Rush embellished on this one: “Now, this is interesting. This is the general council of the Republican National Committee saying this…”at the meeting of GOP state chairmen and other RNC members," meaning outside-the-Beltway Republicans. These are not the Republicans talking to Politico who are having this reaction, [these are] the thoughts that they had to Rick Perry as he addressed the group.” 

Now before diving headfirst into Perry’s water, one should be aware that if he does decide to get in, he will encounter a few hurdles with his lengthy record as the longest serving U.S. governor, the majority of which come from local makings with issues that have been either corrected (HPV vaccine & Trans-Texas Corridor, both dropped due to public disapproval) or improved on (illegal immigration – more ‘boots on the ground’ & willingness to sign an Arizona-style bill), but one would find more than a few Texas independents and libertarians who hold grudges and never forgive, much less forget. Nevertheless, Perry’s current attitude of relentlessly taking on the Administration’s policies toe-to-toe, particularly Obama’s EPA intrusions and Obamacare mandates, defending state’s rights over federal authority, are in stark contrast to the ‘stop disagreeing with Democrats’ attitude of Daniels, thus upping the game for these potential contenders and the division of Republicans that would back either.

Obama's Arab Spring

Today, Obama gave a speech presenting the administration's shifting Mideast policy.  Preceding the speech, Glenn Beck nails the president's 'Arab Spring' concept and pegs what this speech is really about...

Here's Parts 2 and 3 if interested in seeing the rest of the program, but I think you can see where this is going in the first clip.

Ben Stein also weighed in earlier this weekend to comment on the fraud of Obama's Arab Spring:

"There is a gigantic regional coup by Iran taking place. We are doing very little, if anything, to stop it...You can call it “Arab Spring” if you want. But with Iran now the regional superpower, it is a lot more like an extremely bleak Mideast winter."



Folks, the 'Arab Spring' is an uprising of Arab nations against Israel that's being aided and abetted by one Barack Hussein Obama.  The point is once again made in his latest speech that our current president sides with the Palestinians over the sovereign nation of Israel.  What's next?  The American Southwest to Mexico?  Oh, wait...

Following Obama's speech, the Jerusalem Post exploded with comments and rebuttals:

Knesset members on the Right expressed outrage on Thursday night at US President Barack Obama's call for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps in an exchange of territory for security.  They called upon Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to reject Obama's plan when he meets with him on Friday in Washington.

As he should!  I seem to recall some relevant advice from some pretty important men throughout history...

"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist." ~ John Adams

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

And Prime Minister Netanyahu has appropriately responded to Obama's radical new policy:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Thursday Israel would object to any withdrawal to "indefensible" borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.  In a statement after President Barack Obama's speech outlining Middle East strategy, Netanyahu said before heading to Washington that "the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel's existence".

Right on!  This is the toughness and consistency that I'd expect from a REAL leader, whose previous statements reflect the same vigilance...

"First of all, Arafat is wrong. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, will never be divided, and will remain the capital of the State of Israel, the capital of the Jewish people, for ever and ever."

"So I think we should stay focused on the real problem in the Middle East. It's not Israel. It's these dictatorships that are developing nuclear weapons with the specific goal of wiping Israel away."

"We don't point a pistol at our own forehead. That is not the way to conduct negotiations."

"I think that a strong Israel is the only Israel that will bring the Arabs to the peace table."

1,372 bottles of ‘care’ on the wall...

Heritage provides further evidence that Obamacare does not and cannot work…or perhaps I should say the administration’s own HHS provides…

To date, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved 1,372 Obamacare waivers, covering 3.1 million Americans. Yesterday, The Daily Caller reported that among HHS’s most recent round of 204 Obamacare waivers, “38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.” That’s right: Nearly 20 percent of exemptions from Pelosi’s crowning health care achievement were doled out in her backyard.

If that’s not enough irony for you, try this waiver on for size: On Monday, the Las Vegas Sun reported that Nevada—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home state—received a partial statewide Obamacare waiver, too. If you’re keeping score, Reid was Pelosi’s counterpart in the Senate fighting to get Obamacare passed into law. Now his state will be one of three to get a waiver from the law’s requirements, while the rest of America suffers.



She and Reid knew PRECISELY what destructive policy “is in it”, and they’re fine with extending one-year waivers to potential constituents, particularly their own, to keep private insurance from collapsing under the weight of Obamacare and the foreseeably planned single-payer system before the devised re-election of their ‘One’. Oh that ‘waivering’ liberal principle...EVERYBODY SING…

‘Speculators’, my @$$! This is Obama’s inflation.

Rising gas prices, rising beef prices, overall rising prices of energy and food, compounded by a slumped housing market with a pessimistic outlook for improvement, and a weakened dollar that's killing domestic sales while exploding international dealings, demonstrate not only how one effects the other, but illustrate the many soft patches in our sluggish economy. Welcome to what no reporter really wants to say: “This is Obama’s inflation!”

The affront to our oil supply is enough to site the either cluelessness or purposeful intent of this dysfunctional government, with either notion resulting in impending disaster for our economy. First, Obama works through his goon squad (a.k.a. ‘the EPA’) to ban offshore drilling, double speaking to the base about energy independence while continuing to promote foreign importation from unstable nations, as if we can’t see that this will drive up the price. We’ve got rising gas prices because of rising oil prices, and we’re supposed to believe we don’t need more domestic drilling and refining? And now to boot, Obama ‘says’ he might be willing to extend existing oil leases and ramp up lease sales. Good, right? Well, besides switching to a toned-down ‘drill, maybe, drill’ philosophy that’s obviously for political purposes only, the approval of these leases has to go through Obama’s EPA. And expanding anything at this point, instead of a decade ago, won’t reap any benefit to consumers NOW. Meanwhile, we’ve got AG Holder still after oil execs, while Energy Sec. Chu relishes rising gas prices…Obama’s inclination to keep both on board further illustrates he’s not serious about these leases or doing anything real to ease the pain. It’s all a part of his grand scheme, which if you recall under his plan, prices would "necessarily skyrocket.”

Without mentioning every destructive policy implemented by this president, this alone should have sounded major alarms before the 53% of voters blindly placed this man in the White House!

Speaking of, we haven’t even touched the trillions wasted in useless scams to keep our economy from collapsing following the proclaimed “worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.” So many catch phrases, along with so many sky-is-falling, Cloward-Piven tactics used by the Obama Administration to further erode American Exceptionalism.

How can this not be an effort to remove us from the top spot on the world stage? The spending and debt that this administration has racked up has severely weakened our currency. There are always speculators, but in this case, they’re being used as just another convenient scapegoat to the more dire non-energy and over-regulatory policies of this administration. We are entering a period of inflation that the MSM wants to keep hidden away on page 13, when it could have been averted, save for Obama’s arrogant leadership of wanting what he wants when he wants, knowing that we wouldn’t have the money to spend towards his massively Marxist entitlementopia. And if these destructive policies aren’t reason enough for new leadership, as well as a new direction in 2012, then we truly are a lost society.