Michele Bachmann cements her top-tier GOP status by winning the Iowa Straw Poll.
First the speech...
Then the win...
Get-r-done!
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Perry's in!
Early Saturday afternoon, stepping ahead of the Iowa Straw Poll, Rick Perry traveled to South Carolina for a scheduled RedState gathering to declare his entry into the 2012 presidential race. One of the most stand-out lines of his speech: "I will work every day to make Washington, DC as inconsequential in your life as I can." Right on...
Here's his first campaign video...
Here's his first campaign video...
Friday, August 12, 2011
Appeals court rules Obamacare mandate unconstitutional
In an important turn of events, Reuters has reported that an appeals court has ruled against Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance “or face a penalty”, serving a severe blow to Obama’s signature legislation.
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.
The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.
"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said.
A CATOInstitute article announced that “Today is a great day for liberty.”
By striking down the individual mandate, the Eleventh Circuit has reaffirmed that the Constitution places limits on the federal government’s power. Congress can do a great many things under modern constitutional jurisprudence, but, as the court concludes, “what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.” Indeed, just because Congress can regulate the health insurance industry does not mean it can also require people to buy that industry’s products.
One of the striking things about today’s ruling is that, for the first time in one of these cases, a Democrat-appointed judge, Frank Hull, has ruled against the government. Just as the Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton made waves by being the first Republican appointee to rule in the government’s favor, today’s 300-page ruling shows that the constitutional issues raised by the healthcare reform—and especially the individual mandate—are complex, serious, and non-ideological.
Supporters of limited constitutional government need to temper their celebrations—just as they wisely tempered their sorrows after the last ruling—because we must all now realize that this will not end until the Supreme Court rules. Nevertheless, today’s decision gives hope to those who believe that there are some things beyond the government’s reach and that the judiciary cannot abdicate its duty to hold Congress’s feet to the constitutional fire.
The Iowa GOP debate: through the media lens
Hmm, so what of that Iowa debate? Well, before we get into that, let’s preface with some fireworks that began even before last night’s GOP debate in Iowa.
Mitt Romney gave a speech in front of the Des Moines Register Service Center at the Iowa State Fair and confronted several liberal plants with some surprisingly solid answers!
Where’s this guy been? Seriously! This is the Romney that folks want, NOT what we’ve heard prior to this in regards to man-made climate change and other shenanigans. After confronting these ‘geniuses’ in the crowd, once he began answering on the debate stage, it was vastly more comfortable (and you can check that out in the links to the entire debate at the end of this post). And moving on to that…
At the beginning of the debate, Bret Baier gave an introduction in which he requested that the candidates ‘try to put away the talking points’…however, the panelists didn’t seem to want to put aside theirs, and Newt came to life with what many have wanted to express to the media themselves…
on the Mickey Mouse games of the media…
…and on the sham of a super-committee…
Again, I’ll ask the same question as with Romney…where’s this Newt been? Look, I’ve been highly critical of both these guys, but I was impressed last night, and if this is genuine principle shining through, then KEEP IT CONSISTENT! Although my skepticism remains alert, for the first time in a rather long while, I actually liked what I saw of these two…but I want to tap into Newt’s points after quickly running through the rest of the roster:
I thought Bachmann stood firm on principle, while Santorum stood strong on morality. Cain presented his ‘point’ approaches towards pro-business ‘growth’, while Huntsman came off pretty irrelevant. Pawlenty attempted to play the part of attack dog, and it wasn’t pretty; while Paul came off as the usual Ron Paul isolationist libertarian allowing his lunacy to outshine his conservatism (along with his annoying band of Paulbots hootin' & hollarin’ with every answer, while heckling other candidates).
Now, this debate was vastly different from the prior, primarily in the fact that there was much more sparing than the last, and here’s some of those moments…
…and there were many more. While this is to be expected, I don’t think this should be the crux of the debate. Let me simply cut to the chase: these moments represent the parts of the night that the Fox crew 'loved' (and this begins to tap into Newt’s points). What I mean by this is if you can’t see how over-produced and manufactured this debate was, then we weren’t watching the same show. They turned this into an entertainment program.
Moments like this, where the media (drooling through this morsel) gave little air time to Santorum, but plenty of elaborative room for Paul (with Paulbots roaring ever more feverishly), provides a perfect example of how little of an actual ‘debate’ the Fox media allowed…
You know, when given that this debate was roughly two hours, why not take an approach that allows for more actual debate between the candidates, rather than brisky running through the benign treasure trove of usual media talking points directed towards Republican presidential candidates? How about sticking to say the top three most relevant issues that we’re facing at this critical moment in time? Or better yet, how about stop antagonizing the candidates into bickering among themselves for ratings or for ‘one hell of a rumble’ and let them all work hard towards differentiating themselves through contrasting their ideas with our current failure of a president (as I believe Newt was suggesting). The media MUST STOP trying to pick 'our' nominee for us; rather, allow Republican voters to choose for themselves!
Here’s the entire debate to view at your leisure:
Mitt Romney gave a speech in front of the Des Moines Register Service Center at the Iowa State Fair and confronted several liberal plants with some surprisingly solid answers!
Where’s this guy been? Seriously! This is the Romney that folks want, NOT what we’ve heard prior to this in regards to man-made climate change and other shenanigans. After confronting these ‘geniuses’ in the crowd, once he began answering on the debate stage, it was vastly more comfortable (and you can check that out in the links to the entire debate at the end of this post). And moving on to that…
At the beginning of the debate, Bret Baier gave an introduction in which he requested that the candidates ‘try to put away the talking points’…however, the panelists didn’t seem to want to put aside theirs, and Newt came to life with what many have wanted to express to the media themselves…
on the Mickey Mouse games of the media…
…and on the sham of a super-committee…
Again, I’ll ask the same question as with Romney…where’s this Newt been? Look, I’ve been highly critical of both these guys, but I was impressed last night, and if this is genuine principle shining through, then KEEP IT CONSISTENT! Although my skepticism remains alert, for the first time in a rather long while, I actually liked what I saw of these two…but I want to tap into Newt’s points after quickly running through the rest of the roster:
I thought Bachmann stood firm on principle, while Santorum stood strong on morality. Cain presented his ‘point’ approaches towards pro-business ‘growth’, while Huntsman came off pretty irrelevant. Pawlenty attempted to play the part of attack dog, and it wasn’t pretty; while Paul came off as the usual Ron Paul isolationist libertarian allowing his lunacy to outshine his conservatism (along with his annoying band of Paulbots hootin' & hollarin’ with every answer, while heckling other candidates).
Now, this debate was vastly different from the prior, primarily in the fact that there was much more sparing than the last, and here’s some of those moments…
…and there were many more. While this is to be expected, I don’t think this should be the crux of the debate. Let me simply cut to the chase: these moments represent the parts of the night that the Fox crew 'loved' (and this begins to tap into Newt’s points). What I mean by this is if you can’t see how over-produced and manufactured this debate was, then we weren’t watching the same show. They turned this into an entertainment program.
Moments like this, where the media (drooling through this morsel) gave little air time to Santorum, but plenty of elaborative room for Paul (with Paulbots roaring ever more feverishly), provides a perfect example of how little of an actual ‘debate’ the Fox media allowed…
You know, when given that this debate was roughly two hours, why not take an approach that allows for more actual debate between the candidates, rather than brisky running through the benign treasure trove of usual media talking points directed towards Republican presidential candidates? How about sticking to say the top three most relevant issues that we’re facing at this critical moment in time? Or better yet, how about stop antagonizing the candidates into bickering among themselves for ratings or for ‘one hell of a rumble’ and let them all work hard towards differentiating themselves through contrasting their ideas with our current failure of a president (as I believe Newt was suggesting). The media MUST STOP trying to pick 'our' nominee for us; rather, allow Republican voters to choose for themselves!
Here’s the entire debate to view at your leisure:
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The incompatibility of statism in the civil society
“The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” ~ John Stuart Mill, from the 1859 essay On Liberty
Since Tuesday’s post concerning the London riots, here are three articles that explore not only the roots of this chaos, but also the animalistic compulsion towards a reinstitution of self-reliant liberty, freed from Big Government’s shackles, over the global welfare mentality, or socio-economic justice, of statism. Independence vs. Dependence…an issue for discussion here, just as much as there.
Excerpts from The Atlantic Sentinel: “What’s At the Root of London’s Riots” by Nick Ottens
“What’s causing the riots that have engulfed London and spread to other British cities in recent days? The sheer size and intensity of the uproar suggests that it has far less to do with the shooting of one man by police last week and rather with the mentality of the young men and women involved.”
“British Prime Minister David Cameron hinted on Wednesday at the “complete lack of responsibility” that decades of welfarism has fostered in blighted parts of Britain where “people [were] allowed to feel that the world owes them something.” He said that the country has a “moral problem” when a “sick” part of society believes that it has only rights and no responsibilities.
He’s right. The London rioters aren’t guided by any particular ideology. Their anger has nothing to do with austerity measures that haven’t been implemented yet nor with mild cuts in university tuition fees that these youngsters are unlikely to benefit from anyway. Their anxiety reflects an entitlement mentality that is under threat. They and their parents were told by generations of politicians that they had a “right” to welfare provisions paid for by the productive segments of society and now that promise is falling apart. They were never taught to take care of themselves and soon, they might be forced to.
It’s taught adjusting to reality. But that’s not an excuse to take it out on your neighbors who always did just try to make a living.”
Excerpts from the UK’s Daily Mail: “Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters” by Max Hastings
“If you live a normal life of absolute futility, which we can assume most of this week’s rioters do, excitement of any kind is welcome. The people who wrecked swathes of property, burned vehicles and terrorised communities have no moral compass to make them susceptible to guilt or shame…They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong. They respond only to instinctive animal impulses — to eat and drink, have sex, seize or destroy the accessible property of others.”
“The depressing truth is that at the bottom of our society is a layer of young people with no skills, education, values or aspirations. They do not have what most of us would call ‘lives’: they simply exist.
Nobody has ever dared suggest to them that they need feel any allegiance to anything, least of all Britain or their community…Not only do they know nothing of Britain’s past, they care nothing for its present. They have their being only in video games and street-fights, casual drug use and crime, sometimes petty, sometimes serious. The notions of doing a nine-to-five job, marrying and sticking with a wife and kids, taking up DIY or learning to read properly, are beyond their imaginations.”
“…it will not do for a moment to claim the rioters’ behaviour reflects deprived circumstances or police persecution.
Of course it is true that few have jobs, learn anything useful at school, live in decent homes, eat meals at regular hours or feel loyalty to anything beyond their local gang. This is not, however, because they are victims of mistreatment or neglect. It is because it is fantastically hard to help such people, young or old, without imposing a measure of compulsion which modern society finds unacceptable. These kids are what they are because nobody makes them be anything different or better.
A key factor in delinquency is lack of effective sanctions to deter it. From an early stage, feral children discover that they can bully fellow pupils at school, shout abuse at people in the streets, urinate outside pubs, hurl litter from car windows, play car radios at deafening volumes, and, indeed, commit casual assaults with only a negligible prospect of facing rebuke, far less retribution.”
“So there we have it: a large, amoral, brutalised sub-culture of young British people who lack education because they have no will to learn, and skills which might make them employable. They are too idle to accept work waitressing or doing domestic labour, which is why almost all such jobs are filled by immigrants.
They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving anti-socially or, indeed, criminally, and small chance of being punished if they do so. They have no sense of responsibility for themselves, far less towards others, and look to no future beyond the next meal, sexual encounter or TV football game.
They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute nothing yet cost the taxpayer billions. Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential. Most of us would say this is nonsense. Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline — tough love — which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live…They are products of a culture which gives them so much unconditionally that they are let off learning how to become human beings. My dogs are better behaved and subscribe to a higher code of values than the young rioters of Tottenham, Hackney, Clapham and Birmingham.
Unless or until those who run Britain introduce incentives for decency and impose penalties for bestiality which are today entirely lacking, there will never be a shortage of young rioters and looters such as those of the past four nights, for whom their monstrous excesses were ‘a great fire, man’.”
English authorities must contain and end these violent outbreaks, and America must stamp out its own pockets of discriminatory and brutalizing acts. ‘This IS our world’ for ALL to share, without regard to color or creed. And you CANNOT ‘do what you want’ when it infringes on the lives of others. That is NOT your right. But what you CAN do is better yourself, gain some life skills, get a job, care for your family and your possessions, and be grateful for what you have without coveting others. Relinquish the jealousy and envy that spurs theft and vandalism. Cast aside the class categorizations of statism. In other words, regain YOUR LIFE and stop depending on the government to give you meaning!
Since Tuesday’s post concerning the London riots, here are three articles that explore not only the roots of this chaos, but also the animalistic compulsion towards a reinstitution of self-reliant liberty, freed from Big Government’s shackles, over the global welfare mentality, or socio-economic justice, of statism. Independence vs. Dependence…an issue for discussion here, just as much as there.
Excerpts from The Atlantic Sentinel: “What’s At the Root of London’s Riots” by Nick Ottens
“What’s causing the riots that have engulfed London and spread to other British cities in recent days? The sheer size and intensity of the uproar suggests that it has far less to do with the shooting of one man by police last week and rather with the mentality of the young men and women involved.”
“British Prime Minister David Cameron hinted on Wednesday at the “complete lack of responsibility” that decades of welfarism has fostered in blighted parts of Britain where “people [were] allowed to feel that the world owes them something.” He said that the country has a “moral problem” when a “sick” part of society believes that it has only rights and no responsibilities.
He’s right. The London rioters aren’t guided by any particular ideology. Their anger has nothing to do with austerity measures that haven’t been implemented yet nor with mild cuts in university tuition fees that these youngsters are unlikely to benefit from anyway. Their anxiety reflects an entitlement mentality that is under threat. They and their parents were told by generations of politicians that they had a “right” to welfare provisions paid for by the productive segments of society and now that promise is falling apart. They were never taught to take care of themselves and soon, they might be forced to.
It’s taught adjusting to reality. But that’s not an excuse to take it out on your neighbors who always did just try to make a living.”
Excerpts from the UK’s Daily Mail: “Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters” by Max Hastings
“If you live a normal life of absolute futility, which we can assume most of this week’s rioters do, excitement of any kind is welcome. The people who wrecked swathes of property, burned vehicles and terrorised communities have no moral compass to make them susceptible to guilt or shame…They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong. They respond only to instinctive animal impulses — to eat and drink, have sex, seize or destroy the accessible property of others.”
“The depressing truth is that at the bottom of our society is a layer of young people with no skills, education, values or aspirations. They do not have what most of us would call ‘lives’: they simply exist.
Nobody has ever dared suggest to them that they need feel any allegiance to anything, least of all Britain or their community…Not only do they know nothing of Britain’s past, they care nothing for its present. They have their being only in video games and street-fights, casual drug use and crime, sometimes petty, sometimes serious. The notions of doing a nine-to-five job, marrying and sticking with a wife and kids, taking up DIY or learning to read properly, are beyond their imaginations.”
“…it will not do for a moment to claim the rioters’ behaviour reflects deprived circumstances or police persecution.
Of course it is true that few have jobs, learn anything useful at school, live in decent homes, eat meals at regular hours or feel loyalty to anything beyond their local gang. This is not, however, because they are victims of mistreatment or neglect. It is because it is fantastically hard to help such people, young or old, without imposing a measure of compulsion which modern society finds unacceptable. These kids are what they are because nobody makes them be anything different or better.
A key factor in delinquency is lack of effective sanctions to deter it. From an early stage, feral children discover that they can bully fellow pupils at school, shout abuse at people in the streets, urinate outside pubs, hurl litter from car windows, play car radios at deafening volumes, and, indeed, commit casual assaults with only a negligible prospect of facing rebuke, far less retribution.”
“So there we have it: a large, amoral, brutalised sub-culture of young British people who lack education because they have no will to learn, and skills which might make them employable. They are too idle to accept work waitressing or doing domestic labour, which is why almost all such jobs are filled by immigrants.
They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving anti-socially or, indeed, criminally, and small chance of being punished if they do so. They have no sense of responsibility for themselves, far less towards others, and look to no future beyond the next meal, sexual encounter or TV football game.
They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute nothing yet cost the taxpayer billions. Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential. Most of us would say this is nonsense. Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline — tough love — which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live…They are products of a culture which gives them so much unconditionally that they are let off learning how to become human beings. My dogs are better behaved and subscribe to a higher code of values than the young rioters of Tottenham, Hackney, Clapham and Birmingham.
Unless or until those who run Britain introduce incentives for decency and impose penalties for bestiality which are today entirely lacking, there will never be a shortage of young rioters and looters such as those of the past four nights, for whom their monstrous excesses were ‘a great fire, man’.”
Read the ENTIRE article from Family Security Matters: “The Mob Tears at the Foundations of Civilization in London and America” by J. Christian Adams...or listen to this magnificent reading from El Rushbo...
And now a Canadian news source is reporting that a more sinister twist is being introduced with these riots as Islamic extremists see an opportunity to use the kids and their chaos as a distraction for even larger terrorist attacks! This will spell disaster on an even larger scale. Lawlessness begets lawlessness.
English authorities must contain and end these violent outbreaks, and America must stamp out its own pockets of discriminatory and brutalizing acts. ‘This IS our world’ for ALL to share, without regard to color or creed. And you CANNOT ‘do what you want’ when it infringes on the lives of others. That is NOT your right. But what you CAN do is better yourself, gain some life skills, get a job, care for your family and your possessions, and be grateful for what you have without coveting others. Relinquish the jealousy and envy that spurs theft and vandalism. Cast aside the class categorizations of statism. In other words, regain YOUR LIFE and stop depending on the government to give you meaning!
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Not-so-super selections (UPDATE)
Looks like Boehner and McConnell have chosen their super-committee picks...but I can't say they set the mind at ease towards finding a responsible solution seeking spending cuts that neither involves caving to tax increases nor triggering Defense gutting.
The ONLY tea party member selected among those in the Senate will be Pat Toomey (PA), who also voted against the final deal. Along with Toomey, McConnell chose Jon Kyl (AZ) and Rob Portman (OH), who did vote in favor of the final debt deal (I'll say more about this in a moment).
In the House, it appears that Boehner stuck to the rule of the emanating Senate rumor that anyone voting against the final deal would NOT be assigned to the committee. CBS reports, "House Speaker John Boehner said he's tapped House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, to serve as co-chair of the committee. He's also appointing House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., to the committee, as well as House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich." The word is Paul Ryan asked not to be selected to the committee. What's up with that?!
Reid appointed John Kerry, Patty Murray and Max Baucus yesterday as the Senate members to the super-committee, but the House Democrat members have yet to be assigned.
As William Jacobson from Legal Insurrection points out, "Remember, it only takes one. Who is our weak link?" And his point is well taken considering Upton's EPA past (who was 'for' an incandescent light bulb phase out before he was 'against' it...look, he's got something in common with fellow committee member Kerry) or Portman's Bush budget director ties (when Repubs were spending like drunken Democrats) and others' wavering, as in those among the House and Senate whose names do not appear with the Courageous who voted against a final deal that has shown to provided no confidence in the markets or the overall economy.
But as a RedState post discusses, the GOP pick for the super duper committee probably won't make a difference in spending cuts when considering that "the Democrats have picked three radical leftists in the Senate, and are expected to follow suit with their House picks. There is no way that Democrats on the committee will ever support meaningful spending cuts, repeal of Obamacare, or entitlement reform."
Coupled with the downgrade proceeding after this shambles of a deal and the market slump, along with the questionable assignments from our questionable leadership of the highly debated constitutional legitimacy of the super-committee, I'm reminded of a passage I just read in Sen. Mike Lee's new book, The Freedom Agenda:
"...we need to restore the constitutional debate to Congress, one senator and one representative at a time.
Although this task may sound daunting, in fact it is remarkably simple. We must demand that members of Congress tell us where they get their authority to enact each and every piece of legislation they support. Whenever a congressman or senator can't answer that simple question with an equally simple, plain-spoken explanation consistent with the text and original understanding of the Constitution, then regardless of what Supreme Court precedent might tell Congress it can get away with, we should make clear that we expect him to vote against the bill. And whenever a member of Congress refuses to comply with that expectation, we should strive to replace that member with someone who will serve as a consistent advocate for constitutionally limited government.
We should also seek to replace any member of Congress who refuses to keep the federal government focused on the national issues that only it can address. We must, of course, remember that these limited responsibilities are explicitly defined by the Constitution.
The problem we face is neither esoteric nor contrived; the more time Congress spends trying to do things it is not authorized to do, the less time it spends solving the important problems that fall within its rightful jurisdiction."
By the way, neither Mike Lee, nor the man who supported his and other stalwart conservatives' elections, the great Sen. Jim DeMint, were sought to serve on this questionable super-committee.
UPDATE: Great...The Hill reports that Pelosi has rounded out the Democrat super-committee members with the choices of James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Chris Van Hollen (MD) and Xavier Becerra (CA) from the House. That rounds out the radicals from the Left. Anybody else get the feeling that this so-called committee is going nowhere fast?
The ONLY tea party member selected among those in the Senate will be Pat Toomey (PA), who also voted against the final deal. Along with Toomey, McConnell chose Jon Kyl (AZ) and Rob Portman (OH), who did vote in favor of the final debt deal (I'll say more about this in a moment).
In the House, it appears that Boehner stuck to the rule of the emanating Senate rumor that anyone voting against the final deal would NOT be assigned to the committee. CBS reports, "House Speaker John Boehner said he's tapped House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, to serve as co-chair of the committee. He's also appointing House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., to the committee, as well as House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich." The word is Paul Ryan asked not to be selected to the committee. What's up with that?!
Reid appointed John Kerry, Patty Murray and Max Baucus yesterday as the Senate members to the super-committee, but the House Democrat members have yet to be assigned.
As William Jacobson from Legal Insurrection points out, "Remember, it only takes one. Who is our weak link?" And his point is well taken considering Upton's EPA past (who was 'for' an incandescent light bulb phase out before he was 'against' it...look, he's got something in common with fellow committee member Kerry) or Portman's Bush budget director ties (when Repubs were spending like drunken Democrats) and others' wavering, as in those among the House and Senate whose names do not appear with the Courageous who voted against a final deal that has shown to provided no confidence in the markets or the overall economy.
But as a RedState post discusses, the GOP pick for the super duper committee probably won't make a difference in spending cuts when considering that "the Democrats have picked three radical leftists in the Senate, and are expected to follow suit with their House picks. There is no way that Democrats on the committee will ever support meaningful spending cuts, repeal of Obamacare, or entitlement reform."
Coupled with the downgrade proceeding after this shambles of a deal and the market slump, along with the questionable assignments from our questionable leadership of the highly debated constitutional legitimacy of the super-committee, I'm reminded of a passage I just read in Sen. Mike Lee's new book, The Freedom Agenda:
"...we need to restore the constitutional debate to Congress, one senator and one representative at a time.
Although this task may sound daunting, in fact it is remarkably simple. We must demand that members of Congress tell us where they get their authority to enact each and every piece of legislation they support. Whenever a congressman or senator can't answer that simple question with an equally simple, plain-spoken explanation consistent with the text and original understanding of the Constitution, then regardless of what Supreme Court precedent might tell Congress it can get away with, we should make clear that we expect him to vote against the bill. And whenever a member of Congress refuses to comply with that expectation, we should strive to replace that member with someone who will serve as a consistent advocate for constitutionally limited government.
We should also seek to replace any member of Congress who refuses to keep the federal government focused on the national issues that only it can address. We must, of course, remember that these limited responsibilities are explicitly defined by the Constitution.
The problem we face is neither esoteric nor contrived; the more time Congress spends trying to do things it is not authorized to do, the less time it spends solving the important problems that fall within its rightful jurisdiction."
By the way, neither Mike Lee, nor the man who supported his and other stalwart conservatives' elections, the great Sen. Jim DeMint, were sought to serve on this questionable super-committee.
UPDATE: Great...The Hill reports that Pelosi has rounded out the Democrat super-committee members with the choices of James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Chris Van Hollen (MD) and Xavier Becerra (CA) from the House. That rounds out the radicals from the Left. Anybody else get the feeling that this so-called committee is going nowhere fast?
Democrats lose again in Wisconsin recalls
Fox Nation reports, ”Democrats won two state Senate seats in Tuesday's historic recall elections, but failed to capture a third seat that would have given them control of the chamber…Republicans may be able to gain back some of the losses next week, when two Democrats face recall elections.” The report went on to explain that “a stand by Wisconsin Republicans against a massive effort to oust them from power could reverberate across the country as the battle over union rights and the conservative revolution heads toward the 2012 presidential race…Republicans saw it as a big win for Gov. Scott Walker and a confirmation of his conservative agenda…”
If you followed this throughout the evening, as usual, Hot Air was on every riveting update of the night. But as Ed Morrissey says today, referring to the recall elections thus far (last night’s and the previous failed effort to recall WI Supreme Court Justice David Prosser), the unions are 0 for 2 in Wisconsin, and “it’s possible that the unions will go 0 for 3 in 2011 and end up handing back the two pickups they got last night,” if they lose those Democrat recalls next week.
And to sweeten the pot, as Uncoverage reports, “Republican governor Scott Walker has continued to save money and grow jobs in his state with his big red Republican surge, but the sour grapes of big public employee unions forced special recall elections,” which in the end has cost the Democrat-backed public unions (but I repeat myself) a significant net loss to their purse, as pointed to in a Journal Sentinel article...
“So far more than $35 million has been spent on the recall races, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks political money. The spending on the nine races dwarfs the $19.3 million spent in last year’s 115 legislative races, and approaches the $37.4 million spent in the race for governor.”
Oh, how Big Labor spends your dues, member.
But at least we can depend on Al not-so-Sharpton to provide a moment of hilarity through the pins and needles of last night’s awaited results. “But resist we much”, Al? Oh, Al…
If you followed this throughout the evening, as usual, Hot Air was on every riveting update of the night. But as Ed Morrissey says today, referring to the recall elections thus far (last night’s and the previous failed effort to recall WI Supreme Court Justice David Prosser), the unions are 0 for 2 in Wisconsin, and “it’s possible that the unions will go 0 for 3 in 2011 and end up handing back the two pickups they got last night,” if they lose those Democrat recalls next week.
And to sweeten the pot, as Uncoverage reports, “Republican governor Scott Walker has continued to save money and grow jobs in his state with his big red Republican surge, but the sour grapes of big public employee unions forced special recall elections,” which in the end has cost the Democrat-backed public unions (but I repeat myself) a significant net loss to their purse, as pointed to in a Journal Sentinel article...
“So far more than $35 million has been spent on the recall races, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks political money. The spending on the nine races dwarfs the $19.3 million spent in last year’s 115 legislative races, and approaches the $37.4 million spent in the race for governor.”
Oh, how Big Labor spends your dues, member.
But at least we can depend on Al not-so-Sharpton to provide a moment of hilarity through the pins and needles of last night’s awaited results. “But resist we much”, Al? Oh, Al…
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Statism is as statism does…even across the pond (UPDATE)
The world watches as London riots said to have begun as a reaction to a questionable police shooting of a questionable individual quickly transformed into an ongoing display of violent youth terrorizing the community that has absolutely NOTHING to do with its claimed origins. Seemingly picking up from Greece, and like a statist page taken out of Obama and the Left’s playbook (in this case, moving beyond mere 'talk'), class warfare has taken center stage.
Listen as these ‘girls’ absurdly claim to show the government, conservatives, police, the rich people, “yeah, whoever it is, I don’t know” that “we can do what we want.”
“It was madness. It was good though. It was good fun. Yeah…free alcohol!”
Or as this woman proclaims in the midst of looting, "We're taking our taxes back!"
Along with many businesses being burnt out, there’s also confirmation of innocent passers-by being stripped and robbed…
Fox News says, “Reports on Twitter claimed some people were being stripped, while another shocking video shows a bleeding teenager being robbed in broad daylight by lawless thugs who pretend to help him to his feet.”
The UK’s Telegraph compares and contrasts Philadelphia’s recent ‘flash mob’ attacks, and suggests taking Mayor Nutter’s approach of beefing up police patrols, imposing a curfew on minors, and introducing escalating fines for the parents of these ‘children’, saying that London Mayor Johnson and Prime Minister Cameron “could clearly learn a thing or two from the Mayor of Philadelphia about talking tough,” when Nutter proclaimed to members of criminal gangs, “If you want to be aggressive, we’re going to be aggressive. Let me just share this with you. We’ve got the biggest, baddest gang in town – a committed group of citizens and a committed government – and we’re working together and we’re not going to have this nonsense anymore.” And it appears as though Cameron’s taken the advice with orders for 16,000 officers to use plastic bullets in an effort to quell the riots and regain London.
In one of many European countries that has been forced to impose austerity measures to keep itself afloat from the massive debt burdens of the decades past statist strides (free healthcare, free college tuition, free this, free that), London finds itself in the midst of the resulting anarchy from a dependent class when it doesn’t get what it wants. These entitled reactions are VERY REAL, unlike the liberals' false assertions of tea party violence, because we dare seek a return towards true liberty and self-reliance. So don’t think this couldn’t happen in America, as illustrated through the Philadelphia incidents and others. Whether here or there, statism is as statism does.
UPDATE: Looks like the riots have spread to other parts of England overnight. Likewise, the economic uncertainty, whether that be protests over the rising cost of living or riotous reaction to austerity programs, appears to be leading to unrest across the globe. Statism is failing, and there's nothing glamorous about the inflicted results.
Listen as these ‘girls’ absurdly claim to show the government, conservatives, police, the rich people, “yeah, whoever it is, I don’t know” that “we can do what we want.”
“It was madness. It was good though. It was good fun. Yeah…free alcohol!”
Or as this woman proclaims in the midst of looting, "We're taking our taxes back!"
Along with many businesses being burnt out, there’s also confirmation of innocent passers-by being stripped and robbed…
Fox News says, “Reports on Twitter claimed some people were being stripped, while another shocking video shows a bleeding teenager being robbed in broad daylight by lawless thugs who pretend to help him to his feet.”
The UK’s Telegraph compares and contrasts Philadelphia’s recent ‘flash mob’ attacks, and suggests taking Mayor Nutter’s approach of beefing up police patrols, imposing a curfew on minors, and introducing escalating fines for the parents of these ‘children’, saying that London Mayor Johnson and Prime Minister Cameron “could clearly learn a thing or two from the Mayor of Philadelphia about talking tough,” when Nutter proclaimed to members of criminal gangs, “If you want to be aggressive, we’re going to be aggressive. Let me just share this with you. We’ve got the biggest, baddest gang in town – a committed group of citizens and a committed government – and we’re working together and we’re not going to have this nonsense anymore.” And it appears as though Cameron’s taken the advice with orders for 16,000 officers to use plastic bullets in an effort to quell the riots and regain London.
In one of many European countries that has been forced to impose austerity measures to keep itself afloat from the massive debt burdens of the decades past statist strides (free healthcare, free college tuition, free this, free that), London finds itself in the midst of the resulting anarchy from a dependent class when it doesn’t get what it wants. These entitled reactions are VERY REAL, unlike the liberals' false assertions of tea party violence, because we dare seek a return towards true liberty and self-reliance. So don’t think this couldn’t happen in America, as illustrated through the Philadelphia incidents and others. Whether here or there, statism is as statism does.
UPDATE: Looks like the riots have spread to other parts of England overnight. Likewise, the economic uncertainty, whether that be protests over the rising cost of living or riotous reaction to austerity programs, appears to be leading to unrest across the globe. Statism is failing, and there's nothing glamorous about the inflicted results.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Two Monday monologues say it all
First Rush’s…
“What we have witnessed since Friday [is] Obamageddon, Barackolypse Now; and the only silver lining out there is that as far as 2012 goes Obama’s now Debt Man Walking.”
Not to mention his six pages of news headlines that read "Obama blames..." Google it!
Then Levin’s (first honoring our military men who died in that helicopter incident over the weekend)…
Then Levin’s (first honoring our military men who died in that helicopter incident over the weekend)…
“What’s going on is more than a downgrade of the government’s credit rating. It’s even more than a downgrade of the economy. The federal government is literally attempting to replace the civil society…The path we are on is the path towards tyranny.”
Besides the market’s 634 point slide, these two conservative champions pretty much say all there is to say about the Obama Administration's downgrade.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
The Left's 'tea party' Tourette's
Yes, it was predictable. The Left ridiculed our tea flavored congressional members' desire for responsible governance during, and soon after, the debt debate. They, as well as the Republican establishment, thought once Cut, Cap & Balance was axed, that would be the end of our resilience. They were wrong. And when tea party members of Congress continued to demand a responsible approach throughout one band-aid proposal after another (including the final bamboozle), they called our representatives 'hostage takers' and 'terrorists' for wanting a better deal towards real debt reduction and actual economic recovery, including job stability.
Like clockwork, as soon as the S&P downgrade was announced, who do you think the Left's Tourette's was aimed towards? That's right...TEA PARTY, TEA PARTY, TEA PARTY!
Sidebar: Do Democrats have weekly meetings to discuss who'll be the 'target of the week'? Seems like it, but I digress...
Contrary to Sen. Kerry's wishes, the media seems quite happy to oblige the Left's plight in attempted tea party blame of the downgrade. The parroted White House marching orders appear clear, from John Kerry to David Axelrod...
...TEA PARTY, TEA PARTY, TEAP PARTY! Nevermind the two-and-a-half years of excessively larger Obama Administration spending levels exceeding even Bush's exorbitant amounts (or preceding Obama, all presidents combined, for that matter). These guys have forgotten the old adage that when pointing the finger of blame, three are pointing right back. And even John McLame can see it! In all actuality, the People see this for exactly what it is: liberal PANIC! The buck stops where? Don't look for Truman's placard on Obama's desk.
As explained in the previous post, when a credit rating agency asks for a particular level of debt reduction in any plan, and Congress (especially those members of the progressively liberal persuasion) wish not to allot for serious spending cuts, opting instead to only pass half of what's requested with undying hopes of tax (excuse me, 'revenue') increases, then what could possibly be expected? And speaking of 'revenues', the Left has also implied that S&P requested those increased, completely bypassing the focal point of debt reduction. Setting the record straight, to a Democrat, that means tax hikes; for Republicans, that means job creation that automatically infuses more revenue into the economy. And it's important to point out, job creation through the free market, NOT the 'saved or created' hoax of Big Government. I'm willing to take a stab at which idea more Americans would have confidence in.
Furthermore, the business community appears to have a clear grasp of Obama's policies, and where its vote of no confidence resides, from Wynn to Trump to this lady...
If there's any blame to assign for the downgrade, it is on those factions of politicians who'd borrow and spend our nation into oblivion without any responsible plan to pay off that debt, except to further burden the American taxpayer once again for their criminal negligence. And whose policies reside in that mindset? We all know the answer. Looking into the near future, if these same politicians, directed by the Statist-in-Chief, can't get their act together and reduce the long-term debt, another downgrade will be just around the corner. It's time to repeal and replace these temporary rulers, top down!
But for now, we'll continue to endure the Left's panic though their tea party Tourette's, and while some of our spokespersons will make it through the biased media gauntlet, we should not be deterred from the responsible path that this important movement has paved for the betterment of our country.
Like clockwork, as soon as the S&P downgrade was announced, who do you think the Left's Tourette's was aimed towards? That's right...TEA PARTY, TEA PARTY, TEA PARTY!
Sidebar: Do Democrats have weekly meetings to discuss who'll be the 'target of the week'? Seems like it, but I digress...
Contrary to Sen. Kerry's wishes, the media seems quite happy to oblige the Left's plight in attempted tea party blame of the downgrade. The parroted White House marching orders appear clear, from John Kerry to David Axelrod...
...TEA PARTY, TEA PARTY, TEAP PARTY! Nevermind the two-and-a-half years of excessively larger Obama Administration spending levels exceeding even Bush's exorbitant amounts (or preceding Obama, all presidents combined, for that matter). These guys have forgotten the old adage that when pointing the finger of blame, three are pointing right back. And even John McLame can see it! In all actuality, the People see this for exactly what it is: liberal PANIC! The buck stops where? Don't look for Truman's placard on Obama's desk.
As explained in the previous post, when a credit rating agency asks for a particular level of debt reduction in any plan, and Congress (especially those members of the progressively liberal persuasion) wish not to allot for serious spending cuts, opting instead to only pass half of what's requested with undying hopes of tax (excuse me, 'revenue') increases, then what could possibly be expected? And speaking of 'revenues', the Left has also implied that S&P requested those increased, completely bypassing the focal point of debt reduction. Setting the record straight, to a Democrat, that means tax hikes; for Republicans, that means job creation that automatically infuses more revenue into the economy. And it's important to point out, job creation through the free market, NOT the 'saved or created' hoax of Big Government. I'm willing to take a stab at which idea more Americans would have confidence in.
Furthermore, the business community appears to have a clear grasp of Obama's policies, and where its vote of no confidence resides, from Wynn to Trump to this lady...
If there's any blame to assign for the downgrade, it is on those factions of politicians who'd borrow and spend our nation into oblivion without any responsible plan to pay off that debt, except to further burden the American taxpayer once again for their criminal negligence. And whose policies reside in that mindset? We all know the answer. Looking into the near future, if these same politicians, directed by the Statist-in-Chief, can't get their act together and reduce the long-term debt, another downgrade will be just around the corner. It's time to repeal and replace these temporary rulers, top down!
But for now, we'll continue to endure the Left's panic though their tea party Tourette's, and while some of our spokespersons will make it through the biased media gauntlet, we should not be deterred from the responsible path that this important movement has paved for the betterment of our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)