These are a few lessons my mother taught me. All mothers used to teach these, dads too. Somebody forgot to teach these to a large number of people in Congress.
- Two wrongs don’t make a right. If the GOP used shady maneuvers to pass small bills, it is no excuse for the Democrats to use the same tactics to pass a big one.
- The ends do not justify the means. Right ends do not come from wrong means. This one has actually been around since William Penn in our country and can be traced back at least to Machiavelli.
- There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Similar to, ” If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.” Somebody is going to pay for health care either with their dollars or by not getting it.
- Money doesn’t grow on trees. It is just printed over at the Treasury.
- If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. That’s actually my favorite; don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone other than my other say that one.
The problem is that common sense isn’t common. It is the result of experience. My parents and grandparents went through the Great Depression and they learned those lessons the hard way.
Remember the Great Depression? That was the last time people turned to government in a crisis instead of to themselves. If we don’t show some common sense, history will repeat itself.
After a shaky start a year ago, Republicans in both the House and Senate have been steadfast in your opposition to the fundamental transformation of America from a constitutional republic toward a socialist nanny state.
Thank you for listening to and supporting the voices of the American people! Come November, we will not forget and we promise to send you as many fiscally responsible, conservative reinforcements as we can–from the Democrat Party, too, if any can be found.
Now we have one more request. If you have personal friends across the aisle, please warn them. If they defy the Constitution, the rule of law, and the overwhelming opposition of the American people they are committing political suicide.
They’re not listening to us, they’re allowing themselves to be bullied by Nancy and Barak. Maybe they’ll listen to you before it’s too late.
I’m reading Tom G. Palmer’s Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice. It is a collection of essays about freedom, liberty, and rights in the classic Western tradition. I can’t help but think that if our lawyers read even a few of these essays we would not have judges who felt they could write law or lawyers busy creating new “rights.”
In the essay I’m reading now he describes how Spanish thinkers of the School of Salamanca argued for the personal and property rights of American Indians and how Pope Innocent IV argued in 1250 for those rights for non-Christians in connection with the Crusades.
Have your children been taught in school about the enslavement of native Americans by the Spanish or about those Spanish who advocated for their rights? Have you heard Islamic scholars advocate for the rights of “infidels” the way the pope advocated for theirs?
We are losing our Western culture and history because we don’t know it. It is being replaced with collectivist thought and manufactured “rights.” But as the Founders knew,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our rights are God-given. Without God there are no unalienable rights–only rights granted or taken away by the state. Without God there are no unalienable rights–just raw power.
In hoc signo vinces.
It seems touch-and-go. The White House, using a predictable basketball analogy, calls it a “jump ball.” One day I hear Pelosi has the votes, the next day I hear she doesn’t. Grass roots liberty organizations encourage us to call, write, fax or visit our congressional representative yet again to register once more our unalterable opposition.
Been, there, done that. They know. A Colorado grassroots organizer said
I was in Jared Polis [D-CO2]office yesterday and a few months ago took a group of Doctors , Nurses, Engineers, CEO and other professional and met with him. He has made it clear that he is voting for this health care bill and he also was pushing getting the Government Option back into the bill. I have had people sign letters and have delivered them to him, it still does not matter. Jared Polis will vote for this bill no matter what we do.
In reviewing this last week’s polls, Rasmussen wrote:
Are national Democrats on a kamikaze mission to pass their health care reform plan and destroy themselves at the polls in November? That’s what it seems like…
So what will happen if Pelosi convinces them to pass the bill and the president and the senate do the “reconciliation” process? Will Americans rise up in revolt? Will they storm the barricades, fire-bomb congressional offices, march into the legislatures and literally throw the bums out? That would send a message that would stop the madness, wouldn’t it? Wasn’t King George burned in effigy more than once and the tea dumped into Boston Harbor? Does not the Declaration of Independence read:
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,…
Yes, that would get their attention. Those admirers of Mao in the administration and in congress who believe that power comes from the barrel of a gun would reap what they have sown.
But that will not happen. If they manage to pass this blatantly unconstitutional bill in the middle of the night, Americans will get up the next morning and go to work as usual–if they still have work–more determined than ever to effect a permanent change to the ills that surround us.
No, retribution will not be swift–but it will be certain.
The candidate debate sponsored by the The Constitutionalist Today was a great success. My lasting impression is that we are very fortunate this year to have a field of great candidates in this most important of election years. We will need to carry on and amplify the enthusiasm I saw last night on into November and beyond.
There were three contested races on the program: US senate, Colorado treasurer and governor, in that order. The five senate candidates –Barton, Buck, Norton, Tidwell, and Wiens–went first and it made for quite a long session with each of them answering questions from each of the panel members. There were a couple of light moments as when Ken Buck started answering a question by saying “I’m Steve Barton and I’m running for senator,” mimicking the line Steve had used to start each of his answers. One of the panelists asked Jane Norton how she differed from Ken Buck and she quipped that it ought to be pretty obvious how she differed from all the other candidates on the stage. There was, of course, a lot of substantive talk as well. Ken Buck took the “texting” and paper polls, followed by Jane Norton.
Treasurer candidates Ament and Hasan really livened things up as they sparred over how the state should be investing its funds and how bad (or not) the current allocation is. Ali had his ever-present giant spreadsheets and JJ talked to the issues emphasizing his investment experience. I found it very interesting that the current Democrat treasurer is not a financial expert but rather just another lawyer and that it has been 40 years since the treasurer has had a financial background. I guess that’s what happens when the people are not really paying attention to who is running for office. JJ Ament took the straw polls.
Finally, gubernatorial candidates Dan Maes and Scott McInnis squared off. Perhaps because of the treasurer’s debate this one was lively as well. Both men answered the questions directly and then “yielded the floor,” not trying to run out the clock and squeeze in prepared talking points. There was an interesting contrast of styles between Maes and McInnis. Each emphasized the kind of experience he brought to the table–Maes as a self-made business leader and McInnis as an experienced legislator. For me the key difference was their stands on taxing–and this year, who doesn’t think that’s a key issue? While McInnis has clearly opposed the Dirty Dozen and the car tax, he was reluctant to commit to repealing them, citing the budget shortfalls that would result. I think that stand reflects his experience in crafting budgets as a legislator and his view of what is possible. Maes on the other hand focused on cutting spending as well as reducing taxes. It seems to me that this is the right approach for 2010: the Democrats have advanced their tax-and-spend agenda so far that McInnis’ measured approach won’t be good enough. It’s going to take some out of the box thinking to get Colorado back on track and I think Dan Maes is the one to do it. The straw poll agreed.
Honestly, these debates were better than the presidential debates. The panel asked whatever questions they wanted to and each candidate gave an answer to each question. Sometimes they went off on a tangent towards the question they wanted to answer but mostly they answered the questions they were asked. Contested primaries are a good thing and great experience for the general election. The Democrats don’t know what they’re missing.
Only a few months into 2010, the Democrat Party’s strategy for November is emerging. Just like the CPSU, the Democrat Party has become a centralized party: as an outsider, I’m not sure who’s in charge–the DNC or OFA–but clearly they work together for the common goal.
The first step is to clear the path for the anointed candidates. This is happening in several ways.
Some Democrats see the handwriting on the wall (please pardon the Biblical reference in this context) and are retiring or switching parties. Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama–a retired doctor no less!–fits that category as does our own Colorado state Rep. Kathleen Curry who became independent. Others simply retire, such as Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) in December.
Others are being forced out by a party seeking to avoid scandal. The Democrats campaigned hard on being more ethical than the GOP and although that seems to me quite a stretch, they don’t want to be embarrassed this fall. Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd is one of those. Gov. Bill Ritter is rumored to have made his decision under this kind of pressure as well.
There are always these kinds of retirements, scandals, and so forth but the number and timing seem more than coincidental. Doesn’t a Democrat begin facing a scandal by denying and stonewalling? That is not happening now. What is happening is that the party is purging moderates and others who may hinder the party’s goals. I use the word purge purposefully: just as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao and others all purged their parties. Rep. Eric J. Massa of NY seems to be one of these. His so-called scandal isn’t really all that awful–if we can believe what we’ve heard so far is all there is to it. Rather, he seems to have been purged for his lack of support for Obamacare.
The second step is to support the right candidates who will advance the party message. Here in Colorado, Obama made a campaign stop for Bennett. That does not sit well with long-time Colorado Democrat activists. In an open letter published by Romanov supporters, two members of the DNC and 2008 Obama supporters write:
During our service on the DNC, no sitting Democratic President of the
United States ever became involved in a Democratic primary for the
U.S. Senate….It is inappropriate and unacceptable for national Democratic Party officials and the President of the United States, who is the titular head of the Democratic Party, to engage in Democratic primaries.
Have we not heard the same objection with regard to RNSC support of a senatorial candidate in this state? Yes, but with a difference.
In the Democrat Party, at least, the message is clear: it’s not about the candidate, it’s about the Party. The Democrats hope to overcome the difficulty they are having in getting their platform enacted by purging their own party. Heads up, Democrats: If you’re getting in the way of the Left’s message, you’re gone. A contested primary allows for debate on the issues. In this party there is no room for debate. Conservative Democrats are long gone; now it’s the turn of the moderates.
A guest post by Tres Melton of The Green Dragon Tavern
It can be deadly to focus on narrow issues and ignoring the broad strokes can be just as deadly. The GOP is more attractive to the Tea Parties and 9/21 Projects, as well as the many other liberty-oriented groups, than the Democrats are but that does not mean that their support is a foregone conclusion for the GOP. I have researched and written about this and posted it on the Green Dragon site.
If the Republicans cannot understand the motivation for the Tea Parties then they will never be able to avail themselves of the energy their activists wield. If the GOP can’t select candidates that the liberty activists can get behind this time then they run the risk that these groups will form a third party in the next two years. Make no mistake, if they do form an alternative party, the majority of their followers will come from the independents and from the GOP. This would be devastating to both the liberty groups and the GOP and leave the socialists in power for quite some time.
I have heard it said that Obama’s election was the best thing that could have happened to the GOP as it has motivated them to action. It has caused them, to a lesser degree than it should have, into introspection of their philosophies and ideals. It has pushed the independents that are not socialists away from the liberal/progressive policies of the Democratic Party and given them cause to look again towards less government. These are all good things and opportunities not to be squandered.
We need to adopt a platform for the party, resolutions, and candidates that can attract these new people. The support of these newly-minted liberty groups is not a certainty but what is a certainty is that the opposition of these groups would be devastating.
I’m beginning to understand that the real problem is not taxes–it’s spending. I hinted at that on February 15 in my post Why eliminate tax breaks?
How do you do that? Obama’s so-called spending freeze, which exempted just about everything, was purely political theater. It wasn’t too many days later when he pledged billions to develop nuclear energy. We know he’s not serious.
But the Cato Institute is: They have a site called Downsizing the Federal Government. It is fairly new (October 2009) and packed with ideas. What a great concept!
Another useful site is Federal Budget. This site breaks down the budget into its parts and compares the last several budgets. It explains useful terms like the difference between the deficit and the debt. You can also see interesting graphs. Can you find this information on government websites? Yes, but it is very hard to find the clear and simple answers you’re looking for. Surprised?
We haven’t seen this kind of discussion since the Reagan years and all I can say is “Bring it on!”
