Lamar Alexander (TN), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (AR), Richard Burr (NC), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Dan Coats (IN), Thad Cochran (MS), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), Mike Enzi (WY), Deb Fischer (NE), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), John Hoeven (ND), Johnny Isakson (GA), Mike Johanns (NE), John McCain (AZ), Rob Portman (OH), Jeff Sessions (AL), Richard Shelby (AL), John Thune (SD), Roger Wicker (MS)

Ask them why they joined tax–and–spend Democrats and voted for the disingenuously named “Marketplace Fairness Act” that expands the size of government and extends crony capitalism by allowing states to force online and mail order retailers to collect sales tax from shoppers that don’t live in the state where the retailer is located.

When does a conservative philosophy include coercing retailers based in a state with no sales tax into collecting sales tax for states that do? How can the laws of Virginia apply to a company doing business in New Hampshire?

As of now a state can only require a company headquartered elsewhere to collect sales tax if the firm has a physical presence (a store, warehouse, distribution center) in the state that wants the tax collected. Obviously Wal–Mart, Sears, Home Depot and so on already collect sales tax because they are located nationwide. Amazon and eBay only charge sales tax in California where they’re located and a few states where distribution centers are located.

Consumers who buy from out–of–state online stores are supposed to send a check to their state revenue service each year in the amount of sales tax they would have paid locally, but the honor system for tax payments does not seem to be working.

States could withhold a percentage of your paycheck each year to cover the estimated amount you would pay in online sales tax. (Does term ‘withholding’ ring a ball?) At the end of the year you could file a return with receipts from online purchases and if you spent less than the state estimated, you would get two refunds, instead of just one!

Somehow state politicians don’t think this idea would be too popular. Instead they want the federal government to force online retailers who don’t have a location in their state, don’t use any services in their state and don’t have any representation in their state to collect taxes for their state. And if they don’t, the state will seize the company’s property through court proceedings in a state where the company isn’t located. It’s remote control taxation without representation.

I can understand why Democrats support this, it’s right up their alley. What I can’t understand is how a Republican that’s supposed to support limited government can vote for it. The rationalization they use is “fairness,” which is the handmaiden of “share the wealth.”

Proving he can string clichés with the best of them, Sen. Enzi says, “This bill is about fairness. It’s about leveling the playing field between the brick and mortar and online companies and it’s about collecting a tax that’s already due. It’s not about raising taxes.”

So the fact you will now be paying more tax is just an unfortunate byproduct that can’t be blamed on Enzi.

I’m with the folks at Catholic Online who describe the bill thusly: “There’s nothing fair about a tax whose sole purpose is to punish businesses that employ an efficient business model. The tax does nothing to improve consumer choice, rights, or value. It’s another case of big business using its influence in Washington to compete by legislation against small, private retailers.”

Enzi can spout “fairness” all he wants, but the bill is about revenue.

This bill will cripple smaller online operations that have created a niche business on eBay. The magnanimous potentates in the Senate have graciously agreed to exempt businesses that don’t gross $1 million in yearly sales, but that just proves how ignorant politicians are regarding the market. A business that grosses $1 million might net 10 percent of that amount if they’re lucky. There’s no room in $100,000 to hire someone to manage sales tax collection for the 50 states.

The bill also requires states to provide “free” software to help retailers become revenuers. We all know how well that’s going to go. For a look at Virginia’s adventures in software see here. And if the state can’t get the software to work, there’s no penalty. But if the company can’t get the software to work it wins a nice tax lien.

This bill is crony capitalism attracting Republicans who confuse being “pro–business” with being “pro competition.” They are dupes of businesses that want to limit competition rather than compete.

Local retailers already have an advantage over online retailers. The product is in stock. The customer can examine it. If the customer has a question, there should be an informed salesperson nearby ready to provide information (I realize you can fire a howitzer in Wal–Mart, Sears, Best Buy, Home Depot or Costco and not hit a salesperson, much less an informed one, but we’re talking an ideal competitive situation here). Even better there are no shipping charges when one buys locally. And if the product is defective or the buyer changes their mind, it’s returned locally.

Meddling in the market on behalf of favored businesses is second nature for Democrats, but you would think GOP members would know better. Here in Washington, DC an out of control city council is busy writing regulations to ruin the business of lunchtime food trucks in downtown DC. The justification is identical to that of the “Marketplace Fairness Act.”

Brick and mortar restaurants are complaining that food trucks are stealing customers and they don’t have to pay property taxes like the restaurants do. Sound familiar? But even if the council banned food trucks altogether — and with this council you never know — there would not be a boost in lunchtime restaurant business because the restaurants and the food trucks serve a different customer base.

Food truck customers are in a hurry. They line up; they grab the food and head back to the office. Or sit on a park bench and fight the pigeons and the homeless for their fish taco. The food trucks don’t take credit cards and the prices aren’t all that cheap. But the process is faster than a sit down restaurant and there’s no tip.

If food trucks vanish, customers will bring their lunch or visit a deli or sandwich shop that is faster than a restaurant. They won’t be filling a table at whatever uppity lunch spot is hot this month.

A conservative would hope the “Fairness” the bill is DOA in the House, but there are dupes everywhere. Rep. Steve Womack (R–Wal–Mart) explains, “Obviously there’s a lot of consumers out there that have been accustomed to not having to pay any taxes, believing that they don’t have to pay any taxes. I totally understand that, and I think a lot of our members understand that. There’s a lot of political difficulty getting through the fog of it looking like a tax increase.”

If the esteemed representatives really want to “level the playing field” with online merchants, then lets go all the way. Charge the sales tax but require local merchants to make the following changes:

• Customers in the store can’t actually hold the merchandise; instead they must examine a series of small photos.
• If customers have a question regarding a product, they are required to email or call customer service for information. Hold time must be at least five minutes and you have to press three numbers to guarantee an answer in English.
• Customers won’t be able to get buying advice from salespeople, but they can go through a box of 3X5 cards filled with poorly spelled recommendations from anonymous random people who may or may not actually own the product.
• Customers may buy the product at the store, but they must wait five days to pick it up and they must pre–pay a pickup fee. If the customer wants the product sooner, they must pay a larger pickup fee. In no case can the customer get the product in less than 24 hours.
• If the product is defective or the customer changes their mind, they must ship the product back to the store, rather than take it themselves.

Brick–and–mortar stores with high prices and disinterested staff deserve to lose out to online merchants. It’s what happens in a competitive marketplace, unless Big Government politicians start interfering.

When Republicans sound and act like Democrat-light and Democrats hijack the rhetoric of and abduct issues from the Republican Party, how can the voter reasonably expect to decipher the difference?

The American political system has been corrupted by self-interested career politicians far more interested in their own political survival and the accompanying feeding from the public trough than they are in looking out for the interests of the American voter.

Americans need to realize that the Republican versus Democrat political paradigm, if not dead, is on failing life support.

Being a Republican no longer consistently means standing for constitutionally limited affordable government, lower taxes and a free market capitalist economic system. Today’s Democratic Party is definitely not the Party of John F. Kennedy. The Party of “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” has become the Party of steal from the productive and control the redistribution of that wealth to a government dependent class which cries out “give us more free stuff.” In the interest of getting themselves re-elected, members of both political Parties have moved in the direction of giving away “free stuff,” be it in the form of Welfare and Food Stamps to the inner city poor or in the form of subsidies and tax breaks for special interest groups eager to be on the receiving end of crony capitalism.

In the twenty first century, the contemporary political paradigm in America is no longer Republican versus Democrat. It is Americans versus “progressives.”

If you are a “progressive” you are not an American, and if you’re an American you will never be a “progressive.”

Upon what foundation can such an assertion be made?

Today, the political philosophical divide in the United States lies between the intent of America’s Founding Fathers and the intent of “progressives”, who favor the Marxist view. The Marxist view is directly, fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the uniquely American view.

America is the birthplace of freedoms that allows everyone the right to own private property.

How would Americans react if, after years of struggle to make their mortgage payments, they finally owned their own home, then, what they thought was an American government “informed” them that their home did not belong to them after all, it belonged to “all of the people” and Americans had to follow government mandates to allow strangers to live on their property and in the home they had long labored to purchase…whether they liked it or not?

The American idea, the shot heard round the world, is that the people can govern themselves. By the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God Americans are entitled, by virtue of their humanity, to the maximum amount of Individual Liberties consistent with law and order, and to the Right of private ownership, not the least of which is the Right to own and decide for themselves. Where to live, what to do for a living, what to eat, where their children will go to school, what motor vehicle they will drive, what healthcare plan and which doctors work best for them. These Liberties and Rights are to be equally protected by a constitutionally limited, representative government that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

America’s Founding Fathers declared that all men are created equal; that in effect, all men are kings, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believed that a self-governing people could thrive without the “benefit” of having an oligarchy ruling over them.

A system which allowed “common people” to own property without first obtaining permission from a “divinely ordained” ruler – the American system – was a radical departure from centuries old norms. As originally designed by its Founding Fathers, America was a place where anyone could come, work hard, earn money, save those earnings, purchase property and elevate themselves and their posterity to a level that had hitherto been unattainable where individuals remained shackled by the constraints of older political systems. America was the place where undue government interference did not prevent individual achievement.

The “progressive” idea is that an all-powerful centrally planned government, with extreme hostility towards private ownership, forces redistribution of wealth in the name of social or economic “justice”. In order to ensure “fairness”, an oligarchy of self-imagined, self-appointed “intellectual elites” will control businesses, industries and people who are incapable of governing themselves.

These “progressive” ideas are European in origin, not American.

By fleeing Europe, America’s settlers rejected Europe’s failed ideas in pursuit of a better future. A future where their dreams and ambitions were no longer restricted by the outmoded constraints imposed upon them by the European socio-economic class structure.

For over two centuries America has been an unprecedented success where a five thousand year leap was possible. Since its birth America has been a beacon to freedom seeking people because the American idea is the better idea.

Among Americans there is no debate that the United States of America is by far the most inventive, productive, prosperous and charitable nation in the history of the planet. Among “progressives,” America is populated by backwards thinking, greedy, evil bigots who need to be “enlightened” and shown the error of their ways by their “progressive” superiors.

There has yet to be put forth one rational, logical argument to support abandoning the highly successful American idea in favor of European ideas that are currently failing in Europe itself.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/progressives-in-american-politics/

Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli brandishing one of the forms he forgot to fill out.

What is it about an elected official that compels rich people to want to give him gifts? Do they look needy? Hungry? Depressed? Is there a secret gift registry of which I’m unaware? Could it be a mentoring program where plutocrats adopt a middle–class governor or attorney general and show them how capitalism has paid off? Sort of a rescue program except no Labradors are involved?

Any of those reasons are an improvement over the suspicions of my wife. She believes the gifts are given because the recipients hold high public office and it might come in handy for a rich person to have a governor or attorney general in their pocket. So she is disappointed in Ken Cuccinelli. Again. And that goes for me, too.

For those of you who don’t follow Virginia politics, Ken Cuccinelli is the Tea Party–backed Republican attorney general who filed the first court case against Obamacare. He also fought the EPA on job–killing regulations. And the AG filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get the papers “global warming” guru Michael Mann used to get grants while he was at the University of Virginia.

I was first disappointed in Cuccinelli when he broke a promise to serve two terms as AG and not run for governor after his first. Details are here. Now Cuccinelli and Gov. Bob McDonnell are enmeshed within a gift controversy brought on in large part by McDonnell’s failure to use his head and Cuccinelli’s failure to use his ballpoint.

The nexus of the scandal is Jonnie R. Williams, Sr. who runs Star Scientific, a former cigarette company that has progressed from selling cancer to marketing Anatabloc a nutritional supplement made from a substance found in tobacco. Anatabloc is used to fight inflammation and its also contained in facial cream where it may help to remove wrinkles caused by smoking.

Williams is a new BFF that both Cuccinelli and McDonnell have known for about five years. (Hmmm that’s just about the time they’ve been in office, but it must surely be a coincidence.) Williams gave $15,000 to McDonnell’s daughter so she could pay the ‘Let ‘em Eat Cake’ catering bill at her wedding. Williams has also given the family free use of his vacation home at Smith Mountain Lake and let the governor drive his Ferrari back to Richmond from that same vacation spread in Western Virginia. All told William’s publicly disclosed gifts to McDonnell and his political action committee come to over $120,000.

And it’s all perfectly legal. I just hope the wedding catering smelled better than the rest of the gifts. In fact, the catering started the scandal ball rolling, because McDonnell didn’t declare the gift, since it went to his daughter. I mean, what’s out of the ordinary about some BFF you’ve known since 2009 dropping 15 gees on your daughter’s wedding? It sure beats a blender.

Now FBI agents are investigating the relationship between the governor, his wife Maureen (who has promoted Anatabloc) and Williams to see if there was a quid pro quo.

Once the media started following the foie gras the trail led to Cuccinelli. He hasn’t had any weddings recently — although with a brood his size it’s only a matter of time — but he did invest in Star Scientific stock after meeting Williams. I’m sure he thought it was a great opportunity. Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds had such great success with dietary supplements, what could possibly go wrong?

Cuccinelli also stayed at the Smith Mountain vacation home twice, accepted $6,700 worth of Anatabloc, took a flight to New York, borrowed Williams’ boat, took a trip to Kentucky, stayed at Williams’ house near Richmond, ate a Williams’ provided turkey dinner and was surprised to discover he owned over $10,000 in Star Scientific stock.

Many of these gifts and the stock were not reported promptly on disclosure forms. It’s appears Cuccinelli is a lawyer, but he’s not good with details and paperwork.

The worst part of this mess is that none of it had to happen. Conservatives were convinced Cuccinelli was different. He wouldn’t fall prey to the pitfalls of influence and influencers. But he did. And because he did, Cuccinelli is dealing with a campaign issue that never should have happened and one that sullies his reputation for ethics and honesty.

Delusional Democrats are fantasizing that the controversy may force McDonnell to resign. This is very unlikely, not the least because the events don’t rise to the level of a major scandal. But if McDonnell did resign, it would restore a disenchanted Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling’s faith in Providence. At the stroke of a pen Bolling would get to be governor without running a primary campaign, and even better he would be governor before Ken Cuccinelli!

Meanwhile I have some practical gift receiving advice for Cuccinelli and other conservative politicians who — I hope — don’t want to lose touch with the Americans that elected them:

1. Don’t take a gift from any ‘friend’ you made after you left high school unless it comes with a receipt, preferably from Wal–Mart.
2. Don’t buy stock in a ‘friend’s’ hot company if you didn’t know him in high school.
3. Even if you knew him in high school, don’t take any gifts from a company with ‘science’ in the name that isn’t run by someone in a lab coat.
4. Don’t take a gift from any ‘friend’ who owns a company that the SEC, FEC, IRS, FDA or the PTA is investigating.
5. Don’t hitch a ride on an airplane, yacht or submarine owned by a stranger you met after high school, unless you all chip in for gas.
6. Don’t accept free vacation housing from a ‘friend’ you met after high school, unless it’s a tent.
7. Don’t offer to valet park a ‘friend’s’ Ferrari if you have to drive it more than 200 yards.

Being generous and not including negative GDP growth that occurred during the first three quarters of Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama’s first reign (er, term), the GDP growth rate has been 2.12 percent, not something to crow about. The GDP growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2012, after Obama was re-elected, was a whopping 0.4 percent.

However, in July 2013, there will be a world-wide redefinition of the GDP, of what is produced. Government statistics will take into account components such as film royalties and spending on research and development. Billions of dollars of intangible assets will enter the GDP of the US economy. The redefinition is expected to add about three percent to the GDP growth rate. Brent Moulton, manager of national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, said:

“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings. At present, R&D counts as a cost of doing business, so the final output of Apple iPads is included in GDP but the research done to create them is not. R&D will now count as an investment, adding a bit more than 2 per cent to the measured size of the economy.”

Redefinition is fine. Just remember that apples should not be compared to oranges. But that minor technicality won’t phase Obama. I’m betting that Obama and his economic team will take credit for the GDP growth increase. He and they will conveniently forget to mention the definition change, will instead trumpet their policies as the reason for the growth. And we can expect the MSM to go right along with him. There is, after all, precedent. Look at what the MSM did with unemployment numbers – particularly just before the 2012 election.

But (and there is always a “but” when Obama is involved), the GDP growth rate will be in excess of five percent, well above what economists say is the “ideal” growth rate of about 2 to 3 percent per year. Too much GDP growth causes inflation. Expect economists to change the definition of “ideal” in order to support Obama.

So, come July, when the GDP growth rate jumps due to some accounting miracle, just remember that the economy is not really heating up. Rather remember what is actually going on, that Obama’s economic policies have not changed.

H/T to Tom, who called the GDP situation to my attention.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

In a sane universe “immigration reform” would be specifically designed to benefit the citizens of the nation passing the law, rather than be a law that only benefits non–citizens who came here illegally at the expense of the citizens.

But that hasn’t stopped Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL) from eagerly joining the Gang of Ocho’s efforts to pass a “comprehensive” amnesty bill. After being trapped in a room with both Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–Publicity) and Sen. John McCain (R–Media Loves Me, Unless I Run for President), Rubio has evidently developed Stockholm Syndrome. He claims this amnesty bill does not have any amnesty provisions. Instead is has a “path to citizenship” where the length of time before amnesty kicks in somehow makes amnesty more tolerable for conservatives.

Yet I have a simple test for supporters of any immigration reform bill. If removing the portions that deal with granting citizenship to people who came to the US illegally causes Democrat support to vanish, then what you have is an amnesty bill and not a “reform” at all.

During her testimony before Congress in support of the bill, Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Incompetano said the 844–page bill has many benefits, including stricter accountability for employers and improving border security. Yet you can accomplish both of those goals without legalizing 12 million illegal aliens and doing so might just reduce the number of illegals here now.

Opponents of actually enforcing immigration law claim the government can’t deport 12 million people, but no one I know is advocating that. In fact this is one of the areas where I prefer a libertarian solution: the illegals got here on their own without government assistance and they can leave on their own, too.

In a true magic beans moment, Rubio is so proud of the 13–year “path to citizenship” — as if a slow motion surrender to illegality is an improvement over an immediate surrender. Maybe he thinks during this cooling off period Republican outreach teams can contact the newly legal and persuade them they are really naturally conservative and should be voting GOP.

But I’ve got news for Marco: it’s not going to happen. His 13–year path is going to be the civil unions of the immigration fight. As soon as Rubio’s bill is passed Democrats will begin complaining about second–class citizenship for brown people. As Neil Munro has written, the bill already has 400 “exemptions, exceptions, waivers, determinations and grants of discretion and even better will be administered by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!

We will be lucky if the 13–years lasts 13 months.

Democrats will get their immediate temporary permanent status for the illegals and the increased border security will never happen. The same goes for employer sanctions.

We heard the amnesty and border security shuffle when Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million (Gee, wasn’t he a Republican?). Amnesty was immediate and border security was absent, which is why we are preparing to legalize 12 million now.

The fines Rubio dreams of (much like the $1,500 fines the Commonwealth of Virginia was going to impose of indigent drunk drivers) will never be collected and the English proficiency test will be found to be culturally insensitive. Instead, illegals will get a waiver for the fine and if they can look at two photos and distinguish George Washington from Simon Bolivar their English is good to go, too.

You think I’m exaggerating? Ha! The Democrats in charge of the District of Columbia are preparing to introduce legislation that would require pharmacies, and possibly doctor’s offices, to provide translators — at business expense — for any customer or patient who does not speak English. That in a nutshell (apt phrasing, that) is the Democrat philosophy on immigration.

And by the way, I was being conservative when I said 12 million illegals would join us. According to NumbersUSA it will be more like 33 million, because “comprehensive reform” doesn’t manage to reform one of the major failings of current immigration policy called “family reunification.”

You probably think unifying families makes sense, because parents should be able to bring their children into the country. But you are wrong, that policy would be the reform. Current Democrat policy defines “family” as grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, kissing–cousins, step–relatives and BFFs. So 33 million may be a conservative estimate.

Tea Party favorite Rubio is flacking for a bill that will only encourage more illegal immigration in the future, will not provide increased border security, will cost taxpayers billions, will depress wages for lower income workers, will burden the welfare system and — according to a report from Emily Schultheis in Politico — give Democrats 11 million so new voters, which is about the voting population of Ohio.

This leaves conservatives with a choice of opinions regarding Marco Rubio. One, he’s either too gullible to ever be allowed in the Oval Office or two, he’s a Democrat sleeper agent.

Senator Marco Rubio and his Gang of Eight, which should be renamed “Gangsters of Eight,” wants 12 million illegals granted amnesty, i.e. citizenship, because they’ve lived and worked in America for five years or more. Rubio knows many illegals have turned out to be violent criminals crowding U.S. prisons, but he is ignoring that as well as the fact that over the years many foreigners living in America have bombed America in an act of Islamic jihad like the two Boston bombers, granted citizenship right after 9/11, despite their background.

America welcomes people from across the globe, but leaders like the Gang of Eight seem more interested in grabbing immigrant votes than saying no to uneducated, low-skilled immigrants, as well as people from questionable countries where Islamic terrorism reigns.

First: Many illegals south of the U.S. border are proven to be low-skilled and uneducated, and that downs the American economy.

Second, the problem with legalizing 12 million illegals is many are violent criminals now filling our prison systems.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office

At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004–a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years–about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico. We estimate the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens–Bureau of Prisons (BOP)’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP–totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004.

The next problem is assimilation.

According to the Department of Justice:

“[I]n fiscal year (FY) 2010, slightly less than 1 percent of the 40,651 foreign national inmates from treaty nations in federal prison were transferred to their home countries.”

The DOJ says its reason for low transfers back to native countries is many illegal criminals cant speak English, therefore:

insufficient translation services may keep some inmates from fully understanding and participating in the program.” As a result, “Overall, [the Bureau of Prisons] BOP and [International Prisoner Transfer Unit] IPTU, combined, rejected 97 percent of requests from foreign national inmates because they determined the inmates were ineligible or not suitable for transfer. Specifically, from FY 2005 through FY 2010, the BOP rejected 67,455 of 74,733 (90 percent) transfer requests.

In other words, it pays for criminal illegals not to assimilate and speak English, that way they can stay in the U.S, on the taxpayer’s dime where they will be well taken care of, on the taxpayers dime.

The biggest threat is terrorism: We have foreigners, both legal and illegal from Islamic countries with connections to Islamic terror. Despite those threatening connections, the word “racism” has forced the government and Americans to express apologetic tolerance to anyone connected to Islam, even when they have YouTube and Face Book pages demanding jihad against “infidels,” whom they believe must be exterminated.

As a result, we are faced once again with terrorism in our nation committed by two foreign nationals from an Islamic terrorist nation—Chechnya.

The Boston Marathon Bombers were brothers who arrived in America after 9/11. 26 year-old Russian-born Tamerlan Tzarnaev, the suspect police killed, has been a legal permanent U.S. resident since 2007. His younger brother Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, a 19-year-old, also reported as living here legally, was born in Kyrgystan or Chechnya. Before coming to the United States, both men attended school in Dagestan, which Russian journalists say contains an Islamism extremist insurgency. It is also reported the two brothers came to the U.S. on grounds of asylum and had difficulty assimilating and making friends.

But was it really difficulty assimilating or refusal to become Western, because their social media pages show growing anti-American Islamic extremism.

Just because some immigrants cannot make friends has nothing to do with Americans not welcoming people. Americans welcome people from all over the world. Those who do not assimilate do not want anything to do with this country’s culture. Those who say they do not have any friends after 10 years do not want friends and that right there is a sign that something terribly wrong with those individuals.

Were the brothers connected to Islamic terror? Yes.

Tamerlan’s Youtube page features Islamist terror videos by Sheikh Feiz Mohammad who “urges Muslims to kill the enemies of Islam and praises martyrs with a violent interpretation of jihad.”

In Tamerlan’s YouTube profile he states he is Muslim and doesn’t drink or smoke anymore because “God said no alcohol,” and he believes “There are no values anymore…people can’t control themselves,” and as a Muslim “I’m very religious.”

If this bombers had talked about purchasing AR-15′s and posted Rand Paul videos, they would have been incarcerated long-ago on the grounds of terrorism.

More Islamic terror connections: The Boston bombs are the same as IEDs used by jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Times Square Bomber used a similar pressure cooker bomb; bombs jihadists can learn how to build at home with instructions from the Al Qaeda magazine Inspire. But that doesn’t matter to the left-wing media who are disappointed the bombers were not “far right-wing American militia nuts” with Sarah Palin bumper stickers and reading NRA magazines.

For the left-wing media, it’s a huge disappointment to hear Islam is still terrorizing America when too many white men continue to vote Republican!

Never mind the two Boston bombers are white. The fact they are Islamist terrorists makes them off limits.

Facts are facts: These Islamic connections should have been a heads-up warning with U.S. immigration when the two men arrived after 9/11. The YouTube pages by these men should have been a signal to the government that these men posed a national threat, but the government is more interested in spying on innocent, law-abiding Americans, who, heaven forbid, may legally own firearms for sport, hunting, and protection from violent criminals.

Tolerance must come first above the security of American lives.

And Rubio still wants to legalize 12 million illegals? We must ask important questions to Marco Rubio and the Gang of Eight:

1. Should these two Chechens have been granted citizenship? They were from an Islamist terror nation with radical beliefs and became more threatening over the years. They plotted and bombed marathon spectators and then killed a cop in and high speed car chase.

2. Should America legalize illegals demanding citizenship because they live in this country five years or more?

3. Do Americans owe foreigners citizenship just because they demand it and Washington leaders need votes to remain in office until we watch their feet leave office first?

4. How many illegals waiting for amnesty in this country are violent criminals?

5. How many illegals from Islamic countries are living here with dangerous plans for America?

Thanks to vote-grabbing politicians, we don’t know until it’s too late.

They proceeded to enter the hotel and ask why a hotel located in Beverly Hills, CA was flying the flag of a foreign nation alongside Old Glory.

Brandon (who did not give his last name) the front desk manager working in the hotel told them it had been raised to honor the heritage of Mexican farms that were located on the land before the hotel was built.

He then proceeded to tell them to “get used to it” and had security escort them from the building.

Apparently this is not the first time this issue has been raised with the hotel: http://immigrationbuzz.com/?p=2321

Why were American Citizens escorted from the premises for asking that question?

Why were American Citizens told to “get used to” seeing the Mexican Flag fly above a hotel located within the United States of America?

Not only does the day manager’s explanation sound dubious, it does not jive with the history shown in the hotels own video: http://www.beverlyhillshotel.com/anniversary-video

Anyone acquainted with American history knows that California has been part of the United States since the Mexican-American War (1846–1848) ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which determined that the states of California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah would became U.S. Territories, while the lower region of California, the Baja Peninsula, remained a part of Mexico.

America assumed a $3.25 million dollar debt and paid out $15 million more for California. Translated to today’s money, that $15 million comes to $376 billion.

Quite simply, this is part of the “progressive” assault upon America. This is happening while “progressives” within both major American political Parties attempt to devalue American Citizenship through “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Not only should American Citizens contact Congress and tell them granting American Citizenship to foreign nationals who broke the law to come and stay in America unwarranted, they should contact the Beverly Hills Hotel immediately and let them know that flying the flag of a foreign country within the United States of America is completely unacceptable.

Reservations@thebeverlyhillshotel.com  310-276-2251.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/welcome-to-the-hotel-mexifornia/

The new, focus–group tested GOP logo.

It’s remarkable that the political party allegedly joined at the hip with Big Business has such an incredible problem with a basic operational task like marketing. Somehow when it came time to divvy up the commercial sector, the Republicans got all the boring accountants, while the Democrats scooped up all the cool art directors.

Confining Republican outreach efforts to shareholder annual meetings and Daughters of the American Revolution gatherings is obviously not working. We’re going to have to get a “twitter” and compose some “twits” er, “tweets” if the GOP intends to become the happenin’ party.

Fortunately, great minds are at work on this project and they have arrived at a solution. Over the next few years the GOP will be including up a storm. According to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, the party will be establishing “swearing–in citizenship teams” to approach the newly naturalized with the new, improved GOP message.

I have this mental picture of first contact that’s a combination of ‘The Andromeda Strain’ and ‘Alien’ but I’m sure that’s too harsh. No doubt the teams will be so earnest they squeak when they walk and they will have memorized an “elevator speech” for new citizens who get within range. Assuming Organizing for America and the SNAP people have not hogged all the good tables at the accompanying trade show.

But that’s not all, this “not your grumpy old man’s GOP” will also reach out to minorities who didn’t get here by crossing a river. Priebus says, “We will talk regularly and openly with groups with which we’ve had minimal contact in the past: LULAC, the Urban League, the NAACP, NALEO, La Raza. And we will take our message to college campuses, with an especially strong focus on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.” And I suppose if the communists were still around, Republicans would have coffee with the KGB.

What he expects to accomplish by reaching out to the already convinced remains to be seen. I don’t recall being approached by a Honda salesman as I drove off the lot in my new Infiniti. A more useful approach to me would be contacting minority homeowners in suburban neighborhoods that are mixed racially and politically. Your chances of finding an open mind are vastly greater there than at the NAACP or Urban League.

Still, even if you find an open mind, there is the problem of party beliefs that are still a source of embarrassment to many in GOP leadership.

Which is why Priebus’ handpicked committee has come up with a solution. All national Republicans have to do to achieve presidential success is become Democrats, or more specifically Southern Democrats, since we won’t agree to spend as much money as the Yankee Dems.

And current or holdover members of the GOP base will be permitted to retain some conservative social views, but we are urged to avoid discussing our feelings in polite company or any gathering that includes representatives of the news media.

It’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” applied to an entirely different demographic group.

Specifically, the Priebus group claims it is “not a policy committee” and then recommends “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is code terminology for amnesty; and a change in “issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays,” which is code for quit criticizing Adam and Steve if they want to get “married.”

This is beyond strange. NRC big thinkers want the party to work hard to accommodate the views of two demographic groups that have no interest in voting for us so we will what? Get kinder treatment on MSNBC? Meanwhile the people composing the base of the party are alienated by their betters.

Undocumented Democrats are not going to vote Republican after receiving amnesty. You can get the details here. And homosexuals are not going to give up the best tables at trendy restaurants so they can break bread with Ralph Reed at CPAC. And speaking of Ralph, who is the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, he takes a dim view of the report, “If the Republican party tries to retreat from being a pro-marriage, pro-family party, the big tent is going to become a pup tent very fast.” And he adds, “I am concerned that some in the party are going wobbly on this issue,” which is putting it mildly.

As for amnesty, a Washington Post/ABC poll found that Republican party members opposed amnesty by a margin of 60 to 35 percent, with 5 percent refusing to answer since the question was not in Spanish.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, proposes to hit the GOP where it hurts when he says, “”I would not give my money to the national party, to the national Republican Party. I would not give it to the RNC, I would not give it to the Republican Senatorial Committee nor to the Republican Congressional Committee,” which pretty much covers all the bases.

Good advice, particularly when you consider the recent lawsuit filed over entertainment problems in connection with last summer’s Republican National Convention.

Now I’m not referring to the run–of–the–mill lawsuit involving some rookie advance man who plays an unauthorized version of In–A–Gadda–Da–Vida at a rally to get the crowd fired up. (Usually the 17–minute album version, since even the most ancient, establishment Republican officeholder can shuffle up to the stage in that length of time.)

When Tom Petty or Heart or John Mellencamp demands a GOP candidate stop using their song, it’s not necessarily due to a disagreement on the issues. (Buying weed has taught them all about the free market and specifically the theory of supply & demand.) It’s because they know if the public starts associating their music with the accountant party, instead of the art directors, any hope of a revival tour will dry up.

No, I’m referring to the lawsuit that reveals the people in charge of entertainment at the convention offered Lady Gaga $1 million to perform.

For those readers who still miss Anita Bryant and may not be up to speed on Gaga, here is a brief rundown of her background. She’s a homosexual activist who supports homosexual marriage, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” enjoys performing in her underwear before large crowds and appears in blasphemous music videos.

And if that wasn’t enough, she thinks the rich don’t pay enough taxes!

There is no tactful way to say this. These people are idiots and have no idea what they are doing. Money given to them is by definition wasted. Even if by some stroke of misfortune Gaga had agreed to appear, there is no telling what she would have done once she was on stage.

That would have been a real two–fer: national laughingstock and object of scorn by the delegates. Besides convention delegates don’t go to hear Lawrence Welk or Wendy O. Williams. They go for the privilege of waiting in security lines, sitting on uncomfortable chairs, wearing silly hats, listening to obscure arguments and being bored by long–winded speakers.

Besides the panic currently being experienced by national GOP leadership is misplaced. As Michael Medved has helpfully pointed out the Republican vote among 18 to 29 year olds increased to 37 percent, a significant boost from 2008’s 32 percent. Voters under 30 of the white persuasion went for Romney over Obama by a strong 7 percentage points. It was minority Obama generating sympathy and solidarity among minority youth that won him that demographic’s vote. A situation unlikely to be repeated when the white brothers: Hillary or Joe, run in 2016.

Finally, if simple outreach and individual contact is the root of the problem, why don’t we try marketing the existing recipe before we start tinkering with the product?

Meanwhile, if Chairman Priebus wants to generate excitement and attract more and trendier youth to GOP conventions, do what they do in Trinidad: Serve rum backed with plenty of drums.

Whenever the phrase “equality” is used to make anything legal, look out, it’s not about fairness or liberty; it’s about having whatever one personally wants no matter the consequences to society and life in general.

The phrase “equality” is a very compelling argument. After all, here in the United States where liberty reigns and the Constitution upholds our natural rights to God-given liberty, we don’t want to take away anyone’s liberty.

Everything beyond our natural rights is a privilege individuals must work for—unless it is marriage. In that case, we are talking about something that has never been equal, because religions and societies are not equal.

Marriage is not listed in the Constitution, and for good reason: Marriage is a religious liberty instituted by God before governments ever existed. Government did not create marriage, government should never be allowed to dictate marriage or people will indeed lose private life. That’s why marriage is state-by-state.

But don’t think for one moment government would not like to get its expansive paws on marriage and dictate the rules of marriage and divorce.

Think about it: Do citizens apply for marriage licenses in Washington, D.C. or local town and city halls? If Americans sought D.C.’s permission to obtain marriage licenses, leaders would have the power to control how and when individuals marry, and heaven forbid, control marital life.

So, whenever Americans hear talk of “marriage equality,” look out, it’s an open door for government to finally become completely involved in private life, and when that happens, don’t think marriage affirmative action won’t be next on the list.

And therein lay the problem and questions no one’s asking both sides of the marriage argument.

What would the government do if marriage is taken from individual state’s and those rights are handed over to federal power?

There goes another Fourth Amendment liberty right down the tubes!

We must ask serious questions rather than assuming “that will never happen in America,” because too much of what we thought would “never happen here” already has and we are on the verge of all-out socialism.

Do readers really want marriage socialized and determined by the Federal Government? Could the Federal Government actually take control of marriage if given power to define marriage? If so, what are the possible repercussions?

If the Federal Government is given power over marriage, it would no longer be a state-by-state issue; a state’s right.

If the Federal Government has the power to define marriage, Washington could hold all Christian churches in contempt of the law if they refuse to perform same sex marriages.

Suppose the Federal Government were to twist Biblical scriptures “Judge  not lest you be judged,” and “whoever casts the first stone,”  falsely claiming scriptures demand no church can say no to same sex marriage or churches are violating scripture. Just imagine the Federal Government holding churches in contempt of the scriptures.

Never put anything past those who want to control the lives of citizens and use the Bible as a weapon against Christianity.

There goes more religious freedom.

Americans aren’t taking into account religious freedom; not having government impose its will upon our lives, which includes marriage. If we completely lose religious freedom, and we’ve lost much to the Left, Americans will in fact lose all liberty, because religious freedom is the foundation of this country.

Open the doors and let government into marriage and we wind up saying “I do” to the government.

As if we aren’t already.

Again, marriage has never been government instituted, but many determined to have rights to marry in all 50 states by-way-of  federal government mandate are not considering facts: They too will lose all rights to private life if the Federal Government is allowed to define and mandate marriage.

If given power to define marriage and give it “equality,” government could have power to define and determine who gets married and when.

How does Marriage Affirmative Action sound to readers?

Suppose the Federal Government said Christians can’t be married this year because the Federal Government does not have an equal quota on all marriages Christian, Jewish, gay, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, black, white, Asian, etc.?

What if  race-card panderers, who claim America is too white, place a quota on white marriages to lesson American’s birthing more whiteness?

Never assume power-hungry, vote-grabbing politicians, those with race-card platforms, and those who hate Christians and traditionalists, would never do any of the above to Americans.

Here’s another question: If the Federal Government has control over marriage, couldn’t it have the say over who can and cannot divorce?

Just imagine the Federal Government telling abused women they cannot divorce dangerous husbands who beat them.  Or denying Muslim women rights to divorce Muslim husbands threatening to behead wives, because Islam says women are second class citizens. Islam would no doubt demand Sharia Law marriage equality in America since it does in Europe. Abused women, Muslim and non-Muslim, already face difficulty when trying to free themselves from abusive situations; if government gets involved, government could say America has too much divorce, and then watch the real war on women begin.

Imagine the Federal Government not letting women divorce pedophile husbands on the grounds some claim pedophilia is a life-style choice, or, because some psychiatrists consider pedophilia a mental disorder that needs understanding and not condemnation.

Why would that be far-fetched when courts free pedophiles all the time on grounds of mental health disabilities rather than declaring them violent criminals and imprisoning them for life.

And let’s not forget divorce attorneys! They must rubbing their hands with glee over the fact they might become twice as wealthy if gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

Never assume this could not happen in a country where the Federal Government long-ago overreached it’s 17 Enumerated Powers into the states.

And let’s not forget polygamists; they consider their marriages religious liberty.

If Americans seriously think polygamists are not hoping the Supreme Court sides with gay marriage and the Federal Government makes marriage legal for everyone, America is wearing rose colored-glasses. Polygamists want equal rights to marriage,  they’ve already jumped on the bandwagon for “marriage equality” and are demanding federal rights to marry multiple wives, including young girls forced into polygamist marriages in Colorado City, Utah.

Hey, give one group rights to marry, you must then provide full liberty and equality to all, right?

No one realizes how much power “marriage equality” holds for government to overreach state’s further and completely intrude on and order everyone’s fourth Amendment rights if marriage is government controlled.

Don’t ever think the Federal Government would never do that.

Below, in conjunction with the previous post, is a statement of principles for this initiative.

Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC)

Statement of Principles

It is essential to defend the rights of the individual over the expanding authority of government to establish preemptive regulation in most forms.

Individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the mutual right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments exist to provide specifically, but they ought not to violate the rights of any individual, as follows:

Protect:

(1) The right to life — Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists supports the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;

(2) The right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all attempts by government to make laws encouraging or restricting the establishment of any religious organization, or prohibiting the free exercise of the doctrines thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the publication of views (print or digital); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of  petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances; or by imposing censorship in any form upon an individual or organization expressing non-violent opposition to government acts; and

(3) The right to property — accordingly Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists

1. Oppose all government interference with private ownership of capital and property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and
2. Oppose any form of government regulation of the financial management of private ownership of capital and property, and
3. Support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, ought not violate individual rights, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.  People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives, liberty, and property for the benefit or choices of others.  They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders.  The most effective economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is Free Market Capitalism.

Free Market Capitalism is essential for the best ordered society.  Free Market Capitalism consists of absolute ownership and control of all resources of production being held in the hands of private individuals and groups of individuals in contract.

Most recently, Euro zone leaders agreed to fund a bailout of Cyprus with a deal that includes taxing private bank deposits.  The deal to fund 10 billion euros worth of rescue loans for Cyprus imposes a 6.75 to 9.9 percent tax on those with cash in Cyprus banks.  Without the EU bailout Cyprus cannot avoid default, but the unexpected and unprecedented decision to take money from private depositors fueled a sense of crisis across the euro zone and led to a run on Cyprus banks by depositors.

The Cyprus deal could lead savers in similarly indebted countries like Greece, Italy and Spain to withdraw money from their banks, leading to a regional economic crisis that would affect bond and stock markets world-wide.

Imagine the difficulty faced by the world’s economy when the United States of America can no longer finance its debt.

It can happen here.

Greece recorded a government debt to GDP of 170.60 percent in 2011.  In 2011, the United States government debt to GDP ratio was about 100 percent.  Should the United States continue deficit spending at current rates, the United States will soon surpass Greece in debt to GDP ratio.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/18/cyprus-bailout-markets

What the United States government must do is stop spending money it does not have.

Before that will happen, American taxpaying voters must be made aware of the realities of the situation.

For so long as American taxpayers are unaware of the danger that looms just over the horizon, their concern will be focused on maintaining current levels of government payouts for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  Until American voters understand that not restructuring big government socialist programs will bankrupt the U.S., they will not vote for the necessary revisions.  They will continue to vote for the status quo.

The truth about the danger American debt poses to the U.S. economy is not being disclosed by “progressives;” be they politicians, media pundits, college professors, Hollywood producers or government bureaucrats…including but not limited to winners of the Nobel Prize for economics.

It does not take a Nobel Prize winner to see that whole sections of the European economy have governments whose budgets are in horrible shape and teetering on the brink of true insolvency.  It does not take a genius IQ to realize that the cause of debt in those countries is big government spending money it does not have on socialist programs to support citizens dependent upon government for their existence.

It also does not take a Nobel Prize winner or a genius IQ to find information that makes it past the “progressive” filter NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek and the rest of the “progressive” Party Pravda use to misinform the American public.

All it takes is a desire to learn the truth and a willingness to search beyond the filtered information used by “progressives” to nudge people into believing what “progressives” wish them to believe.

The last time America faced an existential threat during WWII, Americans fought and died by the thousands on foreign lands.

Is asking Americans to view the “mainstream media” with a skeptical eye and seek out second opinions now too much to ask?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/it-can-happen-here/

Lady Liberty: A beacon of freedom the entire world sees.  A symbol of a better way of life anchored in liberty, opportunity and equal protection under the law.

Inspiring yes, but that is not the entire story.

Lady Liberty also stands as a reminder to America that the the American way of life is why people have come to this country for centuries.

What the world is currently witnessing is the collapse of the European socialist economic model; the failure of government dependency. As more people become dependent on government, fewer people are left to pay the cost.

But it goes beyond simply spending other people’s money. The socialist entitlement mentality makes people less productive. As more and more people become less and less productive, an ever-smaller minority of productive people become responsible for shouldering the burdens of a completely lopsided, unfair system. When a tiny number of productive people are required to deprive themselves of the fruits of their own labor in order to finance the lives of the remaining population, where is the incentive for them to produce?

If that is not enough, reliance on a big government nanny state makes people less responsible for themselves; less self-reliant. That is the antithesis of the American way of life.

When European settlers colonized the New World, they left the security of Europe behind in favor of North America’s unknown wilderness. They left homes, family, friends and country in exchange for an opportunity to build better lives for themselves. They were freed from the constraints of Europe’s restrictive class system.  They openly rejected the European way by their leaving.

When the British Monarchy deemed to re-impose that system on Britain’s thirteen North American Colonies, that attempt was adamantly and thoroughly rejected. Hence: the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the founding of the United States of America.

When America’s pioneers ventured forth to traverse the Great Plains and cross the Rocky Mountains they were completely self-reliant. They took care of themselves. They did not have, want, or need a big nanny state government to take care of them from cradle to grave.

This is the stuff of which America is made.

Because it gives them control over “the masses”, “progressives” have long sought to fashion America after the European socialist model, to make Americans more government dependent. There was FDR with the New Deal and Social Security. LBJ gave America the Great Society, Welfare Programs and Medicare.  Then, Obama forced upon an unwilling America the crown jewel of European style socialism; government controlled medicine.

Every time “progressives” hold a press conference they sound exactly the way they have always sounded: they inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Their policies are working, but need more time. Congress needs to quit stalling and enact more of their policies. The private sector is doing fine but to grow the economy government needs to spend more money to create more government jobs at the state and local level.

Repeatedly, “progressives” show exactly how out of touch they are with the private sector, how the American economy works, the lessons of American history and the nature of America’s people.

Europe will not work in America. Neither will out of touch narcissists who insist on imposing a long rejected European system upon America.

It is time for Americans to reject the following proposal, long foisted upon America by the self-imagined, self-appointed, “progressive” intellectual elite:

We, the government, are your lords and masters.  You will do as we say, not as we do.  For we are the enlightened “progressives” and you are but melting pot bitter clingers.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/lady-liberty/

Sen. Rand Paul gives hope to the curly–haired.

The 40^th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held this week in National Harbor, just across the river from Washington, DC, did not appear to be a depressed gathering of Republicans and conservatives still reeling from last November’s presidential loss. There was friendly rivalry between supporters of Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL), but I saw no evidence of divisive infighting and vicious internal attempts to gain mainstream media publicity at the expense of fellow party members.

But then again an impressive contingent of off–duty police officers was probably more than enough to keep John McCain and Lindsey Graham from attending the conference.

The opening day of CPAC 2013 evolved into a faceoff between two potential Republican presidential candidates: the aforementioned Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

Judging by the crowd’s reception, Paul was the winner.

Rubio — America’s foremost spokesman for regular hydration — did not address immigration, the issue he’s been most associated with this year. Instead the bulk of Rubio’s speech, once we got past the H2O jokes, was fairly standard — although he did touch on the call for a remodeled Republican party.

Rubio said the goal of the Republican Party should be to “create an agenda to apply our time–tested principles to the challenges of today” because average Americans are asking, “who is fighting for them?”

Specifically, Rubio believes the US should be the best place in the world to create middle–class jobs and to facilitate that the country must solve the federal government’s debt and spending problem. Republicans should stress pro–growth energy policies that include both oil and gas. On the home front, he wants every parent to have an opportunity to send their children to “the school of their choice.” And we need real heath care reform that empowers Americans so they can buy insurance from any company, regardless of where the company is headquartered.

The young senator also addressed leftist critics and predicted they will downplay his speech and claim that he didn’t offer any new ideas. “We don’t need a new idea. The idea is called America and it still works,” Rubio responded as the audience applauded.

It would have been the best conservative speech of the day, if Rand Paul had not made an appearance.

It was a standing–room only crowd that anticipated Paul’s appearance and it erupted in applause as he brandished the binders he used during his drone filibuster in the Senate and declared, “I was told I only had ten measly minutes, but just in case I brought 13 hours worth of information.”

Paul — who gives hope to the curly–haired since no one will ever call him ‘blow dried’ — began by explaining that the motivation for his filibuster was to question whether presidential power has limits: “We want to know will you or won’t you defend the Constitution?”

As an audience member called out, “Don’t drone me, bro!” Paul explained that the president’s good intentions are not enough. “No one person gets to decide the law,” he said. And that’s his philosophy in a nutshell: leaders must defend and abide by the Constitution even when it’s not convenient.

Paul then moved to compare his conservative philosophy with that of Obama’s, which has proven to be you can have your cake and eat your neighbor’s, too. He quoted Ronald Reagan who said, “As government expands, liberty contracts.”

With that in mind he proposed a five–year plan to balance the budget. Paul’s blueprint cuts the corporate income tax in half, creates a flat personal income tax of 17.5 percent, erases the regulations “strangling American business” and eliminates the Department of Education entirely giving the power and the money back to the states.

Paul observed without mentioning names that the GOP “of old has grown stale and moss–covered.” His new GOP will need a big tent because it will “embrace economic and personal liberty. Liberty needs to be the backbone of the Republican Party and I ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me.”

And the crowd did, giving him a standing ovation that easily eclipsed the response to Rubio’s earlier speech.

White House press secretary Jay Carney verbally attacked Ryan’s budget, saying it would punish middle-class Americans, cut taxes on the wealthy, and “the burden is doubled or even tripled on everyone else.”

Carney claimed Ryan’s “voucherization” reform of federal programs, including Obamacare and Medicare, “does nothing to deal with the fundamental problem, which is rising health care costs, but actually exacerbates that problem.”

These statements are in direct conflict with Obama’s heavily publicized attempt to convince the public he is trying to work with GOP legislators, which includes dinner with a group of GOP Senators, lunch with Ryan and two visits to Capitol Hill.

The real hope is that Obama’s efforts will boost his poll ratings, which have fallen noticeably since Obama tried to stop sequester cuts to the 2013 federal budget through demonization of their effect and by impugning the GOP’s motives.

Ryan’s plan is actually a reduction in spending, and does not cut federal spending at all.  “On the current path, we’ll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years [but] under our proposal, we’ll spend $41 trillion,” Ryan wrote in a Wall Street Journal article. “On the current path, spending will increase by 5 percent each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4 percent.”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/12/obama-delays-budget-until-april-slams-ryans-plan/

The GOP would be well advised to proceed at their own risk with every one of their senses on full caution mode.

The current Oval Office occupant has displayed disingenuous intent on more than one occasion and there is no real evidence to assume that his “charm offensive” is anything other than a change in tactics.  The destruction of his political opposition remains the underlying strategy.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-phony-white-house-charm-offensive/

While interviewing with the Huffington Post, McCain used the term “wackos” to describe Senator Rand Paul (R, KY), Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) and Representative Justin Amash (R, MI).

“They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else…But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone,” said McCain.

When pressed for clarification on who the wackos are, McCain responded “Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/08/mccain-calls-paul-cruz-amash-wacko-birds/

It seems like just yesterday that McCain was relishing his role as maverick, while using the megaphone provided him by the media to gain the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

Some Republicans, led by McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC), worry that the filibuster, which focused lots of positive attention on Paul, might end up reflecting poorly on the party.

Might these be the same Republicans who nominated Gerald Ford in 1976, sought to nominate John Connally or George H.W. Bush while opposing Ronald Reagan in 1980, nominated Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney?

Clearly, the most successful nominee in that bunch was the most Conservative: Reagan.  That the GOP continues to cling to the notion that presidential electoral success hinges on nominating the most moderate candidate largely explains their lack of recent success.

To his credit, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who may prove to fit into the Conservative new blood category, described the filibuster as “completely awesome.”

Meanwhile, in a radio interview with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Paul responded to McCain: “You know, I think he’s just on the wrong side of history, and on the wrong side of this argument, really.”

Paul continued by saying he respects both McCain’s military service and his legislative record, but stressed that McCain’s experience does not mean he is always right: “I treat Senator McCain with respect. I don’t think I always get the same in return.”

Americans on both sides of the aisle honor McCain for his service.  However, McCain must realize that it is time to pass the torch of leadership to a new generation of Conservative leaders demonstrably capable of filling his seemingly vacated role as maverick while leading Republicans to electoral victory.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/time-for-old-soldier-mccain-to-fade-away/