Category Archives: Cap and Trade

John Kerry: Scripture Commands USA to Protect Muslim Countries Against Global Warming

Last Wednesday, at a ceremony to appoint Texas lawyer Shaarik Zafar to be special representative to Muslim communities, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was the United States’ Biblical “responsibility” to “confront climate change,” including to protect “vulnerable Muslim majority counties.”

Kerry said Scripture, in particular the Book of Genesis, makes clear it is our “duty” to protect the planet and we should look at Muslim countries “with a sense of stewardship of earth,” adding, “That responsibility comes from God.” And here you thought all along that  “Uncle Joe” was the resident crazy in the Obama administration. I must say, it is always interesting to watch a liberal attempt to play theologian. Obama did it with homosexuality and now Kerry is playing it with climate change. They certainly have no problem using religion when it’s convenient to advance one of their crackpot agendas yet it is demonized at every other opportunity for things that really matter to the rest of us.

The world is aflame and the absolutely last thing I am concerned about when it comes to the Muslim world is how “climate change” may or may not affect them. Honestly, it’s the very, very last thing on a very, very long list of “concerns” I do in fact have with all those who follow the teachings of Muhammad. This ongoing, seemingly compulsive need to pander to the Islamic world is worrying indeed. Especially since thousands of Christians in the Middle East are being slaughtered, raped, enslaved, and driven out of their homes by followers of the same religion. One can only ask “why?” so many times.

It is theoretically comforting that Kerry appears to have had a “come to Jesus” moment when it comes to Christianity. But we all know that in reality it’s just a farce and another ploy to try to placate the Muslims and convince them that as “People of the Book” we really aren’t all that bad and to please try to stop blowing us up and beheading our people. It reminds me of the utterly bizarre directive of Obama to turn NASA into some sort of Muslim outreach program. Absurdity continues to run amok during the reign of President Barack Obama. Do the members of the Obama administration even live in the same world as the rest of us?

Where specifically in the Old and New Testaments does the words “Muslim,” or “climate change” appear? To be very specific, nowhere. It seems like there is not a day that goes by that a prominent liberal doesn’t say something that isn’t simply stupid. Quoting Scripture to “protect” Muslim lands is a new one to me. Perhaps he doesn’t read the same Bible as you or I.

And since when is ‘religion matters’ a mantra for the State Department? What the heck is that even supposed to mean anyway? One would think that if that was really true, the nutjob, militant atheistic Left would be up in arms but they are not. They know that such a statement is merely a hollow, meaningless piece of propaganda and totally without merit. I am inclined to concur with their conclusion.  It sounds like this is just as an apparent cover and excuse to impose massive government intrusion into every aspect of the daily life of the average American. Because that’s where it leads and is what it means.

The morals, values, and concepts of Christianity have been under unrelenting attack by this administration since its inception and it’s interesting that suddenly these types of references to scripture appear right before the mid-term elections. Perhaps a half-hearted attempt by some to confuse the average evangelical voter? Who knows? Kerry, the Bible also says we are commanded to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I [Jesus] have commanded you.” Care to publicize that the State Department is ‘making that it’s mantra” to the Muslim nations? I didn’t think so.

As the son, grandson, and great-grandson of ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ I can assure you that the theology of both John Kerry and Barack Obama is far from the truth and only being used as a cynical ploy to advance their ideological, and not theological, agendas. It’s always a bit distressing to hear Godless people try to misuse scripture to forward their secular agendas. I wonder if Kerry is aware of the scriptures describing liars and their one way ticket to hell. I’d love to hear him discuss that one sometime. Scripture also condemns bearing false witness which he has been caught doing innumerable times. One can only surmise that Kerry is selective when it comes to his faith worldview. Just being a Christian when it’s convenient isn’t acceptable.

When it comes to the liberal mind we are supposed to ignore Biblical passages about God knowing us while we are still in the womb and anything about the condemnation of homosexuality, but get all Biblical on climate change. For them, global warming is in many ways a new religion that trumps all others. I have a news flash, neither Kerry or Gore is the new Moses leading us into the Promised Land.

And last, but not least, if the Obama administration could come up with a strategy protecting both Muslims and others from beheadings, torture, forced starvation, rape, imprisonment, and mass executions at the hands of other, more devout, Muslims it would be appreciated. In the end, the real God of Progressives and liberals is the almighty state, not the God of the Bible. Big government is not God, and Barack is not his prophet.

Cows Cause Global Warming, but Obama Has a Plan

We learn today of a new effort by the Obama administration to further curb global warming, or climate change, whatever they’re calling it now, by regulating cow flatulence.

Apparently cows have a greater carbon footprint than all the SUVs in Beverly Hills, and they’re flatulence is killing us. Don’t worry; Obama has a plan.

You can read about it here at the Daily Caller.

As we often joke, it’s nice to know the administration has time for such issues now that every other crisis has been solved, though we wonder what those in the Ukraine about to be crushed under the weight of the Soviet (um, I mean Russian) military machine might have to say, and we also wonder what the cancer patients left in the cold by Obamacare might add to the conversation.

One cannot help but think about what kind of plan Mr. Obama will implement to curb cow flatulence. (Feel free to include your own suggestions in the comments.)

Based on previous action, and following in the footsteps of the California legislature who imposed a similar plan, it’s not hard to figure out what the administration will try.

Mr. Obama will probably set up a cap-and-trade program for cows. They’ll be limited to so many farts a day until they have to trade with other cows who haven’t yet used up their farts. Cows will probably trade food for farts–in fact, that’s a good name for the bill, “Food for Farts”. In other words, one cow gives up some of his food to be allowed to fart more while the other cow, who farts less, can eat more. This sounds counter intuitive, but don’t worry, it’s the government, so it will make perfect sense.

Conservatives will argue that this will lead to some cows getting more food than others, and then we’ll have a “grass inequality” crisis to go along with the “income inequality” crisis which will require another government program and waste tax payer money. Better to just let the cows fart all they want.

The left will say these programs will create jobs and put people back to work, and accuse the Republicans of hating cows, because they’re part black (Republicans hate anything black), even though there will be no proof that Republicans have anything against cows.

We are glad in our hearts knowing the Mr. Obama is in charge, and we cannot wait to see how he saves us this time.

Political Stance — Economic Liberty : Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists

Previously, beginning March 15, 2013  I posted the Platform of the Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC) political initiative.  This is not an official political party as yet.  However, it is a series of positions which can unify the nation around sound public policy which a vast number of Americans are craving.

Below, in conjunction with the previous posts, is the first section of the statement of the Political Stance of this initiative.

Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC)

POLITICAL STANCE

2.0    Economic Liberty

All members of society should have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. The Free Market Capitalism, a free and competitive market, allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others within such a market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society within a Free Market Capitalism system.

2.1    Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists favor restitution to the rightful owners, where possible to return it in like condition as when acquired.

2.2    Environment

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources.  Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, yet environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior, rather than the use of coercive force of government.

2.3    Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production, other than what is rightfully owned by government in an open competitive marketplace.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists endorse government officials encouraging the development of renewable energy sources, without regulatory enforcement, requirement, or funding thereof.

2.4    Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose any requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors.

Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution.

Governments at all levels should operate within available revenue, accrued from consumption tax rates approved by the people.

Whereas all federal spending originates in the House of Representatives the budget development process of the Government United States of America should be modified as follows:

  1. The budget shall be a two-year budget coinciding with the 18 months of the current congress, begin on the first July of said congress. (I.e. the 112th Congress runs from January 3, 2011-January 3, 2013.  The 112th Congress would adopt a budget encompassing two years beginning July 1, 2011.)
  2. All funding for federal programs shall be by a general consumption tax, or special program revenue fee-for-service.
  3. Once an initial consumption tax rate has been established by Congress, not to exceed 17%, any increase in the rate must be approved by the people at the same time as congressional elections, and by fifty-one percent (51%) of the states.
  4. A general government reserve must be established and maintained at a rate equivalent to 1/3rd of the approved consumption tax rate. (I.e. if the approved tax rate is 17%, than the reserve rate would be 5.7 %.).  [If the budget were 2 trillion dollars, required reserves would be 114 billion dollars].

2.5    Money and Financial Markets

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money the legal tender of the United States.


2.6    Monopolies and Corporations

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free market capitalism.

2.7    Labor Markets

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose government-fostered forced retirement.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employers should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all forms of unionized government employment, unless specifically approved by a vote of the people of the respective jurisdiction. (I.e. local or state government shall maintain the authority to submit to its respective citizens the right to decide whether such government shall be obligated to unionize any or all of its employees.)

2.8    Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.

2.9    Health Care

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.


2.10    Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private system.

Individuals have responsibility, accountability and liberty to manage their own lives.  However, we have learned from experience that most individuals, unaware of what future consequences of their life choices may bring, will fail to plan for adequate resources to care for themselves during time of incapacity.  Further, although liberty is individual, care for one another is a natural part of life’s experience. Governments in all ages have sought to control and provide for individuals during periods of incapacity.   In light of this reality it is proper for governments to require that all members of society prepare for their own eventual incapacity through a self-administered plan for future self-sufficiency.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists directly oppose any government regulation, control, or management of such self-care programs beyond requiring individuals to select such a plan and adhere to it.

The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

TLC Statement of Principles

On March 15, 2013 I posted the preamble to the Platform of the Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC) political initiative.  This is not an official political party as yet.  However, it is a series of positions which can unify the nation around sound public policy which a vast number of Americans are craving.

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.

Luxury Tax 2.0 – Obama’s War on Prosperity

President Obama keeps asking “Do you want to return to the failed policies of the past?” At the same time he is urging us to envy those who have worked very hard and risked their own capital to make the American dream come true.

An examination of that question might be in order. Those who are not willing to just blindly accept what they hear, but are of reasonable mind might wish to examine the facts. His plea is not a new one, it is one we have tried before, with disastrous results.

The politics of envy got a thorough trial under George Herbert Walker Bush (41). In fact it worked out so well, it cost him his job along with 200,000 other poor unfortunates. Philosopher George Santayana put it so well, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Either the current administration does not remember the “Luxury Tax” or they are banking on the fact that the public does not.

To refresh our memories, after his famous 1988 campaign quote “read my lips, no new taxes”, in 1990 under enormous pressure from the Democrats in congress, President Bush acquiesced and signed the “punish the rich for being rich” luxury tax bill. That bill greatly increased taxes on things like yachts, airplanes and expensive jewelry. The Democrats said it would increase revenues and if folks could afford to buy yachts, they should cough up some of that cash to help the poor and unemployed. The actual effect though, as one might guess, is that people quit buying yachts, or bought them offshore. The net effect was that revenues went down, and 200,000 people who worked in the boat building industry lost their jobs. Ultimately it cost Bush the 1992 election.

What so many people fail to grasp is “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” Everything we do has consequences but so many want a life without adverse consequences to anything. It just isn’t possible. The law of unintended consequences is a offshoot of the law of cause and effect. If one hits one’s self in the head with a hammer, one’s head will hurt. Cause (hitting your head), effect (head hurts).

The law of unintended consequences comes into play when ideas which sound, on the surface like good ideas meant only for the benefit of people, are implemented without any thought to what the actual outcome might be. For example everyone wants clean air. We probably have the cleanest air in the world now, but under the guise of cleaner air the EPA has put in place regulations which are closing coal fired power plants all across the nation, 57 this year and 175 by 2016. In the US 42% of our electricity comes from coal fired generators. That means that in exchange for making our air an infinitesimal amount cleaner we are going to not only sacrifice 8.5% of our coal fired generating capacity with nothing to replace it, but we are going to put thousands and thousands of people out of work. All of this while energy consumption continues to grow. As the power plants shut down, so do the coal mines, the coal haulers, the coal mining suppliers, and the coal rail haulers.

In addition to reducing our capacity for electrical generation, we will also increase the cost of electricity by at least a factor of two. So Grandma, who was worried about Paul Ryan throwing her off a cliff by trying to save social security, can just fry in her apartment because she can’t afford to pay the electric bill.

As the cost of energy increases, so does the cost of everything else. Farmers and manufacturers must pass this added cost on to consumers. Meanwhile, lets add some additional tax and regulatory burden to those manufacturers as well, because they are the evil rich and we have to get them. No one ever explains why we have to get them, we just do. It’s the fair thing, no matter what it costs the rest of us.

WaPo Hypes Poll On…Weather!? Buries Anti-Tax Hike Sentiment

Scientists predicted periods of glaciation back in the 1970s…

With the scorching heat and the infamous derecho that left D.C. in the dark on June 29, it seems perfectly logical for folks in the Washington area to blame “global warming” as we all bake in the 100 degree heat. In fact, The Washington Post conducted a poll that showed that a majority of Americans believe that world temperatures are rising and that it can be remedied by government action to decrease energy consumption.

However, the reason why this story was buried at the bottom of the page A13 today may well be because a whopping 7 out of 10 of those poll opposed hiking taxes on gasoline and other fossil fuels.

As this recession continues to chip away at the middle class, it’s no surprise that:

“Americans are leery of broad-based tax increases.  More than 70 percent oppose policies that would rely on tax increases on electricity or gas to change individual behavior, while 66 percent favor tax breaks to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”

What’s more, the second to last paragraph shows that nearly half of Americans “perceive that President Obama wants a great deal or quite a bit of government action on global warming.”  This comes on top of the public’s overall aversion to Obama’s health care industry overhaul.  The American people know the president’s prescriptions would be heavy on taxes, and they don’t like it.

The Post buried the lede like an ostrich buries its head in the sand.

Participants Revolt Against The Derecho Project

Sustainable Living: So simple a caveman can do it!

It’s unfortunate The Derecho Project — the largest urban global warming mitigation experiment in history — has proven to be an abject failure. Really a shame, too since the project’s design was almost perfect.

The sample was composed of liberal environmentalists in Maryland, D.C. and Arlington who should have been eager to personally have a role in reducing the nation’s carbon footprint.

Final selection for participation in The Derecho Project was entirely random: if a tree fell and knocked out a family’s power, they instantly became part of the sample. No lengthy interviews, affirmative action hurdles or concerns about income disparities since the threat of climate change demands immediate action.

It was a golden opportunity for “green voters” and anyone with an authentic Ken Salazar 10–gallon hat to put their lifestyle where their affectations are. It’s no longer enough to read the Chevy Volt review in the Consumer Reports Auto issue and dream of becoming a climate warrior.

Over one million Maryland, District and Northern Virginia residents were saved the trouble of traveling to the Amazon to sample carbon–neutral living at its finest. This eminently sustainable lifestyle was right here and didn’t involve an encounter with touchy–feely TSA guards. But what did progressives do when they were finally on the front lines of the battle against climate change?

These green exemplars didn’t behave any better than warmist deniers. They huddled in the nearest Starbucks and whined on their Facebook pages about the inhuman hardships they were suffering, all the while estimating how long it would be until the truffles defrost.

If these had been conservatives instead of “environmentally conscious Democrats” they could have turned a quick profit by selling carbon offsets until power was restored. (Then used the money to buy a gasoline generator in preparation for the next Act of Pepco.)

The eagerness of these progressives to re–embrace the electric power grid made them no different from the conservative control group that continued to use electricity blissfully unaware of how their selfish lifestyle threatens to submerge the Solomon Islands beneath the Pacific.

Where were the hardy greens recharging their iPads with solar panels, cooling their house with wind power, enjoying a siesta to adapt their body clocks to new temperature realities and using methane gas from their compost heap to cook dinner?

These examples were nowhere to be found. MD, VA and DC progressives weren’t any more prepared for sustainable living than your average Wal-Mart shopper. Instead we read about extension cords from houses with power snaking across driveways, alleys and streets to reach those without power. Which sounds a lot more like a PWC trailer park than it does Takoma Park.

Having sampled for a week the carbon–neutral lifestyle their environmental policies would condemn third–world residents to for a lifetime, progressives are now screaming for vengeance on any and all power companies.

The WaPost quotes Montgomery County Council President Roger Berliner (D–Tumbrel) demanding Pepco be hit with large fines. “You get to $20 million, you get to $30 million, to $40 million, then you start getting people’s attention,” Berliner said as he confused a quasi–judicial proceeding with an auction.

Large fines sound good and make for a great copy point in a re–election brochure, but fines alone won’t bring true accountability, because a fine doesn’t hold those at the top personally accountable.

The top executives don’t pay fines. The money comes out of stockholder dividends, which in turn penalizes investors — who may have been out of power themselves — and pension plans. The executives have to answer hostile questions during hearings and may hear rumblings in board meetings, but that’s about it.

Real accountability only comes when the executive feels your pain. My solution is any time more than 500 customers lose power, regardless of the reason, regulators flip a switch and all Pepco’s top executives lose power, too.

The executive’s electricity returns after the last customer rejoins the grid.

Finally, am I the only conservative bothered by the media’s use of the term “derecho?” What happened to “severe thunderstorms?” When I was a boy in Oklahoma — one of the largest consumers of thunderstorms and tornadoes in the nation — weather poodles never used this word.

But now its suddenly “derecho” this and “derecho” that. Could it be because “derecho” is also the Spanish word for “right turn?” Is this yet another mainstream media attempt to persuade the public to subconsciously associate conservatives (the “right wing”) with disaster and privation?

How about using the German word for environmentalist? If we’re going foreign, “umweltschützer” not only has that continental flair, but just saying it sounds like thunder in the distance.

Americans For Prosperity Virginia’s Real Facts Tour Exposes Tim Kaine’s Dereliction of Duty

Tim Kaine

As the Virginia U.S. Senate race heats up, Americans for Prosperity’s Virginia Chapter has some interesting facts about Democratic candidate and former Governor Tim Kaine.  Last Saturday, AFP Virginia’s State Director Audrey Jackson, writer and Fox News contributor Dick Morris, political analyst Kate Obenshain, conservative activist Stephen Kruiser, and radio talk show host and Townhall.com contributor Tony Katz embarked on a week long bus tour throughout the state exposing Tim Kaine’s leftist policies that have hurt Virginia.  They were also joined by AFP President Tim Phillips and other local activists leading the the fight for economic liberty and limited government.

The focus of the Real Facts, Real Solutions bus was clear. AFP VA is dedicated to pushing a narrative based on the governor’s record stating “Virginians deserve better than the debt and higher taxes he left us with when he [Kaine] left the Governor’s Office. Leading the efforts in Virginia, Kaine supported government run health care, he supported a billion dollars in tax increases.  When Governor in 2005 he inherited $1.2 billion surplus, yet he left Virginians with a $4.2 billion dollar budget shortfall when he left office.  In addition, he increased Virginia’s debt by nearly 50% and he continues to stand by President Obama’s failed policies.  Virginia can’t afford more of Tim Kaine’s policies.”

Tito Munoz

The event, held in Woodbridge this past Friday, was greeted by a few misguided Kaine supporters protesting outside the L&B Pizzeria, but concluded without  incident.  Local activist Tito Munoz gave passionate remarks concerning how this fight is about the future of our country and not about political allegiances. He stated how economic strife proliferated throughout the state under the Kaine administration and how we need  people to continue to fight the left’s agenda.   Munoz continued by showing how socialism is a failed economic philosophy that destroyed the Soviet Union and is ruining nations like Venezuela and Cuba.  As an immigrant from Latin America, he stated how he came to this country with nothing and knew no English at the time.  However, he worked hard and has achieved success as a businessman.  Living proof that the American Dream is still alive, but endangered under the policies of Barack Obama and Tim Kaine.  He concluded on how the Democratic Party has moved far to the left and the Kennedy Democrats of the past are long gone.  Hence, why we must deny Tim Kaine a seat in the U.S. Senate because America deserves better and Virginians need a representative who has the taxpayers’ interests at heart.

AFP Tim Phillips reiterated those points concerning the huge fight ahead of us.  However, he did mention how conservatives may have become a bit complacent about the outcome of the recent Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.  Although he did state how could we not become lulled into that false sense of security because “hey it’s unconstitutional.”  However, Mr. Phillips was adamant that it’s up to us to push for full repeal with this takeover of health care.  It’s not impossible.  The grassroots of the conservative movement came out in full force in 2010 and took away the president’s credit card.  Then-Speaker (what a nice phrase…) Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress blew a 50 vote majority in the House and a 60 vote majority in the Senate to pass this takeover and members of the mainstream media forget that this bill started with a 64% approval rating. Mr. Phillips appropriately bashed the former governor for leaving Virginia behind to become Obama’s biggest cheerleader for his policies before completing his term as Governor.

Dick Morris

However, Dick Morris engaged the crowd by asking them if they were willing to sacrifice a week’s salary to pay the fine for not buying health insurance.  This should be the next poll about Obamacare.  Mr. Morris gave perspicacious examples on how this new law will indelibly change how you make your health care decisions with your doctor. For example, a thirty year old illegal immigrant could get a hip replacement, but an eighty-year old war veteran could be denied since his “quality years are limited.”   It could lead to more deaths amongst women since mammograms will not be covered annually, but bi-annually.  We all know that detection is critical in the fight against cancer and this change will put 13,000 women at risk.  Talk about the war on women. Mr. Morris also detailed how Avastin, an effective cancer fighting drug, is banned from Canada due to restrictions imposed by its health care bureaucracy. Welcome to the world of rationed care.

Mr. Morris reminded the audience that Tim Kaine was on the frontlines promoting Obamacare and how the Supreme Court is not a reliable institution when it comes to protecting our rights.  That responsibility rests with us on the political battlefield.  He stated why unemployment has remained above 8% over the past forty months.  It’s not because the disease is stubborn, it’s because the prescriptions Obama has been writing to cure the illness aren’t working.  As a result, this creates a volatile business climate, which is why corporations and banks are holding, cumulatively, $3 trillion in cash and aren’t lending or investing to create jobs and grow the economy.  Obama’s remedy to this problem is borrow more and spend more to a point where, as Morris indicated, we’re entering a debt implosion cycle. An event this nation has experienced in the 1840s, 1890s, and 1930s.  Morris stated that if Kaine were in the audience, he would give frivolous excuses, like striking at the right time when they had the majorities in congress, because they were afraid that their opportunity of passing government-run healthcare legislation would slip away again.  Hence, the progressive mind in action, which centers on sacrificing what is economically responsible for the sake of scoring political points.

Tony Katz

Concerning bad policy, the inimitable Tony Katz gave his experiences coming from a state fraught with bad policy.  As a California resident, Mr. Katz has seen his fair share of bad government.  He cites the city of Stockton filing for bankruptcy and twenty other cities waiting in the wings destined to suffer the same fate.  He was concise and to the point.  It’s a battle between bad policy and good policy.  Tim Kaine inherited a $1.2 billion dollar surplus and left the Governor’s mansion saddling Virginia with $4.2 billion dollars in debt.  He stated that people aren’t stupid and know the difference, which is why a convict in West Virginia was able to win 40% of the vote in the Democratic primary last spring.  This is a result of the Obama administration’s war on coal.  He concluded with California’s pending referendum this November that would raise taxes, yet again, on its residents because Gov. Jerry Brown has increased the deficit from $9 billion to $16 billion.  He stated “Don’t be like California” and this November the fight is about policy, not politics.

 

Kate Obenshain

Political analyst Kate Obenshain dove deeper into the policy aspect concerning Mr. Kaine.  She shattered the false narrative that he was a political “moderate.”  You’re not a moderate when you become the DNC chair between Howard Dean and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  Ms. Obenshain stated under the Kaine administration, there wasn’t a single entitlement program he didn’t want to expand.  Mr. Kaine pushed the Democratic Party’s dependency agenda and more Virginians were enslaved in the various poverty programs as a result.  A travesty considering that Virginia was the model for welfare reform in the 1990s.   Mr. Kaine’s moderate disposition looks very shoddy when as governor, his budget proposal contained the largest tax increase in Virginia state history.  Not one member of the Virginia state legislature voted for it, similar to Obama’s budget, which resulted with the closure of 19 of 42 rests stops to save money.  In actual fact, Virginia Department of Transportation was sitting on $1.4 billion dollars and the closure was wholly unnecessary.  Mr. Kaine chose to ignore this information.

Kaine pushed cap and tax and refused to pursue offshore drilling permits.  When the permits were up for bidding again, he petitioned the Department of the Interior to delay the sale. As governor, Mr. Kaine was more concerned about pushing the Obama agenda than looking after the interests of Virginians, which constitutes a dereliction of duty on his part.  A lack of vigilance that cost Virginia up to 100,000 new jobs.

Stephen Kruiser

As the pizza and wings began to dwindle, comedian and conservative activist Stephen Kruiser, another resident of commie -California, gave a rousing rallying cry stating that we should never take the left’s criticism that we are powerless.  Power is in everyone who cares, who knocks on doors, and makes phone calls.  If you think that’s wrong, just look at Wisconsin or ask former Sen. Dick Lugar.  He stated how gatherings, like the one held in Woodbridge, from grassroots organizations like AFP scares politicians, especially the those who advocate bad policy.  What’s so great about this country, as Kruiser stated, is that “it’s a nation where you can witness a failed policy and work your butt off to throw that politician out on the street.”  Americans for Prosperity is doing a great job exposing politicians peddling bad policy.  Don’t reward them. Throw them out and deny them another term as a reward for pushing policies that harm American freedom.  Mr. Kaine is one of those politicians.

 

 

 

 

Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty

The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.

The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.

After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.

Following morning breakout sessions focused on:

  • Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
  • The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
  • Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas

The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.

Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.

Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:

  • The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
  • Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
  • The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance

The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.

Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.

The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.

After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.

The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.

We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:

THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.

THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.

THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.

THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.

THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.

THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.

THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.

THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.

THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/global-governance-vs-national-sovereignty/

Green Death

Eight regions of Spain have had their credit ratings cut as uneasy Spaniards moved their money overseas. Spooked by the questionable state of their banks, Spanish savers are now moving their money abroad faster than records have ever shown. Spain’s credit rating has been downgraded two notches and nearly 25% of Spaniards are unemployed

The Spanish newspaper La Gaceta ran a full-page article exposing the truth about Spain’s “green jobs” agenda, which just happens to have been cited many times by barack obama as the way “forward” for the United States. “Green energy” has now been exposed as a costly disaster that has undone Spain’s economy.

The Spanish Administration confessed “the increase of the electric bill is principally due to the cost of renewable energies.” It has now become officially recognized that the price of electricity, as well as increases in Spain’s debt are due to the extra cost of solar and wind energy. Additionally, the Spanish administration now admits that each green job that was created cost more than 2.2 traditional jobs in the private sector.

All evidence to the contrary, the obama administration insists on moving full speed ahead with its ill imagined, full frontal assault on the American energy industry, coupled with increased promotion of their “green jobs” fantasy.

Not only is coal America’s cheapest source of energy, the United States owns some the world’s largest coal deposits. Newly enacted EPA regulations now force a reduction in utility CO2 emissions to 1,000 pounds per megawatt of electricity. This regulation effectively bans construction of new coal-fired plants and will invariably lead to hikes in electricity costs. Since only natural gas meets the new emissions standard, the country’s electricity providers will be forced to pay the cost of converting to natural gas. One way or another, electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket”.

Despite administration claims, obama’s hostility towards fossil fuels has led to reduced opportunities for domestic oil production. obama continues to call for the elimination of targeted tax breaks oil companies have been receiving for decades. The general public is largely unaware of the fact that those tax breaks are targeted chiefly for exploratory activities. Drilling for oil is an expensive, uncertain business venture. Even successful fields have limited lifespans. Besides, hiking taxes on new exploration is counter-intuitive to increasing production.

In addition to his open aggression towards traditional fuels, obama plans on “investing” more of American taxpayer money by doubling down on spending for wind farms, solar energy, homegrown biofuels and energy-efficient cars and buildings. The history of the administration’s “investment” strategy is fraught with peril.

Here are a few of the “green” “sustainable energy” failures that have already been supported by the current administration’s “investments”. Remember, all this financing was done using your tax dollars. Well, not exactly. It has been done with tax dollars to be re-paid to the Federal Reserve Bank and China by your grandchildren and great grandchildren. Plus interest:

Evergreen Energy-Which has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, saying it’s “impossible to maintain operations” due to funding shortfalls. This announcement came after the company received $5.3 million in “stimulus” funds.

Amonix Inc.-A manufacturer of solar panels that received $5.9 million from the “stimulus”, laid off about 200 employees only seven months after opening a factory in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home State of Nevada.

Beacon Power Corp-Sought bankruptcy protection in 2010 after they received a $43 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.

Ener1 Electric-A car battery manufacturer, filed for bankruptcy three years after receiving a $118.5 million grant from the U.S. government.

These are all in addition to Solyndra-A solar panel maker that received a $535 million loan guarantee, then famously filed for Chapter 11 protection.

This is a mere taste of problems found when centrally planned big government intrudes into the free market. Not only is the spending inherently wasteful, the fact that these companies were in large part operated by big donors to obama’s political campaign points to the corruption involved when an ideologically captive, politically driven politician makes investment decisions based on cronyism. Two thirds of all energy loan guarantees or grants made by the obama administration’s Department of Energy have gone to his campaign donors or donation bundlers. Can you say quid quo pro?

All government energy subsidies should end. Energy companies should be free to compete without government interference. If and when “green” “sustainable energy” becomes a competitive solution, consumers will reward “green” companies that used private capital to successfully situate themselves in the market by purchasing their products. That’s how a free market works. That’s what’s made America the greatest economic success in the history of human civilization.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/green-energy-death/

Rick Santorum’s Sweep Changes the Race

As the final Colorado vote counts were coming in late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning, confirming that Rick Santorum scored a hat trick against his Republican competitors, it was becoming clear that a sea change is occurring within the GOP race.

More than before, it’s now arguable that the inevitability of Mitt Romney’s candidacy is a fallacy. This opinion has been long espoused by Republican grassroots activists across the country. Now there are numbers to back it up.

Santorum has now won four out of the eight contests. He has victories in four contests compared to three for Romney. He beat Romney by 30 points in the key manufacturing Battleground State of Missouri.

Rick Santorum also accomplished another key task on Tuesday February 7, 2012. He dispelled the myth that Newt Gingrich is the only Conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. Of the four remaining candidates, the voters in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado appeared to agree that Santorum has the most consistent Conservative track record on the issues.

Issues…remember them? Not, whose investments were most intricately woven into the Fannie Mae fabric or whose money a trustee handles. Real issues, not, who spent the most money destroying their opponents with dug up half-truth dirt.

Real issues.

Santorum has stuck to the issues that matter. Issues like supporting the exceptional American idea of self-governance, personal responsibility and individual liberty. Issues like reigniting America’s economy, creating jobs and reducing our dependence on OPEC by developing domestic energy. Like reducing America’s trade imbalance while increasing IRS revenues by implementing tax policies that stimulate job creation within the manufacturing sector. Like reducing spending, lowering taxes and cutting regulations. Like national and border security. Issues like Second Amendment rights. Issues like freedom of religion.

In all four of his victories, candidate Santorum compensated for his relative lack of funds by spending time talking with people and listening to their concerns.

What a concept, a presidential candidate who actually speaks with and listens to the people. Instead of taking into a microphone, giving a speech filled with platitudes and applause lines before moving on to the next fund raising photo op campaign stop.

Rick Santorum’s sweep changes the race on many levels and in many ways. It shows that Mitt Romney is not necessarily the inevitable GOP candidate. It indicates that the Conservative alternative is not presumably Newt Gingrich. It demonstrates that despite his almost fanatically devoted loyal following, Ron Paul can be beaten in Caucus State races. It shows that candidates can win by running a positive campaign based on real issues that concern the electorate. That a candidate can win by talking with and listening to the voters instead of talking at them.

Most importantly, it shows that We The People will decide who the GOP nominee and eventual President will be, not the liberally biased media, not establishment Republicans, not SuperPACs, not Wall Street bankers, not Chicago style intimidation, not George Soros, not the Koch brothers.

Despite massive amounts of power, money and influence seeking it’s destruction, it’s not yet time for government of the people, by the people and for the people to perish from the earth.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/rick-santorums-sweep-changes-the-race/

Rick Santorum's Sweep Changes the Race

As the final Colorado vote counts were coming in late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning, confirming that Rick Santorum scored a hat trick against his Republican competitors, it was becoming clear that a sea change is occurring within the GOP race.

More than before, it’s now arguable that the inevitability of Mitt Romney’s candidacy is a fallacy. This opinion has been long espoused by Republican grassroots activists across the country. Now there are numbers to back it up.

Santorum has now won four out of the eight contests. He has victories in four contests compared to three for Romney. He beat Romney by 30 points in the key manufacturing Battleground State of Missouri.

Rick Santorum also accomplished another key task on Tuesday February 7, 2012. He dispelled the myth that Newt Gingrich is the only Conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. Of the four remaining candidates, the voters in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado appeared to agree that Santorum has the most consistent Conservative track record on the issues.

Issues…remember them? Not, whose investments were most intricately woven into the Fannie Mae fabric or whose money a trustee handles. Real issues, not, who spent the most money destroying their opponents with dug up half-truth dirt.

Real issues.

Santorum has stuck to the issues that matter. Issues like supporting the exceptional American idea of self-governance, personal responsibility and individual liberty. Issues like reigniting America’s economy, creating jobs and reducing our dependence on OPEC by developing domestic energy. Like reducing America’s trade imbalance while increasing IRS revenues by implementing tax policies that stimulate job creation within the manufacturing sector. Like reducing spending, lowering taxes and cutting regulations. Like national and border security. Issues like Second Amendment rights. Issues like freedom of religion.

In all four of his victories, candidate Santorum compensated for his relative lack of funds by spending time talking with people and listening to their concerns.

What a concept, a presidential candidate who actually speaks with and listens to the people. Instead of taking into a microphone, giving a speech filled with platitudes and applause lines before moving on to the next fund raising photo op campaign stop.

Rick Santorum’s sweep changes the race on many levels and in many ways. It shows that Mitt Romney is not necessarily the inevitable GOP candidate. It indicates that the Conservative alternative is not presumably Newt Gingrich. It demonstrates that despite his almost fanatically devoted loyal following, Ron Paul can be beaten in Caucus State races. It shows that candidates can win by running a positive campaign based on real issues that concern the electorate. That a candidate can win by talking with and listening to the voters instead of talking at them.

Most importantly, it shows that We The People will decide who the GOP nominee and eventual President will be, not the liberally biased media, not establishment Republicans, not SuperPACs, not Wall Street bankers, not Chicago style intimidation, not George Soros, not the Koch brothers.

Despite massive amounts of power, money and influence seeking it’s destruction, it’s not yet time for government of the people, by the people and for the people to perish from the earth.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/rick-santorums-sweep-changes-the-race/

European High court upholds jet plane carbon tax

A law requiring flights into and out of the European Union (EU) to pay a carbon tax was upheld by the European Court of Justice on Wednesday saying that, “application of the emissions trading scheme to aviation infringes neither the principles of customary international law at issue, nor the open-skies agreement.”

The law requires that any aircraft landing or taking off from an EU airport is required to purchase a carbon permit which could cost the airlines, passengers, freight carriers and customers nearly $12 billion by the end of 2020. The amount of the tax is proportional to the distance flown by the airplane after departing an EU airport or from the last take-off prior to reaching an EU facility.

The most immediate impact will be the it will now cost more for Europeans to travel anywhere by airplane and freight costs requiring air transport will be more expensive.

The airlines have little choice and are complying with the ruling “under protest”. The cost of the tax will be passed on to passengers making travel to and from Europe more expensive.

Freight carriers are taking a different approach to the business-killing decision. UPS is studying ways to redirect flights around the EU.  In an interview with The Wall Street Journal the carrier explained how it might modify its routes to deal with the expensive carbon tax:

Mitch Nichols, president of UPS Airlines, said in an interview that the company may look at redirecting flights between its hubs in Hong Kong and Cologne, Germany, by going through Mumbai. That will cut the cost of the tax by about a quarter because UPS would only be charged for the distance flown between Cologne and Mumbai.

Airlines are unlikely to make similar changes, but passengers might. While the airlines will still offer direct flights into Europe, savvy travelers may opt to fly into a nearby non-EU nation simply because the ticket won’t have the up-charge on it or they may choose alternate destinations altogether.

Ultimately the tax will have a stifling effect on EU manufacturers as it will cost more to bring raw materials into the EU and be more expensive to ship finished goods out. The affirmation of the proposed change could put more pressure on European manufacturers to move their operations to non-EU countries.

 

 

Newt Gingrich's Record: Uncomfortable But True

I’m going to say something uncomfortable to many of you, but it has to be said:

Newt Gingrich has a history of flip-flopping on issues which rivals that of Mitt Romney.

There, I said it. I’m not the only one to say it, either.

Let’s look at Gingrich’s record:

On global warming: He supported government sponsoring of alternative energy programs. He supported cap-and-trade. He supported ethanol subsidies. “Green” was the fad, people were spellbound by it, and Newt being the clever politician he is, he got behind it, too.

And then there’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When asked about his lobbying efforts on their behalf, he lied. He claimed he never lobbied for them. When proof of payment from them to him was made public, he claimed he worked for them as an historian. Do people seriously believe this? A financial institution hires an historian about as often as the Marine Corps hires an interior decorator.

And then there’s the substance of the “historical analysis” he allegedly gave them (from the National Review link two paragraphs below):

It wasn’t obvious until 2007… Initially, it wasn’t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Initially, it was things like Countrywide, but the minute you started getting people who could buy houses with no credit, no money down, I mean, these things are insane. And I was cheerfully saying that in my public speeches.

Gingrich contradicts himself here: It certainly was obvious, long before 2007, that a policy of government guarantee of loans without proof of the borrower’s ability to repay was a bad idea (and defies basic common sense). The existence of this program was well-known within government circles and by “policy wonks” (such as yours truly), but largely ignored by the media and the public at large. I have also criticized Herman Cain for the same failure of common sense in this regard.

On government-run medicine, Gingrich’s record rivals that of many prominent Democrats. He was an early champion of the individual mandate, more than a decade before Romneycare. He now excuses himself from the criticism Romney recieves, claiming that his endorsement of an individual mandate was an effort “to block Hillarycare“. Let’s state this another way: Gingrich’s response to a massive government healthcare initiative was to offer a slightly less-massive initiative of his own.

Gingrich was also one of the minds behind Medicare Part D. Newt again excuses himself from criticism for this multi-trillion-dollar giveaway, claiming that it helped reduce the cost of government-provided health care by subsidizing medicines in lieu of more-expensive surgeries, ignoring one of the basic principles of government interference in the market: Subsidizing a product makes it more expensive in the long-run. If the government gives people a dollar to buy an apple, the cost of an apple goes up by a dollar.

Gingrich, in keeping with his long-standing record of favoring greater government intervention in the health care industry, described Paul Ryan’s proposal to convert Medicare into a premium support plan as “right-wing social engineering“. Of course, Gingrich changed his tune when he caught flak for saying this, and has spent the last six months crafting an “alternative history” of his 17+ year record of supporting socialized medicine.

Jacob Sullum from Reason made an excellent point on this topic: Gingrich’s rhetoric actually endangers real reforms while giving the public a painless-sounding but totally ineffective placebo of “cutting waste, fraud and abuse”- a rhetoric he (along with numerous Democrats) also applies to other areas of government spending by advocating ‘modernization’, rather than actual cutbacks, as his primary concept for controlling the cost of big-government programs, as if new computers will make big government acceptable.

In sum: I’m frankly disturbed by the recent fascination with Gingrich and the amnesia regarding his record. Somehow, conservatives have developed a belief that intellectualism and con artistry are mutually exclusive. Voters have been lulled by the superficially-impressive nature of his speeches.

This means the Tea Party effort to push out slick salesmen in favor of principled, fiscally-minded, small-government representatives is failing. And “slick salesman” is an apt description of Gingrich’s career: People wanted free medication for Grandma and Grandpa, and Newt delivered. People wanted a house they couldn’t afford, and Newt delivered. Gingrich will give the public whatever they want, and sound convincingly principled while doing it. The fact that Newt also participated in welfare reform and budget balancing isn’t a demonstration of his bona fides, it’s merely another thing the public asked for and got (for a brief period).

The notion that Gingrich is the ideal “not-Romney” candidate is wholly misguided: Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney without running shoes.

Orrin Orrin, Orrin…Why?

Senator Orrin Hatch is in a desperate effort to catchup with his constituency.  It is like the old adage “Which way did my people go?  I need to get ahead of them so I can lead them.”  Senator Hatch is falling into the Washington phenomena game among elected officials and candidates.  It is called “Make a list of ten related things in ten seconds”.

Senator Hatch just announced his latest “ten things” list in an effort to prove to his constituency that he was both hip to the new game and clearly feels their pain.  It’s his “comprehensive, 10-point jobs plan to help strengthen our economy”.  Following is his shallow proposal, in his word, from his website.  In Italics I have stated my own response to his “plan” components.  Please keep in mind that this plan is nothing short of rhetoric emoted to sound relevant.  There is little, if any substance.

FROM: Senator Hatch

Summary of the proposal:

Restore Fiscal Sanity in Washington Great Idea, if it meant what it says.

  • Find real savings and spending cuts in the short-term via the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.  Shallow hidden language for “create more bureaucracy.  Congress has long passed the ability to be effective at anything. I would have avoided bureaucratic growth.
  • Ensure greater fiscal discipline in the long-term by passing and ratifying a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.  I would not support a balanced budget Amendment, in any of its current forms.  Congress will ignore it as do they ignore inconvenient constitutional sections now.  This is a waste of time that couldn’t take effect until after the economy has been destroyed.

Expand U.S. Export Markets

  • Approve pending trade agreements with Columbia, South Korea, and PanamaI say let the market manage itself.  Government get out of the way.
  • Renew Trade Promotion Authority to facilitate new free trade agreements in the future.  I would oppose more regulatory agencies, whose mission will be first to expand.

Reform the U.S. Tax Code

  • Simplify the code and lower rates in order to allow American companies to compete with foreign competitors on a level playing field.  I would not have proposed this.  It is simply more broken regulation to fix currently broken regulation.  Turn all taxation collection and monitoring back to the states. Establish a flat tax.

Repeal ObamaCare  Good Idea, why has Senator Hatch waited?

  • Eliminate harmful and heavy-handed mandates as well as new taxes to relieve burdens on individuals, employers, and state governments.

Repeal Dodd-Frank

  • Eliminate excessive and misguided regulations and mandates to unfreeze credit and allow businesses to expand and create jobs.  Here is my plan: Eliminate excessive and misguided regulations and mandates.

Make Our Regulatory System More Jobs-Friendly

  • Require by statute that all federal agencies perform a cost-benefit analysis when drafting new regulations.  Sorry, this misses the mark.  Require by statute that Congress perform a cost-benefit analysis when drafting new regulations and from all federal agencies .
  • Pass the REINS Act (S. 299) to give Congress more authority and oversight in the drafting of major regulations.  Congress has oversight responsibility for all federal regulations NOW.  I would insist they use that oversight.

Develop America’s Energy Resources

  • End the Obama Administration’s stall tactics on domestic energy projects.  HOW?  You are afraid to encourage the House to Impeach him.
  • Pass the 3-D Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy, and Deficit Reduction Act (S. 706) and the American Energy and Western Jobs Act (S. 1027) to reverse the President’s attacks on domestic energy production.  Once again, Senator Hatch’s response is to create more regulation.  His first response to all issues is more regulation.

Help America Compete

  • Modernize and make permanent the research and development tax credit to incentivize more innovation in the U.S. economy.  Oops.  Did he just say that the government should pretend that people’s earnings should somehow be under their own control, rather than one of his regulatory agencies.?  I would have suggested eliminating taxation on production altogether.
  • Ensure our trade partners recognize and enforce U.S. intellectual property rights.  Nice theory.  The way to make it work is to close our borders to ALL imports from any country that does not protect American property rights. 

Allow Small Businesses to Create Jobs

  • Provide a 20 percent tax deduction for small businesses on their income.  Nope, still missing the mark that inspires production.  Eliminate ALL taxation on income, and apply a flat tax.
  • Repeal the three percent withholding requirement for federal contractors. I agree.

Reform America’s Labor Laws and Reign in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

  • Pass legislation to give more oversight, accountability, and judicial review of the NLRB’s decisions.  Eliminate this irrelevant and irreverent agency altogether.
  • Pass the Employee Rights Act (S. 1507) to protect the rights of workers.  No, senator more regulation will not solve this problem.  Simply repeal any federal legislation that does not foster right-to-work opportunities for American workers.
  • Repeal the prevailing-wage requirements in the Davis-Bacon Act. Agreed.

As you can see, I am a very reasonable man.  I agreed with the Senator on two of his 19 fine points.  Heck, that is better than a stopped clock, which is right only twice in 24 hours.

To truly get the economy functioning again read my post here on Conservative Daily News.

 

« Older Entries