Tag Archives: editorial

The Democrat Party: Has It Already Seceded?

Demoralized conservatives, feeling dejected by an inexplicable election loss after being virtually water-boarded by the media for four interminable years, and savaged by an economy decimated by left-wing Treasury raids that make Alaric the Visigoth look like a piker, may be asking themselves the question: Has the Democrat Party finally succeeded? What they should be asking themselves is if the Democrat Party has seceded.

This is more than just a stupid pun. One glance at the electoral map above shows that tiny pockets of the country are lording over the rest of us, demanding we fund our own destroyers. Just a hair over half of the electorate is asking the rest to finance things they find morally reprehensible, fiscally unsustainable, and nationally self-destructive or else face the government gulag. Non-coincidentally, just about half of Americans pay exactly zero federal income taxes, and a smidgeon over half vote Democrat as reliably as the lunar cycle that drives the moon-barking mental midgets to howl ever for “more!”

In fact, Americans from all 50 states are so infuriated and petrified by the federal government’s hard lurch to the left that hundreds of thousands have signed onto a WhiteHouse.gov petition for their states to secede from the union. Seven states — Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina — have received more than 25,000 votes each to split the increasingly dismal mise en scene.

The petitions were instantly the talk of the town on the left-wing blog cocktail circuit, where snot-nosed, vanity eyeglass-wearing leftists who think “secession” is what someone does when he is addicted to cloves yucked it up before they likely took Princeton prof Peter Singer’s advice and sexually molested some hamsters.

The instant rejoinder from the serial abusers in our dysfunctional government relationship is that any such attempts to stop the bullying federal government from being so darned bullying has been null-and-voided by some left-wing lawyers. That’s cute. Y’all on the left want to violate the Constitution whenever you’ins damn well please, but insist that people obey the law whenever you say. Umm, what if people stop playing that game?

Whenever the elected President of the United States swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and then violates it by nationalizing part of GM (Art.I, Sec. 8 on uniform bankruptcy laws), committing troops to extended military combat without a declaration of war or authorization (Art. I, Sec. 8 on war powers), making recess appointments when the Congress is not officially in recess (Art. II, Sec. 2), appointing “czars” not subject to advise and consent (Art. II, Sec II), violating legal entities’ due process, as with BP (Fifth Amendment), trespassing against unreasonable search and seizure with the TSA (Fourth Amendment), and so on and so on, it’s hard to take his legal decrees seriously.

The secession question should therefore be flipped on its head: Has the Democrat Party already seceded from the United States? Because the U.S. government has no force of law except that granted by the Constitution, which the states ratified to bring it into being. America itself was founded by those who broke apart from the mother country of Britain by reasonably citing numerous grievances listed in The Declaration of Independence. A lot of those complaints look laughable in hindsight. Most people suffer through a litany of rights infringements comparable to the Intolerable Acts by breakfast.

As the blogger Jon Galt pointed out on his article on secession, the following are Thomas Jefferson’s words as found in the Kentucky Resolutions:

“[T]he several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those [states], of all unauthorized acts….is the rightful remedy.”

In other words, we the people will tell the federal government when our rights are being violated, and not vice versa. The left can attempt to legalize tyranny, but some of us know the history of the country, and we do not have to give our consent to immoral government acts. Democracy is not the final moral or legal authority; the Constitution, which is based on inalienable individual rights, is.

There is a huge difference between morality and legality, as the great writer Frederic Bastiat illuminated (cited at length):

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

What more is Obamacare than an attempt to legalize plunder by charging government with the enforcement of a non-existent right that requires that the entire medical field by usurped, its doctors chained to the government system, and the state’s subjects forced to foot the bill for it? Those who immediately benefit may think they are getting medicine for “free,” but there is always a price to pay for such immoral legislation that enslaves one part of the country and puts it in hock to the rest.

People have rights and they should not give the government license to abuse them; even in exchange for “gifts,” which all-too-quickly come to a grinding halt when the economy inevitably and finally collapses.

What more is tyranny than the unlimited ability of the U.S. government to tax and to spend? What separates this miserable state of affairs from some of the worst political systems of the twentieth century: communism, socialism, and fascism?

Nothing will change until the producers stop paying to support the lives of the parasites via government. When the American people finally “go Galt,” it may take the form of a national revolt, a mass refusal by taxpayers to pay their bills, or even secession.  “What happens next?” is a question that should be giving all good Americans serious pause.

One Last Word to the Troops Before the Election

As President Obama ends his bitter and petty campaign of character assassination against his challenger Mitt Romney, one is struck by just how low the lofty orator has fallen from his 2008 bid. The erstwhile freshman Senator rode into office on a wave of disingenuous half-truths and outright lies promising “hope and change.” But at least Obama sounded vaguely optimistic and sunny while he lied — repeatedly — to voters’ faces.

About ending the War in Iraq in 16 months. About bringing the War in Afghanistan to a speedy close. About shuttering Guantanamo Bay. About extraordinary rendition. About cutting the deficit in half. About the need to curb healthcare spending. About not taxing the middle class. About becoming a post-partisan president.

Instead, he extended the War in Iraq to double his pledged time. He has our troops in Afghanistan at least until 2014, if not until 2024. He launched a new war in Libya, without Congressional authorization. He couldn’t bring himself to call America’s enemies ‘terrorists’ at Fort Hood and Benghazi.

On the economy, he tripled the deficit, starting with the 2009 Democrat-drafted budget he signed. Then he passed Obamacare, which has exploded to three times original cost estimates. He passed taxes on the middle class dozens of times. He hasn’t passed a budget at all in nearly three years. And then he recently implored his Democrat base to exact “revenge” on their opponents (for paying for all the Democrats’ compassionate social welfare programs, presumably.)

The suddenly churlish Obama then scapegoated former President Bush for the “same old” disastrous economics, apparently the one that led to 52 straight months of job growth. And at least Bush warned about the coming housing bubble burst. But whatever the legend is around liberal watercoolers to this day, President Bush did not save a free market, because there was no free market to begin with — especially when it came to housing mortgages.

But the GOP is still somehow to blame for the poor economy in Democrat voters’ minds, because we are talking about a right-wing party that is so insidious and formidable in Democrat mythology that not a single Republican voted for Obamacare and the bill still passed easily. Then the nefarious law was rubber-stamped by a Republican-appointed chief justice who bought a line about the Obamatax that not even the president’s council believed. The government lawyers argued it both was and was not a tax and apparently won. Heads we win, tails you lose.

So how are Republicans rigging the system? How can the GOP be considered the establishment? Some Republicans are lazy and apathetic, but they are not the face of big government, not even big business. The Democrats have handed trillions to big business on a silver platter, whether we are talking about green subsidies or flat-out stimulus slush. But the left still cries about “tax cuts for the wealthy,” as if they have prima nocta to screw taxpayers, rather than allow them to reward businesses with their hard-earned cash.

But maybe that’s what separates us and them the most, meaning conservatives and liberals. We assume that life is hard work, overcoming adversity, and dealing with unpleasant realities. The Democrats want to grant a make-believe generous and compassionate government with the power to control everything in the world. Oh sorry, make things “fair.”

What isn’t “fair” is when politicians and their crony capitalist allies determine what we do with our lives: in business, in society, in our homes. And cutting taxes is returning more power to us, to the market. De-regulating is returning more power to us, to the consumers. The Republican Party is not the establishment party, even if it concedes far too often to the political left and special interests. It is largely unprincipled, yielding ground to the entitlement state, and even swelling it drastically on occasion. It is far from ideal; even seriously flawed.

Tomorrow, I am voting Republican in the biggest race of my lifetime to limit the damage the Democrats can do, and voting Libertarian anywhere else I can to voice my contempt and disgust for the two-party status quo. People believe they can change the system by simply registering their objection to it by voting Gary Johnson. I disagree. I don’t think this will do anything but lead to a worse income in both the short-term and long-term.

We need to engage and fundamentally transform the Republican Party, and use it as a tool to advance freedom, even if that means exposing and throwing out any politician that is against the cause of liberty. We cannot just throw up our hands and abandon the best possible chance to advance our interests; even if it is incremental change, and even if it turns out to be too little, too late.

We on the conservatarian side of things have to feel good about New Media’s chances to change the culture, and thereby, change the conversation in a way that makes it harder for both parties to damage our freedoms.

We don’t need a political messiah in this election; what we need is time. Mitt Romney gives us that.

Note: Some of the documentation for this article’s claims can be found here: “1001 Reasons to Vote Against Barack Obama.”

A Post-September 11th America

When the planes struck the towers of the World Trade Center, I was getting coffee at the pavilion of The University of Northern Iowa and didn’t realize that the images on the television were real. They seemed like special effects out of some really bad science fiction movie, “The Day After The Day After Tomorrow,” or some such standard Hollywood fare.

Then I noticed the buzz around me as students were murmuring and shuffling around in a state of shock. I asked a stunned redhead what had happened and she pointed to the screen and told me in a hushed voice, “The planes hit the towers.”

Such propelled millions of Americans into the “post-September 11th” world, though I must confess I never followed them. My reverence for the nation as it was before some jihadists with boxcutters turned some airplanes into missiles and took down a few buildings has remained unchanged. The handful of Islamic fundamentalists on those passenger jets killed thousands of my fellow countrymen that day, and for that I will never forget their despicable act, but sorry, I don’t plan on changing the way I see America or what it stands for.

You see, I had been studying terrorism for some time before that dreadful act and particularly, a now-famous organization called al Qaeda. The group, headed by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, had declared war against the United States not once, but twice under the Clinton administration and had carried out several coordinated terrorist attacks against American targets. The media’s and the political response were meager, if not meek. Perhaps it was better that way, if only we had went about the grim business of ending the terrorists then and there.

The first memorable attack was the initial World Trade Center bombing, which was covered like it was a crime drama pulled from the show CSI, and not an America-reorienting attack like its follow-up eight years later. The “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian with ties to al Qaeda’s al Zawahiri, had collaborated in the 1993 bombing. He was eventually imprisoned for life, without the fanfare and spectacle we would expect in the post-September 11th world.

There were the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which were page seven stories within days of their being carried out. As Clinton left office, there was the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which killed seventeen American sailors, and involved the collaboration of al Qaeda in Yemen. A warmed-over speech delivered by President Clinton as he left office sent the message that we would react to terrorism with a whimper and not a bang. Osama bin Laden had reinforcement for the “weak horse” comment that followed upon our military’s struggle with Somalian rebels in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993.

So as the planes hit the towers on September 11th, I was clearly not nearly in the severe state of shock a lot of others were. The images were disturbing, haunting even, on an emotional level. But in my mind, I knew the attacks were the fruition of a weak, and more importantly, stupid foreign policy.

By that, I mean that I have always been a realist. I don’t believe in going abroad looking for monsters to slay, as John Quincy Adams put it, and I don’t believe in a weak, passive, or appeasing reaction to world events either. There are real, serious enemies of the United States, not simply because of its vast amount of economic and military power, but symbolically, for what it has stood for over two centuries, and namely: individual freedom.

But it has been the latter that has provoked the ire of dictators, radicals, and fundamentalists around the world more than the former. If America were a typical superpower, it would simply annex and formally absorb Canada, Mexico, Latin America, and most of South America and be done with it. That might actually be preferable to the despots of the world who resent and fear a beacon of liberty shining around the world to agitate their oppressed populaces for reforms or even inspire them to revolt. There is no revolution unless people can imagine a better way of life and feel they can act to make things different.

This is why the best thing America could have done after 9/11 is to be quiet, rebuild the towers, and to execute swift and deadly justice against those who actually perpetrated the act and those who assisted them. There was no need to overreact and to build a vast domestic security complex that showed how insecure we were as a superpower, diminished the brightness of our example as a nation and actually made the American people less secure in the long-term.

This point-of-view begs the alternative response. A strategy of military withdrawal from the Middle East, while developing our own vast oil, natural gas, coal, and alternative energy resources, is the obvious plan of action. This creates a power vacuum and the removal of a symbolic target that has brought together otherwise competitive terrorist groups and has salved fierce sectarian differences, namely between the Shi’ite and the various Sunni.

If anything, during the course of my studies of international relations at the undergraduate and doctoral level, I had learned the value of realism, both classical and neorealist. From Thucydides’ The History of the Peloponnesian War, a classic text I devoted an entire class to studying in grad school, or the neorealist Stephen Walt’s “balance of fear,” I appreciated that man has an aggressive side to his nature and that states in an “anarchic” world tend to balance against one another. Those states that do not help themselves tend to become vulnerable over time.

This is truly the conservative view of things: there are some things about human nature that can be learned and we can build upon that knowledge to make a better world; and namely, by protecting individuals against oppression, and not by trying to build some monolithic world society of altruistic people, who are not valued in and of themselves but for what they can do for their communities (read, the political oligarchy).

But conservatives have been divided in the post-September 11th world by two instincts: the one, the psychological need to face down and defeat evil, which is a natural and healthy instinct; and the other, the recognition that evil exists, will always exist, and should be allowed to exist in places of the world that do not concern us, in accordance with our view on free will. If people want to change their societies for the better, they could always look upon the United States as a shining light and choose the American way. Our responsibility would be for ourselves and doing the right thing as much as possible. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

So by allowing evil regimes to exist in the Middle East and removing ourselves from the territory, while quietly going about our business as a free, prosperous, and powerful nation, which neither appeases dictators nor seeks trouble, we could remain aloof from the petty barbaric squabbles that haunt unenlightened societies. The savage peoples of the world would be drawn to lash out; and yes, there would still be anti-modernist and anti-Western fundamentalists who would seek to attack America for symbolic reasons. Again, a realist is not a utopian and seeks to manage the risks and dangers of the world, not eradicate them.

Thus, we would be safer with nuclear-armed states concerned with one another, instead of the United States; such as with Pakistan and India. Additionally, pitting Iraq against Iran is bloody, Machiavellian politics, but is it better than perhaps fighting them both? We have to assume that states are rational actors, as in the case of Iran, while we prepare to retaliate for the unexpected or to preempt the clearly imminent strike.

When the states of the Middle East are divided, they might even turn to the United States; whether it be for the oil trade, in order to finance their regimes.

Instead, we have embarked upon a course of internal strengthening of the state and military adventurism abroad. It would be one thing to bring the terrorists who were harbored in Afghanistan to justice, but we have set upon a course of doing what the Romans, British, and Russians failed to do: to conquer and civilize the Afghani, who live at the crossroads of the world. We occupied Iraq and have turned over the government to the Iraqi people; mind you, a noble act and one for which our troops should be commended, but there is no guarantee of what the future brings there.

This is not to mention our blatantly unconstitutional military intervention in Libya, our meddling in Egypt, and our general fueling of a radical pan-Islamic movement in the Middle East under the guise of bringing “democracy” there. Hamas was democratically elected and it is a bloody and terroristic organization. Democracy is merely a form of government and should not be something in and of itself to promote, let alone by force. What America should promote is individual rights, free market capitalism so people can lift themselves out of poverty, and social and religious freedoms.

Short of that, we are kicking hornet nests around the world, selling people empty promises that “democracy” will make their lives better, spending trillions we don’t have, costing our military and our families thousands of lives, and diminishing liberty at home. That doesn’t sound like a post-September 11th world that this American can get behind.

Fly the flag high and don’t forget what it really stands for.