Tag Archives: limited government

HuffPuff Propagandizes a FOX Reality

I go through the headlines and news stories in over one-hundred publications daily. I do this so that I can view multiple sources on some of the same stories. Doing this allows me to formulate what is fact and what is disingenuous spin; propaganda meant to trick the public into thinking one way instead of another. Make no mistake, both ideological prospective do it. It’s the art of modern political war. But the Progressive Left has myriad vehicles to attack the ideological Right, where the Right has many fewer (thank you uber-stingy money people on the Right).

A perfect example of the Left’s disingenuous attack on the Right’s information sources comes in an article in the Huffington Post by Jack Mirkinson titled, FOX News Really Doesn’t Want to Talk About the Good Jobs News, where he writes:

“Quick! Can you find Fox News’s coverage of the latest job figures?”

He includes some main page screen shots.

“Still can’t find them? OK, we’ll help you out. What if we zoom in?…OK, OK, we’ll show you! The link is that little one right in the corner there…For some reason, FOX News appears to want to downplay the very good job numbers. For good measure, the network also downplayed the figures on its airwaves as well.”

He then goes on to show how the far-Left mainstream media outlets dutifully took the Obama Administration’s spun numbers touting them as miraculous by supplying one – one – example: a screen shot of CNN’s breaking news on the numbers.

The good numbers that Mr. Mirkinson points to are the BLS statistic that 288,000 jobs were created last month. Is that good news? Yes. Is it the miraculous news Mr. Mirkinson suggests? No.

Throughout the Obama Administration the majority of the jobs “created” have been either service industry jobs or part-time jobs. College graduates remain woefully under-employed and those experienced in the workforce who have been downsized or otherwise screwed out of a job find it almost impossible to find work. And if you are over 50 and have been out of work for a period of time, you might as well come to grips with the fact that you have become unemployable under Mr. Obama’s economy.

Where the Obama Administration and its sycophants want everyone to believe that the creation of 288,000 jobs is the greatest news since sliced bread, the facts remain…and they are not good.

▪ The U3 unemployment rate hovers at 6.1%. The U3 rate measures the unemployment of people who are without jobs and who have actively been looking for work within the past four weeks.

▪ The U6 unemployment rate hovers at 12.1%. The U6 rate reflects “discouraged workers,” or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them; “marginally attached workers,” or “loosely attached workers,” or those who “would like” and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently; and part-time workers who want to work full-time, but cannot due to economic reasons.

▪ The Labor Force Participation Rate is stuck at 62.8%.

These statistics mean that in a country of 318 million legal citizens, 92.2 million eligible for employment are without work. Almost one-third of the population is unemployed.

Further, the rate of those not in the labor force has exploded since 2000. Over the past 14 years – and predominantly during the Obama years – we have removed 14,022,376 from the labor force who are eligible to work. That’s over 1 million eligible workers removed from the workforce each year, on average.

So, understanding the reality behind the unemployment data – disingenuously termed the “jobs numbers” by the talking heads, when more accurately they should be referred to as the “jobless numbers” – how can anyone celebrate the creation of 288,000 menial and part-time jobs when we add one million people a year on average to the under- and unemployed demographic?

The American free-market Capitalist system is the only economic system to have ever – ever – created a Middle Class in the history of man. In its purest form it made the United States of America not only the world’s preeminent superpower, it made the United States the “land of opportunity.” Today, that is hardly the case. The Middle Class is disappearing are a rapidly increasing rate and opportunity is disappearing from our economic lexicon. Why, you ask? The answer is simple: the government manipulation of the American free-market Capitalist system.

Special interests in government have saddled the small business sector with an overwhelming number of regulations, while newer and more intrusive mandates continue to smother the job creators, literally stealing food from the mouths of the hungry in the form of disappearing opportunity.

Obamacare, environmental zealotry, socialism in the form of labor union oppression, manipulation of free commerce, all of these economy-stunting and job-killing maladies are introduced into the American free-market Capitalist system by government and the big-money, well-organized special interest groups that see success and American exceptionalism as a cancer, not a cure. Sadly, today, these creatures of negativity and societal destruction are in power…and on both sides of the governmental political aisle. Unless we shift the political paradigm radically back towards true limited government, it is only a matter of time before our Republic is lost.

So, Mr. Mirkinson, the jobs news is good? Please. The jobs news sucks.

As we celebrate the 238 anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we should all be willing to look at the chains upon our wrists and ankles. We have allowed ourselves to become slaves to an oligarchic elite and their special interest benefactors. They feign concern about unemployment as they try to tell you they are just like us. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Case in point: Mrs. Clinton’s comment about being “flat-broke” when she and the former President left the White House. How does someone who is flat-broke acquire a multi-million dollar mansion in Chappaqua, New York and maintain two “summer cottages” in Ireland being flat-broke? It’s a lie, and one meant to deceive.

The good news it this. We can remove those chains and get back to good. We can free ourselves of the disingenuous and elitist oligarchs with which we are currently saddled. We have the power and it is a power that begins with the ballot box and navigates the seas of prosperity through limited government.

The time is now. Let us not be faint of heart.

Providing generously for defense is FULLY CONSISTENT w/limited government

One of the most dear principles of the conservative ideology is that of “limited government” – namely, a federal government limited to its Constitutional powers. This is what “limited government” means, and this is what all conservatives want (or at least should aspire to).

Unfortunately, a number of libertarians are falsely claiming (and misleading many conservatives into thinking) that providing adequately and generously for a strong military is somehow inconsistent with the Limited Government principle and thus hypocritical and “doublethink.” They furthermore falsely claim that this “hypocrisy” and “inconsistence” damages the GOP’s credibility in the eyes of the public, especially independents and moderates, and that only agreeing to deep defense cuts will restore that supposedly lost credibility and win the GOP new votes.

At annual CPACs, the straw poll is rigged against defense conservatives and against a strong defense by adding negative (and utterly false) “Big Government” connotations to the pro-defense option while not adding any negative connotations to socially- and fiscally-conservative options.

But this is all rubbish. Read on, and I’ll prove why. We will first deal with the question of whether generous defense investments are inconsistent with the Limited Government Principle, and then we’ll deal with the political aspect – whether Republicans’ traditional pro-defense policy somehow damages the GOP’s credibility.

Defense and the Constitution

The “Limited Government Principle” means, very simply, a government limited to the powers and functions assigned to it by the US Constitution (otherwise, a huge unclarity would result: government limited to what? a fixed percent of GDP? SCOTUS rulings?).

The most authoritative source of information on the Constitution’s genuine meaning is the collection of 85 essays known as “The Federalist Papers” and written by the men who wrote the Constitution – most notably Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, although John Jay also contributed 5 essays.

What does the Constitution say about defense issues? Only by that measure can we determine whether providing generously for a strong defense is inconsistent with the Limited Government Principle or not.

The Constitution lists (“enumerates”) all of the federal government’s powers. Powers not listed to the Constitution are off-limits to the federal government. The vast majority of the enumerated powers are listed in the first three articles of the Constitution, which listed the original powers of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, respectively. Later Amendments gave Congress additional powers to enforce civil and voting rights and (alas) a federal income tax.

The vast majority of the Congress’ powers, however, are listed in Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution. A full 50% (9 out of 18) of the powers enumerated therein deal with military matters. Specifically, as the Constitution itself says, they are the powers to:

“provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States (…);


To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

That half of all enumerated powers of Congress listed in Art. I of the Constitution deal with just one area of governance – that of providing for national defense – proves how important it was to the Founding Fathers (as we will also see from their statements below).

But the evidence doesn’t stop there. Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution makes providing generously for America’s defense OBLIGATORY, not optional. It says:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

And the Preamble to the Constitution makes it clear that one of the chief reasons why the Constitution was adopted, and the federal government created, in the first place, was to “provide for the common defense”. It says:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“To form a more perfect union”, “establish justice”, “promote general welfare”, and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” were generalisms – general wishes that the country would generally be better off if the Constitution were ratified.

Providing for the common defense, however, had and has a specific meaning: it meant, and still means, providing for a strong military capable of protecting America against any and all threats.

And – as the Founders would surely agree if they were alive today – protecting each state against “invasion” means more than just protecting them against physical ground invasion by foreigners (e.g. illegal immigrants). It means protecting against any physical threat to the homeland and its inhabitants. Today, these threats include EMP, nuclear, chemical, biological, ballistic and cruise missile, and bomber attacks.

Russia has 251 strategic bombers (Tu-95s, Tu-160s, and Tu-22Ms) capable of flying to the CONUS and delivering their nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and nuclear freefall bombs to US soil. This is not a bygone threat: Russia has, in recent years, repeatedly flown its bombers near and into US airspace, as well as around Guam, probing US air defenses and “practicing attacking the enemy”, as the Russians themselves have explained. Their submarines have, meanwhile, been prowling the Mexican Gulf and the Atlantic Coast, spying on Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay.

Russia, China, and North Korea also have ICBMs and (except North Korea) SLBMs capable of carrying thousands of warheads to the US. Russia’s ICBM fleet alone can carry 1,684 warheads to the CONUS. Those are just a few examples of direct military threats to the homeland. And if the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would DEMAND that Congress provide for an adequate defense against these.

Nor is protecting America’s treaty allies unconstitutional or a violation of the Limited Government Principle: it is done by treaty agreement, and treaties (on subjects on which Congress may legislate, such as foreign and defense policy) ratified by Presidents with Senate consent are the Law of the Land, second only to the Constitution. Thus, defending allies with whom the US has a treaty – such as America’s stalwart allies Japan and South Korea – is also FULLY CONSISTENT with the Constitution and thus with the Limited Government Principle. (It is also sound foreign policy, as I prove here.)

What the Founding Fathers said

Today, libertarians falsely paint the Founding Fathers as universally isolationist and opposed to standing armies. The truth, however, is that they were far from being unanimous on these issues. But if there was an issue on which they were close to unanimity, it was that the US MUST provide generously for its own defense, even if it were to adopt a position of armed neutrality.

George Washington said to the Congress in his very first State of the Union address: “Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. (…) To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of keeping the peace.” In his last SOTU address, he urged the Congress to remember about the need to provide for the common defense and to establish a military academy.

The second President, John Adams, said, “National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.”

The fourth President, and father of the US Constitution, James Madison, asked in 1788 in one of the Federalist Papers:

“How could a readiness for war in times of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?”

And Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist #24 why a standing army was needed to protect America even in the 1780s, in seemingly peaceful times:

“Though a wide ocean separates the United States from Europe, yet there are various considerations that warn us against an excess of confidence or security. On one side of us, and stretching far into our rear, are growing settlements subject to the dominion of Britain. On the other side, and extending to meet the British settlements, are colonies and establishments subject to the dominion of Spain. This situation and the vicinity of the West India Islands, belonging to these two powers create between them, in respect to their American possessions and in relation to us, a common interest. The savage tribes on our Western frontier ought to be regarded as our natural enemies, their natural allies, because they have most to fear from us, and most to hope from them. The improvements in the art of navigation have, as to the facility of communication, rendered distant nations, in a great measure, neighbors. Britain and Spain are among the principal maritime powers of Europe. A future concert of views between these nations ought not to be regarded as improbable. The increasing remoteness of consanguinity is every day diminishing the force of the family compact between France and Spain. And politicians have ever with great reason considered the ties of blood as feeble and precarious links of political connection. These circumstances combined, admonish us not to be too sanguine in considering ourselves as entirely out of the reach of danger.”

Indeed, the Federalists, including Hamilton, supported the creation of a large, well-armed standing army.

And the Navy?

While some Founders, like Elbridge Gerry, were uneasy about a standing ground army, no Founder objected to building a strong navy – they all supported that goal. A few quotes will suffice:

It follows then as certain as that night succeeds the day, that without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious.
We ought to begin a naval power, if we mean to carry on our commerce.
See? The Founders believed that without a “decisive naval force” we can do “nothing definitive” nor anything “honorable and glorious” – like protecting American merchant ships, for example. The dependence of America’s economy on overseas trade, and thus the importance of having a strong Navy to protect the US merchant fleet, was also recognized by Thomas Jefferson, who was the first US president to intervene abroad (in Tripoli, i.e. in today’s Libya), and he did so without even consulting the Congress, let alone asking it for authorization.
These were America’s first overseas victories. That’s why the Marines’ Hymn begins with the words “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli…” (emphasis mine).
The United States Navy was originally created because Barbary pirates were continually attacking American merchant ships, and the US no longer wanted to pay ransom.
The political aspect
We’re being told by libertarians that the GOP’s support for generous funding for defense (which support, in reality, has recently been lagging) somehow alienates many voters, especially indies and moderates, who, we are being told, would vote Republican if the GOP would endorse deep defense cuts and thus end its supposed “hypocrisy and doublethinking”.
But it’s a blatant lie. Firstly, according to many polls, a majority – and according to some polls, the vast majority – of Americans oppose deep or (according to some polls) ANY defense spending cuts. The only polls (and there are few of them) which purport to show the opposite results are those commissioned by organizations (such as the NPR) which advocate deep defense cuts (and thus, their polls are likely to be rigged).
Attached is a graph showing the results of the latest Pew Poll on the subject. It shows that 73% of Americans oppose any further defense spending cuts, including sequestration. How will adopting a policy that 73% of Americans oppose and only 24% of Americans support help the GOP win future elections?
It won’t – because those who support deep defense cuts are all liberals who will never vote Republican in any event. Endorsing deep defense cuts will not win Republicans a single new vote – but it will alienate millions of defense conservatives who will (rightly) feel betrayed.
Nobody in the US who currently doesn’t vote Republican will somehow start voting Republican if the GOP endorses deep defense cuts. But millions of conservative GOP voters will cease voting Republican.
Just as endorsing amnesty would cost the GOP millions of conservative votes without winning a single new Hispanic vote, so, too, endorsing deep defense cuts would cost the GOP millions of conservative votes without winning a single new vote from anyone.
Better, then, for the GOP to reaffirm its (currently wavering, shaky, and flagging) commitment to a strong defense – which is also a key and inextricable part of conservative philosophy – than to agree to the gutting of America’s defense in pursuit of a mirage called “liberals’ and libertarians’ votes”.
The people who support deep defense cuts will never vote Republican anyway.
America already has one pro-weak-defense party. It does not need a second one.

Return To Free Market Principles

If we’re to form conclusions based on the behavior of our elected officials, the United States government being over $15 trillion in debt is a minor concern.

Figuring out how to cut spending is simply too adult a puzzle for ”progressives” in the Senate and the White House. What else can the average American conclude from the recent actions of these overpaid, irresponsible feeders from the public trough? How on God’s green earth can hard working people, many struggling just to make ends meet, expect these elected officials to sacrifice their ruling class prestige, salaries, perks, expense accounts, per deim and oversized, overpaid staff? Clearly, this expectation is presumptuous, outrageous and out of hand.

For America to rebound from the existing economic quagmire, not only must the size, scope and cost of government be dramatically reduced, America needs to reestablish its manufacturing base. The manufacturing base that allowed America to fight on two fronts in WWII and win. The government manufactures nothing. Additionally, recent actions strongly reinforce the perception that government is ill-suited to engage in capital investment. The impulse to engage in cronyism was simply far too strong.

America needs elected representatives who will support legislation that repeals unnecessary government meddling in competitive, private markets. America’s economic strength has always resulted from private market capitalism where free, private Citizens pick winners and losers by how and where they spend their own money.

To those who choose to ignore the call for a return to free market principles, it will be a clear indication that keeping their seat at the banquet table of corruption is more important to them than is their oath of office.

America will be much, much better off after they are gone…for good.


Scholar David Barton vs. Jon Stewart – No Contest

American Historian and Scholar David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders, Inc, was a ‘guest’ on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show.  Stewart, as usual, could not hide his liberal bias and tried in vain to make light of the fact that Barton was kicking his tail.

Wallbuilders is an organization dedicated to setting the record straight about the Colonial era and the founding fathers and framers in terms of their motivations and actions of the time.  They own over 100,000 documents from before 1812 which show the true thoughts of about religions, the treatment of slaves and the Constitution that has been systematically distorted or eliminated from textbooks in many public schools.


For more information, go to wallbuiders.org
Part 1

Part 2

Florida Gov. Rick Scott Hammers Out Jobs in Tough Economy

Governor Rick Scott recently announced that Florida’s unemployment rate has decreased by a total of 1.3% since he took office in January of this year. While unnecessary and redundant government jobs have been cut, we still see an overall increase in job creation, according to the following chart:

This is a wonderful example of just how Rick Scott is keeping with his campaign slogan of “Lets get to work” that he rode to winning the Florida Gubernatorial election of 2010.  Governor Scott  gives credit to the State legislature, among others in his weekly newsletter and September Florida Jobs report.


I cannot take full credit for this positive news. Florida is on the right track, thanks to the collaborative effort of the Florida Legislature, who last session passed business tax cuts and shared my vision for making Florida the best state in the country to do business, and to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater, Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, city and county governments, who along with the state provide incentives for companies to create jobs here, and to everyone in my administration who has played a role in growing jobs. Most importantly we must recognize the businesses who are actually taking risks to create jobs in Florida every day.

Not being one to rest on his laurels, Governor Scott also released his new Economic Growth and Job Creation Agenda of 2012. ( ahead of time, which is nice to see)

 Florida has seen the addition of a total of 110,300 jobs while shrinking the size of government, resulting in a net gain of 92,400 jobs since Gov. Scott took office. Even better news can be found in the fact that Florida’s job growth rate of 1.3% has outpaced the national rate of 1.1% for the first time since February of 2007!

Thank you Governor Scott, for giving Florida some change they can really believe in!



Jeb Bush Signs Right On Crime Statement of Principles

Joins Ed Meese, Grover Norquist, Bill Bennett, and dozens of conservative leaders supporting conservative criminal justice reforms

AUSTIN, Texas, Sept. 2, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Jeb Bush, the first Republican to be elected to consecutive terms as Governor of Florida, is the newest signatory of the Right On Crime statement of principles, which aligns the conservative agenda on criminal justice reform with long-standing conservative principles such as accountability, limited government, and fiscal responsibility.

“States across the country, including Florida, are proving that policies based on these sound conservative principles will reduce crime and its cost to taxpayers,” Gov. Bush said.  “Many of the signatories of this statement of principles are respected leaders and friends, and I am pleased to add my support.”

“Jeb Bush’s track record as Governor of Florida was marked by consistent and visionary conservative leadership,” said ROC senior policy advisor Marc Levin.  “Gov. Bush’s endorsement of these principles increases the credibility of the conservative criminal justice reform movement on a national level.  Gov. Bush’s support will also provide valuable momentum in Florida, which presents one of the best opportunities for implementing these reforms that better protect the public and reduce the costs of crime.”

The conservative statement of principles was unveiled last December by Right on Crime, an initiative spearheaded by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and based on measures implemented in Texas that have reduced crime by more than 9 percent while saving taxpayers more than $2 billion.

The campaign grounds itself in the basics of conservatism: personal responsibility, free enterprise, limited government, and family. Using a model that has been successful in Texas since 2005, Right on Crime promotes data-driven solutions that are proven to restore victims, decrease the number of repeat offenders, and save taxpayer dollars.

Ten states across the country have enacted reforms this year that are aligned with the Right On Crime statement of principles.  These reforms include:

  • Juvenile justice overhauls in Florida and Texas;
  • Closure of no-longer-needed prisons in Colorado and Texas;
  • Evidence-based diversion programs that will offset the need for new prisons in Arkansas and Ohio; and
  • Parole reforms in AlabamaArkansasLouisiana, and North Carolina.

The conservative statement of principles and a current list of signatories are available online atwww.rightoncrime.com/statement-of-principles.

The American Redneck Society Announces the Formation of the Redneck Political Alliance

RONT ROYAL, Va., May 18, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Rob Clayton, Executive Director of the American Redneck Society, announced today the formation of the Redneck Political Alliance.

As 2010 drew to a close, the nation witnessed the birth of the American Redneck Society, established to bring benefits to millions of rednecks throughout the country.  As the nation draws closer to a new presidential election year, the American Redneck Society wants to add another benefit to its menu . . . an opportunity to let elected representatives know what issues concern American rednecks.

Clayton commented, “The Redneck Political Alliance will not endorse any candidate or political party but rather will give American rednecks a chance to let elected officials know if they’re LEJIT.  Like its sister organization, the American Political Alliance has a sense of country and a sense of humor, even if it doesn’t have a sense of spelling.”

The Redneck Political Alliance rating system focuses on the core values that LEJIT spells out:

  • Limited Government:  Are American politicians growing government or keeping it in check?  Are they operating within the constitution or outside of it?  Are American politicians using our military to defend our nation or the United Nations?
  • Erasing the deficit:  Rednecks know that a government which spends beyond its means is a government that is stealing from their youngins . . . spending more than taxpayers can afford today and expecting future generations to pay off staggering debts.
  • Job creation:  Hard-working and fun-loving rednecks need and want jobs.  Are elected officials creating an environment in the USA for job creation or an environment which encourages companies to ship jobs overseas?
  • Immigration reform:  All Americans are descendants of immigrants.  Likewise, rednecks are proud of their ancestors, but are sick and tired of illegal immigrants taking jobs and receiving benefits that should be reserved for U.S. citizens and legal residents.
  • Tax Reduction:  Rednecks pay enough in taxes.  Is the “government of the people” increasing or decreasing taxes?


Clayton concluded, “Initially, we’ll be asking folks to grade politicians according to these 5 criteria.  Soon, we’ll be grading candidates for president and letting folks know whether they’re LEJIT.”