Tag Archives: Republicans

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge October 12th

When:Saturday, October 12th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Tonight is Texas politics and cigar talk with Scott Braddock! He’s not just from Texas…he’s OF Texas. Also expect some TX/OU weekend talk to, but only if we’re either A) Shocked at how much OU beats TX by or B) Shocked TX actually makes it a decent game.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Federal Government: Embarrassing to the Point of Painful

As the so-called “government shutdown” drags on, one thing is hard not to admit: the Obama Administration is acting in a manner that is attempting to extract the maximum amount of pain on the American people. While many are wondering how it came to this point, those of us who actually paid attention in Social Studies, Civics and American History classes – school subjects that are, today, given little, if any, attention –
understand it’s because the US Constitution and the purity of the original governmental process has been raped by the opportunistic political class.

Our nation has always had a robust political discourse, commencing from before we were even a documented nation. We have always been represented by a passionate, spirited political class; strong in their beliefs, but educated and knowledgeable enough to legislate and govern for the good of all the people. Today, this is not the case.

Today, we have a political class that insists on the importance of ideologically motivated political “achievements” over the honest representation of the American people; loyalty to political faction – of which each and every Framer and Founder warned – over loyalty to those who delivered them to power via the ballot box.

Today, we literally have people in the political class that have an inferior command of the English language, an inferior and under-performing understanding of the principles of the Constitution and the Charters of Freedom, and a devotion to Progressivism; a non-indigenous, Marxist-based ideology that believes the State is the Alpha and the Omega; the giver of rights and the final arbiter of freedom and liberty.

Today, we have a government that does not – does not – serve the American people, evidenced – in a singular point – by the overwhelming and sustained majority of Americans who do not want the Affordable Care Act implemented on any level.

FOX News reports:

Is the Obama administration employing a make-it-hurt strategy to gain political leverage in the budget battle on Capitol Hill?

Republicans are making that charge as the stalemate drags on, and point to the Pentagon furlough of 400,000 civilian staffers — even though Congress passed and the president signed a bill to supposedly keep them on the job…

Republicans argue that the intent of the law was to keep them on the job, and that the Obama administration “narrowly interpreted” it against congressional intent in order to furlough more employees.

It’s one example of how, Republicans say, the administration is making the partial shutdown of government services worse than it needs to be. Many have complained about the National Park Service cordoning off even open-air monuments in Washington, DC, such as the World War II Memorial.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), responded to criticisms by saying, “It is time for Speaker Boehner to stop the games.”

Shamefully, FOX also reported that correspondence on this situation has stalled because, as Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), stated, “Unfortunately, most of the staff who draft congressional correspondence are furloughed.”

A few notes on this shameful situation.

First, and to be equally critical to both sides, if “staffers that draft congressional correspondence” have been furloughed, perhaps those elected to Congress should learn to (and actually) write their own correspondence.

Second, to the Progressives, Democrats and our embarrassing President, it is never “game-playing” when the taxpayer’s money is being spent. It is “game-playing” when members of our military who have been maimed and permanently injured can’t get medical care because the politically opportune refuse to entertain appropriations passed through a traditional method (not every spending bill has to be an omnibus package, in fact traditionally, the 12 appropriation bills have been passed separately).

House Republicans “screwed the pooch” when they didn’t advance ACA funding as a separate, stand-alone appropriations bill from the start. When House Speaker Boehner stated that this Congress would operate under “regular order” he should have stated that the House would be de-bundling all legislation into stand-alone pieces, shining the light of truth and accountability on everything that passed across the House floor. Sadly, traditional, inside-the-beltway pork politics prevailed and the practice of bundling legislation to appease the politically greedy has delivered us to this point.

Truth be told, had the political class not blindly followed the Progressive Movement into ratifying the 17th Amendment, none of this would have ever come to pass. But, then, the Commerce Clause wouldn’t have even come close to allowing much of what the Federal government has done that encroaches into our daily lives.

Additionally, if Harry Reid would have operated lawfully, the omnibus appropriations package would have already been legislated, as he is – is – bound by law to have produced a budget by April 15 of each year. He has not done so since before Republicans took control of the House.

The sad, but glaringly true, fact is this. Our government has become too big and too bureaucratic. Our government has manipulated and strayed from the boundaries of the US Constitution, which is a mandated blueprint for limiting government.

Until We the People insist on repealing the 17th Amendment so as to re-employ constitutional protections for the States, and until Congress re-visits the Federal government’s grotesquely over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it will be up to the States to save the nation, either by Constitutional Convention (which in and of itself is very dangerous were the original words of the Constitution to be manipulated by the opportunistic) or by, God forbid, secession.

And it is with tears in my eyes for our country; for freedom; for liberty itself, that I acquiesce to the notion. Buy, my God, are we to allow the greatest achievement of freedom in the history of the world be extinguished at the hand of ideological bullies?

The words of Patriot Patrick Henry said so very seriously then, are just as cogent today:

“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! — I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge Sept. 28th

When:Saturday, September 28th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Tonight the Rated-R Republican John Brodigan joins Taylor and Liz to talk politics, pop culture and more!

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Worth The Effort for Several Reasons

As US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), continues his “filibuster” of Obamacare, many in the so-called Conservative punditry have smugly dismissed the effort as futile, tunnel-visioned in their understanding of why Cruz’s actions are not only critical to the eventual repeal of Obamacare, but to the effectiveness of the Republican Party and the survival of representative government.

A cursory examination of the by-products of Sen. Cruz’s efforts not only illuminates the incredible short-sightedness of the establishment Republican apparatus – both elected and not, but advances an argument to the American people as to why they should question the Conservative punditry and re-evaluate just how bright the Republican “strategists” actually are.

FOX News reports:

“‘Obamacare isn’t working,’ [Sen. Ted Cruz] said. ‘There are politicians in this body who are not listening to the people.’

“The feisty senator spoke through the night. His topics ranged from the American revolution and the Washington establishment to his Cuban-born father and the impact of the healthcare law. By 6am EDT Wednesday, Cruz and his fellow GOP conservatives had spoken for more than 15-and-a-half hours, the sixth longest since precise record-keeping began in 1900…

“The speech was reminiscent of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), earlier this year staging an old-fashioned filibuster to voice his concerns over drones.

“Paul joined Cruz on the Senate floor for a time, telling his colleague to make sure he is wearing comfortable shoes for the long night ahead and saying “we’re asking for a dialogue” on Obamacare.

“‘How do we get the dialogue unless somebody’s willing to stand up and say enough’s enough?’ Paul asked.”

Before the brilliance of what Mr. Cruz is doing is outlined, it should be noted that each and every Republican who has run for office since the passage of the ACA (Obamacare) has run on a platform of “defund, repeal and replace.” And while the House has consistently passed bills aimed at repealing Obamacare, none – none – of these efforts could possibly have been taken seriously. Ergo, establishment Republicans have done nothing – nothing – to keep their campaign promises. Conversely, Mr. Cruz and his brethren are keeping their promises; Mr. Cruz and his brethren are actually executing representative government.

Now, three (if not more) by-products come of Mr. Cruz’s efforts.

First, Conservatives have identifieddefinitively – who the RINOs are in the GOP. This will allow true Conservatives to target them in the midterm elections, as well as future elections. Frankly, the day of the RINO looks like it is coming to an end.

Second, this show of dedication to campaign promise and principle has served to foment an expectation among the voters that anything less than a one-year delay of the implementation of the ACA is completely unacceptable to the American people. To wit, even Democrats are now talking about delaying the implementation and re-working the law to codify “agreeable” elements, i.e. covering pre-existing conditions and portability, to name two.

And third, it breaches the “concrete wall” establishment Republicans have erected around the “official message” of the National GOP. By Cruz, Lee and the Senate Conservative Fund taking their message directly to the people, circumventing an impotent and ineffective Republican leadership, they have started the long journey to breaking the Progressives lock on “the narrative.”

The last point, if not all three, makes what Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeff Sessions, Pat Roberts, David Vitter, James Inhofe and Mike Enzi worth the effort…very much so.

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge Sept. 7th

When:Saturday, August 31st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Jason Pye from United Liberty, and Jackie Bodnar from FreedomWorks join Taylor to talk Syria, liberty, and more.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge, August 31st

When:Saturday, August 31st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Sean Venkman guests to discuss Syria, Syria, Texas unions and the NSA.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge August 24th

When:Saturday, July 27th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Taylor talks to comic book author/artist Erik Burnham about his upcoming Scarlet Spider run, plus Ghostbusters and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Plus Taylor and Liz will talk  the Justice Department vs. Texas, Syria and more!

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

 

The End Of Policy Revisited

us_map_flagNote from Taylor: My buddy, William K, sent me an email last week in reply to this article from Reason Magazine. I don’t 100% agree with him, especially on foreign policy where I think he’s dead wrong, but he brings up some excellent points.

Hi Taylor,

I almost agree with what he’s saying. I do agree that the GOP has an almost non-existent public policy. I disagree with the idea that the Democrat party has no public policy. It may be that there is nothing distinctly new about their policy, but I believe their policy is to chisel in the public a new dependence upon the types of central planning (efficient government or some other euphemism) which provides the essentials (food, health, transportation, even jobs). Most of the impactful parts of Obamacare have not actually been implemented and can, in theory, still be brought down. What I do agree about is the sort of dishwater leadership we currently have in both chambers and the party at large.

Furthermore, there’s nothing “wrong” with the Democrat policy agenda. It’s working as long as they can tie their failings to the nebulous “other” which is the source of all wrongs. Were it not for the “other,” we might have found the philosopher’s stone of governance. In any case, true scandals (intelligences leaks, Ambassador Stevens killed in the Islamist attack on Benghazi and the subsequent obfuscation of what happened and why, the IRS targeting conservative oriented non-profits which faced scrutiny at a rate of almost 15:1, etc.) have yet to stick or gain traction. There are three more years and no sign that any of these will actually matter.

Regardless of the legality or the propriety of their actions, what the Democrat party is doing is working, even if it is slower than what they prefer. This incremental approach works, even if it is frustrating for them. If a conservative compromises on a law over a conviction, he moves further away than where his ideals state he should be. If a liberal compromises the same way, his march is simply a little slower.

Finally, I want to point out one thing that bothers me about libertarians, especially the more fiscally conscious ones – the ones with whom I am probably the most aligned. There seems to be a streak of isolationism in them and a aversion to defense spending. While a lot of energy based problems are self-inflicted, one cannot deny that the American Navy has kept the seas safe for international commerce. Our Navy basically guarantees that the crude petroleum produced in the Levant is able to make it to America as well as the mostly free Western Europe. Our defense spending as a percentage of GDP has been falling for decades. If our Navy shrinks too much, we risk conceding important trade routes and strategic seas. China has recently published a map which claims Philippine territory de facto and de jure controlled by the Philippines which is slowly being consumed by Chinese soft invasions (invasions which we are, by treaty, supposed to repel, but for which we do nothing).  Without defense spending, we have no ships, no fuel, no sailors to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. I honestly even hate the euphemism “interest” because it makes it sound like protecting commerce on the seas and protecting territorial integrity of allies is just a hobby, like knitting or bird watching. These are not pedestrian dawdlings – this is impactful for not only our way of life, but for the mostly democratic and free way of life that is genuinely threatened by the Communists in China and the Oligarchs in Russia.

Sincerely,

William K.

Myth: “Republicans also support Big Government – in defense spending”

Flag7

There is currently a myth being spread across America that Republicans also support Big Government, in the form of generous defense spending, and that this is Republicans’ sacred cow. Anti-defense liberals and libertarians falsely claim that Republicans cannot credibly call for federal spending cuts and for limited government unless they’re willing to significantly slash defense spending.

But they are dead wrong. Read on, Dear Reader, and I’ll show you why.

Limited-government conservatism is an ideology that aims to reduce and limit the size of the federal government to the bounds authorized by the Constitution. Conservatives and libertarians alike agree that the federal establishment has expanded way beyond these authorized constitutional boundaries.

But generous defense spending is completely in line with the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ intent. It is not a Big Government program, nor anyone’s sacred cow. It is, in fact, the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. The #1 reason for having a federal government at all is to have it defend the country and its citizens.

What does the Constitution say about defense? The Preamble to the Supreme Law of the Land explains why the federal government was established in the first place:

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.

Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution lists 18 prerogatives of the Congress, nine (i.e., 50%) of which are related to military affairs, including “to raise Armies,” “to provide and maintain a Navy,” to regulate captures on land and water, to declare war, and to make regulations for the military. They authorize the full spectrum of the defense needed, from “providing for the common defense”, raising and supporting Armies, and providing and maintaining a Navy, to building arsenals, dockyards, and forts. As Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation has observed, “National defense receives unique and elevated emphasis under the Constitution. It is not ‘just’ another duty of the federal government.”

The Constitution not only authorizes a strong national defense (and consequently, robust funding for it), it REQUIRES it. Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution says as follows:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…

As you can see, the Constitution not merely authorizes, it REQUIRES a strong defense and therefore any measures necessary to build it – including any amount of funding required to build it. Any amount of defense spending is Constitutionally authorized and perfectly in line with the Constitution and therefore with the Limited Government Principle.

A key tenet – indeed, the overriding principle – of conservative philosophy is that we must obey the Constitution as it is written. We may not cherry-pick which parts of the Constitution we’re going to obey and which ones we won’t abide by. But that’s what liberals and libertarians like Raul Castro Labrador are doing. They cherry-pick the Constitution and abide only by those party they like, while ignoring the ones they don’t like and pretending they don’t exist.

Most of the Founding Fathers also supported a strong national defense as a top imperative. George Washington, told the Congress in 1790 in his 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 effective means of preserving the peace.”

James Madison, for a long time an opponent of standing armies, ultimately changed his opinion and said in 1788:

“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?”

So according to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, defense is not a big government program, but rather a Constitutionally legitimate government function and indeed the highest Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. And if that is the case, a strong military (and generous funding for it) does NOT violate the Constitution and therefore also does not violate the Limited Government Principle.

In other words, Ronald Reagan did not invent the “peace through strength” philosophy – George Washington did, although he did not call it that way.

Consequently, the Limited Government Principle does NOT require any defense cuts, nor does any other tenet of conservative philosophy. Therefore, consistent application of conservatism, including the Limited Government Principle, does NOT require any defense cuts.

In fact, conservative ideology REQUIRES that a strong defense be built and generously funded, as stated by numerous conservative leaders from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan.

No, the Pentagon is not a Big Government program, nor is it anyone’s pet project. Defense is the #1 Constitutional obligation of the federal government and, as John Adams rightly said, “one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.”

So generous defense spending is fully consistent with the Constitution, the wishes of the Founding Fathers, and the Limited Government principle of conservatism.

So how much does the US spend today? Can deep defense cuts balance the federal budget?

The answer is overwhelmingly no. Washington’s trillion dollar annual deficits are so huge that, as the Heritage Foundation graph below shows, even eliminating military spending entirely would not even halve the budget deficit.

defense-spending-entitlement-spending-problem-600

The FY2013 military budget, under the FY2013 authorization bill was – prior to sequestration – $613 bn (for all military spending: the base defense budget, the Afghan war, and the DOE’s national security programs). That is 17% of the total federal budget and 4.01% of America’s GDP.

But under sequestration, the base defense budget faces a cut to $469 bn (3.07% of GDP) and by FY2014 will still be at a pathetically low $475 bn (3.11% of GDP).

sequestrationisapermanentcut

The House has recently passed a defense authorization bill authorizing $552 bn for FY2014 – for the base defense budget, the Afghan war, and DOE nat-sec programs combined. But even that sum is only 3.62% of GDP and just 15.33% of the entire federal budget.

So defense, the program that is supposed (under the Constitution) to be the federal government’s highest priority, is being shortchanged and will, even under the most optimistic scenario, receive only 15.33% of the entire federal budget! 84.67% of the federal budget will be spent on something else!

There is a big difference between being frugal and cheap.

Since the 1950s, defense spending has declined dramatically as a percentage of GDP and of the federal budget, from 50% of the total budget in FY1962 to just 15.33% today, and from 10% of GDP in FY1961 to 4.01% of GDP today – on track to slip to below 3% of GDP under sequestration.

 

national-defense-spending-560

Meanwhile, domestic spending – discretionary and mandatory – has splurged.

 

Non-Defense-Spending_130204

Do you see what is wrong here, Dear Reader? Washington has its priorities exactly backwards.

For a further comprehensive examination of the “the Pentagon is just another big government project” and “you can’t be a limited government conservative if you don’t support defense cuts” claims, please also read my article, “Defense and the Principle of Limited Government”.

“I Don’t Give A S–T”: Finally!!! Truth From Washington

Markwayne Mullin Well, Folks, that just about sums it up!!!!!! Rep. Markwayne Mulllin (R OK-2) made this famous statement when confronted at a townhall meeting in Afton, Oklahoma on August 8, 2013.  Activist Miki Booth, also of Oklahoma, tried to present Mullin with a 71 page affidavit from the Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States of America.   Mullin said we lost that argument Nov. 6, 2012 and “testily” refused to accept the document.  The left is going nuts because they say he has “come out” as a “birther”. That is nonsense, as he clearly stated, more than once, that he doesn’t care, to put it more politely.  I think the “birthers” are the ones who do care.

I witnessed the same kind of attitude the next day in Oolagah regarding the TEA Party members of Congress who are trying to stop the hemorrhaging of our liberty.  I told him I wanted him to join with the reformers but he has jumped in bed with Boehner and the party establishment.  He didn’t take that very well.  Another man insisted the House could refuse to fund anything they desired to defund.  Mullin said they couldn’t do that because the Senate and Obama would stop such a bill.  If the House sends an appropriations bill without funding for Obamacare they can’t force the money to be there.  Mullin doesn’t seem to understand that part of the Constitution very well either.  Doing John Boehner’s bidding seems to be the only answer Mullin has to our problems. The idea of governing according to the Constitution and the wishes of his constituents seems to evade his radar!!!

His curt attitude to Ms. Booth, and his following attitude, pretty much sums up the general attitude of members of Congress towards the Constitution and We the People.  The most serious issue here isn’t that the member ranked 408th in seniority in the House of Representatives showed this kind of callous disregard for the Constitution in public.  Mullin is just following the dictates of the Republican Party “leadership”.  He is merely following the instructions and example of his mentors, Sen. Tom Coburn and Speaker of the House, Rep. John “the Traitor” Boehner. Jim Bridenstine

How many members of Congress actually care what the Constitution says????? Jim Bridenstine, Louie Gohmert, Justin Amash, Tim Huelskamp, and a few others are standing up for the Constitution, and We the People, in the House. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and a few others are doing the same in the Senate. Other than that we have the Markwayne Mullin attitude from the rest of them towards the very basis of our Republic of the United States of America.

Mullin told those of us gathered in Oolagah that the TEA Party congressmen are busy grandstanding for their own personal gain and hurting the “co-operation needed” to get anything done in the House.  He mentioned them losing a $10 billion cut in some program because of their insistence on cutting more.  While that cut would probably be a good thing, it won’t matter much if we don’t Eagle- America Deserves Betterpreserve our nation as it was left to us by our founders.  The Republican Party is not preserving, protecting, or defending the Constitution, they are subverting it.  We have already lost so much that we are on the precipice of a Nazi Germany future.

Obama, and those in control of both political parties in both houses of Congress, are systematically destroying our very way of life and it is pretty apparent that “I don’t give a s**t” is the prevailing attitude among nearly everyone we elected to “preserve, protect, uphold, and defend” the Constitution of the United States of America.

In a related incident last week, Oklahoma State School Superintendent Janet Barresi, a Republikrat, took the same attitude towards people meeting to discuss education with her, the topic being Common Core. She can’t seem to make up her mind if citizens were split on the matter or if it is lopsided in opposition to Common Core.  She seems to change her story to match the latest facts that she can’t be bothered with. She told one attendee that she doesn’t answer to We the People, but rather that she answers to the state legislature. That is true in the sense that the legislature passes the guidelines but she is elected by We the People to provide our children with the best possible education. Common Core isn’t the best possible education and she isn’t doing any better than the lame Democrat we tossed out in 2010.

I seem to remember the big ballyhoo from the Republikrat Party when they swept the statewide elections, including the school superintendent post in 2012.  Now she has the attitude that We the People don’t matter and she evidently “doesn’t give a s**t” what the citizens say either.

Mullin isn’t an aberration; he is the norm from the Republikrat Party.  Both political parties are owned by big money, and the big money is on “K” Street in Washington D C (De Cesspool).  Legislators at both state and federal level give their allegiance to the political party because that is where their money for campaigns comes from. We the People are merely peasants who should sit down and shut up because weThe Patriot Duty aren’t intelligent enough “to know what is good for us or what is in our best interests”.

This is the general attitude of the Republican Party establishment.  We the People don’t matter and merely need to sit down and shut up while they attend to the business we are too ignorant to understand.  Our government is no longer OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People.  We now see a government that sees itself as the final arbiter of what is and is not legal, what is and is not moral, and what is and is not acceptable.

The ruling class political thugs do not consider We the People to be their superiors.  We are peasants who lack the intelligence or ability to decide what is what.  The worst of it is that they don’t recognize the RIGHT of We the People to have any input into what goes on in government.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

August 13, 2012

 

 

Are Texans Innately Conservative? Liberal? Or Libertarian?

Texas-flag-lone-star-state-300x288

Note: This was originally posted at Free Radical Network

There is going to be a big fight in Texas.  The Battleground Texas group is trying to make inroads into the state, in hopes of turning Texas either purple or blue.

They think the best strategy is ‘get out the vote’ campaigns.  Executive Director Jenn Brown told “The Dallas Morning News” she thought Texas is a “nonvoting state,” then claimed Texas wasn’t “innately conservative.”  She attributes her belief to the low voter turnout in the 2012 election, and election results that show a mere 18-percent of the voting population voted for Governor Rick Perry in 2010.  Her comments drew an unexpected response from Texas blogger/journalist Scott Braddock who said Texas was “innately libertarian.”

He was “dead serious“, and probably right.

Texas does have a very broad belief in freedom, and also in avoiding bureaucracy and a massive welfare state.  It’s not just rhetoric by Perry or others in power across the state; Texans have enjoyed rebelling against the “establishment” and striking back at what they saw as government intrusion.

The obvious example is the 2012 U.S. Senate race.  Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst was seen as the odds-on favorite: he had the backing of the state party and pretty much everyone else in the Texas political machine.  Ted Cruz had a small coalition of people who supported him.  He was the upstart who talked up his libertarian leanings, speaking about actually obeying the U.S. Constitution, and seeking to keep the federal government out of Texans’ lives.  One of the chief reasons why “The Dallas Morning News” and “Houston Chronicle” supported Dewhurst was his coalition building.  While that is attractive in state politics, U.S. Senators are supposed to represent the interests of their states.  Cruz understood this; Dewhurst didn’t.  “The Dallas Morning News” even supported Democrat Paul Sadler over Cruz in the 2012 General Election because he’d bring money to Texas, while Cruz would only do so if it involved “roads, freeways and ports.”  You know, Constitutional reasons.

Obviously Texans rejected both Dewhurst and Sadler by sending Cruz to DC, but it shows how the state wants the federal government to leave them alone.  They’re not interested in having DC determine what Texans do.  That’s rather libertarian.

But Texans’ desire to keep the government from taking over their lives isn’t just aimed at DC.  They’ve also pushed back against attempts by the state government from doing it.

The best example may be the Trans-Texas Corridor. In short, Perry was hoping to create a “super-highway” which would span from the southern border all the way to the Red River.  Perry praised it as something which would help shippers, reduce pollution, and fix roads.  He promised the tolls would keep taxes from having to be raised and that it would “improve the interstate concept.”

Texans revolted.  They spent hours upon hours pointing out the eminent domain issues, loss of tax revenue, how the proposal was too much like California’s Route 91, and just how poorly it was designed.  The push-back was so fierce, not only did the Trans-Texas Corridor die; but Perry ended up signing stronger laws against eminent domain in 2011.

The same can be said about the current fight in the state Legislature over transportation funding.  Perry, Dewhurst and other Republicans were hoping to get a constitutional amendment passed which would have diverted oil and gas production tax money (meant for the Rainy Day Fund) for transportation, instead.  Some House and Senate members revolted against the plan over concerns as to whether there was a “floor” provision in the bill.  That would have meant if the Rainy Day Fund reached some designated floor, 100% of oil and gas production tax money would start going into it again.  Killing the bill was probably the right move because it’s a bad bill and, as with most taxes, the money runs out at some point.

There’s more to be said about Texas’ libertarian streak. “Texas Monthy’s” Erica Grieder even wrote a book pointing out how low taxes and low services helped Texas.  In a column to “The Dallas Morning News” she wrote, “Texans don’t expect that much from the state,” and she’s absolutely right.  Many people who grew up in Texas don’t expect that.  The help ends up coming from either cities or the community in a crisis.  There are parts of Texas which are struggling, like the Rio Grande Valley, but there are charities and non-profits trying to help where they can.

Battleground Texas wants to change that by getting more Democrats elected and changing how the state operates.  They want Texas to be the next Colorado, which would be horrific.

The good news is, it’s a fight which opposition groups aren’t taking lying down.  FreedomWorks plans on $8-million in spending to fight Battleground Texas, and state Attorney General Greg Abbott calls the group “far more dangerous” than North Korea.  U.S. Senator John Cornyn’s campaign manager also said Battleground Texas is a “real threat in the years to come.”

Hopefully other freedom-loving groups, and the Texas Republican Party, will actually pay attention.

 

Switching Parties – How a Lifelong Conservative Joins the Democrats

Feelings matter. When feelings are at stake there is no room for facts, logic, critical thinking, or rational ideas. Feelings trump all. And next to feelings lives fairness, which is also of critical importance. Fairness must be achieved and feelings protected at any cost. It’s taken me awhile to realize this, but now that I have I find I feel not just better, but better than you. My feelings and sense of fairness have made me quite superior to others. So I’ve decided to become a democrat.

It isn’t as if I’ve come to this decision lightly. I’ve had to open my mind, which is so hard for a conservative. I’ve had to abandon absolute truth in favor of a reality that exists only in my head and some of my old political science text books from college. I’ve had to learn to embrace feelings over facts which, while seemingly quite stupid, is actually very freeing. No one should be overcome by an excess of facts and logic. I’ve come to understand facts and logic are racist.

There are several reasons I’ve decided to abandon a principled lifestyle and join the “if it feels good, do it” crowd and they extend beyond all the free birth control I’m now going to hoard. I’ve outlined these reasons and I think after reading them and examining your own feelings, you’ll walk the path of enlightenment with me.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best strategy in war is defeat. I’m vociferously anti-war when there’s a republican in office. Obviously. I’ll even lie about the reasons we’re involving ourselves in conflict (that “no blood for oil” slogan was genius; I wish I was a democrat then) because it’s obvious republicans only go to war to kill brown people. I feel that way, so it must be true. But while I won’t be quite so vocally anti-war when a democrat is in charge, I will still work to undermine our troops and compromise the mission as much as I can from my cozy Southern California living space. I will support politicians who champion cut and run strategies, who want to drastically cut the defense budget, and who’ve never spent a minute in a uniform because pacifism is the path to peace, and I feel that history has proven as much.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best way to prove I’m not a racist is to be totally racist while accusing my opposition of being racist. Following in the footsteps of one of my democrat heroes, Lyndon B. Johnson, I’ll continue his dream of having “those n*ggers voting democratic for the next 200 years” (I learned all about his disdain of minorities in Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House, but I forgive him for it because he was a democrat so I’m sure he felt he had a good reason). Now that I’m a democrat, I am convinced minorities (and gays and women, for that matter) are fundamentally incapable of achieving the same level of success a white man can based solely upon their accidents of birth. I believe that the only way the lesser human beings can function in society is with government mandated success in the form of affirmative action, set asides, and quotas. I support democrat politicians and policies who want to keep minorities in stomach churning poverty because I sure don’t want them in my neighborhood. The bonus is, while I can vote to keep them segregated from me (other than the uppity Uncle Toms who succeed in spite of themselves, but I deal with them by belittling and defining them as race traitors) I can simultaneously convince them that the republicans, who champion policies to lift people of all colors out of poverty, are racist because they believe everyone, regardless of color, gender, or sexual orientation have the same opportunity to live the American dream if the government would just get out of the way. Republicans are such assholes.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because no woman should be punished with a baby but babies should be punished for existing. Have you met a baby? Those things are horrible. Unless they’re wanted, in which case they’re fine but if they’re unplanned? Unimaginably awful. Now that I’m a democrat I’ve come to realize that women are weak and need to be coddled. We not only need a collection of men (the government) to provide us with contraceptives because let’s face it, math is hard; we cannot possibly work nine dollars worth of pills into our budgets, but we also need the government to create the “right” to kill our inconvenient babies. We’re irresponsible and flighty. We’re stupid enough to get pregnant unintentionally and some republican without a uterus is going to trust us with a baby? No. I know that women cannot possibly rise to the occasion of their circumstances. It’s too hard and we can’t expect women to do hard things. And if a baby has to die because a woman is incapable of raising it in all but the utopian best of circumstances? Well, according to another of my leftist heroes (I don’t recognize the feminized version of the word anymore because sexism) Melissa Harris Perry, a baby, whether born or not, is not alive until I feel like it is.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because socialism isn’t unsuccessful, it just hasn’t been implemented successfully because the wrong people have been in charge. If we elect leaders, and I think we finally have in Dear Leader Barack Obama (blessed be his name) who can do socialism the right way, we’re in business. After all, the only human event on par with feelings is fairness and have you even read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle?

I’ve decided to become a democrat because criminals should be understood, not punished. Now that I value my personal feelings over objective facts, I’ve decided that when people commit crimes it isn’t their fault. Criminals are nothing but products of their environment, and I’m convinced their environment was created by racist republicans. Therefore, instead of locking away violent animals who have earned complete separation from society, we should understand that they likely had hard lives. Perhaps they came from abusive homes or they were loners in high school. Can we ever really know what external forces create criminal behavior? I’m not sure we should even try to find out since, as a democrat now, I can no longer support things like “effort” or “success”.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the government is much better at child rearing than parents. Let’s face it. Republicans can’t parent and democrats shouldn’t have to (after all, anti-woman republicans have pushed through legislation forcing us to birth at least some of our babies) so we need the government to do as much of the parenting as possible. First, these conservative republicans are putting their children to work (I even know of one who makes her six year old do hard labor on her ranch) and probably placing unrealistic expectations on them. And let’s not even talk about the abuse they call “spanking”. Clearly they need to be reined in. But more than that, as democrats we can’t be expected to perform tasks on our own. I believe the government needs to tell us how to feed, clothe, house, educate, and train our children so they can become not productive members of society, but faithful servants of the state.

Finally, I’ve decided to become a democrat so I can retire my brain and coast along on feelings, all while suffering no consequences or having to be self sufficient. I have no wish to work anymore, but to declare myself a member of a protected class entitled to a life of leisure on someone else’s dime. Who’s with me?

 

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge July 27th

When:Saturday, July 27th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Taylor talks to  Liz (yes the co-host) about her recent Politichicks article found here: http://politichicks.tv/column/sex-lies-politics-priorities-self-respect-walking-in-huma-abedins-shoes/ It’s awesome you should read it.

Also expect Texas politics talk, tattoo talk (again) with a heavy dose of freedom and liberty.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

 

Greg Abbott and the Art of the Twitter Townhall

 

abbottTwitter is probably one of the best ways to make connections with people across the globe, but it’s hard to have a serious political conversation at 140 characters. Despite this limitation, politicians are using a Twitter Town Hall as a way to get their message across and interact with voters. It’s not a bad strategy, but depends on how it’s used and what questions get answered.

For most politicians it’s easier to answer questions from supporters. For one, it helps them expound on their agenda. It also allows them to see positive messages they can play off of. Best examples are probably President Obama’s #my2k town hall in 2012 and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine’s #AskTim town hall on July 16th and 17th. Simple questions, simple answers. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s #Randchat town hall with Reason had more positive questions than negative. But some of Paul’s answers were against the standard Republican answer and helped establish his libertarianism even more. Plus Paul actually talked policy, which not everyone is willing to do.

One of the more entertaining town halls was one given by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Abbott is running for governor and used the #AskAbbott event to differentiate himself from Governor Rick Perry, especially on how contracts get handed out. He did a good job, but the best part was probably his willingness to take questions from Democrats, when they crashed the party. It’s not something politicians normally do, probably because they know the opposition isn’t going to be happy, regardless of the answers.

But Abbott was willing to play along, especially when Battleground Texas, an organization run by former Obama campaign members, stepped in. They first asked Abbott if he could speak Spanish, which didn’t get an answer. They decided to ask another one which, this time, Abbott answered.


Quick translation: Battleground Texas asked if Abbott could talk to the Latin community. Abbott said, in Spanish, his wife is Latina and he will be able to communicate to all voters. It’s a great response and pretty much shut Battleground Texas up for the night. But it shows how politicians on Twitter can respond without it disintegrating into a shouting match. It also shows a willingness to engage with people who don’t agree. Some questions aren’t worth answering because they’re either too snarky, too stupid or require an answer that’s far too nuanced for 140 characters. The nuanced answers are best for a one-on-one conversation or a column or a radio interview. But that’s Twitter.

There’s a big difference between what Abbott did and what politicians normally do. He talked to opponents without beating them over the head. Not everyone was happy, but that’s politics. It certainly beats the same ol’ questions and the same ol’ answers. If anyone still cares about that.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »