What Do Conservatives Want?

So, over at the HQ this morning, commenter jwest raised an interesting point.  His comment is too long to quote in its entirety, but the gist seems to be this:  Conservatives, especially in the blogosphere, are too ready to pull out the Long Knives whenever one of our allies (actual allies- a Perry, or Walker, or Cruz, or Lee) makes a tiny misstep.  So we should probably make some decisions, as a movement, about where we really stand.

So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader).  I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.

1: Immigration/Border

On immigration, has anyone defined what the word "amnesty" means? We can't simply say "follow existing law", because than entails kicking in doors at 2am and dragging mothers away from their children (which looks bad on the evening news). It would be good to have a well written position on what true conservatives want.

Amnesty means "officially not administering just punishment for a crime."  Any "path to legalization" or "path to citizenship" is Amnesty.

Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it).  Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens.  Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals.  Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.

2: ObamaCare/Health Care/Health Insurance

On healthcare, certainly everyone wants Obamacare repealed, but that's not a position. Never in the history of the U.S. has the government been able to give citizens free shit and then turn around and take it back. Those who think this is an option just aren't being serious. We need a conservative plan on what is going to replace Obamacare.

Burn it down. 
Scatter the stones. 
Salt the earth where it stood. 

The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance.  The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance.  Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).

3: Defense (esp. Defense Budget)

On defense, some are taking the position that patriotism can be gauged by how much we spend on the military. Others know that at some point, enough is enough. It's hard to make the case of being a budget hawk while handing out blank checks. We should nail this down so that voters know where we're at.

I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money.  I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much).  Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient.  If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.

4: Social Security

On Social Security, for decades the holy grail of the conservative side of the aisle was a plan to privatize SS. If this is still the plan, it could be marketed in such a way as to gain the black vote. Of course, our side needs to agree on plan first.

One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA.  Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's.  For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan.  Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.

I'll add on top of that:

5: Taxes

A massively simplified tax code.  Flat tax, fair tax, even a progressive/graduated tax which is simple to understand would be far better than what we have today.  I don't think, realistically, we'll ever get a true "flat tax," and the "fair tax" scares me unless we can repeal the 16th Amendment.  Repeal the estate tax, drop corporate taxes to around 15%, stop taxing capital gains (and maybe dividends).

6: Budget

A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country.  Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).

What are your thoughts?  Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.

On Virtue

We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst 

--C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man

It is often said that Conservatives can't simply be "against" things, we have "to have a positive message."  Many Conservatives then protest that we *do* have a positive message, it just gets drowned out because we have to oppose all the cultural rot, or the Progressive agenda, or whatever.

While there is a point there, it must be said that our message *does* get drowned out.  So it is good, from time to time, to remember what it is we are for.  But what are Conservatives for?  What do we want to "conserve?"

I would suggest that Conservatives are for Virtue.  Honor, Courage, Justice, Thrift, Sobriety, and Industry are character traits seemingly in short supply.  Anyone who argues against government expansion, but does argue for personal virtue is arguing for chaos.

John Adams is quoted as saying "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

We have fallen into the trap C.S. Lewis mentioned in The Abolition of man.  Every "advancement" of the progressive era has served to remove virtue.  Welfare has assaulted industry and thrift.  The Left's assault on self-defense (see also: Martin, Trayvon) is an assault on courage.  Every HBO or Showtime show seems to be an assault on sobriety, and often justice.

The results have been predictable.  A society which will not maintain its own virtue will require an ever growing government.  A People which does not practice Honor and Justice will become a police-state.  A People which does not practice Thrift, Sobriety, and Industry, will become one constantly on the verge of economic disaster.

Conservatives seek to promote Virtue.  A People of Personal Virtue are a people who do not need a big government.

Enough

Here, go read this.

Now, I'm not going to go over anything Drew says there.  Read the whole thing, it's worth it.

So what we have here is the GOP, once again, trying to have their cake and eat it, too.  The Chamber of Commerce really likes Amnesty.  They've made no attempt to hide that fact.  The Chamber of Commerce is a big Republican donor.  No one has tried to hide that fact, either.

So when the SCOAMT enacted Executive Amnesty, the CoC and the Republican establishment were jubilant (in private, anyway).  The CoC gets what it wants (amnesty) and Republicans get to pretend that they had nothing to do with it and no way to stop it.

Except then November 2014 comes along, and Republicans retake the Senate- largely on promises to stop ObamaCare (how's that going?) and Executive Amnesty, so the GOP is in a bind.  If they actually act on their promise, they tick off the CoC and lose donation money.  If they do nothing, they tick off the base and become the minority party again.

So rather than showing some moral fiber, making a decision, and explaining it like men, they hide behind this pathetic move attempting to be seen as trying to do something, while their actions actually make it impossible for anything to be done.

A commenter at the HQ summed it up like this:

"Or to paraphrase Rudy Giuliani, 'They do not love the American people.'"

This is correct.

The rest of this post goes out to the few Republicans who *do* love the American people.

Please join us.  Various pundits, bloggers, and commenters have mentioned a 3rd party.  The Republican party is going the way of the Whigs- they care too much for their privilege and "unity" than they do doing what is right.

It is time for a 3rd party.  It is a time for you, you remnant of the Conservative Right, to stand up and say "No more."  While you support Mitch McConnel and John Boehner even simply by wearing the same party label, you are supporting people who are willing to sacrifice the American People to their privilege.

You must disassociate with them.  You must form your own bloc, your own Party.  If you lead, there are countless Conservatives who will follow.  You will be amazed at the support.

If you love this country- if you love her people- you will stand for what is right, even though the cost will be high.  The cost will be so much higher if you do not.

I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.

Okay. Let's get this straight.

For 5 years (2009 - 2014) the GOP said "Oh, we just don't have enough influence to do anything." At first there was some truth to that- minorities in both houses of Congress, and a Dem President will do that. Even so, they seemed unwilling to use what influence they did have, because the MFM would call them big meanies. 

Porkuluous passed with nary a word.  ObamaCare could have been derailed at any of several points, but Republicans wouldn't.  At one point it could have been killed in committee.  At any number of points it could have been killed by a single Republican refusing "unanimous consent" to skip the reading of the bill (or the various amendments). 

Then Scott Brown was elected as the "41st Vote Against ObamaCare."  All Republicans had to do to kill it was keep the debate moving until he could be sat.  Instead, they allowed it to be passed because they didn't want to work over Christmas.

Then, 2010, we handed them the House. With which they immediately preceded to do... nothing much. "1/2 of 1/3 of Government!" we were told. "Oh, a Shutdown would ruin our chances in 2014!" we were told. (Hmm... almost as if winning elections were more important to them than doing the right thing)

Did they even pass a budget?  No.  "Oh, it will just get stopped in the Senate."  So Continuing Resolution after Continuing Resolution passed.  Did they stop raising the debt ceiling, or even get some kind of real budget cut in return for raising it?  No.  In fact, they ceded that power to the President, just so no one would ask them to do something scary like vote on it again.

So in 2012 (after 2 years of them doing nothing, and with a candidate who couldn't/wouldn't take on TFG) we let them maintain their control of the house. For another 2 years they proceeded to do... not much. 

Admittedly, after Mitt Romney's loss in 2012, they were a somewhat reduced party.  Lots of soul-searching had to be done.  But they still had chances.  The shut down was the most intestinal fortitude any Republican had shown in years, and the leadership fell over themselves to end it, and give up yet more concessions in the process.  Only their (stated, though not acted upon) opposition to ObamaCare saved them.

Now in 2014 we have given them majorities in both houses of Congress. So rather than stall until the new congress can be sat of course they rush to pass a bill which takes away almost all of the influence they would be able to wield for nearly half (and really more than that, considering we'll be spinning up for 2016 at the end of 2015) of the next Congressional term.

Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?

On Natural Rights

What to write about?

I could write about the Rolling Stone UVA story, but why? At this point, Rolling Stone and “Jackie” have about as much credibility as an unemployed man with a 480 FICO score.

I could write about the riots over the Michael Brown and Eric Garner Grand Jury decisions, but, again, why? Pretty well everything has been said. People made up their minds before the evidence was in; they’re not changing them now.

I could write about CrOmnibus- the Republicans trying to sell out Conservatives once again. I could write about the Use of Force authorization that the SCOAMT wants, but won’t specify exactly what he wants. Sorry, Barry, no blank checks.

With all that’s going on in the news, maybe we need to get back to first principles. Maybe we need to consider why we’re conservative in the first place. It’s always a good idea to review why you believe what you believe from time to time.

So with that, I’ll consider the second* of the first principles: Natural Rights.

 

What are Natural Rights?

Natural Rights are those things (really the only Rights at all) that every human being possesses simply by virtue of being human. No government can grant or remove them. No one has more of them than any other person. Simply being human grants these rights. In many ways, they are simply laws of nature- like gravity or entropy. But, being laws of Human Nature, we often fight against them in various ways.

The Natural Rights are generally summed up as “Life, Liberty, and Property.” Some guy who was really smart in other ways nevertheless screwed the pooch and changed that last one to “pursuit of Happiness” in our Declaration of Independence. We can forgive him that, I guess, though that wording has cause great harm.

Each right really deserves its own post, and may get one, but they deserve a little bit of illumination here.

The Right to Life is perhaps more specifically “the Right to sustain and protect one’s life.” The Right to Life includes things like the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. It includes the right to feed one’s self (which is a bigger thing than you might think).

It really should not be mistaken for a reverence for life. While I am pro-life when it comes to the abortion argument, it is not because of my belief in the Right to Life. Here, a baby has no more “right to life” than a man being eaten by a bear. Less, in fact, simply by the fact that the man being eaten by the bear has some chance of defending himself. He can be his own agent of life protection and sustenance.

The Right to Liberty is both the “right to be left alone” and the “right to do as you please.” From it we derive things like the freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to work.

The Right to Property is the right to accumulate property. It includes the right to purchase and own a home, as well as the right to build wealth.

 

Why are natural rights important?

A belief in God is the foundation of the United States of America (if you don’t believe that, go re-read your history). The Natural Rights are the pillars standing on that foundation holding the rest of the structure up. All of the Constitutionally protected (not granted) rights are either direct applications of, or logical derivations of Natural Rights. I mentioned some in the previous section. The Right to Life is the one where we derive the Second Amendment, for example. The prohibitions against double-jeopardy and bills of attainder also have roots in the Right to Life. The Right to Property is where we derive things like the 3^rd and 4^th amendments.

Natural Rights are also important because if you do not realize from where your rights come, you might agree to any sort of nonsense. If Rights are not Natural, then they must be granted by some agency. If some agency grants them, then that same agency can rescind them. If they can be rescinded, then they are not “rights” at all.

I said previously that no government can either grant or deny the Natural Rights. No matter how restrictive the regime, no matter how devoted to Communism and/or oppression, you cannot be deprived of your Right to Life, Liberty, and Property. The exercise of those rights can be legally forbidden and therefore punished, but the rights themselves exist and you retain them fully.

That may seem trivial. What good is having a Right to Property if exercising it is going to get you imprisoned and all your stuff confiscated? But it is just the fact that people lost sight of the Right to Property that caused them to agree to stop exercising it. Communism cannot exist if the People remember their Natural Rights and vigorously defend them.

One example that might seem trivial. My brother (sorry, bro, but it highlights the point) and I were talking at Thanksgiving, and he mentioned a device had been invented which could be added to a circular saw (or table saw, or maybe either) which would sense when your finger came too close to the blade and stop the blade nearly instantly. He further asserted that this device would add only pennies to the cost of a saw, and expressed disbelief that people making saws were fighting a regulation which would mandate the use of this device.

But, of course, if you really believe in the Natural Right of Liberty, you immediately see why such a mandate should be prohibited. My Right of Liberty says that I can do what I want. Maybe I want to add this safety device to *some* saws and charge a higher price. Maybe I know that some people have uses for circular and table saws which would be interfered with by this device, so I want to continue making them without it. Maybe I just don’t want to add the device to the saws I make. Why should it be the government’s business?

And so we come to the end of this primer on Natural Rights. It is our belief in these Rights which lead first to the Declaration of Independence, and then the Constitution. Our continued belief in them is what motivates the various Tea Party organizations. It is why Conservatives are so upset with Boehner’s CrOmnibus. Belief in the Natural Rights is why we side with Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman over Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin. Our commitment to them is why false charges of rape such as those made by Rolling Stone are met with such condemnation. It is why we oppose rioting for any reason.

*-Yep the 2^nd. As alluded to, the first First Principle is a belief in God. All the founders where Christians of one sort or another.

Not the response they wanted

Dear Republican National Committee

Before I get to my response to the fundraising letter you sent me today, please go see the comments of the new House Majority Whip's new Communications Director
.
Oh, you might also want to go take a look at the emails you are sending.

Now on to the response.

I am not some low-information, uninvolved voter.  I assume you listed me as a registered Republican (more on this in a minute) because of a "citizens' congress" event I attended with Representative Joe Barton several years ago (he called me a better Lloyd Doggett than Lloyd Doggett- I'm still not sure if that was a compliment).  I maintain a political blog.  I have a fair idea of what is going on in my State, the country, and the world.

Further, I consider myself a "Tea Party" Conservative- note the word I did not use, that will be important later.  I believe in limited, fiscally sound government.  I believe that the Federal Government is supposed to be constrained by the Constitution- that it enumerated specific powers for the Federal Government and any which were not specifically enumerated were reserved to the People or the States.  I believe "that Government governs best which governs least."

Since 2008, I have seen nothing that would make me support the Republican National Party, and much that disgusts me about you.  People actively opposed to limiting government have leadership positions; those actively attempting to limit government are removed from leadership positions.  When you had several chances to stop Obamacare cold, you have continually refused to take them.  And don't give me "1/2 of 1/3 of government."  The simple expedient of withholding unanimous consent during the "debate" over Obamacare would have ended it- no one was going to sit while 1800 pages were read so that a bunch of old men and women could hear them.

I could expound at length about how you seem intent on remaining disconnected from the American People (the vast majority support legal immigration while opposing illegal immigration or any form of amnesty, for instance, yet you continually seek "comprehensive immigration reform").  I could point out the awkward and pathetic attempts you have made to seem "hip" and "cool."  I could point out time after time after time that senior Republicans have called those like me "the fringe."

But I will not.

Had I known that I had been registered as a Republican, I would have asked that registration be removed long ago.  Any party of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn is not a party with which I identify.  Perhaps you can hit me up again when you have listened to the likes of Mike Lee, Pete Sessions, and Ted Cruz.  Maybe I'll be more willing to listen when you grow a spine, or testicles, or both.  Until then, no, not one red cent.
More Sincerely than you can possibly Imagine,

The Dedicated Tenther

Who Abandoned Whom?

So, I got this in my email today.

Now, normally I get these emails and I just ignore them.  If I decide I want to give money, I will.  I don't give money to the RNC for lots of reasons, but those have been *my* reasons and I've kept them to myself.  However, accusing me of "abandoning the Republican Party" is a bridge too far.

You know what Mr. RNC Treasurer Tony Parker?  You asked for it, you're getting it.

When I was a kid in the 80s, I believed, with the innocence of youth, that the Republican Party was a conservative party.  How could I not?  Ronald Reagan was president.  My Conservative (yes: Christian) parents loved him.  My father (in banking) never bought into the idea that the S&L crash was due to too little government.  The Republicans had reduced taxes, and, if they had also increased spending, at least it was spending on conservative things, right?

Then came the 90s.  I got a little older.  I was still a kid, still innocent, but I was pretty sure that raising taxes wasn't the conservative option, whatever George HW Bush had said.  And I'd been taught lying was bad (Read my lips).  Both George HW Bush and Bob Dole were certainly better than Bill Clinton- a draft-dodging womanizer (at best)- who never met a government program he didn't like, but I was beginning to see that things weren't so clear as I'd believed when I was (yet) younger.

My first Presidential election was in 2000.  I enthusiastically voted for George W Bush.  He'd been my governor, I knew I liked how Texas was running, I figured we'd be back to conservatism after 8 years in the Prog/Commie desert.  And things started out well.  The crash of 2000 happened (that no one remembers), and President Bush responded as he should have- by cutting taxes and putting money back in the hands of the citizenry.  If he also gave some of my money to people who already didn't pay taxes... well, the economy was in a slump.

And after September 11th, 2001, I was incredibly glad he was at the helm.

But George Bush was never Conservative.  Maybe "conservativist" might be a better term, but really he was always a big government progressive who happened to believe in slightly smaller government than the Democrats.  The Patriot Act passed at his insistence.  The Department of Homeland Security quickly started stepping on the Constitution.  No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D both passed and were signed by President Bush.

For 2001, and the immediate aftermath, I was still young enough to believe that "as long as people we can trust" were in charge, the law giving them the power to trample on the Constitution would not be abused.  I have since come to realize the error in that thinking was flawed.  For one thing, people we trust will not always be in charge.  For another, you should never trust government in the first place.

I've grown wiser since then.  It's been nearly 13 years since Muslim Terrorists flew airplanes full of our neighbors, brothers, sisters, parents, and children into three buildings -and attempted another- in the largest single attack on US Soil in history.

And what does the RNC Stand for now?
1- They stand for big government.  I have never heard a Republican on the national stage- except for Presidential debates, which don't count (words are cheap) call for an end to the grossly unconstitutional government overreach which exists.  Find me the Constitutional Authority for the EPA, DoE (either one), No Child Left Behind, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or any other big government program.  The Constitution is short, I'll wait. 

Republicans don't want to shrink government.  They don't want it out of our lives as much as possible.  They want it under their control.

2- They stand for amnesty.  Over and over Republicans have tried to force amnesty (under the Orwellian term "comprehensive immigration reform") down the nation's throat.  We don't want it.  A nation which cannot or will not control its borders is not a nation.

And what do Republicans stand against?

1- They stand against small government.  If you are for big government, you cannot be for small government.  QED.

2- They stand against border control and sane immigration policy.  See above.

3- Most importantly: They stand against their own constituents.  Over and over since 2010, engaged Republican voters at a grass-roots level have shown their displeasure with the current status quo by selecting actual conservative candidates to run against incumbents.  Some of those were... ill advised.  But some were not.  Some were men and women quite capable of winning their elections.  How did the RNC respond?

When they engaged in the primary at all, they always did so on the side of the incumbent.  I suppose that's fair enough.  But what did they do *after* the primary?  Well, when the incumbent won, they proceeded to rub Conservatives' noses in the fact that their candidate lost, and then immediately called for "party unity."  When the incumbent lost, they gave words of faint praise, and then mostly did nothing.  That was bad enough.

But then came the Mississippi run-off between Thad Cochrain and Chris McDaniel.  In that race, the Republican National Committee shat upon Conservative Republicans from a great height.  When Republican Leadership bought ads smearing Chris McDaniel as a racist homophobe- the very same deceitful attacks Democrats use- they were saying to Conservatives across the nation: "We don't want you.  We don't value you.  We don't think we need you to win."

To which I say, "Fine.  Then you won't have me."

I will vote for Republicans in my Great State of Texas.  I will vote for Ted Cruz- one Republican who does seem to get it.  I reserve the right- if the Republican Party stops trying to urinate on me and tell me it's precipitation- to vote for whoever is the Republican nominee in 2016.

But the RNC will never see another dime from me.  And if the candidates are not as conservative as I am, they will not get my vote.  If they're too Progressive, I'll vote Democrat.

No more.  You have pushed me too far, and you will push me no further.

Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.

But... but... Shut Down!!!!

Oh.  My.  Lord.

Not this again.  Apparently the reason Republicans are caving on the budget talks is they're afraid the Government will shut down again.  Well, guess what geniuses, it might.  Guess what else?  Too bad.

First off, despite what the MFM and inside-the-Beltway types believe, the shutdown earlier this year did not actually hurt Republicans.  Here in Middle America, most people were for it.  Secondly, there's no reason you can't parley this into being the Democrats fault.  Yes, it might be hard, but so what?  You can even do it by sounding more reasonable than they do.

Now, for those who don't know, the issue is (once again) the debt ceiling.  OMG, if we don't raise the debt ceiling we can't pay our bills!!

Let's not discuss the absurdity of that statement.  Maybe I'll get to it in a future post.  Let's just look at just one possible Republican tactic.  I call it "raising the debt ceiling."

Look, I'm as fire-breathing as the next Ultra-Con, and I don't like raising the debt ceiling.  However, as a practical matter, ObamaCare is going down in flames, and we really don't want anything to give the President cover on that.  We don't want him to be able to distract the public from the train-wreck that is ObamaCare.

So, we say this:  "Alright, we'll raise the debt ceiling by 2 Trillion dollars.  That should last us at least one more full year."  And that's it.  No discussing budgetary matters ("that's settled law") no fee increases, nothing.  Republicans should simply say, "You're right, it would be irresponsible not to pay our debts, we'll agree to increase the debt ceiling by 2 Trillion dollars."

Then, when Chrissy Matthews spews the Democrat talking points of "you want to shut down government!" a simple rejoinder of, "Chris, we've agreed to raise the debt limit with no other preconditions.  So how is that wanting to shut down the government?"  What, really, can the Democrats say?  "But we want to increase spending?"  "But Democrats won't vote for that?"  It will become quite clear to everyone that it is the Democrats agitating for a shutdown because they don't like sequester- not Republicans.

Okay, fine, we can't ask for more budget cuts.  I don't like that, but I can accept it.  That doesn't mean we have to agree to budget increases.  The budget is set for FY2014 and FY2015- by sequester.  So the only reason to "shut down" the government is over the debt limit.  So let's take that off the table.  At the very least we can turn it around so that anyone with half a brain (I know this excepts most Democrats, but they weren't going to be on our side anyway) will understand that it is the Democrats "shutting down" the government, not Republicans, which would take away most, if not all, of any "cover" they would hope to gain.

Wait. "Compromise" IS a Bad Word

Compromise: a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason

So, Paul Ryan has agreed to sell out Conservatives because Democrats might say mean things about Republicans.  Again.  The "compromise" bill to which Mr. Ryan agreed will increase discressionary spending for FY 2014 from the ~970 Billion that was written into the 2011 Budget Act by about 300 Billion dollars (to approximately 1,025 Billion).  FY 2015 spending would go up from there.

We are told that this is a "compromise" between House Republicans and Senate Democrats.  See, Democrats wanted to spend All The Money, so anything less than that is a win, right?  Wrong.  Even after the sequester cuts (which could have been avoided by Democrats negotiating in good faith), our debt has still grown.  When your out-go is higher than your income you have a problem, and the politicians in Washington, DC refuse to address the problem.

As pointed out on the PowerLine blog, the sequester itself was a "compromise."  So why must it now be the Republican's starting position?  Shouldn't Republicans honestly contend for what their constituents want- a balanced budget?  Had Mr. Ryan started from that position, we might have had a "compromise" that was an actual "meeting in the middle."  Had Mr. Ryan, or any Republican, really, been able to articulate why even sequester level spending is still too high, perhaps the new "compromise" would have been to lower spending again.

Instead, by using sequester as the starting point, the new plan increases spending and taxes.

But that, perhaps, is the worst part.  You see, the plan not only increases taxes, but it hides them.  No politician in his right mind would vote to increase the income tax rate.  Despite what the MFM would have you believe, we're still muddling along in a financial quagmire.  We might not meet the technical definition of a Recession, but for many families, a Recession is still their reality.

But rather than decrease spending, Washington Politicians want to increase spending.  Mr. Ryan, having run as a Budget Hawk, can't do that without somehow being able to say he's "decreasing the deficit" and obvious tax increases are off the table, so what can he do?  Hike "fees."  There is also some talk of decreasing Federal Employee pensions but a) I'll believe that when I see it and b) the numbers talked about there are inconsequential in relation to the size of the budget.

Some will claim that by raising "fees" Mssrs. Ryan and Murray are giving people a way to avoid taxes.  Aren't fees a "usage tax?"  Well yes, and then again no.  For one thing, Mssrs. Ryan and Murray don't want you to forego the activities they will now be taxing a higher rate.  They want you to do more of those things (which is counter-intuitive and, frankly, stupid, but whatever).  For another, the things they've chosen are activities it is hard to avoid.

Certainly I can choose to drive on vacation instead of fly, but what about a business traveler?  I have known and worked with a fair number of people who lived and worked 3 weeks out of every 4 in Illinois, and the other week in Texas.  If they had to drive instead of fly, that would be a huge cost to them and the company.  So they'll suck up the extra fee.  So will many families on vacation (who really wants to spend 4 days of a 7 day vacation in a car?).

Indeed this is a "compromise," but not in the way Mr. Ryan would have you believe.  This is a cave, a capitulation.  It is a complete forfeiture of Fiscally Conservative principle.  Spending does not need to increase faster (remember, even the sequester was a cut in the rate of growth, not a "cut" as you and I understand it).  Spending needs to decrease.  Failing that, it certainly needs to increase yet slower than it is.

But the Republicans are afraid Democrats and the Media (BIRM) will say mean things about them.  So of course their first and only option is to sell out Conservatives.  Again.

Another Round of "Spot the Media Bias"

Today's Guest is a post from NBC's "First Read."  "Obama vows to keep at gun control"

We'll take a look at two pull quotes, and see what we can see.

First up:

Speaking following a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, whose country has been ravaged by gang violence supported in part by gun trafficking into Mexico, Obama vowed to return to the issue of gun control in the United States.

Okay, what does this paragraph want to tell us?  Oh, yes, there it is: Mexico has been ravaged by gang violence supported by gun trafficking.  So guns are bad.  What doesn't it want to tell us?  Two things pop up off the top of my head:

1) Guns are already illegal in Mexico.  Not only are guns illegal, even owning a bullet is illegal.  So tighter gun control is obviously not being particularly helpful there.

2) The man giving that speech was the one responsible for much of the "gun trafficking in Mexico."  Readers of this blog, and other Conservative blogs, have heard of Operation Fast and Furious- the scheme whereby Mexican drug games were given guns by our own government with no method of tracking.  Those same guns were used to murder over 300 Mexican citizens, and at least two American citizens.  The man in charge of that operation- or at least who should have been in charge and should be fired for incompetence if he didn't know about it- is Eric Holder.  His boss is Barack Obama.

Okay.  Second pull quote:

And in an article published Wednesday, the proposal’s Republican author, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, suggested that politics were afoot in many GOP senators’ decision to oppose the package.
“There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it," Toomey told local newspaper editors.

What does this quote want to tell us?

Oh, GOP "political" obstruction.  Got it.

What doesn't it want to tell us?  Again, I've got two off the top of my head, feel free to add more in the comments.

1) While some GOP Senators may have opposed it simply because SCOAMT wanted it, a) that's actually a pretty good starting position, and b) that doesn't include all of those who were told in no uncertain terms that anything less than strong opposition would get them de-elected.

2) That there is any possibility that there could be actual policy objections to the law.  By casting GOP opposition to the law as "political," the reporter is able to ignore the possibility that there are any substantive objections to the law.

Once again, simply checking for bias shows the one-sided coverage rampant in the Media Complex.  These are all points which are germane to the debate, and they didn't take me any thought at all to remember.  An unbiased media, or a media who at least attempted to address their bias, would have included the points, at least as "by-the-ways."  NBC would rather you forget about them all together.

This is Capitalism

And Corporations hate Capitalism

Some time ago, I cut my cable (well, for TV) and started using a service called "PlayOn" which allows me to watch internet TV.  It serves all my needs (I only watch OTA broadcasts for sports anyway) quite well.  However, many people do not like such services (PlayOn is not the only one), because they do not provide live TV.  If you want live TV, you're limited to what's available with your antenna, or you have to keep cable (or satellite, or whatever).

Or, rather, you did.

Let me introduce you to a cool company of which few (if any) of you have heard: Aero.  It seems the minds behind Aero were also rather distressed at the idea live sports were only available if you had cable, satellite, or if they were OTA in your area.  So they did something about it.  They capture the OTA signal, digitize it (well, it's already digital now- maybe I'll get into the irony of that later), and pipe it through the internet into your home.

Now, right-thinking, entrepreneurial types look at that idea and say, "Why didn't I think of that?"  The big Media Corporations look at it, and say "No!  Thou shalt not!"

At the root of their argument is the idea that they, and only they, should be allowed to transmit their content outside a given viewing area.  Their argument fails, unless they want to take PlayOn, AppleTV, GoogleTV, Hulu, and a host of other groups to court.  See, these other groups have been doing exactly what Aero will be doing, with the exception of sporting events and with the exception of "live," for quite some time.

Now, I don't want to get too far into the weeds about the legal argument here, but it is important background information.  In fact, the Media Corporations have made exactly this argument, and so far no court has agreed with them.  They don't have to broadcast OTA.  Given that they broadcast OTA, that content is "free."  The media company's only option (currently) is to stop broadcasting over the air.  They could move to a subscription only model.

However, Big Corporations are actually anti-capitalist.  Well, many Big Corps are.  Using Government interference, they force competitors out of business.  It's true all the time.  If you ever hear of GE or P&G or Exxon or whoever "supporting" new regulation, the reason is that regulation will be difficult for them to follow, but it will be impossible (or near enough so) for smaller competitors to follow.

And the same is true here.  News Corp is threatening to take all their content to subscription only.  That would be dumb, but it's their right (I like Bones; I don't like it enough to subscribe to cable for it.  I like NFL football; I don't like it enough to subscribe to cable for it.)  Most other companies, however, are threatening something much more ominous:

“If Aereo’s model is ultimately upheld,” Stifel Nicolaus analysts Christopher King and David Kaut wrote in a recent note, it could force “the broadcast/content companies to seek Congressional relief.”

Yes, you read that correctly: rather than compete with new services, rather than find some way to offer the same service at a price people are willing to pay, the media companies will "seek Congressional relief."  That is, they will seek to change the law in a way that benefits them and hurts its competition- not to mention consumers.

As of now, there is no legislation that I know of about this.  But it's something to keep an eye on.  Competition is good for consumers.  Big Corporations are not.

More, Please Part 2

Take a look at this article (I know, it's Rachel Maddow- think of it as opposition research).  Now, tell me the unnoticed bias which is just completely wrong.

Here, I'll highlight the specific paragraph:

Congress passes hundreds of resolutions, meant to commemorate everything from a special awareness week or Little League champions. The resolutions lack any real power of law and are predominantly ceremonial. For example, earlier this month the Senate passed resolutions to mark "World Plumbing Day" and commemorating the three-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake.

Found it?  Why is US Congress "commemorating" anything?  What business are "special awareness week(s)" or "Little League champions" of the Federal government?  If they so "clutter the floor," maybe we should just do without them?  If they're so much ceremonial fluff, why have them at all?

No, I appreciate this move by Ted Cruz.  More, please.  This is just more reinforcement to the idea that the Federal Government should be involved in our day-to-day lives.  I reject that premise completely.  It is not even partly true.  In a perfect world, I would never have to consider the Federal Government.  I could focus on my State and Local governments (places where a) my voice can really be heard and b) I can at least sort of pay attention to everything that is going on), and let the Federal Government get on with doing it's job.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government has decided that I cannot do that.  Or, rather, that I cannot do that if I don't want more and more of my liberty stolen.  So I have to pay attention to this kind of crap.  Well, if I have to pay attention to it, then you'd better treat it seriously.  If it's not important enough to treat seriously, then don't do it.  Period.

I should also mention that I'm glad Ted Cruz does not seem to believe he is there to make best buddies with Harry Reid or (even) John McCain.  Rather he is there to represent the State of Texas and see to it that the Federal Government begins adhering to its actual Constitutionally granted authority.

An authority, I'll note, that includes not one word about "commemorating Multiple-Sclerosis Awareness Week" or anything similar.

On Rebranding

Over at the HQ for the last little while, we've been talking about Rebranding the Republican Party (or the Conservative movement- sometimes the two get conflated when they shouldn't).  I've commented a lot over there, but I wanted to use this space to get a bunch of ideas all in one place.

First off, as I see it, the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement are not the same thing.  I am a Conservative.  Until and unless the Republican Party can prove to me that they are also Conservative, I am not a Republican (even though I'll probably vote "R" much more often than "L" for the moment).  Now, Many Republicans are Conservative, and I would venture that most Conservatives are Republican, but not all Republicans are Conservatives, and a goodly number of Conservatives vote Libertarian (I cannot believe anyone who is conservative could vote Democrat in good conscience).

To that end, it is the Conservative Movement that I will be discussing. 

So, if you're ready to come along for the ride, take a look under the fold.

Fithy Quislings

I don't know enough curse words to capture my sentiment upon reading this story.  It seems GOP Leadership (for whatever that is worth) has decided they "don't need no steenking Conservatives," and that they will be willing to pass Democrat Legislation, marginalizing the majority of their own caucus.

Once my immediate, word-stealing rage dies down (it flares back up every time I re-read the article), I have a couple of things to point out.

First: When grass-roots conservatives were calling to remove Boehner as speaker, we were pooh-poohed and told that of course Speaker Boehner was the best man for the job.  Often this pooh-poohing came from the same Conservative representatives now at risk of being frozen out. 

That is not to say that we expected this kind of betrayal.  Squishy "moderate" stances?  Sure.  Outright betrayal of principle?  Not so much.

Second: The current House Leadership is not Conservative.  Oh, I think a Conservative or two snuck into the upper echelons somehow, but the vast majority of them are not now, nor have they ever been Conservative.  They don't care about "We, the People."  They care about themselves, their own power, and their privilege. Anything which jeopardizes that must be dealt with.  Unfortunately, they seem to believe the best way to secure that power and privilege is to side with Democrats in making us serfs, or at least peasants (I don't think they quite view us as chattle.  Yet.)

Third: The House has fallen into the old trap.  It's one that grass-roots conservatives had hoped to avoid when we hoped to get rid of Boehner.  It goes like this: "We have to do something!  If we're not passing legislation, we're not doing our job!!!!"

In many ways this is the most important point.  Conservatives know that Congress can do its job best by doing nothing in most cases.  Pass a budget; confirm appropriations; oversee the Executive branch.  That's all Congress should be doing in most cases.  However, as full-time legislators, they believe their job is to write (well, vote on, I'm pretty sure none of them has written their own in quite some time) legislation.  That mindset is the only one that could have produced this quote:

“It is better if the House does their work,” said McCarthy. “We should be sending bills to the Senate.”

This, as Ben Shapiro notes, is tantamount to a declaration of War on Conservatives.  The Moderates in Congress want their power.  They want to be invited to the best parties.  They want yet more government expansion.  In fact, the only place Moderates disagree with Liberals is the pace.  Liberals want More Government Now! Moderates want More Government Slowly!

After the initial publication of the Big Government article, Rep. McCarthy's office contacted Breitbart News and whined:

In a statement to The Hill, McCarthy spokesperson Mike Long said: "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to regular order to bring legislation to the floor that has the support of a majority of the majority. Insinuation to the contrary is completely false."

Of course "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to the regular order."  "Strongly supports" is not "is committed to," and in no way is that statement a rejection of the original report.  Whether Boehner and Cantor agree is unclear, but it seems unlikely that the Majority Whip would have made such an inflammatory statement without the blessing of his bosses.

Oh, and if this finds its way into Rep. McCarthy's hands:  before you even think of "crossing the aisle" and enact gun control remember this: I'm a Texan.  Consider well the meaning of "come and take it."

More Please

Politico has a story which is trying to highlight just how... uncouth Texas Senator Ted Cruz is.  Senators are positively dismayed that he's not "following the rules" and just playing the game of go along to get along.  Phrases like "unfair line of questioning" and "combative line of questioning."  Why, he's not playing like the Democrats are his friends!  How barbaric.

If I had any lingering qualms over electing Ted Cruz, this piece has gone a long way toward dispelling them.  It's about time Republicans quit pretending that Democrats were their friends.  Getting combative with Chuck Schumer on a Sunday TV Show?  More, please.  Strong questioning of cabinet nominees?  More please. 

“I made promises to the people of Texas that I would come to Washington to shake up the status quo, to fight for conservative principles and to lead a concerted and meaningful effort to end the unsustainable spending, deficits and debt that have been propagated, unfortunately, by members of both parties,” Cruz said.

More please.

“Of course comity is important, but comity does not mean avoiding the truth concerning a nominee’s policy record,” Cruz wrote in an email.

More please.

“Your continued anti-gun crusade may well cause some to wonder if the interests of the citizens of Chicago are being sacrificed in pursuit of a partisan agenda,” Cruz told Emanuel in an unusual letter, calling the mayor’s efforts a “bullying campaign.”

More please.

On Thursday, Graham argued Cruz wasn’t being unfair to Hagel but that he feared the Texas Republican’s questions about the sources of the former Nebraska GOP senator’s income would create a new and difficult standard for future nominees.

More.  Please.

If this is enough to give sitting senators the vapors, maybe it's time we got all new senators.

More please.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The Red-Coats are coming.
The Red-Coats are coming.

It's official, Democrats across the nation are waging war against the 2nd Amendment.

US Senate Democrats support reintroducing the "Assault Weapons" Ban- which bans a host of purely cosmetic features.
New York just passed sweeping gun controls, including limits on any magazine size over 7 rounds.
Missouri Democrats have introduced House Bill 545, which would not only ban "Assault Weapons," but would confiscate them.
And New Jersey Democrats just passed 20 gun control bills out of committee.

This must not stand.  As our forefathers before us, we "must hang together, or else we shall all hang separately."

Save that image.  Print it out.  Send it as a post-card to your State Senators and Representatives and to your National Senators and Representatives.  If you feel like including a note specifying why you sent it, please do.  But as of right now I'm calling on every 2nd Amendment defender to flood their State Legislatures and the Federal Legislature with this simple note.  Maybe then they'll get the hint.

Conservatives, Liberals, and Socrates' Cave

In Plato's Republic, he relates a (probably fictional) story about a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon in which Socrates postulates a set of prisoners bound in such a way that they had to face a wall on which shadows of the real world played out.  He first posited that those prisoners, raised thus from birth, would believe what they were seeing to be "the real world."  He further expounded on the difficulties if just one of those prisoners was let free, and then even compelled to see more and more of the real world.  Finally, he suggested what would happen if that prisoner, finally having acclimated to the world outside the cave, returned to that cave to try to educate the other prisoners.

The Wikipedia article on the story is pretty good.  Go check it out before you get to the rest of this post.  I'll wait.

...
...
...

Good.  You're back.

I don't know why I was thinking about this the other day, but I was, and I think I hit on a glimmer of understanding.  People, in general, are those prisoners in the cave.  The Media (by and large) are the ones who stoke the fire, decide what order people cross the bridge, and who make sure the prisoners don't break free on their own (not a hard thing to do, once they're acclimated to their position). 

Conservatives are that prisoner (by and large).  We have, by whatever means, broken free from that imprisonment.  At first it was painful and frustrating.  The world shouldn't work like this.  The world didn't work like this.  But, as time passed and we re-verified our new perceptions, we came to accept the real world for what it is.

Liberals, on the other hand, fall into two or three camps.  The first are the prison guards.  They are in league with the Media (actually, the other way 'round.  The Media is beholden to them), and like the situation as it is.  They want people to remain ignorant.  I won't even say that all of them have wholly nefarious motives.  Some of them really believe that "ignorance is bliss" and that those prisoners "aren't capable" of understanding/coping with/dealing with the real world.  Many of them, however, like the power they exert for its own sake.

The second set of liberals are the people walking on the bridge.  They know what the real world is.  However it happened, they are not in the cave.  Some of them escaped.  Others were never in the cave to begin with.  But they never think of the people in the cave unless something happens to bring them sharply to mind.  They support the prison guards for a variety of reasons.  Some of them believe that the prisoners are dangerous- why, they wouldn't be prisoners if they weren't dangerous.  Some of them believe that the prisoners "deserve it" somehow- they'd never be able to tell you how.  Still others believe that if the prisoners were loosed, their own station would suffer.

The third set of liberals are the prisoners themselves, or are a subset of them.  They are comfortable with what they know, and any attempt to instruct them otherwise is heresy.  They believe that conservatives are crazy, and that our tales of the real world are fanciful, even deranged, projections.  They don't believe in the prison guards, because they've never seen them for what they are.  If they give any thought to the possible existence of the guards, they assume that the guards have their best interests at heart, or are doing what they're doing for some justified reason.

Democrat politicians and the Major Media Outlets are the prison guards.  They have allowed some to be free in the sure knowledge that those can be counted on.  Hollywood "limousine Liberals" and other Celebrity liberals/moderates are the people carrying the bundles.  They know how the world works, because it works that way for them especially (Hollywood gets far more targeted tax breaks (read: any) than "Big Oil").  For their various reasons they either don't consider the plight of the prisoners to be something worth worrying about, or (worse) they believe that it is good for them for people to remain in the dark. 

The few principled liberals (about as common as a Conservative Democrat) are the liberals still chained up.  They believe that (for instance) Government should "take care of the people."  They believe the trite that "hard work should always lead to success."  They believe, deep down, in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  Any attempt to warn them, to teach them, to give even the most minor shake to their illusion will be met with hostility.

Federalism FTW!

Ace links this Meade piece about the Republicans new "Red State Model" strategy.  The idea seems to be that Red States should (hold on to your seats, you won't believe the radicalness of this idea)- act like Red States.

If Conservatives in Red States really believe that lower taxes, lower regulations, and less government interference are good for the economy, they should try it and see.  I believe we call that "Federalism," and I believe it was the idea behind having a Federation of States, rather than a single National Government. 

Commenter Toby928 over at the HQ has this to say:

I want something even more radical, let Texas or some other red state go full 10th Amendment and refuse both Federal largess and Federal mandates. Secede in place, as it were.

I agree there, too.  Push actual Federalism.  Refuse Federal funds along with the strings they have attached.

Yes, it would suck.  It would suck because that money is going to DC anyway, and it's going to be spent anyway.  It would suck because we'd see more DC Politicians getting rich off our money.  It would suck because more of our money would be diverted to other states (someone explain, again, why a man in Texas is responsible for the health care of someone in New York?).  It would suck because people here would scream when some of their free stuff got taken away.

Nevertheless it would be right.  And if Texas led the way, other states may well follow.  And if enough States followed, we might see some actual change at the Federal Level, and a shift back to the Federalist System the Founders prescribed.

Texas Schools: "Be Good Little Communists..."

...And design a flag for the USSA.

Thus is the analysis from EAGNews.org, a school-choice website.  I can't say I completely disagree, but neither does this peg my outrage meter.

In fact, here is my biggest problem with the requirement for kids to create a communist flag: is there one for free countries?  See, the requirement reads thus:

Notice socialist/communist nations use symbolism on their flags representing various aspects of their economic system. Imagine a new socialist nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating a flag. Use symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism on your flag. What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?

Now, it is true that socialist and communist nations use symbolism on their flags, and specifically to represent aspects of their economic symbol (that's why so many of them have the hammer and sickle).  What is also true, however, is that all nations do that.  Our own "Stars and Stripes" are "symbolism" of our political beliefs.  It's just that in communist/socialist nations economic beliefs ARE political beliefs (given that both believe in government control of the economy).  Where the United States flag represents the fifty States, the thirteen original colonies, the bravery of those who fought, etc., etc., the USSR Flag (as one example) had the hammer and sickle to symbolize "The Worker."

So, here is my question- is there one that says, "Democratic/Republican nations use symbolism on their flags to represent various aspects of their political systems and/or national character.  Imagine a new Representative Republic nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating a flag.  Use symbolism to represent aspects of democracy/republicanism on your flag.  What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?"

If the answer to that question is "YES" then I'm... well, not okay with it, but willing to let it slide.  Teachers do have a fair amount of discretion in the classroom after all.  Who's to say the teacher won't lead the kids such that they represent their new communist nation with shackles and a dessert? 

If the answer is "No," then I'm not okay with it.  In that case, either particular political/economic systems should not have been mentioned at all, or you are advocating for socialism/communism- which would be the height of inappropriate in a school curriculum regardless of my own personal beliefs.

According to the story, various officials in Texas have attempted to contact the authors of the curriculum.  Hopefully they will clarify or change the requirement.  Until then, make sure your school board knows about the requirement, and knows that you vigorously oppose it until such time as the correct clarification is provided, or the requirement is removed.

Brave, Brave, Brave Sir Boehner

I would really love to get into staring contests with any Republican US Congressman or Senator.  I'm pretty sure I could beat them all.  Certainly President SCOAMT and the Democrats do every time.

Late last night, the Republicans caved on the Fiscal Cliff negotiations and traded away their only hole card- tax rate hikes- for the promise that maybe, possibly, sometime in the future, the Democrats will consider spending cuts.  If they feel like it.

This is like the political version of "Henry the VIII."  The next verse really is the same as the first, and it really doesn't get better; it only gets worse.

The Republican dominated House voted for the Democrat-controlled Senate's "Fiscal Cliff" bill which does not actually address the fiscal cliff at all.  However, because Republicans are about as clear sighted as Mr. Magoo, they were unable to articulate that the Cliff was not some artifact of current law (the automatic tax hikes and fiscal sequestration).  The Cliff is a flaw inherent in our current system that means that at some date, possibly in the not-to-distant future, we'll simply run out of money.

Not that we'll run out of currency; that is impossible since we print our own.  But currency is not money.  Money is an abstract representation of the value of the productivity of the people.  The more currency their is, the less it represents that money (we call that "inflation").  But, at some point, there simply will not be enough valuable productivity to pay all of our bills. 

When that happens, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

Now, since money is a fixed thing- dependent directly upon the value of the productivity of the people- it is impossible (or at least incredibly improbable) that taxation, either more or less of it, will address the fiscal cliff in any significant way.  The only thing that is sure to work is getting spending under control.

And Republicans let our best chance at doing just that slip right through their fingers.

However, to have done so would have required courage.  Addressing spending would have required Republicans to put up with being vilified, and pilloried.  It would have required them to stand up against both the Democrats and the Democrat's even more Liberal allies in the Media.  It would have required clear and coherent explanation of the actual nature of the problem.

Instead, like Brave Sir Robin, Speaker John Boehner decided that "compromise" was more important than principle.  He decided to bravely run away from a confrontation, because he was more afraid of possible negative consequences to himself than he was of the guaranteed negative consequences for the economy, and for the American People.