A great blog post from a follower on Twitter. I recommend reading Russel Kirk whenever you get the chance.
Category: ‘Ideology & Philosophy’
Obama’s New Socialist Auto Policies
The headline reads, Obama’s new rules will transform US auto fleet. One question–what US auto fleet? There is no US auto fleet, unless all vehicles in the US are owned by the government. With these new developments, that may not be far off.
The Obama Administration imposed new rules for the automotive industry today, set to go into effect by 2016. The rules are designed to increase mileage in all vehicles sold in the US.
Of course, there is a price tag associated with imposing these new regulations. The Obama team is estimating an additional cost of $1300 per vehicle. The actual cost will be closer to $7000. The additional costs will be the result of car makers needing to retool their factories to comply with the new laws.
Critics might argue that CAFE laws were in place years before Obama showed up. Yes, and they were wrong then, too. Obama is taking them to the next level.
Here is a rule of thumb I wish every politician would be required to honor, and every American would memorize. Any law that requires you to pay money to be in compliance is bad law. Good, positive law shouldn’t cost you a dime.
Obama is dictating changes in how the automotive industry will operate for the next decade or more, without any Constitutional authority. He controls how companies can operate, what kind of car you can buy, and how you can spend your money. Property rights just went out the door.
Obama is working toward an increase in gas prices, as well. He wants to see more hybrids on the road, but “automakers have said they need stable, relatively high gasoline prices to create a market for electric vehicles.”
Sales of hybrid cars have fallen drastically along with the drop in gas prices. If Obama is to get his wish, he will have to put restrictions on gas supplies in the US to keep prices artificially high, which means he will effectively control the production of gasoline.
The new standards will also mean smaller, lighter cars, which in turn will mean more traffic fatalities and higher costs of repair.
Every step Obama takes brings his Socialist Utopia a little closer to reality. Conservatives should be fighting him tooth and nail every step of the way.
By 2010, we will need to have people ready to take elected office who are not afraid to roll back everything he has done, who value Liberty and Freedom more than Popularity. It will not be enough to do half the job. Remember that Ronald Reagan fell short on his promise to eliminate the Department of Education. We cannot fall short now. The stakes are much too high.
Rethinking The 17th Amendment
The formation of a new conservative focus group, the Patrick Henry Caucus, causes me to repost this article, originally written in July of 2004. I think it is important to repost now because of the increasing interest in, and focus on, States’ Rights. For example, Montana has recently passed legislation that would bar the Federal Government from regulating firearms manufactured and kept within Montana’s borders; Utah is considering similar legislation. Texas is not only working on firearms legislation, but also a bill that would declare Texas a sovereign entity in relation to the Federal government.
All of these are great ideas but, so far, I have not heard anyone proposing the one thing that is essential to any States’ Rights movement–the restoration of representation for the States in the Senate. The repeal of the 17th Amendment will return the Constitution to it’s original form where States’ Rights are recognized at the national level, and I will be proposing such an initiative at the Patrick Henry Caucus formation meeting this Thursday.
The Founders sought to create a system of government based upon checks and balances on power. Their efforts have suffered many attacks in the succeeding 220 years since the adoption of the Constitution. But, in my opinion, none have been so effective at destroying what they sought to accomplish as the 17th Amendment, which reads,
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
The Constitution originally laid out a very simple, but effective, way to separate the powers of government in the Legislature. They separated the Legislature into two houses–one elected by the people and one appointed by the Legislatures of the several States. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 reads:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”
Each senator was to be appointed to that position in the national government. This is a very important point that should not be overlooked or misinterpreted. Government appointments are oftentimes construed as a form of corruption. The Founders didn’t think so. In fact, the Senate was to be appointed for the very purpose of preventing corruption. Allow me an explanation.
The members of the House of Representatives are elected, according to the Constitution, by popular vote every two years. This puts them in constant need to be responsive to their constituents if they want to get re-elected. If they aren’t doing what their constituents want, they shouldn’t be re-elected. The short time frame also helps to minimize the damage that could be done to our form of limited government. The combination of short terms, and direct accountability to the people, was intended to create an environment hostile to the creation of Legislation. Congress wasn’t created to “do something” because the Founder’s didn’t want a lot of laws being passed by Congress. In the Federalist #62, Madison and Hamilton argue,
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.”
The Senate, on the other hand, was intended to be a deliberative body. The six-year terms would give enough time to accomplish something, while still short enough to keep them in mindfulness of their purpose in being elected. Additionally, because the Senate was appointed by the voice of the Legislatures of the several States, it was hoped the influence of party (or faction) would not become an issue. The current methods used by Senators to get re-elected, i.e. gathering campaign contributions from special interests, would not have been possible previous to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act would be unnecessary under the conditions that obtained under the original program laid out in the Constitution, as the effects the Act was intended to combat would be very difficult to achieve.
The appointment of Senators by the States was meant to assure that the interests of the States were represented in the federal government, a very sticky point for many of the convention delegates. During the New York ratifying convention, Alexander Hamilton sought to comfort the skeptics of the Constitution by pointing out,
“When you take a view of all the circumstance which have been recited, you will certainly see that the senators will constantly look up to the state governments with an eye of dependence and affection. If they are ambitious to continue in office, they will make every prudent arrangement for this purpose, and, whatever may be their private sentiments or politics, they will be convinced that the surest means of obtaining reelection will be a uniform attachment to the interests of their several states.”
Today, we see quite readily that the 17th Amendment has not improved upon that idea.
An example of how the system has been corrupted from its original purpose as a result of the 17th Amendment can be found by examining the campaign contributions of a certain Senator currently serving. Campaign finance records show that Chris Dodd, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, had only five (5) contributors from his home State in the last election. The vast majority of his campaign contributions came from special interests outside his home State. How can he claim to represent the State of Connecticut when he is beholden to other interests? The New Testament points out that “no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” The conflict that arises in someone trying to serve two masters was precisely why a system of checks and balances was put in place by the Founders, who understood its power as an effective hedge against corruption.
Another example is the case of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed by a vote of 50-48. Some senators voted against the bill on the grounds that an Amendment would be unnecessary, and the decision should be best left to the States. That would be true if the composition of the Senate was still decided by the States. But the States are now subject to the whims of the federal courts, which will likely someday rule to force the states to recognize gay marriage against the will of the people of those States, because the States are left without representation in the Senate.
The appointment of Senators not only provided the States with representation at the Federal level, it also provided an effective check against the power of the popularly elected House of Representatives, and against the Presidency. This check was essential to preserve the Federalist character of the government established by the Founding Fathers. The States were to act as a check and balance against encroachment by the Federal government, and to help curb the appetites of the People, which could lead to the country’s ruin; the Senate was the States’ first line of defense. Roger Sherman expressed as much in a letter to John Adams in July, 1789,
“The senators, being eligible by the legislatures of the several states, and dependent on them for reelection, will be vigilant in supporting their rights against infringement by the legislative or executive of the United States.”
The Founders hoped that the appointment of Senators would prevent partisanship in Congress. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, said, “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party generally. . . . A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.” But, since the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the Senate has become increasingly partisan, especially in the last 20 years. When chosen by the several State Legislatures, the Senators would be two people thought to best represent the needs and views of the State regardless of party affiliation. An easy choice today would be one from the Republicans and one from the Democrats, thus providing equal representation for both major parties in the Senate. But if the Senate grew too partisan, the States could simply choose along different criteria. In the end, the state would choose its representation. Additionally, if a state had problems choosing senators, only that state, rather than the entire country, would suffer.
The 17th Amendment was adopted to supposedly streamline this portion of the Constitution. According to John MacMullin, the primary reason for ratification of the 17th Amendment was difficulties in the appointment process. He writes,
“The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate. For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months.”(emphasis in the original)
However, the procedural issue was one that could have been easily solved. The current contest between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman is evidence that ratifying the 17 Amendment did not have the desired effect after all. Minnesota may not have a sitting Senator at the moment, but judging from statements by the Founder’s, they didn’t believe that would pose too great a problem. The passage of the 17th Amendment was a shortsighted answer with long-term ramifications.
The consequences of the actions taken to “correct” this problem are manifold. The balance of power which once existed between the States and the Federal government was completely destroyed. The change from appointment by the States to popular election of Senators took our system of government further away from a Republic, and a long way towards a pure Democracy. In the view of the Founders, pure Democracy was to be strictly avoided. James Madison, in Federalist #10, writes, “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” What was intended to correct the problems of deadlocked state legislatures has created a national Legislature composed of elected officials more beholden to special interests (what James Madison referred to as factions), than to the people they were elected to represent. It would be in the nation’s best interest to have a few states occasionally experience temporary problems choosing their senators, than for the entire country to suffer under the tyrannies of special interests. What’s more, when weighing the temporary loss of a sitting Senator against the permanent, ongoing damage to the Republic brought about by the current “solution,” there is little question which is the better choice.
Arguments for repealing the 17th Amendment range from keeping the Constitution pure to solving the campaign finance problem. State representation at the federal level, one of the major checks on federal power, is now virtually non-existent. The Senate is divided sharply along party lines and, in its current character, does not represent the views of the majority of the states or of the people. A state-appointed Senate also would, in the best interests of the states they represent, shut down federal judicial usurpation of State authority. A popularly elected Senate, bought and paid for by special interests, will never accomplish these tasks.
The Patrick Henry Caucus is being formed in an effort reestablish the representation for the States in the National legislature. For nearly 100 years, the States have had no voice in Federal legislation, and we are now seeing the consequences of our shortsightedness. It’s time to rectify that mistake. The Patrick Henry Caucus needs our support, but the movement will be short-lived if we do not remove the one great obstacle to our success. It’s time to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Cheney, Limbaugh At Odds With Powell Over GOP Future
Over the weekend, Dick Cheney appeared on Face the Nation and voiced his support for Rush Limbaugh’s thoughts on the future of the GOP, over Colin Powell’s recent positions.
“If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh,” Cheney said, adding that he believed Colin Powell had left the GOP when he threw his support behind Barak Obama in the general election. “I assumed that that is some indication of his loyalty and his interests.”
Powell has expressed concern over statements made by Rush Limbaugh regarding his choice to support Obama for President. “I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without.”
Apparently Powell hasn’t been paying attention. Barak Obama stooped to new levels of nastiness in his quest for the White House, using the courts to open sealed divorce records of his opponents. Obama is a pro when it comes to nastiness; he knows the Move-on Media won’t report it.
Frankly, I’ll take someone with a sharp tongue who defends this country over a smooth talker who destroys it from within any day.
Colin Powell exemplifies two of the problems the GOP has had in the last few years–first, Republicans who believe Big Government interests can find a home in the party whose platform includes a dedication to smaller government. Reagan’s Big Tent GOP isn’t that big. Powell said last week that “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.” I guess he missed the Tea Party in his neighborhood.
Second, Powell has also said he is a Right-of-Center Republican, though “not as right as others would like.” You can say that again, Colin. Since when was support for more government a right-of-center issue? Powell apparently thinks Republicans must act like Democrats in order to get elected.
Rush Limbaugh has stated over and over again that this isn’t true, that conservatism wins every time it is honestly tried. Dick Cheney supports that idea. “The suggestion our Democratic friends always make is ‘somehow if you Republicans were just more like Democrats, you’d win elections.’ Well, I don’t buy that. We win elections when we have good solid conservative principles to run upon.” Cheney gets it.
Unforgiven: The Left’s Persecution Of Carrie Prejean
The most ironic thing about the flap over Carrie Prejean is the Left’s over-the-top, despicable treatment of someone they would normally be defending. But Carrie committed the ultimate sin, the one thing that will get you immediately excommunicated from the New Secular Religion–she spoke against gay marriage in a national forum. And to make matters worse, she announced, in public even, that she was a Christian.
The Left’s Hate Machine has since been set loose on Carrie. The smear campaigns, the lies, the innuendos, all the tools of personal destruction the Left possesses has been brought to bear again this upstart who dares to speak her mind in public.
You’ve seen the video of Keith Olbermann and Michael Musto, a gay columnist who writes for the Village Voice and pretends to be funny, savagely attacking Carrie Prejean in manner more than a little reminiscent of two catty 7th grade girls talking about the pretty new girl in school. They never address her statement; they just keep repeating how dumb she is. Right. She’s dumb.
For those who haven’t seen the video, here it is.
But because Keith Olbermann only has a viewership of 7, the leftist media Hate Machine needed to take things up a few notches and hired Matt Lauer of the Today Show for the next hit piece. Matt reports that “nude photos” of Carrie Prejean had been unearthed, and were being posted around the internet. Matt mentions that the photos might be a violation of Carrie’s contract with the Miss California pageant, but somehow forgets to mention that the posting of the photos might also be a violation of Carrie’s right to privacy and, if they were truly “nude photos,” that posting them might be a violation of child pornography laws because of Carrie’s age at the time they were taken.
Of course, we can’t tell how bad the photos really are because Miguel Almaguer, who wrote the report, refers to the “topless” photos as being too graphic for NBC to broadcast. Nonsense. A Google search for “Carrie Prejean photos” will bring them up for you. They are certainly racy, but aren’t much different than past covers of Sports Illustrated, which featured supermodels wearing only paint, or the photos of Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair magazine, which were in full display on the Today Show. See for yourself.
The Photos were taken when Carrie was 17 (she was a minor), and were given to a modeling agency in the hopes of securing a modeling contract. Publishing those photos may constitute child pornography, and Matt Lauer promotes it. Strategically placed black bars are often used on these shows to cover nudity in photos, so why not now? Because by not broadcasting them, NBC knows that the imagination runs wild. The intent is the destruction of Carrie Prejean’s credibility among conservatives.
But, you’ll notice they don’t ask Conservative groups for their opinions. Instead, they ask some Liberal to give us his opinion on what he thinks conservatives might do, or rather, should do. Leave it to the immoral Left to lecture America’s conservatives on what is righteous.
Now, a story has come out about the divorce of Carrie’s parents, in which one of her parents alleged that the other was gay. This, it is being reported, is said to be the cause of Carrie’s mental imbalance. Because, as I’m sure you’re aware, opposing gay marriage must be rooted in some mental imbalance. Hot Air Blog has the story, as does the New York Daily News.
The Left will not rest until Carrie Prejean’s reputation and credibility are dead. They know their position is untenable, and Perez Hilton is a clown act who shouldn’t have brought the question up in the first place. But Gay Marriage is a Holy Sacrament of the Left, and they will protect their own, no matter the cost to others.
The Patrick Henry Caucus
Something has begun…
Part 1:
Part 2:
Fact-Checking Obama
Tonight’s Presidential Press Conference has been followed by some pretty good fact checking of his claims by writers from the AP (color me surprised).
A few things stand out, though.
Obama still insists on pushing the blame for the recession back onto the Bush Administration. Never does he acknowledge that his policies have had a big hand in making this collapse possible. Like every other stereotypical liberal, he is never to be blamed; he is only a victim.
In all honesty, it isn’t just Obama’s problem, or just Bush’s problem, or even just Congress’ problem alone. They all contributed to it. The problem is big government. The idea that government can do all the things that people in government think it can do is demonstrably wrong. The hard part is getting these “useful idiots” to admit it. This is Obama’s administration now. He holds the reins, and no longer has the luxury of playing Bart Simpson, trying to get a laugh by repeating “I didn’t do it.”
Another hard-to-avoid fact is that the problem he supposedly inherited was initially created by the Democratic Congress. Bush signed the bills into law, probably because he felt the Democrats had enough votes to override any veto. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why he wouldn’t veto them out of principle. Bush’s signature added to the problem.
There is also his assertion that he has helped to save 150,000 jobs. The fact that the US economy has lost 1.2 million jobs since he took office apparently isn’t an obstacle to taking credit for any positive economic news. One very astute observation by the AP is that Obama’s claim to save jobs requires “calculating a hypothetical: how many people would have lost their jobs without the stimulus.” I can imagine lots of things, but I can’t take credit for any of it unless it is actually measurable.
Obama says we are “laying a foundation of growth.” Growth seems to be a common theme for this administration. But the only measurable growth we’ve seen so far is the growth in the deficit, growth in the amount of taxes Americans will be required to pay to overcome the deficit, and growth in the level of distrust in the people toward the government. How can we be laying a foundation for growth, when we refuse to stop spending? Even if we were capable of finding a way to cover these enormous expenses, if we don’t stop spending we will never catch up. That isn’t growth.
Some things Obama said make me plain nervous. For example, he said “My hope is that working in a bipartisan fashion we are going to be able to get a health care reform bill on my desk before the end of the year that we’ll start seeing in the kinds of investments that will make everybody healthier.” What kind of “investments” make people healthier? My thoughts are that he is talking about future legislation that would compel people into certain “healthier” lifestyles, as decided by government. The reasoning behind such legislation would be, of course, that it keeps health care costs down; a form of health care rationing–you qualify for health benefits from the government only if you meet certain government-set specifications. If that turns out to be the case, Obama will have found a way to include all races into his vision for the perfection of Humanity. That’s an aspect of socialized medicine not many have considered, and the implications are chilling.
A pattern has emerged from the first 100 days of the Obama Administration, one of high-minded, lofty goals, accompanied by a profound lack of responsibility. We can always hope the next 100 days bring real change.
Arlen Specter Defects to Democratic Party
CNN.com reports just a few minutes ago that Arlen Specter has switched his party affiliation, and registered as a Democrat. Specter, a long-time Senator from Pennsylvania, has been criticized by Conservatives as being Republican in name only, supporting far more liberal causes than most of his Republican colleagues. Frankly, it wasn’t really a question whether, but when.
Sen. Arlen Specter
Specter’s move would give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, provided Al Franken wins his bid for the Senate in Minnesota against incumbent Norm Coleman. At this point, it is up to the Supreme Court of Minnesota to determine the outcome. Their ruling will affect the national political landscape.
I am left to wonder what Harry Reid promised Specter in return for his allegiance. Specter complained that the Republican Party has shifted far to the right in recent years. But a closer look reveals that to be a poor excuse. Conservatives across the nation are up in arms right now because the Republicans have ignored them for the most part, governing like Democrats in the last several years. If Specter really wanted to leave the party because of a shift to the right, why didn’t he do it in 1994 at the pinnacle of Conservative influence in the Republican Party?
This is about Liberal Leftists in government taking more and more power by usurpation, rather than by election. They couldn’t care less what the people want. Pennsylvania didn’t elect a Democrat.
I am anxious to see what effect this has on the electorate. It will give the Liberals in the Senate carte blanche to move their agenda, and shift America even further to the Left. Are we ready to have nationalized health forced down our throats? How about nationalization of the auto industry? The coal industry?
There may be some hope in this, when all is said and done. The Liberal Democrats will be so carried away in the euphoria of their newly acquired power, that they will charge ahead undaunted and unafraid. To borrow a quote from Jeff Goldblum’s character in Jurassic Park, they will be so caught up in whether they can do a thing, they won’t stop to consider whether or not they should. The result may be historic landslide victories for Conservative Republicans in the next three or four elections, as the remaining Liberal Senators are all weeded out.
Patience and Faith, my friends.
News Bites
Here are a few things you may not have seen in the Move-on Media:
Al Gore Lies to Congress about Personal Finances (Green Hell Blog)
Al Gore Lies, Part 2 (Green Hell Blog)
Obama the Sophist (RealClearPolitics)
Newspaper Bonuses Remain Unquestioned (News Busters)
Chris Simcox Announces Run For Senate Against John McCain
Chris Simcox, Founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, has announced his candidacy for US Senate, challenging John McCain for the seat McCain has held since 1987. McCain took a lot of heat during his run for the Presidency because of his pro-amnesty stance on immigration. His lukewarm support of immigration reform was viewed by some as a way to court Hispanic voters, but was seen by Conservative Republicans as a sell-out of American sovereignty for political gain and it, among other things, cost him the election.
The video below is Chris’s formal announcement. The Conservative Front wishes Chris well in his run for the Senate. Time to send the RINOs packing.
