The recent assassination of Muslim cleric and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki marks a tragic point in our nation's history and is an indication of how far we've truly drifted from the society envisioned by the Founders. It was once understood that a country only remains free so long as it jealously guards the natural rights of its citizens.
The first objection to Obama's critics in regards to assassination is that Awlaki was well-known to be associating with terrorists and had therefore committed treason; forfeiting his constitutional rights. But as fellow RevoluTimes contributor Wes Messamore has pointed out, Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states differently:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
The Constitution mandates that even in the act of treason, a U.S. citizen is entitled to a trial by jury as indicated in the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Not only has the government failed to present any evidence whatsoever that Awlaki is guilty of anything other than participating in free speech, (no matter how ignorant, hateful and evil the speech may be) but White House press secretary Jay Carney, explicitly stated that there would be no evidence presented to the public to substantiate the claims of the Obama Administration that resulted in the unconstitutional assassination of an American citizen.
What's more disturbing is the widespread support among Americans that their president now claims the power to kill anyone he deems worthy of a death warrant; the 1st Amendment and the Constitution in general be damned.
Is this what we've become? A mere shell of the nation of laws established by our forefathers, replaced with a nation of men that only honors their memory out of ritual and rhetoric? Have we long forgotten the warnings given to us by patriots such as Thomas Paine who said:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself"?
It was once taken for granted that liberty once lost, does not return; that the Bill of Rights was not written to protect the popular or the non-controversial--the popular and non-controversial need no such protection. It was adopted specifically to protect the unpopular, despised and the hated.
But as one individual claimed earlier today online in defense of Obama, "Some people need killing..." But exactly who holds the authority to make such decisions? At what point did the 1st and 5th Amendments become nullified? And how could the president being recognized with the power to order the killing of any American he wished be construed as anything but a threat to the American people? Where are the liberals who protested against Bush's civil liberties violations? And to conservatives desiring limited government, exactly at what point do those limits kick in?
George W. Bush himself declared in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that, "freedom itself was attacked today," and what did he insist on taking in order to keep you safe? Your freedom. But the so-called president of "change" has out-Bushed his predecessor with his most recent circumvention of the Constitution by declaring himself Awlaki's judge, jury and executioner. No doubt we will be reassured in the latest Orwellian Newspeak such unlawful expansions of government power were necessary to protect our freedoms.
As fate would have it I had finished reading Orwell's classic 1984 the day before the assassination was reported. It's always troublesome when such works of fiction become prophecy. In the novel a tyrannical government kidnaps, tortures and murders its own citizens who it deems are guilty of "thoughtcrime". Thoughtcrime is simply to even consider having thoughts that doubt the actions of the State. As Orwell describes it in the book, "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."
An American citizen was killed by his government last week for what amounts to thoughtcrime. This is no defense of his actions, views or remarks-but a defense of the rule of law. Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? Do we have inalienable Natural rights derived from our humanity that can not be taken away without due process? Or are we mere subjects to an omnipotent State? If the president holds the authority to kill anyone he deems a "threat" without having to provide any evidence to the public, what defense do the innocent have against such actions?
If ideas justify assassination, what ideas are safe? Without free thought and speech, (even if those thoughts and words are repulsive) is there any freedom at all?
As Orwell himself said:
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Wall Street Occupation: A Sign of What's to Come?
The protests being held in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park will have reached the two week mark this Saturday, October 1st and are expected to continue indefinitely. News outlets estimated a few thousand joining together near Wall Street, but Time.com's Nate Rawlings reports if you exclude tourists and those temporarily marching, those in it for the "long haul" are roughly 200 people.While the initial demonstrations on September 17th were driven primarily by resentment towards bankers and corporate executives, (who many feel are guilty of malfeasance in collusion with the government) the movement can hardly be defined by a single issue. Though the vast majority of participants have expressed their desire to see some form of legal action against those they feel contributed to the recession, those in attendance represent various groups.
From war, unemployment, economic inequality, union members, campaign finance reform, and even some angered over the recent execution of Troy Davis, the wide range of concerns being addressed has left the public a bit confused. Much of this is attributed to the nature of the protests. Most of the eclectic group have no desire for a leader or any central organization. This decentralization has resulted in a very slow process of evaluating and delivering a clear message. Writes the Huffington Post,
"The lack of clear direction may eventually prove a stumbling block to the occupiers, but the mood in lower Manhattan this week was one of cheerful energy. A sign -- one of perhaps 100 strewn about the square, or being waved to and fro by demonstrators -- read, 'DEMOCRACY MAY BE HARD BUT AT LEAST WE ARE DOING IT.'"
As of now there have been no specific demands or intentions made known to the public but committees have been spontaneously created to narrow down and select precise goals for the occupation. Because they are not allowed a microphone or bullhorn, the mostly twenty-somethings and a few Baby Boomers are using a method of mass repetition to spread the message throughout the park. Whenever someone has something to discuss, they speak very slowly, stopping every few words so that the crowd can repeat those words in unison; thereby magnifying the report as liberal film maker Michael Moore demonstrates here.
Among the committees created, one has been organized to take donations for food, water and personal items to help care for those camping in Manhattan's financial district. Supplied with blankets, sleeping bags, cardboard boxes and the occasional mattress, Zuccotti Park's latest visitors have tried their best to make themselves at home. Many in the community have assisted in this effort by opening up their homes for the use of showers and even some restaurants from McDonald's to several pizzerias have donated food to accommodate the growing swarm of people.
While the past two weeks have been peaceful for the most part, this past weekend resulted in the NYPD arresting of at least 80 people and using pepper spray on five young women in what many are calling a blatant case of police brutality. According to one young journalist, John Farley, he and dozens of others were arrested during one of the planned marches to Union Square for disrupting traffic and disorderly conduct.
Writes Farley,
"As more people spilled into the street, police started to demand that protesters stay on the sidewalk. But as people seemed to be retreating from harm's way, police began pushing the protesters. I saw police use large nets to corral people en masse. I watched as police pepper sprayed several young women in the face. (An NYPD spokesperson confirmed the use of pepper spray to MetroFocus.) I saw senior citizens and teenagers get arrested. I saw about 20 or 30 police officers tackle people and prod them roughly with police batons."
The NYPD commissioner is said to be investigating the incident.
The footage and photos of the mass arrests and demonstrations have gone viral online, as many protestors and bystanders took it upon themselves to become citizen journalists; streaming much of the events live and giving daily reports on numerous social networks and blogs.
Despite what many feel has been an intentional blackout or lack of sufficient coverage by the mainstream media, news of the protests seem to be spreading as there are plans to stage similar occupations in Washington, D.C. and other cities throughout the U.S. The political and economic impact of these events remains to be seen as there are no indications of any explicit demands thus far; but the current lack of organization notwithstanding, grassroots movements such as these are sure to be more common in the coming months, should the current discontent among average Americans continue.
From war, unemployment, economic inequality, union members, campaign finance reform, and even some angered over the recent execution of Troy Davis, the wide range of concerns being addressed has left the public a bit confused. Much of this is attributed to the nature of the protests. Most of the eclectic group have no desire for a leader or any central organization. This decentralization has resulted in a very slow process of evaluating and delivering a clear message. Writes the Huffington Post,
"The lack of clear direction may eventually prove a stumbling block to the occupiers, but the mood in lower Manhattan this week was one of cheerful energy. A sign -- one of perhaps 100 strewn about the square, or being waved to and fro by demonstrators -- read, 'DEMOCRACY MAY BE HARD BUT AT LEAST WE ARE DOING IT.'"
As of now there have been no specific demands or intentions made known to the public but committees have been spontaneously created to narrow down and select precise goals for the occupation. Because they are not allowed a microphone or bullhorn, the mostly twenty-somethings and a few Baby Boomers are using a method of mass repetition to spread the message throughout the park. Whenever someone has something to discuss, they speak very slowly, stopping every few words so that the crowd can repeat those words in unison; thereby magnifying the report as liberal film maker Michael Moore demonstrates here.
Among the committees created, one has been organized to take donations for food, water and personal items to help care for those camping in Manhattan's financial district. Supplied with blankets, sleeping bags, cardboard boxes and the occasional mattress, Zuccotti Park's latest visitors have tried their best to make themselves at home. Many in the community have assisted in this effort by opening up their homes for the use of showers and even some restaurants from McDonald's to several pizzerias have donated food to accommodate the growing swarm of people.
While the past two weeks have been peaceful for the most part, this past weekend resulted in the NYPD arresting of at least 80 people and using pepper spray on five young women in what many are calling a blatant case of police brutality. According to one young journalist, John Farley, he and dozens of others were arrested during one of the planned marches to Union Square for disrupting traffic and disorderly conduct.
Writes Farley,
"As more people spilled into the street, police started to demand that protesters stay on the sidewalk. But as people seemed to be retreating from harm's way, police began pushing the protesters. I saw police use large nets to corral people en masse. I watched as police pepper sprayed several young women in the face. (An NYPD spokesperson confirmed the use of pepper spray to MetroFocus.) I saw senior citizens and teenagers get arrested. I saw about 20 or 30 police officers tackle people and prod them roughly with police batons."
The NYPD commissioner is said to be investigating the incident.
The footage and photos of the mass arrests and demonstrations have gone viral online, as many protestors and bystanders took it upon themselves to become citizen journalists; streaming much of the events live and giving daily reports on numerous social networks and blogs.
Despite what many feel has been an intentional blackout or lack of sufficient coverage by the mainstream media, news of the protests seem to be spreading as there are plans to stage similar occupations in Washington, D.C. and other cities throughout the U.S. The political and economic impact of these events remains to be seen as there are no indications of any explicit demands thus far; but the current lack of organization notwithstanding, grassroots movements such as these are sure to be more common in the coming months, should the current discontent among average Americans continue.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Who is Serving You?
While it’s often argued by many that the State must help to provide for the needs of the people; what is not discussed is what the people actually want. While visiting family in Atlanta recently, it occurred to me that most Americans simply do not recognize the differences between the nature of the State and the nature of the market.
When it came time to eat lunch we stopped in a small restaurant in Atlantic Station. As we found our seats, the server cordially gave us menus, asked what we’d like to drink and said to simply let him know if we had any questions. Though the cuisine and atmosphere was very impressive, after a brief look at the menu we decided the prices were too expensive.
As the waiter returned to the table, we thanked him for his service but told him we weren’t looking to spend that much money and had decided to find lunch elsewhere. With a smile he politely thanked us for coming in and wished us a nice rest of the day. There were no guns, no threats of arrest, and no men with badges forcing us to give up our money.
While most encounter this at least once a day, rarely do Americans take the time to appreciate what’s actually taking place. How often do we go into a department store or restaurant with the understanding that these businesses have spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in advance to provide a good or service without any guarantees of a return on their investment? There are no demands or obligations to purchase any product; indeed the demand comes from us that these products be available. Should a business fail to produce what is demanded by consumers, it will soon file bankruptcy and cease to exist.
This is the nature of the market. Every entrepreneur must take massive risks and invest large sums of money to create production, innovation, distribution and let’s not forget paying the wages of the servers who welcome you when you enter and thank you as you leave; all to give you what you want.
When it came time to eat lunch we stopped in a small restaurant in Atlantic Station. As we found our seats, the server cordially gave us menus, asked what we’d like to drink and said to simply let him know if we had any questions. Though the cuisine and atmosphere was very impressive, after a brief look at the menu we decided the prices were too expensive.
As the waiter returned to the table, we thanked him for his service but told him we weren’t looking to spend that much money and had decided to find lunch elsewhere. With a smile he politely thanked us for coming in and wished us a nice rest of the day. There were no guns, no threats of arrest, and no men with badges forcing us to give up our money.
While most encounter this at least once a day, rarely do Americans take the time to appreciate what’s actually taking place. How often do we go into a department store or restaurant with the understanding that these businesses have spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in advance to provide a good or service without any guarantees of a return on their investment? There are no demands or obligations to purchase any product; indeed the demand comes from us that these products be available. Should a business fail to produce what is demanded by consumers, it will soon file bankruptcy and cease to exist.
This is the nature of the market. Every entrepreneur must take massive risks and invest large sums of money to create production, innovation, distribution and let’s not forget paying the wages of the servers who welcome you when you enter and thank you as you leave; all to give you what you want.
The functions of government are diametrically opposed to the nature of the market. How many times have you been given the option to pay or not to pay taxes? Were you ever given an opportunity to not pay for the welfare state, endless wars or bailouts to corporations? Though many view the State as our protector, what happens if you refuse? Can you picture an IRS agent simply thanking you for your time and wishing you a nice day if you withhold your income? People do not pay taxes out of consent or compassion, but out of fear and submission.
As author and editorial Vice President of the Mises Institute, Jeffrey Tucker has pointed out before; even government institutions invoke a sense of submission upon your entering. As Tucker explained, imagine walking into a department or grocery store. How many people are waiting to assist you? If you purchase a product but decide you no longer desire it or it’s defective, you simply take the item to the exchange desk and are either reimbursed or given the opportunity to choose another item. No questions asked.
Tucker then asks you to imagine entering the DMV. How many people are there to welcome you? Do any of the employees, (who are paid with your tax dollars) seem to have any urgency in helping you? Do these institutions ever seem to be efficient? If you have a complaint how eager do they appear to be to resolve the issue?
Tucker then asks you to imagine entering the DMV. How many people are there to welcome you? Do any of the employees, (who are paid with your tax dollars) seem to have any urgency in helping you? Do these institutions ever seem to be efficient? If you have a complaint how eager do they appear to be to resolve the issue?
The circumstances are even worse at the airport. If you’ve purchased tickets in advance online, you expect them to be available and to save some time before the flight. Should the airline fail to provide efficient services, you have the ability to seek out a competitor. It is not the owners of companies who hold the power in the market, but the consumer. Whether you’re wrong or right the business must cater to your interests or suffer a loss in sales.
But once you go through security, your demeanor changes entirely. There is no sense of control on your part. You walk with intimidation, hoping you’re not selected for the extensive security measures. No TSA agent seeks to make you feel safe or welcome. There is no greeting or sense of service, but a look of suspicion, of accusation and an implicit threat of force.
Behind the very notion of every government program is the assertion that the State is doing what’s best for the country; that our wise leaders are simply acting on behalf of the interests of their constituents. But at what point did politicians ask the people what they wanted? Was there not an overwhelming rejection of ObamaCare throughout the country? How many Americans asked to be subjected to the TSA’s strip searches? Were you ever asked how your money should be spent, or if it should be taken from you at all?
Politicians and bureaucrats have long fashioned themselves as benevolent leaders acting upon the will of the people, but broken promises and the increasingly violent disposition of the State has revealed them to be the direct opposite and has proven the State to be an abysmal failure. The voluntary sector of society, the peaceful cooperative nature of individuals within their communities and throughout the world that provide for society have demonstrated it is not government that produces the greatest public-servants, but the market.
But once you go through security, your demeanor changes entirely. There is no sense of control on your part. You walk with intimidation, hoping you’re not selected for the extensive security measures. No TSA agent seeks to make you feel safe or welcome. There is no greeting or sense of service, but a look of suspicion, of accusation and an implicit threat of force.
Behind the very notion of every government program is the assertion that the State is doing what’s best for the country; that our wise leaders are simply acting on behalf of the interests of their constituents. But at what point did politicians ask the people what they wanted? Was there not an overwhelming rejection of ObamaCare throughout the country? How many Americans asked to be subjected to the TSA’s strip searches? Were you ever asked how your money should be spent, or if it should be taken from you at all?
Politicians and bureaucrats have long fashioned themselves as benevolent leaders acting upon the will of the people, but broken promises and the increasingly violent disposition of the State has revealed them to be the direct opposite and has proven the State to be an abysmal failure. The voluntary sector of society, the peaceful cooperative nature of individuals within their communities and throughout the world that provide for society have demonstrated it is not government that produces the greatest public-servants, but the market.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
The Show Must Not Go On
In the world of politics, the usual anecdote of left vs. right is often seen as self-evident. The Democrats or those on the left seem to stand in stark contrast to their apparent counterparts and rhetorical foes on the right and within the Republican Party. As the liberal rises in defense of the poor and seeks to avenge the victims of greed and corruption, the conservative reaches into his deep pockets lined with crisp Benjamins and remembers where his loyalties lie. While the Republican refuses to allow the hateful threats of religious fanatics to stifle the American Dream, the Democrat tucks his tail between his legs and waits for the proper moment to unleash his Marxist takeover.
Depending on which side of the alleged aisle you find yourself, this legislative folklore is accepted, and perhaps even embraced. Considering that such narratives are perceived as a given by most Americans, it's easy to understand why so many devote such time and energy to defending one group over the other. But a look behind the curtain reveals the noble tale of public-servants to be for the most part, a stage show in which you're forced to purchase tickets.
One of the greatest displays of this spectacle in recent years was this summer's debt-ceiling debacle consisting of the usual suspects. Joe Biden pandered to his constituents claiming the middle class will not "carry the whole burden" of deficit reduction while joining the chorus of Democrats demanding to see the debt ceiling raised. The irony of course being the more the federal government borrows and prints, the lower the standard of living becomes for the poor and the middle class, leaving unborn children to foot the bill. Not to be outdone the Republicans and House Speaker Boehner lambasted the Obama administration for "requesting business as usual" while reassuring the nation that "those days are over". In case anyone actually thought him to be serious, he and most of the GOP would soon reclaim their status as a party of charlatans, caving to the Democrats so as to avoid a non-existent crisis. Sure the dramatic speeches may have been convincing, but the talking points of choosing between default or raising the debt ceiling were more akin to an Oliver Stone film, than reality. But this charade extends far beyond fiscal issues.
The Bush Regime pulled the wool over the eyes of many, (including this writer) as well as anyone. It was a clever ploy of political theater to cast American imperialism as a defense of American exceptionalism. It takes a rather cunning and twisted group of individuals to turn one of the most blatant usurpations of power into a form of noble patriotism. It's no small task portraying blind nationalism as authentic conservatism, and convincing the right to turn a blind eye to the largest expansion of government since LBJ. From the relentless warmongering and propaganda, to the astronomical debt and personal liberty infringements, the authoritarianism of the Bush administration would have had statists like FDR and Wilson drooling with envy. But after eight long years, the country was in financial ruin, desperate for peace and in need of a fresh start. Sure enough, Bush's so-called opponents had just the man to play the part.
In 2008 we were promised by a re-energized Democratic Party to look no further than the charismatic senator from Illinois if we wished to challenge the status quo. He represented peace and progress. But rather than halting the assaults on civil liberties, corporate welfare, perpetual war or endless spending, Obama became Bush: The Sequel. Those who voted for hope and change were left with a young opportunist who has out-Bushed his predecessor. One would think the egregious abuses of power since Obama took office would have the bleeding-hearts running through the streets, but many of his supporters have yet to give up on their fairy tale.
This cycle of antics is not only expected, it's necessary for Washington to maintain their influence in our daily lives. Were it not for the constant scare tactics and partisan grandstanding used by politicians, the American people might actually realize there's more truth in professional wrestling than there is the bumper sticker rhetoric of the ruling class. Whether it's terrorism, economic depression, drug abuse or the swine flu, there must always be a villain to every story; otherwise the jig is up. It matters not if the soap opera is written in blue or red ink, it always ends with Uncle Sam portrayed as nothing short of a caped-crusader anxiously waiting to save us from any threat imaginable, even ourselves.
As the first term of Obama's presidency comes to a close, it's that time again for the circus to come to town. Waiting patiently for their cue, the GOP ushers in their latest crop of autocrats to audition for the leading role. Packed with southern rabble-rousers, a presidential ken doll and a lady of the heartland, critics have already labeled this next election cycle an instant classic.
But as these tales often go, the powerful few tend to underestimate the will of the many. After a century of new and improved despots, the country is longing to end the marathon of Old Guard puppets and close the curtain on a federal behemoth that's had too many re-runs. Despite D.C.'s best efforts, more and more Americans are seeing through the smoke and mirrors and turning to the most unlikely of heroes; a man who was ignored for decades, only to be ridiculed and slandered as he and his ideas gained popularity. Indeed, the notion that personal and economic liberties are not enemies but a unit, and a man who follows principle instead of oligarchs hardly fits in Washington's fictional paradigm.
The last few years have left the leaders of both parties looking for answers to quell the growing momentum for an individual who predicted the ending before the previews even started. If America truly wishes to avoid an encore performance directed by the establishment machine, they must first reject its host of actors, and elect a man who doesn't read from a script.
Depending on which side of the alleged aisle you find yourself, this legislative folklore is accepted, and perhaps even embraced. Considering that such narratives are perceived as a given by most Americans, it's easy to understand why so many devote such time and energy to defending one group over the other. But a look behind the curtain reveals the noble tale of public-servants to be for the most part, a stage show in which you're forced to purchase tickets.
One of the greatest displays of this spectacle in recent years was this summer's debt-ceiling debacle consisting of the usual suspects. Joe Biden pandered to his constituents claiming the middle class will not "carry the whole burden" of deficit reduction while joining the chorus of Democrats demanding to see the debt ceiling raised. The irony of course being the more the federal government borrows and prints, the lower the standard of living becomes for the poor and the middle class, leaving unborn children to foot the bill. Not to be outdone the Republicans and House Speaker Boehner lambasted the Obama administration for "requesting business as usual" while reassuring the nation that "those days are over". In case anyone actually thought him to be serious, he and most of the GOP would soon reclaim their status as a party of charlatans, caving to the Democrats so as to avoid a non-existent crisis. Sure the dramatic speeches may have been convincing, but the talking points of choosing between default or raising the debt ceiling were more akin to an Oliver Stone film, than reality. But this charade extends far beyond fiscal issues.
The Bush Regime pulled the wool over the eyes of many, (including this writer) as well as anyone. It was a clever ploy of political theater to cast American imperialism as a defense of American exceptionalism. It takes a rather cunning and twisted group of individuals to turn one of the most blatant usurpations of power into a form of noble patriotism. It's no small task portraying blind nationalism as authentic conservatism, and convincing the right to turn a blind eye to the largest expansion of government since LBJ. From the relentless warmongering and propaganda, to the astronomical debt and personal liberty infringements, the authoritarianism of the Bush administration would have had statists like FDR and Wilson drooling with envy. But after eight long years, the country was in financial ruin, desperate for peace and in need of a fresh start. Sure enough, Bush's so-called opponents had just the man to play the part.
In 2008 we were promised by a re-energized Democratic Party to look no further than the charismatic senator from Illinois if we wished to challenge the status quo. He represented peace and progress. But rather than halting the assaults on civil liberties, corporate welfare, perpetual war or endless spending, Obama became Bush: The Sequel. Those who voted for hope and change were left with a young opportunist who has out-Bushed his predecessor. One would think the egregious abuses of power since Obama took office would have the bleeding-hearts running through the streets, but many of his supporters have yet to give up on their fairy tale.
This cycle of antics is not only expected, it's necessary for Washington to maintain their influence in our daily lives. Were it not for the constant scare tactics and partisan grandstanding used by politicians, the American people might actually realize there's more truth in professional wrestling than there is the bumper sticker rhetoric of the ruling class. Whether it's terrorism, economic depression, drug abuse or the swine flu, there must always be a villain to every story; otherwise the jig is up. It matters not if the soap opera is written in blue or red ink, it always ends with Uncle Sam portrayed as nothing short of a caped-crusader anxiously waiting to save us from any threat imaginable, even ourselves.
As the first term of Obama's presidency comes to a close, it's that time again for the circus to come to town. Waiting patiently for their cue, the GOP ushers in their latest crop of autocrats to audition for the leading role. Packed with southern rabble-rousers, a presidential ken doll and a lady of the heartland, critics have already labeled this next election cycle an instant classic.
But as these tales often go, the powerful few tend to underestimate the will of the many. After a century of new and improved despots, the country is longing to end the marathon of Old Guard puppets and close the curtain on a federal behemoth that's had too many re-runs. Despite D.C.'s best efforts, more and more Americans are seeing through the smoke and mirrors and turning to the most unlikely of heroes; a man who was ignored for decades, only to be ridiculed and slandered as he and his ideas gained popularity. Indeed, the notion that personal and economic liberties are not enemies but a unit, and a man who follows principle instead of oligarchs hardly fits in Washington's fictional paradigm.
The last few years have left the leaders of both parties looking for answers to quell the growing momentum for an individual who predicted the ending before the previews even started. If America truly wishes to avoid an encore performance directed by the establishment machine, they must first reject its host of actors, and elect a man who doesn't read from a script.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Rick Perry: Business As Usual
Rick Perry upended the Republican presidential race last week as a new Rasmussen poll of likely GOP voters has Perry in the lead with 29% of the vote; this just after 72 hours of his announcement in Charleston, SC. Perry, touting himself as a fiscal and social conservative hopes to capture the attention and support of the vast Tea Party movement that has swept the nation in response to Washington's endless tax, spend and borrow agenda.
The three-time Texas Governor joins a host of presidential hopefuls looking to tap into the bloodline of the American electorate as activists throughout the country fight for the soul of the Republican party to restore it to its roots. While his campaign has seemingly achieved Tea Party status with little to no effort, there are many among grassroots conservatives who claim the former Democrat and Al Gore supporter is not at all who he seems.
Particularly among Texans, Perry hasn't polled very well as of late. Earlier this year, he received only 4% of the vote in a Texas Tribune poll of potential GOP presidential candidates. In a more recent finding, the governor finds himself trailing against his fellow Texan, Congressman Ron Paul. For someone who's already being ordained as a Republican and Tea Party heavyweight, there seems to be strong reservations among his fellow Texans. Over the years many have grown dissatisfied and some even angry at "Slick Rick's" expanding gubernatorial powers. From a NAFTA Superhighway to violating parental rights and possibly a lesser known dispute, a taxpayer funded mansion, the American people, (and in particular the Tea Party) have a lot to learn from native Texans.
Dave Nalle of the Texas Republican Liberty Caucus issued warnings of Perry's tendency to mask his true intentions under the guise of conservatism. Nalle writes, "Perry has a unique talent for finding new ways to raise taxes and loves taxpayer money to subsidize his business cronies. His suppposed belief in limited government and states rights conveniently disappears whenever it conflicts with the demands of the special interests and corporate cronies who he serves."
Writes The New Republic's Dave Mann, "Indeed, for anyone who’s closely followed Perry’s tenure in Texas—as I have, covering the governor for The Texas Observer, since 2003—it’s no secret that some of the state’s conservatives and libertarians dispute his conservative credentials. It’s true that Perry has trafficked heavily in anti-Washington rhetoric, especially in the run-up to his candidacy to become president. But the closer you look at Perry’s record in Texas, the harder it is to discern any coherent ideology at all. When GOP primary voters in other parts of the country examine his signature legislative accomplishments and policy stances, some won’t like what they find."
To say the least, the Paint Creek-native's political career is filled with more contradictions and conundrums than conservative credentials. Three years after being elected in 1984 as a Democrat to the Texas House of Representatives, Perry voted for the largest tax hike in Texas history amounting to $5.7 billion proposed by then Republican governor Bill Clements. In an interview last October with Texas Tribune, Perry remarked he has a long history of not raising taxes."We don't raise taxes, " he told the Tribune's Evan Smith. But according to PolitiFact.com Perry's statements don't hold up to their records. The site reports Perry raising taxes on fireworks, cigarettes and implenting a franchise tax that has been criticized by some conservatives for being a "job killer" and giving unfair advantages to large companies over smaller competitors.
Upon the surface, Perry comes across a very charismatic man of the people, longing to reign in the out-of-control spending and hold the disconnected politicians in Washington accountable; but some digging reveals the so-called champion of small government and low taxes to be merely a continuation of the status quo he so heartily denounces in front of voters and the press.
On Perry's fiscal record, Robert Wenzel of EconomicPolicyJournal.com notes:
"While not raising the sales tax in Texas, (Texas has no income tax) he [Perry] raised just about every other fee and tax he could think of, including a surcharge on traffic violations. He also borrowed money from road bonds and borrowed from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund.
In 2003, he launched the Texas Enterprise Fund, he quickly in 2004, gave $20 million to Countrywide Financial, the mortgage creating machine that was a major player in subprime, no docs mortgages."
Concluded Wenzel, "Depending on how it is calculated, the debt of the state of Texas could be considered as high as $269 billion, which on a per citizen basis is $10,644 and is higher than even the $9,931 citizen debt in the state of California. In 2000, when Perry first became governor, total spending by the state of Texas was $49 billion. At the end of 2010 it was $90 billion."
While Perry has hit the campaign trail with a rallying cry of fiscal sanity and honest, limited government his record doesn't live up to his rhetoric. The aforementioned Texas Enterprise Fund has been a point of contention with Texas voters for quite some time as more and more citizens of the Lone Star State condemn the actions of their governor for his blatant intervention of the free market and his corporate welfare schemes. Perhaps the most glaring of these, (and one you can bet Perry hopes voters disregard) was his staunch support for the TARP bailouts. At the time the Texas governor felt so strongly that Congress must intervene that he joined with then chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, (Perry was chairman of the Republican Governors Association at the time, and still holds that position) Joe Manchin in writing a letter to then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi saying:
"...There is a time for partisanship and there is a time for getting things done...and now is not the time to assign blame. It is time for D.C. to step up and be responsible and do what's in the best interest of American taxpayers and our economy...It's time for leadership. Congress needs to act now."
Of course, shortly thereafter Perry would call TARP a "mistake"; no doubt in part due to the overwhelming response from the enraged taxpayers who rightfully declared war on the Washington establishment that sold out to Wall Street. Despite the fact that Perry seems to have dodged a bullet with the bailouts, his constant pandering to special interests at the expense of his constiuents has made some headlines, and one of the most notably among these is the Trans Texas Corridor.
The Trans Texas Corrider (TTC) was a plan to cover a large part of the state with toll roads. In order to do this, the state of Texas would have used eminent domain to seize large portions of farmland for the use of the roads as well as rail lines. Terri Hall of Texans United for Reform and Freedom, (TURF) says the toll road project would have been the "biggest land grab in Texas history" that sought to seize 580,000 acres of private land and as Hall puts it, transfer it "to a foreign company in one of these PPPs for half a century."
As Hall explains,
"PPPs[public private partnerships] are sweetheart deals with massive taxpayer subsidies (that socialize losses and privatize profits)..."
Naturally, conservatives throughout the state were outraged, (particularly rural landowners) and the measure eventually was repealed. But despite the public outcry Perry still defends the abuse of eminent domain to steal the property of private citizens for the benefit of special interests.
If the notion that government truly owns your property and thus can seize it by force at will doesn't disturb you, would being mandated to purchase a vaccine and administer it to your young daughter change your mind? In 2007, Rick Perry left no doubt that in his mind the government has the authority to do whatever it feels it must, the rights of parents be damned.
It's hard to imagine in the current political climate a more damaging proposal than a government mandate to purchase a product for your "health". That is precisely why Perry's executive order to have every girl in the 6th grade in Texas subjected to three shots of the Gardasil Vaccine, is yet another story the Perry campaign hopes is overlooked. The vaccine (developed by Merck) that had only been approved by the FDA for eight months at the time was said to be effective at preventing the spread of the sexually transmitted disease human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. While the governor's administration would push the measure as a heartfelt endeavor to protect the children, many conservative parents rightfully opposed such intrusions into the private lives of their families.
Michelle Malkin gives her thoughts on the dictatorial powers of the governor:
"Perry defenders pointed to a bogus 'opt out' provision of his mandate 'to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's healthcare'. But requiring parents to seek the government's permission to keep an untested drug out of their kids' veins, is a plain usurpation of their authority. Translation ask your bureaucratic overlord to determine if a Gardasil waiver is right for you.
"...Most noxious of all, Perry wraps his big government health mandate in the 'pro-life' mantle. But the do-gooder theater is a distratction from the business-as-usual back-scratching and astro-turfing that are Obama hallmarks. Perry's former chief of staff, Mike Toomey is a top Merck lobbyist. Toomey's mother-in-law headed a Merck-funded front group pushing vaccination mandates. And Merck's political action committee pitched in $6,000 to Perry's re-election campaign in 2007."
Perry, seemingly without limits to his desire for government meddling in the lives of private indivdiuals was also a major player in former president George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" that nationalized education and instituted unprecedented federal supervision over state and local school districts. A 2002 article published on Perry's gubernatorial homepage boasts of the Texas precursor to the Bush's education overhaul gaining federal support. In the article Perry is quoted as saying,
"Texas was a model for president Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation and we continue to lead the nation in innovative solutions to improve our schools...The U.S. Department of Education's stamp of approval means we can move forward with our plan to improve early childhood education, dropout prevention, teaching excellence, science education and schools' use of technology."
NCLB, the vaccine mandate and TTC are but a few glimpses into what a Perry presidency might look like. While the southern drawl and nice hair have helped catapult Perry into the spotlight, he no doubt needs any help making himself at home among the GOP establishment. In a Republican presidential field littered with flip-floppers and Johnny-come latelys, Governor Perry should fit right in with the status quo and "central planners" he so passionately demonizes as history has proven him to possess the same disconnect and self-absorbed mentality typical of Washington.
The lengths to which Governor Perry has encroached upon the property and liberties of the people of Texas fly in the face of his most noble promises to restore limited government and force the behomoth of D.C. to relenquish its clutches on the lives and wealth of private citizens. As Americans across the country look to send a message that an unchecked leviathan will no longer be tolerated and that the rule of law and sovereignty of the individual will be restored, Perry leaves them with nothing more than bumper sticker rhetoric and empty campaign slogans taken from Bush and Obama's playbooks.
While communities long for the freedom to educate their children how they see fit, Perry helped faceless bureaucrats impose their will in a gamble on America's future generations, as Americans of all political backgrounds continue to oppose government mandated healthcare services, Perry defends the status quo's authority to say what's best for you, and in the midst of a nationwide movement of resisting the institution of legal plunder by the state, Perry time and again goes to the aid of special interests.
The fact that so many in the mainstream media and Washington bureaucracy have flocked to the likes of Perry and the usual suspects is only indicative of the massive gap between the ruling class and the average American citizen; D.C. not only misunderstands our way of thinking, but they underestimate our resolve.
The gimmicks of stuffed suits and pundit soundbytes are losing credibilty by the day and as D.C. scrambles to stifle the pending revolution, their tired top-down approach will be their undoing, because you cannot kill a headless snake and you cannot silence an idea.
The three-time Texas Governor joins a host of presidential hopefuls looking to tap into the bloodline of the American electorate as activists throughout the country fight for the soul of the Republican party to restore it to its roots. While his campaign has seemingly achieved Tea Party status with little to no effort, there are many among grassroots conservatives who claim the former Democrat and Al Gore supporter is not at all who he seems.
Particularly among Texans, Perry hasn't polled very well as of late. Earlier this year, he received only 4% of the vote in a Texas Tribune poll of potential GOP presidential candidates. In a more recent finding, the governor finds himself trailing against his fellow Texan, Congressman Ron Paul. For someone who's already being ordained as a Republican and Tea Party heavyweight, there seems to be strong reservations among his fellow Texans. Over the years many have grown dissatisfied and some even angry at "Slick Rick's" expanding gubernatorial powers. From a NAFTA Superhighway to violating parental rights and possibly a lesser known dispute, a taxpayer funded mansion, the American people, (and in particular the Tea Party) have a lot to learn from native Texans.
Dave Nalle of the Texas Republican Liberty Caucus issued warnings of Perry's tendency to mask his true intentions under the guise of conservatism. Nalle writes, "Perry has a unique talent for finding new ways to raise taxes and loves taxpayer money to subsidize his business cronies. His suppposed belief in limited government and states rights conveniently disappears whenever it conflicts with the demands of the special interests and corporate cronies who he serves."
Writes The New Republic's Dave Mann, "Indeed, for anyone who’s closely followed Perry’s tenure in Texas—as I have, covering the governor for The Texas Observer, since 2003—it’s no secret that some of the state’s conservatives and libertarians dispute his conservative credentials. It’s true that Perry has trafficked heavily in anti-Washington rhetoric, especially in the run-up to his candidacy to become president. But the closer you look at Perry’s record in Texas, the harder it is to discern any coherent ideology at all. When GOP primary voters in other parts of the country examine his signature legislative accomplishments and policy stances, some won’t like what they find."
To say the least, the Paint Creek-native's political career is filled with more contradictions and conundrums than conservative credentials. Three years after being elected in 1984 as a Democrat to the Texas House of Representatives, Perry voted for the largest tax hike in Texas history amounting to $5.7 billion proposed by then Republican governor Bill Clements. In an interview last October with Texas Tribune, Perry remarked he has a long history of not raising taxes."We don't raise taxes, " he told the Tribune's Evan Smith. But according to PolitiFact.com Perry's statements don't hold up to their records. The site reports Perry raising taxes on fireworks, cigarettes and implenting a franchise tax that has been criticized by some conservatives for being a "job killer" and giving unfair advantages to large companies over smaller competitors.
Upon the surface, Perry comes across a very charismatic man of the people, longing to reign in the out-of-control spending and hold the disconnected politicians in Washington accountable; but some digging reveals the so-called champion of small government and low taxes to be merely a continuation of the status quo he so heartily denounces in front of voters and the press.
On Perry's fiscal record, Robert Wenzel of EconomicPolicyJournal.com notes:
"While not raising the sales tax in Texas, (Texas has no income tax) he [Perry] raised just about every other fee and tax he could think of, including a surcharge on traffic violations. He also borrowed money from road bonds and borrowed from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund.
In 2003, he launched the Texas Enterprise Fund, he quickly in 2004, gave $20 million to Countrywide Financial, the mortgage creating machine that was a major player in subprime, no docs mortgages."
Concluded Wenzel, "Depending on how it is calculated, the debt of the state of Texas could be considered as high as $269 billion, which on a per citizen basis is $10,644 and is higher than even the $9,931 citizen debt in the state of California. In 2000, when Perry first became governor, total spending by the state of Texas was $49 billion. At the end of 2010 it was $90 billion."
While Perry has hit the campaign trail with a rallying cry of fiscal sanity and honest, limited government his record doesn't live up to his rhetoric. The aforementioned Texas Enterprise Fund has been a point of contention with Texas voters for quite some time as more and more citizens of the Lone Star State condemn the actions of their governor for his blatant intervention of the free market and his corporate welfare schemes. Perhaps the most glaring of these, (and one you can bet Perry hopes voters disregard) was his staunch support for the TARP bailouts. At the time the Texas governor felt so strongly that Congress must intervene that he joined with then chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, (Perry was chairman of the Republican Governors Association at the time, and still holds that position) Joe Manchin in writing a letter to then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi saying:
"...There is a time for partisanship and there is a time for getting things done...and now is not the time to assign blame. It is time for D.C. to step up and be responsible and do what's in the best interest of American taxpayers and our economy...It's time for leadership. Congress needs to act now."
Of course, shortly thereafter Perry would call TARP a "mistake"; no doubt in part due to the overwhelming response from the enraged taxpayers who rightfully declared war on the Washington establishment that sold out to Wall Street. Despite the fact that Perry seems to have dodged a bullet with the bailouts, his constant pandering to special interests at the expense of his constiuents has made some headlines, and one of the most notably among these is the Trans Texas Corridor.
The Trans Texas Corrider (TTC) was a plan to cover a large part of the state with toll roads. In order to do this, the state of Texas would have used eminent domain to seize large portions of farmland for the use of the roads as well as rail lines. Terri Hall of Texans United for Reform and Freedom, (TURF) says the toll road project would have been the "biggest land grab in Texas history" that sought to seize 580,000 acres of private land and as Hall puts it, transfer it "to a foreign company in one of these PPPs for half a century."
As Hall explains,
"PPPs[public private partnerships] are sweetheart deals with massive taxpayer subsidies (that socialize losses and privatize profits)..."
Naturally, conservatives throughout the state were outraged, (particularly rural landowners) and the measure eventually was repealed. But despite the public outcry Perry still defends the abuse of eminent domain to steal the property of private citizens for the benefit of special interests.
If the notion that government truly owns your property and thus can seize it by force at will doesn't disturb you, would being mandated to purchase a vaccine and administer it to your young daughter change your mind? In 2007, Rick Perry left no doubt that in his mind the government has the authority to do whatever it feels it must, the rights of parents be damned.
It's hard to imagine in the current political climate a more damaging proposal than a government mandate to purchase a product for your "health". That is precisely why Perry's executive order to have every girl in the 6th grade in Texas subjected to three shots of the Gardasil Vaccine, is yet another story the Perry campaign hopes is overlooked. The vaccine (developed by Merck) that had only been approved by the FDA for eight months at the time was said to be effective at preventing the spread of the sexually transmitted disease human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. While the governor's administration would push the measure as a heartfelt endeavor to protect the children, many conservative parents rightfully opposed such intrusions into the private lives of their families.
Michelle Malkin gives her thoughts on the dictatorial powers of the governor:
"Perry defenders pointed to a bogus 'opt out' provision of his mandate 'to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's healthcare'. But requiring parents to seek the government's permission to keep an untested drug out of their kids' veins, is a plain usurpation of their authority. Translation ask your bureaucratic overlord to determine if a Gardasil waiver is right for you.
"...Most noxious of all, Perry wraps his big government health mandate in the 'pro-life' mantle. But the do-gooder theater is a distratction from the business-as-usual back-scratching and astro-turfing that are Obama hallmarks. Perry's former chief of staff, Mike Toomey is a top Merck lobbyist. Toomey's mother-in-law headed a Merck-funded front group pushing vaccination mandates. And Merck's political action committee pitched in $6,000 to Perry's re-election campaign in 2007."
Perry, seemingly without limits to his desire for government meddling in the lives of private indivdiuals was also a major player in former president George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" that nationalized education and instituted unprecedented federal supervision over state and local school districts. A 2002 article published on Perry's gubernatorial homepage boasts of the Texas precursor to the Bush's education overhaul gaining federal support. In the article Perry is quoted as saying,
"Texas was a model for president Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation and we continue to lead the nation in innovative solutions to improve our schools...The U.S. Department of Education's stamp of approval means we can move forward with our plan to improve early childhood education, dropout prevention, teaching excellence, science education and schools' use of technology."
NCLB, the vaccine mandate and TTC are but a few glimpses into what a Perry presidency might look like. While the southern drawl and nice hair have helped catapult Perry into the spotlight, he no doubt needs any help making himself at home among the GOP establishment. In a Republican presidential field littered with flip-floppers and Johnny-come latelys, Governor Perry should fit right in with the status quo and "central planners" he so passionately demonizes as history has proven him to possess the same disconnect and self-absorbed mentality typical of Washington.
The lengths to which Governor Perry has encroached upon the property and liberties of the people of Texas fly in the face of his most noble promises to restore limited government and force the behomoth of D.C. to relenquish its clutches on the lives and wealth of private citizens. As Americans across the country look to send a message that an unchecked leviathan will no longer be tolerated and that the rule of law and sovereignty of the individual will be restored, Perry leaves them with nothing more than bumper sticker rhetoric and empty campaign slogans taken from Bush and Obama's playbooks.
While communities long for the freedom to educate their children how they see fit, Perry helped faceless bureaucrats impose their will in a gamble on America's future generations, as Americans of all political backgrounds continue to oppose government mandated healthcare services, Perry defends the status quo's authority to say what's best for you, and in the midst of a nationwide movement of resisting the institution of legal plunder by the state, Perry time and again goes to the aid of special interests.
The fact that so many in the mainstream media and Washington bureaucracy have flocked to the likes of Perry and the usual suspects is only indicative of the massive gap between the ruling class and the average American citizen; D.C. not only misunderstands our way of thinking, but they underestimate our resolve.
The gimmicks of stuffed suits and pundit soundbytes are losing credibilty by the day and as D.C. scrambles to stifle the pending revolution, their tired top-down approach will be their undoing, because you cannot kill a headless snake and you cannot silence an idea.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
"Nanny-State" is too Kind
In most political circles there is at one point or another a mention of the "Nanny-State". Whether it be among liberals for drug legalization or the conservatives criticizing welfare, on some level there is widespread understanding that the tendency of government to tell the American people "what's best for them" is over-bearing, if not criminal.
Today we live in a world where consuming too much salt or God-forbid you sell or purchase lemonade without a permit, and you could be facing fines or even arrest. Were you aware the State has the authority to force you to eat vegetables every day? According to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, it does.
From this it's clear "Nanny-State" is too kind a term, as it implies there is some relief if society would just "grow up". You can outgrow a pesky and obnoxious babysitter and for the most part go on with your life without any longterm effects; this is not the case with government. It's far more difficult to expunge criminal charges for the so-called crimes of "tax evasion", drinking raw-milk, or for refusing to be molested by the TSA; and there is no relief for grieving families who've seen their loved ones gunned-down by government thugs and left bleeding to death. All in the name of "keeping us safe". Perhaps "abusive step-father" is a more accurate description of the nature of the State.
While the left/right narrative may continue to entertain the absurd notion that there is a difference between dictating one's personal habits or controlling one's economic liberty, there is a pervasive underlying mentality to all of it: serfdom. For a nation that is allegedly based on self-determination and the "consent of the governed", we are becoming more and more apathetic and subservient to our wise and benevolent overlords by the day. If this sounds hyperbolic, then what is serfdom?
Generally speaking, the average American would agree that individuals own their bodies and are not beholden to a master. But do we really believe that? If you own your body, does it not follow that you and you alone are responsible for your actions? If you own your body and use your time and energy to provide a good or service, do you not also own the fruits of your labor? The idea that a small portion of the population, (namely the ruling class) have the authority to determine what you consume, do in the privacy of your home or how you spend your money ultimately comes down to this: the State owns you. In a free society, not only are individuals left alone to take responsibility for their own actions, but it is also recognized badges and government titles do not grant extra rights.
Whether you view the state as a domineering battle-ax that makes you eat your broccoli, a drunken and violent parent or a "gang of thieves-writ large", the truth is overwhelming: this relationship has run its course.
Today we live in a world where consuming too much salt or God-forbid you sell or purchase lemonade without a permit, and you could be facing fines or even arrest. Were you aware the State has the authority to force you to eat vegetables every day? According to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, it does.
From this it's clear "Nanny-State" is too kind a term, as it implies there is some relief if society would just "grow up". You can outgrow a pesky and obnoxious babysitter and for the most part go on with your life without any longterm effects; this is not the case with government. It's far more difficult to expunge criminal charges for the so-called crimes of "tax evasion", drinking raw-milk, or for refusing to be molested by the TSA; and there is no relief for grieving families who've seen their loved ones gunned-down by government thugs and left bleeding to death. All in the name of "keeping us safe". Perhaps "abusive step-father" is a more accurate description of the nature of the State.
While the left/right narrative may continue to entertain the absurd notion that there is a difference between dictating one's personal habits or controlling one's economic liberty, there is a pervasive underlying mentality to all of it: serfdom. For a nation that is allegedly based on self-determination and the "consent of the governed", we are becoming more and more apathetic and subservient to our wise and benevolent overlords by the day. If this sounds hyperbolic, then what is serfdom?
Generally speaking, the average American would agree that individuals own their bodies and are not beholden to a master. But do we really believe that? If you own your body, does it not follow that you and you alone are responsible for your actions? If you own your body and use your time and energy to provide a good or service, do you not also own the fruits of your labor? The idea that a small portion of the population, (namely the ruling class) have the authority to determine what you consume, do in the privacy of your home or how you spend your money ultimately comes down to this: the State owns you. In a free society, not only are individuals left alone to take responsibility for their own actions, but it is also recognized badges and government titles do not grant extra rights.
Whether you view the state as a domineering battle-ax that makes you eat your broccoli, a drunken and violent parent or a "gang of thieves-writ large", the truth is overwhelming: this relationship has run its course.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
What's Wrong with the Right?
The events of last month's CPAC, (Conservative Political Action Conference) were but another battle in the long war between the Republican Party and true conservatives. While Congressman Ron Paul won the annual presidential straw poll for the second consecutive year with 30% of the vote, much of the GOP, Fox News, (the purportedly bastion of small government) and even the administrators of the poll itself were less than enthusiastic about the results. Rush Limbaugh's dismissal of the poll last year saying, "CPAC wasn't conservative this year because a libertarian won" seemed to echo among the establishment in attendance.
But what of the Tea Party movement? The countless speakers at CPAC almost unanimously touted the Tea Party as the vindication of conservatism itself, and as a mandate to address the out-of-control spending and restore adherence to the Constitution. Writes the Huffington Post:
But what of the Tea Party movement? The countless speakers at CPAC almost unanimously touted the Tea Party as the vindication of conservatism itself, and as a mandate to address the out-of-control spending and restore adherence to the Constitution. Writes the Huffington Post:
Not so long ago, the Republican Party and its conservative base weren't sure what to make of – or how to treat – the emerging rabble-rousing ranks of the latest political phenomenon.
No more. Everyone from House Speaker John Boehner to the decades-old Conservative Political Action Conference is embracing, if not celebrating, the libertarian-leaning activists who upended the Republican establishment and helped the GOP post huge congressional gains last fall.
Celebrating indeed.
But despite the apparent new-found devotion to the Constitution and 'limited government', the Republican Party continues to disregard and even insult the one man who was "Tea Party" before the Tea Party was cool.
Just a few weeks later, Austrian economist and Euro Pacific president Peter Schiff had Fox News contributor, (and former Bill Clinton aide) Dick Morris on his radio show to promote Morris' new book, Revolt!: How to defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs. But Morris wouldn't be on the air long, as Schiff began to look further into Morris' supposedly anti-socialist view of government.
Early in the interview Schiff asked Morris for his thoughts on the results of the CPAC straw poll and what was taking place philosophically within the Republican Party. The former Democrat leaves no doubt in saying, "I strongly oppose Ron Paul. I think he's 'horrific'." Morris elaborated on this by noting Paul's opposition to the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror" were clearly unacceptable in his mind. Though Morris admitted we were losing the "War on Drugs", he claimed it was because "we aren't fighting it" and that every high school student in America and student-loan recipient should be drug-tested. Clearly, Dick Morris wants smaller government.
As Schiff remarked upon the perpetual police-state his guest seemed to be in favor of and how student-loans themselves were a form of socialism and inevitably lead to higher tuition rates, Morris promptly hung up without bothering to comment.
The opinions of Dick Morris and much of the GOP establishment at CPAC are unfortunately the prevailing sentiments of many "conservative" Americans. While attending the event in D.C. last month, I came across some attendees at the "Reagan-palooza" party being held in honor of the Gipper's 100th birthday in a local bar. It didn't take long for many of the GOP faithful to grow sour in the presence of such "radical" notions as adhering to the entire Constitution.
As such encounters tend to go, myself and my colleagues were frequently dismissed as "isolationists" and "Anti-Israel", (though no one bothered to explain how desiring free trade and friendship with all nations was 'isolationist' or 'Anti-Israel') simply for stating the fact that neither war in Afghanistan or Iraq is constitutional, let alone in the best interests of maintaining our security, liberty and economic prosperity.
Perhaps the most perplexing comment of the evening came from a young man sitting on a bar stool next to mine who claimed, "This isn't the 1700's, the government has to do what's necessary to protect America." Over the course of a bourbon-infused hour, this self-proclaimed "conservative" had agreed with me and my friends on numerous issues such as the skyrocketing debt, the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare and the ever-increasing burdens of regulations and taxes on the private sector, (prior to him realizing we were supporters of Congressman Paul). It was not until we brought up the massive debt, unconstitutionality and burdensome taxation attributed to our foreign policy that he changed his tune.
I had a similar discussion this past weekend via Facebook in a conservative forum known as "ReFounders" in which a lady claimed she didn't dislike Ron Paul, only that she believed in "pragmatism" rather than "rigid principles". Much like the gentleman in the D.C. bar, she essentially believed the government must do what is "necessary", even if the Constitution doesn't permit it.
My question to both of them is this: How is that mentality and approach to government ANY different than that of Obama and the Democrats that so many "conservatives" claim to oppose? And to the lady's remarks in particular, if one sacrifices principle for the sake of "pragmatism", how does the principle survive?
But despite the apparent new-found devotion to the Constitution and 'limited government', the Republican Party continues to disregard and even insult the one man who was "Tea Party" before the Tea Party was cool.
Just a few weeks later, Austrian economist and Euro Pacific president Peter Schiff had Fox News contributor, (and former Bill Clinton aide) Dick Morris on his radio show to promote Morris' new book, Revolt!: How to defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs. But Morris wouldn't be on the air long, as Schiff began to look further into Morris' supposedly anti-socialist view of government.
Early in the interview Schiff asked Morris for his thoughts on the results of the CPAC straw poll and what was taking place philosophically within the Republican Party. The former Democrat leaves no doubt in saying, "I strongly oppose Ron Paul. I think he's 'horrific'." Morris elaborated on this by noting Paul's opposition to the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror" were clearly unacceptable in his mind. Though Morris admitted we were losing the "War on Drugs", he claimed it was because "we aren't fighting it" and that every high school student in America and student-loan recipient should be drug-tested. Clearly, Dick Morris wants smaller government.
As Schiff remarked upon the perpetual police-state his guest seemed to be in favor of and how student-loans themselves were a form of socialism and inevitably lead to higher tuition rates, Morris promptly hung up without bothering to comment.
The opinions of Dick Morris and much of the GOP establishment at CPAC are unfortunately the prevailing sentiments of many "conservative" Americans. While attending the event in D.C. last month, I came across some attendees at the "Reagan-palooza" party being held in honor of the Gipper's 100th birthday in a local bar. It didn't take long for many of the GOP faithful to grow sour in the presence of such "radical" notions as adhering to the entire Constitution.
As such encounters tend to go, myself and my colleagues were frequently dismissed as "isolationists" and "Anti-Israel", (though no one bothered to explain how desiring free trade and friendship with all nations was 'isolationist' or 'Anti-Israel') simply for stating the fact that neither war in Afghanistan or Iraq is constitutional, let alone in the best interests of maintaining our security, liberty and economic prosperity.
Perhaps the most perplexing comment of the evening came from a young man sitting on a bar stool next to mine who claimed, "This isn't the 1700's, the government has to do what's necessary to protect America." Over the course of a bourbon-infused hour, this self-proclaimed "conservative" had agreed with me and my friends on numerous issues such as the skyrocketing debt, the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare and the ever-increasing burdens of regulations and taxes on the private sector, (prior to him realizing we were supporters of Congressman Paul). It was not until we brought up the massive debt, unconstitutionality and burdensome taxation attributed to our foreign policy that he changed his tune.
I had a similar discussion this past weekend via Facebook in a conservative forum known as "ReFounders" in which a lady claimed she didn't dislike Ron Paul, only that she believed in "pragmatism" rather than "rigid principles". Much like the gentleman in the D.C. bar, she essentially believed the government must do what is "necessary", even if the Constitution doesn't permit it.
My question to both of them is this: How is that mentality and approach to government ANY different than that of Obama and the Democrats that so many "conservatives" claim to oppose? And to the lady's remarks in particular, if one sacrifices principle for the sake of "pragmatism", how does the principle survive?
For too long the grassroots “Right” has betrayed its limited government roots for the sake of pragmatism and bought into what was once considered a foolish argument among conservatives: that the State has our best interests at heart and must do whatever is needed. If Americans ever hope to reduce the size of government, they must first realize standing firm on principle is what is truly necessary.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The First Step to Recovery
While discussing the nature of politics in this country, the typical refrain heard throughout the populace is that nothing seems to ever change. From one election year to the next, regardless of which party wins, what rhetoric was used or which new crop of politicians are ushered into power, the role of government in our lives essentially never wavers from the usual script: the power of the state increases, the debt skyrockets, old wars are continued while new ones are planned and the liberties of the American citizen dwindle away.
Despite the numerous promises over the years by Republicans to limit government and reign in spending, and Democrats swearing to protect civil liberties and end no-win wars, both parties consistently fail to stay true to their campaign rhetoric. And yet we as citizens continue to buy into the "Go America" pep rally put on by the candidates and wonder why the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I once had a friend describe this endless cycle of changing parties and little to no change in policies as an "addiction"; an addiction to statism. What was once a genuine political spectrum in American political discourse offering varying and opposing ideas on the role of government has devolved into a fallacious, one-dimensional paradigm in which the options are a party of liars promising to limit government while expanding the state more than any administration since LBJ or the "opposing" party that openly admits to having little to no interest in protecting the liberties of individuals by defying an unprecedented grassroots movement throughout the nation and forcing through ObamaCare. Some freedom.
The intention of this blog is to bring to light and expose the lies and misdeeds of our wise overlords in an attempt to rehabilitate the "limited government" movement in America. And while there may not be a 12-step program to alleviate our withdrawals of state dependency, one thing is certain: The first step to recovery is admitting we have a problem.
Despite the numerous promises over the years by Republicans to limit government and reign in spending, and Democrats swearing to protect civil liberties and end no-win wars, both parties consistently fail to stay true to their campaign rhetoric. And yet we as citizens continue to buy into the "Go America" pep rally put on by the candidates and wonder why the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I once had a friend describe this endless cycle of changing parties and little to no change in policies as an "addiction"; an addiction to statism. What was once a genuine political spectrum in American political discourse offering varying and opposing ideas on the role of government has devolved into a fallacious, one-dimensional paradigm in which the options are a party of liars promising to limit government while expanding the state more than any administration since LBJ or the "opposing" party that openly admits to having little to no interest in protecting the liberties of individuals by defying an unprecedented grassroots movement throughout the nation and forcing through ObamaCare. Some freedom.
The intention of this blog is to bring to light and expose the lies and misdeeds of our wise overlords in an attempt to rehabilitate the "limited government" movement in America. And while there may not be a 12-step program to alleviate our withdrawals of state dependency, one thing is certain: The first step to recovery is admitting we have a problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)