False Fiscal Conservatives And Budget Crisis Realism

Dear Socially Liberal Fiscal-Conservative Friend,

That’s pretty toothy, so I’m going to call you “Bob.” But whatever specific name you go by, Bob, you know who you are. You’re the sort of person who says to his conservative friends or co-workers something like, “I would totally vote for Republicans if they could just give up on these crazy social issues.”

When you explain your votes for Barack Obama, you talk about how Republicans used to be much more moderate and focused on important things such as low taxes, fiscal discipline, and balanced budgets.

When Colin Powell was on Meet the Press the other day, you nodded along as he lamented how the GOP has lost its way since the days when it was all about fiscal responsibility.

And, Bob, you think Republicans are acting crazy-pants on the debt ceiling. You don’t really follow all of the details, but you can just tell that the GOP is being “extreme,” thanks to those wacky tea partiers.

Read more from this story HERE.

Trillion-Dollar-Coin Fever

I was out of the country for a few days and news from this great republic reached me only fitfully. I have learned to be wary of foreign reporting of U.S. events, since America can come off sounding faintly deranged. Much of what reached me didn’t sound entirely plausible: Did the entire U.S. media really fall for the imaginary dead girlfriend of a star football player? Did the president of the United States really announce 23 executive orders by reading out the policy views of carefully pre-screened grade-schoolers (“I want everybody to be happy and safe”)? Clearly, these vicious rumors were merely planted in the foreign press to make the United States appear ridiculous.

And indeed, upon my return, it seemed to be business as usual. ABC News revealed that in 2007 President Bush’s secretary of the interior — oh, come on, it’s on the citizenship test: “Name a secretary of the interior. Any secretary of the interior.” Anyway, ABC revealed that Bush’s secretary of the interior spent 220,000 taxpayer dollars remodeling his (or her, as the case may be) office bathroom. Who knew the gig was really secretary of the interior design? I’ll bet the guy who made Saddam’s solid-gold toilets was delighted to get a new customer. But what can be done? If we changed the name to secretary of the exterior, he’d have blown a quarter-million on a new outhouse.

Meanwhile, hot from the fiscal-cliff fiasco, the media are already eagerly anticipating the next in the series of monthly capitulations by Republicans, this time on the debt ceiling. While I was abroad, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, a Harvard professor of constitutional law, a prominent congressman, and various other American eminencies apparently had a sober and serious discussion on whether the United States Treasury could circumvent the debt constraints by minting a trillion-dollar platinum coin. Although Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider called the trillion-dollar coin “the most important fiscal policy debate you’ll ever see in your life,” most Democrat pundits appeared to favor the idea for the more straightforward joy it affords in sticking it to the House Republicans. No more tedious whining about spending from GOP congressmen. Next time Paul Ryan shows up in committee demanding to know about deficit-reduction plans, all the treasury secretary has to do is pull out a handful of trillion-dollar coins from down the back of the sofa and tell him to keep the change.

The trillion-dollar-groat fever rang a vague bell with me. Way back in 1893, Mark Twain wrote a short story called “The Million Pound Bank Note,” which in the Fifties Ronald Neame made into a rather droll film. A penniless American down and out in London (Gregory Peck) is presented by two eccentric Englishmen (Ronald Squire and Wilfrid Hyde-White) with a million-pound note which they have persuaded the Bank of England to print in order to settle a wager. One of the English chaps believes that simple possession of the note will allow the destitute Yank to live the high life without ever having to spend a shilling. And so it proves. He goes to the pub for lunch, offers the note, and the innkeeper explains that he’s unable to make change for a million pounds, but is honored to feed him anyway. He then goes to be fitted for a suit, and again the tailor regrets that he can’t provide change for a million pounds but delightedly measures him for dress suits, silk shirts, and all the rest. I always liked the line Mark Twain’s protagonist uses on a duke’s niece he’s sweet on: He tells her “I hadn’t a cent in the world but just the million pound note.”

That’s Paul Krugman’s solution for America as it prepares to bust through another laughably named “debt limit”: We’d be a nation that hasn’t a cent in the world but just a trillion-dollar coin — and what more do we need? As with Gregory Peck in the movie, the mere fact of the coin’s existence would ensure we could go on living large. Indeed, aside from inflating a million quid to a trillion bucks, Professor Krugman’s proposal economically prunes the sprawling cast of the film down to an off-Broadway one-man show with Uncle Sam playing every part: A penniless Yank (Uncle Sam) runs into a wealthy benefactor (Uncle Sam) who has persuaded the banking authorities (Uncle Sam) to mint a trillion-dollar coin that will allow Uncle Sam (played by Uncle Sam) to extend an unending line of credit to Uncle Sam (also played by Uncle Sam).

Read more from this story HERE.

Gun Solutions, Not Gun Control: Gun Free Zones Should be Liable For Murders

Most of the mass shootings lately have happened in self proclaimed gun free zones. They have been a drawing card for deranged killers who want to make sure they can fire into defenseless people without the worry of having fire returned.

Time and again these gun free zones have been targeted and time and again, people are bewildered why it happens. But the answer is simple; these advertised gun free zones invite attack.

Politicians simplistic solution is to put tighter restrictions on law abiding citizens, thinking if they make it harder to obtain a certain type of firearm, it will make the senseless shootings stop. It won’t.

But perhaps it’s time to assign responsibility to those who think they can proclaim an area a gun free zone with a sign or a proclamation, but don’t provide protection for the people that frequent those locations.

Airports and commercial aircraft are “gun free zones.” You can be pretty much assured that these gun free zones offer you protection by strict security screening of those they allow in and plenty of armed security on the premises to quell any violence that may occur.

Government buildings in Washington DC are “gun free zones.” There is armed security everywhere, seen and unseen, to protect the precious ruling class.

In the self proclaimed, utopian, “gun free” zones set up all over America, law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry firearms. For that trade off, shouldn’t patrons, students, and employees expect tight security? If these entities are going to require law abiding citizens to be helpless, whether it is a movie theater, shopping mall, school or office building, don’t they owe their clientele the utmost security that can be provided?

The stark reality of this truth came through loud and clear when James O’Keefe, of undercover video fame, targeted journalists, many of whom were involved in the public outing of gun owners in their community. See O’Keefe’s hilarious video

O’Keefe’s group, “Project Veritas” poses as “Citizens Against Senseless Violence,” and visits the homes of journalists working for Westchester Journal News, MSNBC, and the Star-Ledger. They also visit the home of Eric Holder. Hypocritically, none will take the signs that say “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE.”

Even the rabid anti gun members of the left leaning media know that proclaiming you are a gun free zone, announces to the world you are easy pickings. Perhaps it’s time for the litigation industry to pick up on this fact when they seek damages for the death and injury gun free zones have triggered.

___________________________________________

Ed Farnan is the conservative columnist at IrishCentral, where he has been writing on the need for energy independence, strong self defense, secure borders, 2nd amendment, smaller government and many other issues. His articles appear in many publications throughout the USA and world. He has been a guest on Fox News and a regular guest on radio stations in the US and Europe.

Alaska’s RINO’s Fail to Remove Liberty-Minded Chair-Elect; Kangaroo Court to Reconvene February 1

Alaska’s Republican Party (ARP) leadership failed in its attempt last night to remove Chair-elect Russ Millette, a constitutional conservative, as well as vice-chair elect Debbie Brown, from the ARP.

Their efforts fell flat after a motion by Fairbanksan Ralph Seekins to allow Russ Millette a continuance so that he would have time to prepare a defense to the charges raised by leftist ARP Rules Chair and Ruedrich confidant, Frank McQueary.

The charges against Debbie Brown were raised by chairman Ruedrich himself, alleging financial improprieties. The fact that the charges were raised by a chairman who apparently not only transferred tens of thousands of ARP dollars to the Murkowski-supporting Juneau Capitol Hill club without proper authorization just a few weeks ago, but who also seems responsible for a significant FEC fine for financial improprieties related to VECO has many within the party scratching their heads.

It also is shocking that this same chairman was reportedly entrusted with hundreds of thousands of dollars for Joe Miller’s direct mail campaign in 2010 but who has refused to disclose the database evidencing that he actually spent the money for Joe Miller instead of Lisa Murkowski, as suspected by some party members.

To make matters worse, the inquisitors had the gall to confront Millette on who he supported for president in 2012 – despite the fact that the very people asking the questions failed to support Republican-nominee Joe Miller in the 2010 US Senate race. The fact that none of the Alaska press in attendance reported on this extreme hypocrisy reflects that little has changed since their efforts in 2010 to sink the anti-establishment candidate with false stories.

Russ Millette commented after the kangaroo court that McQueary had “brought up charges that he’d never seen before.” He stated that the “whole thing, the charges, were totally bogus.” Millette also noted that “most of the minds [on the ARP executive committee] seemed made up.”

Millette was amazed at the effort to remove him, suggesting that the effort by party-insiders to keep RINO’s in charge of the party would devastate its cohesion. If he were allowed to take office, Millette claimed that he would “unite [and] bring the party together.”

During the hearing last night, he was supported by a number of conservatives who waved signs outside of the ARP headquarters in Anchorage:

Stay tuned for the continuance of Ruedrich’s efforts to unseat his successor on February 1.

GOP Knows What to do on Guns, But Doesn’t Have the Backbone

In the wake of the Connecticut school shooting, there is a desire to do something to try to prevent similar types of incidents from occurring again. The liberals understand this, and have run with it. They have run in the direction that feels good, but has no proof of effectiveness. Conservatives have the solution that has been proven everywhere it has been tried, yet are silent on this issue. Rather than Republicans answering questions about bad Democratic ideas, the President should be answering questions about Republican legislative proposals. Where is the proposal from a republican to allow for concealed carry rights throughout the country? This has helped reduce gun violence everywhere it has been tried, and could be administered by each state. With one proposal the conversation could be changed from what feels good to what works.

There are now 39 states that have concealed carry laws (where you can receive a concealed weapon permit if you meet certain criteria). This is up from 9 states that had these laws in 1986, and has been pointed to as being instrumental in the drop in gun violence in these states. The recent shootings in CT and Colorado were cases where concealed carry guns were not allowed. In the case of Sandy Hook school, it is not allowed in the entire state. In the case of the Colorado movie theater, there is concealed carry allowed in Colorado, but specifically not allowed in that particular theater. Imagine if the 5-10% of the population who typically carry guns when permitted, had them in that Colorado theater that night, or in the Sandy Hook school that day. How many lives might have been saved? Concealed carry should be part of the national debate on guns.

In 2008 some of the strictest gun control laws were lifted in Chicago and Washington DC. According to the conventional wisdom in the media, this was supposed to lead to the “wild west”. Instead gun crime and murder rates have plummeted in both cities. The fact that you have heard nothing from the media in terms of the removal of these gun control laws, is all that you need to know. If there was a case to be made that the elimination of gun control led to more crime, rather than hearing crickets, it would be force fed to us daily in the anti-gun media! This is typically what happens when these laws are removed or concealed carry is implemented. John Lott has been a leading light on this issue started with his book, “More Guns, Less Crime”.

Right now all we hear from Democrats and the media is which guns we can eliminate, or what restrictions we can put on the law abiding citizenry. Even gun advocates are taking a narrow, elitist view with the idea of one armed guard in each school. Where are the voices advocating more freedom to defend ourselves from horrific crimes such as these? With over 200 million guns currently in the US, we already know the bad guys can get them. Let’s let the good guys to have them as well.
______________________________________
Michael Porfido is relatively new to the writing ranks. He has been an editor and contributor at the website www.freemarketsfreepeople.net for the past 1 ½ years. He has over 20 years of diverse business experience from running complex operations where he managed hundreds of people, to starting and running small businesses such as www.realinterestfund.com. He is blessed, or perhaps cursed, with a logical mind which he uses to analyze government, media, politics, and culture. He believes that his life experiences help him bring a unique perspective to the issues of the day.

The War Between the Amendments

The horrific Newtown, Conn., mass shooting has unleashed a frenzy to pass new gun-control legislation. But the war over restricting firearms is not just between liberals and conservatives, it also pits the first two amendments to the U.S. Constitution against each other.

Apparently, in the sequential thinking of James Madison and the Founding Fathers, the right to free expression and the guarantee to own arms were the two most important personal liberties. But now these two cherished rights seem to be at odds with each other and have caused bitter exchanges between interpreters of the Constitution.

Many liberals believe there is no need to own semiautomatic assault rifles, magazines that hold more than ten bullets, or even semi-automatic handguns. They argue that hunters and sportsmen don’t need such rapid-firing guns to kill their game — and that slower-firing revolvers and pump- or bolt-action rifles are sufficient for home protection.

Implicit in the liberal argument for tighter gun control is the belief that the ability to rapidly fire off lots of bullets empowers — or indeed encourages — mass murderers to butcher the innocent.

Most conservatives offer rebuttals to all those points. Criminals will always break almost any law they choose. Connecticut, for example, has among the tightest gun-control laws in the nation. A murderer can pop in three ten-bullet clips in succession and still spray his targets almost as effectively as a shooter with a single 30-bullet magazine. Like a knife or bomb, a gun is a tool, and the human who misuses it is the only guilty party. An armed school guard might do more to stop a mass shooting on campus than a law outlawing the shooter’s preferred weapon or magazine.

Read more from this story HERE.

Prop-a-palooza: The Use and Abuse of Kiddie Human Shields

photo credit: usembassynewdelhi

The president of the United States will release a binder full of new gun-control executive orders on Wednesday. Instead of standing alone, bearing full responsibility for the imperial actions he is about to take, President Obama will surround himself with an audience of kids who wrote to him after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. This is the most cynical in Beltway theatrical staging — a feckless attempt to invoke “For the Children” immunity by hiding behind them.

What has happened to the deliberative process in this country? Public debate in Washington has deteriorated into Sesame Street sing-a-longs. We are already inundated with logical fallacies: argumentum ad populum (it’s popular, therefore it’s true); argumentum ad nauseam (if you repeat it often enough, it’ll become truth); argumentum ad hominem (sabotage the person, sabotage the truth); and argumentum ad verecundiam (if my favorite authority says it’s true, it’s true).

To that list we can now add “argumentum ad filium”: If politicians appeal to the children, it’s unassailably good and true. The Obama White House has shamelessly employed this kiddie human shield strategy at every turn to blunt substantive criticism and dissent.

During the legislative battle that rammed the federal health care takeover through Capitol Hill and down our throats, President Obama and the Democrats piled up youth props around them like bunker sandbags. Nancy Pelosi wore babies like Wonder Woman bracelets, one on each arm, to deflect troublesome questions about costs and constitutional concerns.

Obamacare stage managers paraded 11-year-old Marcelas Owens of Washington state in front of the cameras to make the case for the half-trillion-dollar tax hike plan. The boy’s “qualifications”? Owens’ mother, Tiffany, had died of pulmonary hypertension at the age of 27. A single mother of three, she lost her job as a fast-food manager and lost her insurance. She received emergency care and treatment throughout her illness, but died in 2007.

Read more from this story HERE.

Rallying the Right

Following the defeat of 2012, it seems as if everyone – yours truly included – has an opinion about where the conservative movement goes from here. But right now presents an excellent opportunity to rally the Right again.

Following the fiscal cliff fiasco, the next big battle inside the beltway will be the debt ceiling in March. Some Republicans who caved on the fiscal cliff are already talking tough. Take Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, for example. After voting for the largest tax increase in 20 years, Toomey is one of several Republicans now saying the debt ceiling showdown may require a government shutdown if Democrats insist on more tax increases.

So with some key Republicans already throwing down the gauntlet now is the time for the conservative movement to re-assert itself. The time for the licking of wounds has past. The time for leadership has arrived. We’re at our best when we let our principles lead the way. The two times I can remember the right-of-center coalition of evangelicals, conservative Catholics, libertarians, and the pro-growth/limited taxation crowd being truly unified since the 2004 election were the 2010 midterm elections and Scott Walker’s recall in Wisconsin last year.

Why?

Because those elections were clearly about principles, and principles unite us. Unlike Democrats who join that party out of identity politics, we become Republicans because of principles like the ones found in the party platform.

And the Republican Party platform is clear about two things: the rule of law has the obligation to protect the God-given right to life, and the government big enough to give you everything you need is large enough to take away everything you have. We have been struggling for a message that puts both of these principles into practice simultaneously. One that bypasses the in-fighting plaguing our movement for years now, and mobilizes and energizes our grassroots to go on offense. The debt ceiling showdown provides us that opportunity.

Planned Parenthood received more than $542 million from the government last year, which means an astounding 45% of its revenue came from the American taxpayer. Every one of us would agree that is simply inexcusable. Some of us may believe that based simply on the sanctity of life, given that Planned Parenthood is one of the leading child killers in America. Some of us may believe that’s simply a terrible waste of the people’s money at a time we’re flat broke and a symbol of our misplaced priorities. Both of us recognize Planned Parenthood is one of the Left’s major political fundraisers. Regardless of the premise we all come to the same conclusion.

Thus, now is the time for all of us to use this issue as a catalyst that unifies our various factions behind a shared principle—absolutely no increase in the debt ceiling should even be considered until all money for the child killing industry is removed from the budget.

If we’re going to consider these things “private moral matters” then it is intolerable to ask the taxpayer to subsidize it, especially at a time when we’re flat broke and taxes are going up on everybody. If we wouldn’t ask the taxpayers to buy your next shot of tequila, jolt of trans-fats, or drag from a cigarette then we shouldn’t ask them to buy your next condom or abortion. If someone wants to get their freak on, they can buy their own birth control pills or dental dams.

This week on my radio show Dr. Thomas Woods, one of the most respected libertarian thinkers in the country, agreed with me. “Even if you’re a pro-abortion libertarian you don’t believe the taxpayer should be funding it,” Woods said.

If we cannot get Republicans to hold the line on this at this crucial time in our history, then there really is no point to having a Republican Party (or at the very least to having these Republicans). If the conservative movement isn’t willing to take the lead in forcing their hand, then there really is no point to our movement other than selling books and syndicating radio shows like my own. This is an easy first step to re-unify for the much bigger and longer battles that await us to return to constitutional government.

Concern over the growth of government, and the resulting loss of personal freedom, is what gave birth to the modern conservative movement. Concern about the sanctity of life is what swelled the ranks of the movement with Catholics who were once predominantly Democrats and evangelicals who previously didn’t even vote en masse. Regardless of which of those issues most trips your trigger, we cannot take back control of the Republican Party without each of them working in concert. And the Republican Party is worthless if we don’t wrestle away control from the cynical, feckless, and ineffective party establishment.

But we need a message to unify and mobilize us that is based on shared principles. This message does that. It allows us to walk and chew gum at the same time. Instead of both sides fighting each other for control of the movement, we unite a movement around a shared principle to fight the real enemies to liberty and morality. We are better together. We cannot win if we’re not united. But calls for unity for unity’s sake fall on deaf ears. We must lead on genuine principle to create genuine unity.

We must rally the right for such a time as this, and this is the simple yet principled message to do it. Either we hang together or we will all hang alone. If we can’t hang together on this one, then I’m not sure where we can.
________________________________________________________________

You can friend “Steve Deace” on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.

Groundhog Day for Immigration

photo credit: gage skidmore

The Wall Street Journal profile on Rubio’s amnesty plan makes me want to take piano lessons or learn ice sculpture — because it’s Groundhog Day for immigration policy, and it’s like yesterday never happened.

I don’t mean that politicians should necessarily be chastened by past defeats. There are no lost causes and no gained causes in a democracy (or not many, anyway), and if the side that was defeated by the bipartisan surge of public anger in 2007 wants to try a comeback, that’s the way the game is played.

But the specific policies Ned Ryerson Rubio is selling are just the same old, same old: “earned” amnesty for illegal aliens plus de facto unlimited immigration, in exchange for promises to some day implement E-Verify and build more fencing.

Even worse, what makes me want to throw a toaster into the bath tub is the utter lack of awareness that nothing Rubio’s saying is even remotely novel. Either he or the writer, Matthew Kaminski, or both, don’t seem to realize we’re hearing I Got You, Babe all over again. Rubio’s plan is described as one that “charges up the middle,” between “the liberal fringe that seeks broad amnesty for illegal immigrants and the hard right’s obsession with closing the door” — as though any element of Rubio’s proposal would be a deal breaker for the left.

Read more from this article HERE.

The Tyranny of Solutions

Sinclair Lewis was so 20th Century.

Progressives have effectively burnt the cross and the flag already. Thus, old-style patriotism and religiosity can’t even win elections in heartland states- just ask Senators Akin and Mourdoch.

No, that’s not where the threat festers. When tyranny comes to America, it will be advanced by earnest public officials, enforcing intrusive rules declared necessary to stamp out social problems and purify us of bad consumer choices. The oppression generally will be applauded by elites and educated people. Whether or not it prevails and becomes the new normal depends on the rest of us, our outrage, and the effectiveness and staying power of our response.

But, those folks who are anxiously monitoring Washington and a president who ill-conceals that, to him, the Constitution presents more of an obstacle than a genius bulwark for freedom, might be missing an important point. Yes, Washington is out of control. For liberty to prevail, it must be confronted, restrained, and redirected. But, so too, our local authorities and institutions can trample our liberties, our privacy, and our domestic tranquility.

Law students learn an aphorism about the development of law: Hard cases make bad law. An incident or two last year in my home state of Colorado illustrate the point: hard circumstances invite bad decisions and establish bad precedents. Citizens can be almost powerless to respond.

Read more from this story HERE.