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

/19 Comments/in , /by

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

/7 Comments/in , /by

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

/2 Comments/in , /by

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

/1 Comment/in , /by

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.

Obamacare’s Other Shoe: The Pentagon and Chuck Hagel

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you had buttonholed me in the Senate men’s room circa 2003 and told me that a decade hence Joe Biden would be America’s vice president, John Kerry secretary of state, and Chuck Hagel secretary of defense, I’d have laughed and waited for the punch line: The Leahy administration? President Lautenberg? Celebrate lack of diversity! But even in the republic’s descent into a Blowhardocracy staffed by a Zombie House of Lords, there are distinctions to be drawn. Senator Kerry having been reliably wrong on every foreign-policy issue of the last 40 years, it would seem likely that at this stage in his life he will be content merely to be in office, jetting hither and yon boring the pants off whichever presidents and prime ministers are foolish enough to grant him an audience. Beyond the photo-ops, the world will drift on toward the post-American era: Beijing will carry on gobbling up resources around the planet, Czar Putin will flex his moobs across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Arab Spring “democracies” will see impressive growth in the critical clitoridectomy sector of the economy, Iran will go nuclear, and John Kerry will go to black-tie banquets in Europe. But Chuck Hagel is a different kettle of senatorial huffenpuffer. And not because of what appears to be a certain antipathy toward Jews and gays. That would be awkward at the Tony Awards, but at the Arab League the post-summit locker-room schmoozing should be a breeze. Since his celebrated “evolution” on marriage last year, President Obama is famously partial to one of those constituencies, so presumably he didn’t nominate an obscure forgotten senator because of his fascinating insights into the appropriate level of “obviousness” the differently oriented should adopt. So why Hagel? Why now?

My comrade Jonah Goldberg says this nomination is a “petty pick” made by Obama “out of spite.” I’m not so sure. If the signature accomplishment of the president’s first term was Obamacare (I’m using “signature accomplishment” in the Washington sense of “ruinously expensive bureaucratic sinkhole”), what would he be looking to pull off in his second (aside from the repeal of the 22nd Amendment)? Hagel isn’t being nominated to the Department of Zionist and Homosexual Regulatory Oversight but to the Department of Defense. Which he calls “bloated.”

“The Pentagon,” he said a year ago, “needs to be pared down.” Unlike the current secretary, Leon Panetta, who’s strongly opposed to the mandated “sequestration” cuts to the defense budget, Hagel thinks they’re merely a good start.

That’s why Obama’s offered him the gig. Because Obamacare at home leads inevitably to Obamacuts abroad. In that sense, America will be doing no more than following the same glum trajectory of every other great power in the postwar era. I feel only a wee bit sheepish about quoting my book After America two weeks running, since it’s hardly my fault Obama’s using it as the operating manual for his second term (I may sue for breach of copyright and retire to Tahiti). At any rate, somewhere around Chapter Five, I suggest that, having succeeded Britain as the dominant power, America may follow the old country in decline, too:

“In what other ways might the mighty eagle emulate the tattered old lion? First comes reorientation, and the shrinking of the horizon. After empire, Britain turned inward: Between 1951 and 1997 the proportion of government expenditure on defense fell from 24 percent to seven, while the proportion on health and welfare rose from 22 percent to 53. And that’s before New Labour came along to widen the gap further.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama’s Zero-Sum Game and the Coming Redistribution Bubble

/4 Comments/in , /by

photo credit: rhett maxwell

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama stated to Joe the plumber that the primary goal of government should be income redistribution. And in reality, Obama has made great strides with regard to income redistribution, having enlarged the food stamp recipient list, for example.

At the heart of income redistribution rhetoric is a principle called the “zero-sum” theory. This theory assumes that the amount of money in the economy is fixed, and therefore, a wealthy person gains wealth only if another person loses it. The amounts are equal, thus the total is a “zero sum.” It is only by exploiting the working class, Obama believes, that the rich have unfairly become rich. The role of government, then, is to achieve a more “just” and “fair” distribution of wealth — a “re-distribution” of the fixed amount of wealth in the economy.

Since rich individuals will not part with their money voluntarily, the federal government, through its taxing authority, is the only institution equipped to achieve this goal. The zero-sum perspective then mandates that only the federal government, through taxation, can produce the desired zero-sum equality by applying standards of fairness. So those running for national office are most likely to place income redistribution in their platform.

The idea that the wealthiest individuals should pay their “fair share” has been repeatedly stated by the president — not just during campaigns, but all during his first term. But a review of the president’s actions, however, shows that the zero-sum theory cannot accurately describe what he has done.

The zero-sum perspective implies that a balance will result if the money is taken from the rich and given to the poor. The bottom-line number of the federal budget sheet, then, should be a zero: as the rich pay more in taxes, the poor will receive more money through federal programs. This would follow from a literal interpretation of the zero-sum theory.

Read more from this story HERE.

“The Old Guard Power Mongers of the Alaska GOP Will Stop At Nothing to Maintain Power”

/9 Comments/in , , /by

It appears that the old guard power mongers of the Alaska GOP will stop at nothing to maintain control of the organization. In a move to disregard the results of the 2012 convention, Chairman Ruedrich ally, Frank McQueary, has filed internal charges against Russ Millette, the legitimately elected party chair, and other Republican Party officials.

The charges, (you can see them in their entirety HERE) consist mainly of inflammatory rhetoric, distortions, and baseless allegations. In fact, no actual party rules are cited in the allegations.

The one allegation against Mr. Millette that may have a shred of validity is his failure to raise money for the party. However, this is easily mitigated by the fact that with men like Ruedrich, Clary, and McQueary controlling the money, there is serious concern for how any money deposited in party coffers will be used. In fact, since Ruedrich became chairman, the ARP has ceased conducting annual audits required by party rules.

Another accusation is that Mr. Millette only recently registered as a Republican. This is a distortion of the truth. In fact, Mr. Millette campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964. If that isn’t indicative of a life-long Republican, I don’t know what is. Many life-long Republicans have unregistered at points in their life due to the dissatisfaction that they have felt with party leadership. With behavior like the current efforts against Millette, who can blame them.

Moreover, the point of registration is moot as the ARP rules only require that a person be a registered Republican to hold office, they do not specify a requirement of ANY prior registration.

Allegations against others in McQueary’s complaint include being tied to Occupy Wall Street (OWS). This is a fabricated and irrelevant accusation designed to use emotion and detract from legitimate points.

Further, it is interesting that Mr. McQueary is the one bringing up these allegations. Mr. McQueary himself has a long history of violating and disregarding party rules. In 2010, he while chair of the rules committee, he opposed the Republican nominee, Joe Miller, and actively supported independent candidate Lisa Murkowski. A search of FEC records reveals that he donated funds to Murkowski, post-primary.

Mr. McQueary has also consistently abused his position to defend Ruedrich in prior attempts to remove Ruedrich from his post. Mr. McQueary failed to properly address a legitimate complaint filed with him in regards to the College Republicans being wrongly disenfranchised from representation on the SCC, in direct violation of the rules. Mr. McQueary further failed in to perform his duties by refusing to address charges filed against Mr. Ruedrich, charges that actually had merit under the rules.

Mr. McQueary’s obvious lack of integrity calls into question all charges brought by him. He is obviously acting as a crony to Mr. Ruedrich, and not in the best interests of Alaska Republicans.

This witch-hunt is clearly just an attempt by the Machiavellian Alaska GOP establishment to subvert the will of the 2012 convention delegates. In fact, nearly 70% of the convention delegates voted against Ruedrich’s pick, Bruce Shulte, voting for either Russ Millette, or fellow reform candidate, Judy Eledge. And I thought that Republic-an Party arose from the words Constitutional Republic, not Banana Republic.

_______________________________________

Sean Godfrey is the Assistant Director of Communications for the National Right to Work Committee and was a delegate to Alaska’s 2012 Republican State Convention.

American Tories: Attacking the Founders and the Constitution

/6 Comments/in , /by

Should we acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution is filled with “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions,” and “extricat[e] ourselves from constitutional bondage” by cashiering the document?

“As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken,” argues Louis Michael Seidman, tasked with teaching constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center . And the Constitution, he asserts, is largely to blame.

The Constitution, he writes, was adopted by a “group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation . . . and thought it was fine to own slaves.” The Framers acted illegally in drafting the Constitution because they exceeded their power. Moreover, “[n]o sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it.” And ignoring it is often a good thing: FDR did it for example, and so did the Supreme Court when it banned school segregation.

Besides, “much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions.” And while we should keep some parts of the Constitution—like regular elections and freedom of speech—the rest gets in the way of leaders who make considered judgments on the merits. We need to rely on other sources of legitimacy, he concludes, moving to an “unwritten constitution,” like that of Britain.

That such a judgment was rendered is less shocking than who rendered it. The judgment is not unique because there always have been American Tories—people who chafe at restraints on central power and would prefer a British-style government. In recent years, as political “progressives” have gradually lost the scholarly battle over constitutional interpretation, some have stopped pretending the Constitution means whatever they want it to, and have begun to trash the document itself. A controversial example was the Time Magazine cover essay of June 23, 2011. (See my response to that article here.)

But the source of the claim is more shocking, because it comes from one who has taught constitutional law for 40 years. And who should know better.

Did the Constitution cause our present “fiscal chaos?” Quite the contrary. The crisis has arisen not because we followed the Constitution, but because we have allowed federal officials to ignore it.

Read more from this story HERE.

Newt vs. Newt

/13 Comments/in , /by

This time I should’ve been the one listening.

But listening can be tough sometimes when you’re an analyst and a commentator, and people around the country – listeners, readers, media, candidates, causes, businesses, etc. – come to you to find out why things are happening and what may happen next. Analysis and commentary is one of the few things in life I’m really good at. My car expertise begins and ends with changing a tire. Any toy that comes with the phrase “some assembly required” my kids immediately take to my wife. And when that much-anticipated Zombie apocalypse finally happens I’m going to have to heavily rely upon my gun-toting “doomsday prepper” friends to survive.

But analysis and commentary I can do. It’s how I provide for my family, and since it puts food on my kids’ table regularly somebody must think I’m pretty decent at it. Yet this time I swung and missed.

I am 39-years old so a little young for the Reagan era. I wasn’t legally able to obtain a driver’s license yet when Reagan left office. Like many my age, my conservatism was actually honed by listening to Rush Limbaugh and cheering on Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution of 1994. In my era, Gingrich is a transformative figure. He’s still the only man alive to win a national election on conservative principles. He played a part in establishing much of the conservative infrastructure we take for granted nowadays. There are only two authors I ever sought autographed books from: Bo Schembechler and Gingrich.

Yet despite my fan boy crush, I am well aware of his peccadilloes. He’s on his third marriage. He lost the Speaker’s gavel because of a caucus revolt against his leadership. He inexcusably backed Dede Scozzafava. He rightly stood up against the TARP, and then reversed course and backed what I believe may be the most criminal legislation in American history. These are just some of the reasons why several people close to me told me I was making a mistake when I endorsed him for president during the 2012 primary.

Yet I pointed to the fact he is one of the few national figures in the GOP that has the wit and knowledge to effectively communicate what we believe in today’s short-attention-span-society, which I believe is very important to our movement going forward. He was the only candidate last year that was really speaking to what I believe is the biggest threat to liberty and morality in America—judicial supremacy (which is really the judicial oligarchy Jefferson warned us about). And I was also impressed with the way Gingrich was willing to speak openly about his past moral transgressions, including one very blunt joint appearance on my radio show with Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. As a Christian I’m a sucker for a good redemption story.

However, there’s a reason I have often compared Gingrich to King David in the Bible, beyond the marriage infidelity both have in common. Both were also extraordinarily God-gifted leaders whose legacies were tarnished by their slack of self-discipline. Both were often at their best when pursuing power and at their worse once they obtained it.

While on vacation I was reminded of that comparison when I saw Gingrich say that Republicans should accept the destruction of marriage as “inevitable.” As a historian Gingrich should know better. He should know that marriage and free market economics are the essential societal bedrock components of western civilization, without which liberty isn’t possible. I know firsthand he should know that, because he has communicated right to my face that he does.

In a letter to The Family Leader just 13 months ago, Gingrich said:

As president I will vigorously enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. I will aggressively defend the constitutionality of DOMA in state and federal courts. I will support a federal constitutional amendment (defending marriage). I will oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to redefine marriage.

So which is it, Newt? Do you want to defend marriage or not? Those words do not read like someone who thought destroying marriage was “inevitable?” Did you mean them?

For the past week Gingrich has been rightly urging conservatives to fight the fiscal cliff tax increase. Maybe Gingrich should be urging us to surrender instead, being that our slide towards bankrupt statism seems “inevitable” after all. As a father with three small children at home, I’m looking for leaders who will fight to stop our “inevitable” destruction as a free republic, not come to grips with it. Especially on an issue like marriage, that is 31-4 (89%) at the ballot box.

Gingrich was arguably the most gifted political figure of his era. He could’ve been an American Churchill. Check that, he should have been. Despite all that he has accomplished (which I’m thankful for) his legacy still includes a waste of potential. He could’ve led us out of the wilderness. Instead we’re still circling the mountain (or the drain).

Several of you warned me about this, which is why despite his obvious gifts Gingrich failed not once but twice to coalesce conservatives when he was the presidential frontrunner. Some of you were once bitten and twice shy. Now I get it.

I still have a soft spot for Newt, and he’s still one of the few politicians I’ve met whose intellect I actually respect. But that’s not enough to believe he should hold the highest office of this land. If someone won’t defend marriage, the oldest institution in God’s created order, then what can you count on them to defend when it’s hard?

Those of you that warned me were right. I was wrong. This time I should’ve listened to your analysis.

________________________________________________________________

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

Defying the Obama Administration on Religious Liberty

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hobby Lobby gained national attention when its leadership announced they would not bow to the Obama Administration’s violation of their religious liberty. Thousands of Americans pledged to shop at the retailer over the weekend to show their appreciation for this stand—a stand that could cost the company up to $1.3 million in fines per day.

Like many other companies, Hobby Lobby’s health insurance plan renewed on January 1, causing them to be subject to the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate under Obamacare. This mandate forces employers to pay for coverage of abortion-inducing drugs like the “morning after” and “week after” pills, which directly violates many Americans’ deeply held beliefs—including Hobby Lobby’s owners, the Green family. The Greens, who founded the company, close all its locations on Sundays and seek to operate in accordance with Christian principles—including offering an employee health care plan that aligns with those values.

The Obama Administration’s outrageous position is that business owners’ rights to religious freedom end when they walk into their workplaces, claiming that “for-profit, secular employers generally do not engage in any exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment.”

If employers don’t change their health plans to comply, they will be hit with fines—up to $100 per employee per day. But if they stop providing health coverage, Obamacare’s double whammy means that, come 2014, employers with more than 50 employees could instead be hit with fines for that.

Thirteen for-profit companies have received rulings touching on the merits of their cases from the courts so far. Ten have secured relief—though temporary—from having the mandate enforced against them. Three companies have been denied relief: Hobby Lobby, Autocam Corp., and Grote Industries.

Read more from this article HERE.