Picking Fights Republicans Can Win: An Alternative to Debt Ceiling Showdown

/1 Comment/in , /by

Watching the news media this weekend start the process of setting up Republicans for another losing fight has been depressing.

Congressional Republicans seem to be moving toward three decisions that are profoundly wrong.

Just listening this weekend some Republican leaders seem to be saying: They will fight over the debt ceiling; They are urging President Barack Obama to lead; They have come out of one failed cycle of secret negotiations with the White House and seem eager to start right back in on a new cycle of negotiations.

All three are demonstrably wrong.

The debt ceiling is a terrible place to fight when there is a Sequester bill and a Continuing Resolution available.

Read more from this article HERE.

The Blind Sheik and Our Mute President

/2 Comments/in , /by

photo credit: puuikibeach

Egypt’s terror-coddling president, Mohamed Morsi, has repeated his arrogant demand that America free convicted 1993 World Trade Center mastermind Omar Abdel Rahman. I’d like to report that President Obama repeated his unequivocal rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood leader’s entreaties. But as of this writing, no such public statement or restatement yet exists.

That’s right. Obama has kept mum about Morsi’s vociferous lobbying on behalf of Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik,” who is serving a life sentence at a maximum-security prison in North Carolina for seditious jihad conspiracy. The commander-in-chief’s silence speaks volumes.

Morsi started publicly haranguing the U.S. to have mercy on the ol’ blind sheik back in September. Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.) confirmed to the New York Post at the time that the Egyptian government had “asked for his release” and that the Obama administration was considering the request.

Underlings denied any talks were underway, but pressure on the White House had been building since at least last June, when the State Department granted a visa to a member of the radical Egyptian terrorist group Gamaa Islamiyya (the very group the blind sheik is alleged to lead). The Gamaa Islamiyya representative joined an entire delegation of Egyptian lawmakers who met with top State Department and White House officials. They reportedly discussed the possible release of the blind sheik with at least one Obama national-security official.

In late August, Gamaa Islamiyya scheduled and organized a protest at the Cairo embassy to further ratchet up public pressure to free the blind sheik. Not coincidentally, a terror mob attacked the Cairo embassy on 9/11/12. While Obama minions were busy blaming an obscure YouTube video, the Department of Homeland Security had warned two days before the Cairo attack that jihadists were inciting the “sons of Egypt” to attack the embassy over Abdel Rahman. “Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released,” the incitement thundered.

Read more from this article HERE.

The New Liberal Aristocracy

/5 Comments/in , /by

‘Limousine liberal’ is an old American term used against those who inherited lots of money and then became “traitors to their class” by embracing populist politics.

The Roosevelts and Kennedys enjoyed the high life quite apart from the multitude that they championed. And they were exempt, by virtue of their inherited riches and armies of accountants and attorneys, from the higher taxes they advocated for others. Few worried about how their original fortunes were made long ago, or that as lifelong government officials they had their needs met by the state. Most were relieved instead that as very rich people they wanted less rich people to pay their fair share to help the poor.

But the new liberal aristocracy is far less discreet than the old. Most are self-made multimillionaires who acquired their money through government service, finance, law, investment, or marriage. If the old-money liberals lived it up tastefully within their walled family compounds, the new liberal aristocrats are unashamed about living openly in a manner quite at odds with their professed populist ideology.

Take former vice president Al Gore. He has made a fortune of nearly a billion dollars warning against global warming — supposedly shrinking glaciers, declining polar-bear populations, and the like — while simultaneously offering timely remedies from his own green corporations, all reminiscent of the methodology of Roman millionaire Marcus Licinius Crassus, who profited from fires and putting them out. Now Nobel laureate Gore has sold his interest in a failing cable-television station for about $100 million — and to the anti-American Al-Jazeera, which is owned by the fossil-fuel-rich royal family of Qatar. Gore rushed to close the deal before the first of the year to avoid the very capital-gains tax hikes that he has advocated for others less well off. That’s a liberal trifecta: enhancing a fossil-fuel consortium, attempting to beat tax hikes, and empowering an anti-American and anti-Semitic media conglomerate run by an authoritarian despot — all from a former vice president of the United States who crusades for ending our reliance on fossil fuels and for raising taxes on the wealthy.

Class warrior Barack Obama spent his winter break in a ritzy rental on a Hawaiian beach. It cost the taxpayers $7 (or is it $20?) million to jet him and his entourage 6,000 miles for their tropical vacation. But whether the first family escapes to Hawaii or Martha’s Vineyard or Costa del Sol, the image of a 1 percent lifestyle seems a bit at odds with the president’s professed disdain for “millionaires and billionaires,” “fat cats,” and “corporate-jet owners” who supposedly can afford such tony retreats only because they have done something suspect. The media used to ridicule grandees like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for wearing cowboy hats and wasting precious presidential time chopping wood or chain-sawing dry underbrush on their respective overgrown ranches. But for liberal class warriors, golfing and body surfing in the tropical Pacific while staying at a zillionaire’s estate become needed downtime to prepare for the looming battle against 1 percenters. One wonders about the conversation between the Obamas and their landlord. “We will stay here, but only on the condition that you remember that you didn’t build it”?

Read more from this story HERE.

Exposing the Preposterous Theory That Obama Can Raise Debt Ceiling Without Congressional Consent

/4 Comments/in , /by

The debt ceiling is the last leverage that Republicans have to prevent out-of-control Federal spending and on various policy issues. Liberals know this: even as Senate Democrats talk of ending the right of Republicans to filibuster, liberals are seeking to defang the Republican House of Representatives as well. They are also now peddling a new theme that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional under Section 4 of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, President Obama may simply ignore the debt ceiling.

The looming debt ceiling fight could allow Republicans to soundly defeat Obama’s overspending. In the “fiscal cliff” deal, Republicans succeeded by making most of the temporary Bush tax cuts permanent, but failed to get spending cuts. Yet now, Republicans could use the debt ceiling vote to slash spending. The overall result could be serious deficit reduction at lower permanent tax rates. But this requires Republicans to stand united and refuse to raise the debt ceiling.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment requires: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned.” Liberals argue that if Congress has authorized spending, this automatically gives the president the power and even the obligation to borrow whatever it takes to spend all the money for which Congress voted. When Congress votes to spend money, this includes the obligation of the chief executive to take whatever actions are necessary to pay the debts of the United States Government. That is because “the validity of the public debt” … “shall not be questioned.” Thus, any debt ceiling law violates Section 4, they argue.

Suddenly the appeal for Washington to abandon the U.S. Constitution from Georgetown Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman in the New York Times makes sense. Seidman’s pitch on December 30 that the Constitution is obsolete and unnecessary is not likely to be accepted in full. But Seidman argues that it is more important to do whatever is convenient for the moment than to be bound by the U.S. Constitution. To the liberal elites and the low-information voters, this helps prepare the debate for Obama ignoring the law “to get things done.”

Barack Obama appears to have landed on this theory with both feet. On January 1, 2013, President Obama commented:

Let me repeat, you can’t not pay bills that we have already incurred. If Congress refuses to the United States government the ability to pay these bills on-time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic-far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff.

And:

I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills, they have already racked up through the laws they have passed.

Republicans need to be ready with a response. Like all liberal views of the Constitution, the theory seems to make sense at first, but after a little thought is revealed to be preposterous. But Obama could build up the momentum to get away with it unless Republicans act swiftly to expose the scheme.

First, Section 4 refers to public debt “authorized by law.” Debts that exceed the debt ceiling are not “authorized by law.” Period.

Second, the debt ceiling enacted by Congressional power under Section 5 modifies Section 4. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment provides: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” So when Congress enacted the debt ceiling, it changed whatever effect Section 4 might have here.

Third, a promise to make a gift in the future is not a debt. Planning to donate money to someone at some future time is not legally binding in the sense of establishing a “debt.” Even planning to build a bridge or highway in the future is not a debt until a contract is officially signed. Even a signed contract can often be cancelled according to its own terms, especially before the work is started. Promising price supports for wheat farmers in future years is not a debt if it is cancelled long before that year’s crop is even planted.

Fourth, the liberal theory involves borrowing new debt. Clearly, Section 4 does not empower the Executive Branch to borrow any more money or incur any new debt. It refers to the validity of already-existing debt.

It will be said that if the government owes a debt to a vendor, contractor or employee then the president must pay that debt to impatient creditors even if that requires borrowing money from more patient lenders. So they would swap debt for debt under Section 4. This is a strained and forced misinterpretation.

Fifth, the theory twists the 14th Amendment:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Reading Section 4 as a whole, it is clear that it refers to the debts incurred in fighting the Civil War. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were enacted after the Civil War to settle many of its issues. Reading the entire Section it is clear that it does not empower a president to borrow money.

Section 4 presents a contrast between debts incurred by the Confederate States in fighting against the United States with debts of the United States. The contrast clarifies what Section 4 is about. The United States is not going to pay for the war fought against it. But this does not authorize new debt.

Sixth, the liberal argument hangs on confusing “confidence” with “validity.” They argue that if lender confidence is shaken, then the “validty” of public debt has been “questioned.” Section 4 contrasts debts that will never get paid, because they are illegal and void, from those legally valid. It says nothing about when debts will get paid or how happy lenders may feel. Ironically, the liberal argument would mean that the downgrading of the nation’s credit rating in 2011 violated Section 4, if impairing faith in the government’s creditworthiness violates Section 4.

The real question is whether any State Attorney General or prosecutor or Federal judge will have the guts to enforce the law against whatever government bureaucrat is spending money in excess of the Congressional debt ceiling. Keep in mind that Obama will not personally be spending the money illegally, but lesser officials will have their head on the block.

On the other hand, the “Anti-Deficiency Act” makes government bureaucrats personally liable if they incur liabilities not legally authorized. So to get contracting officers to stick their neck out, Obama would need to give them some very strong cover. At what point will anyone in Congress have the spine to talk impeachment? Recall that Congress can impeach Cabinet members and lesser officials, not only a president.

CAIR vs. the Truth

/3 Comments/in , /by

The Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, war on the truth about Islam and jihad continues: Now it has announced that it is insulted by the term “Islamist.” Or at least by its negative usage to refer to Islamic supremacists who want to impose Islamic law on free people.

In an op-ed, Hamas-CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper whined that the term was “currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context.” Hooper complained about AP’s stylebook, which defines the term as a “supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”

What would CAIR call them?

The irony here is that for a long time the only acceptable term, as far as the dhimmi press were concerned, has been “Islamist.” The media and political elites struggle to obscure the political, violent and supremacist aspects of Islam, jihad and the Shariah, and twist themselves into knots to obscure the real motive and ideology that claims the lives of hundreds of thousands of infidels, kuffar and apostates from Islam.

As part of their long-standing efforts to exonerate Islam from any responsibility for the violence committed in its name, they have long settled on the ridiculous term “Islamist” for violent Muslims and supremacist advocates of Shariah. I have long had an issue with such intellectual dishonesty. Essentially, what does it mean to say that someone or something is “Islamist” as opposed to “Islamic”? Nothing, really, except that the person speaking doesn’t want to offend Islam by speaking unwelcome truths about the political nature of the religion.

Read more from this story HERE.

Property, Rule of Law & Freedom

/3 Comments/in , , /by

photo credit: ‘caveman chuck’ coker

While in the midst of a wholesale reevaluation of the right to private property, it is timely to reexamine the history of US property rights. What exactly caused America’s unparallelled level of prosperity and freedom? Certainly our economic success then created unparallelled global influence and military might. But what factors allowed America’s stunning growth in economic power in such a short period of time? This economic success was driven by a firm Rule of Law regime which supported the Constitution’s unique defense of private property.

What is the relationship between property, Rule of Law and prosperity? In a nutshell, history shows that unless private property is protected by a firm, unyielding and unbiased Rule of Law, markets will not flourish. Therefore, wealth will not grow and all the other things associated with a prosperous society will also fall by the wayside. The reasons for this are ultimately based in human nature. People are not automatons who simply go about doing “what we are supposed to do.” Instead, human motivation and productivity are very much tied into the rewards and risks found in any undertaking. Yet, if the government takes away the rewards of ambition, leaving behind only the risks, then productivity will fall precipitously.

It is one of the hallmarks of Marxist-influenced thinking to insist human nature does not exist. This single presumption has caused more chaos than probably any other leftist idea. It’s a direct result of assuming God is a fiction, ie religion as the Opiate of the Masses. But, if there is no God, then mankind cannot be made in His likeness—Imago Dei. Further, if humans evolved from a random series of directionless events, and there is no inherent core in people, then anything goes and nothing is out of bounds for ethics, morality, or any other human undertaking. Or, as Dostoevsky believed—Without God, everything is possible. So, the presumption mankind is just a soulless, material being is the single most destructive element in the progressive worldview, and the root cause of all subsequent economic failure.

I. History & Importance of Rule of Law

The Rule of Law as a concept is tied historically to such thinkers as Aristotle, and legal developments such as the Ten Commandments, a foundational legal code. The American Constitution is a concrete example of Rule of Law theorizing, creating a bedrock set of precepts. As a concept, the Rule of Law is a necessary addendum to the Natural Law theory of jurisprudence. It was Scottish divine and university professor Samuel Rutherford who most eloquently described the concept of the Rule of Law in his Lex Rex, or The Law is King. This work influenced the Founders, as well as philosopher John Locke’s writings on constitutionalism and property rights. Locke’s contribution to a Rule of Law republic can be seen in his chapter Section 202 of Chap. XVIII “Of Tyranny” in Book II of the Two Treatises of Government :

“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will impower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed.”

Read more from this article HERE.

After Destroying the Country, the RINO-Establishment Now Fixes its Sights on the GOP

/22 Comments/in , /by

According to a story from Politico this weekend, the 2012 election cycle has convinced establishment RINOs that, more than ever before, they have a “primary problem.”

Apparently, the post-election topic for these RINOs is how to influence primaries to get rid of those pesky constitutional conservatives who are mysteriously winning primaries but losing general elections. They’ve concluded that they’re going to return to their 2010 playbook of openly being involved in GOP primaries.

In other words, active intervention “in selected 2014 races to ensure preferred candidates win.” The RINO leaders intend to “clear fields” through “aggressive” primary involvement.

They intend to use “big-money establishment Republican super PACs like [Karl Rove’s] American Crossroads” to attack conservative candidates backed by groups like Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservative Fund and the Club for Growth.

Senator John Cornyn, the last National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman who helped orchestrate the NRSC’s hit on Joe Miller in Alaska’s 2010 general election battle against liberal Lisa Murkowski, agreed that establishment PACs would be taking a more active role in GOP primaries. He predicted the involvement of multiple super PACs: “This is too important to leave to [just Karl Rove’s] organization. You’re going to see other super PACs getting involved.”

Unfortunately for these disconnected ruling elites, the grassroots of the GOP is no longer playing along. Constitutional conservatives recognize that the RINO-establishment is responsible right along with the Democrats for the growth and bankruptcy of the federal government. They also see the establishment’s fingerprint on attacks against their candidates in multiple general election races.

So knock yourself out, RINO’s. The more you mettle, the sooner your unholy, big government alliance with the Democrats is forced out of the closet.

Kicking the Can in 2013: Congress Doing What It Does Best

/1 Comment/in , /by

It seemed like a good idea at the time. After Christmas, my wife, Betsy, and I planned to head south to this lovely barrier island in the South Carolina Lowcountry.

Our plan included celebrating New Year’s quietly with as many of our kids, their kids and our friends as possible and then returning to Virginia.

It was supposed to be the antithesis of Times Square. Like so many of the best-laid plans of mice and men, it didn’t turn out quite as expected.

Only six of our grandchildren made the trek south, because so many of them had this year’s version of Spanish influenza, bubonic plague or both. The kickoff for 2013 didn’t turn out much better for the rest of our countrymen. The new year is now under way — and if the next 51 weeks go anything like the first episode, this 13th annum of the 21st century is going to be a doozy.

As we kissed off 2012 with a sip of Champagne, the U.S. Congress was in the process of raising our taxes. Politicians from both parties in the House of Representatives and the Senate told us they were making “Bush-era tax cuts permanent” for “99 percent of Americans” while increasing taxes on “the top 1 percent.”

Read more from this story HERE.

DC Double Standard: David Gregory Gets Pass on Ammo Law but Vet Got Jail Time

/6 Comments/in , /by

The Washington Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) inquiry into whether NBC’s David Gregory possession on national TV of an illegal 30-round “high-capacity” magazine has been ongoing for three weeks. Meanwhile, U.S. Army veteran James Brinkley is still grappling with the fallout from his arrest last year on the same charge.

Mr. Brinkley’s story is just one example of at least 105 individuals who, unlike Mr. Gregory, were arrested in 2012 for having a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

On Sept. 8, Mr. Brinkley says he intended to drop his wife and young children at the White House for a tour and then head to a shooting range to practice for the U.S. Marshals Service test. Just like Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley called MPD in advance for guidance on how he could do this legally. Mr. Brinkley was told that the gun had to be unloaded and locked in the trunk, and he couldn’t park the car and walk around.

Unlike Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley followed the police orders by placing his Glock 22 in a box with a big padlock in the trunk of his Dodge Charger. The two ordinary, 15-round magazines were not in the gun, and he did not have any ammunition with him.

As he was dropping off his family at 11 a.m. on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue, Mr. Brinkley stopped to ask a Secret Service officer whether his wife could take the baby’s car seat into the White House. The officer saw Mr. Brinkley had an empty holster, which kicked off a traffic stop that ended in a search of the Charger’s trunk. Mr. Brinkley was booked on two counts of “high capacity” magazine possession (these are ordinary magazines nearly everywhere else in the country) and one count of possessing an unregistered gun.

Read more from this story HERE.

The Rush to Amnesty: Five Reasons to Slow Down

/2 Comments/in , /by

photo credit: mexicanos sin fronteras

The November election results frightened Republican leaders. They were especially spooked by the number of Hispanic votes they didn’t get. Accordingly, many prominent Republicans are saying that “comprehensive immigration reform” is inevitable and should be passed right away.

In other words, they’re calling for a massive amnesty. But these GOP leaders are as wrong as wrong can be. Amnesty won’t solve any of the GOP’s problems and will create several new ones.

Here are the top five reasons Republicans should reject amnesty.

Reason 1: Amnesty will not stop or slow down illegal immigration.

Sometimes amnesties make sense. For example, in the 1970s American draft dodgers who had fled to Canada rather than fight in Vietnam were given blanket amnesty. The war was over and it was time to repair the damage. Nobody else was going to be crossing the Canadian border for that reason.

But giving amnesty to America’s 12 million illegal aliens doesn’t make sense. Although the recession slowed border crossings way down a few years ago, illegal immigration is increasing again now that the construction industry is recovering. The number of illegal aliens in this country will soon increase to 13, then 14, then 15 million. Giving them amnesty will only encourage more illegal immigration. Why? Because people in other nations will see (again!) that America will give amnesty to anyone who can get into the U.S. and stay here for a few years.

Read more from this story HERE.