Archive for September, 2009

Tonight and tomorrow the Empire State Building will be all lit up in red and yellow. Why? It’s the Chi-coms 60th anniversary.

Yes folks, we, on one of our national monuments, will be recognizing 60 years of communism in China, some 35 to 65 million political murders, religious and economic oppression, press, speech, and artistic censorship, family manipulation, forced abortions, Tiananmen Square, forced labor, nuclear and atomic espionage, aiding and abetting our enemies, and unethical trade practices.

On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong established the Peoples’ Republic of China and the creation of a “peoples’ democratic dictatorship.” A “democratic dictatorship”? Is that like a government that says it represents the people, but makes its own rules, sets its own policy, and ignores the populous.. oh wait, never mind.

High five to Duane Lester.

“Hello, Mr. President, we honor you today;

For all of your accomplishments, we all do say, ‘Hooray.”

Does anyone recognize this tune? Yes, it’s the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and there’s another to the tune of Jesus Loves Me! And those on the left wonder why people are a little frightened of this man.

Here’s a little history on this great hymn. In 1861, Julia Howe wrote this poem while visiting a Union camp on the Potomac in middle of the Civil War. She was a great poet, a suffragette, an abolitionist, and the author of the Mother’s Day Proclamation of 1870. This hymn has been sung at the funerals of Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Robert Kennedy, and countless other national and international dignitaries. Do you think these poor students were told the significance of what they were doing? I think not.

While I agree the office of the President deserves a great deal of respect, and while Mr. Obama’s “accomplishments” are many, I don’t think they warrant changing the words to one of the greatest hymns in American history. Perhaps American the Beautiful and The Star Spangled Banner are next. After all, “whose gonna change the World? Barrack Obama!”

Battle Hymn of the Republic

Wild-eyed enthusiasm can be expected when your candidate wins office and even a brief self-congratulatory honeymoon understood. But eventually rhetoric faces reality and concept must become concrete plans. So when the party’s over and you go home to ponder the ramifications of victory please consider the following.

Fairness

Pilfering what belongs to another is a crime, we call it theft. The thief basically takes for himself what someone else has earned. The injustice of the act and the crime of the robber are clear.

But when government uses coercive means to take the lawfully earned property of a citizen and give it to another who has not earned it we don’t call that theft. No, the powers that be have a magic word which somehow justifies this felonious activity: Redistribution. So, here is my first question…

What’s fair about taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not?

Equality

There’s a story about a boy who grew tired of aiming his toy arrows at paper targets. So he turned his bow upward and let fly his arrows into the sky. When asked by his Dad why he was doing this he explained “I’m shooting at the moon!” Since it was broad daylight the man asked “Son, can you see the moon?” With a determined frown the little fellow replied “No…but it’s up there somewhere.”

We can admire the young man’s pluck but we also have to recognize the reality of gravity, mass and escape velocity mean his enterprise is doomed.

Let me be blunt.

Equality of opportunity is laudable and achievable, equality of outcomes is impossible in a free society. Depriving anyone of the opportunity to reach their full potential is reprehensible and already against the law in the USA. But we must recognize that not all people have the same capabilities! Equality of outcome can only be attained (theoretically) by a totalitarian government. (Note that it has never been achieved even by those fully committed to the idea i.e. The USSR, China, Cuba, etc…)

Now for the question…

What exactly do you mean by “Equality?” Can you demonstrate it or is it “…up there somewhere.”

Compassion

“Moved with compassion” is a familiar phrase containing a mountain of meaning. Implicit in this little saying are action, motivation and intention. Action occurs because the status quo will no longer be tolerated. Motivation is supplied by the perceived violations of standards of right verses wrong or good verses bad. Finally, our intentions are for good, to “right” the “wrong.”

Completely absent from the notion of compassion is method. And method makes all the difference. Moved by compassion we might end the life of a suffering animal or see to the care of a suffering child. But “compassion” could also be used to justify a reversing of that order. Consensus can be surprisingly difficult to reach. Thankfully, however, we can measure, or at least observe the results of our methods.

“The New Deal”, “The War on Poverty” and “Affirmative Action” are three examples of specific methodology (i.e. social engineering) born of compassion. For the sake of brevity we will focus on Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” The brightest minds have labored to produce a socially engineered remedy for poverty. I believe forty years is enough time for us to make a useful evaluation. The incontrovertible, observable, measurable result of these efforts is a series of programs which entice people to make short term decisions with disastrous long term consequences. So here is the question…

What is compassionate about inducing the nation’s poor into a proven cycle of poverty?

To my honest liberal friends I must humbly point out that you hold no monopoly on real fairness, actual equality or true compassion. One hundred fifty years of conservative ideas made America the land where multitudes were lifted out of tyranny, poverty and despair. Ok, last question…

Why destroy that?

John Dingell: 50 years; Robert Byrd: 46 years; John Conyers: 40 years. All are among the longest serving members of the US Congress; most of them continuously. Fifty years at one job is generally a blessing, and in today’s volatile work environment, it’s virtually impossible. But, fifty-year Congressmen are a curse and a disservice to the American people.

Over 230 years ago, the founding fathers knew that most people have an innate thirst for power. And so, when they created the Articles of the Confederation, the first Constitution, they suggested that Congressmen should “rotate”, serving in limited terms, and return to their constituents.

Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens.” —George Mason

So what is the problem with career politicians? Incumbency. Politicians become enthralled in reelection, making deals with special interest groups, constantly changing their views to match the latest poll, raising money for the next campaign, becoming more and more a part of the status quo; losing contact with their constituents.

One good example of the affect of careerism is Rep. Howard Coble. Coble was first elected in 1985 as a Reagan ally, reelected to nine more terms as a conservative voice in the Republican caucus. But recent campaign rants the War in Iraq, former president Bush, and CAFTA have indicated that Mr. Coble was more concerned about his career than his constituents. Another example is Sen. Richard Durbin. Sen. Durbin, a longtime liberal Democrat, admitted that he completely reversed his views on abortion in the 1980s after some personal soul searching; coincidentally during that time, NOW, NARAL, and other pro-choice groups began to increase their control over the Democratic Party and the liberal left.

“[T]he Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people [so as not to] acquire the habits of the seat of government, which might differ from those of their Constituents.” —Roger Sherman

There are some who suggest that term limits would hinder representatives from doing their job, from creating relationships with other members, and from developing the experience it takes to get things done in Washington; saying that it takes time to get things done on Capital Hill. Well, I agree. It takes months to pass a budget bill, everyone has to make sure they get their. In contrast, it took all of about nine hours to debate and pass the resolution that authorized using force against Afghanistan after September 11th. Congress has a way taking care of the important things rather quickly, then using the rest of its time creating waste and finding more ways to spend our money. The great George Will put it best when he said, “[Congress] does thousands of little things, but does none of the important things.” Many people talk about the brashness of a lame-duck President. Imagine how much can be accomplished with a lame-duck Congressmen.

“Even good men in office, in time, imperceptibly lose sight of the people, and gradually fall into measures prejudicial to them.” —Richard Henry Lee

“The power under the Constitution will always be in the People. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing…” —George Washington

For more information on term limits, check out Citizens for Term Limits.

Amazing how seemingly small and insignificant matters can make a huge difference! Consider the baking of a cake. Use a wrong ingredient, or even an incorrect amount, and your result may look like a cake but no one will willingly eat it. What about beginning a trip using wrong directions? Follow them to the letter and still you end up someplace you never intended. Worse yet is following good directions starting from the wrong point. The disappointment and frustration are merely compounded.

These examples illustrate a much over-looked reality: Most Americans Want The Same Things!

Our citizens want freedom, peace, safety and prosperity. We want freedom from criminals within our borders and freedom from attack by foreign powers. The people of this nation desire jobs, commerce and economic opportunity. The following will, hopefully, be familiar to the reader. “We the people…establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity…” We can safely conclude that most Americans agree on the what of our desires.

Now for the simple profundity…

How we go about achieving our goals is all the matter and stuff of politics. For the most part it really comes down to method, to how rather than what. A short story will help illustrate.

Imagine a guest in your home notices an ugly fly on your family’s most prized heirloom. There’s no doubt but that the fly must go. (Agreement on the what.) But think of your horror were the guest to proceed and dispatch the offending fly with a sledge-hammer rather than a fly-swatter! (Disagreement regarding the how.) This little story helps clarify the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. They differ on how to reach objectives. Unfortunately, the debate soon degenerates into fruitless, name-calling partisan strive with liberals accusing conservatives of being “heartless” and conservatives accusing liberals of being “brainless.” Those in power cannot possibly fail to take advantage of the lack of focus on real issues. (After all, no one’s looking.)

American government, since the time of President Wilson, has taken a decidedly “progressive”, i.e. liberal, direction in its method, the “how” of our goals. The federal government has taken leading roles in the banking system (Federal Reserve), education (making it “public”), health care and retirement (Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.) So it is altogether appropriate for us to examine and determine just what has resulted from application of liberal methods.

A PhD is not required to see the unmistakable pattern of inflationary “boom” followed by corrective “bust” our economy has been subjected to by the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency. This has to be considered a failure in regards to stability and real growth.

Can anyone, with out blushing, claim our educational system is producing superior results over the last sixty years? By any objective measure we have and are losing ground. (In spite of valiant efforts by dedicated teachers who deserve our appreciation.)

Medicaid and Medicare are broke with “unfunded liabilities” which boggle the mind. And let’s be honest, Social Security is a ponzi scheme that makes Bernie Madoff’s felonious activity look like jay-walking.

Reality can be a bitter pill but perhaps that’s why it’s called medicine. Our society has followed liberal directions and ended up someplace we never intended. It is time to admit our mistakes and turn around. Every minute we delay leads us further from where we want to be.

In case you haven’t heard, yesterday, at his library in Atlanta, former president James Earl Carter, Jr., said Joe Wilson’s outburst was racially motivated. Now, Jimma, where in the wild world of sports did that come from?! Oh yeah, from James Clyburn, another member of the SC Congressional delegation; oh, and also from the Rev Al (Sharpton), Maureen Dowd, and countless others with a national audience… some have even added the “N” word to the end of  “You lie!”.

As a white southern conservative, this is a card game you can’t win – the race card trumps them all. Regardless of your history, regardless of countless misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings, once you’re branded a racist, you wear the scarlet “R.” Joe Wilson now is historically a racist, because he voted against moving the Confederate Flag while in the SC House, because he is a member of Sons of Confederate Veterans, and because he accused a sitting black President of being dishonest with the American people. Now, don’t get me wrong, I think Wilson’s outburst was epically inappropriate. But, had John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, or better yet, John Spratt or Gene Taylor lost their cool, they wouldn’t have been called a racist. Well, Gene Taylor might have; he’s a Blue Dog.

Here’s the inherit problem, liberals think conservatives are racist simply because they’re conservative. The Rev Jesse (Jackson) admitted as much on MSNBC:

“… There is a struggle between the hope of going forward and the fear of going backwards and the word – the atmosphere is loaded with coded words. Hitler, socialist, un-American, not born in America, even indoctrinate our children, these are very heavily coded words. And the elephant in the room really is the big ‘C’– behind the big C-word, conservative, for some that means fiscal, for some, it means religious ethics, for some it means a code word for race…”

For these people, it has nothing to do with issues; if you go against the grain you’re a racist. Obama can’t be called a Socialist, because he has espouses leftist ideas; he can’t have his birth record questioned, because there is still a glimmer of suspicion; and he can’t be accused of lying for not telling the whole truth. His policies cannot be rejected simply on the basis of politics; if you’re a white conservative, you’re a racist; if you’re a black conservative, a la Michael Steele, you’re an Uncle Tom, a sellout.

So, what do we do? Keep fighting nationally, roll with the punches, and hope one day the rules change. BUT, mostly, keep pushing the ideas one on one. A good friend told me once, “When you drill down to the wallet, we’re all conservative.” (Bryan Calvert)