Monthly Archives: March 2009

I shoulda listened to my Liberal friends…

Posted on by

From an e-mail I received. (H/T to Norm Glitz.)

I have to admit it. My liberal friends were right.

They told me if I voted for McCain, the nation's hope would deteriorate, and sure enough there has been a 20 point drop in the Consumer Confidence Index since the election, reaching a lower point than any time during the Bush administration.

They told me if I voted for McCain, the US would become more deeply embroiled in the Middle East, and sure enough tens of thousands of additional troops are scheduled to be deployed into Afghanistan.

They told me if I voted for McCain, the economy would get worse and sure enough unemployment is approaching 8.8% and the new stimulus packages implemented recently have sent the stock market lower than at any time since 9-11.

They told me if I voted for McCain, we would see more crooks in high ranking positions in Federal government and sure enough, several recent cabinet nominees and senate appointments revealed resumes of scandal, bribery and tax fraud.

They told me if I voted for McCain, we would see more "Pork at the trough" in Federal government and sure enough, 17,500 "Pork Bills" showed up in Congress in the past few weeks.

They told me if I voted for McCain, we would see more deficit spending in DC and sure enough, Obama has spent more in 60 days than all other Presidents together in the history of the good 'ole USA.

Well I ignored my Democrat friends in November and voted for McCain.

And they were right...all of their predictions have come true.








					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
What am I?

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
					


				

			
There has been a lot of discussion on the ‘net—forums, blogs and e-mail lists, on what people believe.  Some describe themselves as “conservatives”, “pro-life” or “limited government advocates”.  One lady whom I respect, calls herself an anarchist and has defined her version of anarchy in detail. She is not your run-of-the-mill, charging the barricade anarchist, but has a distinctive view that has segments that I can agree.  But, if I were to use a single description of what I am, what I believe, I would call myself a Jacksonian. 


I don’t subscribe to all the classic tenet attributed to being a Jacksonian.  The original version has evolved a bit in the 175+ years since Jackson was president.    According to wiki, the traditional definition of Jacksonianism is…


The Jacksonian era saw a great increase of respect and power for the common man, as the electorate expanded to include all white male adult citizens, rather than only land owners in that group. In contrast to the Jeffersonian era, Jacksonian democracy promoted the strength of the presidency and executive branch at the expense of Congress, while also seeking to broaden the public’s participation in government. They demanded elected (not appointed) judges and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values. In national terms the Jacksonians favored geographical expansion, justifying it in terms of Manifest Destiny.






I don’t subscribe to the philosophy of Manifest Destiny.   It’s now moot.  I do subscribe to the modern definition of Jacksonianism.  Walter Russell Mead, writing in The National Interest, best described Jacksonianism in his The Jacksonian Tradition.  Charles Prael wrote a FAQ that presented a summary of Mead’s writings and compared the four main policies followed in the US—Jacksonian, Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Wilsonian.


    






Frequently Asked Questions about Walter Russell Meade’s Spectrum.  Or, What the Hell is a Jacksonian?  








Intro


Walter Russell Meade has postulated an interesting set of definitions for the American political landscape, at least as far as the foreign policy arena goes. Rather than using the traditional left/right, Democratic/Republican models, he’s worked out four schools of “American” foreign policy thought, named after influential American statesmen who epitomize the principles of those schools. In brief, they are:


–         Jacksonian


–         Hamiltonian


–         Jeffersonian


–         Wilsonian


All four of these schools of thought have had significant impacts in the larger world. Major international organizations derive from these fundamentally American ideals.






Prael continues to define each of these political philosophies.




    Hamiltonian doctrine


 is really the doctrine that pushes the economic primacy of the United States. Hamiltonians believe that a fundamental link between the government and big business is key to the survival and success of the country. They are, however, realists who believe that the US is at best primus inter pares (first among peers) among other nations. As a result, they believe that the US is best served by international organizations that protect fundamentally American interests.


This is an example of the doctrine that created the IMF, World Bank, NAFTA, and the WTO.




    Jeffersonians


 are most interested in protection of American democracy on the home front, and almost as misunderstood as Jacksonians. They believe that foreign entanglements are a sure method of damaging American democractic systems, and are highly skeptical of Hamiltonian/Wilsonian projects to involve the US abroad. Hamiltonians and Wilsonians have a realistic streak, that the United States is fundamentally a state among states, if better managed. Jeffersonians, in contrast, believe that the United States is something better and different. You often find Jeffersonians protesting against­ international agreements, rather than for them.


Two examples of Jeffersonian doctrine is the ACLU and the Libertarian Party.




    Wilsonians


 believe that both the moral and national interests of the United States are best served by spreading American democratic and social values throughout the world. They want to see the U.S. involved on a worldwide basis with a peaceful international community based on the rule of law. 


A prime example of Wilsonian doctrine is the United Nations. Prael continues with this item concerning Wilsonianism.


An interesting point to note is that Wilsonian values are a fundamentally American conceit, yet they have been adopted wholeheartedly by many of the ruling political organizations in Europe, especially by those most passionately interested in furthering the European Union.






Two leaders who have epitomized Wilsonian policies and politics are past President Jimmy Carter and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.


The Jacksonian Doctrine is the least known of these four doctrines.  Prael describes the Jacksonian Doctrine as…


Jacksonians tend to be looked down upon – despite the fact that by the numbers, they appear to be the largest of the four schools. The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn’t seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is “there’s no substitute for victory” – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it’s “Don’t Tread On Me!”


Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.  Jacksonians also strongly value self-reliance. “Economic well-being” to a Jacksonian isn’t about protectionist trade barriers. Rather, it is about providing Jacksonians with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.


A prime example of the Jacksonian principle is Ronald Reagan.


So, what am I?


I believe in personal liberty and minimal government.  I accept the need for federal taxation but taxation only at a level to support those governmental minimalist institutions such as the military and the courts. I support the proposition that I should be able to earmark my taxes to those federal functions I support and to withhold my taxes from those functions that I do not support.


I believe in free enterprise economics, specifically Capitalism. I believe that government has no function controlling or constraining free enterprise. I do believe that free enterprise has a duty to support the nation with the fruits of that free enterprise but that support should not be used by the government as a bludgeon to force free enterprise onto paths that would not otherwise be taken.


Conversely, the government must not support artificial means to prop up failing commercial institutions. Rather, these institutions must rise or fall based on their own capabilities.  Darwin applies to businesses just as it does to other institutions and societies.


I do not support judicial activism, but prefer a strict constructionist view of the constitution.  I believe in all ten of the Constitution’s first amendments including the much maligned and ignored Tenth Amendment. 


I believe it is an individual duty of everyone serve in the military or equivalent service organization but I do not believe in conscription for any reason.  If the people of this nation are not willing to defend themselves and this nation, both deserve to fall.


I believe in God and am pro-life. I believe that everyone has the right to believe or to not believe as they please without any external influence, support, or constraint. That also means that I do not believe in proselytizing except for those who request it.


I believe that I am personally responsible for my actions and I am not responsible for the actions of anyone else.  I believe in charity, and I believe that I have the right to choose how and to whom I provide charity.


That is what I am.








					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
Bradyites teaming with BO Administration on new Gun Control scheme

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
					


				

			
Late last week came word that the Brady gun-control organization was joining efforts with Att’y General Holder to push for another attempt for a so-called assault-rifle ban. Dave Workman, writing for the Examiner.com, had this piece on that new assault on the 2nd Amendment.






Are anti-gunners coordinating with Obama administration to push semi-auto ban?







March 27, 2:27 PM          






                                              






Just as anti-gunners accused the Bush administration of working with the gun rights organizations, is the Obama administration coordinating with the gun prohibition lobby in an effort to boost public pressure to revive the ban on so-called “assault weapons?”  


            There is growing suspicion in the firearms community that it is no coincidence the administration is ramping up the rhetoric about this country’s “shared responsibility” for the bloody drug war raging in northern Mexico, while “Obama-friendly” news organizations lend emphasis to renewing the semi-auto ban. At the same time, the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has just released a report called Exporting Violence: How Our Weak Gun Laws Arm Criminals in Mexico and America. 


            It is true that William Hoover, assistant director for Field Operations with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives testified recently before Congress that “90 percent of the weapons (recovered at Mexican crime scenes) that could be traced were determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S.”


            And it is true that Mexico asked for traces on more than 1,100 guns in 2007 that apparently came out of Texas, California and Arizona, and another 435 guns were traced to the remaining 47 states, with some guns coming from “other states as far east as Florida and west as Washington State.”


            A source at ATF tells me that some gun traces are inconclusive, perhaps because of an illegible serial number or no serial number. Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, a lot of guns were not stamped with serial numbers.


            What is not clear is whether a lot of other firearms being used in the Mexican drug war are coming from other sources, as suggested by a story in the March 15 Los Angeles Times. Others are questioning the source of these guns as well.




Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiautomatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.    




            Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy in Mexico acknowledging that demand for drugs in this country was part of the problem, and she is right. Too many Americans use illegal drugs. However, she also quickly complained about our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals




            But when she was quizzed by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on the drug war, Mitchell seemed rather preoccupied with renewal of the gun ban in this country, a ban which has had questionable results, as I reported here. Other news agencies have editorialized for renewal of the ban.


            If Mitchell wants to lobby for a gun law, she needs to drop the pretense of being a reporter, and sign up as a lobbyist.


            Back in the Clinton administration, a deputy attorney general named Eric Holder had a hand in developing the White House International Crime Control Strategy. He was busy recently suggesting that the semi-auto ban might be renewed, which drew a quick rebuke from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with a sizzling letter from 65 House Democrats who essentially told him “Hell No!”




            But there are a couple of proposed international arms treaties, noted here and here, still floating around that have not been ratified by this country. They’ve been around since the Clinton administration; you know the one, where Hillary was First Lady and Holder was Janet Reno’s deputy. Maybe Hillary and Eric want those treaties ratified as “unfinished business.”


             So, here’s a radical idea: Instead of ratcheting down on the firearms rights of American citizens, how about putting troops along the border to intercept drug smugglers coming north, and the gun shipments allegedly heading south? At the same time, troops could secure the border to stop the flow of illegal aliens (they’re NOT “undocumented workers,” they’re illegal aliens, got it?), and open fire on any armed groups that have reportedly crossed into the United States at various locations.


            More than two years ago, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms called on the Bush White House for “border control, not gun control.”


            I’m not suggesting we dig up the late Black Jack Pershing and send an army down there, but I am suggesting that if we want to get serious about illegal immigration, and stopping drug thugs and even alleged incursions by Mexican soldiers onto U.S. soil, then we could deploy troops and keep this nonsense south of the border.


            Their orders would be remarkably simple: Intercept intruders, challenge them to turn around and go back. If they refuse, stop and hold them for the Border Patrol. If they brandish weapons or open fire, shoot them.


            Sounds awful, right? Well, there’s a war going on in Mexico, and we should want to keep it there. Ratcheting down on the rights of millions of law-abiding U.S. citizens who own semi-auto sport-utility rifles, have broken no laws and are not part of the drug problem is not the way to do that.










					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
TGIF

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
					


				

			
My Daughter and Son-in-law will be glad to hear that the State of Missouri no longer considers them members of a violent militia.  You see, they voted for a 3rd Party during the last election.  They are also pro-life.


Recently, the Missouri issued a warning to the Missouri Highway Patrol and other law enforcement agencies warning them to be cautious when approaching vehicles with pro-life or 3rd Party stickers displayed.  That edict, of course, raised a lot of questions and controversy.  Missouri has since withdrawn the warning.




March 26, 2009


                         












Missouri retreats on police targeting third party voters 
Thomas Lifson


                                  A Missouri State Police report that informed officers that militias are a danger, and that many militia members subscribe to fundamentalist Christian, anti-abortion or anti-immigration movements. It also informed officers that members are usually supporters of third-party presidential candidates, such as U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.




AT reported on the outrage, and now the Missouri State Police have reportedly “shelved” the report. The Southeast Missourian writes:






Uproar over a law enforcement document linking various right-wing organizations with the modern militia movement prompted the Missouri State Highway Patrol on Wednesday to cease distribution of the report.




Outrage over the report had been brewing for weeks among conservatives who say they’re unfairly singled out as possible criminals. On Wednesday morning, that anger spilled into the Capitol when Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder called on Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon to place the head of the Department of Public Safety on administrative leave pending an investigation of the report. …




The outcry prompted James Keathley, the superintendent of the highway patrol, to stop distributing the document to law enforcement officers. In a letter released Wednesday afternoon, Keathley also said he will create a process that ensures he and Department of Public Safety director John Britt will read all future reports before they are released.




“Had that report been reviewed by either my office or by leaders of the Department of Public Safety, it would never have been released to law enforcement agencies,” Keathley said.




I suppose this is just an isolated incident, and doesn’t reflect any ominous trends. Or maybe not.





***


Local conservative radio host, Chris Stigall, KCMO 710, has written an article for The Big Hollywood website.  His article, Remember When SNL Was Funny? (Obama Ushers in New Era of Comedic Irresponsibility) describes the hypocrisy in Hollywood.


Everyone knows the old axiom about comedy.  There’s always a grain of truth in that which an audience finds funny.  Done well, comedy can make you squirm with its raw honesty.  It has the power to inform our perspectives about politics and news just as any good journalist.  Comedy helps provide insight into human flaws just as any good psychologist.   Often self-deprecating and socially awkward, comedians themselves will deny their impact.  Most comedians and writers prefer to think of themselves as lovable class clowns – laughing on the outside, crying on the inside.  Just as former NBA star Charles Barkley once famously proclaimed he was no role model, many in the funny business will dismiss their impact in the hearts and minds of their audience.


…


For those who pay close attention to the news of late it is clear there is an enormous, almost daily crop of low-hanging fruit just ripe for sketch comedy’s harvest.  It is not uncommon to watch or read the news of the day and think “this should be on ‘Saturday Night Live’ this weekend.”   It seems like a missed opportunity if not painfully dishonest to watch comedy programming and note their inability or unwillingness to score obvious laughs with the country’s most obvious subject – the President of the United States.


…


Bill Clinton was a McDonald’s-starved sex fiend.   George W. Bush was a cocky moron led by the cold, sinister Dick Cheney.  Remember Ross Perot and his charts, Admiral Stockdale’s loony rants, and Al Gore’s petulant, haughty sighs?  Michael Dukakis had bushy eyebrows and a losing attitude.  Hillary Clinton was a woman desperate for power at all costs and Joe Biden is a slick-talking, loud, brash, phony everyman with a Cheshire Cat grin.  All classic SNL created characters still sold on collector DVDs to this day. 


Yet today, the 44th President of the United States has managed to come away from nearly three years of high-profile coverage untouched and unscathed by the show made legend for mocking the most powerful players in the country’s capital.  There is a palpable, labored delivery as the cast and writers of “Saturday Night Live” search to find something funny about Barack Obama.


It is obvious the Obama administration is a target-rich environment for big laughs, but the television comedy industry is purposely firing blanks.  We have entered an unusually dishonest era of comedy.


As it became clear Barack Obama was going to give the once-presumed unbeatable Hillary Clinton a run for her money in the 2007 Democratic primary, SNL was quick to take note.  The obvious bias the show’s creative team would display going forward was immediate to even a casual fan.


Week after week, Obama’s primary fight with Clinton was the focus of the signature opening sketch.  As Obama gained traction the characterization of Clinton became increasingly more desperate and needy.  Even the press was mocked by the show as being partial to Obama through impressions of Gwen Ifill and Tim Russert.  Once each party’s front-runners were nominated, Republican John McCain was quickly cast as wandering and passionless.  Of course people are still abuzz about the aforementioned Palin portrayal by Tina Fey.  Consistently though, Obama’s SNL alter ego would walk away from every satirical situation unscathed.




Stigall concludes.




Clearly attempting to write around this president, we have seen opening sketches of House Republicans debating their latest “obstructionist” strategy.  Dan Aykroyd made a guest appearance as House Minority Leader John Boehner.  It would be interesting to conduct a focus group in the live studio audience after the show. Their awkward, politely required half-laughs seemed to indicate there were not many who understood what they were watching.   When sizable demographics of the population can’t name the Vice President, it seems safe to assume most Americans won’t know House minority leadership.


We’ve seen ridiculous scenes of Senate Republicans being thrown out of the Oval Office window by an Incredible Hulk version of President Obama.  Again, show of hands in the audience.  How many knew Oklahoma Senator Tom Colburn and Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison?   Certainly there have been half-hearted attempts to tweak Democrats like Tim Geithner, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Joe Biden and even Rahm Emmanuel.  But in each scene, each sketch, each show, each week – President Obama is portrayed only in various degrees of calm and cool, almost victimized by a sea of buffoonery surrounding him.


In actuality, the Obama administration is a satirical gold mine; a comedy of errors just over two months in the making.  There are scores of actual events and instances gone completely ignored by our creative friends in New York’s hallowed halls of comedic television that have been inexplicably, but now predictably ignored.


First Lady Michelle Obama recently confessed to ABC’s Robin Roberts that their weekly Wednesday night cocktail parties in the White House get so wild that furniture has been broken.  In the interview, she further admitted to repeatedly warning her guests to tone it down.   A high school drama club could write this sketch.




Stigall’s parting shot…


The truth about the Obama administration is that there is a lot to laugh about right now.  Perhaps there is a fear of implied racism or a lingering respect for the historic nature of the last election, or simple blind devotion to a man today’s comedy writers have invested in both financially and emotionally.  But for millions of Americans who did not vote for Barack Obama, and still millions more who see the daily folly of an administration full of missteps is to ignore truth.  Comedy without that grain of truth just isn’t funny.


***


Cartoon of the Day: Gary Varvel.





***


The local weather reports are calling for mixed rain, sleet and snow Saturday with accumulations possible up to 8″.  It’s SPRING! Not supposed to snow!  The temps here yesterday were near 60 and I’ve been wearing short-sleeved shirts all week.  


Ah, well. Y’all have a nice weekend.  








					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
Cartoons of the Day: Glenn McCoy, Lisa Benson

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
					


				

			
“…therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
AIG was first. Who will be next?


 And from Lisa Benson…








					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
Syd is back!

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
					


				

			
Syd, over at Front Sight, Press has returned with a posting after an extended absence.


Welcome back, Syd. You’ve been sorely missed.








					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
Illinois democrats target minorities.

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
					


				

			
Dave Workman, writing in the Examiner, reports how Illinois state representative Andre M. Thapedi is targeting minorities in specific zip codes. The representative has proposed stringent gun control by proposing a ban on “any assault weapon or .50 caliber rifle.”

It appears that the representative has proposed an amendment to “House Bill 1966 that specifically prevents residents in the Englewood neighborhood from owning, selling, buying or manufacturing “any assault weapon or .50 caliber rifle.”


From the article…




Illinois Assembly considering racist bill aimed at minority neighborhood in Chicago




  Suppose the Alabama Legislature was considering an amendment to a bill that would prevent residents in a specific neighborhood of Birmingham that was heavily populated by minorities from exercising a constitutionally-protected civil right, say voting?


   The outrage that would erupt over something like that would be deafening. Sunday morning news programs would be loaded with volatile rhetoric from the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and no doubt marches would be staged at the home of the lawmaker who sponsored such a horrendous piece of legislation.


   Well, welcome to Springfield, Illinois where State Rep. Andre M. Thapedi, a Democrat representing the 32nd District on Chicago’s South Side has introduced an amendment to House Bill 1966 that specifically prevents residents in the Englewood neighborhood from owning, selling, buying or manufacturing “any assault weapon or .50 caliber rifle.”


   He’s done some serious homework on this by identifying the specific zip codes – 60619, 60620, 60621, 60629, 60636 and 60637 – where the residents apparently cannot be trusted with these firearms while, apparently because every other zip code in the state was not included, every other Illinois citizen is free to possess these guns.


   As it happens, the 32nd District extends through these zip codes and according to a contact at the Chicago Sun-Times, this area is overwhelmingly African-American, with a small percentage of Hispanics. Rep. Thapedi is African-American, and he did not return my call to ask about this amendment.


   It doesn’t matter what one thinks about so-called “assault weapons” or even .50-caliber target rifles. What does matter is how one thinks about a piece of legislation that targets the residents of a specific neighborhood; an amendment that singles them out as “different” and perhaps less trustworthy with firearms – any firearms, perhaps – than other Chicago residents, or other residents of Illinois.


   Forget about the guns for a moment. Let’s say residents in those zip codes should be barred from sending their children to school. How about we pass a law denying health care to anyone living in those zip codes? Or maybe we ought to just deny legal representation to anyone living in that neighborhood who is arrested by the police.





Workman continues.


 








  If residents of a specific neighborhood can be denied the right to have a firearm because of their residence and no other reason, what’s to stop the limitation of other rights or government services by legislative whim?


   Not that it matters, but this neighborhood is home to the St. Sabina Catholic church, the parish of radical priest Michael Pfleger. He is the priest who, during a demonstration outside of Chuck’s Gun Shop in suburban Riverdale, called on the crowd to “snuff” gun shop owner John Riggio; you know, the same priest who delivered some rather colorful remarks about former Sen. Hillary Clinton when she was running in the Democratic primary against Chicago Sen. Barack Obama.


   Perhaps Rep. Thapedi should be given some slack because his intentions are probably good. Rep. Thapedi ought to consult with Father Pfleger about how the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.






Well, at least the democrats are equal opportunity oppressors.