Separating Potential Allies from The Enemy

On July 12, 2014, in Barack Obama, Health Care, by RosarioGlenelg

I feel like doing a thumb-sucker on the state of the Republican party today. I was musing yesterday in my head about the need for the establishment and Tea Party elements of the GOP to work together to accomplish positive goals, rather than becoming embroiled in a civil war. It wasn’t long before my mind grew resistant to the idea of cooperating with certain types of establishment people, though. That then led me to distinguish between the types I can see working with, and those I can’t . The people I don’t mind working with are those who believe that constitutional government is a good goal — but who believe that, realistically, the country is not yet ready to go as far as it should. These people argue that we should accomplish what we can, recognize what we can’t accomplish . . . and attempt to persuade people to come around to our point of view on issues where we currently can’t achieve all we would like. The people I have a problem with are those who are contemptuous of Tea Party ideals. Who laugh derisively at the very idea that we should revert to constitutional government. Whose rhetoric is the rhetoric of Big Government and Statism. This includes Republicans in government who seek out Tea Party votes, but (like Thad Cochran) appeal to voters by touting their ability to bring home government benefits. The problem, of course, is distinguishing between the two. Let me provide a couple of examples of pieces I have read lately by pundits who appear to fall into the latter category. Let’s start with Michael Gerson, columnist for the Washington Post , who penned a piece recently titled The tea party risks scaring away voters : The movement has developed a characteristic tone and approach. It is often apocalyptic. The torch of liberty sputters. The country is on the verge of tyranny. Yet, without apparent cognitive dissonance, the movement’s goals are often utopian. The nation’s problems can be solved by passing 10 amendments to the Constitution or by impeaching the president. And those who don’t share a preference for maximal (sometimes delusional) solutions — those who talk of incrementalism or compromise — are granted particular scorn. The tea party temperament is often accompanied by an easily reducible political theory. “The word ‘education,’ ” McDaniel has argued, “is not in the Constitution. Because the word is not in the Constitution, it’s none of their [the federal government’s] business.” Neither are the phrases “health care,” “retirement assistance,” “disaster relief,” “food safety” or “cancer research.” And there goes much of the modern state. These habits of mind — desperation, utopianism, purifying zeal and ideological simplicity — have had their uses throughout history. But they can’t be called conservative. This is one theme of a careful, instructive essay by Philip Wallach and Justus Myers in National Affairs that ought to be required beach reading for conservatives. The authors describe the attributes of the conservative temperament — humility, an appreciation for what is worthy in our society, a preference for incremental reform, a distrust of abstraction — and contrast them with the “misguided radicals of the left and right.” That last paragraph makes Gerson sound like a Burkean conservative: willing to seek smaller government, but preferring incremental approaches. That’s not the type of conservative I am, but I can try to work with people like that — especially when they make it clear that their ideals are substantially the same as mine, but their path for getting there is simply more pragmatic. I understand that point of view. I have held that point of view. I am not contemptuous of it. But look at the second paragraph in the quote above. There, Gerson seems to actively accept “the modern state” in its current form — including, as I interpret his phraseology, a substantial federal role in topics such as “retirement assistance” and even “health care” (!). When he says: “And there goes much of the modern state” my reaction is: “you’re damned right!” But when Gerson says “And there goes much of the modern state” he is saying, as I read his words, that people who want to dismantle the “modern state” are radical and extremist. For people like Gerson, things like Social Security, Medicare, the Education Department, ObamaCare, and the rest of the apparatus of the giant state — all these things are a given. No matter how precipitously they were imposed on us , people like Gerson are worried about doing away with them too hastily, if at all. Better to tinker with them around the margins. But let’s not have any of this crazy talk about how the so-called “Constitution” doesn’t provide a role for federal government interfering in such areas. That sort of talk is Simplistic — why, it’s even Scary. I can’t work with someone who talks like that. I can’t work with someone who, for example, believes that a federal role in health care is “conservative.” To me, that person’s philosophy is pernicious. In some ways, it’s more insidious than the leftist philosophy — because it poses as “conservative” and therefore as a way of thinking that I have to tolerate. Well, I don’t. Such a philosophy is the philosophy of the political enemy . When I say “the political enemy,” I want it to be clear: I do not mean mortal enemy in the sense that Al Qaeda is the “enemy.” But my political enemy is a real opponent . His way of thinking is something that I need to fight with every ounce of energy in my body. I’ll fight it with every ethical means at my disposal . Those means include attempts to persuade — but I will recognize that, more often, persuasion won’t work, and such philosophies must simply be crushed . But I’d like to think that Gerson does not represent a large part of the Republican party. I’d like to think that many people on the right believe in the ultimate goal of limited constitutional government, and that their main disagreement is over how much we can accomplish, and how quickly it needs to be accomplished. I can work with people who disagree with me on such issues. And I invite them to work with people like me. Where there are disagreements, let’s air them, respectfully. But people like Michael Gerson, whether they call themselves “conservative” or not, are the political enemy. And I think those of us who love liberty — all of us — need to identify the enemy for what they are . . . and stamp them out .

Read more:
Separating Potential Allies from The Enemy

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress
Tagged with:
 

Seeking The Arrest Of Lois Lerner

On July 11, 2014, in Barack Obama, Congress, by ChadwickBerryhi

[post by Dana] Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman is done waiting for the Justice Dept. to answer calls to prosecute Lois Lerner over the IRS scandal targeting conservative non-profit groups. As such, he has filed a resolution for her arrest: “Asking the Justice Department to prosecute Lois Lerner for admittedly illegal activity is a joke,” Stockman said. “The Obama administration will not prosecute the Obama administration. How much longer will the House allow itself to be mocked? It is up to this House to uphold the rule of law and hold accountable those who illegally targeted American citizens for simply having different ideas than the President.” Although infrequently used, Congress does have the power to arrest individuals held in contempt. Further: Stockman’s resolution accuses Lerner of “refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, thereby obstructing the Congress in the lawful exercise of its constitutionally mandated legislative powers,” calling her behavior “an insult to the dignity of the House of Representatives [and] an attack upon the integrity of its proceedings, [which] works violence upon the rights of the House collectively, and therefore implicates the long-recognized inherent power of the House to punish and commit for contempt, privileged under the Constitution.” –Dana

Go here to read the rest:
Seeking The Arrest Of Lois Lerner

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

Another violation of the intent of the Constitution. Via IJR: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to expand its jurisdiction over the nation’s waterways under the Clean Water Act to include ditches, small streams, ponds, and other purely local waterways. Nearly 204,000 comments have been received since the rule was proposed on April 21, 2014, […]

See the original post:
EPA Drafting Rule To Claim Control Over Local Waterways, Such As Ditches, Ponds And Streams

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

There is a constitutional crisis in the land. The rulers are ignoring the written constitution, contend many, and are oppressing the people in a manner that deprives citizens of their long-held constitutional rights — rights that the citizens consider innate and God-given. And so, the people take the only action that seems to make any sense: they revolt. Violently. And today, we celebrate their revolution. This is Kevin Gutzman’s interesting take on the American Revolution: that it was actually a “constitutional crisis.” You can hear Gutzman offering the thesis here, on Tom Woods’s podcast: Gutzman is the best-selling author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution , which I have read and found excellent, as well as Who Killed the Constitution? , which he co-wrote with Tom Woods, and which I also found invaluable. Gutzman is teaching a new class on the American Revolution at Tom Woods’s Liberty Classroom. The class is called “The American Revolution, A Constitutional Conflict.” It is the newest class at Liberty Classroom, an adult education effort that concentrates on teaching people about liberty in areas of history, economics, and even logic. I’m a member. Gutzman is my second favorite lecturer at the site; only Woods himself is better. I have already downloaded and begun the American Revolution class and find it engaging and interesting, just as I expected. Woods is currently offering 50% off if you use coupon code “KEVIN” in all capital letters. If you join through this link , you’re helping me out. (Same goes for you, if you become a member and get your friends to join.) Check out their free stuff here . Even if you don’t join, it’s worth thinking about and discussing the concept of the American Revolution as a constitutional crisis precipitated by the actions of an out-of-control government — and what that means for us today. Remember: you owe your allegiance to American principles . . . not the corrupt American government that fails to enforce them. Happy 4th!

Read more from the original source:
A Constitutional Crisis, And the American Response

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

Fight, Don’t Sue

On July 4, 2014, in Barack Obama, Health Care, by ColeMusgr

Newscom On a wide range of matters, including health care, energy, immigration, foreign policy, and education, says House speaker John Boehner, President Obama has ignored some statutes completely, selectively enforced others, and at times created laws of his own, thus failing to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” as Article II of the Constitution requires of a president.

The rest is here:
Fight, Don’t Sue

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress