Sunday, July 31, 2011

Stark reality on the debt ceiling

The debt ceiling debate is a political charade. Democrats are simply doing what they’ve previously done. The threat about a government shutdown is an empty political bluff. No reasonable person can claim the government hasn’t acquired too much debt. So, extending the debt limit means the government’s credit card doesn’t run dry.

This opinion of the debt ceiling debate sounds like a synopsis of the Rush Limbaugh Program. But it’s not. Actually, California Rep. Pete Stark provided this
analysis of the debt ceiling debate. And just so there are no misconceptions, let’s affirm that Rep. Stark has no political commonality with Limbaugh.

If governing left is described as walking westward, Pete Stark has one foot in the Pacific Ocean. A brief review of his
record provides all the testimony required to convict Pete Stark as one of Congress’ most fervent liberals. He is a man in love with his position; a man superior to his great unwashed constituency. In short, he is the kind of politician we would expect to manipulate the debt limit extension for personal gain.

This is Pete Stark, who once
quipped to an ObamaCare opponent, “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth the waste of urine.” This is Pete Stark, who believes the federal government faces few, if any, constitutional restraints. Rep. Stark is a Washington insider, thoroughly versed in political grandstanding and gamesmanship. For him to call the debt limit debate a “political charade” is like Bill Clinton declining a bimbo’s phone number.

Pete Stark’s candor confirms what the astute observer has long believed about the debt ceiling. Political chicanery is driving this crisis. The Beltway establishment, at work in both political parties, is using the debt ceiling to sow doubt and fear in the American public. Politicians are defending their turf, forecasting calamitous ruin unless their way is followed. The elderly will die, the nation will default and ruin our bond rating, and total chaos will ensue. It’s all spin, a dastardly charade.

Debt ceiling or not, revenue will remain available for the federal government’s essential obligations. Federal
revenue averages $180 billion to $210 billion per month. Debt interest and Social Security payments consume about $100 billion per month. Moody’s threat to lower the United State’s AAA rating is tied more to Washington’s failure to reduce deficit spending than failing to increase debt. So, if the debt ceiling isn’t raised and the projected calamities ensue, we should blame government demagogues (mostly liberals) whose political security depends on creating public fear and paralysis.

Only Pete Stark knows if he intentionally exposed Washington’s manipulation of the debt limit debate. Purposeful or not, he was right on target. What we’re witnessing is a charade, pure political theatre. Americans are being led down a primrose path by blind guides whose only concern is spinning the situation for favorable media play and campaign talking points. That is the debt ceiling debate’s stark reality.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Liberals rise to a new low

The left wasted no time in spinning the attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ life for their political advantage. Uncivil dialogue, liberals argued, had prompted the attack. The fact that Giffords’ assailant was apolitical, or even leaning left, didn’t matter. Leftists heeded Rahm Emmanuel’s advice, capitalized on a crisis, and demanded political civility as they define the term.

Apparently, liberals believe any criticism toward them or their positions constitutes uncivil dialogue. However, a running discussion about
raping conservative legislators -- and how in need of being raped they are -- represents cutting-edge political commentary, protected free speech. “Raped” may sound like a strong word. But how else can we define “hate” sex?

Former Air America “comedian” Marc Maron (henceforth, Marc Moron), said on HBO’s “Real Time” with Bill Maher, “I hope Marcus Bachman (Michelle Bachman’s husband) takes all that rage into the bedroom with her. I hope he f---s her angrily, because that’s how I would.” Fellow panelist Dan Savage chimed in about “f---ing the s--t out of Rick Santorum.”

Here’s the situation as it exists. When conservatives challenge liberals on their anti-freedom, big government, authoritarian policies we’re inciting violence. But when liberals snicker about the violent rape of conservative representatives it’s a legitimate avenue toward a political point. Marc Moron dismissed his perverted insanity in exactly that fashion. “It’s a political statement I’m trying to make,” Moron explained.

Citing Moron as an example of Air America’s vapid programming eliminates all doubt as to why the network failed. But one thing is certain, if he ever has sex -- hate or otherwise -- with Michelle Bachman he’ll have to use force. Rep. Bachman is an attractive, intelligent, successful woman. Moron is today’s prototypical liberal, a condescending, insufferable, sniveling little pervert. And Dan Savage is even worse. What more needs to be said about a “sex expert” who wistfully details the violent sodomy of a male congressman?

Imagine the left’s reaction had a conservative directed such a reprehensible “joke” toward a liberal legislator? What would leftists say if Rush Limbaugh talked about “hate sex” with Hillary Clinton? The DNC would demand Sean Hannity’s arrest if he said “let’s bone that Barney Frank boy” on national television, as Savage
said about Santorum.

One point must be granted. It’s believable that a depraved little toad like Moron would fantasize about committing sadistic sex acts on Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin, or Nikki Haley. These prominent conservative women are physically attractive. Name a prominent liberal woman who induces even the most fleeting erotic thought? Anyone want a turn at Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, or Barbara Mikulski? Frankly, I would rather drink from a sewer pipe than have even consensual relations with one of those barking hags.

I would like to believe that Democrats and their media puppets wouldn’t condone the vile, near-criminal “hate sex” and homosexual puke Moron and Savage spewed on Maher’s freak show. But I’m not so naïve. In fact, neither the propaganda press nor the Obama White House -- both central figures in spinning the Tucson shooting -- have uttered a peep of censure toward Moron, Savage, or their equally slovenly host, Bill Maher. In fact, some leftist media outlets
defend their debauchery.

Don’t think for a moment that these three stooges are fringe elements. Maher, Moron, and Savage personify liberalism’s core and represent the mainstream in Democrat policy. And the Democrat figureheads in Washington and the media have the gall to demand political civility and bipartisanship? Why would any human being, regardless their party affiliation, want to cooperate with such disgusting maniacs?

Dealing intelligently, morally, and maturely with stupid, wicked, and infantile adversaries is a fool’s errand. Honorable and ethical people have no common ground with contemporary liberalism (a.k.a. Regressives). Today’s liberals are psychotic liars, pathological degenerates, and detestable tyrants -- directing a legion of useful idiots -- whose greatest character strength is their filth and decadence.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Manufactured racism is the greater evil

Racism has evolved. Historically a social barrier, it has become a contemporary political tool. That’s not to say racism is nonexistent. Racism exists aplenty, in and toward all races. Our world is filled with people who harbor illogical hatred based solely on race or ethnicity. Race relations would take a giant step forward if only we would acknowledge this basic fact. But as long as demagogues can parlay even the most innocuous example of “racism” into political points, race relations will suffer.

Such demagoguery was recently displayed in Wildwood, New Jersey, sparked by a “
Whites Only” sign in a hotel parking lot. The sign was immediately declared a racist act, perhaps even a hate crime. No other explanation would suffice. But common sense and economic reality suggest that public racism played little to no roll in posting the sign.

What business owner would risk a policy of public segregation, even if it reflected their private views? The economic consequences are too great. As it happens, the offending sign wasn’t erected with the hotel’s cooperation or knowledge. It was apparently a tasteless prank, perpetrated with gutless anonymity. Sans demagoguery, the sign would’ve been a non-story. But a demagogue surfaced in the form of Wildwood mayor Ernie Troiano, who seized the opportunity to prove his racial tolerance.

Mayor Troiano apologized on behalf of Wildwood, calling the sign “the worst thing anybody can do to anybody.” Troiano added, “For someone to do that, that’s a sick person.”

The Mayor’s contentions are demonstrably absurd. There are innumerable acts one person can commit against another that trump an anonymously posted “Whites Only” sign in an obscure hotel parking lot. In fact, screaming racial epithets at the top of one’s lungs pales compared to mankind’s capacity for genuine inhumanity.

It’s far worse for a man to
rape three women in front of a five-year-old girl while the child begs the assailant not to hurt her mother and sister. Caging and starving someone until they begin to eat their own skin is an affront far greater than racism. So is beating an old man to death with his own cane, or drugging a man, tying him to a bed and severing his penis. For an 11-year-old girl to be kidnapped and subjected to 18 years as the “wife” of a maniacal degenerate also exceeds racism in terms of incivility.

A “Whites Only” sign in a hotel parking lot is a minor inconvenience compared to the horrific torture humans can inflict on each other. I’d rather be called a cracker any day than to endure the previously described abuses. And when it comes to a “sick person,” whoever posted the “Whites Only” sign pales in comparison to the Ted Bundys, Jeffrey Dahmers, and Charles Mansons of this world.

Only a fool would declare racism extinct. Every race and ethnicity under the sun practices racism to some degree. But modern racism is less about promoting petty bigotries than about gaining political advantage. Without racism, liberals can’t depend on 90-percent of the black vote in any given election. Without racism, politicians and bureaucrats would be forced to seek genuine solutions to problems they now tackle with insipid phrases like social justice, equal educational opportunity, and undocumented immigrant. Without racism, hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have nothing to hustle.

Society cringes at the mere mention of racism. Our culture has been conditioned to avoid challenging even the most banal racial allegations. Small wonder we fail to recognize how thoroughly racism has been politicized. Authentic bigotry is an undeniable character flaw. But manipulating racism for political advantage is a far greater character flaw than racism itself.

As long as people like Ernie Troiano are ready to apologize on behalf of an entire city for the action of an anonymous idiot, there will be racial division. As long as politicians and social activists gain advantage from manufactured bigotry, there will be racial strife. Racial manipulation is a grave evil and a greater danger to American culture than authentic discrimination.

A society’s greatest weapon for countering the race hustler is to confront their agitation outright. Shouting discrimination should never serve as conclusive evidence that racism has occurred. Making this approach a reality won’t be easy; it will demand courage and discipline. Anyone who follows this path can expect to take some arrows. But it’s the only path that can possibly lead to racial harmony. Continuing to treat every racial allegation like a Klan lynching will only produce further racial division.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Cap, Cut and Balance was preferable, but still flawed

If there were an elephant in your swimming pool would you need to call attention to it? An elephant is difficult to miss and impossible to intentionally ignore. So the problem isn’t in realizing the elephant’s presence, but in removing it from the pool. Federal debt presents a similar predicament, dominating an economy like an elephant does a swimming pool. The question is what can be done about the debt elephant?

One idea for addressing Washington’s spendthrift habits is a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Theoretically, under constitutional mandate the federal government would be forced to balance annual expenditures with receipts. However, requiring the federal government to balance the budget and forcing it to control spending are quite different.

A balanced budget amendment without spending controls is a disaster in the making. Once ratified, politicians who favor tax hikes could argue the Constitution mandates tax increases to meet projected spending levels. To be useful, a balanced budget amendment must respect the Constitution’s spirit of limited government.

Cap, Cut and Balance addressed the fear of constitutionally imposed tax increases. Modeled after H.J.RES.1, it limited federal spending to 18-percent of GDP, required a supermajority to raise taxes, and introduced a balanced budget amendment to the states. With egregious taxation and federal spending limited, a balanced budget amendment could finally fulfill the promise its proponents have long claimed.

Of course, optimism plays well in an ideal world. Reality is far from ideal. Cap, Cut and Balance passed the House with relative ease. But it had no chance to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate and would never have escaped Obama’s veto pen. Democrats will support nothing more than token spending reductions. Thus any compromise on a balanced budget amendment would lack spending controls, making it a constitutional mandate for tax increases. Such a scenario would suit Democrats just fine.

But problems existed even in the House version of Cap, Cut and Balance. It would’ve increased the debt ceiling by 18-percent, to $16.7 trillion. To put that number in perspective, consider each dollar as one second in time and do the math. A $16.7 trillion debt equals 529,553 years. Chew on that number, if you can do so without choking. Furthermore, a balanced budget amendment would have, at best, only symbolic effect until ratified by 38 states (U.S. Constitution, Article V). Before the proposed amendment could become part of the Constitution the debt ceiling could be raised several more times.

Was Cap, Cut and Balance mere political theatrics, a distraction orchestrated to divert the public’s attention from the federal elephant in the swimming pool? Or did it represent action toward curing Washington’s debt addiction? Actually, it was both. While easily the lesser of all current evils, Cap, Cut and Balance remained flawed nonetheless.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Romney pleads the Tenth

Mitt Romney’s candidacy boasts several strengths. He is a successful businessman, an accomplished politician, and an articulate speaker. Romney is also perceived as economically conservative. In addition to those qualities he is photogenic, which is more essential to contemporary office seekers than a coherent platform. But Romney has drawbacks as well.

Some of Romney’s flaws aren’t actually flaws, such as Mitt’s oft-criticized Mormon beliefs. Pundits contend America isn’t ready for a Latter Day Saint president. That argument is familiar, and erroneous. Experts made the same case against a Catholic president just before America elected JFK, and against a black president before Obama. Thus Romney’s Mormonism is a moot point.

An equally empty argument concerns Romney’s lineage. Mitt’s Mormon ancestors practiced
polygamy. However, Romney has been married to one wife since 1969. His “family values” appear impeccable. Mitt is no more a polygamist via ancestral link than a descendant of Jefferson Davis is a slaveholder. His heritage, too, is a moot point.

A legitimate criticism of Romney is his indecisiveness, as columnist Steve Chapman alleges in a recent editorial. Chapman’s main
contention is Mitt’s willingness to change position at the drop of a hat and then deny having done so. Indeed Romney has a history of being a walking contradiction. He tried to out-liberal Ted Kennedy in a 1994 Senate race. Once pro-choice, Romney became pro-life. Once in favor of banning semi-automatic firearms, he became pro-gun. Yet to become pro-life and pro-gun are solid conservative changes.

Romney’s true Achilles Heel isn’t indecisiveness, religion, or heritage. It’s the Massachusetts healthcare overhaul he fostered. One of the key arrows in a conservative’s anti-Obama quiver is opposing ObamaCare. Can Romney distance himself from his Massachusetts system, after which ObamaCare was
modeled? He can and he has. Furthermore, Romney’s defense is based on solid, conservative, pro-Constitution grounds.

Romney has cited the Tenth Amendment in reconciling Massachusetts’ healthcare plan with his criticism of ObamaCare. He contends the Constitution grants the central government no authority to deliver or mandate health coverage, nor does it prevent states from doing so. Thus Romney’s state program is defensible while Obama’s federal program is not.

Granted, the conservative position is to remove government entirely from healthcare, making Romney’s Tenth Amendment defense a technicality. But Romney can claim to have acted in the interests of Massachusetts. This position doesn’t necessarily defend government managed healthcare, but rather the right of each state to experiment with laws that fit the citizens’ desires. Favorable laws are retained while unfavorable ones are repealed. The entire nation suffered no loss of liberty under RomneyCare, as it will with ObamaCare.

Mitt Romney is a politician first and may be blowing smoke with his Tenth Amendment stance. But any candidate who makes a Constitutional argument for state sovereignty should please conservatives. To reject Romney’s defense entirely is to repudiate the principle of limited government and state sovereignty upon which our nation was created.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Outraged or shocked at Casey Anthony verdict? Think again!

Social media is abuzz with condemnations for Casey Anthony. Celebrities are tweeting their outrage while media pundits from Joy Behar to Bill O’Reilly air their displeasure with the Anthony verdict. The court of public opinion had Anthony convicted and all but executed. Anger toward Casey Anthony united this country like nothing since Pearl Harbor. How could the jury disagree with the majority? But disagree they did.

The prosecution couldn’t produce sufficient evidence to erase the jury’s reasonable doubt about how Caylee Anthony died, or at whose hand. So Casey will go
free, in complete agreement with America’s judicial system.

We the people empower the State to execute offending citizens, or imprison them for life. To balance that power, the State must bear the burden of establishing guilt. Were accusation, or public opinion, the primary evidence for determining a person's guilt the right to life, our most basic liberty, wouldn't exist. A State-induced, mob mentality would serve America no better than it did Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or Islamic caliphates.

Yet the calls for Casey Anthony’s head are myriad. From Twitter to Facebook the protests rage, virtual vigils are held, and Casey Anthony is strapped into an imaginary electric chair. She knows whether or not she killed her daughter. But the State didn’t prove her guilt to the jury’s satisfaction. So Casey will be freed. There is no appeal, no re-trail. She cannot be “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

I didn’t follow the Casey Anthony trial. I think publicly airing criminal proceedings cheapens our courts and transforms them into quasi-reality dog and pony shows. Courts are serious, not a judicial version of American Idol. Their purpose is to try the charged and determine guilt or innocence to the greatest degree possible within an imperfect, human system. Most of the time they work. Sometimes they fail. That’s life; get over it. When courts become public entertainment they’re no longer tools of justice and tranquility, but of tyranny.

Nothing in Casey Anthony’s acquittal indicates she is guiltless. Casey prefers
partying to parenting. She’s a maternal nightmare, similar to Susan Smith and Andrea Yates, and exceeds the Octomom for irresponsibility. She’s no matron of motherhood. But for many of Anthony’s detractors, condemning her for considering Caylee an inconvenience is somewhat hypocritical. Why is a child’s death, for the sake of convenience, considered evil only when it offends the public?

More than a million babies die for the sake of their mother’s convenience every year. Had Casey Anthony aborted Caylee she would’ve been a heroine to the pro-abortion activist. The only difference between Casey Anthony’s alleged crime and an aborted pregnancy is the timing. The underlying attitude is the same. At least Caylee’s accused killer stood trial. Where’s the media, celebrity, and public outrage for the unknown babies sacrificed to convenience in abortion clinics every day?

Another interesting twist on the Anthony verdict is the eagerness with which her detractors want her punished. The nation is angry at Casey Anthony. Therefore, she should fry like scrambled eggs. But the condemnations contradict the normal attitudes our social superiors have towards accused, and even convicted, murderers.

Many of Casey’s harshest critics are altogether opposed to capital punishment. When an accused murderer is convicted, activists demand tolerance regardless of either the perpetrator’s brutality or prior record. Social activists excuse duly convicted murderers as products of an unjust society. They piously remind those of us in the great unwashed about the danger of executing an innocent person, even when the condemned has been tried and found as guilty as John Dillinger.

Those voices are quiet in the Casey Anthony aftermath. Or, they have joined the self-righteous calls for Casey’s guilt and execution. And they hold this opinion about someone who was tried and exonerated in criminal court? It's a double standard that defies all reason.

Blatant inconsistencies are evident in the public's reaction to Casey Anthony acquittal. The State didn’t convince a jury of Casey’s guilt, meaning she's innocent. Calling for her head is an affront to our fundamental liberty. Abortion activists believe pregnancies represent an inconvenience to women. Yet they're angry toward Casey Anthony for, allegedly, considering Caylee a drain on her lifestyle. And “open-minded” opponents of executing duly convicted murderers are convinced that an exonerated defendant should bite the dust.

The nation's reaction to Casey Anthony's exoneration confirms that a lack of consistency is the only constant in contemporary public discourse.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

The Poser-in-Chief visits Iowa

Less than 18 months before a general election a sitting president arrives in Iowa and we’re supposed to believe he’s on an economic mission? Pardon me, but I’ve seen more believable posturing. President Obama’s trip to the Hawkeye State had nothing do with economics and everything to do with receiving mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until January 2017. However, Obama’s Iowa appearance should have an opposite effect. He provided America several reasons to grant him a change of address.

Obama chided Washington for its partisanship, calling on Congress to seek common solutions. But was he sincere? Only the most naïve would accept Obama’s olive branch without first considering his motive. There’s no genuine compromise in a liberal’s conciliatory tone. By Obama’s definition, bipartisan cooperation occurs when conservatives concede their positions, abandon their ideals, and relent to his agenda. Any hint of liberal compromise is a ruse, a means toward an end.

Obama was quick to rub Republican noses in his 2008 victory. Why should conservatives, who won in 2010, compromise with a president who exemplifies hostility toward their basic beliefs? Obama’s idea of stimulating the economy is to enlarge the federal government, a concept Republicans claim to oppose. Conservative Republicans, especially, have no reason to cooperate with his administration.

Obama waxed eloquent on the “Made in America” theme during his speech at an Iowa manufacturing facility. “I want the cars and planes and wind turbines of the future to bear the proud stamp that says ‘Made in America,’” the President chirped. But Obama’s actions betray his rhetoric.

Obama may want industry to thrive in supportive, organized labor states like Washington. But in conservative, right-to-work states like South Carolina, not so much. Obama’s National Labor Relations Board is suing Boeing for building a new aircraft manufacturing plant in Charleston, SC. The President can utter
grandiose words about protecting American jobs until the cows come home. But as long as the NLRB suit against Boeing proceeds, Obama’s words are cheap.

The President appeared to recognize the components of economic dynamism that exist in America: workers, companies, industries. But coming from Obama, the praise is banal, populist rhetoric. He finds no value in America’s producers unless their achievement results from government nurturing. Toward that goal Obama supports a half-billion dollar
partnership between industry, academia and the federal government, allegedly to spur domestic manufacturing. But what opportunity exists for manufacturing to advance when allied with entities -- academia and government -- that hold free markets in utter contempt?

Obama’s motives are apparent. The President visited Iowa to counter a field of Republicans who seek his job. Obama presides over an administration that must rely on credit to conceal its profligate legacy. His hostility toward private enterprise is rivaled only by his cultivation of the public sector.

Maybe we can understand Obama’s posturing to some degree. Posing is a President’s only option when honesty means defeat.