Category: Conservatism 101

Dodging Federalism

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

I don’t dispute Andrew Ian Dodge’s point about fiscal vs. social conservatism here in the Examiner:

In order to retain those in the middle, non-commital and of other parties that have become part of the tea party movement its essential to produce a spectacular event, or rather events, on 9/12 in DC, St Louis & Sacramento. The tea party movement needs to show that fiscal conservatism is an even stronger force in the American politics than social conservatism.

It’s a battle over who speaks for the grassroots of the county, and its one the fiscal conservatives need to win lest they lose all those moderates, Democrats and independents who have been attracted to the non-partisan, non-religious and non-denominational nature of the tea party movement.

Let’s make the point though that the question isn’t so much what as where. Fiscal conservativism is the obvious Federal thrust because money drives Federal over-reach. A proper chain of command has the Federal government dealing primarily with the States, and leaving to the States the concerns about citizens, insofar as the States aren’t abusive. Given sufficient money and power, debacles like Fannie and Freddie follow.
Social conservatives, and I am one, need to grasp that worrying about private behavior at the Federal level (e.g. variations of marriage) sets the precedent for much evil, like abortions and the Department of Education, but I semi-repeat myself.
Of course, the root of this foulness is the 16th Amendment and Federal Reserve in 1913, subsequent to which the District of Columbia has become the Distributor of Cash. Granted, that gravy train is going to make restoration harder, but it has to be done.
The Founders wrote a Constitution to delegate certain powers to a central government for specific reasons. The time has come to work the wisdom of that Constitution in reverse, to return the Federal government to its intended bounds. Social conservatives really need to ponder this point.

The $21 Million Arizona Sell-Out

Posted on Comments

The Keen Observer at Townhall.com:

It only took a measly 21 million dollars for John McCain to buy yet another 6-year term in the most exclusive club of aristocrats the world has ever known: the United States Senate.
And all for a job that pays 174K a year, plus a few fringes. Fuzzy math indeed; but nice “work” if you can get it.
But curiously, most of the 21 milion was LEFTOVER from his bizarre presidential campaign of 2008, where McCain exhibited “extraordinary restraint” in not attacking Barack Obama head-on . . .
Now contrast with the way McCain went directly after the jugular of fellow Republican J.D. Hayworth — choosing to attack the hapless ex-congressman unrelentingly over FOUR consecutive months, in one the dirtiest, most-misrepresentative TV campaigns in recent memory.

You may read the whole thing, if you wish. My question is for Arizonans who love liberty, who care about the Constitution, who oppose John McCain’s big-government RINO agenda: Are you for sale?

Will you betray your principles for $21 million? Or is it so important to elect a senator with an “R” beside his name that you will now roll over, bite your tongues, and pretend that America will somehow be safer — our freedoms more secure — if John McCain gets re-elected?

Will you, in other words, become a willing accomplice in foisting this fraud upon your fellow citizens?

Michelle Malkin has declared, “John McCain is the problem,” and I completely agree. If we agree that this two-faced backstabbing disgrace to my family name is the problem, what is the solution? On Tuesday night, when the results of the primary in Arizona became known, I said:

Say hello to Libertarian Party candidate David Nolan. He’s also on Facebook.
David F. Nolan is a great American, and I’m his new best friend.

As his new best friend, allow me to make the proper introduction, from his official biography:

David F. Nolan is the principal founder of America’s largest and most successful third party, the Libertarian Party.
He holds a degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and enjoyed a successful four-decade career in advertising, marketing and publishing.
In 1970, he created a new map of the political world that has all but replaced the old-fashioned left-right linear model. A Google search for the phrase “Nolan Chart” recently turned up 350,000 references!
This groundbreaking achievement earned Mr. Nolan a listing in 2,000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th Century, published by the International Biographical Centre, Cambridge, England.
David lives in Tucson with his wife Elizabeth.

Many of my friends, I know, are saying to themselves, “This guy can’t possibly win.” That’s what they said about Joe Miller until Tuesday night. And some of you may be looking at Nolan and saying, “Dude, he’s a hopeless geek. If we support him, we’ll look like idiots.”

Yeah? Well, let me remind you of another hopless geek:

Nov. 4, 2009
SARANAC LAKE, N.Y. — If a Hollywood producer were casting for the role of a revolutionary hero, no talent agent would send Doug Hoffman to the audition. Yet the Hoffman congressional campaign has ignited a revolution within the Republican Party, the results of which are already being felt.
Even while the Hoffman campaign’s early-evening “cautious optimism” gave way to concern — with staffers huddling in the “war room” here at the Hotel Saranac — one official of New York’s Conservative Party was already in a celebratory mood, laughing as he yelled into his cell phone: “Guess who will not be representing the 23rd District? Dede Scozzafava!”

Exactly my point. We can win back the 23rd District this fall — go contribute to support Doug Hoffman now — but if conservatives are afraid to stand up for principle, if conservatives are willing to roll over and buy into the GOP establishment’s lesser-of-two-evils defense of a two-faced backstabbing RINO like John McCain, why should conservatives expect to be treated with any respect?

If not now, when? If not us, who?

We have started a revolution, and we cannot quit it now. It’s time to take a stand, my friends, to draw a line in the sand and proclaim our vow, “This far, and no further.” Who’s with me?

DAVID NOLAN for U.S. SENATE

Why Joe Miller Won

Posted on Comments

“You can accomplish much, if you don’t care who gets the credit.”
— Ronald Reagan

Frankly, I’ve been patting myself on my back all morning about the prescience of my July 6 American Spectator feature about Joe Miller:

Any disinterested political observer would be tempted to rate Murkowski a lead-pipe cinch for re-election. The incumbent has only one major problem, and that problem can be summed up in two words: Sarah Palin.

Read the whole thing and tell me I didn’t nail that one, OK? But there’s a couple of things you ought to know. I never would have done that interview with Miller if it hadn’t been for frequent commenter (and longtime tip-jar hitter) Miss Sharon. She was an early supporter of Miller’s Senate campaign and pushed hard to get me to pay attention to his primary, then helped me get hooked up with his campaign staff.

Miss Sharon — her Twitter name is WooHooYoo — isn’t famous or influential. She’s just someone who has stopped asking, “What can I do?” and started doing what she can. (Good advice.)

Some people are giving Sarah Palin all the credit for Joe Miller’s miracle win in Alaska, but there are a lot of volunteers like Miss Sharon who deserve credit. And somebody pointed out today that Mark Levin did a lot to boost Joe’s campaign with this July 23 interview:

Levin helped Joe Miller get his message to a huge national radio audience and guess who turned that interview into a YouTube video? Miss Sharon.

Small world, you see? But let’s face it: The guy who did the most to help Joe Miller win was . . . Joe Miller.

He is a fine candidate with strong principles who isn’t afraid to speak the truth and speaks it clearly and intelligently. He is the kind of guy any American should be proud to support.

JOE MILLER for U.S. SENATE

Is the GOP Heading for Heartbreak?

Posted on Comments

OK, after reading Karl’s Hot Air post, I’m starting to feel a bit embarrassed about my own grim outlook on the fall elections: Am I too pessimistic? Am I turning into Allahpundit?

Let me explain: I was at Doug Hoffman’s headquarters in Saranac Lake, N.Y., the night he came up short, and I was at Tim Burns’ headquarters in Washington, Pa., the night he came up short. So I’ve seen the agony of defeat at close range, and I know what disappointed hope looks like.

By contrast, I was in Boston for the Scott Brown victory celebration when the confetti rained down and the band played and the AOSHQ crew broke out the pudding. Miracles can happen and, if a Republican can win Ted Kennedy’s seat, nothing is impossible.

So let me give you a reason for optimism: Randy Altschuler in New York’s 1st District has $1.8 million cash on hand, compared to $1.4 million for incumbent Democrat Rep. Tim Bishop. The bad news is that Altschuler is in a Republican primary against GOP establishment candidate Chris Cox, who’s got more than $800,000 cash on hand.

Meanwhile, in NY-23, our hero Doug Hoffman has about $200,000 cash on hand and is facing a GOP primary against an establishment candidate, Matt Doheny, who’s got nearly $700,000. And the (Dede-endorsed) Democrat incumbent, Rep. Bill Owens, is sitting on $600,000.

Go back to Jim Geraghty’s list of 99 most feasible Republican pickups for November and from the “Blue” (easy) category choose MD-1. This district, containing the Eastern Shore area of Maryland, was long represented by moderate Republican Wayne Gilchrest, who routinely won 2-to-1 landslides, but lost the 2008 GOP primary to conservative challenger Andy Harris. But when the Obama tide hit in November 2008, Harris lost narrowly (49%-48%) to Democrat Frank Kratovil.

MD-1 looks like a sure bet to flip back to the Republicans this fall. However, as of June 30, Kratovil had $1.3 million cash on hand, whereas there are two leading GOP candidates in the Sept. 14 primary, Harris (about $900,000 cash on hand) and Rob Fisher (about $240,000 cash on hand).

So here you’ve got what should be an easy win for the GOP — and yet (a) the Democrat’s got a significant money advantage and (b) the Republicans must fight out a primary battle that won’t end until seven weeks before Election Day.

Returning to Geraghty’s list, let’s pick one from the “Green” category (“should be GOP wins”):  PA-3, up near Lake Erie, a district won by George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. In 2008, however, the Obama wave lifted Kathleen Dahlkemper to a 52-48 win over third-term incumbent Phil English. As of June 30, Dahlkemper was sitting on $1 million in campaign cash, while her GOP opponent, Mike Kelly, had a measly $100,000.

You see why I’m worried, folks? Republicans need to gain 40 seats to take over the House. When you combine the “Blue” and “Green” categories in Geraghty’s list, the total is 39 seats, and some of those races might be a lot tougher for the GOP than Geraghty thinks. “Blue Dog” Democrat Rep. Bobby Bright in AL-2, for example, got lucky when the Republican establishment lined up behind Martha Roby, who isn’t exactly a dynamic political personality. As of June 30, Bright had $730,000 compared to Roby’s $120,000.

Moving up to the “Yellow” (50/50) category, we find we’re in the same range as PA-12. How’s our friend Tim Burns doing since the May 19 special election? As of June 30, he was about even with Democrat Mark Critz in cash-on-hand. Another race I’m following is Ray McKinney in GA-12. As of June 30, Ray’s opponent, incumbent Democrat Rep. John Barrow, had more than $600,000 cash on hand, compared to less than $80,000 for McKinney.

Money isn’t everything, but it’s essential to running any political campaign and, almost everywhere, we see Republican challengers at a significant financial disadvantage to the Democrat incumbents they must beat if the prophecies of a GOP House majority are to be fulfilled. 

These candidates can’t depend on the Washington-based Republican establishment to bail them out. RNC reportedly has only $5 million cash on hand. The NRCC has $17 million, compared to $33 million for the DCCC.

If conservatives online don’t start paying attention, Nov. 2 may be another one of those “agony of defeat” moments — a long night of tearful Republican concession speeches that brings smiles to the faces of Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.

And nobody wants to see that, right?

Say Hello to Liberty.com!

Posted on Comments

A right-wing MoveOn.org?

On Wednesday, September 1, 2010, a key organizer in the 2009 Tax Day Tea Party and “Don’t Go” movement pioneer Eric Odom will join a national coalition of conservative movement activists in launching Liberty.com, a right-of-center news and national activism website with the intention of eclipsing the left’s Moveon.org.
“For years, Moveon.org has directed millions of activist dollars to influence races and to defame targets like General David Petraeus,” observes Odom. “With Liberty.com, the conservative grassroots will be able to fight back.”
Organized along with Americans for New Leadership as an unconnected and unauthorized political committee that will conduct only independent expenditures, Liberty.com will begin operation having already raised $700,000 from individual donors and with over 70,000 members transferred from Odom’s existing networks, American Liberty Alliance and The Patriot Caucus. A January, 2010 Supreme Court decision has made the new organization possible.
“In January, the Supreme Court surprised us all by ruling in favor of free speech,” said Liberty.com Communications Director Yates Walker. “That decision and Eric’s vision have led to the creation of a new weapon in the conservative arsenal: Liberty.com.”

Here’s a video:

Visit Liberty.com and follow them on Facebook and Twitter.

Socialist Opiates Are Addictive Indeed

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

The Tenth Amendment Center reprints a fine overview of the Social Security disaster:

If the words “general welfare” and “United States” are put in their proper context, then the general welfare provision grants Congress the power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… group well being of all the United States.” The “entire group” being referenced is not the people, as comprising a single nation, but the several States in their united capacity. Since the Constitution is a compact or contract between the several States, and the States are only united within the scope of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, this composition of the general welfare provision is in totally harmony with the intent and construction of that document.

Alexander Hamilton sustained this fact in his writings on the Constitution. In Federalist No. 83, he reduced this principle to a single sentence:

“The United States, in their united or collective capacity, are the OBJECT to which all general provisions in the Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer.” [Emphasis not added]

The general welfare clause, being but a part of a general provision of the Constitution, applies solely to the States “in their united or collective capacity.” If the Constitution had established a social compact or union between the American people, and they were the object of the general powers delegated to the federal government, then it would have been an absurdity to reference the States, in their united capacity, as the object of the general welfare phrase. In addition, if the Constitution had been established for the well being of the American people, then that same people would have been the “whole group” referenced in the general welfare phrase.

Based on the above definitions, Social Security should have been struck down because Congress used a provision of the Constitution that applied to the States, in their united capacity, and unconstitutionally applied it to the people. When Congress inserted the words “[a]n Act to Provide for the General Welfare” at the beginning of the Social Security Act, that body took a clause that granted Congress the power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… group well being of all the United States” and twisted it into a power that granted Congress the power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare generally. This was a gross usurpation of power.

RTWT for a short overview of how diabolical the notion of Social Security was and remains.

FDR’s infamous Second Bill of Rights enjoyed none of the thought and debate that went into the first round, have been implement piecemeal through Federal over-reach while blowing off Article Five, and, ultimately, cannot be supported other than by loads of pixie dust delivered by golden hover ponies.

The real question is the path to restoring the proper, Constitutional Federal role for dealing with individual citizens. Rep. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap tacitly accepts the current situation. This may be a crucial compromise in terms of Doing Something, but, let’s face it: Socialism is the opiate of the bureaucracy, and leaving a lot of dope laying around will result in it being used.

What Smith Would Do is announce a gala 100 year anniversary celebration of the 16th & 17th Amendments, plus the Federal Reserve Act, and publicly set them on fire. Whoever is President in 2012 should announce a three year preparation period, so that in 01 January 2015, the States pick up the tab for caring for such social services as they’re inclined to fund.

Congress would invoice the States for remaining Federal tasking, letting these United States tax farm their citizens to fund the Federal budget, which is not allowed to run a deficit with the exception of an actual, formal, documented, Constitutional, proper declaration of war.

States missing their funding goals have a simple VAT applied to handle the delta.

Past the vomiting from opiate withdrawal, the wisdom of such a system would be the negative feedback loop. Forced to deal with budgetary realities, Pete Stark’s head would ‘splode, and we’d quickly stop funding absurd, non-essential noise. Returning the Senators to State appointees, while probably not decreasing the net corruption in the Senate, would return a voice in Federal affairs to the States.

With the Federal opium fields not yielding so much, incumbency might not be such a big win for those Ruling Class Clowns currently mooching from the future via Federal largesse.

Of course, if I was elected and could carry off such a plan, something odd and final could likely happen. Addiction therapies which are fatal to the patient are sub-optimal. But now you sunny beaches know how I feel. Having marked out the edge of the debate, let’s see what others can do in the way of a workable compromise.