The ballots are barely certified in the New Jersey primary election on June 2nd and incumbent Democratic governor/former Goldman-Sachs CEO and Obama prototype Jon Corzine is already on the attack.  Dipping early into his vast accumulated personal wealth, Corzine has released two attack advertisements on Republican challenger, Chris Christie.  For his part, Christie is using public financing and thus limited in his use of funds until later in the campaign.  Corzine is attacking now because he is watching the polls, especially the post-primary bump which benefitted Christie.  Currently, Christie holds a 50-40% lead which is outside the margin of error of most polls.  Corzine’s favorability rating is 36% (56% unfavorable) while last month it was 38%.  And while New Jerseyans realize that the nation as a whole is in a recession, 55% of those polled say Corzine does not deserve a second term in office.  Another 44% do not view Corzine as trustworthy or honest (which probably has something to do with breaking promises and his more than cozy relationships with the State’s public service employee unions).  Among independents, Christie leads by 24 percentage points, has an 88% approval rating among Republicans and, most surprisingly, a 19% approval rating from Democrats.  That has to be discouraging to an incumbent Democrat by any measure.  Hence, the early attack ads on Christie because these numbers, should they hold out, spell a loss for Corzine in November.

Steve Singiser over at dailykos.com notes that although these numbers are discouraging now, when push comes to shove, the state’s voters often pull the Democratic lever come Election Day.  He uses as proof the recent Senate election of Frank Lautenberg and the election of Barack Obama.  In fact, that did happen this past election where the Republicans- at least as far as President was concerned- were closer 45 days before the election than the final margin of victory.  But lest one forget, there was the intervening collapse of the financial industry and McCain’s own campaign bungling that did him in.  Whether Corzine’s recent ads have any impact will be determined with the next polls to be released.  Right now, actually, there is the general lull that happens in the summer before Labor Day.  But, if Corzine’s numbers do not improve after Labor Day- and given the state of New Jersey’s economy, there is no reason to expect improvement- expect the ads to become more brutal.

As for the most recent advertisements, they are fairly misleading, if not outright lies and misdirection.  The first advertisement- “Who Stands With You?”- states that Christie opposes the right to choose (a ploy to get the woman’s vote), that he stands with NRA, that he is silent on global warming and would weaken environmental laws, and that Corzine is creating the climate for the creation of jobs.  The second ad states that Christie would curtail health coverage (including mammograms- again a ploy to get the female vote), give corporations costly tax breaks, again mentions the right to choose, would refuse Obama stimulus funds, and quotes a newspaper editorial describing Christie’s property tax plan as “fantasy.”

Regarding the “right to choose” accusation, Christie has stated that he is decidedly “pro-life.”  However, there is nothing in any statement he has said that he would roll back a woman’s right to choose in New Jersey.  It is one thing to give voice to the pro-life movement’s sentiments and another thing to single-handedly, as Governor, roll back any pro-choice laws.  As for being a shill for the NRA, Christie’s tenure as Federal Prosecutor in New Jersey was marked by over 800 gun law case convictions.  He has broken up gangs in major urban areas of the state because the state, under Corzine, failed!  In fact, under Corzine, the murder rate has increased 9%, rapes have increased 15% and burglaries have increased 7%.  Apparently, NOT being in the pocket of the NRA hasn’t exactly solved any crime problems in New Jersey under Corzine’s leadership.  Weakening environmental laws?  New Jersey has some of the most arcane and convoluted environmental regulations in the country.  However, under Christie, there have been several high profile prosecutions- some resulting in jail time besides extracting fines.  The best way to tackle polluters is to hit them in the wallet and then actually collect the money.  In fact, in one case, the money from the fine imposed was used to purchase 120 acres of land and expand existing wildlife refuges in the state.  Jon Corzine has created jobs in New Jersey?  The unemployment rate in New Jersey is higher than that of New York which was hard hit by the financial crisis.  Jobs are leaving New Jersey, as is the population because it is one of the highest taxed states in the country for citizens, businesses, and property owners with little in returned services, unless you happen to be a public sector worker.  Corzine has, in fact, raised taxes and fees 103 times in four years as Governor.  Why would any business want to move to New Jersey to face these ridiculous taxes, not to mention the even more ridiculous business regulations and hoops one must jump through with Trenton?  I know- I HAD a business in New Jersey and never will again!  Today, New Jersey ranks #1 in terms of tax burden (that’s not good) and has for the past three years and running.  New Jersey has been in the top five states since 1998 when they ranked sixth (under a Republican governor).  In terms of the business/corporate tax environment, New Jersey ranks dead last amongst states (it ranked 48th when Corzine took office- he took a bad situation and made it worse).  Forbes ranks New Jersey #34 for overall business environment which takes into account more factors than just taxes.  And while New Jersey ranks 12th in terms of an educated workforce, it also ranks 1st in teacher pay to the delight of the teacher’s unions who also have Corzine in their pocket.  And speaking of fantasies, Corzine promised a 40% reduction in property taxes if elected the first time.  They have actually increased under Corzine.

The bottom line is that despite the fact New Jersey is a decidedly (and unfortunately) blue state, the economy- not the right to choose, gun laws, views on global warming, the availability of mammograms, and environmental enforcement- will decide this election.  Clearly, the runaway spending in Trenton through give aways to core Democratic constituencies have set the state on a dire path with reality.  It is not enough to blame George Bush for the problems of the State, which Corzine is already stating.  And lest he forget, Democrats have run New Jersey itself for the past eight years, not George Bush, not Dick Cheney, not the Republican Party.  The mess in New Jersey was created by Democrats and Democrats have taken a bad situation and made it worse.  It is California only with a smaller and declining population.  Before this recession, which is being blamed on Bush, New Jersey was no better off anyway.  To now claim that the state is caught in the maelstrom of national events denies the reality of recent history.  Every June is met with a budget crisis!

The following is an example of how Democrats solve problems in New Jersey and illustrate how a bloated government regulatoy bureaucratic structure confounds a situation.  It is like Obamacare in microcosm.  In New Jersey, in an effort to keep the best high school graduates in-state for college (the fact they were leaving in the first place says something in itself), they created the STARS program which essentially grants full four-year scholarships for high school graduates who graduate in the top percentages from their high schools.  It has been a somewhat successful program in its intended effect.  This past year, the State decided that in order to qualify- they don’t currently know when it should go into effect- the student must complete a high school course in economics (either macro or micro).  One would think that the Department of Education would decide the issue and get on with writing checks for these scholarships.  But, there is also the Commission on Higher Education which had to decide the reliability of the course content.  Not to be outdone, the Higher Education Student Assistance Authority said that since they were in charge of the actual scholarships, they should make the decisions.  Hence, you have three state agencies unable to make a simple minor decision blocking the whole show.  Mind you, these are three state entities with their own budgets and their own bureaucracies.  This is the state of New Jersey.  That business I owned?  My license to do business in the state was held up pending payment of a cigarette floor tax imposed under McGreevey.  To resolve the problem, we had to actually take a day off from work and drive to Trenton.  After being pointed to various agencies, we eventually ended back at the Division of Taxation (which is where one would imagine taxes would be processed- but not necessarily in New Jersey).  The problem was that the floor tax on my cigarette inventory was applied to another business- an insurance office 80 miles away (perhaps, the first insurance office in the country to also sell cigarettes?).  This is the state of New Jersey.

In conclusion, if Singiser’s analysis is right and New Jersey voters revert to their true blue form come the first Tuesday in November, then New Jersey has a greater problem than the tax environment or the business environment.  I am afraid that New Jersey may have the most stupid or ill-informed or ignorant voters in the country.  It will be interesting to count the number of times Corzine invokes the specter of George Bush in the upcoming campaign.  It will also be interesting to see if Christie’s numbers hold up come the fall and if they do or they improve, will Saint Obama expend capital trying to get a loser re-elected, or will he distance himself from Corzine?  When push comes to shove, Corzine did not “deliver” New Jersey to Obama.  Events outside the state created that outcome.  Can Obama “deliver” the Governor’s mansion to Corzine for another four years?  Remember- it’s the economy and the economy of New Jersey is not getting any better despite Obama’s stimulus and it is not projected to show any improvement through November.  It won’t get better until the runaway spending in Trenton and the bloated, ineffective and overlapping bureaucracy is addressed.  And here, Corzine has not shown an effort or desire to do this.  This may not be a national referendum on Obama in New Jersey.  But it may just be the tax and spending revolt this country needs to warn Obama.  Along with Virginia, let’s hope and work towards that goal.

There are a few recent polls, trends and actual votes to give the Republican Party more hope today than existed on November 5th, 2008.  Of course, the liberals/Democratic Party will be arrogantly dismissive and will/have analyzed these things into oblivion in denial of reality.  Along with their hypocrisy and elitism, this is an obvious trademark of liberal thought.  They do this through (1) denial, (2) trivialization, and (3) the use of nuance.  Denial is the most obvious- “it’s just not true.”  For example, “it’s just not true” that enhanced interrogation techniques produce valuable intelligence.  The second tactic- trivialization- takes certain actions with a “so what?” attitude.  For example, the tea parties in April were downplayed as a ploy of Fox News and party turn out downplayed, or the press used the most extreme visual effects- those signs equating Obama and Hitler- as the status quo among tea party participants.  The recent rejection of taxes in California to fix years of Sacramento shenanigans was caused, they reason, by low voter turn out.  If more California voters turned out, do they also believe that Californians would be more willing to open their wallets for higher taxes?  The recent gains by conservatives in the European Union parliamentary elections are also met with a “so what” attitude and explained away.  One wonders what their analysis would be had socialists made gains in these elections.  Would these same pundits be declaring an Obama victory since Obama seems hell-bent on creating a socialist democratic European style welfare state in America?  And the recent primary elections in New Jersey and Virginia were met with the same attitude.

In New Jersey, Christopher Christie won the Republican Primary over the more conservative Steve Lonegan.  Compared to Jon Corzine, Christie, even as a “moderate” Republican, would look like an uber-conservative.  Democratic pundits have noted that Corzine has not dipped into his vast personal fortune to get his message out yet (what message?) and that the expected largesse and support of the unions, the true power brokers in Trenton, has not been realized.  But when one looks at Christie’s performance in traditional Democratic stronghold counties like Essex, Camden, and Middlesex, it far exceeds previous Republican primary winners in those areas.  Despite the liberal ignorance, Corzine enters this race an underdog with favorability ratings somewhere south of Bush at the end of his presidency.  This is Christie’s race to lose.  Meanwhile, in Virginia, the consensus frontrunner and former DNC chief, Terry McAuliffe, lost out to a rural, more conservative candidate.  While strategists on the national and state level were tolling the bell for Republicans in Virginia, they may just have to hold off on that party and moving Virginia from the red column to the blue column.

But where liberals and Democrats usually nuance items is with public opinion polling by criticizing the methodology or wording, or whatever excuse they can muster.  The recent Gallup Poll which indicated that a majority of Americans, for the first time, now describe themselves as “pro-life” is a good example.  This could not be true, they reasoned, because that result does not match their worldview.  Therefore, the wording of the questions in the poll must be misleading, they said.  However, other recent polls find that now respondents view Republicans more favorably than Democrats in six of ten categories.  In the area of national security, without surprise, Republicans have led Democrats in this area for eight straight months.  That is three months of a presidential campaign and five months of an endless Obama apology tour of the world.  But, here is the kicker: Republicans currently out-poll Democrats on the economy in general.

Taken individually, polls are not worth the paper they are published on sometimes.  But when analyzed in the aggregate it becomes obvious that, at a minimum, the perceived “change” people voted for in November does not match the reality of the “change” being rammed down America’s throat in the name of expediency by Obama and the rest of the Democratic cabal.  A cursory look at these polls reveal that perhaps America is getting over its Svengali-like hypnotism at the hands of Obama’s teleprompter rhetoric.

Despite TARP and “stimulus,” America’s perception in June 2009 of the banking industry and Wall Street in general is the same as it was in 2007- pre-financial meltdown.  In February polling, Democrats were perceived to be the party better prepared to solve the health care problem in America by an 18-point margin.  Today, that margin has dwindled to a 10-point advantage.  By the time Obama signs anything at this rate, it will be down to a 1-2 point margin, hardly the bipartisan mandate he envisions.  An April poll indicated that Americans favorably view free trade policies over protectionism (despite “Buy American” provisions in the stimulus bill)- an area where Republicans have shown consistency.  Another poll from April states that Americans are drifting right on the issues of abortion and gun control which, if Republicans play the issues correctly, they can exploit to the disadvantage of the Democrats as portraying them as being outside the mainstream.  Recent polls look disfavorably upon the government take over of General Motors with only 33% of Americans believing it will result in success.  That’s a lot of pessimism to overcome.  Despite the “inspiring oratory” in Cairo which no doubt set yet more tingles up Chris Matthew’s legs, only 37% of Americans polled trust Islamic nations to settle perceived differences with the United States.  Of course, this could have something to do with the more realistic images of fatwas, jihads, and airplanes taking out buildings in New York City.  A recent June 9th poll indicates that just 33% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are now in the country.  Lest they nuance this one away, the poll also finds that the dissatisfaction rate is 64%.  Finally, a June 10th poll finds that only 36% of Americans currently believe the country is headed in the right direction.

What are the strategy implications going forward in the 2009, and especially the 2010 elections?  From the acceptance speeches of both Corzine in New Jersey and Deeds in Virginia, get ready for a familiar refrain: their Republican opponents represent the “same failed policies of the Bush years.”  Corzine even threw Cheney and Ashcroft in there for added emphasis.  The Democratic strategy is to link Christie and McDonnell to Bush, plain and simple.  Republicans need to hammer through a policy of fiscal discipline while outlining a plan to retain services for their state’s most vulnerable citizens- not “compassionate conservatism,” but a realignment of priorities.  For example, does New Jersey really need three state departments or commissions or boards-each with their own budgets and bureaucracies- to determine whether high school students should be taught economics in order to receive state scholarships?  And after they win in November, they need to show humility in triumph while Corzine and Deeds and, by extension, Pelosi, Reid and Obama eat crow, then trivialize the significance of these Republican victories.

For 2010, preliminary polling data in Congress- and many of these races are hypothetical- indicate that Republicans may pick up 30-40 seats in the House and three Senate seats.  Neither of these facts will shift the balance of power per se, but in the House, with a united Republican Party dedicated to fiscal conservatism in conjunction with fiscally moderate or conservative southern Democrats, perhaps a formidible voting bloc can be achieved to thwart the more radical approaches of the Obama administration.  In other words, 2010 needs to be dedicated to this basic philosophy of fiscal discipline and as the need for a check on Obama’s unwanton Presidential economic powers.  The majority of Americans do not want to foot an estimated $9 trillion hidden tax increase in the name of slowing global warming.  The vast majority Americans do not want their current health benefits taxed without credits to purchase their own insurance, nor do they want Washington bureaucrats dictating what is the correct medical options.  Most Americans want less federal government intrusion in education and they want a choice in where they send their kids to school.  They don’t want mandates.  Most Americans support a free market economy, despite the recent recession and the actions of banks, investment firms and insurance companies and despite what Paul Krugman and Harold Meyerson state to the contrary.  Most Americans want energy independence but also realize that the “green future” Obama and Gore dream about every night is light years away while we sit on untapped oil, coal, and natural gas reserves.  Most Americans see the hypocrisy of Obama stating Iran is entitled to peaceful nuclear energy, yet his own energy independence bill does not encompass the role of nuclear energy in the United States.  Most Americans would probably be more willing to spend money on research into nuclear waste disposal rather than wasting money on wind turbine and solar panel technology.  Most Americans do not want the government to be part-owner of any business- bank, auto, amusement park, whatever.  When your Treasury Secretary is laughed and snickered at in China when he states the United States is dedicated to reducing their budget deficits and national debt, it is not out of disrespect.  It is out of realism; they see what the Democratic Party obviously fails to see.  Current spending of other country’s borrowed dollars is unsustainable in the short term and the long term.  It threatens not only future generations of tax payers, but the current generation.  The year 2010 could be year that the Democrats are held in check and given a dose of reality from the American electorate.  The Republican Party need not be the “party of no.”  In the end, they may just be the party of “We Told You So.”

Pat Buchanan’s most recent article in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (reprinted on Realclearpolitics.com) equates the foreign policy of Obama with that of Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter.  Wilson was a governor and academic prior to assuming the Presidency.  Obama was a first-term Senator who spent the majority of that time running for the Presidency and he taught constitutional law in Chicago.  Jimmy Carter was also a Governor, but had no academic experience.  Not that academia necessarily should be a prerequisite for being President, but perhaps it does hone one’s outlook and ideology.  With Wilson, his “foreign policy” was accentuated by a sense of idealism, that all the world’s nations would, after the war to end all wars, hold hands and collectively break into a chorus of “Kumbaya.”  Apparently, Obama is carrying through on this great idealistic quest to bring the world’s nations together through a policy of humility and apology and prostrating  before the court of world opinion.

There is a sometimes a very large gap between what “the people” see in anyone and what the governments which represent those people see.  Whereas it may be appeasing to the public in other countries to see a “new beginning” in Obama, words are one thing and actions are another.  The actual implementation of Obama’s grand plans of world peace are a lot harder to achieve in the real world than speaking of these things in his fantasy world.  Wilson’s Fourteen Points were a wonderful idea, but they were only that- an idea.  Implementation of that idea resulted in abject failure as the United States refused to ratify the League of Nations treaty, a stunning blow to a President who viewed this international body as the referee in international disputes.  And even though we belong to the United Nations, when was the last time that organization has done anything truly effective other than standing between two conflicting parties?  As Obama will surely find out, if he has not already, is that although there are certainly vast areas of agreements among other nations with the United States (those ubiquitous “communiques”), in foreign policy it is everyone for himself.

Is it any coincidence that since Obama became President, European nations individually have rebuked and rejected Obama-style stimulus?  Or that North Korea has fired numerous ballistic missiles in their testing phase AND more ominously, detonated another atomic bomb?  Or that Iran has begun uranium enrichment and also test fired ballistic missiles?  Or that China, never one to waste a crisis taking a cue from Rahm Immanuel, has been making noise about replacing the dollar with some new currency?  Or Australia adopting a defense policy that is less reliant on help from the United States?  Or the Taliban establishing control in Pakistan within 30 miles of the Pakistani capital?  Is it any coincidence that Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo is no closer to fruition than it was when he signed an executive order after his inauguration?  The reason: no country wants these people and those people do not want to be repatriated to their home countries because say what you will, they have it infinitely better on the southern tip of Cuba than they ever would in their home countries.  North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuala, the Taliban, Al-Queda, China and Russia (and every other country) have their own agendas and more often than not, there is not necessarily overlap with the United States.

What Obama apparently fails to understand is that he cannot talk North Korea and Iran into abandoning their nuclear weapon aspirations.  Nor can he talk Russia into turning the oil and natural gas spigots back on to the rest of Europe when they decide to turn them off in a hissy fit.  Nor can he talk Cuba and Venezuala into ceasing the exportation of socialist revolution in Latin America.  Nor can he convince Europe into spending vast sums of money they don’t have on American style stimulus.  Nor will having a Muslimlike name make Palestinians trust Israelis, and vice versa, any more than any previous President has achieved.  Conversely, the cries against Cuba’s admission into the OAS is hypocritical.  What has the OAS really achieved within the past twenty years other than providing an extra diplomatic position for the member countries?  So at the next OAS meeting, the Cuban delegation will get before the collected leaders and launch into a diatribe against the “colonial, imperialist” Americans while our elected “leader” sits there and eventually apologizes or says, “Its not my fault…I wasn’t born then.”  And if you read transcipts from Obama’s speech or listen to them on video, count the number of times this guy uses the words “I” or “me” or some variation of them.  Since Obama’s entire political life has been dedicated to above all else Barack Obama, this is not surprising.  But, Obama does not represent himself or his party or any faction within that party any more.  He represents the entire population of the United States.  Is it any wonder that for the eighth consecutive month, voter polling information reveals that Americans view the Republican Party better on foreign policy and national security than the Democrats and, by extension, the Obama HIMself.

Despite the American preoccupation with the economy and the American false sense of security, the world remains a dangerous place.  Unfortunately, Obama’s apologies for American actions dating back to the 1700′s is not making the world any safer; at best maintaining the status quo.  There are elements out there hell bent on our destruction not because we have troops in Muslim countries or because of former perceptions of colonialism, but because they simply hate the United States.  The sooner Obama wraps his head around this basic concept, the sooner we can become truly safe.  The sooner Obama understands that his number one priority is to “provide for the common defense,” the safer this country will be.  Which comes back to the proviso that academia prepares potential Presidents only for idealism, not reality.  If a law school professor in constitutional law can forget the number priority of the President as spelled out in the Constitution, then this country will not be truly safe from outside threats.  Oratory on teleprompters and apologies will not accomplish this.  In his favor, it is still early in his Presidency and he may extract troops from Iraq and it may become a peaceful country and the Taliban may leave Afghanistan and leave that country in peace and North Korea and Iran may cease their nuclear weapon aspirations and they may cease ballistic missile development and Russia may act like a good neighbor to the rest of Europe and the Palestinians may cease terrorist rocket attacks on Isreal and Israel may cease settlements and may open Jerusalem.  And there are probably other maybe’s not mentioned.  But, this is looking a lot less like Wilson’s idealism and more like Carter’s stupidity based on some amorphous over-riding principle of “human rights based foreign policy.”  This is deja vu all over again.  The question at this point is it 1920′s style naivete or 1970′s style naivete.

Once upon a time not too long ago, a mother bought a new television set for her family.  Upon bringing it home, she placed it on its stand still in the box, placed her toddler on the living room floor and went to the kitchen to start dinner.  Her toddler, being the curious creatures toddlers tend to be, wandered over to the big box and it fell on them.  Hearing the commotion in the living room, the mother ran in to find her child under the box.  She called the authorities, but it was too late- the child died of their injuries.  This made lots of news in the local press and got the attention of a local state legislator.  Concluding that the mother was obviously not responsible for leaving a toddler unattended around the box, the state passed a law requiring that boxes with certain dimensions would henceforth be labeled as “tipping hazards” in the state, probably in three languages.  This unfortunate story is true.

And although sad and true, it is also illustrative of how isolated incidents lead to knee jerk regulations and requirements placed on business.  Look at the Congressional inquiries into the Bernie Madoff scandal.  While this guy was certainly the epitome of a scumbag in every sense of the word, Congress held hearings to determine what went wrong and how to prevent it in the future.  The answer is simple, low cost, and commonsense:  Madoff is a scumbag who took advantage of “investors” who failed to do their homework.  Why did so many people walk away from his scheme?  What did they see that the others who got bilked did not see?

The more important question is: Do we need more regulation, or do we need better enforcement of the existing regulations?  With Madoff, there were certainly warning signs that regulators either overlooked, or went unheeded.  The Democratic conclusion is that Republican regulators “looked the other way.”  Well,Republicans do not hold a monopoly on “looking the other way.”  In the late 1990s, Democrats clearly looked the other way with respect to the warning signs involving Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and Republican efforts to regulate them.  No less a Democrat than Bill Clinton admitted that Democratic opposition to Republican efforts for regulation caused a far greater challenge to the economy than Bernie Madoff ever could.

Another knee jerk reaction was Sarbanes-Oxley passed in the aftermath of the Enron and other accounting “scandals.”  Passed in haste, no one took the time to look at the possible ill-effects through deliberative debate.  Instead, the pressure was to grandstand before cameras in the name of “doing something.”  Other examples are TARP, “porkulus,” Obama’s budget, and Waxman-Markey.  A 2004 study of 224 companies with $2.5 billion in revenues revealed that it costs $3.14 million per company per year to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley.  If you are a start-up company, the average cost of compliance is $8 million.  The law had the chilling effect of discouraging entrepreneurial start-up companies- a main driver in a vibrant economy.  That same study found that 33% of the companies considered going private, selling, or merging because of the compliance costs.  The worst effect has been on IPOs, especially among the high-tech companies.  This hinders companies from raising capital and expanding operations.

While the Democrats try to portray Republicans as the party of “deregulation,” there are voices within the GOP who do tout laissez-faire capitalism.  But, realistically, the GOP does not and has never endorsed an absolute unregulated economy.  To do so would violate anyone’s obligations under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution that grants Congress the power to regulate commerce (business and the economy).  However, because that power is granted, it does not infer a license for government to get into the minute details of businesses as the Democrats seem to believe.

Harold Meyerson, a liberal editorial writer for the Washington Post, noted that a Pew Research poll indicated that 22% of respondents identified themselves as “Republican.”  He then theorized this was because of outdated ideas like tax cuts and deregulation.  He states: “The economic crisis has has plunged their (Republican) views into crisis, if not negated them altogether.”  Tell California residents that tax cuts are out of vogue.  Like most liberals, Meyerson is joining in the dance on the alleged grave of capitalism.  If not capitalism, then what?  A democratic socialist welfare state like Europe and their stagnant economies?  Interestingly, a Rasmussen poll found that 54% of Americans believe that regulation hurts rather than helps the economy.  They also found that American attitudes towards the banking industry and Wall Street in general are the same in May 2009 as they were in May 2006.  After the brief uprising and chest-thumping over items like executive compensation- which had absolutely nothing to do with the financial meltdown- attitudes reverted to form.  People like Schumer and Frank had their little 15 minutes of fame and need to ride off in the sunset.  People like Meyerson need to get their heads out of their asses and look at facts.

There are currently over 73,000 pages of regulations printed in the Federal Register.  Since Republicans seized control of Congress in 1995, over 51,000 of those pages came into existence.  Under Bush alone, 30,000 pages were added.  This qualifies Republicans as the “party of deregulation?”

Democrats often admonish Republicans that you cannot legislate morality with respect to items like gay marriage and abortion and other social issues.  That may be true, but what is business regulation other than legislated morality but on a grander scale?  Republicans are not the party of unwanton deregulation; they are the party of eliminating stupid, knee-jerk, costly regulations which were passed in haste because some scumbag may have taken advantage of investors, or because some box may have fallen on an unattended minor.  It is called “commonsense” and it something most Democrats and all liberals lack the capacity to exercise.  Obviously, in order for capitalism to succeed, there must be safeguards against fraud, especially in the banking system which relies on “reputation” for success.  Yet, if the government runs the banking industry and auto industry through regulations like they run themselves, this economy has not seen the worst yet.  While Republicans need to come to the full realization that regulation per se is not a bogeyman, Democrats have a very long way to go before they understand that regulation for the mere sake of regulation is just costly, counter-productive, and, quite frankly, just plain stupid.  As the Treasury Department sets to overhaul regulations of the financial industry, keep these thoughts in mind.

While the pundits and talking heads on both sides of the Sotomayor niomination “draw lines in the sand,” it becomes increasingly obvious that this has the potential to become some compelling television come July.  But, if you are going to get your news from the likes of Sean Hannity, Tom Tancredo, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews, then you will be somewhat misinformed.  While the former three have a conservative agenda and would oppose Jesus Christ if he were nominated to the bench by Obama, the others are simply mouthpieces for the administration.  Notice how the liberal commentators concentrate on her “inspiring background,” the alleged “bipartisan choice” because she was forced  upon Bush I in some byzantine agreement regarding court appointments back then.  Notice how they phrase criticism of her as conservative racism and sexism.  On the other hand, the conservatives have tried, convicted and sentenced her before she has even opened her mouth before the Senate hearings.  They are resorting to the very tactics they accused the Democrats of during the Bush II administration with judicial appointments.  Is this conservative pay back, or conservative hypocrisy?

Most of the criticism thus far has been focused on a couple of statements made during speeches at Duke University and at Cal-Berkeley.  Also, her involvement in the Ricci case- the New Haven firefighter case- has come under fire as evidence that she is an affirmative action-loving flaming liberal.  Coupled with her statements, perhaps taken out of context, perhaps not, it is leading some to conclude that she would be an activist jurist willing to “even the playing field” with respect to minorities by judicial fiat.  Some have claimed that her rate of reversal of her decisions before the Supreme Court lead to questioning her intellect and understanding of the law.  In reality, of the 150 cases authored by Sotomayor, five have ended up before the Supreme Court (2% of her decisions).  Of those five, three have been reversed, one upheld but they rejected her reasoning, and the fifth was upheld.  This “reversal rate” is actually better than that of Samuel Alito at the time.  Another case she authored may yet end up before the Court- Maloney vs. Cuomo- which challenges New York’s law against the possession of numchucks.  In that case, she relied on the Court’s 1886 decision  in Presser vs. Illinois rather than the more recent decision in Heller vs. District of Columbia- the DC handgun case.  The only reason it may end up before the Supreme Court is that the Ninth Circuit, in a similar case, used the Heller standard and came up with a different result.  Because there is disagreement among circuits, it is a good recipe for a Supreme Court review.

Regarding the Ricci case, the results of a test for fire department promotions were thrown out by the city allegedly because no minorities would have qualified for promotion.  On its face, there is certainly a fairness issue here with respect to the white fire fighters who studied and passed the test with the full expectation they would receive promotions.  Yet, there are many pundits out there who see this in stark terms- its unfair- rather than understanding that this case has numerous constitutional questions and subtleties.  It is doubtful that those who in knee jerk fashion cry for her head in this decision even know what Title VII is let alone such legal intricacies as “the four-fifths rule,” when “strict scrutiny” applies, or the “rule of three.”  This appeal is less about the fairness of the lower court’s ruling than it is about the legality of the City’s actions.

In the summary judgment of the Second Court of Appeals, it would be hard to find evidence of Sotomayor’s reverse racism tendencies on the basis on some 40+ words, the most controversial of which are that the District Court’s decision was “…thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned.”  After reading the oral transcript of the Supreme Court, this is not as clear cut a case as conservatives make it to be.  Whether that is because the judicial branch muddles the issue or because Congress writes byzantine legislation is of debate (expect a 5-4 decision one way or the other).  For the sake of conservatives, they better hope the decision goes their way or they lose a huge bullet in their argument against her.  While it is true this was a cheap, stealthy “decision” that failed to address any of the issues of the plaintiffs other than to affirm the lower court decision, without explaining her reasoning one cannot label her anything.  However, since the decision should be announced prior to her confirmation hearings, it will not be a “hypothetical” she can dodge.  Explaining her rationale and her reasoning are certainly fair game in questioning of her before the Judiciary Committee.

Sotomayor needs to explain her comments made at Duke and Cal-Berkeley and her reasoning in the Ricci case and, at this point, until she does, these factors should not be the crux of the criticism against her.  Instead, there are two other more disturbing factors that need further clarification and have a greater connection to her thought processes, beliefs, and possible direction she will take once on the Supreme Court.  The first is her alleged association with the National Council of La Raza.  Recently, I heard a liberal commentator explain that “la raza” does not translate to literally “the race,” but to “community.”  Yes, and “nation” translates into “community” in Aryan Nation, right?  They (La Raza) bill themself as a Hispanic advocacy group.  Unlike what the NAACP is to blacks, La Raza is more like what ACORN is to blacks.  When there are those big immigration rallies out there, it is usually La Raza that organizes them.  And there is no doubt that there are certainly radical elements under the umbrella of the NCLA.  One is MEChA, which is some Spanish abbreviation for a movement that believes the American southwest is the home of the mythical founder of the Aztecs and therefore they want a Hispanic state established there.  One leader even went so far as to say that if that involves “killing the gringos,” then so be it.  During the immigration protests, they were the ones out there carrying the signs that said “Pilgrim Go Home.”  This is pretty hateful speech yet you won’t find this group on any list of the Southern Poverty Law Center hate groups.  Additionally, both MEChA and NCLR have funded a Chicano separatist private charter school in Los Angeles.  Not one to accuse Ms. Sotomayor of belonging to a hate group, but at the very least she needs to explain the degree of her association with the group.  At the most, she needs to forcefully condemn the statements of the more radical elements within the group and disavow them.  There is a legitimate point to be made here.  Remember the “outcry” by some liberals over Alito’s connections to some conservative publication at Princeton?  A Google search of the controversy turns up over 3000 articles about Alito’s alleged connection to what one publication, Salon, refers to as “conservatism’s ugly side”- a defunct group for over 20 years at Princeton.  La Raza is not a defunct group in any sense of the word and a strong case can be made that they, or elements of La Raza, represent “liberalism’s ugly side.”  Hate cuts both ways, a truism obviously lost on liberals.  It will be interesting to see how many articles are returned in ten years when someone searches for Sotomayor’s connection to the NCLR.

The final area of real concern is Sotomayor’s dissenting (thank God) opinion in a 2nd Circuit case entitled Hayden vs. Pataki in 2006.  In this case, Hayden was a paroled felon (he stabbed a sanitation worker) and under New York law, was denied the right to vote.  He is a leading advocate in New York to enfranchise not only ex-convicts, but also those still incarcerated.  His theory is that because blacks are disproportionately represented in the prison population, to deny them voting rights is a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  In her dissent, using language cloaked in strict constructionism, Sotomayor states in her dissent: “These two propositions (the Voting Rights Act and the New York law at issue) should constitute the entirety of our analysis.  Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage.”  In other words, denying felons- whether on parole or in jail- the right to vote is a violation of the Voting Rights Act and should be stricken.  While the wording of the Voting Rights Act is certainly “unambiguous” as Sotomayor claims, and Congress clearly has the authority to enact such laws under the 14th and 15th Amendment, Ms. Sotomayor seems to conveniently forget the unambiguous language of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment which, being part of the Constitution, takes clear priority over any Congressional act.  That section states that the right to vote cannot be denied “…except for participation in rebellion, or other crime…“  It says nothing, in unabiguous terms, about those “other crimes” being related to the recent rebellion, the Civil War.  Does Sotomayor take the position that the Voting Rights Act supercedes the “unambiguous” wording of the 14th Amendment?  Some will argue that this a historical clause that applies specifically to the Civil War, but what can be more related to the results of that war than the 13th amendment outlawing slavery but which also allows “involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted…”  If involuntary servitude is permissible for convicted criminals, regardless of race, the right of states to disenfranchise felons, regardless of race, is clearly permissible given the “unambiguous” language of the 13th and 14th amendments which, Ms. Sotomayor should be reminded, take precedence over the Voting Rights Act.  To follow through on Hayden’s demands and Sotomayor’s belief, politicians would be campaigning in cell blocks and voting machines would be delivered to prisons and jails.  If Sotomayor really believes the words she wrote in the Hayden dissent, then she is using the literal words of a legislative act, irrespective of constitutional words to the contrary, to further a purely political agenda.  This, more than her dissent in the Maloney case, or her summary judgment in Ricci would have more far-reaching consequences than the other two combined times five.  Again, Republican Senators would be well-advised to question her rationale in deciding as she did and whether she believes the right of states to list the qualifications of voters are over-ridden by the Voting Rights Act as concerns prisoners and ex-convicts.  Her answer in this area will be interesting to watch and note.

This nominee will most likely win confirmation to the Supreme Court.  Of the thirty cases I have personally read of Sotomayor- whether she authored them or she joined the majority opinion- one can determine that her writing is devoid of rhetorical flourishes and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.  But while the mainstream media portrays her as a mirror of Obama with this talk of “empathy” and all, she is more a mirror of Obama in that she is a stealthy nominee.  However, like Obama, she most likely does have an “unwritten” or “unstated” liberal agenda.  Will she shift the balance on this Court?  Not really likely, but exposing her hidden hypocrisies is important to set up the importance of the next battle.  For the next several years, say a prayer for the health of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.

Before the high fives and back-slapping celebrations begin over the California Supreme Court’s decision upholding Proposition 8, a little dose of reality is in order.  While the ink was barely dry on the decision, there is already an appeal of that decision in the federal courts.  Considering it would most likely eventually end up in the left of liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the final word on this matter in the most populous state is not over.  Also, consider there is a concurrent effort at a ballot initiative to reverse Proposition 8.  To their credit, many in the gay activist community have voiced their disapproval of this headline-grabbing Federal case fearing it may eventually end up in the US Supreme Court where gains made by LGBT groups in other states may be dealt a crushing blow.

Currently, five states representing 4.9% of the US population allow same sex marriage.  Another 19.8% of the population resides in states that recognize civil unions.  Most importantly, greater than half the states representing roughly half the US population have statutes or constitutional amendments which specifically disallow same sex marriages, or that define marriage between opposite sex partners exclusively.

Let’s dispense with the libertarian argument that marriage is a private act and the State has no business saying who can and cannot marry.  It ceases to be private once those entering into the marriage contract seek state recognition in order to receive the legal benefits and priveleges of marriage.  Of course, States do not have carte blanche to intrude into the minute details of marriage, but they can certainly establish the parameters of the definition of marriage.  For example, the argument that gay partners should be allowed to marry, if carried through on these libertarian grounds, would allow for incestuous marriages and polygamy also, yet there is no groundswell of support for these practices.  Proponents of same sex marriage point out that it is the moral equivalent of anti-miscegenation laws which were struck down as unconstitutional in 1969.  The fundamental difference is that those laws addressed opposite sex marriages between members of different races and there was a clear racial animus in enacting those laws in the first place.  The controlling decision- Loving vs. Virginia- did not even entertain the notion of same sex marriage, nor did it define marriage- it assumed the traditional marriage.  Current state laws which define opposite sex marriage have no sexual-orientation animus per se, unlike the anti-miscegenation laws.  The reason for defining marriages as between opposite sex has to meet a compelling State interest and the courts have ruled in that area, although there is a problem (explained soon).

Some argue against the State-by-State, “majority rules” approach in that it creates a patchwork of laws and the majority may be objectively wrong either way.  As for the partchwork, is there not a patchwork hunting laws or driver’s licensing laws and the country has not fallen apart?   The deciding case is  Pennoyer vs. Neff from 1877 when the Court stated rather specifically: “The State has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved.”  The wording cannot be any more explicit that the power to define marriage lies with the States.  And the summary dismissal of Equal Protection arguments as “no substantive Federal question” in Baker vs. Nelson has withstood several legal court challenges.  It should be noted that the Baker case was dismissed in 1972 by the very same Supreme Court that brought us Roe vs. Wade, hardly a conservative-packed Court.  Simply put, marriage and the rules defining marriage, are a State issue.  That being said, recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans do not approve of same sex marriage.  However, when you break it down by age, the younger age groups are more accepting of gay marriage.  Assuming this group’s attitudes do not change as they grow older, they will be the decision-makers of the future at the ballot box.  When that happens, then the definitions can be changed.  Ruth Bader Ginsberg- certainly no conservative- while discussing Roe vs. Wade, said she believes the decision had a chilling effect on a general trend towards liberalization of abortion laws when it was decided.  She theorized that given time, we would have arrived at the point we are today without the courts being involved and without the controversy and polarization of the debate because the issue was decided by legislatures, not forced  on anyone by the courts.  Gay activists would be well-advised to heed the words of Justice Ginsberg.

On the Federal level, there are over 1,100 references to marital status in Federal laws and regulations.  Unfortunately (or fortunately), the federal Constitution does not provide for referendums on issues per se except indirectly through the election of officials, or more directly through the amendment process.  One potential problem is the “full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution where the laws of one state are recognized and respected by another state.  That is what allows you to get a driver’s license in one state and drive in another state without getting a driver’s license for that state.  In the case of gay marriage, the Federal government addressed the issue through the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 which establishes the traditional heterosexual definition of marriage for federal purposes, but allows states to recognize same sex marriages.  However, one state need not recognize same sex marriages from another state unless they opt to do so.  As an issue of federalism, Congress has that explicit right to grant exceptions to the full faith and credit clause under its Article 4, Section 1 powers.  Incidentally, there was clear bipartisan support for DOMA as it passed the House 342-67 and the Senate 85-14.  Therefore, LGBT activists might better use their resources to lobby Congress to reverse DOMA as they have that power.  If the alleged violations of Equal Protection and Due Process are so great and so urgent, then surely Congress could address this issue more resoundingly than any court.

A potential problem exists with the opposite sex marriage definition and statutes.  States are permitted to define the parameters of marriage because of the unique position marriage assumes in society.  This is based upon the compelling State interest of promoting marriage as a means to facilitate the family unit and procreation.  Because procreation is involved, it necessarily must include a man and a woman.  However, compare this to changing mores and attitudes towards racial segregation and the accompanying psychological and sociological studies.  For more than half a century, the concept of “separate but equal” defined the legal argument expressed in Plessy vs. Ferguson.    But, with these psychological and sociological studies which demonstrated the inequalities in educational opportunity of “separate but equal,” the Court in Brown vs. Board of Education over-ruled that decision and concept.  If you don’t think it can happen, then one should read the Brown decision., especially the footnotes, to show how these studies shaped constitutional law.  Obviously, activists will produce studies to undercut the underlying premise of the traditional reason for marriage.  This compelling state interest- the well-being of children- is a shaky foundation for a house of cards.  Strengthening that base by demonstrating and proving that children in same-sex parent households would be at a disadvantage is necessary.  The jury is still out in this area because same-sex marriage is a relatively recent development and children of these marriages are the exception, not the norm.  So not only is there a small, unreliable sample size, but there is a lack of longevity to accuractely gauge the effects through detailed lingitudinal study.  Furthermore, in today’s world, there are innumerable children of single-parent homes given divorce rates or just a shunning of marriage.  Isn’t it ironic that heterosexuals are turning their backs on marriage while homosexuals are fighting to marry?  Something clearly went wrong somewhere.

At the very least, this issue should be debated rationally in the public forum and the people should decide the outcome of the debate.  The mere fact that 56% of Americans oppose gay marriage is illuminating because the numbers were higher not too long ago.  There will always be pockets of resistance, just as there were pockets of resistance to civil rights laws in the 1960s (although I do not equate the two).  Also, just as civil rights laws cannot make a white person hold hands with a black person and sing “Kumbaya,” neither will gay marriage laws have heterosexuals holding hands with homosexuals singing “I Will Survive” and increasing the sale of Judy Garland records.  However, this may very well be an issue that the Republican Party may find itself in the minority.  Would it be better to jump in front of the debate and let the people decide through their elected officials, or amendment?  Or does the Party stand on principle in defense of traditional family values and the traditional definition of marriage?  At a minimum, allowing the people to decide while educating them about the legitimate state concerns would be the preferred path.  But after that debate, if the people choose against one’s views, then the will of the people must be respected.  And if that will allow for same-sex marriage, then the victory of the LGBT community carries greater moral weight than that which would come through a court decision.  Conversely, if the will is against same-sex marriage, then the LGBT community must also respect that decision without ridicule.

In part 1, I proposed that the GOP could reclaim the debate over abortion by (1) de-emphasizing overturning Roe v. Wade, (2) recognizing privacy rights, but noting they are not absolute, (3) using “choice” against pro-choice arguments, (4) emphasis on the purported goals and importance of responsibility and (5) using science to determine when life begins.  There are other aspects that lend themselves to a winning strategy for the GOP in this area:

6. Stem Cell Research:  The controversy over stem cell research needs to be extinguished.  Using 2005 numbers provided by the CDC, that year there were 820,000 abortions performed in the U.S.  Even the most rational pro-life advocates would allow for abortion in the case of rape, incest, and maternal or fetal health concerns.  According to the CDC statistics, these account for 7.2% of the reasons for obtaining an abortion.  At that rate, it represents over 59,000 “acceptable” abortions.  That is over 59,000 potential sources of new stem cell lines a year.  Does it matter whether they end up in a research laboratory or in a medical waste container?  Through informed consent and release, surely the problem of “new lines of stem cells” could be addressed to the satisfaction of the scientific community.  Secondly, is the Federal or any state government in a financial position to actually fund stem cell research?  Experts claim this is the most promising area of medical research and could be the answer to the sufferers of about 70 medical conditions.  If so, then it would clearly be to the benefit of genetic engineering, biotech and pharmaceutical concerns to engage in the research, not the government.  Although the government has the mandate to foster the sciences, they have that mandate through patent laws.  There is no mandate to fund scientific research.  And while they can formulate guidelines for the research under the Commerce Clause, actual funding is not necessary.  That should be left to the private interests who stand to benefit financially.

7. Stress the cost of abortion:  Although somewhat difficult to gauge, there are studies that estimate that since Roe vs. Wade, the US economy has suffered a $7.0 trillion loss in GDP through potential lost tax revenue and productivity.  An aborted fetus cannot grow up to work and pay taxes.  Conversely, liberals will contend that the aborted fetus was saved a life of poverty or an abusive household or any other horror they can conceivably conjure up. No doubt, there would be such cases, but on balance there is most likely a net loss to the American economy.  Additionally, the liberal view is somewhat short-sighted in that it assumes people cannot overcome poverty or abusive households.  They argue that abortion on demand is economically good because it lessens the potential additional burden on social services.  Regardless, the CDC statistics indicate that 21.3% of abortions are performed for financial reasons- the mother could not afford having a child.  Even if we assume all 21.3% of those fetuses will not overcome poverty (and “financial reasons” does not even necessarily equal “poverty”) and become a drain on social services, that would still represent a $5.5 trillion hit to the American economy.  That might be enough to bail out another bank or car company in Obamaland.

8. Disentangle contraception from abortion:  Some pro-life advocates want to go further and condemn contraception and view it as akin to one of the purported reasons for abortion regulations in the first place- that it is encourages premarital promiscuity and sex.  Others argue that it prohibits a potential human life.  Potentialities and actualities are two different things.  An egg sitting in an ovary or a sperm sitting in a testes is not human life.  It only achieves that status when they successfully combine.  If a bank robbery is foiled before the robbers get in the bank, you cannot charge them with bank robbery.  That being said, government dictates to local schools regarding the content of sex education curriculum- on either side- makes no sense whether done through mandate or by using the power of the purse.  If the federal government is to fund public education at all, it is with the ostensible purpose of raising educational standards.  How does mandating what is taught in health class improve math performance?  All it does is create a vehicle to force a liberal or a conservative viewpoint on a locality.  If New York wants to distribute condoms, that should be their choice after thoughtful, deliberative debate.  If Florida wants to teach abstinence-only sex education, that should be their choice.  If Oregon wants to teach some hybrid approach, then that should be their choice.  Tying federal educational aid to the content of sex education courses makes little intuitive sense.  A moratorium on this practice is what is needed.  Return curriculum content to its rightful place- the states and localities.

9. Take advantage of the ethnic disparities:  One of the unfortunate aspects of the entire debate is the rate of abortions among ethnic minorities.  According to the CDC, the rate among blacks is 49 per 1,000 while that of Hispanics is 33 per 1,000 compared to 13 per 1,000 among white, non-Hispanic women.  This should be seen as an opportunity by the Republicans to reach out to these groups in order to engage community leaders to help reduce these rates, thus reducing the overall rate of abortion in America.  Quite frankly, the GOP suffers among black and Hispanic voters and community outreach in this area would show empathy with these groups while moving towards the overall goal of reducing abortions.  Naturally, this will not create a shift in party preference necessarily in the short term, but the foundations for long term improvement would be laid.  Certainly black and Hispanic community leaders see these rates of abortion- particularly repeat abortions- as a plague in their communities that needs to be addressed.  Whether the problem is of a larger societal nature or that these communities simply lack the resources for contraceptive education, it would not hurt the GOP to reach out.  Initiate an empathetic dialogue.  Perhaps, in these cases, an end-justifies-the means attitude or policy is required first before a sea change adjustment in attitudes and social mores occurs with respect to reproductive responsibility.  These facts create a unique opportunity for the GOP to mend the perceived wounds within these communities.  You are not going to win the black vote or even put a dent in it with a black Presidential candidate, but you start to lay a foundation for the future.

10. Look at the numbers:  A recent Gallup poll in 2009 showed that for the first time in recent history, a majority of respondents were “pro-life.”  The liberal response was to attack the methodology of the poll, not the results.  Regardless, several polls taken by a variety of sources have shown that public opinion wavers ever slightly.  For example, a CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP poll showed that from 1996 to 2003, when asked about the availability of abortion by trimester, the relative responses for each category changed within a very narrow range in a 7-year period.  Not surprisingly, a 2003 CBS/New York Times poll found respondents in the west and northeast were more liberal in their attitudes towards abortion on demand despite the reason or the stage of development while a 2007 CBS poll found that only 36% of Americans in general agreed with abortion on demand despite the reason and stage of development.  Taken as a whole, this abortion on demand attitude is generally the minority.  The majority of Americans are accepting of abortion with greater restrictions than currently exist.  If the result of these restrictions is to reduce the abortion rate, a stated goal of the GOP, then the Republican Party sides with the majority of Americans.  I would like to see a poll of how the parties are perceived on abortion by Democrats, Republicans and independents and to use those results to educate the misinformed.  The GOP should be framing their position.  The Democratic Party should not be framing the position for them.

11. Criticize Obama by name for his hypocrisy:  Either Barack Obama had a moral epiphany between his campaign and time as a legislator and his speech at Notre Dame, or he is just plain pandering to his audience yet again in eloquent words on a teleprompter which tingle the legs of Chris Matthews and have Keith Olberman in tears.  Given his history, it is almost certainly the latter.  This is a man who received 100% ratings from NARAL in 2005 through 2008 for his pro-choice views and legislative record.  He erroneously stated or lied that abortions under Bush increased when they actually decreased.  In 1997 in the Illinois Senate, he voted against SB 230 which would have prevented partial birth abortion.  He did so, he claims, on constitutional grounds even though a Federal identically-worded law survived constitutional review.  He additionally, on two occasions, blocked similar legislation in committee not even allowing a full Illinois Senate vote on the bills.  On 3/30/01, he was the only State Senator to rise and argue against a bill designed to protect born-alive abortions and again nuanced his stance later raising constitutional arguments.  Five times at the request of Planned Parenthood, he voted “present” in the Illinois Senate to avoid taking a clear-cut position on abortion regulations which allowed him an “out” in his upcoming run for President.  In 2000, he voted against a bill that would have banned state funding for late-term abortion (with exceptions for medical reasons) yet in 2008, his campaign literature (another moral epiphany?) stated that states have the right to restrict late-term abortions.  That same campaign literature touts his consistent pro-choice at any costs stances.  In 2006, he voted against a law designed to prevent minors from obtaining abortions across state lines circumventing parental notification laws which survived constitutional scrutiny and  again he voted against similar legislation in 2008.  Finally, in 2008, he voted against SCHIP coverage for unborn children.  Taken as a whole, Obama’s clear policy is that he is for protecting children as long as those children are outside the womb.  Even then, he considers there may be cases where they are not deserving of State protection.  Obama is equal master of oratory and equal master of hypocritical action.  Barack Obama needs to be taken to task by name for this hypocrisy.  We know he is in the pocket of NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood; we need to stress that they also possess his mind.

By concentrating on the goal of reducing abortion in America and removing the underlying rhetoric and appealing to logical solutions which stress personal responsibility, Obama and his minions could be taken to task.  If he really meant what he said at Notre Dame, then his feet have to be held to the fire.  This could be achieved absent constitutional amendments and the like and done at the State level. There is talk of a Federal law which would essentially circumvent and over-rule state abortion statutes to the delight of pro-choice constituencies.  Where Obama stands on this blatant Federal power grab will be interesting to see.  The onus of responsibility is on him and the Democrats as they have control of the White House and Congress and the bully pulpit.  My guess is that money will do the talking and that money will come from NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood.  Greater than 800,000 human lives depend on his decisions annually.  If he fails in his task, then he sacrifices 800,000 to medical waste bins making him worthy of the political waste bin.

Between Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame and his Supreme Court nomination, abortion has been brought back into the political spotlight.  While he attempts to seize the high moral ground on this issue, it would be wise for the GOP to formulate a winning strategy to reclaim the issue.

1. De-emphasize overturning Roe vs. Wade:  Obviously, this is the flashpoint Supreme Court decision on abortion.  Every time I read it, I am struck by how lacking it is in constitutional scholarship.  As a dissertation on the history of abortion, however, it would get an A+, but thats about it.  Also, one is struck by the lengths to which Blackmun went to reach the political decision he arrives at eventually.  Playing the role of Solomon, he devised the trimester approach in balancing the mother’s privacy rights against the state’s interests  in regulating abortion.  However, for all intents and purposes, this practical trimester approach has been replaced by the “undue burden” standard in judging the legality of abortion regulations.  Simply put, the important practical implications of the decision are now moot.  If the decision is to be attacked, it should not be on its underlying legal rationale (see #2 below).  Instead, criticism of its lack of constitutional scholarship or using it as an example of blatant judicial activism would be the preferred line of attack.  Also, one could resurrect the Federalism and state’s rights complaints of the original dissents to criticize the decision.   There are criticisms on these points from those on the right and the left. But spending time on outright reversal of the decision is time better spent elsewhere.

2. Recognize the right to privacy, but :  Near the end of the decision, the legal underpinning of the decision is finally discussed, namely, the “right to privacy” is asserted.  And while we can certainly agree with a Scalia-like analysis that you cannot find this explicitly stated in the Constitution, denial of the right is somewhat disingenuous.  There are certainly references- freedom of speech, assemby and religion, the right to have firearms, the quartering of soldiers and the search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment- which point us in that direction.  One of the concerns about the original Bill of Rights was that if rights were not specifically enumerated, then the government may infringe upon those rights.  That is the reason for the Ninth Amendment.  Regardless, a right to privacy is part of our American collective political psyche and rooted in the writings of the great authors of the Enlightenment which were given life in the Declaration of Independence and validated in the Constitution.  Also, conservatives cannot claim a right to privacy in one area (such as gun ownership) and deny the general right in another area (reproduction).  Conversely, liberals must understand that the right is not absolute.  There are acceptable limits on even the enumerated rights that infer privacy.  For example, even though the search and seizure clause protects one’s privacy, the right can be overcome with a warrant.  Just as it would be disingenuous for conservatives to assert a privacy right does not exist because it is not enumerated, it is more importantly disingenuous for liberals to claim the right to be absolute.  If liberals can propose and pass laws which limit campaign contributions (clearly a “private” act), they lose the argument that governments cannot infringe on other privacy rights, like a woman’s right to choose.  Neither side can claim absolute privacy rights for their pet causes.

3. Turn “choice” to your advantage:  The liberal and media response to Sarah Palin’s views and the publicity surrounding her daughter’s pregnancy illustrate a huge example of hypocrisy on the part of feminists on the left.  It is apparently beyond their comprehension that an unwed pregnant girl may decide to have the child.  While stating their goals are to reduce abortions (Obama’s statement), they heap criticism on those who choose the option that does not conform to their worldview.  This is a clear example of the pro-choice crowd being anything but tolerant of choice, unless the choice is on their terms.  It is also a clear infringement on their privacy rights.  Should the Palins be the poster people for the pro-life side?  No more than they should be the butt of jokes and innuendo and criticism for the pro-choice crowd and media.  Emphasizing that having the child is a legitimate choice is a worthwhile goal and the hypocrisy of the liberal, pro-choice voices should be illustrated whenever possible.  They care less about choice unless the choice is on their terms.

4. Emphasize goals:  Obama is trying to steal this one from Republicans since the ultimate goal is to reduce abortions.  How advocating abortion on demand reduces the abortion rate defies logic.  Conversely, it is doubtful that outright bans on abortion will decrease the rate of abortion either.  The simple fact is that unwanted pregnancies are as old as antiquity.  The presence of abortion laws cannot change human behavior or human hormones, nor can morality be legislated.  With the weakening of the family through single parenthood, divorce, two working parents and the general weakening of religious moral values, it creates an unfavorable environment.  Roe v.Wade did not cause increased divorce rates or any of the others and a pre-Roe world will not obliterate divorce and the others.  Instead, an emphasis on personal responsibility, especially in terms of reproductive choices, would be a worthwhile goal.  And that onus of responsibility need not fall on the shoulders of or the between the legs of women exclusively.  Painting pro-choice candidates as the candidate of irresponsibility would resonate with reasonable voters because abortion as a form of birth control is simple irrespponsible.

5. Using science- life begins at conception:  Despite Blackmun’s assertion that deciding when life begins was beyond the scope of the Supreme Court, he proceeds to do just that for practical purposes in an arbitrary manner.  We can talk about “quickening,” viability, the ability to feel pain, the presence of a heart beat or brain waves ad infinitum.  The sperm and eggs of a frog and the sperm and eggs of a human are indistinguishable but for the number of chromosomes and the arrangement of genes on those chromosomes.  It is only when the sperm fertilizes the egg that a unique something is formed- in the case of the human, human life.  What some callously call a lump of cells will, if given the opportunity and correct environment, form human life.  This is rooted in scientific, biological, genetic, evolutionary fact.  Wouldn’t that be a novel Republican argument- using science and evolution to retain a core value of the pro-life movement.  If liberals want to argue it on scientific grounds, then there is simple proof scientifically for this view.  Would they then still refer to the GOP as “anti-science trogolodytes?”  Most likely because they resort to name-calling when backed in a corner.  That unique clump of cells is genetically human life; it will not develop into a frog or monkey, or another appendage, or a cyst or a tumor.  That is scientific fact.  Defining human life, then, is fairly straightforward and when liberals start to talk about “souls” or “animation” or the philosophical notion of a “person,” who then sounds like the philosophical or religious zealot?

The final five points will be presented in part 2 of these ideas.

For years now, it has been Republican/conservative dogma that primary means to improve the economy is through tax cuts.  This stems from the philosophical view regarding the size and scope of the federal government.  Naturally, one would expect that the higher the taxes, the greater the revenue the government receives, but this is not necessarily true.  Analyses of tax cuts and their effects on the economy have been controversial and nuanced by both sides to further their cause.  You can find well-respected economists on both sides of the issue.

There are a few examples in history trotted out by politicians as evidence of their views.  The first, known as the Mellon tax cuts, are named after Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon who served under Harding and Coolidge in the 1920s.  After World War I, marginal tax rates for the richest Americans stood at an astonishing 77%, but sort of understandable since we were at war.  The Mellon tax cuts occurred in 1921, 1924 and 1926 with the top bracket eventually being dropped to 25%.  The results were rather stark: from 1922 to 1929, GNP rose 4.7% on average per year.  In today’s dollars, tax revenue derived from the top tax bracket from $300 billion to $700 billion while the unemployment rate dropped from 6.7% to 3.2%.  While the incomes of those in the top brackets increased 15% (that additional $400 billion), the number of people in that bracket quadrupled.  Additionally, the number of people in the middle brackets increased while those in the lowest brackets decreased.  Whether this was due to the tax cuts in whole or part or other demographic factors allows for the nuancing of the stark reality.  Eventually, the naysayers on the left argue that the rich, cigar-chomping capitalists  fed the rampant speculation that caused the stock market crash of 1929 ushering in the Great Depression.  No doubt, speculation played a part, but to argue that the tax cuts caused the problem misses the point totally and, in fact, talking heads like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama use the same analyses today when referencing the Bush tax cuts.  How putting more of people’s own money in their own hands is a net negative boggles the mind.

Then in the 1960s, the tax cuts proposed by the poster boy of the Democrats- John Kennedy- are examined.  These cuts were not enacted until 1964 and signed into law by Johnson.  Here, there is some interesting retelling of the truth.  While the Republicans used these cuts as evidence in their public relations campaign for the Reagan tax cuts, the liberal detractors say, “No, you are wrong.”  They claim that Kennedy’s cuts were demand-sided devised to increase consumer demand in the somewhat early 1960s sluggish economy.  Saying what their intentions here begs the question only.  in fact, they were not targeted at any particular tax bracket, but pretty much across the board.  Why would anyone at the higher brackets increase their income only to have a larger proportion taken by the government?  That is why unless tax cuts involve all income brackets- that is, they are not targeted- it will not necessarily increase the actual revenue received (a fact obviously lost on Obama).  Of course, those in the higher brackets could think like Joe Biden and feel it their patriotic duty to pay a greater proportion to the government in which case they should just make a donation to the Treasury.

Of course, there are also the Reagan tax cuts which are derided as supply-side economics that benefit only the higher incomes.  In theory, the lower tax rates at the higher levels are supposed to encourage investment and the creation of jobs thus raising the standard of living for all.  Instead of the government being the great impetus, that task would fall on businesses.  Under the Reagan tax cuts, on its face the fact that the rates on the highest income earners dropped from 70% to 28% by the end of the decade while those for the lower earners only dropped from 14% to 11% would seem unfair.  But look at the real fairness- the actual revenues received and their relative contribution to all taxes paid.  In 1981, the richest 1% of Americans paid 17.6% of all taxes while in 1989, they paid 27.5% of all income taxes.  By any measurement, this is fair.  And while the share of taxes paid by the lowest 10% of earners decreased from 7.5% to 5.7% of all revenues by 1988, their contribution was low to start with.  In the middle incomes, they saw their proportional share of taxes paid decrease from 57.5% to 48.7% with that decrease borne on the shoulders of the higher earners because they happily paid their taxes at the lower rate.

Suffice to say, tax cuts do work.  Do they make the rich richer?  Of course they do, but who should care as long as they pay their taxes?  Does it spur economic activity?  Whether argued from the supply-side camp or the demand-side camp, it would appear that tax cuts, among other factors, does.  Is everyone paying their fair share?  The actual gross revenues derived from income taxes and the proportional share paid by the various brackets indicates this to be the case.  Will there be exceptions?  Of course, and they will be the source of anectdotal sob stories even in the best of economic times.  Do they create budget deficits?  That is the crux of the argument against tax cuts.

However, these arguments are static in nature based on the circumstances of the time under the assumption that tax cuts will not increase revenue.  However, analysis and IRS data indicates that the money flowing into national coffers increases.  So why are there federal deficits?  The answer is simple: government spending.  Messing with the tax code at this point in the game- through targeted increases or tax cuts- will in no way decrease the national debt unless there is first a coherent plan to cut and control spending.  The negative effects of Keynesian economics and its new poster boy- Barack Obama- are well known.  They are more long term and in the future, thus less likely for anyone to realize or worry about.  There is always time to fix that, they say, but we have to address this “emergency” now is the claim.  Although he may possibly get away with it in the short term, he has to rely on hope that (1) his misguided policies will lead to an incredible burst of economic activity the likes of which this country has never seen in its past and (2) that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2011 will bring in the anticipated revenue and that capital will not flee the country.  I might add several other things, like an unanticipated terrorist attack, don’t happen.  These are too many irrational “ifs.”  Considering the fact that they are relying at this point on foreign borrowing and investment, the likelihood of higher interest rates down the line (unless he socialistically caps them) increases greatly, thus dampening any “economic recovery.”  With his Keynesian view and policies, he has single-handedly in short order set this country on a course of economic disaster.  To put it in terms the average family can understand- one day the bill comes due.

Consider the case of California, which is Obama’s America in microcosm.  State spending over the past decade has doubled while tax revenues have remained static or decreased over the same period.  Instead of ballooning the budget to effectuate a socialist vision of education, health care, and retirement pension, Obama, like every legislator in Sacramento, passed a budget not based on what they had, but on what they hoped to have.  The best projections are often wrong and this is not the “hope” America needs to emulate.  If the California budget had kept pace with inflation and population growth over the past decade, they would be dealing with a budget surplus today.  Instead, they are the new, even more expensive AIG.

The bottom line is that although tax cuts paradoxically increase tax revenue received- a fact proven by the Mellon, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts- spending has also increased, usually at a rate higher than the revenue received.  Congress- and Presidents- see the additional revenue as an invitation to spend more.  Obama’s response is to have his cabinet look into cost reductions and coming up with $100 million in savings.  This is like a bunch of front line employees brainstorming on how to cut costs and coming up with the idea to use fewer paper clips in the coming months.  Republicans, on the other hand, need to seize upon the budget deficits and, more importantly, debt and stress that until spending is brought under control- and Obama is obviously not the answer in these regards- tax cuts will make little difference except in the short term.  And this does not include the standard Republican rant about pork barrel spending because this accounts for a very small part of the overall spending.  True- they are repugnant, but not the real culprit here and they should not form the crux or the starting point for the Republican argument.  Instead, redefining “pork” is a better solution.  For example, do agricultural subsidies, commodity price supports and government crop insurance really benefit all Americans or just large agribusinesses?  One could only imagine how much government spending would decrease and how much revenue they would realize if they eliminated all subsidies which are nothing more than very large, tax codified pork barrel spending.

Instead of getting bogged down in defending tax cuts as the biggest or only response, until some sanity is restored to an insane budgeting system (and that will take time), those tax cuts could come later.  Some have suggested a balanced budget amendment, but experience at the state level relies on nothing but smoke and mirrors and accounting chicanery.  And it is doubtful that line item vetoes are the answer.  The Republican Party needs to stress and follow through as the party that will pay our bills and live within our means.  Does it make sense to run commercials of families wringing thier hands and scratching their heads at the kitchen table over a pile of bills when the government- Republican and Democrat- brazenly spend money they do not have?  Talk about the audacity of hope: how can Obama stand before the American people and blame Wall Street bankers for causing a financial crisis because of greed while giving the word “greed” a whole new meaning?  Instead of tinkering with the tax code at this stage in the game, leave it alone and demonstrably reign in spending.  Budget with what you have, not with what you think you will have.  Obama’s projected savings are just that- projections and by the looks of it, government projections do not have a good track record because there are too many unknowns beyond your control.  And Americans need to understand that they were born to a mother- they do not need a surrogate one to provide everything for them from birth to death in the form of government programs.  This is not the way America was built, but it is a good way to kill the American dream.  According to the most recent Rasmussen poll, the Republican Party would score points with 77% of Americans who view government spending- not taxes- as the biggest fiscal problem in America today and in the future.  And just 28% of all voters say government spending helps the economy with 53% stating it hurts the economy.  One would expect Republicans to believe this, but most interesting is the fact that among unaffiliated voters, 61% believe spending hurts the economy.  Spending, not tax cuts, are a chance for the GOP to regain a footing with the American voting public over the Democrats.  Tax cuts are fine, but they are meaningless without cutting spending also.  Prove the more important spending cuts first because, quite frankly, both parties have really dropped the ball in the past.

For years, homosexuality had been, right or wrong, treated as a mental illness or psychological disorder.  That is not what this is about.

Although history is replete with references to homosexual behaviors and acts, it is apparent it appears across all cultures.  Some ancient cultures even “condoned” these practices.  Yet, within the Judeo-Christian and other contexts, it became branded a form of sexual deviancy.  And this is predicated upon biological reality.  Namely, the biological and evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation and perpetuation of the species.  Hence, in the evolutionary sense, any sexual act whose purpose is not procreation is a deviancy and this becomes codified over time in religious, legal and medical thought.

And thus, for many years, homosexuality was defined and treated as such by the medical community and, later, the psychological community.  In 1892, a group of psychologists came together to form the APA and they later developed a standardized listing of mental disorders.  In the first two editions- called the Diagnostic and Statistical Mannual, or DSM for short- homosexuality is listed as a mental disorder as it had been by the medical community in the past.  In 1973, primarily in response to political pressure and protests from gay activist groups, the APA, in their third edition of DSM, dropped homosexuality as a mental disorder and renamed it “ego dystonic homosexuality.”  From hence forth, it would be a mental disorder only if the individual was subjectively uncomfortable with their homosexuality.  This was done after an expert panel, or subcommittee of the APA, reviewed the scientific and medical literature from a variety of sources and, by vote, concluded that this is now so!  Finally, in the fourth edition, yet another panel of experts, again by vote, decided to drop even the “ego dystonic” part.

Inclusion of anything in DSM is important because there are diagnostic codes for medical billing and insurance purposes.  But most importantly, it forms the professional opinions of the practitioners.  If it is not in DSM, then to the psychological community, it is not worthy of therapeutic intervention merely because a panel decided so.  In essence, DSM is the Bible to the psychological and medical community.  For those professionals who may happen to view homosexuality as a mental disorder, they are treated as pariahs.  Should they treat an individual for their “homosexuality,” it will not be condoned by the APA because they decided it is not a disorder.

But here is the kicker:  despite what the APA declares, homosexual acts and behaviors still do not fulfill the biological and evolutionary purposes of sex- procreation.

While there is certainly a need for peer review within science, consensus merely serves to instill some order.  However, because there is “consensus,” it does not necessarily equate to unequivocal truth and scientific fact.  The problem with these expert panels is that wrong, or inaccurate, or incomplete conclusions, once agreed upon, become scientific dogma.  Once the experts decide the truth through consensus, those who argue the opposite are ostracized and driven underground.  This is the paradigm by which the scientific community works- their proclamation becomes the dogma du jour.

Compare the APA consensus on homosexuality with the scientific consensus of another definitive panel of experts- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  In 2000 and 2007, basically relying upon computer modeling, they concluded that the earth was warming and that there was a 90% chance this warming was caused by the actions of man and his production of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.  That is the scientific dogma today.  And why?  Because a panel of experts declared this to be so and those who disagree are ostracized and driven underground.  They are accused of having a political agenda.  They are attacked on a personal level and the skeptics are called names like “flat earthers” or “troglodytes.”  They are lumped into the general category of being “anti-science” and therefore “pro-religion.”  That works well in Dan Brown novels, but is a detraction here.

Recently NASA asserted that 2008 was the warmest year on record on a worldwide basis.  This comes as little consolation to the fine folks in Buffalo or the Northern Plains or the entirety of Europe.  The fact is that in mankind’s history on earth, accurate temperature readings using scientific instruments occupies a very small percentage of that time.  There is evidence in paleontology which suggests temperature ranges in the past, but no one was there with a thermometer to gauge those temperatures.  In fact, this sort of contradicts the conclusions of the IPCC.  If, for example, tropical plant fossils are found in northern latitudes, wouldn’t this indicate that at one time northern latitudes were warmer?  Where were coal burning plants and SUVs back then?  Ironically, NASA also stated that the temperatures on both Mars and Jupiter are also increasing.  Are our scientific missions missing the coal burning plants and SUVs on those planets?  Additionally, a large portion of their findings are based upon computer modeling and those models are only as good as the information fed into the computers.  Those models failed to account for solar activity or the earth’s ability to self-regulate carbon dioxide.  Also, great attention is paid to carbon dioxide, which accounts for a very small percentage of the atmosphere, but methane gas is found in greater abundance and man’s contributions to methane are negligible.  More methane is produced annually by algae and cow farts than all the carbon dioxide produced by the worldwide energy sector.

The number of scientists questioning the consensus- not only the science, but the predicted consequences- is growing and includes many of those same scientists who participated in the IPCC studies.  As expected, they are being ostracized and the butt of personal attacks while their credentials are being attacked.  Most importantly, because man-made global warming is the scientific consensus- by IPCC vote- research dollars directed at studies by the “heretics” is wasted money to the powers that be who hold the purse strings.  Because the whole process is essentially corrupted by politics, just as the APA decision to remove homosexuality as a form of sexual deviancy was politically motivated, it renders the “consensus” suspect at best and one of the greatest hoaxes of modern history perpetrated on an ignorant and unsuspecting, unquestioning public.  Do we risk our economy for the sake of IPCC “consensus” endorsed by a former Vice President?