RedState Where the VRWC Collaborates Online 2009-07-03T22:29:43Z WordPress http://www.redstate.com/feed/atom/ Erick Erickson (Profile) http://www.erickerickson.org <![CDATA[Let’s Have A Poll on Sarah Palin]]> 37405.2511 2009-07-03T22:29:43Z 2009-07-03T22:29:43Z

Why did Sarah Palin resign?
Had enough of the attacks on her and her family
Gearing up for 2012
Scandal coming
Other
Who cares

  
Free polls from Pollhost.com


]]>
0
Erick Erickson (Profile) http://www.erickerickson.org <![CDATA[On Sarah Palin]]> 37405.2503 2009-07-03T21:31:37Z 2009-07-03T21:31:37Z Well, Nicolle Wallace, Andrew Sullivan, and the left can claim a scalp today.

Sarah Palin has been the subject of vicious, vile attacks. Her family and key staff have all been driven to the verge of financial ruin by relentless legal attacks that are routinely thrown out, but still must be offended.

Her children are routinely attacked and turned into the butt of late night jokes by left wing comedians.

I’d want the target off my back and my kids’ backs too.

Sarah Palin will not be President in 2012. She will not run for President. She will not run for any elected office ever again.

The political pundits who are saying she couldn’t take the heat, so she got out of the kitchen, may have found a winning cliche to apply, but then no one has faced the heat Sarah Palin has been subjected to, largely at the hands of the political pundits now dragging out that cliche.

Of course, now she’ll be a great position to be a voice for the GOP, but with no further political ambitions, she’ll largely be able to mitigate attacks from opponents within the GOP.

UPDATE: To get a few people off the ledge and avoid some suicides around here, let me point out that this is my opinion of the situation given what we know.

I’m sure Sarah Palin is not done with politics, but I am equally sure she is done with elected politics. By removing all doubt that she is done with elected politics, she can be much more effective at helping other Republicans get into politics without overly ambitious potential 2012 rivals seeking to hurt her, her family, and those politicians she helps.

To pull out a favorite line of yesteryear, suck it up.

]]>
0
Dan Spencer (Profile) <![CDATA[Government squashes Nantucket Tea Party]]> 37382.366 2009-07-03T20:42:52Z 2009-07-03T20:42:52Z

We don’t want politics on Main Street.”

The Nantucket Tea Party will be one of more than a thousand such protest events to be held across the nation on Independence Day.

The organizers were all set. They were given permission by the Town’s head of Park and Recreation.  After the local paper publicized the event, some members of the Nantucket Park and Recreation Commission decided to forget about the First Amendment. One local official was quoted as saying “we don’t want politics on Main Street.” Apparently the head of Park and Recreation was overruled by the commissioners.

The Nantucket Tea Party then got permission to use a bank’s private property. A Town official then advised the Nantucket Tea Party that the Tea Party must obtain a permit to block the
sidewalk — even though the street is closed! The Nantucket Tea Party got the Police, Fire and Public Works departments sign off on the event, but the Park and Recreation department balked.

Now the Nantucket Tea Party has been restricted to the steps of a bank. The town government will not allow the Nantucket Tea Party to be part of the Independence Day celebration on Main Street as had been planned.

Nantucket’s heavy handed attempt to quash the Nantucket Tea Party is a sad commentary on what too many so-called leaders in this country think about freedom and our rights.

It is especially unfortunate that this is happening in Nantucket, which has a particular historic connection to the first tax revolt in this country, the Boston Tea Party of 1773.  The ships Eleanor, Beaver and Dartmouth, later known as the tea party ships, were owned and operated out of Nantucket.

If you are near enough, go to Nantucket tomorrow and support the Nantucket Tea Party. Festivities begin at 9:30. There will also be a historical presentation by Maurice Gibbs, Commander U.S. Navy (retired), about the historic Boston Tea Party of 1773 and its connection to current events at the Nantucket Tea Party, a reading of the Declaration of Independence and a citizen forum.

The Nantucket Tea Party is a grassroots, nonpartisan group of concerned citizens on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. The group is open to all who want to get involved in a grass roots movement to reinforce the principles upon which this country was founded.

]]>
0
Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Sarah Palin will resign as Alaska governor]]> 15455.1489 2009-07-03T20:32:56Z 2009-07-03T19:12:16Z From anchorage television station KTUU:

WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her home Friday morning.

The governor gave no reason why she will resign, but there has been much speculation that she intends to run for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

Update: A tweet from the governor:

“We’ll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election… this is in Alaska’s best interest, my family’s happy… it is good, stay tuned”

- JP

]]>
0
Kevin Holtsberry (Profile) http://kevinholtsberry.com <![CDATA[Step Into the Ring]]> 3338.125 2009-07-03T19:03:28Z 2009-07-03T19:03:28Z Mike Pence offers a little pep talk to conservatives via YouTube. He’s ready to fight are you?

]]>
0
Skanderbeg (Profile) <![CDATA[Mr. President - It’s Time to Apologize]]> 7288.589 2009-07-03T16:30:35Z 2009-07-03T16:30:35Z Mr. President, you’ve made quite a thing of late of running around the world “apologizing” for one perceived past sin of America after another.

But it does no credit to a man - nor to his native manliness - to continually apologize for things in which he was not involved.

It’s long past time for you and your Administration to own up to any spur-of-the-moment misunderstandings, and correct what was done wrong.

In 1989, it would have been unfathomable for any American in a position of political leadership to call for the reinstatement in power in Romania of the dreadful Nikolai Ceausescu (and his equally-dreadful wife Elena).

You need to face up to the situation in Honduras - right now - and not inflict that sort of travesty on the Honduran people.

More below the fold.

During the first few chaotic hours and days of recent events in Honduras, everyone can be forgiven for simply assuming that it was the same-old, same-old of Latin America - coups, juntas, etc.

But as the reality on the ground has made itself clear, we now know that this is not what happened.

The sitting President of Honduras wished to contravene the country’s constitution, so as to remain in office in violation of the constitution’s provisions. When the various constitutional offices and officers reminded him of that fact - and properly exercised their responsibilities to the defense of that constitution - President Zelaya resorted to dismissals, threats, and finally outright mob rule.

What has transpired in Honduras is a proper defense of the constitution against an attempted “auto-golpe” (self-coup) by Mr. Zelaya.

As was better said elsewhere,

The Honduran Supreme Court, congress, attorney general and members of Zelaya’s cabinet opposed his move as unconstitutional. The supreme court ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office. Honduras has no impeachment process as we know it.

. . . .

Now Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya’s own political party, is president of Honduras. Despite protests from Zelaya’s supporters, the nation’s trade unions, business groups, Catholic Church, and most citizens supported Zelaya’s ouster — no one wanted a tyrant, let alone one propped up by drug lords and marxist thugs like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Mr. President, the Honduran constitution has passed an important test. The constitutional officers and members of the Honduran government have properly used their authority to defend that constitution - and to enforce the rule of law.

Mr. President, these are courageous and proper actions that need to be praised and aided - not mindlessly condemned, let alone (unthinkably) undone.

Mr. President, I do not know why you - and members of your Administration - have been so slow to catch on to the reality of events in Honduras. I realize that Washington inertia often leads to a stability fetish - of not wanting to have to start over from diplomatic scratch with new leaders.

But given that the loudest squealing is coming from America’s worst enemies in the hemisphere - that should give you pause.

Mr. President, many of us remember the dreadful episodes of the 1980s, when many American “leftists” were screaming loudly for our government to abandon our friends in the region - particularly in countries such as El Salvador and…. Honduras - and willfully turn those countries over to the tender mercies of violent communist “revolutionary” groups such as the FMLN. Fortunately, those opinions were loud but in a minority; President Reagan held the line in Central America, and saved those countries from tyranny. Significantly, when the Soviet Union collapsed, all of those “indigenous” (sic) communist insurgency movements simply evaporated.

Mr. President, it will be no credit to you - or to this country and its reputation-and-standing in the world - to essentially try to re-run the 1980s, but with the discredited, failed lunacy of siding with our enemies and abandoning our friends now actually being implemented.

Mr. President, as I said at the outset, it would have been unthinkable for any American leader of any political stripe to insist in 1989, following the deserved ouster of the reviled Ceausescu dictatorship, that Romanians re-instate Nikolai and Elena Ceausescu into power.

Unfortunately, at this point, you and your administration - and a collection of interesting “friends” in the region - are insisting on doing exactly that to the people of Honduras.

If you insist on doing this, ponder that at some point in the future, one of your successors may feel compelled to travel to Tegucigalpa and apologize to the Honduran people for the actions that you and your administration took back in 2009.

Mr. President, you must apologize and change course. There is no time to waste. Both the liberty of the Honduran people and the good name of the United States of America are at stake.

Thank you.

]]>
0
Erick Erickson (Profile) http://www.erickerickson.org <![CDATA[Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.]]> http://www.redstate.com/?p=11484 2009-07-03T17:11:16Z 2009-07-03T16:15:19Z SUCKER.

No additional comment needed.

]]>
37
Brian Faughnan (Profile) <![CDATA[GOP Not as Dead as Advertised]]> 20089.1457 2009-07-03T15:46:10Z 2009-07-03T15:46:10Z My latest column for the American Issues Project focuses on a surprising phenomenon: while the mainstream media keeps asking how the GOP needs to change to survive, Republican candidates are leading in a host of races around the country. In fact, if you set aside for a moment the unified Democratic control in Washington (admittedly, a heavy lift) you might think it was the Democratic party that was on the ropes.

Senate races in Illinois and Delaware are likely to be watched especially closely, since those seats were formerly held by the President and Vice President. In Illinois, Congressman Mark Kirk is eyeing the race, and is seen as one of the GOP’s strongest statewide contenders in years. In Delaware, Republican Congressman Mike Castle has a significant lead in polls over Joe Biden’s son, Beau. If either of these challengers prevails, it will represent a stunning shift to the right for either state. The fact that both states seem prepared to reject the liberal legacies of Obama and Biden is shocking…

And in New York, Ohio, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Maryland, liberal incumbents face strong headwinds in their reelection bids. David Paterson in New York is unlikely to win re-nomination, which would actually make a liberal win more likely. Ohio Governor Ted Strickland is in a dead heat with challenger John Kasich in the most recent survey. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter trails potential challenger Scott McInnis by 48%-41%, and receives poor grades overall from residents of the state. Deval Patrick too, trails his likely GOP challenger, Christy Mihos, by 41%-40%. In Maryland, Governor O’Malley already has one announced conservative opponent, and could face a challenge from former Governor Bob Ehrlich. O’Malley’s record of tax increases and spending cuts may have left him vulnerable.

It seems to me that the proper question to ask is, if Barack Obama is so popular and Republicans are so unpopular, why are so many Democrat candidates in deep trouble? The answer is that voters in 2006 and 2008 rejected Republicans who had reneged on their promises to limit government, and to make it work more effectively for taxpayers. Barack Obama promised to make government more effective - and to reduce the overall level of spending. It’s clear that voters have already soured on Obama’s agenda (if not on him personally) and are prepared to dump Democrat candidates - as long as they believe Republicans are prepared to bring the sort of change they want.

]]>
0
Erick Erickson (Profile) http://www.erickerickson.org <![CDATA[We’re 29 days away from the RedState Gathering]]> http://www.redstate.com/?p=11460 2009-07-03T15:49:36Z 2009-07-03T15:30:00Z Let’s begin revealing the RedState agenda.

For the next 14 days we’ll roll out the agenda, revealing a bit more each day.

You can still register and stay at the Grand Hyatt Atlanta in Buckhead for a super low price.

Registration will be cut of on July 15, 2009.

Go here to register and get the special link to reserve your hotel room.

REDSTATE GATHERING
TENTATIVE AGENDA

July 31st - August 1st
Grand Hyatt Atlanta in Buckhead

July 31st*
—————-

6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.: Cocktail Reception.

7:00 p.m.: Special Presentation of John Ziegler’s Media Malpractice with popcorn, of course.

Join Erick and the RedState contributors at the hotel bar after the movie.

August 1st*
—————-

9:00 - 9:10: Welcome by Erick Erickson

9:10 - 9:35: Congressman Tom Price (R-GA), Chairman of the Republican Study Committee

*times and listing are subject to change.

More of the agenda tomorrow.

Register now.

]]>
0
bs (Profile) <![CDATA[*Another* stimulus? Well, folks, remember - it’s OBAMA’S deficit]]> 9629.438 2009-07-03T15:03:48Z 2009-07-03T15:03:48Z There’s talk in DC about how the current stimulus isn’t working, so we really need another stimulus to really get the economy going.  In yesterday’s Kansas City Star, columnist E. Thomas McClanahan commented about the thought of another “stimulus”:

Former Clinton Treasury man Roger Altman had a troubling piece the other day in The Wall Street Journal, saying that quite soon we’ll be facing a big tax increase.

The budget deficit and the national debt is increasing so rapidly, he wrote, that perhaps as early as next year Main Street and the financial markets will “exert irrestible pressure to reduce the deficit.”

His prediction had a chilling plausibility — even moreso if you consider the extra debt that would be loaded on with another stimulus package full of wasteful pork like the last one. Even more troubling was Altman’s preferred levy: A European-style value-added tax.

That would be the perfect capstone to accompany President Obama’s mad drive to replicate the massive tax-and-regulatory structures that have made the European economy so sluggish for the last few decades. An apt word was coined to describe the overall problem: eurosclerosis. Europe built a welfare state it cannot financially support, and its costs and rules suffocate economic dynamism.

Remember, folks (and I’m going to periodically remind you of this fact):

This is OBAMA’S DEFICIT.

Here’s the picture.  Teach it to your children.  Write it on your doorposts.

]]>
0
Erick Erickson (Profile) http://www.erickerickson.org <![CDATA[The Honduran Question]]> 37405.2500 2009-07-03T11:30:05Z 2009-07-03T11:28:11Z I write a weekly newspaper column in Middle Georgia that typically deals with local issues. This week, however, I thought it necessary to write about Honduras.

Ignoring the constitution, President Manuel Zelaya, a man less popular in Honduras than George Bush was when he left office in this country, ordered a “non-binding” referendum be put to the voters on extending his stay in office.

Glenn Garvin wrote in the Miami Herald, “After the Honduran supreme court ruled that only the country’s congress could call such an election, Zelaya ordered the army to help him stage it anyway. … When the head of the armed forces, acting on orders from the supreme court, refused, Zelaya fired him, then led a mob to break into a military base where the ballots were stored.”

The Honduran Supreme Court, congress, attorney general and members of Zelaya’s cabinet opposed his move as unconstitutional. The supreme court ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office. Honduras has no impeachment process as we know it.

. . . .

Now Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya’s own political party, is president of Honduras. Despite protests from Zelaya’s supporters, the nation’s trade unions, business groups, Catholic Church, and most citizens supported Zelaya’s ouster — no one wanted a tyrant, let alone one propped up by drug lords and marxist thugs like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Nonetheless, Barack Obama declared the Honduran government’s actions a coup — never mind the government was preserving its democracy instead of overthrowing it. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “The action taken against Honduran President Mel Zelaya violates the precepts of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and thus should be condemned by all.” She called on Hondurans to uphold their constitutional processes, the very thing they were doing by ousting Zelaya.

On June 4, Barack Obama said from Egypt, “No system of government can or should be imposed on one nation by any other.” Two weeks ago, regarding the popular uprising in Iran, he said, “How that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide.” As with his campaign promises, our president quickly forgets his own words.

For perspective, Obama more quickly condemned President Zelaya’s ouster by a democratic government than he condemned Iran for gunning down its citizens who had taken to the streets to demand freedom. Obama needed public pressure to even discuss Iran. Sadly, our president needs public pressure to align his moral compass toward freedom.

You can read the whole thing here.

The only sad thing is that the paper took out my Jimmy Carter crack. One of the sentences in the column is:

Presidents in Latin American countries, like herpes, have a habit of never going away.

Originally, it noted that “like herpes and Jimmy Carter” Latin American presidents have a habit of not going away.

]]>
0
Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[The Declaration of Independence]]> 15455.1479 2009-07-03T11:25:07Z 2009-07-03T11:09:53Z From the National Archives:

Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation’s most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson’s most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in “self-evident truths” and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country.

A transcription of the complete text of the Declaration after the break.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of….

…the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to…

… compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

]]>
0
Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Let’s Not Celebrate July 4th]]> 18801.1994 2009-07-03T11:12:22Z 2009-07-03T10:49:28Z It is well known that John Adams had imagined that July second would be the day that future generations of Americans would remember as their day of independence from England, the nation’s birthday, if you will. It was, after all, on the second that it was proclaimed “(T)hat these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

But it was two days later that those gathered in defiance to the King declared a “Declaration of Independency” thereby adopting the famed document that carefully delineated the natural rights by which they claimed independence followed by a list of grievances that would explain why they invoked those rights.

So what are we celebrating? Is it our birth as a nation or are we celebrating the document of Independence? Early celebrations were mixed and a bit confused on that point. Additionally, celebrations on July fourth weren’t that common for a time after the Revolution was over. At first, not many felt a need to celebrate something that had happened and was over. It was time to move on from war in many American’s eyes.

Then again, not many Americans had much interest in the Declaration itself until the 1790s when the emerging parties began to vie for bragging rights over who wrote it. The Democratic Republicans proudly held that their leader, Thomas Jefferson, was the author of the document while the Federalists reminded everyone that their leader, John Adams, was also a member of the committee that drafted the document and that he, as much as Jefferson, had his stamp on the Declaration of Independence.

As the fame of the document and interest in it grew in the new United States of America, so too did a focus on celebrating the nation’s separation from England. By the time the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration neared in 1826, Independence Day had become a common day for celebration. And, despite a brief period in the South during and after the Civil War, the holiday atmosphere has grown and remained strong to this day.

The answer to the question above, then, is that we celebrate both the famed document and its purpose for having been drafted. We celebrate our birthday as a nation as well as those stated principles that announced to the world what we were, what this new nation was meant to represent. And so, it is properly Independence Day that we celebrate — a celebration of both the document and its famous ideas as well as our separation from England and the birth of our nation.

But one thing is sure, it is not “July Fourth” we celebrate. The fourth day of the seventh month is an inconsequential number. We are not celebrating a fourth day of anything and the bland, uninformative title of “July Fourth” should be banished from our minds as meaningless.

Why forget that title? Aside from the fact that we aren’t celebrating the numerology of the day, calling it “July Fourth” does nothing toward informing the world and our fellows of what it is we are celebrating. Do we celebrate December 25th, or do we Celebrate Christmas? Worse than a lack of identification, calling this sacred holiday merely “July Fourth” also dims from our minds the great purpose of what the holiday stands for.

Yes, Independence Day is more than a number and more than just a birthday party. It is the heralding of a new set of principles by which all men everywhere can declare their own freedom. It is the assertion that all men are created equal and have been given that status by God. Further, that because these rights are bestowed upon us by God, men have the right to insist that their government serve them, not that men be yoked to serve government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These were revolutionary concepts upon which to build a nation and it announced to the world that our revolution was a common cause for all mankind, not just we Americans. That day we declared that men have the right to cast off the oppressive yoke of government and live free.

Without doubt, these are heady concepts. And these are the high principles that we celebrate on Independence Day each year, that holiday that just happens to fall on the fourth day of July.

So, let’s cast off this bland appellation of “July Fourth” for a holiday of such important ideas. Let us proudly call it “Independence Day” so that we can keep in the forefront of our minds those great ideas we hold up as something worth celebrating.

It isn’t “July Fourth,” so let’s stop celebrating that holiday. It is Independence Day and nothing less.

]]>
0
Erick Erickson (Profile) http://www.erickerickson.org <![CDATA[Happy Independence Day (a day early)]]> http://www.redstate.com/?p=11462 2009-07-03T02:31:35Z 2009-07-03T09:00:00Z

JULY 3, 2009

Sign up to get the morning briefing by email here.


We’re taking the day off with the rest of you. We’ll be back on Monday and have a few surprises.

———————————————————————-

]]>
0
Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Petty Democrats want to remove Reagan’s name from airport]]> 15455.1461 2009-07-02T22:44:36Z 2009-07-02T22:31:17Z Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board chairman H.R. Crawford told the panel at its Wednesday meeting that he heard some congresscritters talking about removing President Ronald Reagan’s name from DC’s airport.

MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton tried to minimize the fallout that is already hitting the ground inside the Beltway:

“It was just a discussion. We’re not aware of anything specific.”

Why does the Left always preface its defense of the indefensible with “It was just…?” “It was just about sex.” “It was just talk.” “It was just a fetus.”

We all know the seething hatred liberals still harbor for Reagan, twenty years after he left the White House and five years after his death. This, despite the fact that he rebuilt our nation’s military, gave Americans reason to feel good about their country’s future again and helped to help free millions of Eastern Europeans from communist oppression, all after the misery of the Carter years.

Can they be so partisan and petty to want to rewrite history after an airport had already been renamed in our 40th president’s honor?

I know, I know. Rhetorical question.

- JP

]]>
0
hogan (Profile) <![CDATA[Question of the Day for Soto - Will She Answer?]]> 40873.247 2009-07-02T20:09:18Z 2009-07-02T20:05:25Z Today, Senator Cornyn asks the question of Judge Sotomayor to which an increasing number of Americans seem to be interested in knowing the answer… what with her recent slap-down by the Supreme Court and her past comments on the issue of race.

What say you, Judge Sotomayor?

Sen. Cornyn’s Daily Question for Judge Sotomayor
Question 15: Thursday, July 2, 2009

Is the Constitution color-blind?


Explanation: In his famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), Justice Harlan wrote that “‘our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.” This powerful concept reflects the essence of the Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection of the laws: The Government should not treat people differently on account of race.

Judge Sotomayor’s record raises the question of whether she agrees with this aspiration. First, Judge Sotomayor has suggested that there may be “inherent physiological . . . differences” among individuals of different races and ethnicities. She has also suggested that the vision of colorblindness is in “perpetual tension” with the value of ethnic diversity. See Sonia Sotomayor, A Latina Judge’s Voice, 13 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 87 (2002). Second, Judge Sotomayor joined the opinion blocking the New Haven firefighters’ lawsuit in Ricci v. DeStefano – an opinion that the Supreme Court reversed just this week on the ground that New Haven’s conduct was “antithetical to the notion of a workplace where individuals are guaranteed equal opportunity regardless of race.”

I think Justice Harlan was right: The Constitution is color-blind. In the upcoming hearings, I hope Judge Sotomayor will explain whether she agrees with Justice Harlan or whether she has a different view of the Constitution.

See Senator Cornyn’s previous 14 questions for Judge Sotomayor here.

]]>
0
Brian Faughnan (Profile) <![CDATA[Is George Soros Really Getting His Money’s Worth?]]> 20089.1452 2009-07-02T19:30:55Z 2009-07-02T19:30:55Z As I’ve noted before, the left has found its hill to die for, at least when it comes to Obamacare: they demand a government-run plan. That’s because they recognize that a government-run plan will swamp private-sector competitors, and eventually lead to a single-payer federal program.

With that in mind, it makes sense that they’ll do their best to destroy the reputation of anyone who points out what they’re up to, or who points out how expensive this will be. As a result, when the CBO released its estimate of the cost of the revised HELP Committee plan, the gang at ThinkProgress immediately attacked Republicans for allegedly responding to the plan before they had all the facts:

A couple of weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a preliminary score of the health care legislation under consideration in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The bill was estimated to cost $1 trillion over 10 years, while reducing the number of uninsured by “only” one-third. As many informed bloggers noted at the time, the cost estimate was incomplete because the legislation that the CBO reviewed did not contain language about a public health insurance plan or an employer mandate.

Nevertheless, Republicans seized on the opportunity to engage in merciless political attacks, citing the incomplete CBO score as proof that health care reform is not worth doing…

In other words, the addition of the public plan dramatically reduced the overall cost of the bill and ensured coverage of almost all Americans. So what excuses will McCain, Boehner, Graham, and other Republicans offer now? Their attacks were not only found to be baseless, but their concerns about the costs and coverage have also been addressed.

What excuses will McCain, Boehner, Graham, and others offer? Probably that the plan will actually cost well over $1 trillion - as ThinkProgress noted in an update to this post!

UPDATE Read CBO’s letter here. Jonathan Cohn explains why the final cost of the bill will likely be somewhere between $1-1.3 trillion.

Cohn’s argument - which ThinkProgress apparently endorses - is that it might be accurate to say that the bill costs $600 billion and leaves more than 30 million uninsured. But Cohn notes that Senate rules prevent the HELP bill from including a Medicaid expansion that would cover about 20 million more, and raise the total cost to between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion. That section of the bill will be added before the Senate votes. Once that is done, the Senate Democrat bill will leave maybe 15 million or so without coverage, at a total cost of more than 1 trillion.

I wonder if ThinkProgress wants to take another stab at figuring out just who jumped the gun.

Note: If you’re interested in this topic, you really need to be reading Philip Klein at the American Spectator, and/or following him on Twitter. Klein also points out that all of these estimates rely not on actual CBO data, but on data supplied by the CBO, as edited and presented by Senators Dodd and Kennedy. As long as you trust their candor and impartiality, you’ll trust this data.

]]>
0
TobyToons (Profile) http://www.tobydials.com <![CDATA[(Cartoon) - The Stimulus is working!!]]> 40884.187 2009-07-02T19:23:19Z 2009-07-02T19:23:19Z Beef

]]>
0
bs (Profile) <![CDATA[The polls are turning on Sotomayor]]> 9629.431 2009-07-02T19:00:28Z 2009-07-02T19:00:28Z I’m not particularly sold on Sonia Sotomayor one way or the other, other than to believe that nothing good could ever come from Obama.  My lawyer colleagues here on Redstate are much better versed on the merits of her rulings and arguments in the courtroom, but they are not necessarily free to pass judgment on them, as there could be conflicts of interest in the future.  It does seem that while she is certainly not a nominee that would come from a Republican president, she could be less harmful than some of the alternatives.

Despite what one thinks of her potential benefit or damage to the rule of law in the United States, it seems that Ms. Sotomayor’s journey to the Supreme Court bench has hit a couple of speed bumps.  First it was her borderline-racist statements implying that a “wise Latina” judge would reach better conclusions than a “white male who hasn’t lived that life,” and the fact that her comments were not an isolated incident, contrary to the spin of the Obama administration.  That particular episode seemed to be defused by th administration, as it seems to (at the time) have had little impact on her popularity.  But it appears the latest, more significant courtroom events have had an impact on the public’s perception of Ms. Sotomayor.

This week the Supreme Court’s Ricci v. DeStefano decision directly reversed one of Sotomayor’s rulings. The court ruled 5-4 that the firefighters in question were discriminated against, in contradiction with Sotomayor’s opinion.  And although the decision was 5-4, all nine SCOTUS justices disagreed with her disposition on the case.  But here’s the key - the Obama lapdog media heavily covered the story and made it crystal clear that it was her ruling that was overridden, a fact that I suppose was undeniable, thus making it pretty much mandatory that they report it.  This apparently has had a discernible impact on her public perception.  The Rasmussen polling firm found that “37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.”  This reflects a twelve-point decline in the public support for Sotomayor from before the Supreme Court ruling.  Prior to the Ricci ruling, there was already debate about Sotomayor’s reversal rate at the Supreme Court level.  One could argue that the drop in popularity is, in part, a delayed reaction to the accumulation of information that has been made public since her nomination, combined with the Court’s ruling.

On Wednesday, on his blog, William Jacobson pointed out how a month ago the polling information was important in pointing out how “Obama apparently found the American political center in appointing her” … and he asks “does that mean the polls still are relevant when the polls are not so good?”  Heh…good question, sir.

So now does that mean that this polling result indicates that Obama should have second thoughts about his support for Sotomayor?   Her ruling on the Ricci case jives with her previous racially-tinged comments and brings cause for concern about how she will continue her affirmative action activism from the bench.

]]>
0
Erick Erickson (Profile) http://www.erickerickson.org <![CDATA[The Power of Small Numbers: A Butterfly Effect]]> 37405.2494 2009-07-02T17:49:41Z 2009-07-02T17:47:50Z In Maricopa County, AZ there are 700,000 registered Republican voters.

There are 6,000 precinct captain positions for the Republican Party in Maricopa County. Of those, only 2,000 or filled. In other words, one-third of the precinct captain positions are filled. More bluntly, three-tenths of one percent of the registered Republicans in Maricopa County, AZ are actively engaged in their party.

Back in February, 200 people showed up at a tea party protest in Maricopa County. Assume, if you will, that half are not actively involved in the local Republican Party. That makes 100 people who were so hacked off at out of control government that they showed up at noon on a weekday to protest.

If those 100 people each became a precinct captain, they would have enough impact to make significant changes in the Maricopa County Republican Party. Why? Because of the 2000 named captains, not all are actively engaged. And of those who are, not all can show up at a meeting because of schedule conflicts.

If the 100 stand strong, they can approve the larger leadership of Maricopa County.

Just 100 people.

Yes, let’s remember that 300 Spartans held off the Persian Army. Small numbers compared to the thousands of well armed Persians (sorry, Pej).

Small numbers working well together can be powerful numbers. It just takes some dedication.

Because of ballot access laws in the several states, it is virtually impossible to organize and operate a third party. Look at the Libertarians. They have been around for years and have zero nationally elected politicians and very, very few at the local level. Same with the Greens. And remember 1992? The Reform Party stormed onto the scene only to rain out.

If we are to fundamentally change this country, we will do so through the existing party apparatus. And it is damn easy if you work at it with some friends.

Think about the numbers. Take, as another example, Bibb County, Georgia, where I live. If you show up at a precinct meeting, you are probably going to become precinct captain because no one shows up. Then you have a good chance of becoming Area Captain because, again, few show up.

If you do it with your friends, pretty soon you are bringing your delegates to the county convention and picking your county chairman who then gets to have a say at the state level. Better yet, if you coordinate with like minded members of the RedState Army in other parts of your state, pretty soon you’ll control your state party.

Then you have real power.

Ever hear of the “Butterfly effect“? To quote wikipedia, “Small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.” You know it better as a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan causes a storm in California.

Put in more relevant context — you showing up at your county Republican Party meeting causes a wholesale, long term readjustment in the Republican Party.

Friends, we can’t spend all day on RedState bitching and moaning about the state of our country and the state of the GOP. You don’t have to invest your money, just your time and talent.

We need a lot less preaching and a whole lot more doing. The power of small numbers of people willing to show up at a political party meeting gets amplified over time. If you are willing, you and your like minded friends can take over and change the Republican Party.

At the RedState Gathering on August 1st, we’re going to spend an hour talking about this topic and how to take our online activities offline to make a real difference.

]]>
0