Few books come along that I actually believe everyone should read. There simply are not that many good books in the world today, much less ones that most people could possibly get something out of. But, our friend Mark Levin has written such a book – and I recommend that we conservatives should either give, or promote, the book to literally everyone we know.

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto manages to take a number of complex legal, historical, and philosophical concepts and distill them into a well-constructed but easy-to-read snapshot of our current state of affairs. That is not an easy thing to do.

We live in a strange time. As Mark points out in his book, “[s]o distant is America today from its founding principles that it is difficult to precisely describe the nature of American government.” He notes that we are hardly a constitutional republic, federalist republic and/or representative republic – rather, we are instead a “society steadily transitioning toward statism.”

Indeed, “Statist” is the term he uses artfully to more accurately define the Modern Liberal as one who “believes in the supremacy of the state.” This concept is a constant theme throughout his book – and offers an important and necessary shift in thinking for conservatives toward a firm recognition that those who oppose us are committed to the state rather than liberty.

In the closing of his introductory chapter, Mark points out the following:

The Conservative is alarmed by the ascent of a soft tyranny and its cheery acceptance by the neo-Statist. He knows that liberty once lost is rarely recovered. He knows of the decline and eventual failure of past republics. And he knows that the best prescription for addressing society’s real and perceived ailments to is not to further empower an already enormous federal government beyond its constitutional limits, but to return to the founding principles. A free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested cooperation, and a government operating within the limits of its authority promote more opportunity, prosperity and opportunity than any alternative. Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny because its principles are the founding principles.

Well said – and instructive during a time when Republicans, as we’ve discussed before, need to get back to basics and stand for something meaningful – something beyond thoughtless, supposedly politically-expedient efforts to buy votes and to “appeal” to certain demographics.

Getting back into power is not reason enough to stand on our basic conservative principles even though it may be the result. We need more than power-seeking – we need to stand on principle to fight the Statist… to inspire new generations of Americans to look to themselves rather than the State for progress… and to band together in the most noble of earthly causes - to preserve and protect liberty against tyranny. Thanks, Mark. Well done.

This:

Even before a gang of heavily armed men burst into his house and forcibly evicted him from his land, farming had become a hazardous business for Malcolm Clark, a 66-year old Zimbabwean who has made his living as a farmer since 1962.

During the last two years electricity shortages have made it virtually impossible to irrigate, reducing output at the 92-hectare holding north of Harare where Mr Clark cultivated a range of vegetables and seeds.

“I didn’t think I would survive,” said Mr Clark describing last month’s attack, which farmers’ organisations say forms part of a “final push” by supporters of President Robert Mugabe to drive the country’s remaining 700 commercial white farmers from their land.

Attacks and legal actions - Mr Clark was accused in September of illegally occupying the land and must appear in court to hear the eviction order against him - are on the increase.

It bears asking anew: In this context, how can any governing coalition that leaves Robert Mugabe in power be countenanced by Zimbabweans and by the international community at large? If Morgan Tsvangirai thinks that sanctions against Zimbabwe will or should go away merely because he is prime minister, he will likely have another think coming. Having the Movement for Democratic Change in power is useless so long as these land grabs–and the brutality that accompanies them–continue.

Get used to having Hugo Chavez plunder Venezuela for decades to come. If anyone thinks that he will waste time holding other popular ballot elections concerning his regime’s policy initiatives, they have another think coming. The Chavez regime will interpret this do-over election as a mandate for rule by decree. It never really mattered all that much what the people of Venezuela thought of Chavez’s policy platform, but after these most recent elections, what little power the Venezuelan people had to determine the course of their country has largely evaporated.

A great pity. Venezuela is going through a lot of turmoil right now, especially with the fall in the price of oil. It could have used a change. Too bad it won’t get one.

Back in 2007, the voters of Venezuela said “thanks, but no thanks” to a ballot proposition that would have removed term limits for Hugo Chavez, thus effectively allowing him at least a decent shot at becoming President-for life.

Now, Chavez has invited the people he ostensibly loves so dearly to see the error of their ways and reconsider:

Venezuelans are due to vote on a proposal that would allow President Hugo Chavez and other elected officials to seek as many terms as they wish.

A “yes” vote in Sunday’s referendum would allow Mr Chavez to stay in office after his current term ends in 2012.

Mr Chavez has said the constitutional amendment is needed for the future of Venezuela’s socialist revolution.

But critics say it is designed to concentrate power in the president’s hands for decades to come.

A proposal to end presidential term limits was one of a package of 69 constitutional changes narrowly rejected in a 2007 referendum.

[. . .]

Mr Chavez celebrated 10 years in power earlier this month. His current term is due to end in 2012.

“Ten years is nothing,” Mr Chavez said at a news conference on Saturday. “I don’t know what they’re complaining about.”

“On Monday I’ll wake up looking beyond 2013, and that will give me more confidence in what we’re doing.”

Read More →

It’s hardly appealing:

WHEN a group of Venezuelan women staged an impromtu protest recently by dropping their trousers in front of armed national guards, President Hugo Chavez cheekily observed that the women were obviously in need of more attention than they received from their opposition husbands.

It was a characteristically inflammatory insult from the self-styled revolutionary who once called the former president George W Bush “the devil” and has already labelled President Barack Obama “el negro”.

Next Sunday Chavez’s bombastic wit and autocratic presidential style will once again be put to the test in a second referendum on his attempts to remove constitutional limits that prevent him from becoming president for life.

After narrowly losing a similar vote in 2007, Chavez has returned with a ferocious crackdown on opposition supporters and dire warnings of plots to overthrow him and hints that evil imperialists want to take over the oil industry, which supplies 93% of the country’s export revenues.

Last week he announced that two national guard officers had been arrested after “making contacts with the United States via e-mail [and] preparing destabilising plans against the president”.

Read More →

An agreement has been reached between Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai that allows the latter to join a government of national unity in Zimbabwe. The terms of the deal are . . . well . . . take a look:

ROBERT MUGABE, the Zimbabwean president, will have the power to dismiss his arch-opponent from a government of national unity even though the two men have agreed to join forces in an effort to rescue the country’s ruined economy.

Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), who will become prime minister, could be sacked for incompetence under the terms of a deal that leaves the 84-year-old president firmly in control.

There were mixed reactions to the deal in Zimbabwe. Some feared Mugabe would use Tsvangirai, 56, to extend his power. Others felt that the opposition leader would neutralise the president. One opposition sympathiser said she was “hop-ing for the best but preparing for the worst”.

The story of one’s life if one follows politics in Zimbabwe. Why Tsvangirai agreed to this monstrously bad deal is anyone’s guess. The story indicates that the deal was necessary if there was to be any chance whatsoever of Zimbabwe getting foreign aid, but what is to stop the Mugabe government from getting rid of Tsvangirai once the aid is received? Additionally, what of British and American assurances–also noted in the story–that any government which had Mugabe as the President should be ineligible for aid?

Far from being any path towards national unity in Zimbabwe, this deal seems, instead, to be a not-so-subtle way for Mugabe to consolidate his authority. No responsible member of the international community should support it in any respect.

So let me make up for it by noting this story, which indicates that the prospects for power-sharing between Robert Mugabe’s murderous little clique and the opposition, headed by Morgan Tsvangirai are . . . well . . . not that good:

Since a power sharing pact was signed on September 15 last year Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, have sat around the negotiating table with Southern African mediators on several occasions without managing to resolve their differences.

Talks between the leaders and Mr Arthur Mutambara, who leads a tiny breakaway faction of the MDC Harare broke up last Monday without progress.

On Friday the ruling Zanu-PF party’s lead negotiator, Mr Patrick Chinamasa said President Mugabe would not accept any of the “new demands” made by the opposition.

With a senior government source describing Monday’s meeting as “a mere formality” and a top MDC politician saying the September agreement has “already effectively collapsed”, both parties are pondering their next steps.

Read More →