This post is based upon a comment I made on my earlier post. The person I was originally replying to was banned before I could hit send. I hadn’t intended to write this as a diary post originally, but at the suggestion of acat (and a little inkling I had while writing the comment as well), I am going to post it here with a little extra elaboration. I don’t plan on making this as thorough as Part I, but I would like to lay these things out. This isn’t my planned Part II. Rather, it is a digression to explain some things.
To help us understand the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” in the United States Constitution, let us look at what James Madison, who was the “author” of the work, had to say (quote is from Part I):
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…
This is a passage that has weighed heavily upon us in recent years. There are those among us, known commonly as “Birthers” who dispute the eligibility of various politicians to be President or Vice-President of the United States. The most popular target of the Birthers is Barack Obama, of course, but of late, Birthers have been training their sights on the cases of Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, and probably others.
Leaving aside the birth certificate issue, which is unique to Obama’s case (and for the record, I do believe he was born in Hawaii), the main sticking point for the Birthers is that all four of the politicians have at least one parent who was not born in America (indeed, Obama is the only one who had a parent who was an American citizen at the time of his birth, his mother). They are fond of quoting the line from Book I, Chapter XIX of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
While they are not wrong in that the Founders were fond of the book, there’s one problem with trying to apply this interpretation to our Constitution: the United States’ legal history.
I am planning this to be a mutli-part series. Part II will deal with the interpretation of this clause in the latter half of the 19th century, with particular emphasis placed on the 14th Amendment and later court cases. Part III, meanwhile, will deal with how the clause has been dealt with in the 20th century and in our day. So, let’s jump right in.
Calvin Coolidge’s moniker “Silent Cal” is something of a misnomer. While he was very famous for his economy with words, he was well known in his day for using the kinds of media available to him. In fact, he hired the best media strategists of his day to help him effectively utilize what was available to him. Because of this, he became the first President to appear speaking on film. His speech could, with a few minor edits to the particulars, be just as apropos today as it was back then. Behold:
[This] country needs every ounce of its energy to restore itself. The costs of government are all assessed upon the people.
This means that the farmer is doomed to provide a certain amount of money out of the sale of his produce, no matter how low the price, to pay his taxes. The manufacturer, the professional man, the clerk, must do the same from their income. The wage earner, often at a higher rate when compared to his earning, makes his contribution, perhaps not directly but indirectly, in the advanced cost of everything he buys.
The expenses of government reach everybody.
Taxes take from everyone a part of his earnings and force everyone to work for a certain part of his time for the government.
When we come to realize that the yearly expenses of the governments of this country…the stupendous sum of about 7 billion, 500 million dollars — we get…700 million dollars — is needed by the national government, and the remainder by local governments.
Such a sum is difficult to comprehend. It represents all the pay of five million wage earners receiving five dollars a day, working 300 days in the year. If the government should add 100 million dollars of expense, it would represent four days more work of these wage earners. These are some of the reasons why I want to cut down public expense.
I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government — and more for themselves.
I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom.
Until we can reestablish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty.
These results are not fanciful; they are not imaginary. They are grimly actual and real, reaching into every household in the land. They take from each home annually an average of over 300 dollars — and taxes must be paid. They are not a voluntary contribution to be met out of surplus earnings. They are a stern necessity. They come first.
It is only out of what is left, after they are paid, that the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter can be provided and the comforts of home secured, or the yearnings of the soul — for a broader and more abundant life gratified.
When the government affects a new economy, it grants everybody a life pension with which to raise the standard of existence. It increases the value of everybody’s property, raises the scale of everybody’s wages.
One of the greatest favors that can be bestowed upon the American people is economy in government.
If only today’s Republican politicians were more willing to say these kinds of things!
Now for a few thoughts.
First of all, it is amazing how much more money our government spends today. The “stupendous sum” of Coolidge’s day of $7,500,000,000 would be $94,786,977,161.05 when adjusted for inflation. Let’s put this in perspective a little bit:
The expenditure for 2011, meanwhile, was around $3.82 trillion.
In fairness, the population has increased since then. The 1920 Census revealed that the nation had 106,021,537 people. It has roughly tripled since then, totaling 308,745,538 in 2010. However, multiplying the sum Coolidge mentions in his speech, adjusted for inflation, would give us $284,360,931,483.15. Still a drop in the bucket for what we took in, much less spent, for 2011. For example, the debt limit agreement reached back in August promised spending cuts of $917 billion alone over ten years.
Second, Calvin Coolidge is exactly right about the basics behind taxation. It is the government taking from your earnings for its own functions. Now this in and of itself isn’t wrong. The government has to get its money somehow. It can’t just print it (well, okay, maybe it can….with problematic–to say the least–results). However, as Coolidge notes here, “They are not a voluntary contribution to be met out of surplus earnings. They are a stern necessity. They come first.” Furthermore, until the people are able to actually keep as much of their money as possible, they “are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty.” Barry Goldwater, in his seminal The Conscience of a Conservative, quotes the late, great Senator Robert Taft of Ohio as saying, “You can socialize just as well by a steady increase in the burden of taxation beyond the 30% we have already reached as you can by government seizure. The very imposition of heavy taxes is a limit on a man’s freedom,” (pg. 54). The spirit of Coolidge was strong with him. Unfortunately, this spirit does not appear to be strong with either the current occupant of the White House or most members of Congress.
And all of this was before the wonderful thing we know as withholding came into being.
Third, “[o]ne of the greatest favors that can be bestowed upon the American people is economy in government.” What a great thought, that. Pity most of our elected officials in Washington, much less the states and lower levels of government, don’t understand that.
This is a former Massachusetts governor I’d have no problem getting behind. There’s a good reason Ronald Reagan considered him one of his favorite Presidents.
As we debate just how much our government ought to be spending–and where that money should come from–I think it’s a good idea to reflect on the words of Margaret Thatcher on the subject of “public money” (of course, when is listening to Maggie a bad idea?):
This past Tuesday was a good week for Republicans and conservatives. We sent bona fide conservative Mark Amodei to Congress in Nevada’s 9th District, and wrested from the Democrats a district in the heart of New York City by pushing Bob Turner to victory in New York’s 9th. NV-02 was a Republican leaning district, and we won there in dominating fashion by 21 points. NY-09, meanwhile, was a stunning upset in a district that hasn’t sent a Republican to Congress since Warren Harding was President (a feat which I hope to write more about very soon, time pending).
It feels good, doesn’t it?
However, as tempting as it may be to sit here and rest upon our laurels, there is still work that needs to be done. The special elections for Congress are not yet over. With the ones in NV-01 and NY-09 finished, we must now turn our attention to the special election going on in Oregon’s 1st Congressional District.
I was going through my e-mail Inbox yesterday when I came upon this from Beliefnet:
Demonstrators from London’s “Muslims Against Crusades,” whose website shows a graphic of a plane heading towards New York’s World Trade Center, say they “will make as much noise as possible during the planned mark of respect for the dead.”
Their disruption at the U.S. Embassy of London’s observation of the September 11 attacks is, they say, ”to show that the U.S. has lost the war on terror,” said spokesman Anjem Choudary.
[...]
He said: “We will be holding a big demonstration and it’s going to begin at the time the first plane hit the building – when everybody is holding their minute’s silence.
“We will be very noisy during that time. It will be to expose the crimes of the American government over the past ten years and showing how they have failed.
“They have lost the war against terror. All of their concepts of freedom and democracy have been run roughshod over and been replaced with extraordinary rendition and policies which mean people don’t have rights any more.”
For those of you who don’t remember, Anjem Choudary is that nutcase of a cleric who made the rounds in the US media earlier this year around the time of Hosni Mubarak’s ouster arguing for Shariah-law in America. Here’s an excellent example of Mr. Choudary in action:
I’m tempted to call Choudary a “tool”, but he knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s one of the ones pulling the puppet strings. Of course, this piece of detritus is not alone. He’s in charge of a group called “Muslims Against Crusades”, which is one of the two groups, along with the tellingly named “Sharia 4 America”, behind these embassy protests For those of you with strong skins, you can watch the Muslims Against Crusades folk in their own words from their Youtube channel:
Now, these scum think they’ve got a list of grievances to air against us, but I’m not particularly inclined to listen because IT WAS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO KILLED ALMOST 3000 OF MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN ON 9/11/2001 IN COLD BLOOD AND PROBABLY WOULD HAVE KILLED MORE IF WE HAD GIVEN THEM THE CHANCE. I don’t think any other reason needs to be given, but I will note that doing such horrific things will not be beneficial to you if you really wanted to get your point across. Perusing their websites (and you can do that on your own, as I won’t be linking to them), it’s clear that they aren’t the ones who can be compromised with. Their words and actions suggest that there is no compromise between them and us. It’s either Sharia and Islamic domination or nothing for them (indeed, check out this Youtube video from Sharia 4 America), and that is something that should be met with zero tolerance from any Western society, particularly one such as ours that avows a belief in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we are up against, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 as much as we were back in 2001. We should take to heart the same kind of philosophy Winston Churchill espoused in his “Finest Hour” speech:
As you have hopefully heard by now, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) officially called for Anthony Weiner’s resignation today. Per CNN:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the chairmen of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called for Weiner to step down in separate statements earlier Saturday.
Weiner’s decision to seek treatment and take a leave was not enough to satisfy Pelosi, who wants him to step down, a Pelosi aide told CNN.
“Congressman Weiner has the love of his family, the confidence of his constituents and the recognition that he needs help. I urge Congressman Weiner to seek that help without the pressures of being a member of Congress,” Pelosi said earlier.
Now, while we’re all thinking “FINALLY!” to ourselves, I want to point out something ABC’s Jake Tapper tweeted earlier yesterday that really caught my eye. However, I can’t say that it honestly surprised me:
BUT it is true that this is the first time @NancyPelosi has called for a House Democrat to resign.
Like I said, I can’t say this honestly surprised me. The Democratic Party does have a habit of circling the wagons around their own when one of them is involved, or appears to be involved in, (usually the former) a scandal. Still, though, that’s quite a lot of scandals, and most of them never got anywhere near the amount of media coverage they would have gotten had these members had an “R” next to their name. In fact, had Pelosi been a Republican, I’m certain there would be widespread calls across the media, her own party, and the American people for her to step down (for that matter, she probably would have been defeated for reelection), but no, she’s still there as the top ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives.
So, to refresh our memories, I have compiled a list of scandals that have occurred within her party under her leadership. Though it’s probably fairer to her than she deserves, I have limited this list to scandals occurring or continuing solely during her term as Democratic House Leader, meaning no Barney Frank prostitution ring or Dan Rostenkowski. Furthermore, this list is limited to House members only during that period, meaning no Chris Dodd. I’m also not including Anthony Weiner because his case is fresh in our memory. I cannot claim that this list is authoritative–these are Democrats we’re talking about after all, meaning there’s always more scandals waiting to be uncovered. However, I did the best I can, so let’s take a look:
UPDATE 7: Barring Democratic shenanigans (and they are still possible) I think it’s safe to say Prosser has won. This means that, as others have said, conservatives have been able to match a supposedly hyper-motivated Left blow-for-blow in a typically blue-leaning state with a strong history of progressivism and support for labor. It’s almost certain that there will be a recount, though. Justice Prosser needs your help. Head over to his website and donate to his recount fund if you can.
——–
I’m sure most of you remember that, according to the official results of the initial count, JoAnne Kloppenburg led the incumbent David Prosser 740,090 to 739,886, or by 204 votes. Obviously with results this close, a recount was in order.
Fortunately, things seem to be looking up for Prosser as the re-canvassing has brought more votes in for him. Many more. Hit the jump for more info.
I divide my time between Georgia’s 13th district and its 12th district, depending on whether I’m at home or in college. Unfortunately, I’m represented by Democrats, David Scott and John Barrow, respectively, in both districts. Since I’m registered to vote in the 12th district, I’ve been doing what I can to help the Republicans oust Barrow.
As the hours have passed today, it has become clear that Bart Stupak intends to sell his soul to Obamacare . As the leader of the pro-life Democrats in Congress, he held the fate of healthcare reform (and I used that word in the loosest possible sense) in his hands. Unfortunately, but probably unsurprisingly, he has chosen poorly, and he has sold America out to this horrid bill.
We must make him pay, and fortunately, there is a way to do so.
Meet Dan Benishek . He Stupak’s Republican challenger in Michigan’s first district. For those of you with a Twitter, you can follow him @Benishek .
He doesn’t have a contributions site yet, but until he does, you can send your donation to:
Benishek for Congress
802 Pentoga Trail
Crystal Falls, MI 49920
I’d like to close this by paraphrasing a famous quote by former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that I think applies to Stupak’s situation:
You had an option, sir. You could have said, ‘I am not going to do it. This is wrong for America, and I am not going to ask Americans to pay the price.’ You had an option, sir — to say ‘no’ — and you chose to say ‘yes’ to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Democratic Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Americans.
Bart Stupak had an option, and he sold us out. Let’s show him the consequences of his choice.
H/T to this tweet by Ben Domenech for alerting me to it.
A while back I did a post on the “Beer Summit” highlighting Obama’s lack of concern for those around him. The picture from Ben Domenech’s tweet reminded me of that. Take a look at it:
The man comforting the child is Harold Ford, a man who unsuccessfully sought Bill Frist’s old Senate seat in Tennessee back in 2006 (he lost to Bob Corker, for the record), and he’s trying to primary Hillary Clinton’s replacement in New York, Kirsten Gillibrand.
Obama, meanwhile, is minding his own business in the background looking off into the distance somewhere seemingly unaware of what’s happening in front of him.
Looking at that picture, I couldn’t help but think about how President Bush might have reacted in this situation, and how different the two men are.
So, then, how would Bush have reacted? There is ample evidence from which to judge. Perhaps most notable is this one image:
In a moment largely unnoticed by the throngs of people in Lebanon waiting for autographs from the president of the United States, George W. Bush stopped to hold a teenager’s head close to his heart.
Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president’s hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:
“This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11.”
Bush stopped and turned back.
“He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man,” Faulkner said. “He looked right at her and said, ‘How are you doing?’ He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest.”
Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.
“I could hear her say, ‘I’m OK,’ ” he said. “That’s more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, ‘I can see you have a father who loves you very much.’ ”
“And I said, ‘I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.’ It was a special moment.”
From Ron Boat: In contrast to our current insensitive, politically opportunistic pres, people i know who know Bushs 41 & 43 say the family is truly caring and concerned. Even the Friday of Ft. Hood, Pres and Mrs Bush secretly went to the hospital to see the wounded and INSISTED that the press not know or tell anyone. Only the week after did the word leak out they went to show their concern. What a difference a year makes. I needed to add this: From Valerie Geibel-Wells “I am from the area (this was at a rally in Lebanon, OH) and know this family. Her mother was lost in 9.11 and was a wonderful humanitarian. They never found her remains and the girl was devastated – this was honest compassion from the leader of the free world who as he walked by her someone yelled to him “she lost her mother in the Trade Centers… See More” and he stopped and turned around and came back and hugged this girl for what seemed an eternity – something we don’t get now. He is true to America and never put us down.” Thanks Valerie. (Thanks for posting this Ron!)
Looking at these pictures, with the one of Sgt. Crowley I discussed earlier, and comparing them, I can only come to the conclusion that he just doesn’t care.
It’s not a conclusion I want to make about the leader of the free world, but it’s what I see when I look at these pictures.
He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.
EDIT: I’d like to point out that even Bill Clinton, Obama’s most recent Democratic predecessor didn’t have such a tin ear. He wouldn’t have been so uncaring, and he certainly wouldn’t have let such a moment slip past him. After all, remember he feels your pain.
So, let it sink in…
He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.
This diary was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks.
As this piece by the American Thinker points out, it’s entirely possible that the Republicans could have 52 votes in the Senate come 2010. That’s a gain of 11 seats, added on to the 41 we now have since Brown won.
Good quote:
Moreover, [Dan] Coats’s decision to run this year [for Evan Bayh's seat] is an example of the great vulnerability that Democrats face if 2010 continues to look like a strong Republican year. A few months ago, Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas were both considered pretty safe placeholders for Democrats in the midterm election. The number of possible gains by Republicans was very small. In fact, after November 2008, net gains by Democrats in the Senate in 2010 were considered possible. Today, it is a sure bet that North Dakota Governor John Hoeven will become a conservative Republican senator, replacing the liberal Democrat Dorgan. It is just about as sure that Senator Lincoln in Arkansas, who won reelection easily six years ago, will lose to a conservative Republican.
Republican candidates are running ahead of the Democrats in Colorado, Nevada, Delaware, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. If those poll numbers hold up, a Coats victory over Bayh would give Republicans 49 seats in the Senate. Coats, like Hoeven in North Dakota, represents a very strong candidate against a leftist Democrat in a blue state. Congressman Michael Castle in Delaware is a RINO, but not a leftist. He also represents the best Republican candidate in Delaware, and polls which had shown Castle beating Biden’s son will almost certainly show Castle well ahead in the wake of Biden’s decision not to seek his father’s old Senate seat.
If Republicans can persuade the most electable candidates to run in other states, the problems for Democrats could quickly mushroom into an enormous political headache. Polls show former Governor George Pataki running ahead of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, where the Democratic Party is increasingly dysfunctional. Pundits see former Governor Tommy Thompson as a very strong challenger to Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Patty Murray in Washington seems safe, according to Rasmussen, but if the former Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi runs against her, he beats Murray by two points. That is a recurring theme in the 2010 Senate election cycle: Republicans are very competitive if the top tier of candidates can be recruited. Those three candidates could give Republicans 52 Senate seats.
Very obviously, this is an optimistic assessment, but it isn’t an unreasonable one. It is very much within the realm of possibility. And, the fact that such an assessment can be made reasonably ought to prove just how bad things have gotten for the Democrats after their banner year in 2008. It hasn’t even taken two years for the Democrats to waste the goodwill and political capital given to them by the American people.
Now, I don’t believe at this moment that we’ll gain 11 seats–Perhaps I’m a little too cautious in my predictions. I believe we could see Republicans pick up 6 maybe 7 seats at this point, but as I’ve already said, it really says something about how fast the public’s opinion has soured on Democrats. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are too busy trying to cater to the far Left while not appearing to be so to do anything effectively centrist like they prefer to advertise themselves as. The public has seen this abandonment of centrism or at least the appearance of such and reacted accordingly. Furthermore, those who favor incremental change are shocked at how fast Obama’s agenda is being pushed through, and those who favor radical change are dissatisfied with how slowly he is trying to change things and how little progress his initiatives have had.
Put it to you this way: it took George W. Bush, “the Chimp”, six years to face losses in either house of Congress. It has The way things are going, it will have taken Barack Obama, “The One”, two. I realize this is common for Presidents in their first midterm, but if we are to believe the hype, Obama is anything but “common”.
As the article also notes, these successes could carry over into the House and into state governments:
What about the House of Representatives? Republicans will gain a lot of seats, very probably enough to gain a majority. Even if Republican gains fall short, though, Nancy Pelosi will be playing with a very weak hand. More importantly, if 2010 is a good year for Republicans generally, then the GOP ought to make major gains in governorships (all polls show that now) and Republicans, who held up very well in 2008 in state legislative elections, will probably come out of the 2010 elections with a majority of state legislative chambers and seats. Special legislative elections are strongly indicating that already, as I noted last October, often by stunning margins of victory.
What would it mean if Republicans have a majority of power in state governments? It would mean that the redistricting process following reapportionment would help elect more Republicans to the House. Reapportionment is already going to move House seats from red states to blue states. Add a redistricting process mainly controlled by Republicans, and an automatic increase of a dozen or so House seats to Republicans is easily conceivable. House Democrats in 2012, faced with new districts and probable minority status for several election cycles, might leave Congress in droves.
I cannot imagine that the Senate would gain seats and the House would not. The Senate, in fact, almost always, if not all the time, follows the direction the House goes, so if we gain seats in the Senate, it should be a foregone conclusion that we gain some in the House as well. And, while I am not sure how this usually translates into state level elections, I should think the successes of McDonnell in Virginia, Christie in New Jersey, and even Brown in Massachusetts would indicate that gains will also be made in these elections as well.
To put it simply, things are looking good for Republicans, and I couldn’t be happier. We may not necessarily be looking at another 1994, but things are certainly setting themselves up that way.
This post was originally posted here at my blogJake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!
I have been wanting to write a couple of posts congratulating Scott Brown for his victory, but I think I’ll put them on hold for now until my concerns explained here are allayed.
I must admit, as a committed conservative, I have my problems with supporting most New England Republicans (there are some Republicans, mainly in New Hampshire, who are exceptions to this, but not many). Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Maine’s two senators, highlight why I am hesitant to support most New England Republicans. Usually, I end up supporting the Republican in a New England race because a) they less Liberal than their Democratic opponents and b) they are usually the best said state or district can offer.
Scott Brown is another example of my hesitance. I knew before I became a supporter that he was pro-choice and that he had several other conservative heresies. I reconciled myself with these facts because I knew that Massachusetts likely didn’t have anyone better to offer. However, what really made me a fan of his was what he campaigned on. He called for fiscal restraint nda strong stance in the War on Terror (particularly his quote, “In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.“). However, my personal favorite moment was he said that he would be the 41st vote to block and defeat the current healthcare legislation.
And when election day rolled around and the time can for his victory speech, I listened to his victory speech with great interest. I wanted to see what this man who I had come to like increasingly more with each passing day before the special election. Listening to his victory speech, I was very impressed that a man like this could win in Massachusetts.
Leaving aside for the moment what this means to the agenda of Obama and the Democrats, I just want to point out just how groundbreaking Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.
For the first time since 1953, a Kennedy will not be the elected holder of this seat (Benjamin A. Smith II and Paul Kirk have both held this seat during this time, but they were appointed to it). Furthermore, for the first time since 1947, Massachusetts will not have a Kennedy as an elected member of its Congressional delegation (the two gaps where the state was Kennedy-less between 1947 and now, but those instances were those of the aforementioned appointed Senators).
For the first time since 1966, when Edward Brooke (coincidentally the first black senator of the modern era) was elected to what is now John Kerry’s seat, the Republican party has won an open Senate seat in Massachusetts.
For the first time since 1972, when Edward Brooke was reelected, the Republican party has won a Senate election in the state of Massachusetts.
For the first time since 1979, when Brooke lost his reelection bid to Paul Tsongas, Massachusetts will have a Republican Senator.
For the first time since 1997, Massachusetts will have a Republican member of its Congressional Delegation. His election also shatters what was heretofore the largest single-party delegation to the United States Congress.
Scott Brown’s election marks the first time since 2002 that Massachusetts has voted Republican on a statewide level. The last Republican statewide winners? The Romney/Healey ticket.
In a state that Obama won 62% to 36% in 2008, a Republican won a little over a year later 52% to 47%.
This diary was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!
According to the atheists and secularists out there, almost all of who happen to be Liberals, the conservatives of today are religious fanatics following a quasi-medieval theology. In their eyes, we “Christianists” are as much a threat to society as the radical Muslims are (in fact, to some the “Christianists” are an even greater threat).
This is why people like Rev. Pat Robertson do us no service when they say things like this:
Sen. Ben Nelson said Tuesday it was a mistake for the Obama Administration to take on massive health care reforms in 2009, and suggested efforts would have been better spent addressing the economy.
[...]
“I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy,” he said.
[...]
“I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move,” he said.
He seems to be channelling Joe Lieberman while he’s at it with his claim to be concerned about the economy, but you can’t have it both ways, Ben. You are the reason it passed. You should have thought of this BEFORE you sold your soul to Harry Reid and voted for this atrocity.
The New York Times is best enjoyed with a fine wine I hear, because one has to be drunk to get any enjoyment from reading the old fishwrapper. The Times must have caught on to this, as it has apparently decided to supply us with some. Unfortunately, someone at the esteemed Old Grey Lady mixed up the homonyms along the way and gave us a whine instead. Today’s whine comes courtesy of supposed conservative David Brooks, you know, the guy NewsHour with Jim Lehrer calls when it needs a “conservative” to slap around. And while wine is suitable for those over the age of 21, Brooks’ drivel is suitable for no one.
Apparently, he has decided to give some sort of praise to the Tea Party movement, yet he apparently cannot do so without whining about how his own class, that of the intellectuals, has lost influence. Observe:
The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.
The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.
The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.
A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity.
The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.
Brooksie-baby if this is your form of praise for us Tea Partiers, I think we can live without it.
First, the reason the public has rejected these ideas the educated classes have proposed is because they don’t work. They may seem like nice ideas in the utopias that exist in the minds of those ivory towered navel pickers, but they don’t translate well into the real world, you know, the place where the rest of us live?
Second, if the public has spurned the intellectual class, it is because the intellectual class has spurned us. You see, to them, we are the great unwashed. They are the brahmins, and we are the shudras, the “untouchables”, if you will. They dare not associate with us lest for fear of becoming that which they apparently dread most: a commoner. They reject common sense solutions because there just has to be a better, more intellectual way, and as I said before, while their ideas may sound nice to them, chances are, what fits their ever-so prized philosophy just isn’t going to work out here in the real world.
Finally, I can’t help but think that, as I suggested in the title, Brooks is bemoaning his own irrelevance. He should remember, though, that if he is losing influence among conservatives (if he had any to begin with) it is because he has rejected them, not the other way around. How many times has he gone against what conservatives want? How many times has he said that conservatives should abandon their limited government principles? Remember, too, that he supported Barack Obama and is still apparently under his thrall. These two facts alone ought to be enough to qualify him as a persona non grata to conservatives if he wasn’t already, and to most of them it was but two more reasons in a very large stack not to listen to him.
In short, if David Brooks is irrelevant, it is because he has made himself so. He, and, for that matter, most of the rest of the intellectual class, has dug the hole he finds himself in.
This blog was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks. Check it out if you get the chance!
Since my day effectively begins around noon when I wake up (I love being off from school for Christmas), I woke up yesterday to the news that Rep. Parker Griffith, who represents Alabama’s 5th district (around Huntsville), decided to switch parties. This in and of itself is not unusual. After all, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) did the same thing earlier this year, several current and recent members of the House and Senate have done the same. What struck me as both odd and telling about his decision was that he was a Democrat switching to the minority party. What made this especially odd was the fact that his switch was inconsequential to the current balance of power in the House, which now stands at 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans.
There are a couple of ways of looking at this. I’ll explain after the fold.
I’ve been reading up on the Copenhagen Conference lately and been listening to what the radio hosts have to say about it lately, and I came up with a few disturbing thoughts on these subjects that I’d like to share with you.
First of all, I’m sure we all know that many 2nd world and 3rd world countries have already walked away from the table, with China and India being among the most prominent ones to walk away. If any thing this should tell us one thing: any climate change agreement like Copenhagen will destroy economic prosperity. These countries are like marginal sellers or consumers in economics. They are the first ones to go when economic restrictions like those talked of at Copenhagen are on the table. While many of these countries may be unreliable allies to the US, they are generally reliable predictors of these sorts of things, especially a country as Machiavellian as China. Unlike the US with its do-gooders and would-be do-gooders at the helm, these countries will act in their own self interest. If an agreement will destroy their economy, they are gone (though, to be fair, the people at Copenhagen have coaxed some of the poor countries back).
This diary arose out of a conversation I had with Erick on Twitter. Erick tweeted about the RedState Morning Briefing, and I decided to thank him for doing it. While that wasn’t the end of the discussion, I’d like to carry my remarks a bit further on a medium more suited to long discussions.
Unlike most people my age, I’m a bit of a new and political junkie. Since I have to deal with attending your typically Liberal college campus (yes, they’re Liberal even here in the South), I like to make sure that I am well equipped to combat the latest Liberal lies and talking points. Now, I rarely ever have time to peruse my favorite conservative news sites and blogs (of which RedState is my favorite) be tween when I wake up and when I go to class in the mornings, so I have to look for the major events and headlines. Thankfully, RedState’s Morning Briefing provides just such a news feed to fit what I need.
I’ve been getting the Morning Briefing since not long after it was started, and I love reading it on RedState every morning. It succinctly sums up all I need to know about what’s going in politics, and it provides this information in one convenient place. Now that you’ve moved it to a special daily e-mail newsletter at Redstatemb.com, I’ve signed up for that, too. Even beyond it’s initial use as an update for the previous days news and stories, I have found it serves as a nice “Index” of sorts for the days stories that I can refer back to when needed. By clinking on the links in the briefing, I can go to original post here on RedState.
Erick, I realize it takes a lot of work just to run this site, and I realize that you could just as easily be doing other things with your life than providing us with the Morning Briefing. However, you still put the time in to bring it to us every morning during the week, and I just wanted to thank you for doing that. It is a fine service that helps me confront and defeat what the Liberal lies and indoctrination from the teachers and students here at my university.
So, if you can’t tell by now, go ahead and subscribe to the RedState Morning Briefing if you haven’t. Don’t let all of Erick and the other contributors’ hard work go to waste! I promise you won’t regret it.
I gave the link earlier in this post, but here it is again for those of you interested: http://www.redstatemb.com/.
Moe Lane
Dan McLaughlin
Dan Spencer
Jeff Emanuel
Neil Stevens
Caleb Howe
Daniel Horowitz
