Meghan McCain: Pretty, and Pretty Wrong

Senator John McCain's 24 year old daughter/blogger, Meghan McCain, was recently a guest on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central. Before I give my thoughts on her appearance, please watch the brief interview below:

There are many things racing through my head right now after watching that...

First off, Meghan McCain is really good looking. I'll give her that. I know it's superfluous to some, but not to me. Although I'm a man who craves substance in another human being, it helps to have someone in the public limelight who calls herself a Republican that looks like she does. It'd be nice to pretend we live in a society where looks don't matter, but they do.

She did make some good points, actually, some very good points, about the GOP needing to avoid the mindset that Twitter and Facebook will magically win them votes with the under-30 crowd. While all of us under the Center-Right umbrella (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, etc.) must utilize any and all technology in getting our messages of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and strong national security out..."poking" people on Facebook, or "tweeting" on Twitter isn't an ends, but merely a means. We will ultimately win with our ideas and values.

Ms. McCain also correctly identified the need for better candidates to be put forward in 2010 and 2012 for the Republican Party. Candidates, like, oh, I don't know, ones NOT named McCain perhaps? Your dad, Meghan, was, frankly, a disaster.

He's an honorable guy. He served his country. He's one of the only people in Congress the past 20+ years that practices what he preaches when it comes to spending and pork-barrel projects, and I thoroughly praise him for that. But he was too old, too ornery, too moderate and seemed to spend more of his time trying to "make nice" with the oppositional media than fighting for the issues and causes that Republican voters made him their candidate to champion.

And here I come to the first of my criticisms regarding what Meghan McCain had to say on Stephen Colbert's show: Despite being spot-on in her assessment that we need newer, fresher, more exciting candidates in the future, she foolishly and unnecessarily alluded to "those people" who are trying to "hijack" the GOP and make it "more extreme."

This is PRECISELY what the Left wants, for us to be fighting amongst ourselves, and more specifically, for the GOP moderates (whose don't win national elections) to attack the GOP conservatives (who won in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004). I hate to reduce things to an "us vs. them" mentality, but we're dealing with a president, congress, and media that wants NOTHING to do with people who aren't on-board for the secular-progressive, Euro-style "change" currently taking place in Washington. We're quickly approaching a "line in the sand" moment where Americans of any party or ideology are going to have to band together along core Constitutional principles and ideas if there is to be any hope of side-tracking our current double-time's pace upon the road to serfdom.

Those of us who do recognize the disastrous path our nation is currently on, a group that includes the McCain's, need to stick together, and there are some issues more important than others. For the time being, and because of the mistakes those in power the past 8 years (including Obama's first 5 months), we need to show people why government is the problem instead of the solution more than we need to take cheap shots at fellow Republicans just to get a pat on the back from Chris Matthews or the venomous vixens on The View. The Left in this country want a different America, and they are currently running the show. "Know they enemy" in this case means that Meghan McCain needs to realize that, loosely speaking, the enemy of her enemy is her friend.

Meghan's own father, and his best friend in congress (Senator Joe Lieberman, formerly a Democrat, now an Independent from CT), have prided themselves for years as being two of the most bi-partisan, reach-across-the-aisle, politicians in Washington. But when push came to shove, a liberal like Lieberman (the 2000 VP Nominee for the Democrats) was booted in 2006 from his own party for supporting the troops (and their mission), and a moderate like your dad was shunned in 2008 and labeled "too extreme" and "too far to the Right" by the same people who cheered him when he would undermine and oppose fellow Republicans during the previous 8 years.

Senator McCain was constantly praised for being a "maverick" before 2007, and incessantly mocked and ridiculed for being one during the campaign of 2008. In both cases, the liberal Democrats in this country were setting the agenda. Conservatives ending up voting for McCain. Moderates and Left-of-Center "independents" did not.

When Ms. McCain references "those people" who are allegedly trying to make the GOP "more extreme", she is talking about the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin. But there is a problem with assuming that these people are the problem. THEY REPRESENT THE BASE! Conservatism is the fuel that drives the GOP engine. Conservatism is comprised overwhelmingly by the religious, fiscally-minded, social-issues voters that actually show up on election day.

Married, religious service-going, law-abiding Americans are predominantly conservative and consequently tend to vote Republican. These people give more of their time and money to charity than any other demographic. These people also happen to like Rush, Newt and Sarah. Of course not all of us love them, and "these people" in the head-lines aren't infallible and don't speak for all of us individually, but who cares? Vote for someone else. Nominate another candidate at the ballot box. Turn your radio dial to whatever "Adult Contemp" radio programming replaced Air America when it went belly-up.

I don't understand why so many people on the Right who share vitally important values and ideals for their government and society think it necessary to spend their time "hating on" those ideologically closer to them, instead of rallying the troops to defeat the people who stand in direct opposition to their correct and necessary vision for the United States?

People like Meghan McCain are saying that they can't stand the "extremist" conservatives for standing on the same principles that have won us elections in the past. They are saying that conservatives are "hi-jacking" the party, and that it is selfish to do so. But then their solution is to "hi-jack" the party themselves and turn it in to something that it has never been and has never won for us in the past. Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan did so not because he told them he was "pro-sex", or because he compromised the conservative ideology that got him elected twice governor of California, but because his ideas were better, and better articulated, than Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale's. Conservatives and Republicans won the war of ideas, not just some morally-questionable popularity contest.

Ms. McCain wants us to "reach out" to her age group by being more like the party and ideology that the under-30 crowd just voted for in November. But the under-30 crowd largely voted for Obama because of his "hug-a-tree" environmental policies, his "hug-a-thug" terrorist interrogation policies, and his "stab-a-CEO" economic policies. They want to be able to tell people they are green, politically correct, and egalitarian more than they want to be good stewards, intellectually honest, and personally responsible. Those of our generation, Meghan, who have swallowed the Left's distortions of capitalism and perversions of federalism will not suddenly begin to understand and appreciate the ingenuity of the Constitution or the magnificence of a free market economy because Republicans contradict Obama's own stance on an issue like gay marriage.

What really needs to change if we're ever to woo younger voters back to the Right is how, going forward, we educate ourselves and our children, and what values we collectively deem as foundational to the continuance of the American experiment in democracy. Are we going to keep letting government employees and cynical entertainers indoctrinate our kids, or will we care enough to learn the history, economics, and theology needed to properly groom future voters and taxpayers? Will we stand on the values of the "American Trinity" that Dennis Prager masterfully disseminated above, or will we succumb to petty in-fighting and look for guidance to a continent (Europe) that has adopted bureaucracies, lifestyles, and birthrates that are unsustainable?

The old saying goes: "If you're 20 and not a liberal, you don't have a heart; if you're 40 and not a conservative, you don't have a brain." So now we should make the 40 year old's look and act like the 20-somethings?

Parents (and any adults) who value liberty, limited government, economic freedom, personal responsibility, civic duty, and keeping this country safe with a strong military and intelligence gathering capabilities should be teaching their kids, relatives and neighbors the real-world practicality of conservatism. And more than this, they must themselves begin holding wishy-washy Republicans (that give us all a bad name and push moderates to the Left), Democrats, and Independents accountable for over-spending and legislative power-grabbing.

Meghan McCain is implying that unapologetic conservative public figures like Gov. Bobby Jindal (wildly popular governor of Louisiana) and Rush Limbaugh (30 million weekly listeners) and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (the smartest conservative alive today) should take a backseat to moderates like her and her dad. We're supposed to look for leadership from the RINO's (Republicans in Name Only, i.e. Senator Arlen Specter) who blur the lines so much between the opposing sides each election that more and more voters decide they might as well vote for the "cool liberal guy who swears he is a moderate despite his clear far-Left public track record" because that liberal community organizer has a great teleprompter...I mean, is rhetorical genius...and he starts to sound more and more like our our moderate candidate.

We need men and women of substance, with real, concrete ideas, clearly explained and passionately pursued. Any ideas, Newt?

I'm ALL FOR a big-tent Republican Party. Everyone is welcome, and actually, most surveys and polls confirm that the nation is still a Center-Right one in many ways. But politicians won't save this nation, and neither will catchy slogans or cool iPhone applications. (We just say "apps".) The American people, deciding that they've had enough of the corruption, ineffectiveness, liberal indoctrination of their children in public schools, and un-Constitutional annexation of power in to the hands of the few, they will be the ones to re-direct the nation towards the Right. Cities like Detroit and New Orleans have been controlled by Democrats for half a century, with nothing to show but precipitous decreases in the standard of living and quality of education.

We need to make our case to these entrenched voters, and you can rest assured that they won't be swayed to break a nasty 50-year habit simply because you ripped Sarah Palin on Comedy Central, Ms. McCain.

Finally, and in response to Ms. McCain's "pro-sex" tour that she's been on lately, all I will say is that she is absolutely being used by the liberal media. They want to attack and belittle Bristol Palin and the traditional-conservative parents who don't want education employees of the state teaching their kids about sex and sexual identity. Bristol Palin made a mistake, and contrary to what the NOW ladies would suggest kept the child. Lately she has been speaking to un-married teens about the health and emotional benefits of abstinence, and the potential repercussions of risky behavior (see: her infant child). So of course now that the media has on their side the daughter of the man who brought Bristol's mom on to the GOP presidential ticket 9 months ago joining in the chorus of "Palin haters", they're having a tasteless field day with it.

You're better than this, Meghan. Class isn't only something your father (and regrettably, I) rarely attended in college.

It was also tacky of her in the Colbert interview to "accidentally" bring up that she "practices what she preaches" when it comes to safe sex and using condoms. She then compounded her off-color remark by "acting" embarrassed that her dad would see her saying those things later on television. All this does is make someone look desperate for attention. Whatever happened to discretion and a lady's honor?

But I digress for now, and will ease up on Ms. McCain. I have no ill will towards her, and think that what you see in this interview is a 24 year old girl who means well but hasn't fully thought through what it means to be a public figure. Especially when you are a public figure who calls herself a Republican. Ascribing to yourself a label like that means you've now got a target on your back, and no matter how nice you are, no matter how many things you insist you agree with liberals on, they'll get you in the end. She hasn't caught on yet to the fact that the Left is laughing at her, not with her.

More importantly, and what you need to remember is this: Conservatism can win again, and Republicans can certainly use the input of people like Meghan McCain, but let's leave the out-of-their-league-young-people-saying-silly-things to the Left. They have much more experience in such matters.

We should be raising the bar, not placating to the lowest common denominator.

Chuck on Soto

I know I already posted a clip of Charles Krauthammer giving his take on the Obama nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, but I would be remiss if I didn't include his weekly column from today's Washington Post on the very same subject.

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less "advantaged."

A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.

Cause for concern?

A couple in San Diego were told by local county officials that the Bible Study they were holding in their home was unlawful. I'm not trying to be an alarmist, and I cherish the true freedom we have in this blessed nation, but we do need to aware of such stories and regardless of the religion in question, protect the rights of all people of faith. Please take a minute to read this story and leave a comment as to whether or not this should be a cause for concern in your opinion.

Memorial Day Thoughts From Harvest

Pastor James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel in Rolling Meadows, IL posted this thoughtful reflection on his blog Monday in celebration and remembrance of Memorial Day. While those in the clergy are well-advised to stay away from preaching politics from the pulpit on a Sunday morning, I appreciate Pastor James' willingness to speak his mind on the issue of military service and sacrifice. A must-read!

Predictable, and Predictably Bad

President Obama has nominated a judge for the Supreme Court, and used race/gender as his litmus test. PLEASE watch this clip in which Charles Krauthammer explains all.

California, Dennis, and Me

For those of you checking in to see new posts here at AVITW, I'm in Los Angeles all week until Memorial Day so I won't have anything new up until then. Thursday morning I was privileged to be invited to spend three hours with Dennis Prager in his studio here in California, and needless to say it was the thrill of a lifetime. I will be writing more about my time with Dennis next week. For now, enjoy your weekend and have a wonderful Memorial Day. If you know anyone who has served in the military, call them and say thanks.

p.s. If you podcast The Dennis Prager Show, check out Hour Two from Thursday's show (entitled "Obama on Gitmo, Part 2") and fast-forward about 17 minutes in. You might hear a familiar name mentioned...

Free "Free Markets": Part II

by: R.J. Moeller

(if you haven't read Part I, do so here first)

“Life, faculties, production --- in other words, individuality, liberty, property --- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.”

-Fredric Bastiat The Law

In response to last week's "Free 'Free Markets': Part I" I received many emails from people asking for a further clarification of what exactly I meant by "a free market" or "capitalism", so in this week's second half of my column I will attempt to do just that.

A common theme heard from all the various thinkers throughout history who have championed liberty over unenforceable equality, and free enterprise over arbitrarily and ineffectively “planned” economies, is that the values and ideas being explained (or defended) stand upon their own merit. Liberty, freedom, and natural rights are, to quote the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson, “self-evident.”

Capitalism, a more recent term given to a long-standing idea that groups of individuals in a community are better suited to make decisions regarding their local commerce and economic interaction than “elites” in far-off cities of influence, is not a new idea. It’s just that until America came along, no country had been fortunate enough to have leaders that were wise and willing enough to implement such a subtly brilliant economic system. The reason our Founders said they did this? In short, capitalism, free markets, presume and encourage the de-centralization of power.

Like most great ideas, a free market system is simple in concept, but not always easy to fully explain. Much in this world that stems from common sense (and life experience) usually is. But for the sake of clarity let me, with the help of some of the intellectual giants whose shoulders I humbly stand upon, give some general explanations and definitions for what is meant by terms like as basic as “economics”, to those as complex and layered as “free market capitalism.”

Dr. Samuel Gregg from the Acton Institute defines economics as, “The study of how free persons choose to cooperate through voluntary exchanges to satisfy their own and others’ needs in light of the reality of limited resources.” Gregg points to Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Reverend Thomas Malthus as the intellectual founders of modern economics. Smith is a big one, so let's dive in with him.

Adam Smith, the 18^th century Christian moral philosopher and economist, identified an “invisible hand” that seemed to direct economic trade and commerce between free individuals who voluntarily participated in a market for the purpose of satisfying their own “self interest.” A cattle rancher in Texas got up this morning before the rooster crowed not because he loves me, not even because Barack Obama’s our Rock-Star-in-Chief, but because he loves himself and his family enough to work day and night to provide a service (see: the steak in my Chipotle soft tacos), which yields an income.

Of course many have confused or purposely distorted Smith’s notion of “self interest” in order to disparage capitalism and promote ideas such collectivism or socialism (or even modern secular-progressive liberalism), but the simple reality is that everything we do is out of some form of “self interest”. Even the most pious religious person working with the poor in 3^rd world countries is doing so because they choose to, they personally deem it necessary and/or valuable, and ultimately because their relationship with their God or fellow man will grow stronger.

The Austrian-born economist F.A. Hayek, in his seminal work The Fatal Conceit, said, “Our civilization depends, not only for its origin but also for its preservation, on what can be precisely described only as the extended order of human cooperation, an order more commonly, if some-what misleadingly, known as capitalism.”

For Hayek, the key word when discussing the meaning of free market economies was “competition.” If people have to compete, if a baker knows that his baking has to be up to snuff or his customers will go elsewhere, then the quality of the product increases, his income increases, and both the customer and the vendor benefit. This isn’t possible or even likely in a government-run and planned economy. The Soviets didn’t have bread on their shelves in part because bakers were employees of the State who had little incentive to get up extra early and make sure the local people had their loaves for the day. (Also, the USSR had no wheat production to speak of, but that’s another matter for another blog.)

Hayek believed economies primarily controlled and directed by a central governing authority (i.e. the Euro-style federal government President Obama envisions) were fatally flawed. He saw that the conflict between those who favor higher degrees of free trade and those who favor centrally-planned markets hinged on a “factual error by the latter about how knowledge of available resources is and can be utilized.” Not only are the liberal-socialist aims factually unworkable, they are logistically and logically impossible.

The clearest modern example of champions of central planning is the American Left. Liberal Democrats, and “moderate” Republicans acting/voting like them, believe that with enough “smart” people from Harvard and Yale calling the shots, the same ones who oversaw our economy during both the Great Depression and our more recent economic crisis, any community can be organized.

Practically speaking, Hayek would contend that un-elected (and for that matter, elected) government officials in Washington D.C. don’t have the ability, vested interest, or motivation to know and do what is best for, let’s say, wheat farmers in Nebraska. Not to mention that such a power grab over commerce, the kind we’ve been perhaps unknowingly witnessing for decades, would technically be un-Constitutional and far removed from the vision of our Founders.

I know what some of you are thinking right now, but before you “go there”, realize that no one is arguing for a non-existent or thoroughly impotent government. Taxes are required, militaries must be funded, and Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi’s globe-trotting private jets need fuel and munchies to nosh on during those long flights to criticize America on foreign soils.

So how can a voluntary economic market co-exist with the State?

French legislator and economist Fredric Bastiat wrote that free markets were impossible without law, but that the law must be well defined, limit the powers of those in charge, and never supersede the “natural rights” of mankind. In The Law, one of the greatest works defending liberty ever penned, Bastiat said: “Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that they existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place”

The purpose of the law in Bastiat’s mind was to “protect property and punish plunder.” A society and its laws should do everything possible to encourage personal responsibility and ensure protection from those who would seek to take away a man’s natural right to work and own private property (which includes the fruits of his labor). The biggest threat to the liberty of a free market in Bastiat’s eyes was a “perversion of the law” by a central authority that annexes itself more and more power. The reality of this constant back-and-forth between power and liberty was at the root of the matter. He explains it as follows:

“The fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort helps to explain the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, usually becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence and slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, an in proportion to the power that he holds.”

But capitalism does not purely reside in the theoretical realm. In fact, it’s the most practical system in the world. University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman famously used the example of the production of a simple #2 pencil as one of his best explanations for how free market capitalism works, and why it is intrinsically superior to all other forms of market economy.

Think of all the products that go in to one single #2 pencil. There is rubber for the eraser. Lead to make your mark on the paper. You need wood for the body of the pencil. And don’t forget the metallic binding clip that hold your eraser to the pencil. Let’s just, for the sake of argument, say that those are the four materials needed for one of the most basic things we’ve all used a thousand times in our life. No big deal, right?

The hypothetical pencil company I am imagining produces them in Ohio, but has to get wood from Oregon, rubber from San Francisco, lead from the East Coast, and buys its metallic fasteners from “a guy” in Texas. Before a single employee can be hired to begin production on pencils in Ohio, that company has to have investors who deem the venture worthwhile, raise capital, retrieve loans, and buy property and equipment. Someone has to have a passion for pencils and want to do this more than anything because, especially in those early years, things won’t be easy and there will be long hours for little pay off.

So now you’ve got your funds and facilities, but you have to track down suppliers and negotiate with those suppliers prices for each of the materials. The people in Oregon supplying the timber for the saw mill that produces the wood that you use for your pencils have their own set of worries, everything from weather to union strikes to syrup-related accidents on the job site. Let’s say there is a fire or horrible storm and the price of timber skyrockets. Not only do the people in Oregon have to adapt, but so do the managers of the pencil factory in Ohio. And to make it all even more complicated, if the price of timber ruins the business of the pencil company, the people in San Fran with rubber and on the East Coast with their lead will be out of luck and have to adapt to price changes and lack of income themselves.

Now repeat all that, with even more incalculable and unpredictable variables, for each of the other three material providers for the pencil factory in Ohio. It’s mind-boggling what the average small business has to know and stay on top of at all times of the day for the entire life of the company. But those small businesses (and of course larger corporations) do it every day and do so because they have their livelihood, honor, name, and security of family members on the line. They adapt because immediate action and reaction spells death to the company who is even one step behind the demands of the market (i.e. you and me buying, or not buying, pencils to write funny notes to each other in History class).

What can a bureaucrat, even in a benevolent, hope-happy administration like that of Barack Obama’s, do to compete with the motivation, on-the-ground knowledge and understanding of all the commodities and factors involved, and personal stake that drives the tens of millions of hard-working Americans in the private sector?

Answer: nothing, so leave us alone and stop spending all of our money.

Capitalism works and it matters. Increasingly our government has sought to ham-string the private sector in favor of centralized economic authority in Washington. The only way this has been possible, and will continue to be a sad reality, is with the apathy of the American voter fueling the "change." Let us start demanding better from our elected representatives, each other, and ourselves.

Is Pelosi done?

Not Much "Roasting" at Presidential Roast

I often post columns by renowned atheist and Left-of-Center writer Christopher Hitchens and his article for Slate.com this week was fantastic. In it, Hitchens points out that at the recent White House Correspondents' Dinner, an event traditionally meant for some good-natured ribbing of the current Commander-in-Chief, comics like Wanda Sykes spent their time praising the president and attacking his critics instead. Not only did she not partake in the spirit of the evening, she wasn't funny either.

An excerpt:

I absolutely believe that jokes should always be at someone's expense. But for that very reason they must also be highly amusing and—just perhaps—imaginable when told of one's own "community." Low score for Sykes on both counts.

President Bush used to tell jokes about his weaknesses, the most salient of these being his tragic struggle with grammar, itself quite possibly rooted in dyslexia. Many of President Obama's jokes, his speechwriters should take note, were at the expense of his strengths—"I might lose my cool"—and were thus bordering on the narcissistic. (If I have a fault, and I'm the first to admit it, it's probably this: I am too sweet and too patient and too tolerant of the mistakes of others.)

Any tendency to narcissism doubles the need for a follow-up speaker who can make the president wince, not smirk. This we did not get. And Limbaugh's dependence, like Bush's dyslexia, is actually a disability. Can you easily picture any jokes from the Sable Sapphist that would in any other way breach the protocols of the Americans With Disabilities Act? Any other person of whom she would dare say, "I hope his kidneys fail"? Any other context in which would be funny enough for her to yell, "He needs a water-boarding, that's what he needs"? Reality and comedy check here: Would she even say this about Osama Bin Laden?

When comedians flatter the president, they become court jesters, and the country becomes a banana republic. There are probably even people who would wish to misconstrue that last phrase of mine if they felt "sensitive" enough. In which case they can take a number, get on line, and ask to suck my thumb.

What Piper Would Say To Obama

President Obama infamously said during the campaign that the issue of abortion was "above his pay-grade."


The most liberal-voting member of Congress during his time in the U.S. Senate, a man who publicly and legislatively championed the easing of restrictions so doctors could "abort" a baby even after it had been born, claimed ignorance on a matter that, if he and the pro-choicers out there are wrong, has resulted in the murder of more than 40 million innocent babies in 40 years.

Pastor John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis, MN is a man of God who makes a point to stay out of politics when preaching from the pulpit. Abortion as an issue certainly has a political component, but like almost anything else, at it's core, it is a moral, cultural, even spiritual issue.

In this YouTube clip Piper explains why abortion matters, and why President Obama is wrong to side with death.

Nancy Pelosi: Lame

You can't explain the situation surrounding Nancy Pelosi's blatant lies about "now knowing" that water-boarding was being used as far back as 2002 as well as Charles Krauthammer does. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read this article and send it to friends and family so that there can be clarity on this matter. It DOES matter.

An excerpt:

My critics say: So what if Pelosi is a hypocrite? Her behavior doesn't change the truth about torture.

But it does. The fact that Pelosi (and her intelligence aide) and then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss and dozens of other members of Congress knew about the enhanced interrogation and said nothing, and did nothing to cut off the funding, tells us something very important.

Our jurisprudence has the "reasonable man" standard. A jury is asked to consider what a reasonable person would do under certain urgent circumstances.

On the morality of waterboarding and other "torture," Pelosi and other senior and expert members of Congress represented their colleagues, and indeed the entire American people, in rendering the reasonable person verdict. What did they do? They gave tacit approval. In fact, according to Goss, they offered encouragement. Given the existing circumstances, they clearly deemed the interrogations warranted.

A Line in the Sand on Health Care

President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have every intention of socializing our health care. That means rationing like they have in Canada and Great Britain. That means less of an incentive (financially) for a person to become a doctor. (Yes, people do work for money.) That means the same people running your local DMV and who run FEMA will be in charge of your health care.

From the Editors at National Review comes this short-but-sweet call-to-action for Center-Right taxpayers and politicians to take a stand on this issue.

The most important asset that President Obama has in his effort to transform health-care policy is the consensus inside Washington that he will succeed. As long as the major interest groups believe that a liberal health-care bill is going to pass, they will work with its sponsors rather than incur their wrath. As long as Republicans believe a bill will pass, they will offer modest amendments instead of going all-out in opposition.

This consensus has not been conjured out of thin air. The Democrats have a large and mostly liberal congressional majority and a popular president. But the type of health-care policies they have in mind have serious political vulnerabilities. If opponents can exploit them to reduce public support for the Democrats’ plan, then wavering Republicans, moderate Democrats, and the interest groups will start to abandon it.

As columnist Mark Steyn has said many times, the advent of socialized medicine in a country forever alters the relationship between a citizen and their government. The United States has stood for different values and those values have created the wealth, prosperity, security, and medical innovation that is unlike any other civilization in history. Health Care needs to see reform, not commit suicide.

You Gotta Keep The Baby

The Washington Times ran a story earlier this week on parents who decide against aborting their baby, even when they know ahead of time he or she will be disabled. It's a powerful piece, regardless of your stance on the issues of Life.

An excerpt:

Nancy Mayer-Whittington remembers it as though it were yesterday; the joy of learning she was pregnant followed by the news that her daughter's first day of life would be her last.

Nearly 15 years later, she still weeps at the memory of how on the afternoon of Nov. 17, 1994, her gray-eyed daughter Angela lived barely 10 minutes, the victim of Trisomy 18, a fatal genetic defect. Pictures of the dark-haired little girl, robed in a white christening gown, are still scattered about her suburban Maryland home.

She was the first woman her doctor knew who had decided to keep her pregnancy. All his other patients in similar situations had aborted.

"I was so happy I did what I did," she says of her decision to bring Angela to term. "You get to see your child's birth and death all collapsed in one time frame. What most people want for their kids is for them to go to heaven. You get to complete that journey with them. As a parent, that is unbelievable. Life is about relationship to God. You know that when you literally pass them from your hands to His."

Free "Free Markets": Part I

by: R.J. Moeller

"Many have argued that capitalism does not offer a satisfactory moral message. But that is like saying that calculus does not contain carbohydrates, amino acids, or other essential nutrients. Everything fails by irrelevant standards." -Thomas Sowell

I hate to be the bearer of reality (formerly known as “bad news”) but when the president of the United States proposes a budget so large that $17 billion in cuts would only account for .04% of it, your country is in trouble. This means that the same inept band of former trial lawyers and community organizers in Washington, the ones who couldn’t run Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae anywhere but directly in to the ground and oversaw staggering financial losses even in the management of the Congressional dining hall, will now have upwards of $3.4 trillion to “reshape America” with. For one year, $3.4 trillion.

Gentlemen, start your slush funds.

We find ourselves in a tough spot right now, no doubt. The problems didn’t start yesterday and they’re not going away tomorrow. The situation and its resolution are complex and complicated, but at the very heart of the answer to the question “How did we get here?” is this: a misplaced distrust and disdain for capitalism.

For 60 years the assault on free enterprise and the private sector of our economy has grown exponentially. By and large, the attacks on capitalism, whether through legislation in Congress, lectures in the classroom, or not-so-subtly-embedded messages on your television screen, haven’t relented since the end of World War II.

One of the biggest misconceptions being peddled today is that capitalism was the root cause of our recent economic meltdown. This ridiculous premise falsely presumes that genuine capitalism has actually been in place the past half century; let alone previous 8 years during George W. Bush’s time in office. Someone who spouts such historically inaccurate gobbledygook assumes that it is “no big deal” that we have a media, academia, and entertainment industry (all fueled and funded by free market capitalism, mind you) that has done everything in its power to undermine and mis-characterize capitalism in the minds of millions of Americans.

Intellectually, free enterprise’s public deterioration has unmistakably come from the Left. There’s really little point in debating this fact. One can call him or herself a “modern liberal” and still claim some allegiance to free market capitalism, but it’s a lonely island they’ll have deserted themselves on. Liberalism, embodied by the modern Democrat Party, is fundamentally a statist, collectivist movement. In other words: anti-capitalist.

However, in practice, in the halls of political power, and although Democrats are more inclined to statism and consistent in their bigger-government tendencies, both parties share the blame for abusing capitalism and grabbing powers that, constitutionally speaking, do not belong to them.

Of course this is always done with “good intentions”, or in the name of “justice” or “fairness”, but the predictable result is always the same: higher taxes, more spending, increased control for the federal government, and less liberty (and income) for private, law-abiding citizens.

Speaking of those John and Jane Q. Taxpayer’s out there, they too have a part to play in the death of capitalism. Whether by ignorance or willful, active participation, each voter has contributed in some way to the corrosion of free enterprise, which has led us to the financial crisis we find ourselves in today. Two of the more egregious categories of voters in my mind include the die-in-the-wool anti-capitalist liberal, and the apathetically uninvolved Republican who only shows up, or any interest in the candidates, every 4 years.

Those in the first group who proudly vote for “more-of-everything-but-freedom” politicians on the Left do so in large part because of their own personal perspective on the “social issues” that they often mock conservative Republicans on the Right for being actively involved in. Welfare, on-demand abortion, Sarah Palin's belief that the Creator actually created the earth, and the like get this first group of committed liberals out of bed on election morning with a federally-subsidized spring in their step. They’re dead wrong, mind you, but there’s little hope of convincing them otherwise.

These Left-of-Left-of-Center people proudly boast a devotion to a worldview and political ideology that is literally unsustainable without the birthrates of the religious conservatives they despise, and fiscally untenable without the productivity of the entrepreneurial capitalists they attempt to inhibit. Nice.

Then there are the millions of Republican voters who cast party-line ballots on the other side of the political aisle come election time and then promptly (and mentally) check out of the process for another 4 years. They sit by and watch as the GOP spends like inebriated liberal sailors, but because they hear terms like “pro-choice” and “family values” they’re willing to irresponsibly sell themselves and their children’s children down the economic river.

I couldn’t be more fed up with this “I’m so passionate about politics that I fail to monitor the primary, Constitutionally-appointed tasks my representatives are supposed to do” type of Republican voter. Placing an “I didn’t vote for Chairman MAObama” bumper-sticker on your car isn’t enough. We’re better than this, and it takes some physical and intellectual elbow-grease to initiate “real change” by staying actively informed and involved.

This includes teaching and instructing future generations the values you deem worthy of your precious vote. If your son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece or grand kid doesn't learn about conservatism and capitalism from you, they won't learn it at all. Teachers and friends at high school and college are indoctrinating the children of wishy-washy traditional Americans with secular-progressive liberalism.

The litmus test for gauging your credibility as a “real” conservative (or libertarian) should no longer simply be if you say you like capitalism at dinner parties and barbeques, but how many young people in your life know for a fact that you like it, and can themselves explain it to others because you’ve taught them the tenets of free market enterprise.


Now there are obviously many different groups that make up our electorate, and some people fall in to multiple ones among them. But honestly, if you aren’t on the side of freer markets, if you don’t crave more economic liberty, if you don’t desire “self-reliance and civic duty” ceasing to be deemed as mutually exclusive traits of a good citizen, then you aren’t in-line with the purpose and intent of this great nation and its visionary Founders.

It’s a tough and bitter pill to swallow to hear this, I know. Especially in these politically correct, “truth is relative”, emotions-driven times. But it’s no less true that someone opposed to economic liberty (in word or deed) is opposed to America’s original meaning just because we happen to live in a day and age where we’d all rather be nice than right.

People incorrectly assume that the right to vote is the most important thing in a free society. It obviously does matter, but what is more important than your ability to earn a living? What speaks more directly to what it means to be truly free than the degree to which you are able to provide for yourself and your family?

Perhaps this familial aspect to the inherent value of economic liberty is why in overwhelming numbers more married people identify themselves as conservative and younger, single adults tend to be more liberal. It is harder, although not impossible, for a young single person to appreciate the paradoxical satisfaction that comes from being burdened with the responsibility of providing for others, and meeting that challenge by the sweat of your own brow (instead of a tax-credit from your neighbor).

Freedom to young people my age typically means the ability to “do whatever I want.” Freedom for those with others dependent upon them quickly becomes what G.K. Chesterton described as "the ability to do what I should.”

If you have to come to government for what you otherwise could provide and sacrifice for on your own, you aren’t really free. You are now dependent on that government, and the only way to get more of what you need is to vote for the politician who promises to give more and more of it away. This is known in some circles as “socialism”. (See: Europe)

Political freedom only matters if you don’t need politicians to survive.

(Part II of Free "Free Markets" coming later this week)

In the "belly of the beast"

Scott Burton is a veteran of the War in Iraq and a recent graduate from Northwestern University. He also happens to be an old childhood friend of mine. Scott was on CNN this past week as part of a panel of young, politically active s tasked with grading President Obama's first four months in office. Take a look and remember the name because if you live in the Chicago-land area...you may be voting for him some day soon.

A Different/Better Take on Politics

What's it like to be a conservative these days?

Mark Steyn's writing, no stranger to this blog, makes my week...every week. This time out Steyn gives his perspective on the current state of conservative and Republican politics, and how it is that the Left so easily develops and maintains a persistent message to the people.

An excerpt:

In fact, the GOP's tent has many poles: It has social conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, national-security hawks. These groups do not always agree: The so-cons resent the libertarians' insouciance on gay marriage and abortion. The libertarians don't get the warhawks' obsession with thankless nation-building in Islamist hellholes. A lot of the hawks can't see why the fiscal cons are so hung up on footling matters like bloated government spending at a time of war. It requires a lot of effort to align these various poles sufficiently to hold up the big tent. And by the 2006 electoral cycle, between the money-no-object Congress at home and a war that seemed to have dwindled down to an endless half-hearted semicolonial policing operation, the GOP poles were tilting badly. The Republican coalition is like a permanent loveless marriage: There are bad times and worse times. And, while social conservatism and libertarianism can be principled to a fault, the vagaries of electoral politics mean they often wind up being represented in office by either unprincipled opportunists like Arlen Specter or unprincipled squishes like Lincoln Chafee.

Meanwhile, over in the other tent, they celebrate diversity with ruthless singlemindedness: in the Democrat parade, whatever your bugbear government is the answer. Government is the means, government is the end, government is the whole magilla. That gives them a unity of purpose the GOP can never match.

What a "huge" surprise...

Recently I posted something about Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats' ridiculous attempt to pretend that they did not know (and condone) the use of such coercive interrogation methods as "water boarding." She denied it more than others, which was funny because those who follow such things knew that she was lying and that leaders in Congress had all been briefed as to what techniques were being used.

Today's Washington Post contains a story confirming reality. Sorry, Madame Speaker.

Sad thing is...the media will give her a pass and the American public will still ignorantly assume A)that water-boarding is actually , and B)only Republicans would do/condone such a thing.

Why buy the cow?

The stimulus bill that Congress passed earlier this year was a horrendous piece of legislation. Less than 1/3 of the money in it will even be spent in the next two years...so much for stimulus, right? Well to make matters even more liberal...I mean worse...there is this story from the Washington Times that says our "representatives" in Congress are failing to even show up for over-sight meetings as to where and how our $787 billion dollars in taxpayer money is going.

So just who's tracking that $787 billion in taxpayer money that President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress are doling out? You are. Or you're supposed to be, anyway.

"We are, in essence, deputizing the entire American citizenry to help with the oversight of this program," said Rep. Brad Miller, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight.

Now on one hand they are right in the sense that the American people should follow the money their moron leaders spend. But the more important point here specifically is that these people "representing" us in Washington are the most lazy, worthless, incompetent boobs ever to hold elected office. Forget parties or ideology: this is pathetic.

Identity Politics is Ruining Our Country

Thomas Sowell is a brilliant conservative economist, thinker, and writer who happens to be black. In his latest column, Sowell explains to us why playing the "which ethnic or gender group do you represent?" game when it comes to selecting the next Supreme Court Justice to fill in for retiring David Souter is foolish and contrary to the purposes of our law and federal system.

An excerpt:

Justice David Souter's retirement from the Supreme Court presents President Barack Obama with his first opportunity to appoint someone to the High Court. People who are speculating about whether the next nominee will be a woman, a Hispanic or whatever, are missing the point.

That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group "representation" is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.

That President Obama has made "empathy" with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with "empathy" for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with "empathy" for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans.

Religious Roots of Piracy

There are two must-read articles regarding the recent increase of piracy in the waters off of Somalia. The first is from the Wall Street Journal and the second one is by Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Theological Seminary.

Both men point out that there is an undeniable link between the piracy of this region and the religion practiced there: Islam. Dr. Mohler takes the issue even deeper and comments on the premature proclamations in the last century that "religion is ." Beliefs do matter. Religion matters. For better or worse.

Rock Star in Chief

American Idol has invited President Obama to appear on the popular talent contest show. Simon Cowell's rationale for even suggesting that his dumb show bother the leader of the Free World with such a trivial request: "He's a rock star."

I still have respect for the office of the president, so although I think Barack Obama is doing terribly damaging things to capitalism and our national security...I hope he appropriately fails to even acknowledge such a stupid idea.

The Most Important Column on "Torture" You'll Ever Read

Week after week, year after year, Charles Krauthammer churns out the best columns of anyone out there. This week he tackles an EXTREMELY important issue: Torture

The term is thrown around a lot, and generally by pandering politicians. But what Nancy Pelosi and many on the Left (who happen to currently be in the highest levels of power) are trying to do by playing "gotcha" games with the Bush administration's policies on coercive interrogations, even on tactics people like Pelosi herself knew about, is unconscionable.

PLEASE take minute and read Mr. Krauthammer's brilliant new piece today.

An excerpt:

Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time . An 's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.

Some people, however, believe you never . Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

Elections Matter

Change can come in many forms. Sometimes it happens overnight, like when your government decides to "stimulate" the economy in the first 100 days of a far-Left president's time in office by signing our children up for $9 trillion in debt. Other times it happens over months and years and decades in the judicial branch of the federal government. Those of you who consider themselves moderates or Center-Right voters and cast your ballot for Barack Obama helped elect a man who will have the chance to solidify the Supreme Court's liberal, activist leanings for 20 more years.

It started yesterday with the announcement from Justice David Souter that he will be retiring this year. Now Souter was no true conservative or strict constructionist (means you actually believe you're supposed to interpret the Constitution, not re-make it in your image), but we know for certain that President Obama will replace him with the most liberal judge he can get his hands on. And with Justices Ginsburg and Stevens nearing retirement (or ) themselves, the 5-4 Leftist tilt will remain in tact for years to come.

THIS is why elections are about more than just good looks, rhetorical talent, and Sarah Palin.