Berks Conservative

John Fielding

“The issue here isn't adultery it is hypocrisy. I don't actually care who Cain has slept with or what they did in bed though I know Rick Santorum will. Cain cannot claim same sex relationships are immoral however when he is an adulterer. He cannot run on "family values" knowing he had a 13 year affair with Ginger White. The man is a lying phony who lives by the principle of "do as I say not as I do." He has no moral authority to dictate to me who I sleep with or what I do privately or whether I can be equal with him under law. He's nothing but a lying hypocrite."

John Morgan, the Pennsylvania Progressive, Herman Cain’s Sexual Infidelity, Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 09:26:10 AM EST

"Hypocrisie est un hommage que la vice rend à la vertu."
Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.

Francois de La Rochefoucauld

John Morgan presumes to be a moral arbiter for Herman Cain, despite lack of proof. After all, a 13 year affair is bound to leave some kind of paper trail. But a paper trail or the mere necessity of proof or objective evidence has never been necessary for Morgan to libel someone in his blog. More importantly, though, when a person says virtue is a good thing, but is revealed to be flawed, hypocrisy, here, is healthy and good. I encourage it.

Since when did one have to be perfect in order to hold an ideal? I think it’s a good thing to be polite. Am I always polite? Of course not. Am I a hypocrite? Of course. Is that good? Yes: it is better to hold an ideal, even when we fall short of it, than to decide there is nothing worth striving for, there is no good, no bad; no right, no wrong. Hilter and Mother Theresa -- just an arbitrary preference. "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

And in the end, those are the only choices we are left. Morality is absolute, and does not depend on our opinion today, or is relative, and all is just a matter of opinion. You can't have it both ways -- only one.

John Morgan has thrown in with Bill Clinton. In the end, if you set the bar low enough, you will never be a hypocrite. One can’t accuse Morgan of that. Degenerate. Perhaps. Dissolute. Maybe. But a hypocrite. Never. Morgan apparently believes in living down to the lowest expectations.

Some people tout a virtue until they break it. Extramarital sex is wrong -- until we have it! Recreational drugs are bad, unless we are taking them now. Smoking is bad -- but if we're smoking, it’s a right, dang it. Does right and wrong depend on what we did this week? Isn't it possible for us to admit that there are ideals for behavior which are higher than our current ability to achieve? Or must we always set the bar lower than our worst week in order to avoid 'hypocrisy'?

It's odd that John Morgan is so quick to snap at Cain. After all, in Morgan’s universe, extra-marital and, indeed, homosexual sex isn’t a vice – in fact, instead of something to be hidden and apologized for, it is, like slavery once was, proclaimed to be a positive good.

In fact, isn't it a bit hypocritical for Morgan to be claiming there are no absolute morals and then condemning a man for behavior Morgan does not claim to be wrong? That's the kind of hypocrisy for which I have no praise.

To everyone else: Believe in a few virtues you don't achieve today.

The world needs more of this kind of hypocrisy.

And less of Morgan’s lack of it.

2011-11-30T10:49:00.000-05:00

The Revolutionary Ideology

2011-11-23T18:54:00.000-05:00

By Rev. R.J. Rushdoony – bio

The modern worldview carries within itself many contradictions. It views as the definitive institution of society, as the modern "church" as it were, the state, and an intellectual elite who, with scientific experts, come together to create the scientific socialist state. This state is, in terms of its philosophical premises, the voice of Reason, if not Reason incarnate.

At the same time, a very different perspective is held with respect to the People. Rousseau exalted both the natural man and also the state which embodies the general will. The natural man, however, is clearly not rational man. Rousseau and Romanticism idealized the natural man's untaught feelings and instincts in a manner which led in time to the doctrine, in the nineteenth century, of the subconscious mind in man. With Freud and his followers, this became the unconsciousmind. For Freud, the unconscious replaced God and became the new locale of infallibility. Whatever the unconscious in man, in particular, the id, and then the ego, revealed, whether in dreams, actions, words, or in any other way, had for the Freudians an unerring revelatory character. Consciously, man could die; unconsciously, he reveals himself and confesses readily to the mainsprings of his being. The unconscious mind of man thus represents man in his primordial character.

Rousseau's natural man became revolutionary man. In revolution, the pre-civilized energy and power of man shatters the conventions and breaks the chains of civilization. Revolution supposedly revitalizes a corrupt and effete society by unleashing the forces of primordial chaos against it. The French Revolution, as Otto Scott has pointed out, adopted the language of medicine to describe its murderous course. "The purge," the forced expulsion of feces, became a political term, now widely used.

This creates an amazing paradox: at the top in the state, the state as Reason, is the scientific socialistic elite, and, at the bottom, the unconscious forces of society, the masses. Of course, both the views of the elite and the masses are intellectual constructs and in part figments of the imagination. All the same, everything is done to enhance this illusion and better enable all concerned to play their parts. The more power is centralized at the top, the more vocal is the affirmation that power is being exercised of, by, and for the people.

Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), described the ancient leisure class as dedicated to the belief that "Whatever is, is right," whereas "the law of natural selection, as applied to human institutions, gives the axiom: ‘Whatever is, is wrong.'¹ Veblen thus saw evolution working against the leisure class. Now Veblen's leisure class is not the same as the modern statist elite, but his point applies all the same. The Darwinian premises are very much a part of the main current of modern thought, and of Romanticism. Charles Darwin was a most unromantic soul, but his premises were still derived from Romanticism. Whether in biology, politics, or literature, power was derived from below. Even as the romantic looked to his feelings for guidance and power, so the evolutionist believed in power from below. The magnificence of the universe, its complexity, energy, and diversity, had to have a primordial source of power, chance, and chaos.

The Darwinian enthronement of power derived from chance and chaos delighted Marx and Engels because it verified their revolutionary ideology. The Age of Reason saw hope in its enlightened despots; the new temper created by Romanticism saw hope instead in revolution and the worker. The sins of the enlightened despots became monstrous evils; the mass murders by the revolutionists became revolutionary justice.

Freud's id, the unrestrained pleasure principle, was for him also the will to live. Modern revolutions give expression to Freud's id, to pleasure in destruction. When the Revolution lives, the Revolution kills! Mass executions, slave labor camps, and a continuous rule of a secret police become endemic to revolutionary regimes.

At the same time, the revolutionary id seeks to kill religion, Christianity in particular. The Biblical premises are all hostile to the revolutionary ideology, because Christianity affirms God as the Creator and Redeemer, not chaos and revolution. Power is sought from above, not from below. In fact, for Christianity, power from below is ultimately demonic.

The modern state sees itself as the source of authority and power, not God. It thus seeks steadily to contain every area of life and thought and to rule over all.

In the history of the Church of England, the claim of the crown has been over all the church and its properties and incomes. As Miall wrote,

The last point is epigrammatically put by Bishop Warburton, in a sentence contained in a note on Clarendon's "History of the Rebellion," referring to the demand of Parliament for the alienation of Church lands. "The State," he observes, "may resume what the State originally gave."²

The modern socialist states openly claim such a total jurisdiction, and the democracies implicitly so.

This claim is challenged by some churchmen, although the compromises are many.

There is, however, another potential challenge of a revolutionary sort. If the people are the source of power, and if power, whether in art, politics, or biology, comes from below, what is to keep the masses from revolting?

Since World War II, we have seen evidences of this. Students have occupied university administrative offices and lecture halls and issued nonnegotiable demands. Workers have done some of this also. Welfare recipients have done their share of "demonstrating." In one instance, the office of then Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York was occupied by insolvent welfare recipients who refused to speak civilly to the governor, who tried hard to be patient.

All this might have delighted Freud, who wrote on December 22, 1897, to Wilhelm Fliess: "I can scarcely detail for you all the things that resolve themselves into - excrement for me (a new Midas!)."³

The modern state thus faces a problem. The revolutionary ideology is implicitly hostile to the life of the state. The people believe that they have a right to disobey whatever law displeases them. Freud's id knows no law outside its will; Darwin's evolutionary force recognizes no higher law; and the modern temper had a notable expression in Paris, in the 1960s, when rebellious students declared, "It is forbidden to forbid!" The modern state is in the business of forbidding on its own waning authority.

1. Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (New York, NY: Modern Library, 1934), 207.

2. Edward Miall, Title-Deeds of the Church of England to Her Parochial Endowments (London, England: Longman Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1862), 118.

3. Cited by Jonathan Weinberg, "It's in the Can: Jasper Johns and the Anal Society," Gender (University of Texas Press), no. 1 (Spring 1988).

We Need Continual Reminders Of These Truths

2011-11-17T12:29:00.000-05:00

We Need More Like Her

2011-11-17T12:26:00.000-05:00

A Video You Will Not See On John Morgan's Website - Just a Prediction...

2011-11-16T14:09:00.001-05:00

Breitbart.tv » #Occupy Protester: Gov’t Should Sieze All Housing

VOTE FOR ME (AND JUDY)!

2011-11-08T03:28:00.004-05:00

John Fielding

Well, Election Day is here at last. Finally the end to people harrumphing through campaign speeches, pointing with pride and viewing with alarm.

I realize that the voters of the Antietam School District have about had it with the high taxes and dubious expenditures. I realize also that it is tempting to turn out all incumbents and start fresh. However, a few words with you first.

New people are, yes, new. As such they are untried and, frankly, unpredictable. After all, in 2008, America thought it wanted change and look how well that turned out. With incumbency, you have the advantage of examining records.

I would urge you to consider mine. I have voted against every single budget containing a tax increase. There has only been one that has not had one. There is a tendency in government to spend every dime because it is there. Because there is no end of "wish lists." And as it is in our own personal economies, at some point we must all say that we can't have it all.

Antietam has spent money for positions it did not really need because of artificial "requirements" placed on itself. Some board in the past established some policy that said that our administrative staff salaries needed to be pegged at a certain amount relative to the rest of the county and many on the board have just gone along with it. I have complained about it since I was elected. You don't hear a lot about it because the discussion is in executive session because it comes under the heading of personnel.

We have decided that we "need" a certain student to teacher ratio, and, as a result, we must hire more professional staff to reach, once again, an artificial requirement.

I must say, this talk of executive sessions causes me to reminisce fondly regarding my first executive session on the board. It was actually called for the express purpose of yelling at me.

I won in 2003, but did not take my seat until December, 2003. The board had negotiated a new teachers' contract that called for an 18.4 percent salary increase over five years (not counting step increases). However, the way the law is written, the public does not know anything or get to comment until the board votes to ratify the deal. I didn't like that so after the teachers ratified the contract but before the board could vote, I leaked the summary of the contract to the Eagle. Hoo boy. Charlie Gerhart told me in the executive session that "we don't know if we can trust you." I replied, "That's easy, Charlie; you've known me since 1997. Of course you can't'"

They still can't, a fact of which I am proud.

Because I am not elected to get along with people or to be a team player. I am elected to represent the interests of those that elect me as I see them. The day that I don't do that the people have every right to throw me out.

But I believe have represented those interests and wish to continue doing so.

In my time on the board, I have always had an ally. In my first term it was Lisa Iezzi and, for a brief period, Cliff DeFrees. In this term, it has been Judy Swartz. We don't always agree, but we do more often than not. If you wish to return me to office, I would appreciate your vote for Judy as well.

Well, that's about it. Oh, about those signs. Yeah, they're ugly. But they fit my unofficial campaign slogan, "Yes, as a matter of fact, I am that cheap."

And, as it turns out, they are the perfect signs to represent me (and Judy).

Please vote for us, John Fielding and Judy Swartz, for Antietam School Board.

http://americansforfreedom.org/videos/11/1913

2011-09-18T18:24:00.000-04:00

http://americansforfreedom.org/videos/11/1913

Remember this despite the denials of the "progressives."

Why Is Ron Paul Defending Al Qaeda? Time For Him To Retire

2011-09-13T11:21:00.000-04:00

Why Is Ron Paul Defending Al Qaeda? Time For Him To Retire

Arguing with a liberal

2011-08-19T15:01:00.000-04:00

Hi, I'm a Liberal Democrat

2011-08-19T14:57:00.000-04:00

Obama Explains the Economy to George Bush

2011-08-19T14:49:00.000-04:00

Debunking the Rick Perry “Pro-Sharia” School Curriculum Myth

2011-08-17T09:57:00.005-04:00

Debunking the Rick Perry “Pro-Sharia” School Curriculum Myth

Let's cut the crap about Perry wanting to impose Sharia law or "consorting" with Muslims or other such nonsense. Geez. If we are going to eat our own, we should not at least borrow the fork from liberals

My Reply to Krugman on Austrian Business-Cycle Theory

2011-08-04T03:14:00.000-04:00

My Reply to Krugman on Austrian Business-Cycle Theory

Is it austerity or reality? – Krugman in Wonderland

2011-08-04T03:09:00.000-04:00

Is it austerity or reality? – Krugman in Wonderland

Road to the Middle Class: Why "Central Planning Lite" Failed

2011-08-04T03:08:00.000-04:00

Road to the Middle Class: Why "Central Planning Lite" Failed: "Beyond the sound and fury of the debt-ceiling debate is a signification that means something. It is ' The Failure of Central Planning Lite ..."

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: The Strange Mind of Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman

2011-08-04T03:05:00.000-04:00

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: The Strange Mind of Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman: "I have never before read writing so twisted, deceiving and evil as an article written, 10 years and some months ago, by the new Nobel Laurea..."

Why Government Can't Create Jobs

2011-08-03T18:28:00.002-04:00

Mark Ahlseen

October 1993 • Volume: 43 • Issue: 10

Mark Ahlseen is associate professor of economics at King College in Bristol, Tennessee.

Any nation needs a certain number of government employees in order to function. But ever since the Employment Act of 1946 a different view of government employment has emerged: that government can alleviate downturns in economic activity by spending—or “investing”—funds on projects that will stimulate employment. The government may be either a direct employer (as when it increases the numbers in our armed forces) or an indirect employer (as when it increases spending on highways, which increases employment in construction companies). As a nation we may need larger armies or more and better highways, but that is not germane to the discussion at hand.

The insidious notion persists that government job creation actually generates an increase in employment. According to this view, if construction companies increase employment by 100,000 jobs due to a $3 billion government spending program to finance highway construction, then employment is 100,000 jobs ahead of what it might be in the absence of the program.

Rarely does the public debate focus on how employment in other sectors is affected when the government seeks the $3 billion necessary to finance its program. These effects are important but, unfortunately, less visible because they are spread among hundreds, if not thousands, of employers.

Government spending, including spending designed to stimulate employment, may be derived from three sources. The first is taxes. If individual income taxes are raised by $3 billion to fund our highway project, disposable income is reduced by $3 billion. Consequently, individuals will demand less clothing, fewer appliances, and so on. Private sector employers will notice and respond by laying off workers. Since most of us will agree that we can spend our income more efficiently than can the government if only for the fact we do not have to pay a bureaucratic overhead charge—lay-offs in the affected companies will exceed the employment added by companies constructing the new highways.

If corporate taxes are raised instead of individual income taxes, they will eventually result in higher prices for consumers, lower real wages for workers, and lower returns for investors. All of these result in a decreased ability to buy clothing and appliances with the net result that unemployment increases, not decreases.

A second source of funds is government borrowing, but this borrowing increases the price of lendable funds, which reduces the amount of investment in the private sector. Consequently, fewer new factories, machines, and homes will be built. Not only does this decrease in private investment slow economic growth, it results in additional unemployment in these industries.

A final source of funds is the government’s central bank, which can create new money. However, this monetary inflation results in price inflation by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar. This decrease in purchasing power will eventually increase unemployment as well.

Unfortunately, the political appeal of government spending stems from the fact that the jobs created are noticeable to the average voter, while the handful of jobs lost here and there are not attributed to the government spending program. Interestingly, from 1960 to 1988 there has been a positive, and statistically significant, correlation between public aid (as a percentage of GNP) and the unemployment rate. Conventional wisdom would have the public believe that as government “invests” in people the unemployment rate decreases. Yet the opposite is the case. For the same years there has been a positive, though statistically insignificant, correlation between government employment (as a percentage of total employment) and the unemployment rate. This suggests that as government work is created more jobs are lost elsewhere resulting in a rising unemployment rate.

As a nation, we undoubtedly need government employees for such things as national defense, police protection, and administering our court system (though I do question our founders’ wisdom in relegating the delivery of first-class mail to government employees). But it is a fallacy of the Keynesian legacy that government can reduce unemployment by priming the pump with spending programs. Government needs to reduce spending and taxes in order to leave income in the hands of individuals who earned it and who can spend it much more efficiently than the government can.

The Twentieth Century Motor Company Part 3 of 3

2011-07-24T04:18:00.000-04:00

The Twentieth Century Motor Company Part 2 of 3

2011-07-24T04:17:00.001-04:00

The Twentieth Century Motor Company Part 1 of 3

2011-07-24T04:17:00.000-04:00

Party Affiliation Determined Coverage of State-Union Battles

2011-07-20T15:57:00.000-04:00

Party Affiliation Determined Coverage of State-Union Battles: "pDuring the last several months, the governors of three states have gone toe-to-toe with powerful state unions in order to undo the harm done by their predecessors’ capitulations to state workers on wages and benefits. In Wisconsin and New Jersey, Republicans Scott Walker and Chris Christie were subjected to unprecedented abuse by the unions and their [...]/p"

Eat the Rich

2011-06-29T16:40:00.001-04:00

Fielding and Schwartz in the Antietam School Board Race

2011-05-16T08:47:00.000-04:00

John Fielding

It is with as much modesty as I can muster that I ask the electors of the Antietam School District to vote for me and Judith Schwartz in the Antietam School Board primary election on May 17, 2011.

Judy and I ran together four years ago, and, while we don't always see eye to eye and vote together, I can say that Judy is with me more than she's against me, and is almost as hard with a dollar as me.

I have never voted for a budget with a tax increase in eight years on the board, and Judy is pretty fiscally responsible as well. At this time, when everyone must tighten their belts, the school district is no exception. Please return us: we have tried to hold down taxes and spending to the best of our ability.

On the other hand, one other candidate needs to be mentioned. Christopher Faro is running for a seat on the board as well. He is a teacher in Twin Valley, is the head of their teachers' union, and is the husband of Melissa Faro, a teacher in the Antietam School District. His website claims of the incumbents: "Their policies have resulted in annual tax increases and consistently lower student achievement. As parents and taxpayers, we are not getting our money's worth. There needs to be a change right now."

The tax increases belong to those who voted for them. Since I have never voted for one, I refuse to take ownership of them. Regarding the lower student achievement, I would point out to Mr. Faro that the composition of the present Antietam student body is not that of Twin Valley. This is pretty bold talk from someone who has no experience administering a school district that comes from more modest family means. Mr. Faro's antidote for the problem is the antidote that all liberals propose: more money. As we have discovered with Mr. Obama, this is not change we can believe in.

The problems that Antietam faces are many, and may prove intractable with Antietam going it alone. I can pledge to the taxpayers of Antietam School District that I stand ready to explore all possible solutions to the financial and educational bind in which the taxpayers and the school district find themselves.

Please vote for me, John Fielding, and Judy Schwartz in the primary election on May 17, 2011.

What Do the Governor's Cuts Mean to Antietam?

2011-03-21T18:13:00.000-04:00

John Fielding

With all of the caterwauling regarding the Governor's budget announcement, you would think that the end of the world were just announced. And of course there are the obligatory howls of pain from the liberals and progressives. And why not? Liberals and progressives benefit from government; their constituencies are only loyal to them because they are bought off with taxpayer dough. Further, spending money makes them feel good. It shows they belong to that special group that "cares a lot" as over against the rest of us who "only care as much as we need to." Consequently, they suffer from terrible withdrawal pains when they are out of power. Hence, we have witnessed the breast-beating and mourning.

But they have taken something that the voters of Pennsylvania demanded and turned it into a narrative that states that the Governor is just being sly: the conventional liberal wisdom regarding the Governor's budget cuts is that he's just passing along the necessity of raising taxes to municipalities and school districts. The assumption is that spending should or will stay the same at local levels. At least that is the narrative that the liberals and progressives are trying to sell.

But if that were the case, why would the Governor be simultaneously trying to hobble the school districts' ability to raise taxes by getting rid of the Pennsylvania Department of Education exceptions to Act 1 that permit the school districts to raise taxes beyond a formula based upon the cost of living without taking the increase to a ballot referendum? Could be that he just wants the obvious: that he wants everyone to cut spending?

At Antietam, we are faced with almost a million dollar shortfall between revenues from property taxes and state basic education subsidy, and expenditures. The school district (I mean the leadership) has taken the position over the years that a tax increase every year to the limit available under the state formula plus exceptions was necessary to create a "cushion" to keep from having to take a tax increase to the voters in lean years. This is because the leadership either knows or suspects that such a referendum would be defeated, and the district would be left with.... uh..... cutting the budget.

I don't view it like that. The state cannot continue having 10 month budget stand-offs and 4 billion dollar deficits. The reckoning had to come for the state. The reckoning is now here for Antietam.

I have voted against every tax increase because I was never convinced that a good faith effort was made to cut the budget. The only year out of my soon-to-be eight years on the school board that we did not have a tax increase was the year 2009, and that was the year that the chief liberal spenders on the school board were up for election. Oh, yes, the reason that was given was that they wanted to "give the taxpayers a break in a bad economy," but the coincidence was striking.

Well, what the Governor is proposing is jamming the school districts up against the necessity of cutting their budgets, something that should have been done long ago. If the school district and the community are truly on the same wavelength regarding the necessity of the programs in the district, the district should have no fear presenting it to the community in a referendum. But it is high time that the people who pay the bills have a direct say. Or the budget be cut. Or both. Or maybe it's time for 18 school districts to be reduced to a lower number to create efficiencies of scale and reduce costs.

Just saying.

Neoconservatism

2011-03-21T13:13:00.002-04:00

John Fielding

So two years ago I’m having lunch. I sat at a table populated with row officers and judges. One of the judges accused me of being a “neo conservative.” I replied, in my usual diplomatic way, that he didn’t know what he was talking about. What I was really thinking was that he shouldn’t use big words like that, or he’ll hurt himself, but I managed not to say that. Nevertheless, as a lifelong conservative, there is nothing “neo” or “new” about it. But this had become more common as paleo-conservatives wrongfully apply it to any conservative that believes that the United States should have a proactive foreign policy, and then liberals, sensing a split in the conservative camp to their very great delight, pick up the refrain, not knowing anymore about it than the paleos. Of course, the judge was even more ignorant than this because for some reason, he thinks it applies to all who are, in his estimation, extreme conservatives, whatever that means.

The 2008 version of “neoconservative” bears little resemblance to the context that resulted in the minting of the term. As Alfred Regnery points out in his book, Upstream: The Ascendance of American Conservatism, “What is called neoconservatism in 2008 has little to do with its original inception.” He goes on to point out that the modern term is used to describe journalists, think-tank scholars, and government officials that support foreign interventionism and “big-government” conservatism.” The supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul use the term to describe those who they believe have departed from the pure libertarianism of the 1950’s as described by Frank S. Meyer.
However, “neoconservatism,” as Regnery points out, began as a term of derision applied by liberal intellectuals to colleagues, who, becoming convinced of the failure of liberal social policies as well as alarmed by the unrest of the New Left of the 1960’s, departed from the true faith and moved to the right.

The most notable of these were Irving Kristol and his wife, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Norman Podhoretz and his wife, Midge Decter, Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, Ben Wattenberg, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Poderetz himself has stated that neoconservatives constituted “repentant liberals and leftists” that broke with Left twenty to thirty years earlier. He explains:

Strictly speaking, only those who fit this description ought to have been called neo-(i.e., new) conservatives. But partly out of ignorance and partly out of malice, the sobriquet was now applied to people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice, who had been conservatives all their lives, as well as to a number of younger hawks who had never been on the Left. (Norman Poderetz, World War IV, 61)

Thus, in an effort to imply that anyone who supports a hawkish stance with respect to the war on radical Islam in general and the Iraq war in particular is part of this cabal, the term “neoconservative” is applied to anyone who holds an interventionist view or endorses the “Bush doctrine” in foreign policy regardless of the wide sweep of the term. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that those who are the most eager to apply the term are those who were too cowardly to do so when the interventionism opposed the Soviet Union since doing so would have been roundly condemned as “unpatriotic” and “pro-communist.”
However, in the post-Soviet era, there are signs that the old détente within the conservative movement on foreign policy regarding interventionism is breaking down. The “paleo-conservatives,” as they have been known (i.e., Pat Buchanan), have always had an isolationist streak, and, on foreign policy issues, have always made somewhat common cause with the pacifism of the “pure libertarians” that Frank Meyer used to condemn, now represented by Ron Paul. Arrayed against them at the time was the conservatism of the National Review and its group of conservative intellectuals: Russell Kirk, James Burnham, Frank Meyer, William Buckley and Wilmoore Kendall.

Despite being interventionist and pro-foreign policy, the National Review types would bristle at being called “neo-conservative.” They have been conservative and interventionist right along for a great many years, thank you very much, and they make up a great number of those still supporting intervention against that new great international menace of our time, radical Islam. As do I.

A cartoon that appeared at the beginning of the Reagan presidency depicted Brezhnev moaning that he “liked the arms race better when we were the only ones in it.” I’m sure Osama Bin Laden feels that way about World War IV. To insist on victory in the war that radical Islam already declared on us doesn’t necessarily make one a neo-conservative. It just means one has common sense.

Interesting Candidacy in the Antietam School Board Race

2011-03-16T10:59:00.002-04:00

John Fielding

At the latest count there are eight candidates running for five spots on the Antietam School Board. Incumbent Greg Burdan is not running for re-election. Myself, Judy Swartz, Julia Kleiman-Baer,and Bev Daniels are the incumbents running for re-election. Then there are four non-incumbents running. One of them is Christopher Faro.

Husband of Melissa Faro, a teacher in the Antietam School District, Mr. Faro is a teacher in the Twin Valley School District. More importantly, he is the head of the teacher's union at Twin Valley.

Antietam faces some tough choices. Already the highest taxed school district in the county, Antietam faces a $700,000 deficit in its budget even if it were to raise taxes by the .61 mils permitted under Act 1 without referendum. I will not vote to raise taxes. In fact the only budget for which I have ever voted was a zero tax increase budget proposal of 2009 for the 2009-2010 year. All of those years of spending and taxing, however, are about to come home to roost.

With labor costs comprising 60-70% of Antietam's budget, I'm not certain that having the head of the Twin Valley teacher's union on the Antietam School Board is going to help much.

The Choice is Simple: Pro-Life Medaglia over Pro-Choice Schwank

2011-03-11T17:01:00.001-05:00

John Fielding

On March 4, 2011, pro-abort Congresswoman Alison Schwartz endorsed Judy Schwank for State Senate at an event sponsored by the Pennsylvania Women's Campaign Fund, a virulently pro-abortion political women's group.

Despite Judy's best efforts to keep her views hidden on this subject so as not to offend all of those conservative farmers in the hinterlands, a group of pro-life demonstrators discovered the location and picketed the event. The home in Wyomissing at which the event was held is owned by a cardiologist who, lining up one of the demonstrators in his sights, turned his car 360 degrees and drove straight for him. The demonstrator happened to be one of his patients. It will probably make for an awkward doctor's visit next time around.

It's good to see that the left is being "civil."

Civility: Left's Code Word of the Day

2011-02-02T10:18:00.000-05:00

By: Lowman S. Henry

President Harry S. Truman was known for his blunt talk. Much of that blunt talk was aimed at Republicans in Congress who were frequently at odds with the man from Missouri. Truman turned the GOP into an election issue, using strident language that earned him the nickname "Give 'em hell Harry." Truman declined the moniker famously saying "I never give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think its hell."

The same can be said today about the supposed lack of civility in our state and national discourse. The Left has worked itself into a lather lately claiming Republicans, TEA partiers, and their allies in the conservative media lack civility. They even crassly attempted to claim the recent shooting in Arizona resulted from right wing rhetoric. The fact is the tone is not uncivil, conservatives are simply telling the truth and liberal elite think its hell.

Have you noticed that the new push for civility began after Democrats took a drubbing in last November's election? Before that the code word was change; meaning the enactment of the President's socialist agenda. And no, it is not uncivil to label the President and his agenda as socialist because, in truth, that is what it is: soft, European-style socialism.

Now that Democrats have lost their monopoly on power in Washington, and are out of power in Harrisburg, they want to be civil and bi-partisan. Make no mistake about it this has nothing to do with being nice to each other. It has nothing to do with changing the tone of the debate. It has everything to do with the liberal progressives trying to find a way to blunt the "shellacking" they took at the polls last November.

Simply put, civility is a code word for getting conservative Republicans to give up by compromise what they won at the polls last November. Republicans, at both the state and national levels, should not allow themselves to be swayed by the civility craze. The Left is not seeking civility. It is seeking to protect its legislative gains of the past two years and to keep Republicans from restoring our free enterprise system.

There has been a lot of commentary over the recent flare up in the state House of Representatives between Majority Leader Mike Turzai and minority Democrats. It seems the Democrats are having difficulty adjusting to their diminished circumstances in that chamber. They called Turzai names like "Monarch Mike" while proclaiming "welcome to the gulag." Certainly that was uncivil behavior. But so what? If Democratic legislators want to act like children, let them. It's not like they are Hamilton and Burr having a pistol duel on State Street.

Lost in the media uproar over the testy exchange among legislators is the fact that Republicans are attempting to move a reform agenda that many Democrats oppose. Having taken majority control in the chamber Republicans have a right to set the rules and the agenda, just like the Democrats did when they were in charge. But, lacking the votes, Democrats provoked an uproar that provided fodder for the civility crowd. The tactic: get Republicans to back down in the name of civility.

Republicans should not let Democratic temper tantrums, or pious media calls for civility deter them from their course. The fact is voters sent Republicans to both Washington and Harrisburg to put our country and our commonwealth back on track. This was bound to create conflict with the hold-over Left on the Democratic side and to some degree the establishment Republicans who will fight to keep the status quo.

While we are all Americans, we have serious differences over how our nation should be governed. It is not uncivil to debate these differences. Interestingly, those who sat silently while former President George W. Bush was called everything from a Nazi to a war criminal now find it uncivil for a TEA partier to protest against nationalized health care.

Let us not fall prey to the latest fad in political correctness. It is not that we need to be mean, childish, or rude, but the American people have spoken and the GOP must now produce a change in direction. That simple truth may seem like an uncivil hell to some, but in actuality it is simply the truth and they think it is hell.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

It's Medaglia!

2011-01-23T01:40:00.000-05:00

John Fielding

After a one and one-half hour meeting at GOP headquarters in Wyomissing, the Berks GOP Executive Committee selected Larry Medaglia on the first ballot to be the party's standard-bearer in the special election for the 11th Senatorial District seat against Judy Schwank. Schwank was chosen earlier in the day by the Democrats after about a 20 minute "deliberation," being the sole candidate nominated in the meeting.

The district, which has a substantial Democratic registration edge, nonetheless has a good many of those Democrats located in the City of Reading, which has a notoriously low turnout in off-year and primary elections. Further, Medaglia has a history of leading most Republican candidates in his vote totals from the city.

Democratic Party chief Tom Herman has been quoted as modestly saying “Slam dunk. We’re going to win. We’re going to retain the 11th.” Sure, Tom, just like Manan Trivedi was your "slam dunk" against Jim Gerlach. Trivedi has promised to place his "sizable" Reading operation behind Schwank. We can only hope so. We hope it will bring her as much success as it brought Trivedi.

Another famous Republican, Abraham Lincoln, once said that "the hen is the wisest of all creatures. She never cackles until the egg is laid." Wise words indeed for Mr. Herman.

General Meeting on January 19 a Homerun for the People

2011-01-21T14:31:00.000-05:00

John Fielding

January 19, 2011 was the night for the general meeting of county Republicans to meet and question the candidates for the GOP nomination to fill the vacant seat in the 11th Senatorial District. As the timekeeper for the event, I had a close view of the action, front and center.

The candidates, in order from left to right, George Chovanes, Michael Rivera, James Smith, Barry Jozwiak, Larry Medaglia, and Ken Smith, gave 2 minute openings and closings, and took about a minute each to give respective answers to eight questions. The questions were summaries of questions asked on particular issues. While many of the candidates gave the same approximate answers to the questions, there was some variety.

For example, on the property tax issue while most candidates supported its elimination, they differed a bit on what should take its place. Some opted for a consumption tax while others seemed to support a mixture of consumption and income taxes. Adding variety to the choices, Ken Smith believed that the local property tax was the most stable form of revenue for the local districts and assured that local school boards would remain in control of the purse strings.

Likewise, on abortion, most of the candidates were pro-life, with, again the exception being Ken Smith, who expressed a pro-choice stance.

In order to ensure that no candidates were closet progressives, a question was asked concerning the candidates' views of the status and nature of the constitution. None of the candidates identified the constitution as a "living and developing document" and described it as the center of the legal and political universe. Larry Medaglia described the 10th Amendment as one of the most important since it circumscribes the powers granted to the federal government. Ken Smith allowed as he valued all of the amendments equally,except for the one that outlawed alcohol!

All candidates expressed concern over the insolvency of the state defined benefit pension plan and essentially said that as new employees are added,they should switch over to a defined contribution plan, making the employees responsible for the results of their own investments rather than guaranteeing a particular monthly return at retirement.

With respect to health care, all agreed that private health insurance and providers were the way to go, but there seemed to be some consensus that we as a society needed to provide for the poorest and weakest among us.

A question regarding the reform of welfare did not find anyone in favor of its elimination, but that fraud and waste in the system needed to be controlled.

A question that required them to propose what made each unique as a candidate, Chovanes, a neurosurgeon, proposed his being successful in a demanding profession and his unique perspective on the health field, Michael Rivera that he was a "DutchoRican" and could appeal to the Germans and the Hispanics on the city, Jim smith, his appreciation for humble beginnings and family, Jozwiak his law enforcement background, Medaglia, his background of public service and private business, and Ken Smith, his experience in public and private finance.

Finally, a question was posed regarding voter fraud and co-sponsoring legislation to require card check. Two of the candidates missed answering the question entirely, all of the candidates seemed to acknowledge a need for requiring some significant form of card check, but none stated that they would co-sponsor a voter ID system.

The consensus of the night seemed to be that the ability to question the candidates during and after the meeting was very useful, and the voters seemed grateful for the opportunity to have an open meeting.

At this point, the people have the ability to lobby the 25 members of the GOP Executive Committee for their choices in advance of the Executive Committee meeting at headquarters on Saturday night, when the final vote will be taken. It is that day when we should know who the Democratic State Committee has chosen for the Democratic ballot as well.

Then on to victory on March 15!

First Stage in GOP Open Selection Procedure Complete

2011-01-14T12:12:00.001-05:00

John Fielding

On the evening of January 13, 2011, the Berks GOP Executive Committee, sitting as a credentials committee, met to consider the qualifications of a number of individuals putting themselves before the public as potential candidates to fill the GOP ballot slot for the special election to fill the vacancy in the 11th Senatorial District.

In accordance with procedure, all the candidates appeared, presented their credentials, told the committee about themselves, discussed some of their views on issues, and were asked questions pertaining to their backgrounds to ensure that all were broadly qualified to run as a Republican candidate in the district. In this reporter's opinion, all were qualified to run and serve.

Appearing before the committee were familiar faces current Register of Wills Larry Medaglia and former sheriff Barry Jozwiak, as well as some newcomers. The newcomers were James Smith, an attorney from Richmond Township, Ken Smith, an Exeter Township supervisor, Michael Rivera, an executive with the Berks Chamber of Commerce, and George Chovanes, a neurosurgeon.

The next step in the process is the mass meeting to be held on January 19, 2011 in the auditorium at the Exeter Junior High School located at 151 E. 39 Street, Reading, PA 19606.

Another Foolish Screed from John Morgan

2011-01-11T18:56:00.011-05:00

John Fielding

John Morgan has delivered up another bouncing baby tirade against conservatives, blaming those commentators of "stok[ing] these fires, incit[ing] this violence and enrag[ing] the public against us" with respect to the shooting in Arizona. He blames Sarah Palin for having crosshairs on the seats of those that she wanted defeated on November 2, and then claiming credit for 18 defeats.

Then, he classifies the shooter in Arizona, Jared Loughner, as a "lunatic"and "unbalanced." Well, which is it? Are we conservatives responsible or is Longhner a lunatic? Logic has never been John's strong suit; he is ambidextrous: he has always been able to speak out of both sides of his mouth.

He concludes by saying, "Those who say they believe in personal responsibility must accept it." Indeed, and the shooter must accept his.

On the other hand, the shooter's postings remind me of Morgan. Loughner thinks the Bible is full of fables, he is a leftist, and he follows the group, "Anti-Flag," which Wikipedia reports "focuse[s] on fervent anti-war activism, criticism of United States foreign policy, corporatism, U.S. wealth distribution and various sociopolitical sentiments."

And one of John's heros, Paul Kanjorski, had this to say in the Scranton Times about the then Republican candidate for governor in Florida:

That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks.

Hmmmmm. Pretty close to stuff John says all the time. Fortunately, I do believe in individual responsibility and not the collective responsibility that John does, or John might be responsible for the shooter.

I didn't usually agree with the folks over at CommonSense2, but Morgan almost makes you wistful for it after its passing. He should get a real job instead of pretending that he's a journalist.

Open Selection in the Berks GOP

2011-01-11T18:25:00.000-05:00

John Fielding

With the death of State Senator Michael O'Pake of the 11th Senatorial District, both parties must pick candidates to run in a special general election for that seat on March 15. The parties must each forward a name by January 24th.

The Berks GOP, determined to not do things like State Committee, is nonetheless bound by its by-laws to select the candidate by vote of its Executive Committee, consisting of 25 members at present. However, it has thrown open the nomination to the public at large, producing at this stage 5 candidates.

Those candidates will come before the Executive Committee on Jan. 13. It, sitting as a credentials committee, will examine each candidate to ensure that each is basically qualified to run as a GOP candidate i.e, lives in the district, is registered as a Republican, and passes background muster. Then, on January 19, the entire committee, especially those representing precincts in the 11th Senatorial District, as well as the public at large, will be invited to a mass meeting and candidates' forum at the Exeter Middle School Auditorium for presentations and questions. The names and contact information of the Executive Committee will be made available. All people will be encouraged to lobby the members of the Executive Committee for their choices. Finally, the Executive Committee will meet on Jan. 22 to make its final selection.

This process was the result of a conference call among the Executive Committee lasting almost 2 hours. The main concern was to have a process that was the least like State Committee that could be produced, given the strictures of the current By-Laws.

In this day, when we continually hear about the "top-down" management of the parties, at least one is doing its part to allow the people their say. Perhaps the other party will be encouraged to import some "democracy" into its procedures!

More Nonsense from State Committee

2011-01-11T18:11:00.000-05:00

John Fielding

Those who expected open dealings in the Central Caucus on Saturday were doomed to disappointment. Rob Gleason, apparently still smarting from the fact that Paul Panepinto won't listen to the superior wisdom of State Committee when it tells him not to run for an appellate court slot, has put up Vic Stabile to run in the Superior Court Primary.

Vic, who confirmed his resignation from the chairmanship only the day before Central Caucus and who further professed his love for the issues raised before the Commonwealth Court while a law clerk, nevertheless managed to conceal his disappointment well as he announced his candidacy for the Superior Court.

Further burnishing his party bona fides, Vic stated that he was pragmatic, being able to settle for half a loaf as a party hack. Exactly which half of what loaf he expected to deliver to litigants appearing before him he did not say. When I asked him where he stood on "women's reproductive rights," he announced was pro-life. He also did not elaborate on which half of the pro-life loaf he was willing to take, either.

Still, he gathered 27 votes in the straw poll to Panepinto's 23, which is impressive until you consider that he has been carrying Gleason's water in the Central Caucus for eons, while Panepinto is from Philadelphia and another Philadelphia conservative got 13 votes.

Stabile is underwhelming, but the best you can expect from a party leadership that still "doesn't get it."

The Left Is Not About To Waste This 'Crisis' - HUMAN EVENTS

2011-01-11T17:19:00.000-05:00

The Left Is Not About To Waste This 'Crisis' - HUMAN EVENTS

Hilarious. I love it...

2010-10-28T17:02:00.000-04:00

Animal Farm Redux

2010-10-01T09:52:00.002-04:00

GOP-controlled state senate lurches left

By: Lowman S. Henry

In George Orwell's 1945 classic Animal Farm, the humans running the farm are displaced in an uprising by the animals who take charge. As time progresses, the revolutionary leaders become corrupted by power and morph into new versions of the people they displaced. That is an apt description of the Pennsylvania senate. In this case though, the animals who took charge and then lost their way are RINOs (Republicans in Name Only.)

Four years ago, on the heels of the infamous middle-of-the-night pay jacking, Republican primary voters ousted the top ranking members of the senate; President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer and Majority Leader Chip Brightbill. Never in the history of Penn's Woods had both leaders been defeated at the polls in the same election.

Republican voters did this because the senate leadership had lost its way. Like GOP leaders in Washington, Jubelirer and Brightbill became big spending, big government liberals who failed to reflect the core principles of their party. Voters reacted by tossing them from office, electing in their districts two stalwart conservatives.

On the leadership level, Senator Joseph Scarnati of Jefferson County and Senator Domenic Pileggi of Delaware County were respectively elected President Pro Tempore and Majority Leader. Unfortunately, over the course of the last four years, they have also drifted from their party's core principles and are currently advancing an agenda so liberal Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would be proud.

Among the leftist legislation pushed by Scarnati and Pileggi:

· A bill that would increase the number of "jackpot juries" in Pennsylvania by allowing trial lawyers to suggest to jurors at closing the amount of damages that should be awarded. Such a change would prejudice the jury toward a guilty verdict and fix an amount for damages in their minds. After a furious lobbying campaign by business, taxpayer and TEA party organizations the bill was pulled from the agenda.

· The so-called "Sub-Contractor Extinction Act" passed with the amazing support of 14 Republican senators who voted to make it next to impossible for the 85% of Pennsylvanian workers who choose not to join a union to get work on major projects. The legislation will dramatically increase the cost of construction. It also was a sop to the labor unions, who contribute heavily to Pileggi's campaigns.

· Having climbed into bed with trial lawyers and labor unions, the senate's Republican leadership also wants to have a dalliance with the radical environmental movement. Scarnati and Pileggi plan to bring to a vote a bill which would increase the percentage of solar power which must be purchased by Pennsylvania electric companies. Pennsylvania Power & Light alone estimates that will increase its generation costs by $200 million per year. Consumers will pay in the end with significantly higher electric bills.

· Senate leadership has pledged to enact a severance tax on gas pumped from the Marcellus Shale reserves. The tax was agreed to in the budget deal struck with Governor Ed Rendell last summer. Proponents of the tax claim Pennsylvania is the only state without a severance levy. What they fail to say is that Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that imposes both a Corporate Net Income Tax and a Capital Stock and Franchise Tax on companies. A severance tax would have a chilling effect on one of the few industries in Pennsylvania that is actually growing.

· Stuck it to citizens who want to obtain documents from state, county and local governments by watering down the Right-to-Know law. The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association opposed the legislation because it narrowed the scope of the law and will also allow governments to place onerous per page copying fees on information requested.

· Scarnati and Pileggi are pushing for the creation of a legislative fiscal office. This new bureaucracy would cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to provide budget information to lawmakers who already employ sizably staffs on their appropriations committees.

And, let us not forget that it was the Senate Republican caucus that has partnered with Governor Ed Rendell in passing state budgets with unaffordable levels of spending and massive debt that has created a fiscal mess of historic proportions.

Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled senate has become indistinguishable from the Democrats. In true Orwellian style the animals have morphed into the humans - and the result is a government that steals personal freedom and economic liberty from the governed.

The Declaration of Independence established that liberty as a God-given right. It also says that: " . . . whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."

That time has come once again.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

More GOP State Committee Nonsense

2010-09-28T01:35:00.000-04:00

John Fielding

I generally do not go up to GOP State Committee on Friday afternoon because I have a job and work to do, and the evening banquet is an expensive waste of time for the most part.

However, I was told by a colleague, James Kelly, that the Resolutions Committee had buried by tabling a resolution against taxing the companies extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation. Since the Republican-controlled Senate was preparing to shove through a bill proposing such a natural gas severance tax on October 1, Mr. Kelly felt that postponing the consideration of such a resolution until the February State Committee meeting would deprive the Senate leadership of the view of State Committee.

Mr. Kelly proposed that the Central Caucus take up the issue of the resolution whereupon Vic Stabile of Cumberland immediately raised a point of order and made a long speech as to how the Central Caucus could not take such a resolution from the table of the Resolutions committee, and, anyway, we should not take a position depriving townships (of which he is a supervisor) of the added revenue from such a tax.

After heated debate, Al Bienstock proposed a resolution that wold delay any discussion of such a tax until after the November elections and until a potential new administration had had a chance to address it. This resolution did pass.

When we reached the floor, we discovered that the Northeast Caucus had proposed a similar resolution and Mr. Kelly was prepared to present the action of the Central Caucus before the entire body to that the entire body could ratify the actions of the Central Caucus in passing such a resolution.

At this point, Chairman Rob Gleason rushed through the New Business without calling for any, deliberately ignored Kelly as he tried to get the floor, and gaveled him down as he attempted to state his motion.

We keep hearing blather about openness and transparency from Rob Gleason all the time, but it is incidents like this that leads us to conclude that we "are meeting the new boss, same as the old boss."

And Gleason wonders why people in Berks County are suspicious of him.

RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY PROPOSED NATURAL GAS SEVERANCE TAX BILL

2010-09-28T01:19:00.001-04:00

John Fielding

The following resolution was tabled in the Resolutions Committee of the Republican State Committee on Friday, September 24, 2010:

WHEREAS, the Senate of Pennsylvania has pledged to introduce a natural gas severance tax bill on or before October 1, 2010; and

WHEREAS, along with a proposed severance tax, this bill may contain new regulations regarding many aspects of this industry, including new rules for a provision called I/pooling" that could be used to force landowners, under certain conditions, to lease their subsurface oil, gas, and mineral estates, and

WHEREAS, a natural gas severance tax may have a far reaching negative economic impact on the prosperity of all Pennsylvanians, and forced pooling that will infringe upon rights of Pennsylvania landowners; and

WHEREAS, the Republican State Committee has a long tradition of articulating policies to bolster Pennsylvania's economy by reforming state government, building a pro-growth business environment, and pledging no new taxes;

THEREFORE BE IT

RESOLVED, That we, the Members of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania, do hereby express our grave concerns regarding any proposed natural gas severance tax bill that will hinder Pennsylvania's leadership in national energy independence, state economic prosperity, and infringe upon the ownership rights of our fellow Pennsylvanians; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we, the Members of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania, do hereby strongly call upon the Senate of Pennsylvania to demonstrate leadership by supporting the principles and policies to rebuild Pennsylvania, by opposing any proposed natural gas severance tax bill that will hinder Pennsylvania's leadership in national energy independence, state economic prosperity, and infringe upon the ownership rights of our fellow Pennsylvanians.

Respectfully Submitted By:

Eric P. Matthews
Chairman Bradford County Republican Committee

Some of the Tea Party folks need to lighten up...

2010-09-18T16:04:00.003-04:00

John Fielding

It is strange. I've been a conservative Republican since 1972 when I voted in my first GOP primary for John Ashbrook against Richard Nixon and joined the NJ Libertarian Party. I was a pro-life activist and then won my first GOP committee seat when I moved to Berks County in 1995. Since that time I have been fighting the moderates in the party and been able to work myself up to state committee, North Region chairman, and secretary of the county party. I agree with the Tea Party people on most, if not all, of their issues. I like the vitality that they bring to the conservatives in the party. I feel like they are the cavalry riding to the rescue of the embattled conservatives in the Party. But I must say that I am not impressed with the hubris of some of them. They win a few victories (which I celebrate with them because their candidates are, for the most part, my candidates) and are on the scene for a whole 10 minutes (in political time), and some automatically believe they are entitled to the keys to the city and if they don't get them, they are going to tear the place down.

From my perspective, the structure is a good structure. Some of the people in it are unworthy, but pulling the house down around your ears because you are having a temper tantrum is not the way. I'm on Executive committee for ten years, and I'm still trying to figure out when I get the key to the executive washroom.

If you all want to have a temper tantrum, go have it in a corner off by yourself and let the rest of us try to get some work done. Not every denial or dumb treatment of someone is some big honking conspiracy to deprive you of something vital. The party isn't competent enough to keep such secrets; sometimes we are that stupid.

Put some time in, and then come see me.

Sestak Supports Increased Energy Costs through "Cap and Tax"

2010-08-19T11:35:00.001-04:00

Pat Toomey

COMMON SENSE says that if you impose a massive tax on a product, that product will be more expensive. And if that product is essential to a particular sector of our economy, then we will witness job losses in that sector. In fact, if I told you that taxing a particular industry would create jobs in that industry, you would probably laugh out loud.

But that is exactly the argument my opponent, Congressman Joe Sestak, tried to make recently in a commentary on these pages.

Last spring, Congressman Sestak co-sponsored and voted for a cap-and-trade bill that would impose a massive tax on energy. If you put a massive tax on energy, all forms of energy – from electricity, to gasoline, to natural gas – become more expensive. That means families have higher electricity bills, it costs more to fill up at the pump, and businesses, especially energy intensive industries, will have to deal with skyrocketing costs. The inevitable result will be fewer jobs, and the industrial base in Northeastern Pennsylvania would be especially hard hit.

This is a non-controversial concept. And a host of independent studies and bipartisan elected officials across Pennsylvania understand it – but not Congressman Sestak.

According to a National Association of Manufacturers’ study, Sestak’s cap-and trade energy tax would cost Pennsylvania more than 70,000 jobs in the years ahead. In just six years, it would increase gas prices by 6 to 8 percent, oil prices by 6 to 12 percent and natural gas prices by 14 to 21 percent. Over time, this surge would accelerate.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission echoed these findings, writing in a letter to the Pennsylvania congressional delegation that a cap-and-trade bill would result in a net loss of 66,000 Pennsylvania jobs and a sizable hike in residential electric bills.

President Obama admitted as much in a March interview, saying, “Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” The Obama administration also admitted that the energy tax would cost families $1,761 per year.

Sestak’s energy tax will hurt Pennsylvania’s coal, natural gas and manufacturing industries especially hard. Pennsylvania is the fourth-largest coal-producing state in the country and coal plays a major part in the commonwealth’s economy and electricity production. Coal accounts for more than half of all electricity produced in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania is also home to the Marcellus Shale, one of the largest unconventional natural gas reserves in the world. It has the potential to turn our state into a major producer of clean energy and create thousands of jobs. But the new energy tax could doom this budding industry before it has a chance to develop.

The cap-and-trade proposal is so harmful to Pennsylvania it has garnered bipartisan opposition across the state. When the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Sestak’s cap-and-trade bill last June, one third of Pennsylvania Democratic congressmen joined all Pennsylvania Republicans in voting against it. In all, 44 House Democrats across the country opposed the bill in a truly bipartisan effort to stop this massive job-killer.

That bipartisan group does not include Congressman Joe Sestak, who not only voted for the bill, he even expressed regret that it did not go far enough. But that is typical of Congressman Sestak’s extremely liberal record.

We can and must support common-sense policies that protect our environment; but that goal can be achieved without abandoning 70,000 or more Pennsylvania jobs and imposing higher gas and electricity prices on all Pennsylvanians.

A focus on renewable energy, conservation, low-carbon energy such as natural gas, nuclear energy and cleaner-coal technology are all part of the solution. But as unemployment hovers above 9 percent, protecting our hardworking families must be our first priority.

Pat Toomey is the Republican nominee in Pennsylvania for the U.S. Senate.

Thanks very much for your continued support,

Pat

Pat Toomey
Toomey for Senate

Endorsement: Sam Rohrer in the GOP Primary for Governor

2010-05-16T18:30:00.003-04:00

John Fielding

At the outset let me say that I was a tea partier before the tea party. All my old conservative friends over the years are members of the Berks County Patriots and the Berks Tea Party. The only people that would question my bona fides in this area are those who do not know me, or have a vested interest in questioning them.

That said, I endorse Sam Rohrer for the GOP nomination for Governor. I do not come to this lightly nor do I do it because of the tea party movement. In fact, in a certain sense, I do it in spite of it.

In any other year, Tom Corbett would be “good enough.” Despite everyone’s best effort, Tom Corbett is not a liberal or a progressive. In any other year, he would be considered an “establishment conservative,” which is really what he is and it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.

But this is not any other year. In this year, being a member of the “establishment” doesn’t get you much from the regular rank and file Republicans.

The Berks delegation to State Committee always votes in favor of an open primary, so tea party types telling us to vote that way was not much of a challenge. However, as usual, the Southeast Caucus, consisting of Philadelphia and the other four near counties voted in lockstep favor of Corbett and Cawley. And in other years, that might have been enough. Democrats, as they say, fall in love; Republicans fall in line.

This year, though, the rank and file has “fallen in love” with Sam Rohrer. Sam can do no wrong, and, it seems, Corbett can do no right. I do not know if it is underestimation or rank stupidity, but neither Corbett nor his staff nor the State Committee (meaning the small coterie that controls State Committee, led by Bob Asher) seem to appreciate the emotional power generated by the tea party movement. I say emotional power because it is not clear that the movement generates enough organizational power. Getting 800 people to yell about what they don’t like at Leesport Farmer’s Market is not the same as getting those same people to do something useful organizationally. So the jury is still out on whether they are ready to stop quoting Glen Beck and start quoting Saul Alinsky and Sun Tzu.

I say that because of some matters that have arisen in the course of the campaign. There is a lawsuit against Corbett by some whistleblowers championed, by among others, that favorite gadfly, Don Bailey. It alleges that there were financial irregularities in the Attorney General’s Financial Enforcement Section. It is alleged that Corbett did not investigate for political reasons. It is alleged that the whistleblower was denied a promotion in retaliation for reporting the irregularities and, in a letter appended to the first five pages of the Amended Complaint, was fired for “filing charges” against Corbett among others (I place this in quotes because no official documentation, other than the partial pleading, is provided supporting the fact that “charges” were filed, which should be a public document).

The first reaction is that these are only allegations, not facts. I am interested in having public officials resign after the allegations are proven, not before. Further, the claim is made that Corbett is “evasive and obfuscatory” in his deposition testimony. I have read at least part of it, and Corbett simply says “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember,” which while disappointing, is hardly an admission of something. But, as I said, the tea party movement is so enamored of Sam Rohrer, and everyone is so rankled over how the party endorsements went that, what in other years might have resulted in a pass, is not working this year. I can’t say that I’m crazy about how it looks either, but so far it’s just perception, not truth.

Further, Corbett committed a major faux pas at the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference in April. When Corbett spoke, he made reference to the United States Constitution being a “living document.” Well, I can’t believe that Corbett is so ill-read or his staffers are so tin-eared politically that they could not have prevented this, but this was the wrong phrase to use in front of the wrong crowd.

Now, I have seen the tape. One of my old professors, commenting on interpretation, said that a “text without a context is a pretext.”

Just so.

In this case, Corbett was making a comment about how durable the Constitution is because despite attacks, it is still a living document, you know, as in not dead or destroyed. In this season (or any other political season), if you have to explain it, it isn’t simple enough, and all the tea party types had a hissy fit. Sam jumped on it because, after all, that is what one does when one’s opponent makes a blunder in front of a significant constituency.

It does seem to be a barometer these days as to exactly how low in esteem the establishment GOP types hold the tea partiers that they cannot even prepare their candidate for governor so that he does not commit stupid and preventable blunders.

Finally, there is a letter circulating, which attempts to debunk some of the criticisms launched by Corbett against Rohrer in a late campaign piece. Corbett raises the pay increase, the pension increase, the fact that Rohrer has not succeeded in getting legislation enacted, and the expense for his state-leased vehicle. The letter-writer successfully points out that Rohrer was given assurances by John Perzel that Perzel would run Rohrer’s Commonwealth Caucus bill in exchange for his votes. When Rohrer discovered the double-cross, he was a leader in the effort to repeal the pay raise and never took a dime of the money. As for not passing legislation, see above. Compromise of principles is coin of the realm in Harrisburg. Rohrer doesn’t so no one runs his bills. Besides, most of his supporters are happy he serves his constituents by not passing more laws and regulation. Finally, Corbett’s charge that Sam has a state-leased vehicle would be more of a downer if Corbett did not have a fleet of vehicles at his beck and call.

I say all of this because I support Sam, and because I want to point out the attitude of the letter-writer. The letter-writer wants everyone to believe these charges are lies. To the contrary, all of these charges are true and are not lies. The writer debunks them and rightfully so. However, a charge being a lie and a charge being true but answerable are not the same thing.

My concern is that Sam’s supporters are a little overheated. They are starting to resemble Democrats in their devotion, never a good thing for a party that wants to win.

I support Sam, but I do not believe that Corbett is the devil personified. I believe that State Committee and the coterie that controls it needs to be taken down a peg. This would be significantly helped forward if Sam were to win. But it isn’t because Corbett is the devil and not a conservative (albeit in an establishment sense).

If the party is to survive, we cannot become scorched earth aficionados like the Democrats. I may not fall out of love with Sam, but I expect I will fall in line for November if he does not win.

Daylin Leach is right: he is no genius

2010-05-04T15:14:00.008-04:00

In a recent video presentation, State Senator Daylin Leach bragged that even though he is no genius, he cannot seem to get anyone to debate him twice on the legalization of same-sex marriage. Indeed. Well, he is right; he is no genius, but I have even more trouble understanding why anyone would debate him the first time. Leach is a left-wing looney as only Lower Merion can produce them and, since natural marriage is the majority position in this country and state, debating him on an issue that has no traction serves no useful purpose. Like an incumbent, those who support the majority position have no reason at all to give whatever limited credence there is to such a position by encouraging fools like Leach.

The degree to which the hard left is pampered in Berks by Tom Herman, left-wing local SEIU leader and Chairman of the Berks Democratic Committee on this issue is seen by the resolution passed by that committee supporting Leach on same-sex marriage. The deleterious effects of such encouragement of the homosexual lifestyle should evidently not interfere with the Democrats' opportunity to pander to a meaningless bloc. But, by all means, adopt all of the planks of the loonies. Obviously, the backlash against Obama has occurred because he is too conservative, and the Democrats stand to lose the House because he has failed to press forward on such really important stuff such as same-sex marriage and his failure to reverse “don't ask, don't tell.”

The arguments against homosexual marriage are of a piece with the arguments against homosexuality itself.

The first is, simply, nobody is born homosexual or heterosexual. We are born male and female. The physical design and the plumbing is what it is. It has a purpose: procreation. Contrary to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, this is a major component of marriage. It has been recognized as such for thousands of years. For homosexuals, this cannot be so. Consequently, whatever the homosexuals do, it cannot be marriage, and it only lessens a significant contributing societal institution to recognize same-sex marriages.

Second, natural marriage is the foundation of a civilized society. Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive. The law as it has been passed down through the ages encourages or discourages behavior. Government-backed same-sex marriage would encourage and normalize homosexual behavior, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves. The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive. Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions.

Third, we are the majority. We have rights, too.

Fourth, despite Leach, there really is a slippery slope. Once we redefine marriage to be simply a contract for companionship, on what basis do we forbid other pairings? Leach's comment that we simply do so is too clever by half. By what standard? By individual choice? So we establish a nation's legal system based upon 360 million versions of that? Further, there are studies from the “major industrialized nations” (gee, I love quoting that back to them!) to demonstrate the deterioration of family and society in those countries due to the acceptance of “gay culture” and same-sex “marriage”.

Fifth, human nature is fixed and, despite the progressives' insistence, is not infinitely changeable. Human institutions should be congruent with that nature. There has never been a society that approved homosexual bonding of a permanent nature.

Sixth, gays like to campaign under the notion of "marriage equality" and insist that they want equal rights. But they already have them. All men and women have the right to get married to each other already. What gays want are special rights: the right to marry someone of the same sex. Then, on what ground do we deny special rights to others for whatever sexual desire they harbor? Desires are not the same thing as rights. Many people desire to do a great many things. In fact they do them. Even consenting adults do. It is the basis for the charge of criminal conspiracy. The issue here is that they want the government endorsement of a particular desire that is acted out through various sexual activities. But What founding document recognizes such a right? They could go to "nature and Nature's God," but I should think that God is the last person that they would want to invoke in this argument.

I could go on. But ultimately, Leach, and the issue, is not worth the energy.

Race for Lt. Governor Reveals GOP's Deep Divide

2010-03-17T12:01:00.000-04:00

By: Lowman S. Henry

All signs point to 2010 being a banner year for Republicans in Pennsylvania. Powered by the national backlash over the dramatic leftward tilt of the Obama Administration, the GOP appears poised to win back the U.S. Senate seat lost by the defection last year of Arlen Specter, pick up a number of congressional seats, and reclaim the governor's office.

The Republican tide runs so deep and so strong all this is likely to happen despite deep and deepening divisions within the ranks of the GOP. Only Pat Toomey, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate, has largely united the party behind him. It is in races for the other two statewide offices on the ballot - governor and lieutenant governor - where the fissure emerges.

State party leaders thought they had successfully cleared the field for Attorney General Tom Corbett to claim the gubernatorial nomination uncontested. Then State Representative Sam Rohrer jumped into the race. While Rohrer remains a decided underdog, he is filling rooms across the state with town hall-style meetings and has tapped into the energy of the TEA party movement. Something is happening at the grassroots level, but it is too early to tell where it might lead.

But it is the down ballot race for lieutenant governor where the intra-party angst is most prominent. In a normal year the selection of a lieutenant governor candidate is almost an afterthought. In fact, traditionally, the party's endorsed candidate for governor has selected his or her own lieutenant gubernatorial running mate. Those candidates have generally faced little or no primary opposition; then they go along for the ride in the general election as governors and lieutenant governors are voted on as a team.

That hasn't happened this year. A multi-candidate field emerged to contend for the party endorsement, which eventually went to Bucks County Commissioner Jim Cawley. This occurred after two ballots and considerable behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Several of the candidates then stepped aside in deference to the party's decision. But, some did not, and a number of other candidates ignored the endorsement process entirely and joined the fray at the filing deadline.

A field of nine candidates will appear on the ballot for lieutenant governor this year. It consists basically of Cawley - and eight others, most of whom are running on a reform agenda. Part of what they want to reform is the endorsement process itself, which this year sparked an unusual amount of controversy amid ignored calls for an open primary.

State Representative Daryl Metcalfe, a surprise last-minute entry into the race, began his campaign with a verbal blast at state party chairman Rob Gleason. Chet Beiler, the party's 2008 nominee for auditor general, continued his campaign for lieutenant governor after finishing second for the endorsement infuriated by what he saw as party leaders putting their fingers on the scale. York County businessman Steve Johnson; and the party's 2004 nominee for state treasurer, Jean Craige Pepper, also competed for the endorsement and lost. Both have stayed in the race.

Also in the field are candidates who have made their reputations fighting for reform. Former State Representative John Kennedy of Cumberland County refused a state pension and other perks accorded legislators during his terms in office; and Russ Diamond of Lebanon County led the Clean Sweep movement that sprang up in the wake of the infamous pay raise debacle. Rounding out the field are Luzerne County Commissioner Steve Urban and Billy McCue, a conservative activist from Washington County.

The conservative base of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania has for years felt estranged from the official party establishment. That estrangement has manifested itself in several ways, ranging from the ousting of incumbent legislators in the wake of the pay raise controversy, to the recent flocking of conservative Republicans into the TEA party movement.

This year, the battle is being fought by Rohrer, but also in the race for lieutenant governor. With nine candidates running around the state, and six or seven beating the drums for reform, the inescapable targets are party and elected leaders and the systems they have constructed. It is here the battle for the soul of the GOP is being fought.

The danger, of course, is that with one officially anointed candidate and multiple reform candidates the reform vote will predominate, but be split, allowing Cawley to emerge as the ultimate winner. Geography, name recognition, fundraising and ballot positions will also play important roles. The outcome is uncertain, but one thing is for sure; the outrage and anger are for real and for the Republican Party to remain viable going forward it is going to have address that anger by instituting significant reforms.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

Sheila Dow-Ford: Left-Winger Enters Dem Primary Against Holden Candidacy for PA-17

2010-03-12T11:19:00.006-05:00

John Fielding

Sheila Dow-Ford, a left-wing former vice-president and general counsel for PHEAA, has entered the Democratic primary against Tim Holden (D-Pa.17). Puuulllllease, puuulllllease, let her win.

She has been recently recorded complaining that Holden does not properly represent the constituents of the 17th. She believes that we needn't concern ourselves about labels: Republican, Democrat, or Independent, but rather "humanity." Well, when someone claims to be advocating a "third way" and claims to be above all of that politics stuff, I start reaching to make sure I still have my wallet. Because those who claim to be concerned about "humanity" in some moist unfocused way in the name of "being above all that," are usually the ones that love humanity but hate me. From Barack Obama to Franklin Roosevelt to Adolf Hitler to Benito Mussolini to Woodrow Wilson, the loony left is all for "humanity" but against the producers of society.

Further, she doesn't just steal from us to give to "humanity;" she steals from us to give to herself. Remember the PHEAA scandal? Well, it turns out she was general counsel for PHEAA for ten years, and vice-president for about six years of that, all during the time period of the scandal. In the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for March 15, 2007, we find the following:

The Greenbrier

White Sulphur Spring, W. Va.

May 16-18, 2001

TOTAL COST: $99,945

$697.52 a night room charge for former board chairwoman and former Rep. Elinor Taylor, R-Chester

$175 for falconry lesson for former board member and former Rep. John Lawless, D-Montgomery

$225.20 for spa therapeutic services for former agency counsel Sheila Dow-Ford

$132.25 for limousine ride for former agency CEO Michael Hershock and three other agency staffers and guest.

$28.62 charge by board member and Rep. Jess Stairs, R-Westmoreland, at the equestrian shop.

$163.59 for long distance calls by former board member and former Rep. Steve Stetler, D-York

$95 for spa therapeutic services charged to former board member and Sen. Charles Lemmond, R-Luzerne

Hope they told her how to fix herself up nicely. She's going to need it. Oh, please, please, please nominate her. Democrats, do me a favor. Just this once.

Another Day (Wasted) at Republican State Committee

2010-02-13T20:12:00.003-05:00

John Fielding

In the spirit of Tom Lehrer, I spent another morning (wasted) at Republican State Committee. Once again, the foreordained results were dictated to the rest of the state committee by the Southeast Caucus after the requisite arm-twisting by Bob Asher. Party Vice-Chairperson Joyce Haas tried to suggest otherwise in Central Caucus. Well, I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

This time, I was sent with instructions. Usually the Berks delegation does not need any urging to vote for an open primary. We are all contrarians, it seems. Our county structure only provides for a relatively anemic endorsement process, and we like it like that. Let's fight it out in the primary so that our candidates are blooded for the Fall.

Oh, but not State Committee. Everytime we show up and want an open primary, we are treated to tales of how the poor benighted ignorant slobs at home will not know how to vote unless we tell them. We actually had someone analogize his experience at the polls giving a personal recommendation to State Committee telling everyone how to vote backed up by copious campaign cash and services for the endorsees. Well, this time, as I said, I was sent with instructions. To me, instructions trump some gaseous account of how some statecommittee person imagines the poor benighted sheep in the party are just waiting for a few crumbs of knowledge from his hand.

So, on February 8, 2010, the Northern Region of the Berks County GOP, of which I am chairman, met, and that group passed a resolution instructing word to go out to our Berks state committee people that we were to vote for a "no endorsement" (or an "open primary") in the Senate, Governor, and Lt. Governor races. If that failed, we were further instructed to abstain in all races. An abstention at state committee, under the state by-laws, functions as a "no" or "opposition" vote because a candidate, to be endorsed, must achieve a majority vote of those "present" in person or by proxy, not merely those "present and voting." Thus, at state committee, an abstention or a vote of "present" has a real function.

Of course, I have always felt that State Committee functioned like the Communist Party Central Committee, anyway, which is why I ran for it, but many committeepeople from other counties feel there is no reason for them to gather to learn anything about candidates if they aren't there to endorse. I had people come to me and ask why I would travel such a distance to "just" abstain. This is my opportunity to learn about some candidates that I would ordinarily not meet. Why not go if not for just that? So an instruction to me to abstain was like a threat to throw Br'er Rabbit in the briar patch.

Because the resolution was put forth by some tea party folks (who I am proud to call friends), some committee people felt "threatened." They should. A day of reckoning is coming, not only for the Berks County Republican Party, but for the State Party as well. Many of the tea party types are angrier at the GOP because the GOP should be their party but (1) has been acting like Democrat-lite, and (2) the entrenched moderate party structure is not very hospitable to those trying to correct it. They are angry at the Democrats, too, but they do not feel betrayed by it (except some of the poor schlubs that actually believed all the bloviating emitted by Obama during his campaign). After all, Democrats are never going to get any better by being angry at them so what's the use? It like a law of physics; following Democrats in search of irrationality is like following a lighted fuse in search of an explosion. Shame on you for even doubting it.

The tea partiers feel that the GOP left them, and they want it back in word and deed, not just in word. They want the walk, not just the talk. And as Al Capone said, they have found that they can get more with a kind word and a gun, than with just a kind word.

So I told all the Berks State Committee people of the resolution, telling them that I felt I was bound by it because I am the chairman of the North Region, but I was simply communicating it to them for them to do as they felt best. In the end, the Berks delegation voted unanimously for an open primary, and, when that failed, four voted with me to abstain on most of the votes.

And so began the first step of a thousand mile march through the institutions of the State GOP. I guess I better put on my hiking shoes.

The GOP Response to the State of the Union Address

2010-01-28T17:56:00.000-05:00

Here is the Republican response. I would publish the text of the State of the Union speech, but I don't have enough room. Nobody has that much room.

Good evening. I'm Bob McDonnell. Eleven days ago I was honored to be sworn in as the 71st governor of Virginia.

I'm standing in the historic House Chamber of Virginia's Capitol, a building designed by Virginia's second governor, Thomas Jefferson.

It’s not easy to follow the President of the United States. And my twin 18-year old boys have added to the pressure, by giving me exactly ten minutes to finish before they leave to go watch SportsCenter.

I'm joined by fellow Virginians to share a Republican perspective on how to best address the challenges facing our nation today.

We were encouraged to hear President Obama speak this evening about the need to create jobs.

All Americans should have the opportunity to find and keep meaningful work, and the dignity that comes with it.

Many of us here, and many of you watching, have family or friends who have lost their jobs.

1 in 10 American workers is unemployed. That is unacceptable.

Here in Virginia we have faced our highest unemployment rate in more than 25 years, and bringing new jobs and more opportunities to our citizens is the top priority of my administration.

Good government policy should spur economic growth, and strengthen the private sector’s ability to create new jobs.

We must enact policies that promote entrepreneurship and innovation, so America can better compete with the world.

What government should not do is pile on more taxation, regulation, and litigation that kill jobs and hurt the middle class.

It was Thomas Jefferson who called for "A wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ….and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned…" He was right.

Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much.

Last year, we were told that massive new federal spending would create more jobs 'immediately' and hold unemployment below 8%.

In the past year, over three million Americans have lost their jobs, yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and grandchildren.

The amount of this debt is on pace to double in five years, and triple in ten. The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household.

This is simply unsustainable. The President's partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one.

The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level.

Without reform, the excessive growth of government threatens our very liberty and prosperity.

In recent months, the American people have made clear that they want government leaders to listen and act on the issues most important to them.

We want results, not rhetoric. We want cooperation, not partisanship.

There is much common ground.

All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible, and high quality.

But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government.

Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform healthcare, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes.

We will do that by implementing common sense reforms, like letting families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines, and ending frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals that drive up the cost of your healthcare.

And our solutions aren't thousand-page bills that no one has fully read, after being crafted behind closed doors with special interests.

In fact, many of our proposals are available online at solutions.gop.gov, and we welcome your ideas on Facebook and Twitter.

All Americans agree, this nation must become more energy independent and secure.

We are blessed here in America with vast natural resources, and we must use them all.

Advances in technology can unleash more natural gas, nuclear, wind, coal, and alternative energy to lower your utility bills.

Here in Virginia, we have the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for and produce oil and natural gas offshore.

But this Administration’s policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion, and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy taxes.

Now is the time to adopt innovative energy policies that create jobs and lower energy prices.

All Americans agree, that a young person needs a world-class education to compete in the global economy. As a kid my dad told me, "Son, to get a good job, you need a good education." That’s even more true today.

The President and I agree on expanding the number of high-quality charter schools, and rewarding teachers for excellent performance. More school choices for parents and students mean more accountability and greater achievement.

A child's educational opportunity should be determined by her intellect and work ethic, not by her zip code.

All Americans agree, we must maintain a strong national defense. The courage and success of our Armed Forces is allowing us to draw down troop levels in Iraq as that government is increasingly able to step up. My oldest daughter, Jeanine, was an Army platoon leader in Iraq, so I'm personally grateful for the service and the sacrifice of all of our men and women in uniform, and a grateful nation thanks them.

We applaud President Obama's decision to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. We agree that victory there is a national security imperative. But we have serious concerns over recent steps the Administration has taken regarding suspected terrorists.

Americans were shocked on Christmas Day to learn of the attempted bombing of a flight to Detroit. This foreign terror suspect was given the same legal rights as a U.S. citizen, and immediately stopped providing critical intelligence.

As Senator-elect Scott Brown says, we should be spending taxpayer dollars to defeat terrorists, not to protect them.

Here at home government must help foster a society in which all our people can use their God-given talents in liberty to pursue the American Dream. Republicans know that government cannot guarantee individual outcomes, but we strongly believe that it must guarantee equality of opportunity for all.

That opportunity exists best in a democracy which promotes free enterprise, economic growth, strong families, and individual achievement.

Many Americans are concerned about this Administration's efforts to exert greater control over car companies, banks, energy and health care.

Over-regulating employers won’t create more employment; overtaxing investors won’t foster more investment.

Top-down one-size fits all decision making should not replace the personal choices of free people in a free market, nor undermine the proper role of state and local governments in our system of federalism. As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best.

And no government program can replace the actions of caring Americans freely choosing to help one another. The Scriptures say "To whom much is given, much will be required." As the most generous and prosperous nation on Earth, it is heartwarming to see Americans giving much time and money to the people of Haiti. Thank you for your ongoing compassion.

Some people are afraid that America is no longer the great land of promise that she has always been. They should not be.

America will always blaze the trail of opportunity and prosperity.

America must always be a land where liberty and property are valued and respected, and innocent human life is protected.

Government should have this clear goal: Where opportunity is absent, we must create it. Where opportunity is limited, we must expand it. Where opportunity is unequal, we must make it open to everyone.

Our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to create this nation.

Now, we should pledge as Democrats, Republicans and Independents--Americans all---to work together to leave this nation a better place than we found it.

God Bless you, and God Bless our great nation.

Democratic Leaders React to Brown's Victory

2010-01-21T01:04:00.001-05:00

More Corbett Indictments

2009-12-15T14:24:00.001-05:00

According to an inside source, today at 1:00 p.m., Attorney General Tom Corbett announced the indictments of William Deweese, former majority leader of the House, a staffer from his office, and the former head of the Rendell Administration Revenue Department, Stephen Stetler. They had earlier received target letters, as has Majority Leader Todd Eachus, a step that is commonly a precursor to indictment.

The timing of the indictments are fortuitous as they, once again, help to catapult Corbett into the lead for the Republican nomination for, and eventual election as, governor a la Thomas Dewey in New York of the 1940's.

The downside is that the trials, if they happen, may very well happen during that campaign, causing a potential downside for Corbett if he loses the trials as he did very recently.

The poor you shall always have with you

2009-11-15T17:14:00.004-05:00

John Fielding

On September 18, 2009, Bill Ulrich commented on the passage “For you always have the poor with you” and, in so doing, excerpted a comment of mine from the combox of my blog, “Berks Conservative”:

Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you," and he is right, almost by definition. Since I beleive (sic) the problem to be ultimately intractable (at least in the sense of some always suffering), I tend to steer clear of utopian solutions since those "solutions" have hsitorically (sic) caused the most suffering experience by the greatest number. Ultimately, if government would get out of the way, I think charity would then be freed to step up to the plate (if it hasn't already become so atrophied by haveing [sic] government usurp its role all these years.)

Now, I am not accustomed to having my blog read by folks at the Reading Eagle, still less Bill Ulrich, and even less, the combox. I guess I will have to be more careful of my spelling next time if my comments in my combox are going to gain such notoriety. Indeed, it took me quite a while to even realize that Ulrich had said anything, and the intervening election kept me from responding more quickly.

Before Mr. Ulrich disagrees with me in his column, however, he disagrees with the Bible itself (“Clearly, this is one story the Bible doesn’t have straight.”), so I suppose I should feel flattered to be in such esteemed company. He engages in the same fish-eyed criticism of the Bible that we have come to expect from liberal churchmen so I suppose we should expect the same from liberal church laymen. Having destroyed the Bible as divine revelation by interpreting it in the most naturalistic manner possible, the liberals have proceeded to pour into it the most saccharine liberal social understanding possible. Indeed, Jesus is so inoffensive in the liberal telling, one wonders why anyone would have gone to the trouble of crucifying him at all.

In this scene, Jesus is attending a meal at the home of Simon the Leper in Bethany. A woman has an expensive box of perfume and anoints Jesus’ head with the perfume. The disciples (in John, we learn it is Judas leading the way) begin murmuring against this to the effect that the perfume was expensive and could have been sold, and the money given to the poor. Jesus responds in the Mark account, “Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.” (Mk. 14:6-9).

Oddly enough, Ulrich says this:

In the Markan account, Jesus says "For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish" (14:7), echoing the Mosaic law set down in Deuteronomy: "Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land’" (15:11).” We can make much of the fact that in the synoptic Gospel accounts of Jesus’ anointing, he is in the house of a leper – one who is unclean and a societal outcast - in Matthew and Mark and in the house of a Pharisee in Luke. We can also explicate the significance of a kingly anointing by a woman when women had no status in that society and what significance exists in the anointing of Jesus’ head in Matthew and Mark and his feet in Luke and John.

That’s a long discussion for another day.

Then he goes on to take issue with me: “But we must take issue with Fielding’s hyperbole that his straw-man ‘utopian solutions… have historically caused greater suffering among the most people.’ Is care for the poor a "utopian" ideal or a Christian value?”

Of course we know that care for the poor is not a utopian value, but in order to find out why, we must have the long discussion that Ulrich eschews.

To the contrary, the Bible commands care for the poor. In fact, the fact that Jesus quotes the Deuteronomy verse indicates that, contra some current scholarship, Jesus’ teachings are not just dropped out of heaven, with no connection to the Old Testament.

And that is the point.

God has commanded how the poor are to be cared for in the Old Testament, and the government is nary to be seen, either in prescibing the care, or in enforcing it, or in punishing the lack of it. In fact, part of the condemnation of the nation Israel by the prophets was that Israel did not care for the poor as God had commanded and that was one reason for God’s judgment. But we search the Scriptures in vain for commands for governmental action on behalf of the poor, actual governmental action such as a welfare state, or, more importantly, any enforcement mechanism for individual Israelites’ failures to obey the commands of the poor law.

In creating his own strawman, Ulrich equivocates between my distaste for “utopian solutions” to poverty, and any care for the poor whatsoever.

Despite the impression upon our modern society has, which would rather create its own standard for good and evil, and generosity or lack thereof, Biblical law is fairly moderate in its approach.

The state and the church are fairly closely circumscribed, with certain responsibilities being left to the family (such as the bulk of charity), leaving considerable freedom for individual action. I believe I said nothing about the “free-market” or “capitalism” in my combox, but Ulrich just assumes that I believe that the free-market is the solution.

And of course he is right, although not to the exclusion of care for the poor by individuals, families, and church under biblical law. Notice I did not mention the state. Because there is no such provision. It is when the state steps in a la liberal progressive Christian social gospel that we have the “utopian” solutions I distrust so much.

Because the free-market is what is left after state, church, family, and individual have obeyed those commandments directed to those spheres of authority in the Bible. Thus, “free-market” is simply another word for free individuals engaging in free human action.

Sorry Bill doesn’t like it.

Far be it from us to gloat...

2009-11-04T12:11:00.000-05:00

On this morning of bright and shiny political glory, it would be presumptuous of us to remind our assorted Bolshie fans of the reason we won both Sutton and Long last night.

So, we won't.

Much.

Suffice it to say, as primary-colored roundels strafe Red wounded for target practice, that this may have had something to do with it:

and perhaps this:

This is not Fire Island or the mud massage room at The Bell Tower. When you run campaigns that only try to impress denizens of both, you get it right up the ... well... ahem..... Of course, some people...

My advice? Continue to use the same teams you used this time around. It will make us happy enough to fly more victory rolls, and you able to whine about the evil GOP attack machine.

We get power, you get melodrama. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Sutton piles on Corbit

2009-11-01T08:26:00.018-05:00

John Fielding

Here’s the latest spot in the campaign for Berks Prothonotary. And as you will see, it’s a hilarious spot. As we predicted earlier, this October Surprise further hits the Corbit campaign, an effort already on the ropes. Our sources tell us that this is not the end of Corbit’s misery, as the Sutton campaign has one more massive and also hilarious trick up its sleeve to finish the campaign in proper style. Enjoy.

We also hear that in an erstwhile private e-mail from the Corbit campaign that they find alleged covert sexual innuendo in commentary on the Corbit campaign "icky." Icky? Icky?! What kind of word is that for a man to use? Icky. I'll show you icky.

Attendee at the Reading Pride celebration, which Corbit attended

Or this

or this

Mr. Corbit doesn't seem to mind "icky."

Charles Corbit, far left Dem Prothy candidate and happy Reading Pride revelers

Neither does his "campaign manager," Jane Palmer.

The only problem with the Corbit camp is that it doesn't understand a political campaign. These girls think they're involved in performance art. Reports are that because the Sutton campaign kicked back and didn't stand still to watch a senior County row officer get slammed by false and misleading campaign drivel from the arts and croissants crowd surrounding Corbit, Corbit's in a crisis mode.

He is alleged to have said that he doesn't understand why people have to be so "hurtful" in politics, and that he "just wanted to go someplace and hide until the campaign was over" and other things on his campaign website that have been excised because they are truly "icky."

Well, bro, as Wll Smith said in Men in Black, "don't start nuttin', won't be nuttin."

The Berks Democrats Strike Out Again

2009-10-25T02:25:00.000-04:00

John Fielding

Well, well.

What will the Berks Democrats think of next?

They have much to pick from, but in the county races they may have had a shot in they go with a professionally challenged dilettante and an estrogen-enriched pretty boy.

Snyder and Corbit, running against Long and Sutton, for Treasurer and Prothonotary respectively but not respectfully, have enlisted the battered acolytes of the president as their base of support. In Berks today, not last year, too little very late.

Snyder is so dense light bends around her. She’s out of her depth in a parking lot puddle. Long has toyed with her in debate, reducing her to simpering. But she’s got cash and, despite a non-starter resume, is not an incumbent in a rebellious year. Long is wildly popular with moderates and his gruff/no b.s. demeanor and C.P.A. status is seen by most as a proper temperament and creds for the office.

Corbit is, well, from a certain sub-section of the usual Dem grievance groups. Rumor is that may come to hurt him late this month. He’s running for Prothonotary rock hard and has a consistent message against Sutton. Sutton herself, a long vote-getting champ, has his number and is punishing him (though, he may like that) in the media war. Perhaps a…ahem…protégé of a Dem elected official, Corbit is making neophyte mistakes and is bleeding momentum. And the shadowy circumstances of his wife’s recent filing for divorce cannot help matters much.

The lack of qualifications of Snyder and the cult of personality aspect of the Corbit campaign highlight two major motivating forces in today’s Democratic Party: nihilism and narcissism. From the White House on down, who cares if they have any ideas for the job if they just really want it or the camera likes them? It recalls the Coen Brothers’ great line, “Nihilists! F--- me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

Neither of these races is in the bag for any candidate. But in a year the Dems could have zigged, they zagged. When they could have swoshed, they swished and grabbed possible defeat out of the pouty mouth of victory. Nice going girls.

School Choice: Waaaaay Overdue

2009-10-09T07:36:00.002-04:00

"Barocky Road"

2009-09-17T15:00:00.004-04:00

From Ann Coulter's blog, by PA Electric Man

In honor of the 44th President of the United States ,

Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: " Barocky Road ."

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes.

The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.

The cost is $100.00 per scoop.

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you.

You are left with an empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream.

It’s Worse Than a Lie; It’s…It’s…Déclassé!

2009-09-15T12:09:00.001-04:00

By John Fielding

An obscure congressman from South Carolina has now become a cause célèbre. Joe Wilson has become the face of the faceless forgotten people showing up at tea parties and in Washington by the thousands. Calling the President out in the middle of his address to a joint session of Congress, Congressman Wilson could not stand to hear the lies and half-truths issuing forth from Obama since he sits on a committee that deals with the subject being addressed in the speech.

Joe Wilson lost it for a second. He is like ordinary people when pushed too far by falsehood and threats to their well-being. Now he is the national face for all of us who are tired of Washington grabbing too much for itself and treating the Constitution as if it is not worth the paper it’s written on.

And what has been the response from the “brie and Chablis” crowd? "Tsk, tsk, how rude." "Sniff, sniff, how distasteful; pass me another canapé, dahling." We all know them because they belong to both parties.
Here in Berks County, they got Tom (the terrible) McMahon elected mayor of Reading twice. Through their party organ, the Reading Beagle, they even managed to cover up a deficit and unfavorable crime statistics until after Mayor McMuffin’s reelection.

On the Republican side, they wander in from the skeet ranges to support liberal Democrats for office simply because they belong to the same country clubs. One must never allow ideology or truth or principle to intrude on good manners.

They are simply the local inhabitants of the upholstered play pens of the arts and crafts auxiliary of the Northeast Liberal Establishment.

I remember a few years back, I was running for office. I had a late custody negotiation in a judge’s chambers. The judge said, “Gee, John, I didn’t expect you here this late. I thought you’d be out shaking hands with the shift workers as they got off work.” I replied, half-joking, “Nah, Judge, I’m a Republican. I go station myself outside the country club clubhouse to catch the blow-dries as they come in from the 18th green to graze on martinis."

The blow-dries think they control the local GOP. However, parties need foot-soldiers as well as those who write checks without getting their hair mussed. And the present and future foot soldiers of the GOP are in the tea parties and the demonstrations here, and in Washington. And Joe Wilson is the voice of that wing. And it is a large wing. And it exists in both parties. And the reaction of the blow-dried “brie and Chablis” toffs in both parties was the same: “It is worse than a lie; it is gauche.”

The judge was half-right. I have more in common with the workers getting off their shifts than I do with the blow-dries. The President was lying, and everybody knows it. Joe Wilson’s voice was my voice and the shift-workers’ voice. The blow dries in both parties are just going to have to get used to it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE SPEECH

2009-09-13T08:56:00.002-04:00

Posted by Michael Connelly at http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/

Last night President Obama made what was touted by much of the media as a major address to Congress and the American people on healthcare. I’m not going to write a lengthy response to the speech because first, there was really nothing new in it, and secondly, he did not address the Constitutional issues. In fact, most of the health care bill supporters are running like mad from having to respond to questions from Americans on those issues.

Instead, they take the arrogant and elitist approach that the President took last night; accusing all who oppose the enlightened paternalism of the left of either being evil or just too dumb to know that we have to be taken care of by “Big Brother”. In other words, there was little in the speech that I have not already addressed in my previous articles posted here.

There is one issue that I need to address however, since not only have the President and members of Congress been making a point of it, but I have received several e-mails asking me about it. That is the question of whether illegal immigrants will get medical care under the provisions of HR 3200. My answer is clearly yes. This is disputed by those who point to Section 246 of the bill that is titled: “No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens”.

That seems clear enough, but what does it really say in the section. There is only one sentence in the section and it states:

“Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

All that says is that affordability credits to help them get insurance are not available to illegals. It does not say that they can’t participate in the overall program and get reduced cost insurance under the so-called “public option”. Nor is there anything in the bill that requires someone to verify their citizenship to get benefits from the Insurance Exchange in the program. Any enforcement provisions were specifically excluded in the House Committee. The bill also doesn’t limit the care currently being provided for free at emergency rooms and government clinics. You can read this section and the rest of the bill for yourself by going to the following link: http://thomas.loc.gov/

The access of illegal aliens to the system has been verified by a recent report released by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. This service works for Congress and the report was released days before President Obama made his speech, yet he continued to deny that illegals will get coverage. There is also a movement among some members of Congress to grant illegal immigrants full rights to participate in all government programs including Social Security, even if they have never paid a penny into the system.

Is it Constitutional to require American taxpayers to pay for medical coverage of those who have broken our country’s laws by sneaking across our borders? Nobody in the Obama Administration seems to care.

Life Under Cart....Obama

2009-09-09T17:23:00.000-04:00

Life under ObamaCare

2009-09-04T15:40:00.005-04:00

John Fielding

Want to know what life will be like under ObamaCare? Read the rather rueful and remorseful article by Robert Heilbroner, Socialist professor from the New College for Social Research at http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html.

Gov Palin Is Correct: ObamaCare Is EVIL

2009-08-29T10:24:00.003-04:00

Posted by citizens4palin on August 15, 2009 on the Sarah Palin Information Blog
(http://sarahpalininformation.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/page-by-page-of-bill-gov-palin-is-correct-obamacare-is-evil/)

I was able to get through 500 pages of the Health Care Bill and took many examples of the disaster Obama is attempting to force down our throats. Please print the list and bring it with you to any Town Hall meetings or similar gatherings. After reading this bill, I am sure of one thing Øbama is EVIL. Please realize no matter Health Care Bill is passed Obama tried to force this socialist garbage down our throats and as fast as possible.

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed

Page 30: A Government committee will decide what treatments & benefits you get. This would be the “Death Panel” and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process.

Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.

Page 59: The Federal Government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electric funds transfer.

Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans such as SEIU, UAW and ACORN.
Page 84: All Private health care plans must participate in the Health care Exchange giving total government control of private plans.

Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens

Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care Plan

Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled, you have no choice in the matter.

Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Simply put, private insurers will be crushed.

Page 127: The government will set doctors wages. The AMA sold doctors out!

Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

Page 126: Employees MUST pay health care bills for part-time employees AND their families.

Page 149: Any Employer with a payroll of $400k or more, who does not offer a public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll

Page 150: Any Employer with a payroll of $250k – 400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.

Page 167: Any individual who does not have acceptable health care (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

Page 195: Offices and employees of the Government Health care Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” This is directly from the bill!

Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid, Seniors and the poor affected”

Page 241: Doctors: no matter what medical specialty, will all receive the same compensation!!!! You can thank the AMA.

Page 253: Government sets value of the doctor’s time, their professional judgement etc.

Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare companies and industries.

Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

Page 272: Cancer patient treatment will be on a case by case depending on cost of treatment. As Governor Palin described: Death Panels.

Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the Government prevent
able re-admissions.

Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a re-admission, you will be penalized by the Government.

Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in Health care companies!!!!

Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without Government approval!!!

Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other words, organizations like ACORN will have authority.

Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures. More Death Panels and rationing.

Page 341: Government has the authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs etc.

Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. Trig and other children with Down Syndrome will be excluded or accepted according to Øbama’s Death Panel.

Page 379: The Tele-Health Advisory Committee will be established. Health Care by phone.

Page 425: Advance Care Planning: Counseling for Senior Citizens, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Scary and evil!

Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans from the Government.

Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatment you may have at end-of-life.

Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services will be made available: organizations such as ACORN.

Page 472: Payments will be provided to Community-based organizations (ACORN).

Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.

Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing services.

Barack Obama: The Ultimate "Shovel-Ready" Project

2009-08-23T02:43:00.004-04:00

By John Fielding

Obama, in his public appearances, has taken to contradicting himself. In several town halls, he has pointed out Medicare as a bright and shining star of government achievement. And it is true that the seniors have come to depend on the government dole in the form of senior health care. And Obama has pointed out that the very seniors that are clutching Medicare to their bosoms with the grip of death are the very ones so concerned about a government health care takeover.

However, then Obama, sometimes in the same speech, will point out how Medicare is running out of money, thus implying that the program is unsustainable in its present form. Well, if this program is unsustainable, how will the new public option be sustained? And what happens to those whose major health care issues pop up in the last years of their lives in a system of limited resources that is dedicated to allocation of scarce health care resources?

Further, government does not encourage innovation and does not reward achievement. From where are the new health care initiatives and inventions to come? And why would new medical students want to become government slugs, only able to earn up to some government cap ("from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs"). The entire mess sounds like a prescription for a latter day incarnation of the Twentieth Century Motor Company from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Obama need look no further than his own speeches for a "shovel-ready" project.

A "Practical" Solution to the Health Care "Crisis"

2009-08-22T15:19:00.010-04:00

By John Fielding

My new friend, "Practical Conservative," "prefers" a free market solution to the health care situation, but, failing that, opts for socialized medicine. How is socialized medicine a practical solution. Waiting lines, diagnoses postponed far beyond the point of cure, rationing of health care. My new friend evidently proposes this as "practical." Well, then, as Lincoln would say, as his faith is let it be to him. The solution to the "practicality" of the Canadian and English system is Detroit and New York, respectively. Where are we to go when this "practical" solution is adopted here?

Even though my belief is that the free market should take care of this area, including the licensing of physicians and the like, I realize years of dependency on government has turned the American people into pigs that must return to the mud of a government solution.

Therefore, I offer the following modest proposal, gleaned from the John Mackey opinion piece, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," found in the August 11, 2009 on-line edition of the Wall Street Journal.

First, "remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems."

Second, "equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair."

Third, "repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable."

Fourth, "repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying."

Fifth, "make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?"

Sixth, "enact Medicare (and social security reform). We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare and Social Security are heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility."

Seventh, "revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program."

"Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any."

"This "right" has never existed in America."

"Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments."

"Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million."

According to Nat Hentoff, in an on-line article ("I Am Finally Scared of a White House Administration") at the RealClearPolitics web site, ObamaCare wishes a federal board to discover whether you merit federal funds in order to continue your less-than-optimum life. The board is slready in the stimulus package and, even though taken out of the Senate Finance Committee version of the bill, but can, of course, be added back in during later negotiations.

And why shouldn't we expect this? Obama himself told us to evaluate him by those surrounding him. Very well. The brother of Rahm Emmanuel, bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel supports the rationing of health care for those who have lived longer. As Hentoff states "he calls this form of rationing - which is fundamental to Obamacare goals - 'the complete lives system.' You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks."

Those of us involved in the pro-life movement for a few years can recognize the "interest-balancing" test found in Roe v. Wade. As an unborn baby grows in gestational life, it gains more of an interest in its continued existence as over against the mother, whose interest in an abortion decreases. In this case, as a person gets older, he or she moves more in the direction of a "completed life" in Dr. Emmanuel's metric and thus his or her ability to advocate for continued existence decreases vis a vis the argument that may be advanced by younger people.

After all, Hentoff reports that Obama himself, in an interview in the New York Times of April 28 (quoted in an editorial in a Washington times July 9 editorial) stated that "'the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care' costs."

Well, if the chronically ill and the at the end of life account for that much of the expenditures, where does one cut? Well, one "encourages" these folks to leave us. As Richard Lamm famously stated, "the elderly have the duty to die and get out of the way."

People like making sport of Sarah Palin for using the rather purple phrase "death panel" to describe this federal board, but what else shall we call it?

Hentoff reports "A specific end-of-life proposal is in draft Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, a House Democratic health care bill that is echoed in two others that also call for versions of 'advance care planning consultation' every five years - or sooner if the patient is diagnosed with a progressive or terminal illness.

As the Washington Post's Charles Lane penetratingly explains ("Undue influence," Aug. 8): 'the government would pay doctors to discuss with Medicare patients explanations of "living wills and durable powers of attorney ... and (provide) a list of national and state-specific resources to assist consumers and their families" on making advance-care planning (read end-of-life) decisions.'

Significantly, Lane adds that, 'The doctor 'shall' (that's an order) explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).'

"But the Obama administration claims these fateful consultations are 'purely voluntary.' In response, Lane - who learned a lot about reading between the lines while the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter - advises us:

'"To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.'"'
But Obamas' doctors will initiate these chats. 'Patients,' notes Lane, 'may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority.'

And who will these doctors be? What criteria will such Obama advisers as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel set for conductors of end-of-life services?"

Just so. I guess I am just not "practical" enough to see socialized medicine a la Obama as an acceptable solution.

Wisdom from the Past...

2009-08-14T16:05:00.001-04:00

Obama's America

2009-08-12T13:07:00.003-04:00

2009-08-12T12:58:00.000-04:00

2009-08-12T12:51:00.002-04:00

The Future of Obamacare....

2009-08-10T23:21:00.000-04:00

Let's try that Palin video....again. Geez.

2009-08-10T16:03:00.002-04:00

Sarah Palin Ethics Conspiracy Video--Watch it before it's removed....again!

2009-07-30T16:02:00.002-04:00

Touche', Madame

2009-07-21T16:00:00.003-04:00

John Morgan has responded to my recent effort, "Local Dems Push Poofter Rights" on his blog, The Pennsylvania Progressive. Unfortunately, since progressives are more interested in their free speech rights than mine, I harbor no illusions that I would be allowed to post a reply on his blog. Hence, here is my response:

Morgan, you old pooftah (sorry about getting the spelling wrong previously on "poofter," but I was so addled from many recent wild orgies and LSD-fueled raves on Elm Street, I rather forgot my dictionary at the office), sorry you took umbrage to my comments regarding issues involving the...ahem...gender challenged.

I was merely stating a position that seems also to be the position of the vast majority of American citizens as of about, say, last I checked, this morning. And a slur? An offense? Tish, tosh, Morgan. To point out your proclivities should not be a slur if you're proud of them. On the other hand, if you're not, well, then, the slur is in the eye of the sluree (Notice I resisted the temptation to say "slurpee" with all its attendant imagery? Point for that, eh?).

But we both know the real point of this exercise, don't we, Johnny Boy? And though I am indeed flattered, your obvious attempt to get me to notice you and further enhance your fantasy life, must be, alas, directed at another. But massive points on good taste. Besides, it would interfere with the obvious unrequited regard that a certain tall, lanky, transgender type that has been seen stalking Elm Street must harbor for you.

Cordially Yours in Raging Heterosexuality,

JF

p.s.- Second Class citizenry for you? Perish the thought! Fourth or Fifth Class should do nicely.

History Unfolding

2009-07-14T09:48:00.003-04:00

(This post, wrongly attributed to Professor David Kaiser, was actually a response to a post on Pat Dollard's website [http://patdollard.com/2008/11/the-classroom-is-open-on-tonights-i-am-a-student-of-history-jihadi-killer-hour-with-author-tps/] by a writer known as "TPS." I wish I could take credit for having written it; it was written prior to the presidential election of 2008)

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it.. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people”, who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely what I am talking about) – the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth… It is potentially 1929 x ten… And we are at war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside o ur borders? No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. (Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.)

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life . In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the “savior” was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative “losers” read it right now.

And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did – regularly. And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled economic crisis bloomed at hand – the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly what to think. Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of course.

How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex . He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media – did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and … change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It’s all there in the history books.

So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. And the world came to regret that he was not listened to.

Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me…

I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe – and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the next elections.

Local Dems Push Poofter "Rights"

2009-06-24T16:20:00.002-04:00

John Fielding

On Saturday, June 20, 2009, the local Democratic Committee pushed the envelope further by voting to support hard-left Senator Daylin Leach's proposed legislation legalizing marriage for gays:

"The following resolution was passed on 6/20/2009 by the Berks County Democratic Committee:

Whereas Senator Daylin Leach recently introduced legislation that would make Pennsylvania the 7th state to legalize marriage equality;

Whereas at the same time, 13 Pennsylvania State Senators, including 2 Democrats, have signed on to John Eichelberger's bill to ban marriage equality;

Whereas both bills, the bill for equality and the bill for discrimination, are seeking more co-sponsors,

We, the members of the Berks County Democratic Committee, urge our State Senators to do two things:

1) Co-sponsor The Marriage Equality Bill (SB 935), and

2) Say no to discrimination and bigotry by refusing to co-sponsor the bill to ban marriage equality.

We, urge our State Senators to co-sponsor Senate Bill 935, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. S.B. 935 would allow our state to join ranks with our neighbors in Maine, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts by offering full and equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania.

S.B. 935 would not require religious institutions to perform any marriage ceremonies or recognize any marriages that they do not wish to sanction. The legislation would dissolve all of the barriers to building families that gay and lesbian couples currently face, both at the state and federal level.

We also strongly urge our Senators to refuse to co-sponsor Senator Eichelberger's attempt to ban marriage equality and insert discrimination into the Pennsylvania Constitution."

Sorry, life is about discrimination. In fact, "discrimination" is just another word for "choice," another word near and dear to far left extremists, at least with regard to one issue.

Because left-wing extemists are the most anti-choice people in existence. Laws limit choice by definition, and left-wingers are the most legislation and litigation-happy groups I can think of. Every time their knickers get in a bunch about some social cause, nothing must do but that we must pass another law telling some individual or group that they may not choose to do something that is on the current list of liberal no-no's. Only once, in the case of the murder of unborn children, do they suddenly discover a "right-to-choose."

Law legislates morality and, therefore, regulates choice. In this case, it's just a question of whose morality: America's or Sodom's. The Berks Democrats have shown us whose morality they back.

Palin Proves Conservatives Can Fight Pop Culture and Win

2009-06-20T12:29:00.002-04:00

Gary Bauer
Posted 06/19/2009 ET

In the Age of Obama, many conservatives are consoling themselves with this thought: Conservatism wins on the issues. Polls show majorities of Americans want less government and fewer and lower taxes; they want leaders who will stand up to our enemies; they are skeptical about the science of global warming; they want public policy to show respect for human life at all stages, and, yes, most Americans still believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman.

A Gallup poll this week showed 40 percent of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, while just 21 percent self identify as liberal.

Though conservative values remain popular among Americans overall, they have never been embraced by the popular culture. Hollywood, the music industry, sports and the fashion world are all overwhelmingly liberal. In these sectors of American society, conservative positions almost always lose.

These realities make the recent Sarah Palin-David Letterman dust-up quite interesting. For decades conservatives have engaged the popular culture at their peril. Whenever conservatives pushed back against the excesses of the pop culture, they risked getting labeled bigoted, ignorant or, worst of all, prudish.

But Sarah Palin has proved that conservatives can fight the pop culture and win. That’s because while many Americans consume the entertainment of people like David Letterman, they embrace the values of people like Sarah Palin.

The controversy surrounds comments made more than a week ago by the "Late Show" host. Letterman joked that Palin, who was in New York City to attend an autism event, had bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look. He later added that Palin had attended a New York Yankees baseball game, and that during the seventh inning stretch Palin’s daughter had been “knocked up” by Yankees’ libidinous third baseman Alex Rodriguez.

Letterman claims he was referring to Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, but only Palin’s 14-year-old daughter, Willow, attended the game with her mother. So Letterman ended up joking about statutory rape.

Initially, Letterman did not apologize. While jokes that sexualize kids are “crude, sexist, perverted,” as Palin stated in response to Letterman, they have sadly become a comedic staple. Watch the most popular comedians and you’ll find many jokes are intended to humiliate, demean and tear down. Throw in some disgusting sexual references and you have a perfect recipe for big laughs in today’s popular culture. And if the target of the comedian’s demeaning sexual jokes is a conservative politician, so much the better.

There is an obvious double standard. What would have happened had Letterman made the same joke about Barack Obama and his family? We know. Letterman would have been forced into early retirement, and perhaps prosecuted under some “hate crimes” statute.

Letterman then offered a snarky non-apology apology in which he insisted he had meant to suggest that Bristol, not Willow, had been “knocked up” by A-Rod. While there is a significant legal difference, only according to our cultural elites could the addition of four years transform a beyond-the-pale insinuation into an acceptable punch-line. The target of his cruel insinuations remained a young girl who, through no fault of her own, is the daughter of a political figure.

Finally, after a week, Letterman offered something closer to a legitimate apology, which Palin graciously accepted. I doubt Letterman would have apologized had he not been forced to do so. But his jokes caused a huge backlash among his viewers, some of whom formed a campaign to urge CBS to fire him.

Viewers were so irate that one "Late Show" advertiser pulled its sponsorship. Letterman was slammed by women’s groups across the ideological spectrum. Even the National Organization for Women denounced him for “snicker[ing] about men having sex with teenage girls (or women) less than half their age…”

Despite the strong backlash, some conservatives argued that Palin was wrong to call out Letterman for his outrageous remarks. One commentator predicted that critiques of Letterman would lead to a form of censorship, while a former GOP advisor said going after Letterman made Republicans look small, and insisted the entire episode was a “win-win for Letterman.”

Letterman has enjoyed a temporary ratings boost, but there’s deeper meaning in the incident. The cultural left lampoons Palin because her values and life are completely foreign to them. They find it bizarre that she hunts, prays and says things like “you betcha.’” They can’t fathom that she brought a child with Down syndrome to term and that she didn’t pressure her daughter into aborting an unexpected pregnancy.

Letterman may not know anyone who would vote for Palin or a family that looks like hers. But his Palin joke backfired in part because scores of millions of Americans are living lives that more closely resemble Palin’s life than Letterman’s. Like Palin, they pray in churches, hunt and fish and raise imperfect families with unconditional love. They are more than uneasy about the culture’s sexualization of children and its infantilization of adults.

The cultural left mocks Palin’s values, but its taunts often fail to gain traction, because Palin’s politics and principles are much more main-stream than those of her critics. Sarah Palin is a false target for the popular culture. It can’t resist the temptation to ridicule and lampoon her, but she offers too much common sense and inspiration to make for good jokes.

In the Age of Obama, pop culture elites may be excused for their over-the-top bashing of conservatives. Liberals have always controlled the popular culture, and now they control government too. They probably assume most of the country has shifted leftward and come round to their view of the world. But it hasn’t. Just ask David Letterman.

Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.

Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

The Real Importance of the Sotomayor Fight

2009-06-19T08:14:00.001-04:00

June 18, 2009
By Richard A. Viguerie

The confirmation fight over Judge Sonia Sotomayor shouldn't be approached as merely about filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Even as important as that is, this confirmation fight is bigger than that. It is a fight about whether the Constitution any longer constrains the power of government by and according to its terms. It is about President Obama's view of government power versus the view held by most Americans.

President Obama's nomination of Judge Sotomayor has so far managed to unite all wings of the conservative movement -- economic, foreign policy, social, traditional and libertarian -- in a way we haven't seen since the early Clinton years. How the various wings of conservatism define and contrast our constitutionalist views against the president's could literally determine the fate of his entire political agenda.

Conservatives are for limited government because the Constitution was set up in a way to counteract the natural predilections of man to abuse the power of government. It is government that can most systematically and egregiously limit life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution, properly construed, protects the people and allows the greatest exercise of man's capacities. Improperly construed, we are weaker and less free. Obama wants it improperly construed.

The enumeration and separation of powers, rights reserved to the people and the states, freedoms of conscience, limits on government intrusion into our property, the right to bear arms, etc. are the distinctions of the United States that account for America's unique place in history. They, not the federal government itself nor the individuals who run it, enable our greatness as a nation.

In those regards, the Sotomayor confirmation fight is bigger than all other policy matters such as deficit spending to rejuvenate the welfare state, nationalized health care, national security, etc. Those who see this confirmation battle as about just Judge Sotomayor miss the larger point. This is really about President Obama's harmful and dangerous view of government power.

President Obama wants to remake and thereby weaken America by avoiding the constraints in the Constitution and its structure for political accountability. He is faced with circumstances that make that possible: (1) economic turmoil, (2) a sycophantic press, (2) a passive and sympathetic Congress, and (4) a judiciary that too often refuses to insist that the other two branches act within their enumerated powers. He has taken advantage of those circumstances to expedite his government power grab at a dizzying pace. If Americans had time to absorb what he was doing and the freedoms they were losing, he would not succeed.

We are distracted by Obama's blitz because we have too many attacks on our system to confront effectively at once. That is why it is important for conservatives to focus foremost on the Sotomayor confirmation fight. Within that one fight alone we can address the very reasons why, as polls show consistently, conservatism is twice as popular as liberalism. This confirmation fight can weaken Obama's march to a form of government inconsistent with the Constitution if conservatives grasp the challenge.

The official confirmation battle rests in the hands of Senate Republicans. Collectively, they have not always been friends of conservatives or our causes. However, Judiciary Committee ranking minority member Jeff Sessions is not only a reliably principled conservative, he seems to understand what's at stake in the Sotomayor confirmation.

Senator Sessions will need the help of his colleagues, but given their numerical status, their performance will need to be exceptional. Grassroots conservatives must therefore remind them daily what's at stake, which is a long and bleak minority status for Republicans, and a change for the worse in our entire system of government.

The quality, intelligence and competence of how Senate Republicans deal with the Obama view of the judiciary and the Constitution itself can only be effective if they show passion, resolve and principle. How they perform will determine whether they are testaments to our heritage, or its goats.

If Senate Republicans fail to understand what's at stake, not only might the next election be the last for many of them, history will point a mercilessly unforgiving finger at them. Conservatives at the national, state and local levels therefore need to emphasize those consequences. We cannot wait for, nor depend on, Senate Republicans to define President Obama. We must do that.

We now have a president who does not believe he needs authority provided in Article II or in authorizing legislation before he can buy and run American businesses, appoint czars overseeing the private sector without Senate confirmation or legal authority, unlawfully fire inspector generals attempting to prevent abuse in how taxpayer dollars are spent, or act on nearly any other matter and often using his power for political patronage.

Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in the 1952 case barring President Harry Truman from nationalizing the steel industry during a wartime emergency says about presidential power unrestrained by the Constitution:

"Such power either has no beginning or it has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint. I am not alarmed it would plunge us straightway into dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong direction."

America is on a precipice. The Sotomayor confirmation battle is the best chance for conservatives to articulate our constitutional view of governing and define Obama's attempt to alter our democracy. It is about whether he will make us a lesser nation, and who will stand up against him.

Richard A. Viguerie was called "one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" (The Nation), and one of the 13 "conservatives of the century" (The Washington Times).

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_real_importance_of_the_sot_1.html at June 19, 2009 - 08:13:23 AM EDT

A Commencment Address

2009-06-04T15:23:00.002-04:00

49 Million to Five

2009-06-04T02:02:00.001-04:00

by Ann Coulter
Posted 06/03/2009 ET
Updated 06/03/2009 ET

In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.

Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence -- with minor edits -- of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"?

For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.

Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.

According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.

In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.

Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.

So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.

But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.

Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists -- not a squeamish bunch -- in the entire country would perform them.

Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.

In return for blood money from Tiller's profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.

In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton's White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals' protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill.

Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to "substantial and irreversible conditions" justifying his late-term abortions.

Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller's blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.

But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.

Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.

The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?

I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.

Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

American capitalism gone with a whimper

2009-05-31T02:28:00.002-04:00

Reprinted from Pravda

27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina

© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

Empathy v. Impartiality

2009-05-27T11:02:00.002-04:00

Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Why make this complicated?

President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job. Here's the oath Supreme Court justices must take:

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Contrast that with Obama's insistence that the "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" is the key qualification for a Supreme Court justice. According to White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor's "American story" of humble origins -- she was raised in the South Bronx -- best prepares her for the high court because it shows "she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts."

Obama says law and precedent should determine rulings in "95 percent of the cases." But in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. "In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

Now, keep in mind that 5 percent of Supreme Court cases isn't everything, but it's nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For the hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule.

So, what's wrong with empathy?

Well, nothing. Empathy is a fine thing, and all decent people should employ it, including Supreme Court justices.

But Obama has something specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice's oath to in effect be rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be partial to the poor, and so on.

I don't think this is open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation, he said that Roberts didn't have the "heart" to vote the right way in those 5 percent of cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, "we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges." Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.

The reasoning here is a riot of dubious assumptions. Obama and Sotomayor both assume that a firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or the African-American or the gay or the old will automatically result in justices voting a certain (liberal) way. "I would hope," Sotomayor said in 2001, "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense on stilts. Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How's that working out for liberals?

Of course, liberals say that if you don't agree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas or abortion, it's because you don't care as much as they do about minorities or women. Which is why they've demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor. This, too, is aggressively stupid. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Judges aren't supposed to have policy preferences, despite Ms. Sotomayor's insistence that the courts are "where policy is made."

More important, who says conservatives are against judicial empathy? I, for one, am all for it. I'm for empathy for the party most deserving of justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and Constitution. If that means siding with a poor black man, great. If that means siding with a rich white one, that's great too. The same holds for gays and gun owners, single mothers and media conglomerates. We should all rejoice when justices fulfill their oaths and give everyone a fair hearing, even if that's now out of fashion in the age of Obama.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Ridge and Powell: The "Phonebooth GOP"

2009-05-26T17:17:00.005-04:00

John Fielding

"I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there’s another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again,” Powell told the crowd."

Yes, Powell's version holds its convention in a phone booth.

Then, of course, Tom Ridge had to get into the act, calling Limbaugh "shrill," and telling him not to attack individuals, but ideas.

Rush does not attack individuals, but the views that those individuals represent. Because the liberals in the party can't defend themselves, they say he is being personal. At the risk of quoting a Democrat, Harry Truman once said, "They say I give them hell; I don't give them hell, I give them the truth. They just think it's hell."

The fact that McCain was a moderate did not lose him the election. If the only thing that had happened in the campaign was McCain as a moderate, he would have lost. However, two things happened. One, Palin joined the ticket and there was instantly new life. Then Wall Street and the banks crashed, and it was too much for McCain to overcome. That was why McCain lost.

But, barring those two events, McCain would have lost anyway. Is there anything in the campaign that caused the polls to spike upward as Palin joining the ticket? And is there any doubt that Powell would have endorsed Obama even without Palin on the ticket?

We were told that we needed a "moderate" to appeal to the "middle." I don't know where this "middle" exists. The only thing I know is this: even though the murder of unborn children is a primary issue to me (frankly, it seems to be the only thing the fascist left seems to be pro-choice about), it is not to many, who prefer to think with their stomachs. People don't vote for people who are moderate; they vote for those who are fiscally sane.

And that is why the GOP cannot support the crack-brained economic schemes of the left. Being conservative/libertarian on economic issues wins elections. The "many" who think with their stomachs tolerate the pro-life views of the GOP in order to elect its fiscal sanity. Listening to the nostrums of a liberal governor who raised taxes and had blow-out budgets, and a general who voted for JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and endorsed Obama, is not the way forward for the GOP.

They can continue to meet with all of their compadres, in the phone booth.

Pardon, Your Slip Is Showing: Sotomayor on Judicial Activism

2009-05-26T14:50:00.006-04:00

Why, that witty raconteur:

And more from the good judge as she grazes on shoe leather:

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud…Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with differences.

…

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

…

I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.

…

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. (emphasis added)

…

I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We…must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

All quotations: Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. 87 (2002), “A Latina Judge’s Voice”, S. Sotomayor

(Republished from Verum Serum, May 3 and May 5, 2009)

And The Paper Wonders Why It Is Going Down The Tube...

2009-05-19T10:15:00.004-04:00

From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:12 PM
To: 'news@readingeagle.com'
Subject: Attn: Mr. Flippin (on Specter)

To:

William S. Flippin

I forwarded the series of email conversations i had with Mr. Homan to a few of my friends. I just thought you might want to see their perspective of your paper and, in particular, the editorial department. I included their random replies at the bottom.

Rod Miller
*********************

From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:08 PM
To: 'Jim Homan'
Subject: RE: Specter

Mr. Homan,

Forget it.

My letter has just as much and more substance than the one or two recent ones I read about Senator Specter and is very much relevant. And my letter was sent in first. It’s been said that the letters have more readers than the prominent editorialists or your unsigned editorials. I’ve been a scriber to the Reading Times/ Eagle since 1960 (49 years)and have frequently considered discontinuing my subscription. You’re making my decision easier. As your circulation is dying, a letter such as mine (or any previous one) can only, in some small way, help you to survive. My letter stands as is. If that doesn’t suit your immediate interest, consider this dialog a dead issue.

Sincerely

Rod Miller

From: Jim Homan [mailto:jhoman@readingeagle.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:10 PM
To: Rod Miller
Subject: RE: Specter

Mr. Miller,

Try rewriting your letter and tying it to one of the more recent stories about Specter (losing seniority, etc) rather than one that was published more than two weeks ago.

Jim Homan

Reading Eagle Company

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 2:20 PM
To: Jim Homan
Subject: RE: Specter

Mr. Homan,

The letter to which you refer was published on April 5th. I sent it in the previous week. Today is six weeks from the date I submitted it. I didn’t know of the 5 week requirement; however, may I again submit my Specter letter for publication?

Rod Miller

From: Jim Homan [mailto:jhoman@readingeagle.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:37 AM
To: Rod Miller
Subject: RE: Specter

Mr. Miller,

Each letter writer is permitted on letter every five weeks. Your five weeks had not expired.

Jim Homan

Reading Eagle Company

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Posted At: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:00 AM
Posted To: Letters to the Editor
Conversation: Specter
Subject: Specter

Dear editor,

As noted, the below letter to the editor was mailed to you on April 30, 2009. I received no acknowledgement, nor was it printed. I did notice a political sensitive letter regarding the senator published on 5/7/09. Please advise why my letter was not suitable for publication.

Rod Miller

Letter to the editor:

Senator Arlen Specter said he changed parties because the Republican party is moving too far to the right. What! Our last Republican president, signed deficit budgets, couldn’t find his veto pen until he was a lame duck president, appropriated 700 billion dollar bailout package and gave half of it to President Obama as spending money, and finally, wouldn’t secure our borders. It would appear the Republican party has moved from the Reagan conservative posture to a more centrist position. Certainly, not to the right.

I suggest the problem Senator Specter is having is that he’s continually moved further to the left and his myopic vision is failing him. However, he has now joined his peer group, the Democrat party, and will be more comfortable in his extreme left political surroundings.

To quote Norman Thomas, six time socialist candidate for president. “I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the socialist party. The Democrat party has adopted our platform”.

The Senator is not driven by political ideology, but he is in survival mode. i.e. Whatever it takes to get re-elected. He sees the title of Senator affixed to his name ‘till death do us part.

Rodney E. Miller
530 Raymond St
Reading PA
Muhlenberg Twp
610-929-5476

Random comments

Unbelievable! No wonder newspapers are dying on the vine. They are making themselves irrelevant in this age of electronic communication.

I thought your letter was good. I think Specter is WAY out of line thinking that, once elected, being a Senator is a lifetime job - but they all do. We should go back to term limits - the sooner the better

I GUESS YOU NOW KNOW WHAT SHOES HOMAN WEARS!

Now that is a liberal brick wall.

Who will drop the Eagle first? I have also been contemplating it for some time.

I stopped subscribing to the Eagle over a year ago and just read what I can get online. Between the Reading Eagle site, the WFMZ channel 69 site and sites like CNN and FoxNews, I get all the info I would if I got that rag in my home. The only thing I miss is the TV Guide that came in the Sunday paper and now I found a free link to our channels on the TV Guide website.

As always, Rod, they print what they want to print - good, bad or indifferent!!!

If we only had another newspaper in this sad town.

They are contemptible.

What's this guys problem? What do you think his real reason is for not printing your letter?

Does the Eagle have a word limit on letters to the editor? I sent one in two weeks ago and it wasn't published either

Another Reason Not to Contribute to National Republican Committees

2009-05-17T13:38:00.002-04:00

Richard Viguerie

Written by CHQ Staff on May 15, 2009, 08:35 AM

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which normally doesn’t endorse candidates in Republican primaries, this week announced it is supporting Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, whom we call the “Arnold Schwarzenegger of the Southeast.” As governor, Crist vetoed budget cuts, and welcomed Barack Obama to Florida. He was a strong advocate for the $787 billion federal Stimulus Spending Bill earlier this year.

Who’s running against Crist, and whom did the NRSC dis? Marco Rubio, the young conservative success story, whose Wikipedia bio says, “championed a major overhaul of the Florida tax system. He wanted to reduce property taxes and decrease the size of government.”

We think Rubio’s first campaign video says it all:

(this video can also be found at http://marcorubio.com/)

The NRSC and other national Republican committees seem to want more Arlen Specters in the Senate.

Stief and O'Boyle for Antietam School Board

2009-05-14T17:09:00.006-04:00

John Fielding

It is once again time for the school board elections in Antietam. We have five candidates running for four seats.

I endorse Roger Stief and Larry O'Boyle.

I've known Roger Stief for a while while involved in the Antietam Youth Baseball Association. He is a young man with a family in the district, who will bring that perspective to the Board. While by no means poor, Roger is a man of modest means who can be expected to bring a dose of financial common sense to the board of the district with the highest tax millage in the county. The Antietam School Board seems determined to raise taxes at every opportunity. The administration's policy is to raise taxes to statutory limit every year whether it needs to or not. This year seems to be the only exception; after all the administration has to do what it can to make the election of its liberal-spending allies on the board more certain. Roger is not one of them. Vote for Roger Stief.

My other recommendation is Larry O'Boyle. Larry and I don't agree on everything and that's okay. But Larry has shown to me in two years that he has the taxpayers of the district at heart (even if he is a Democrat!) and, even when we don't agree, Larry is always looking for the cheapest way of getting the job done.

Of the remaining three, two (Ann Sellers and Dave Stauffer) are liberal spenders and toadies of the administration. I would not endorse them if they were the only ones running.

The remaining candidate, Beth Calabria, is a newcomer, taking the place of that other unreconstructed liberal, Joanne Just. I had great hopes for her, but then she justified a vote by speaking of "the children," as if every expenditure we don't make will vitally endanger our programs.

It used to be said that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel; no, it isn't, it is children, animals, and trees. They are the only three unfortunates that cannot successfully fend off the liberals and all the "good things" liberals want to do for, and to, them.

Vote for Stief and O'Boyle for Antietam School Board on May 19th.

Liberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California

2009-05-14T17:07:00.001-04:00

by Ann Coulter
Posted 05/13/2009 ET
Updated 05/14/2009 ET

Not even Dick Cheney can incite the blood-curdling rage of liberals at the sight of a sexy Evangelical Christian. Paula Jones, Katherine Harris, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and, most recently, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, have all come under a frenzy of attacks from liberals.

Christians are supposed to be fat, balding sweaty little men with bad complexions. It's liberals who are supposed to be the sexy ones. (I know that from watching "The West Wing" and all movies starring Julia Roberts.)

But sadly for liberals, in real life, the fat, balding sweaty little guy with the bad complexion is Perez Hilton and the smoking-hot babe is Carrie Prejean.

This apparent contradiction incites violent anger in liberals, triggering their famous "fight or flight" response. So liberal masturbators are, once again, launching furious attacks on a beautiful Christian in a fit of pique similar to the one directed at Joan of Arc.

First, the Miss USA contest held a press conference to announce that Prejean had breast implants. Take a Christian position in public and Satan's handmaidens will turn all your secrets into front-page news.

Next, a photographer released a single cheesecake photo of Prejean. This prompted liberal reporters who have never met a Christian to proclaim that Christians were outraged by the photo. Liberals believe abortion is a sacrament, but smoking, wearing short skirts and modeling lingerie are mortal sins. (And if wearing women's underwear is a basis for being disqualified from the pageant, that's the end of Perez Hilton's judging career.)

Then on Monday some genuine "semi-nude" photos were released. These were not what we'd call appropriate for a Christian. In a curiously similar attack, the left's final attempt to destroy Paula Jones was to lure her into appearing naked in Penthouse magazine. Oh well.

Christians aren't people who believe they are without sin; they're people who know they're sinners and are awestruck by God's grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve.

This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they're on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being "basically good" people -- and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil.

Finally (so far, anyway), reporters gleefully released the divorce records of Prejean's parents. Because when you want the truth, what is more reliable than angry accusations traded in the middle of an acrimonious divorce?

Liberals used the divorce papers to argue that Prejean had some deep-seated psychological disturbance causing her to oppose gay marriage. Symptoms of this debilitating illness include a belief in some sort of "god" and a reverence for the Bible.

It's not as if Prejean's special talent in the Miss USA contest was to perform an opposite-sex marriage. (Or, as the president and I call it, "marriage.") She didn't even volunteer her "controversial" views on marriage. Rather, she was asked for her opinion on gay marriage and gave it -- in an answer wrapped in so many layers of sugar it took 10 minutes to get to the point.

"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised, and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."

What a vicious hate-monger! Any second there I was expecting her to bust out a "by golly!" or an "oh my gosh!" Angry gay-marriage supporters should be happy they didn't get my version of that answer. It contains some terms you won't find in your Bible.

Liberals wouldn't attack James Dobson with the amount of bile they've directed at a 21-year-old beauty contestant. It's not just Christianity -- it's women liberals hate.

From Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso and Bertrand Russell, who treated women -- mostly their mistresses -- like dogs, to Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton in our own day, liberals are ferocious misogynists. They share Muslims' opinion of women, differing only to the extent that liberals also support a women's right to have an abortion and to perform lap dances.

You'd be better off in a real burqa than under the authority of a liberal American male.

I'm not sure we needed a psychological profile of Prejean to figure out why she holds the same position on gay marriage as: the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and his mistress, and the vast majority of the American people.

But what is crying out for an explanation is why every bubble-head TV news anchorette from a nice, churchgoing red state ends up adopting the political views of Karl Marx.

From Katie Couric on CBS to Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC, the whole stable of TV anchorettes weirdly have the exact same politics as their liberal masters. It's the ideological burqa women are required to wear to work in the mainstream media. As with a conventional burqa, it enforces conformity and severely restricts the vision.

The only way to protect yourself is to do the liberal male's bidding, as the bubble-head anchorettes do, or stand on the rock of Christianity.

Now, another beautiful Christian has thrown off the liberal burqa, thereby inciting mass hysteria throughout the liberal establishment. Prejean doesn't care. She is blazing across the sky, as impotent nose-pickers jockey for a piece of her reflected light by hurling insults at her.

Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Prayer Indeed

2009-05-08T04:54:00.008-04:00

John Fielding

The Huffington Post reports that the Obama Administration, while issuing a proclamation regarding the National Day of Prayer, has not planned much participation in it. Even this participation has somewhat embarrassed the Obama Administration's allies such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

I say that the Obama Administration may do more for prayer than any other administration in history. What with massive majorities in both houses and left wing loonies in the White House, and massive spending and deficits as far as the eye can see, Americans would do well to pray.

Ultimately, Obama's policies may do more for the frequency and fervency of prayer in the United States than anything else.

And From the Fever Swamps of the Left Wing Crazies....

2009-05-07T15:42:00.004-04:00

John Fielding

I decided to look in on my favorite left wing blog, The Pennsylvania Progressive, and there is a post there entitled "Specter's Strategy is Perfect," written by a regular contributor, Jamoca.

Jamoca poses the theory that Specter switched and then equivocated with respect to being a "real" Democrat (whatever that is) to create a split in the Democratic ranks between alleged establishment types who want to give Specter a free ride in the Democratic promary on the theory that Specter's victory is inevitable and those who want a "real" Democrat to run against him because Specter won't hop to their tune on a progressive platform. Jamoca posits that Specter did this on purpose to split the Dems and guarantee a GOP win in the race.

Frankly, from the standpoint of an outside observer, the Democrats generally don't need any help when it comes to splits in their ranks, and Jamoca and his/her ilk are largely responsible for them. He/She should like them; his/her prescription for getting "rid" of political parties (as if one could have Congress repeal human nature) is a recipe for chaos and disaster if ever there were one.

Later, John Morgan published an article that has Sestak contemplating a run against Specter because Sestak is alleged to be a "real" Democrat, and Specter is still a Republican in philosophy. One can only hope.

Sestak will not beat Specter, but he will be required, as a practical matter, to give up what used to be Curt Weldon's seat to run, thus affording the GOP a double chance to beat the Democrats in Fall 2010: both Specter and Sestak.

And, after eight years of "compassionate conservativism" and whatever vile slurry of fascism/national socialism Obama has served up for two years, we will finally get a chance to see someone with real conservative cred run in a statewide race. And beat two Democrats; always a good thing.

Arlen Leaves; Too Bad He's Still A Democrat

2009-04-29T09:43:00.002-04:00

John Fielding

Arlen Specter, showing that principle and steadfastness for which he has justly become famous, has taken a formal walk on the Republican Party, a walk that he had taken operationally years ago.

I had just moved to Philadelphia in August of 1980 when it was time for the Senatorial election between Specter and Peter Flaherty. I was not a Republican committeeman at the time (although I had registered Republican and joined the New Jersey Libertarian Party in 1972). But my instincts were still good. I voted for Flaherty.

In fact, after Specter made his announcement, I pondered the number of times I had actually voted for Specter: once. In 1986, Specter ran against Bob Edgar, a legislator from the Southeast,who was reeeeeeaaaaaallllly liberal. That, plus the fact that Specter had promised to support Reagan's judicial nominees, led me to vote for Specter.

Then, he turned on Bork. It was the first, and last, time I voted for Specter.

I am a veeeeerrrrrry conservative Republican. But on any given day on any given issue, I am as tempted to compromise by siding with other, more liberal, Republicans just as I am to give in to my old conservative compatriots who, being more conservative and not being in the Republican Party, tug on my other arm.

Fact is, the Republican Party needs a housecleaning. I would rather have Gideon's 300 than an entire army if I can count on those 300. After the Goldwater election of 1964, came the GOP gains in 1966. And when the GOP has made gains, it has been when they have returned to their core conservative principles. When GOP has lost, it is because it has fallen prey to the siren song of the "strange new respect" chorus from the elitist left. The GOP needs to politely decline proffered advice from those that have never meant it any good.

So, if Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and that has been (or never was), Christine Todd Whitman, don't like it, they can follow Arlen. Regrettably, we in Pennsylvania can't do much to affect that. We've done enough good for one election cycle.

Further, I predict that if Specter gets the Democratic nomination, and Toomey wins the GOP nod, Toomey wins in November. If my progressive friends think that is unrealistic, think about how many Obama Democrats vote in off-year elections. think Saxby Chambliss.

Should We Kill the Fed?

2009-04-03T16:31:00.000-04:00

by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)
Posted 04/03/2009 ET
Updated 04/03/2009 ET

For the financial crisis that has wiped out trillions in wealth, many have felt the lash of public outrage.

Fannie and Freddie. The idiot-bankers. The AIG bonus babies. The Bush Republicans and Barney Frank Democrats who bullied banks into making mortgages to minorities who could not afford the houses they were moving into.

But the Big Kahuna has escaped.

The Federal Reserve.

"(T)he very people who devised the policies that produced the mess are now posing as the wise public servants who will show us the way out," writes Thomas Woods in "Meltdown."

Already in its sixth week on the New York Times best-seller list, this eminently readable book traces the Fed's role in every financial crisis since this creature was spawned on Jekyl Island in 1913.

The "forgotten depression" of 1920-21 was caused by a huge increase in the money supply for President Wilson's war. When the Fed started to tighten at war's end, production fell 20 percent from mid-1920 to mid-1921, far more than today.

Why did we not read about that depression?

Because the much-maligned Warren Harding refused to intervene. He let businesses and banks fail and prices fall. Hence, the fever quickly broke, and we were off into "the Roaring Twenties."

But, the Fed reverted, expanding the money supply by 55 percent, an average of 7.3 percent a year, not through an expansion of the currency, but through loans to businesses.

Thus, when the Fed tightened in the overheated economy, the Crash came, as the stock market bubble the Fed had created burst.

Herbert Hoover, contrary to the myth that he was a small-government conservative, renounced laissez-faire, raised taxes, launched public works projects, extended emergency loans to failing businesses and lent money to the states for relief programs.

Hoover did what Obama is doing.

Indeed, in 1932, FDR lacerated Hoover for having presided over the "greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." His running mate, John Nance Garner, accused Hoover of "leading the country down the path to socialism." And "Cactus Jack" was right.

Terrified of the bogeyman that causes Ben Bernanke sleepless nights -- deflation, falling prices -- FDR ordered crops destroyed, pigs slaughtered, and business cartels to cut production and fix prices.

FDR mistook the consequences of the Depression -- falling prices -- for the cause of the depression. But prices were simply returning to where they belonged in a free market, the first step in any cure.

Obama is repeating the failed policies of Hoover and FDR, by refusing to let prices fall. Obama, with his intervention to prop up housing prices and Bernanke with his gushers of money to bail out bankrupt banks and businesses are creating a new bubble that will burst even more spectacularly.

The biggest myth, writes Woods, is that it was World War II that ended the Great Depression. He quotes Paul Krugman:

"What saved the economy and the New Deal was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy's needs."

This Nobel Prize winner's analysis, writes Woods, is a "stupefying and bizarre misunderstanding of what actually happened,"

Undoubtedly, with 29 percent of the labor force conscripted at one time or another into the armed forces, and their jobs taken by elderly men, women and teenagers with little work experience, unemployment will fall.

But how can an economy be truly growing 13 percent a year, as the economists claim, when there is rationing, shortages everywhere, declining product quality, an inability to buy homes and cars, and a longer work week? When the cream of the labor force is in boot camps or military bases, or storming beaches, sailing ships, flying planes and marching with rifles, how can your real economy be booming?

It was 1946, a year economists predicted would result in a postwar depression because government spending fell by two-thirds, that proved the biggest boom year in all of American history.

Why? Because the real economy was producing what people wanted: cars, TVs, homes. Businesses were responding to consumers, not the clamor of a government run by dollar-a-year men who wanted planes, tanks, guns and ships to blow things up.

"The Fed was the greatest single contributor to the crisis that unfolds before us," Woods writes of today, and "more dollars were created between 2000 and 2007 than in the rest of the republic's history."

After 9-11, the Fed kept interest rates low -- in one year as low as 1 percent. That money flooded into the housing and stock markets. And in 2008, as the Fed tightened, the bubble burst.

Now the money supply is again expanding, to rescue us from a crisis created by the previous expansion. Of Nicholas Biddle's Bank of the United States, the great Andrew Jackson was eloquent.

"It has tried to kill me," he said. "But I will kill it." And he did.

Should not this creature from Jekyl Island, for all its manifold crimes and sins against the republic, also be summarily put to death?

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives

2009-03-31T10:54:00.001-04:00

John Hawkins
Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Liberals spend much of their time trying to hide what they believe from the public while conservatives are perpetually frustrated by the fact that the American people don't seem to understand what we really believe. Both problems spring from a single source: liberals lie incessantly. That's not to say that there aren't conservative liars or truthful liberals; there are, but for liberals, lying is the rule, not the exception.

There are two reasons why liberals lie much more than conservatives. First off, this is a center-right country and liberal beliefs are much more unpopular than conservative ones. If liberals told the truth about what they believe and want to do, the Democratic Party would practically be wiped out in much of the country.

Additionally, conservatives tend to think liberals are merely stupid or emotional, while liberals tend to view conservatives as evil -- and liberals use that belief to justify lying about conservatives. After all, if you lie about someone who's evil to keep them from doing bad things, couldn't that be considered virtuous? You may disagree with that, but liberal politicians, bloggers, and journalists live by that rule. Any lie told about a conservative, even one that liberals know isn't true, will be uncritically repeated ad nauseum by the Left until the point it becomes politically disadvantageous to do so.

So, in order to help fight the lies of the Left, here's a guide to the most prevalent techniques that liberals use to mislead people about conservatives. If you're listening to liberals talk about conservatives, you're virtually guaranteed to hear at least one of these techniques used.

1) Question The Motivations: When liberals are losing an argument, they love to shift the discussion not to the facts at hand, but to the motivation of the person on the other side. That's because it's almost impossible to prove what someone's motive may be for a particular action.

Thus, liberals can claim that Charles Pickering, a man who went toe-to-toe with the Mississippi Ku Klux Klan in the sixties, is actually a racist or that George Bush invaded Iraq to try to steal its oil.

From the liberal perspective, the more shameless the lies, the better because the target of the scandalous accusation and his defenders will often waste inordinate amounts of time and energy fighting ridiculous, unfounded allegations that a certain percentage of uninformed Americans will simply assume are true without evidence.

2) The Anonymous Smear: Want to launch an attack at a conservative, but don't have a credible source handy? No problem. Just take a vicious critic or an unreliable source and make them "anonymous."

CBS did it with Bill Burkett, who provided them with the fake "Bush was AWOL" documents during the 2004 campaign. Had they revealed who he was, the story would have been treated as not credible from day one.

If even that proves too troublesome, some members of the media (I strongly suspect Seymour Hersh is guilty of this) just make things up and attribute them to non-existent sources. Since their sources are anonymous, unless they make the mistake of including verifiable details like the New Republic's Scott Beauchamp, it's almost impossible to prove they're lying.

3) The Teary Eyed Spokesman: One of the Left's favorite tactics of late is to pick pathetic figures we're supposed to feel sorry for as spokesmen. That way, if you try to respond to the lies of someone like Cindy Sheehan, you're accused of picking on the mother of a dead soldier. If you try to respond to the lies of Max Cleland, you're accused of picking on a crippled vet. At this point, I'm surprised they haven't found a gaunt, stuttering orphan to serve as Obama's Press Secretary. Worst-case scenario, he couldn't do much worse than Robert Gibbs.

4) Rewriting History: The American public has a short memory and liberals count on that to get away with many of their most egregious lies. For example, that's the factor liberals count on when they try to pretend that George Bush lied about WMDs to get us into Iraq. Lies of that sort usually seem to work until someone points out that Democrats, including our current Secretary of State, were saying things like this before the war,

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

5) Everybody Knows: When liberals want to avoid a losing argument, they sometimes just refuse to have the argument at all and assure everyone that the matter has already been decided. Why, there's no need for Al Gore to even debate global warming with people who could easily blow holes the size of the Grand Canyon in his arguments because he insists that there's a non-existent "scientific consensus."

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? As long as the Kerry campaign ignored them, most of the mainstream media did, too, but then the line of attack was immediately that the Swifties had already been "discredited." Who discredited them? How did it happen? What made them less credible than Kerry, particularly since they made him change his story more than once? Whenever you hear liberals in some form or fashion insisting that the argument with conservatives on a particular issue is already over, it's a good indication that they believe they'll really get their clocks cleaned in a straight up debate.

6) The Ransom Note Method: One of the Left's favorite tricks is to take something a conservative says completely out-of-context and to attack that comment, even if it's obvious that they're twisting the meaning of what was said. This is how the Left can accuse John McCain of wanting to fight for 100 years in Iraq or say Rush Limbaugh wants Barack Obama to fail even if it hurts the country.

This one is especially insidious because some conservatives foolishly blame other conservatives for having their words taken out of context. However, the reality is that if someone is determined to distort what you say, he can always find something to twist around. The people who deserve blame in that situation are not the people whose words were misrepresented; it's the liars who have chosen to misrepresent what they said.

7) The Straw Man: If you can't find a sin conservatives have committed to attack, then invent one. This is one of the most used arrows in the quiver of liberals who claim the Right wants to create a theocracy, kick senior citizens off of Social Security, or reward the rich at the expense of the middle class.

The Left uses this tactic against specific politicians as well. Remember during the 2004 campaign when the Left kept promising to fight a draft that Bush didn't propose and didn't support? How about all the attacks on Saxby Chambliss because he supposedly questioned the patriotism of crippled war vet Max Cleland? Except, of course, Saxby Chambliss never questioned Cleland's patriotism.

Unlike liberals, conservatives believe most Americans share our values and so, if you want to know what we think, all you have to do is ask us and we will tell you.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

A Rookie President

2009-03-31T10:50:00.000-04:00

Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.

We now have a rookie President of the United States and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other Presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been President before. He has never had any position of major executive responsibility in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.

Other first-term Presidents have been governors, generals, cabinet members or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and had not spent half their few years in the senate running for President.

What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every President has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil and certainly speak no evil.

They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder-- and they would make excuses for that. Even former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama and even crusty Bill O'Reilly has been impressed by Obama's demeanor.

There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes-- and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.

What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.

Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives-- and theirs-- in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?

In the name of "change," Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them-- certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by "social studies" or other politically correct courses.

Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? France did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

This year, President Obama's attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians-- a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.

Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime-- which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.

However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as President of the United States was to Hamas, to whom he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama's visibly less impressive reception of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous Presidents over the past two generations have received British Prime Ministers. President Obama's sending the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

We can lose some very big games with this rookie.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

A Lesson for Today

2009-03-25T10:48:00.000-04:00

The Weimar Solution

2009-03-24T11:32:00.001-04:00

by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted 03/24/2009 ET
Updated 03/24/2009 ET

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency,” said Lord Keynes.

Ben Bernanke disagrees. A student of the Depression, the Fed chair appears far more fearful of deflation — a vicious cycle of falling prices, debt defaults, home foreclosures and rising unemployment.

Deflation is what America underwent in the 1930s. A Fed-created bubble burst, causing margin calls to go out to stockholders, who ran to their banks that, besieged, collapsed, wiping out a third of our money. As Milton Friedman, who won a Nobel for his thesis that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, told PBS in 2000:

“For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing … with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.

“(T)he Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were … urging them to do that. So it was … clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression.”

Is Bernanke fighting the war of 1929 in 2009? Surely, today, with the explosion in M1, the basic money supply, there is no shortage of dollars out there, even if they are not circulating fast enough.

To end our recession, Bernanke may be running an even greater risk: hyper-inflation. This has destroyed more nations than deflation or even depression.

Recall: It was French military intervention in the Ruhr in 1923, to force payment of war reparations, and Weimar’s decision to let the currency fall and pay the French in cheap marks that led to the wipeout of the German middle class, the discrediting of that democratic republic and the Munich beer-hall putsch of Adolf Hitler.

“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation,” said Ernest Hemingway, “is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.”

Which brings us to last week’s shocker.

The Fed will buy up $300 billion in long-term Treasury bonds and spend $750 billion more buying sub-prime mortgages to remove them from the balance sheets of ailing big banks, to get the banks lending again.

Bernanke is printing money to buy U.S. bonds.

This new gusher from the Fed, after the $700 billion TARP bailout, comes on top of a Congressional Budget Office estimate that this year’s deficit will be $1.85 trillion, 13.1 percent of gross domestic product, more than twice the share of the U.S. economy of the largest previous postwar deficit.

Concluding the dollar is being abandoned in a frantic Fed effort to stop the recession, markets reacted instantly. The dollar plunge was the steepest since the Plaza Agreement of 1985. Gold shot up to $950 an ounce. Silver had a 12 percent run-up, the sharpest ever. Oil prices surged above $50 a barrel. Commodity markets advanced.

The Fed seems to have confirmed the fears of Premier Wen Jiabao, who said that China is “definitely a little worried” about the value of the U.S. bonds Beijing has purchased with the dollars piled up from her trade surpluses with the United States.

Can one blame the Chinese? They have already been burned on their U.S. investments. And if the defense of the dollar against its ancient enemy inflation is being abandoned, and protecting the dollar is to take a back seat to the Fed’s fight to avoid deflation, than it is indeed time to get out of the dollar and dollar-denominated assets.

For inflation is theft. It make liars and cheats of governments. By eroding the value of a currency, inflation punishes savers and creditors and rewards debtors. And what nation is the biggest debtor of them all? The United States of America.

Insidiously, inflation consumes the value of cash, savings, municipal bonds, corporate bonds, Treasury bonds and T-bills. Friends who lent America money, who bought our debt in good faith, are robbed and made fools of, while speculators who bet against America by shorting the dollar in the currency markets are vastly rewarded.

Given the $3.6 trillion budget Obama plans, the $1.8 trillion in red ink he will run by Oct. 1 and the trillions the Fed is pumping into the economy, gross domestic product should spike, as it did after the far smaller stimulus package of 2008.

We will feel a healthy glow, and folks will begin to sing, “Happy Days Are Here Again.”

Yet, one senses that we are doing again exactly what we have done before in this generation. Rather than endure the pain and accept the sacrifices to cure us of our addiction, we are going back to the heroin. And this time, with Dr. Bernanke handling the needle, we may just overdose.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.