“I may not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.” Voltaire

Who would have ever thought a philosopher from France (of all places) would support individual freedoms more than American political leaders? Not moi, but unfortunately we’re not making American political leaders like we used to!

Much has recently been made of Florida preacher Terry Jones’ burning of the Koran and the subsequent Afghanistan riots that resulted in the murders and beheadings of UN workers. What has been more repugnant, but not surprising, is the speed in which American political leaders have rushed in front of cameras to condemn Jones and even suggest restricting the First Amendment and freedom of speech!

South Carolina RINO Senator Lindsey Graham appeared on CBS Face The Nation yesterday. He stated:

“You know I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”

Senate Leader Harry Reid added on the same program:

“Ten to 20 people have been killed. We’ll take a look at this of course…as to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”

Shame on these lame excuses for Americans! Graham has the audacity to state “free speech is a great idea?” No, Senator Graham, free speech is one of the cornerstone liberties that separate America from the totalitarian controls in countries where citizens suffer with the oppression of communism or sharia law. It is America’s love and defense of individual freedoms and rights that serve as the backbone of our love and defense of liberty.

(more…)

A lot has been written on this site and elsewhere concerning the Pledge to America that the Republicans unveiled on Friday. For the most part, bloggers have been critical. Some have argued that it will not do the Republicans any good in November. Others dismiss it as milquetoast. Emily Esfahani Smith has done a good job collecting the comments.

I think the critics are wrong, quite wrong – and for two reasons. First, those who drafted the Pledge took great care to ground everything that they had to say in first principles. They drew the attention of the nation to the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution. Then, they pointed to our departure from these principles in recent years, asserting that the Democrats bear prime responsibility for this, but acknowledging Republican failures as well.

And, finally, they spelled out the corrective measures that are most pressing – a repeal of Obamacare (not a collection of minor adjustments); a reduction of federal expenditures (apart from those devoted to national defense) back to the level of 2008; and an extension of the tax cuts introduced by George W. Bush.

Should they have gone further? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is a document devised for three purposes. It is aimed at winning an election, at preparing a party now in opposition for legislative hegemony, and at initiating an enduring partisan realignment. In such circumstances, two things are necessary. A simple straightforward set of principles needs to be announced, and the most pressing concerns need to be directly addressed.

(more…)

I’ve been joking recently that the political climate was moving into territory where it would be impossible for even the GOP to screw up the November elections. I was wrong. Tuesday’s special election to replace the deceased Rep. John Murtha, where a credible GOP candidate lost by almost ten points, proves that we should never underestimate the GOP’s ability to squander its advantages and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

First, lets dismiss with a few of the challenges the GOP faced in the special election. The district, Pennsylvania 12, is a gerrymandered mess, designed to elect a Democrat. There are twice as many registered Democrats in the district as Republicans. Although the Presidential election in 2008 was close, in prior years the Democrat candidate won the district in a walk.

The special election was scheduled on the same day as a hotly-contested Democrat primary, guaranteeing a boost in the party’s turnout. There was a gadfly “tea party” candidate auditioning for the role of spoiler and a somewhat complicated voting process where supporters of the GOP candidate, Tim Burns, had to vote twice; once in the GOP primary and again in the actual special election. And, the Democrat candidate had the full support of the left’s political machine and an army of supporters from Big Labor, in one of the few remaining districts where that matters.

All of these dynamics pointed to a close race. They do not, however, add up to the blowout suffered by Burns on Tuesday. Remember, Burns’ opponent, Mark Critz, was a former staffer for John Murtha. He actually campaigned that he was the economic development director for the former Congressman. He negotiated the earmark deals that cast an ethical cloud above the Congressman and filled a grand jury docket. He said he was a pro-life Democrat, as if that means anything in a post-Stupak world. Oh, and he said he opposed ObamaCare but wouldn’t vote to repeal it. It seems he was against it before he was for it.

(more…)

Conservatives need to be wary of the notion that General David Petraeus – or, for that matter, any other general or admiral – is necessarily the answer to their fervent prayers for victory in 2012.  GEN Petraeus is a true hero, an awesome leader and a great American whom every citizen owes a debt of gratitude.  But politically, he presents an ideological blank slate upon which many on the right are merely projecting their hopes and aspirations.  For several reasons, GEN Petraeus is likely to disappoint them.

The most obvious reason is that GEN Petraeus himself has repeatedly and unequivocally rejected the idea of ever running for public office.  Cynical observers routinely discount such disclaimers, but there are several reasons to believe that he really means it.  As the commander of CENTCOM, responsible for both Iraq and Afghanistan, GEN Petraeus has a full plate and a mission he has not yet completed.  He is committed to the mission, and has worked for its success for nearly a decade (I have not worked for GEN Petraeus personally, but I have close friends who have worked directly for him – to the point of receiving emails from him at home at odd hours after their return to civilian life – and they uniformly deeply respect him).  He was also diagnosed with prostate cancer.  But the most powerful evidence against a possible run is that he has said he would not run.  Unlike many in the political arena, his word and a dollar are together worth more than 100 cents.

But assuming he could be enticed to run – say, if he was absolutely convinced that the good of the nation depended upon it – what then?  His storied military career and his ability to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq via “the Surge” have fueled speculationabout whether he can follow in Eisenhower’s footsteps from the command post to the White House.  Like Ike, GEN Petraeus would probably be most comfortable as a Republican.  He was registered in the GOP before 2002, when he stopped voting.  The American Enterprise Institute recently honored him.  And he doesn’t seem like he would have much use for defeatists and pacifists, social parasites or the unbelievably corrupt, so he couldn’t be a Democrat.

(more…)

Apparently there is to be a vote later today on a bill regarding Puerto Rican statehood. They are calling it “non-binding” but it is not non-binding! It is a trap. The bill makes eventual Puerto Rican statehood a virtual certainty. This is despite the fact that statehood has been voted down repeatedly. The Puerto Rican people don’t want it!

But since when has that stopped the Left from ramming what they want down people’s throats? And why do they want this? The same reason they want everything, to further entrench their power. Statehood would mean two new senators, six or seven new representatives, a whole slew of new voters and tons of opportunities to spend more of your money. As Examiner.com’s Robert Moon points out:

Due to its dense population of poverty-stricken minorities, Puerto Rico can be counted on to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and all their handouts, and their representation will also consequently outnumber that of 25 other existing U.S. states.

Meanwhile, with Puerto Ricans having an average income of less than half that of our poorest state, they will instantly become eligible for dozens of our welfare programs. Truckloads of taxpayer dollars will also have to be perpetually dumped into the territory, by federal law, to bring it up to American infrastructure and environmental standards.

Oh, and never mind us. We don’t get a say in this either. Puerto Rico, which doesn’t want statehood, is being forced to vote, while we American citizens, who have a vested interest in the outcome, will not be given the opportunity to vote! Simply incredible!

(more…)

It’s not often the two Republican Senators from Maine safeguard the country from excessive government with more vigilance than a Republican Senator from Tennessee.  But on the issue of Financial Reform, Sen. Collins and Snowe have become champions for the taxpayers — holding the line against more bailouts and bureaucracy — while Sen. Bob Corker continues to push the country toward permanent bailouts and a Washington regulatory scheme “one like we have not seen before.”

Big Government readers are well aware of Corker’s repeated attempts to cut a deal with “Countrywide” Chris Dodd.  Despite signing a letter pledging to oppose the legislation, Corker is now taking to the airwaves denying the legislation contains a permanent bank bailout provision.

Neat trick Senator. Swear to your constituents that you oppose further bailouts and then push a bailout bill by simply saying it contains no bailouts.

Corker has become to Financial Reform what Sen. Lindsey Graham is to climate change legislation — a sucker.  And his words are being used by left-wing activists to deny there is a bailout in the legislation.

(more…)

It’s appreciably more difficult for Washington politicians to amaze Americans who paid any attention at all to what has been transpiring in Washington. And that number is growing. But the Democrats are giving it their best shot.

Read this just out from Politico, explaining that the Senate’s committee process simply must be suspended to jam through Obama’s energy/cap-and-tax Power Grab, because it is so expansive that it would invoke the jurisdiction of six Senate committees. These include the tax-writing Finance Committee, because cap-and-trade and the new gas tax (styled by some cheerleaders who think you’re stupid as a “carbon-linked fee”).

So, again, Harry Reid is going to write a couple of thousand pages — and try to buy off the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with revenues taken from you — in closed-door, back room deals. The ability to do so is one reason the bill in its House version grew to 1,400 pages, bigger and bigger with each closed-door deal. There are so many ways to design this takeover and the wealth transfers and lost freedoms involved, and to hide and target the hurt.

If that sounds like the health care takeover, it should. It’s the same thing. As the perpetrators admit to Politico. So possibly C-SPAN might ask to be involved. Surely the White House can come up with a better response than last time.

(more…)

What is the most important issue facing the American people today? Until late last Fall, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, the presidents of our major universities, and the editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time, The New Yorker, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, WNBC, and the like –  not to mention the scientific establishment in the United States – were as one in telling us that global warming was a profound threat to our well-being and that of the rest of mankind. And John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and sadly, in the end, a hapless George W. Bush were willing to lend the hysterics a measure of aid and comfort.

In the United States Senate, the indomitable James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma was very nearly alone in standing up to denounce the whole enterprise as a hoax, and in turn he was himself denounced by all right-thinking people as a scoundrel and a fool. There were, of course, scientists proficient in meteorology who entertained grave doubts, and some of them made a great fuss, but they were soon denied federal funding for further research, and young entrants into the profession quickly learned that if they wished to have successful careers it was incumbent on them to join the chorus who denounced global-warming skeptics as lackeys of the fossil fuels industry. The global-warming cabal was to the liberal democracies of our time what  Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and his disciples were to biology in the Soviet Union of Josef Stalin.

When he became President, Barack Obama pledged to “roll back the specter of a warming planet” and “restore science to its rightful place,” implying – graceless as always – that the administration of George W. Bush had suppressed inconvenient scientific truths in the interests of ideology. In fact, Obama seems not to have understood what he was saying, for a specter is “an apparition inspiring dread,” and it is one of the principal functions of science to dispel illusions of this very sort; and, instead of debunking “the specter of a warming planet” and restoring “science to its rightful place” thereby, he embraced that specter and sought by way of inspiring dread in the American people to railroad his compatriots into subjecting the entire economy to the supervision of the administrative state.

(more…)

As Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are working on a Senate version of comprehensive immigration reform and it includes a very controversial idea.  There is a provision in the draft bill to force all Americans to possess a biometric ID card.  Sources on Capitol Hill confirm to Big Government that the idea of a national ID card is part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill being negotiated between Graham and Schumer.

Laura Meckler of the Wall Street Journal reports:

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Under the pre-text of halting illegal immigration, Congress may consider forcing citizens to carry an ID card as a condition of citizenship.  For those who mistrust big government and treasure freedom, this idea should be revolting and a shocking example of a bad idea run wild.  American citizens’ freedoms have been eroding over the past few years, yet this idea is much more than an erosion of rights.  It is an all out assault on the idea that Americans have a natural right to be free of government monitoring. (more…)

During the Presidential “Media Fest” Campaign of 2007/08, many tried to impress upon the American people that Obama was an empty suit.  Quite simply, he had no significant legislative achievement to call his own.  Heck, as an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times, according to the New York Times:  “effectively sidestepping” issues.  The point of those who pressed Obama’s lack of executive experience and sidestepping tactics was that we could not afford a President who would do the same.

Ten months into the Obama Presidency, it is pretty clear that Obama is living up to his Absentee Legislator past.  Painful examples abound:

1. Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Criminal Court.  Arguably one of the most detrimental legal and foreign policy decisions of our time, and Obama openly admits it wasn’t his call – it was an underling’s call – Eric Holder.  It was a terrible decision and, as Senator Lindsey Graham pointed out, an unprecedented decision.  While I doubt Obama sat purely on the sidelines on this decision, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that someone other than Obama has to take responsibility for this decision – good or bad.  And when it goes bad, then Obama will simply dump Holder.  Problem solved.
2. Health Care.  What’s a President to do when he is devoid of any significant legislation to his name?  Allow the most significant piece of legislation in the last 40 years to be written and managed by others.  Literally.   Before us is the biggest makeover of the relationship of the private sector and government since the Great Depression and Obama is merely a passenger on a bus being driven by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  When it fails the American people, and it will, Obama will rightfully claim it wasn’t his bill.  Such is the prerogative of an Absentee President.
3. The Stimulus Bill.  It’s failing.  Indeed, over 3 million jobs have been lost since the Stimulus Bill was passed – a bill laden with pork because its passage was driven by someone other than Obama (not to say he would have passed a trimmed down bill).  Beyond that, we find out that the AIG bailout money was misspent – who would have thought?  Since the President can’t be in charge of such failures, and Obama can’t blame Pelosi or Reid,  the fall guy will be Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner – because, in time, simply blaming President Bush won’t be effective anymore.
4. The November Elections.  Even though Obama went and put his personal prestige on the line for New Jersey Governor Corzine, Corzine was soundly beat – as was the Democrat candidate in Virginia – a race Obama wouldn’t touch.  But those results, according to Obama, had nothing to do with him – those were races with local implications not national influences.

(more…)

From the “Imagine if a Democrat did this” files – say, in the context of opposing President Obama’s effort to transform our health care insurance and delivery systems . It seems that a Republican Senator has been outed as hopping in the sack with an advocacy group from the other team, itself exposed as financing ads on his behalf in support of his abandoning what has become a marquee issue for his party.

Oh, and to top it off, his staff began by deceiving about it and end (for now) by telling a whopper in the struggle to avoid scrutiny over the mess.

That is, however, precisely what’s going on in the Palmetto State, at least according to this report about the latest twist in the long, strange saga of Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Without reciting the story ably summarized by a Gamecock writer, the whopper told in the scramble is this, offered by “Graham’s top South Carolina strategist, Richard Quinn” – as well as to others I have spoken to who have recently called the Senator’s office seeking to inquire about the oddity:

“‘Lindsey doesn’t support Cap & Trade and he will not support Cap & Trade,’ Quinn told us flatly.”

Except when he does.

(more…)

Sens. John Kerry and Lindsey Graham had a piece Sunday in the New York Times, stumbling through a pro-cap-and-trade routine. Initial thoughts on this homage to the bipartisanship fetish:

The “we even have different accents” bit tips their hand that the argument is as substantive as those Gore-group ads with Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson on a couch together. Not a bad parallel actually, though I can’t help but recall this far more entertaining version of the labored intro.

When one feels compelled to give six reasons why we ought to embrace their idea, you know they aren’t persuaded themselves with the “global warming” argument, and see little persuasive opportunity in it.

(more…)