Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Why democracy works in America, but not in Egypt

The American Revolution succeeded because the American people, at the time of the American Revolution in 1776, had been governing themselves for nearly two centuries. Even though nominally under British rule, the British government, for the most part, left us alone.

We set up our own local governing councils. The states drafted their own Constitutions, which then became the model for the eventual federal Constitution.

At the time of the American Revolution, the people of the 13 colonies were the wealthiest people in the British Empire. Because of a respect for property rights and the Protestant work ethic that reigned in America, America had thriving businesses. We dominated ship-building, the rum trade, the tobacco trade, and were challenging the British government’s East India Tea Company (a government monopoly) for the world’s tea business.

Hence the British government’s crackdown on the American tea business with a special tax on tea that led to the Boston Tea Party rebellion that triggered the American Revolution.

So the American people (then British subjects) had a history of living as free people.  We had been governing ourselves since 1620, the year the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock and adopted the Mayflower Compact.

The American people were also well-read in the literature of liberty. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (the greatest book ever written on why capitalism works so well to create wealth) was the most widely read book other than the Bible at the time of the American Revolution. The Americans were also heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke and William Blackstone.

America’s Declaration of Independence is really a summary of Locke’s theory of the Social Compact.

According to Locke, every person has a natural right, or God-given right, to life, liberty, and property.  It is government’s job to secure these rights.  Thomas Jefferson changed “property” to the “pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence because he was looking for a broader term that would include property.

Under Locke’s theory of the Social Compact, members of society agree to live within a shared system of laws. Government is instituted to make laws that protect these three natural rights — the right to life, liberty, and property. If a government does not properly protect these rights, we have a right and duty to overthrow that government.

Locke’s theory became the American idea. Locke’s theory was popularized by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet Common Sense.

The Mayflower Compact, adopted 156 year prior to the American Revolution, was the classic Lockean idea (though the Mayflower Compact predates Locke).

The point is, the American people had a 156-year tradition of living as free and independent people, governing themselves.

Heavily influenced also by the writings of William Blackstone, they had a deep respect for the “rule of law.”

So America had a tradition of being governed by the “rule of law,” not men.  In America, the law applies equally to all, including to government officials.

This is why the American Revolution succeeded.  Really, the American Revolution was not a revolution at all, in the minds of Americans at that time.

The Declaration of Independence, in fact, makes the case that the Americans were acting in self-defense. They were defending their own governing councils and their own Constitutions that had been in place for a century or more.

The Americans wanted to be free to continue to live as they had been living.

The American Revolution was not about creating a new kind of government. It was about defending a tradition of local government and local rule that had been in place in America for 156 years, since the signing of the Mayflower Compact — a tradition that included regular elections, the secret ballot, rule of law, and an understanding that the purpose of government is to secure our God-given rights to “life, liberty, and property.”

There is no such tradition in Egypt.

In a place like Egypt, democracy is used as a weapon for one faction or the other to seize power.  The losing side is then slughtered.  In a place like Egypt (and other Islamic countries

HARVARD STUDY: July 4th Celebrations Tend to Move Voters Toward Thinking and Voting Republican

Expect soon to see the gradual phasing out of July 4th celebrations. It will be done under the auspices of saving money.

CBS NEWS: A Harvard study argues that July 4th celebrations may not be as innocent as they seem – at least from the democratic perspective.

According to the report, published by Harvard University, July 4th-themed festivities (defined by the study as fireworks, parades, political speeches, and barbecues) not only energize primarily Republicans, but also turn children into Republicans and increase GOP voter turnout.

Simply put: “Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” says the report, which was written by Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

“The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century,” the authors write. “Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party.”

The study suggests that celebrating July 4 is, essentially, a lose-lose proposition for Democrats: Not only will they not likely gain any devotees from the festivities – they might actually lose some.

“There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization,” the study continues.

Children, the authors posit, are particularly vulnerable to the implications of the (apparently) politically-loaded parades.

“Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,” say Yanagizawa-Drott and Madestam.

“We were surprised to find that childhood experiences of Fourth July celebrations could have such persistent effects. The evidence suggests that important childhood events can have a permanent impact on political beliefs and behavior and that Fourth of July celebrations in the US affect the nation’s political landscape,” adds Yanagizawa-Drott.

Of course, not everyone will be particularly concerned with the possible political implications of July 4th celebrations. If you’re looking for a more patriotic experience, you might want to check out a parade in a particularly Republican-skewing part of town – according to the report, “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.”

Read more here >>>

FLASHBACK TO 2008: Obama makes big point of refusing to wear American flag lapel pin

Read also “Why Liberals Hate the American Flag” >>>

Watch This Amazing RNC Tribute to the Reagan Presidency

Just a Reminder of What a Real President Sounds Like


23 reasons why we are likely to see a second wave election against Barack Obama on November 6th

1) Elections are always about the economy.

2) Obama and Romney are roughly tied in the RCP average of polls and undecided voters always break against the incumbent.

3) Most polls are overstating the Democrat vote.

Cite the AP poll as example.

4) Romney is looking stronger in key mid-west battleground states since his selection of Paul Ryan.

5) Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan has energized the conservative base.

6) Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan has crystalized what this election is about.

7) Obama has yet to outline even a semblance of a plan for his second term.

Elections are always about the future.

8) ObamaCare

9) There is a simmering anger against Obama’s lies and his anti-Americanism bubbling like a volcano under the surface.

10) Most Americans favor capitalism over socialism.

11) The Wisconsin recall election as harbinger

12) Some shocking polls in traditionally solid blue states
Conn, Brown over Warren in Ma, Cook County

13) The unprecedented corruption of the Obama Administration

16) The $16 TRILLION national debt with trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

17) The non-FOX news media starting to turn against Obama

Tina.

Others in the mainstream media are starting to notice the embarrassing media bias in favor or Obama and have started to take correction action.

Is this the worst attack ad in the history of American politics?

If this is the best the Democrat Party of Florida can do, Mitt Romney might not need Marco Rubio as his veep runningmate to carry the state in the fall.  Mitt will be free to focus on Ohio instead.

This has to be just about the most inneffective attack ad in the history of American politics.

Here are just a few problems with the ad.

The main attack on Rubio is that he’s a follower of Jim DeMint — the conservative Republican Senator from South Carolina.

So this ad assumes Florida voters know who Jim DeMint is. Anyone who’s seen DeMint on TV and elsewhere would see him as very gentlemanly, not the least bit scary or offensive.  DeMint’s views are mainline conservative — pretty much in lockstep with Ronald Regaan’s. So comparing Rubio to DeMint (who few Florida voters even know) falls flat.

This ad also assumes most voters in Florida will know who Grover Norquist is — and dislike him.

Norquist is Harvard graduate who runs a perfectly mainstream group in Washington, DC called Americans for Tax Reform.  He was also the Best Man at my wedding way back in 1987.  Norquist thinks the tax code is too complicated.  He wants a simple flat tax.  He also thinks the U.S. government has has run up a $16 TRILLION debt NOT because Americans are under-taxed, but because Washington won’t control spending. Norquist opposes additional tax increases (noting that government at all levels already takes and spends 40 cents out of every dollar earned in America). Instead, Norquist favors spending cuts.

This ad, for some reason, assumes these positions will cause most Floridians to recoil in horror.

Then there’s the annoying music and incompetent lyrics. I’ll certainly continue to hum that part of the song about Rubio opposing the “Violence Against Women Act” (whatever that is).

Rubio should pay to run this ad over and over again across the state of Florida. That should ensure he wins reelection as many times as he wants.

You really have to wonder who approved this ad — who in the Florida Democratic Party headquarters first saw this footage and said: ‘Yes, that’s it! Brilliant! We must get this great ad up on the air as fast as possible! That’ll show Rubio.”

And you really have to wonder how much longer the hapless fellow who approved this ad will keep his job at the Florida Democrat Party.

Santorum expected to win Kansas caucus big today

CNN: If Rick Santorum wins the Kansas caucuses on Saturday, as most observers here expect, he might want to thank the voters — and Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

Romney and Gingrich have essentially ceded the Kansas race to Santorum, abandoning plans to campaign in the state ahead of the contest and instead focusing on Tuesday primaries in Mississippi and Alabama.
“We chased all the candidates out of Kansas!” the former Pennsylvania senator said at a Wichita rally Friday evening, according to news reports.

Not exactly: Texas Rep. Ron Paul campaigned in Kansas on Friday and will continue on Saturday. Paul has yet to win any of the GOP contests this political season, though he could do well in the Sunflower State.

“I think we’re going to have a good win here in Kansas,” Santorum said Friday on CNN’s “John King, U.S.A.”.

Kansas is home to many social conservatives that ideologically mesh with Santorum’s anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-family, pro-religious freedom stances. Those positions helped Santorum barrel to primary victory in the neighboring states of Oklahoma in last week’s Super Tuesday contests, and in Missouri on February 7.

Read more here >>>

Will the 2012 election really be about contraceptives? Really?

Rick Santorum is coming under fire from liberals for, well, apparently not using contraceptives in his personal life.

He adheres to the Catholic doctrine that we should always keep ourselves open to the potential of human life — that is, conception. Official Catholic Church doctrine opposes contraception, especially abortion pills that actually do take human lives.

Rick Santorum is not saying contraceptives should be outlawed or not available. He is not trying to deny anyone access to contraceptives.

He even voted for federal funding for contraceptives in Africa to try to stop the spread of AIDS.

All he’s saying is how he chooses to live his own life — which is in accordance with traditional Catholic teachings.

What the heck is wrong with that?

He’s not saying you have to live your life that way.  But he also doesn’t think it’s so good that Planned Parenthood, the Left, the public schools, and our governing institutions work ’round the clock to addict children to sex.

Furthermore, we’ve somehow lost the point of insurance.

Health insurance is supposed to protect one against catastrophic financial loss. It’s not supposed to cover hang nails, colds, and other relatively minor costs of health care.

I’ve always bought health insurance with a $5,000 deductible. I’ve always figured I’ll just pay for routine out-of-pocket medical costs myself. This makes my health insurance relatively cheap.

But if the insurance company is expected to pay for all health care costs — every doctor’s visit, every hang nail, every sniffle, then the cost of the insurance goes way up.

Condoms and birth control pills are super cheap. We don’t need health insurance for that.

But, of course, this issue has nothing to do with health care.

It’s about using ObamaCare as a weapon against religious people and those who adhere to traditional moral values on sex and marriage. Obama and his liberal allies are looking to use ObamaCare to force its liberal morality on churches, religious institutions, and religious people.

Part of the Obama strategy here, no doubt, is to divert attention away from his failed Presidency, including the disastrous economy and $16 TRILLION national debt. He would prefer to talk about contraceptives than the fiasco of his Presidency.

Keep in mind that ObamaCare does not fully kick in until 2014.

The requirement that you pay for abortion pills and other abortion services as part of your health insurance, even if you are pro-life,  is just the first freedom-crushing decree by ObamaCare. We’ll call this ObamaCare Decree #1.

Get set for many more of these kinds of freedom-crushing decrees by Obama and his bureaucrats.

Liberal Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz Says: Media Matters is Obama’s new Jeremiah Wright

DAILY CALLER: Liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz says Media Matters could become the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of 2012 for the Obama campaign if the White House and the Democratic Party don’t clearly distance themselves from the organization.

“Well I think if swing voters in the pro-Israel community had any idea how extreme Media Matters was on issues of Israel and supporters of Israel, they would regard Media Matters as another, you know, Rev. Wright,” Dershowitz told The Daily Caller.

“And for many, many in the pro-Israel community, it would be a game changer.”

Dershowitz went so far as to suggest that Media Matters’s rhetoric on Israel, particularly from Media Matters Action Network senior fellow M.J. Rosenberg, is similar to what one would find on a neo-Nazi website.

“When I started reading their stuff it sounded like the kind of stuff you see on neo-Nazi websites,” Dershowitz said. “Or on Hezbollah-supporter websites. It is so extremist. The thing that shocked me is that anybody regarded it as mainstream.”

Media Matters did not respond to a request by TheDC for comment.

Dershowitz said he is not on Media Matters’s email list and is only aware of the language they use when discussing Israel and Israel’s supporters because of emails sent to him from what he identifies as a neo-Nazi website, ReportersNotebook.

Read more here >>>

 

Time for conservatives to get behind Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum delivered one of the best political speeches I have ever heard last night — rivaling Ronald Reagan’s epic “Time for Choosing” speech in 1964 on behalf of Barry Goldwater.

What was amazing about it was that Santorum did not use a teleprompter or any kind of prepared text.

He just spoke from the heart.

His speech was so powerful that Team Romney had to frantically dismantle Romney’s teleprompter so that viewers would see that Mitt could speak off-the-cuff too.

Mitt Romney is a decent speaker, but nothing compared to Santorum. Romney comes across as soulless, as a technician.

When Santorum speaks, you know he’s saying what he believes. When Romney speaks, I feel I’m listening to car salesman. Romney’s always trying to sell us something — we’re not sure what — Romney, I guess.

Santorum just tells us what he believes — take it or leave it.

Watch Santorum’s Amazing Iowa Speech Here. Watch It Ten Times . . .

This speech was a Grand Slam home run.

I wish Rick Santorum were more of a small-government conservative. He voted for George W. Bush’s “no child left behind” program and George W. Bush’s prescription drug benefit program — two significant expansions of the federal government.

But I still love the guy.

He has a lifetime 90% conservative vote rating from the American Conservative Union. His voting record in the Senate was among the most conservative — not as conservative as Jim DeMint or Rand Paul, but very good. I also believe he understands the times we’re in.

We did not have a $15 TRILLION national debt when he voted for those ill-conceived Bush programs. And we were not in the kind of economic crisis we are in now.

Santorum’s economic plan calls for cutting $5 TRILLION from the federal budget in five years — the same as Ron Paul. I’ll certainly take that.

Santorum is also a lifelong movement conservative. He would pack his Administration with movement conservatives. He would appoint rock-solid Constitutionalist conservatives to the courts.

I’ve known Rick for many years. He’s a great guy — solid as a rock in his personal life. No surprises will jump out of the closet to hit Rick. That, I can assure you.

I’m not a big fan of the part of his tax policy plan that would favor manufacturing over other types of business.

I’d prefer a simple flat tax that doesn’t pick winners and losers or favor one business sector over another. I’d prefer Newt’s tax cut plan or Herman’s 999 plan.

But I know where Rick is coming from on this.  He wants to win the Rust Belt back for the GOP. And the manufacturing sector in America has eroded badly in recent years (decades actually).  An economic superpower needs a strong and healthy manufacturing base.

He wants to win back the Reagan Democrats.

So, fine, I’ll take his economic plan — which is mostly very good.

His wants to take the top income tax rate back to Reagan’s 28 percent — simplifying the tax code to have just two rates, 10 percent and 28 percent. He eliminates the onerous Alternative Minimum Tax. He cuts the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 12 percent. He cuts the corporate tax rate in half from 35 percent to 17.5 percent. He cuts the corporate rate on manufacturers to zero percent.

He favors a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution and capping federal spending to 18 percent of GDP (“Cut, Cap, and Balance”). I’d prefer capping federal spending at 15 percent of GDP, but 18 percent is a huge step in the right direction.

He keeps the charitable deduction and home mortgage deduction.

See his full plan here >>>

So this is all very good. He just gives a little extra boost to manufacturing.

I do think Santorum’s economic populist brand of conservatism will play well in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.  We need to win at least one of these states to defeat Obama.

Why I Think Rick Santorum Gives Us the Best Chance to Beat Obama

1) He doesn’t say zany things.

So he contrasts nicely on this score with Newt — who says zany things.

2) He doesn’t do zany things.

He has seven kids, no extramarital affairs, no divorces. So he contrasts well here with Newt.

No bimbos are likely to jump out of the closet on Rick. So he contrasts well here against Herman (whose bimbo eruptions drove him out of the race, probably unfairly).

Rick is also as rock-ribbed a conservative in his personal life as in his public life.

It’s nice when private and public lives are not in conflict.

3) He’s a terrific speaker (as you can see in the video above)

He’s a great speaker in the sense that you know he’s speaking from the heart and telling you what he really believes.  He’s not pandering to win votes.

Newt has brilliance and great insights.  But you come away from a Newt speech wondering what he really believes — because tomorrow he might say the opposite of what he said today.

Santorum just comes across as a more solid, well-grounded person.

Santorum also speaks in a way that can connect with the Reagan Democrats.  The story he told in his Iowa speech in the video above about his grandfather’s huge coal dust covered hands is very moving.  Pennsylvanians, Ohionans, and West Virginians will love this guy.

He’s populist — the opposite of Romney’s country club Republicanism.  He has the potential to expand the GOP base of voters.  He will energize religious and social conservatives.

He has the potential to reunite the old Reagan Coalition that carried 49 states in 1984.

4) He won two terms as Senator in a solidly Democrat state.

That’s no easy feat. He defeated Democrat incumbent Harris Wafford to win the seat and went on to serve two terms in the Senate. In the year 2000, Santorum beat the Democrat by 6 points in Pennsylvania in a year that George W. Bush lost that state to Al Gore by a wide margin.  So voters who voted against Bush that year voted for Santorum.

Yes, he lost his seat by a whopping 18 points in 2006 to Bob Casey — the state’s then attorney general and the son of a popular pro-life Democrat governor.  2006 was a terrible year for the GOP — a total blow-out in favor of the Democrats with George W. Bush’s popularity ratings in the 30s.

Pennsylvania is a solid Democrat state.  So the political winds have to be blowing just right (freakishly so) for a Republican to win statewide.

Richard Nixon came back to win the Presidency in 1968 after losing his race for governor of California to Jerry Brown’s dad. So losing a political contest is not a disqualifier.  You have to look at the circumstances underlying the defeat.

Santorum lost his seat in 2006 not because he was unpopular or disliked. It was just a terrible year for Republicans. And voters wanted to send a message to a very unpopular George W. Bush.

5) Santorum gives the GOP hope to carry Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan.

If the Republican wins PA, he’s likely also to win Ohio and Michigan (two similar Rust Belt states).

That would be it for Obama. Democrats can’t win the White House without Pennsylvania. Republicans really can’t win without Ohio.

6) Santorum will win the Catholic vote

The Catholic vote is the largest single block of voters in America (other than whites or a gender) — about 22 percent of the electorate. The candidate that wins the Catholic vote will win the election.

Santorum, with seven children, is as Catholic as it’s possible to be.

7) Evangelical Christians will also love Santorum

Santorum’s rock-ribbed pro-life views, family values, faith in God, and home-schooler credentials will play well across the Bible Belt and with evangelical Christians.

But unlike Mike Huckabee in 2008, Santorum speaks more like a north easterner — so doesn’t sound Bible Belt.  So he can appeal not just to evangelicals in the South, but to conservative Rust Belt Catholics around the Great Lakes as well.

8) Santorum speaks in a way that will resonate with patriotic pro-family Democrats

Not all Democrats are are Alinsky-Ayres-Wright-style radical Leftists who hate America, like Obama. Many of them (rank-and-file union members who work in the steel mills and auto plants) are good pro-family patriots who just aren’t so thrilled with Wall Street, the Big Banks, and the GOP’s elitist country club image that Romney personifies.

Santorum speaks to these kinds of Democrats and Independents. He sounds like them. He comes from their world with his family’s coal mining background.

Is Santorum too much of a purist on abortion to win?

His view on abortion is identical to Reagan’s, who won 49 states.

And most Americans don’t favor gay marriage. So that’s just a basic mainstream position.

On the contraception issue, he just holds to the Vatican’s position on it. Traditionalist Catholics believe contraception is wrong — which is why Catholics often have so many kids.  It’s why Santorum has seven kids. Santorum here is just expressing his personal view (Catholic doctrine) — and how he lives his life. He does not favor outlawing contraception.

Now is no time to quibble with Santorum on some of his issues you might have problems with. The battle is now between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. There are no other choices — because Ron Paul’s stance on allowing Iran to get nukes is so untenable.

Now is the time for choosing. The quest for perfection is over.

I’m going with Santorum.

Cain accuser appears with Gloria Allred to accuse Cain of making sexual advances toward her 14 years ago. Cain denies this account.

Never filed a complaint. Never told anyone about this at the time. Supplies no supporting evidence, no witnesses, no contemporaneous notes on what happened. Nothing. Took no questions after reading her statement.

A woman by the name of Sharon Bialek appeared today at a press conference with feminist attorney Gloria Allred to accuse Herman Cain of making sexual advances to her in a car 14 years ago.

Bialek said she had been fired by the National Restaurant Association. She says she called Cain to ask him for advice on finding a job. She was hoping to get a job in another division of the NRA.

She said Cain invited her to dinner. After the dinner, they were driving in a car. And she says Cain put his hand up her dress and touched her genitals.

Bialek was smiling while she was saying all this.

Cain denies the account.

There’s, of course, no way to know one way or another what might have happened.

If she called Cain to ask for help finding a job, maybe she put the moves on Cain in an effort to grease the skids (so to speak) as a way to persuade Cain to find a new job for her.

Perhaps Cain rebuffed her advances. So maybe this is her way of getting back at Cain.

Who knows?

We’ll never know. She never filed any contemporaneous complaint against Cain. She provided no proof of her hotel stay or her dinner with Cain at that restaurant. She provided no documentation whatsoever of meeting Cain that night, not even a date of when this alleged meeting took place.

No contemporaneous notes, nothing.  She says she told no one at the time that this happened. She can supply no witnesses — not one witness to say that she and Cain even met that night, whatever night it was.

So we have no way of knowing what’s true and what’s not true.

What we do know is that this is Gloria Allred’s standard operating procedure for getting attention and getting a pay day.

Now Bialek’s life is ruined. Who would ever hire her after watching this press conference?

A prospective employer might well wonder: Will she do something like this to me?

If this actually did happen, why didn’t Bialek try to get money out of Cain back then in exchange for keeping quiet? Why did she wait until now to come forward, 14 years later?

He was a big deal back then. Surely, she could have shaken him down for some kind of payoff.

Also, even if something like this did happen, it would not be sexual harassment since she was no longer working for the NRA. It might constitute bad behavior, but would not constitute sexual harassment because it did not take place while she was working for Cain.

In addition, Bialek says Cain did not press forward with his alleged sexual advanced after she said she wasn’t interested. So “no” meant “no.”

So there was no sexual harassment, according to Bialek.

Nothing alleged here is illegal.

Here’s something else.

All these allegations go back to the 1990s.

If this was Cain’s usual pattern of behavior, would we not be hearing about more recent episodes?

Login to Join Discussion!



Categories