Archive
CPN Returns!
Hello…Again.
I just got a message from Word Press congratulating me on the success of my blog. That reminded me I haven’t written anything since April, but CPN continues to get hits from all over the world. So, because I enjoy blogging and writing about current events, I will be starting it up again.
Hopefully, I will have more time to spend on it and I can be more focused and succinct. Successful blogging is about persistence and keeping the message interesting and fresh. I can’t claim I have any changes in mind, but I have developed a new sense of things and hopefully, that will be reflected in the blog.
I do apologize for the long hiatus. But, the reason I first stopped blogging was because I needed to work on my personal finances and start working more directly with the conservative movement.
The blog started out well last year, but sometime after my last post I joined the congressional campaign of Lenny Roberto, who was the endorsed candidate for both the Republican and Conservative parties in New York’s 27th congressional district. Most of my time over the summer was spent on his campaign, as I was appointed to be his Communications Director shortly after volunteering.
I actually met Lenny at an event for New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino. The relationship between the two was odd, but I had direct access to Paladino’s Campaign Manager who helped me on the media end of things.
Unfortunately, Lenny lost his bid to Brian Higgins, a man who was an advocate for a public option in the Affordable Care Act and who is a true believer in the economic nonsense known as “green jobs. The problem with our campaign was that every facet of the conservative movement (for what it is in Western New York) was focused on Paladino’s campaign. So all the attention-and money-went to his efforts.
And despite his money and chutzpah, Paladino failed, primarily because he did not prove he was knowledgeable enough about the problems in New York State government and because Cuomo triangulated, using conservative reform ideas as the theme of his campaign.
So, for many conservatives in Western New York, it felt like a losing year, despite the results of the 2010 congressional election.
I would like to write about working on the congressional campaign and the state of conservatism where I live-Western new York and New York State- but that would be boring for many readers. Local politics and the strength and nature of local movements and local parties is important, as we saw in the 2010 congressional elections. The reason why some regions and localities remain solidly left-wing has been a question I have been pondering for some time, as I grew up in a town controlled by the Democratic Party all of my life. It is amazing to me that the Democratic Party is able to avoid blame for what has happened to my region under its tutelage- steep economic decline and vigorous population loss-and is able to continue to elect increasingly left-wing politicians to office.
The answers to why this is so I have concluded is more controversial question than many would like it to be. I will address them and already have to a certain extent in this blog, but hopefully, I will deal with them in the future.
So, I hope you see I have not been idle on the activist front. For a while, this blog was my only activism and I really enjoyed putting it together. Now, through my work on the congressional campaign, I learned a little something about politics and have networked with people in my area who are also activists and want to apply the same principles to government as myself. Thus, I have had the idea of trying to set up a regional think tank I have tentatively named, “The Western New York Conservative Foundation. The idea is to make it a one-stop shop center for conservative policy ideas, monitoring of the left, election law and election support. It is just an idea for now, but one I hope to work on once I get my personal finances straight.
So, for now, this blog will remain what it is and I will keep my focus on national and international news that aims its guns of truth against the leftist ramparts that are weakening everyday. But it is important to remember that academia, media, and myriad groups push the left-wing agenda and they will never quit, because they are paid to do what they do. Mine, and the efforts of so many other conservatives, is a citizen and grass-roots activism that barely keeps the socialists at bay. Hopefully, the next two years will prove fruitful and we all keep hope alive that conservatives in Congress will repeal health care reform, drastically reduce government spending and, eventually, make Obama a one-term president.
I will do what I can here.
Thanks for reading!
The Constitution and Health Care
The Federalist Blog explains the politics behind judicial decisions that have allowed the unconstitutional expansion of the Federal government in the United States.
.jpg "What Constitution")
What Constitution?
If you think fighting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a matter solely devoted to filing lawsuits you are deeply mistaken. The reason lawsuits will have little effect is because the entire judicial system is a house of cards built upon a foundation of fiction and lies the court is willing to jealousy defend even if they must continue with deceit. Justices on the court are no longer concerned with defined limited powers or original meaning behind enumerated powers anymore then they are interested in why States refused to surrender domestic concerns over to the general government.
The court has increasingly grown in modern times to concern itself only in declaring what it feels the Constitution ought to have said instead of what it was approved by the people of the States to have said.
Lawsuits against Obamacare is by no means frivolous, but because the court in the end will always choose not to disturb the great centralization of power that has been judicially created by deferring to Congress. Example: When the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was challenged, the court held that “The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as here applied, we find to be plainly appropriate in the resolution of what the Congress found to be a national commercial problem of the first magnitude.”
In other words, since a majority in Congress had decided discrimination was something they ought to regulate within State limits the court was not going to entertain any serious factual analysis to whether the regulation of commerce ever had anything remotely to do with intrastate discrimination. This act of judicial restraint has become a valuable defensive tool the court employs to protect the centralization of federal power within State limits.
Likewise, members of Congress will avoid the question all together by pointing to the courts past deference when the court would uphold the power of Congress to “regulate many aspects of American life” through the Commerce Clause. This deferring back-and-forth assures questions of limited powers and original meaning will go ignored by both branches.
Neither the court nor many members of Congress have any desire to defend their self-created powers publically over anything having to do with buying and selling because they know they cannot defend such powers in any open, honest public forum where facts can be presented to dispute the courts numerous instances of ignoring historical facts.
The court would consider it a nightmare to have to defend such positions as “the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices” in the face of overwhelming evidence such nonsense was never part of the practice of regulating commerce. Price control never remotely had anything to do with the regulating the exchange of trade for that was something strictly left to the exclusive legislative powers in making rules for buying and selling – something Congress does not possess intrastate. The fact is the regulation of commerce was solely to protect or encourage domestic manufactures through imposts and duties on importable articles of trade insures the court will avoid any evidentiary analysis of its meaning and constitutional purpose. (See here for a historical analysis of the regulation of commerce.)
The court will almost assuredly resort to the great defense shield of denial known as “stare decisis” as a clever way of protecting the courts own judicial malpractice from scrutiny while at the same time leaving its vast centralization of power in Congress intact. Therefore, all the lawsuits in the world challenging Congress or the courts own erroneous interpretations of the past will fail.
A better way to attack Obamacare than with lawsuits will be to confront justices of the court and members of Congress indirectly with the truth. Wouldn’t take long before the media starts questioning why they court is not responding to questions of how their stated precedent could be so wrong.
An example for an indirect question for the court is a half-page Ad in the WSJ that asks the court and Congress how did the States and other Nations regulate their commerce with each other before and after the adoption of the Constitution? Answer: The Levying of imposts and duties on “goods, wares, and merchandizes” imported.
Billboards could quote James Madison on the purpose behind the power to regulate commerce among the States as growing “out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”
Alternatively, how about quoting Madison on the understood meaning of regulating commerce: “The power (regulation of commerce) has been understood and used, by all commercial and manufacturing nations, as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named.”
As these two quotes show (find more here), the regulation of commerce was never understood to embrace laws on buying or selling. If it had meant that you could bet none of the original 13 States would had ever consented to adopting the Constitution.
While such tactics might not change anything over night, it could ultimately prove to influence the court enough to realize their bogus constitutional revisionism lacks critical factual analysis, and thus, makes them nothing less than a judicial accessory to despotism by continuing with their game of constitutional deceit.
“Listen, Little Man! The Only Thing Standing Between You and Republican Fascist Hell: The Democratic Party and Martha Coakley!”-Boston Globe / K. Olbermann
Now, shouldn’t some of the stuff coming from the liberal advocacy media (LAME) because they fear a potential victory by Republican Scott Brown in today’s Massachusett’s U.S. Senate race, disqualify them from ever claiming they are objective reporters again? I mean, really… It is so blatant and obvious that I am only one of probably thousands of blogs pointing it out.
The best comes from Keith Olbermann, admittedly a partisan, but if anyone takes this seriously, well, I would be in favor of taking away the right to vote for people with IQs of 60 or lower. His keen analysis:
In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women.
Who falls for that stuff anymore? Who are the fear-mongers now? When they’re desperate, Democratic hacks show what world-class demagogues they can be. The emperor is bare nekkid today.
And here at CPN in this post 10 days ago we noticed something about the campaign reporting coming from the Boston Globe. We noticed that while some polls had Brown closing on Coakley, the Globe still had him down by 15 points. The Globe also refused to notice the race was competitive until Saturday, when they could only bring themselves to admit that the race was a “dead heat”, despite most polls showing otherwise.
This was the same line they used yesterday as well, despite the polling data. In a blog post at Real Clear Politics, Boston Globe Puts Thumb on Scale- Again, Tom Bevan makes the point:
Let me see if I have this right: there have been six polls of the Massachusetts Senate race released in the last 24 hours, five of which show Scott Brown with leads of 5 points, 7 points, 9 points, 10 points and 10 points, respectively. Only one poll shows the race tied. None of the polls show Martha Coakley with a lead.
How then, you might ask, can the Boston Globe justify characterizing the race as a “dead heat?”
I suppose if you were disingenuous enough to downplay and/or ignore the five polls showing Scott Brown with fairly sizable leads, then that headline wouldn’t be false. Massively biased and misleading, yes, but technically accurate. And wouldn’t you know, that’s exactly what the author of the story does…
But today, the nekkid emperor has started throwing all the bombs in his arsenal. Yep, our good friends at the Boston Globe have put up numerous reports about how Brown supporters have been “intimidating” those nice, little Democrats and “suppressing” their vote.
The Sweetness and Light blog has a good breakdown of one of these articles:
Brown supporters trying to suppress vote by bullying
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | January 18, 2010
____
But wait, apparently the Boston Globe planted an “interactive map” in their paper today that showed Coakley winning the election at about 1:00 in the afternoon. They claim it was a mistake!
You old nekkid thing you.
In consideration of 2010 polling data.
updated!
I try to avoid talking about polls and elections which are far off. Things can change and it is difficult to foresee the outcomes of elections far in advance.
But, given the inevitable passage of the health care reform bill, and the increasing likelihood that the US Senate will pass a cap-and-trade bill, the first (and perhaps only) chance that Americans who are opposed to these two massive pieces of “transformative” legislation will have to repeal them (barring a few astonishing rulings by the Supreme Court) will be through the 2010 elections. So, it is important to see if there will likely be enough of a mandate to turn the tide.
Many people do not agree with me that cap-and-trade is inevitable in 2010, but one merely has to point to the successes of Copenhagen and the recent health care legislation to see that for Democrats, the socialist mother wheel has appeared in the sky and is calling them home. Either they pass the legislation they have been clamoring for now, and create the over-regulated society they have always dreamed of, or they retreat.
But why should they be incremental at this point when they have majorities immune to the conservative opposition? It makes no sense. As influential Brazilian journalist Olavo de Carvahlo wrote in an essay November 18, 2008 titled What Will Obama Do?:
whatever its proclaimed goals, any scheme of power will always safeguard its own continuity and expansion first and foremost… The existence and continuity of the scheme are a prior condition of its doing whatever it may want to do. Thus, what we must consider before anything else is what the head of state will necessarily have to do, not to reach this or that goal, nor to face the objective problems that afflict the nation or part of it, but simply to keep – and, in the case of a revolutionary leader, to increase – the power of action it already possesses.
So, I am expecting cap-and-trade to be close, but eventually get passed because all the power amassed and being enjoyed by Democrats now, has been in development for a number of years. The cap-and-trade struggle will involve the same political legerdemain that was evident in the process to pass the health care reform bill. Institutionalizing federal control of health care reform and a cap-and-trade system are the most important components in building not only a domestic, permanent, progressive political architecture, but also a global one.
Losing substantial power in the next elections will not matter to the Left; there are always more elections. Better to use the majorities now to expand government power and hope the bills facilitating it cannot be repealed in the future by a blundering and confused Right. Premature announcements by the Republicans and conservatives of impending repeal, will most likely put them under such serious media assault throughout 2010, it may serve to weaken their growing strength before election season anyway.
House of Representatives
The Republicans need to win 40 seats to regain control in the House of Representatives. It is not clear yet if this is shaping up to be possible or not. Most agree that Republicans will be able to make significant gains in the House in 2010, but no one knows the extent.
There were a few developments yesterday related to elections that deserve mention. Of course, the most significant development was the announcement by Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama that he will be switching from the Democrat to the Republican Party. Griffith is a freshman congressman and a blue dog who voted against health care. Maybe he sees the writing on the wall for 2010.
This corresponds with the announced and somewhat unexpected resignations of four blue dog Democrats recently in Kansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee that would not be running for re-election in 2010. The collective wisdom is that for each of these seats polling data suggests they are either toss-ups or lean favorably Republican.
However, it is important to take into account that 12 incumbent Republican Representatives have also announced their resignation or retirement. Some of their districts, like the At-Large in Delaware or Michigan’s 2nd are vulnerable to Democrats.But Republicans have just topped Democrats in the generic Congressional poll:
| Poll | Date | Sample | Republicans | Democrats | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 12/3 – 12/20 | — | 43.3 | 40.8 | Republicans +2.5 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 12/14 – 12/20 | 3500 LV | 44 | 36 | Republicans +8 |
| USA Today/Gallup | 12/11 – 12/13 | 898 RV | 45 | 48 | Democrats +3 |
| Battleground | 12/6 – 12/10 | 1000 LV | 42 | 41 | Republicans +1 |
| Bloomberg | 12/3 – 12/7 | 714 LV | 42 | 38 | Republicans +4 |
See All Generic Congressional Vote Polling Data
Even though there have been some positive developments for Republicans in light of the 2010 House elections, it is not at all clear how substantial the gains may be. Go to this link to see a comprehensive chart of the races.
__
U.S. Senate
There are 36 seats up for election in the U.S. Senate in 2010 (38 if you include the special elections to be held in Massachusetts and Texas). 19 seats are held by Democrats and 19 held by Republicans. 41 Democratic seats and 21 Republican seats will be retained by both parties as they will not be decided this year.
What this means is that in order to maintain control of the United States Senate, the Democratic Party only needs to win 9 of the total 19 Senate races they are running in, with Joe Biden providing the tie-breaker. On the other hand, Republicans would have to win 30 seats to gain control. That would mean that they would have to win all 19 races for seats they now hold and win 11 out of the 19 Democratic seats available in 2010. Barring a complete collapse for Democrats, many believe that is not going to happen.
So, the question becomes which Republican seats will be contestable by Dems in 2010 and what Democratic seats are visibly vulnerable at this point.
There are 7 Republican seats that have come open due to resignation or retirement. These are FL, KS, KY, NH, OH, MO and TX. It is generally believed that New Hampshire and Ohio are toss-ups at this point. The rest are leaning Republican, but with some interesting developments in some of them.
Florida
Republicans will most likely hold onto this seat. However, Marco Rubio who is running against Governor Charlie Crist in the Republican primary has pulled even with him. Rubio is also supported by the Tea Party Movement and this is significant as the national media and leftists have tried to make it toxic for Republicans to embrace the Tea Partiers.
In the last couple of polls, Rubio has pulled even with Crist and he beats the leading Democratic candidate, Kendrick Meek, in the general election. This is a good sign for Rubio and it allows Republican supporters to safely abandon Crist for a potential winner. The numbers show Rubio’s incredible gains against the Democratic candidate:
| Date | Sample | Rubio (R) | Meek (D) | Spread | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 10/12 – 12/14 | — | 37.3 | 36.3 | Rubio +1.0 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 12/14 – 12/14 | 49 | 35 | Rubio +14 | |
| Daily Kos/R2000 | 11/16 – 11/18 | 30 | 38 | Meek +8 | |
| Rasmussen Reports | 10/20 – 10/20 | 46 | 31 | Rubio +15 | |
| Quinnipiac | 10/12 – 10/18 | 33 | 36 | Meek +3 | |
| Rasmussen Reports | 8/17 – 8/17 | 43 | 30 | Rubio +13 | |
| Strategic Vision (R) | 5/29 – 5/31 | 31 | 30 | Rubio +1 | |
| Strategic Vision (R) | 2/6 – 2/8 | 26 | 24 | Rubio +2 | |
| Daily Kos/R2000 | 1/26 – 1/28 | 22 | 31 | Meek +9 |
This chart shows Rubio’s gains against Crist:
| Date | Sample | Crist (R) | Rubio (R) | Spread | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 10/12 – 12/14 | — | 46.7 | 38.3 | Crist +8.4 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 12/14 – 12/14 | 431 LV | 43 | 43 | Tie |
| Daily Kos/R2000 | 11/16 – 11/18 | 400 RV | 47 | 37 | Crist +10 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 10/19 – 10/19 | 466 LV | 49 | 35 | Crist +14 |
| Quinnipiac | 10/12 – 10/18 | 396 LV | 50 | 35 | Crist +15 |
| McLaughlin & Associates (R) | 10/12 – 10/13 | 500 LV | 53 | 29 | Crist +24 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 8/17 – 8/17 | 470 LV | 53 | 31 | Crist +22 |
| Quinnipiac | 8/12 – 8/17 | 446 LV | 55 | 26 | Crist +29 |
| Mason-Dixon | 6/24 – 6/26 | 300 LV | 51 | 23 | Crist +28 |
| Quinnipiac | 6/2 – 6/7 | 486 RV | 54 | 23 | Crist +31 |
| Strategic Vision (R) | 5/29 – 5/31 | 468 LV | 59 | 22 | Crist +37 |
| Mason-Dixon | 5/14 – 5/18 | 300 LV | 53 | 18 | Crist +35 |
My bet is that he still has some ground to make up, but he is making Crist regret his embrace of Obama now.
Kentucky
One of the most interesting results of the polling data is that Rand Paul, Congressman Ron Paul’s son, has taken a commanding lead in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky against Secretary of State Trey Grayson. The numbers:
Paul-44%
Grayson-25%
Paul is running 54-18 amongst conservatives and is also supported by the supposedly toxic Tea Party Movement. The Democrats believe that Rand Paul would be vulnerable as a Senate candidate. No doubt the campaign against him will try to link him to the “right-wing extremist” meme.
I think that’s pretty much played out by now.
There are a couple of somewhat vulnerable incumbent Republicans according to the national political reports. These are Vitter in Louisiana and Burr in North Carolina. However, both incumbents hold 10-point leads or better over their Democratic rivals.
So, the best chance for Democrats to gain US Senate seats from Republicans is probably in New Hampshire and Ohio. But, Democrats also have pronounced vulnerabilities in seats held by incumbents.
Democratic Vulnerabilities
Many observers believe that it is possible the Republicans can pick up seats from Democratic incumbents in AR, CO, CT, IL, ND, NV, and PA.
So what are the polls showing?
North Dakota
This is considered a safe seat for Democrats by most observers. However, one of the more interesting polls that came out yesterday was one for a theoretical race for U.S. Senate between US Senator Byron Dorgan (D) and Gov. John Hoeven(R). It shows that Republican challenger in the lead:
Hoeven (R)-58%
Dorgan (D)-36%
That is a large margin, however, some commentators have suggested that Hoeven may not run for the seat and other GOP challengers would not poll as high. Hoeven said he will announce his intentions soon.
___
Pennsylvania
In another very positive development for Republicans, it appears that Pat Toomey is now beating Senator Arlen Specter slightly in Pennsylvania. Although most polls show them running even, if you click the link “all Pennsylvania Data” in the chart below, Toomey has been making steady gains since the summer and now runs almost even with Specter even in the polls where he is behind.
Toomey (R)-40
Specter (D)-40
Polling Data
| Poll | Date | Toomey (R) | Specter (D) | Spread | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 10/7 – 12/14 | 40.5 | 40.3 | Toomey +0.2 | |
| Quinnipiac | 12/8 – 12/14 | 44 | 44 | Tie | |
| Rasmussen Reports | 12/8 – 12/8 | 46 | 42 | Toomey +4 | |
| Franklin & Marshall | 10/20 – 10/25 | 31 | 33 | Specter +2 | |
| Susquehanna | 10/7 – 10/12 | 41 | 42 | Specter +1 |
See All Pennsylvania Senate – Specter vs. Toomey Polling Data
___
Connecticut
Sen. Christopher Dodd is losing ground to Rob Simmons and trails him in all polls, except those conducted by Daily Kos. Dodd is also losing to, but appears to be stronger against Republican candidate Linda McMahon. Dodd has made up some ground against Simmons, but Simmons has improved his numbers steadily. However, it appears Dodd is in real trouble and there are many in Connecticut asking if Dodd is electable in 2010.
| Pollster | Dates | Simmons | Dodd | Other | Undecided | Not Voting | Margin | |
| GQR (D-Dodd) | 12/15-17/09 | 51 | 46 | – | – | – | +5R | |
| Rasmussen | 12/7/09 | 48 | 35 | 7 | 11 | – | +13R | |
| Quinnipiac | 11/3-8/09 | 49 | 38 | – | 11 | 2 | +11R | |
| Quinnipiac | 9/10-14/09 | 44 | 39 | 1 | 15 | 1 | +5R | |
| Rasmussen | 9/10/09 | 49 | 39 | 5 | 6 | – | +10R | |
| DailyKos.com (D)/ Research 2000 | 9/8-10/09 | 46 | 42 | – | 12 | – | +4R | |
| Quinnipiac | 7/16-20/09 | 48 | 39 | 0 | 10 | 2 | +9R | |
| Wilson (R-Schiff) | 6/24-25/09 | 47 | 38 | – | 15 | – | +9R | |
| Quinnipiac | 5/20-25/09 | 45 | 39 | 2 | 13 | 1 | +6R | |
| Quinnipiac | 3/26-31/09 | 50 | 34 | 2 | 12 | 2 | +16R | |
| DailyKos.com (D)/ Research 2000 | 3/23-25/09 | 40 | 45 | – | 15 | – | +5D | |
| Quinnipiac | 3/3-8/09 | 43 | 42 | 1 | 12 | 1 | +1R |
__
Nevada
Senator Harry Reid is in trouble. He is losing to both Republican candidates, Tarkanian and Lowden. Although he has made some gains, he has been behind for a long time. Many are saying Reid’s numbers, especially because most Americans oppose the health care bill he shepherded, are unrecoverable. Presently he runs 6 points behind both Republican challengers.
__
Colorado and Arkansas
Colorado is too early to call as appointed Senator Bennet will be running in a primary in 2010. The Democratic candidate will then be facing Lt. Gov. Jane Gordon in the general election. And Norton is polling well against Bennett:
| Poll | Date | Sample | Norton (R) | Bennet (D) | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rasmussen Reports | 12/8 – 12/8 | 500 LV | 46 | 37 | Norton +9 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 9/15 – 9/15 | 500 LV | 45 | 36 | Norton +9 |
Arkansas will be competitive, but there is no clear Republican candidate. The incumbent, Blanche Lincoln, has been polling in the low forties. She is vulnerable.
__
In another development yesterday, Rudy Giuliani announced he will not run for higher office in New York. This is disappointing because the polling data shows he is the only candidate that gives Andrew Cuomo any competition for Governor and up until recently, he has been beating Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand by huge margins for the U.S. Senate. The most recent polls show:
Giuliani (R)-49
Gilibrand(D)-42
She has closed a bit on him as a poll in November showed:
Giuliani(R) -54
Gilibrand(D)-40
Even though New York is considered a safe seat for Democrats, it is clear that it is not that safe. But, the Republicans are weak in New York and are becoming weaker and have not announced a candidate for U.S. Senate yet. If it is a RINO like Dede Scozzafava, this seat will most likely be gifted to a weak Democratic candidate.
__
So what to make of all this?
There are a number of predictions that the Republicans could regain the House in 2010. Many pollsters sympathetic to Democrats have been saying the trends show massive losses for Democrats. In 1994, most pundits did not believe that the Republicans would win a majority in 1994. That year, they needed to win 40 seats but instead won 52.
So, it remains a possibility that the Republicans can take the House.
It will be much harder in the U. S. Senate. Larry Sabato has said that “the Republicans have a chance to become relevant again in the Senate by netting a few seats. There is the possibility that they will do better, retain their incumbent seats and beat all the weak Democrats, which will yield a Senate of 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans.”
That’s probably the best case scenario for the Senate.
So, if the Republicans have a good year, there is a possibility they will be able to begin either slowing down or slowly repealing health care reform and cap-and-trade. However, it will be difficult to get anything done on either front while Obama holds the veto until 2012 and if the House and Senate remain fairly even.
I also think that it is clear the Tea Party Movement is having an effect on things. Republicans will probably do well by not running away from these millions of committed American voters.
The Left is going to attack the Tea Party Movement regardless of what their actual positions are. It is time for Republicans to get their cajones back and stand against the Obama-ite, Soros-funded mob, and embrace the Tea Party Movement and its ideas.
It appears the Tea Partiers stand ready to run interference against the left-wing mob, but only for candidates willing to stand up for principle. The Tea Party Movement may also be an important resource in coming years if 2010 does not go so well. It will be the center around which a long-term extra-governmental resistance to Big Government may must be organized.
___
Texas v. California
The budget crisis that has been afflicting California for the past year has been headline news. Because of it, California should be the symbol for the failure of the welfare state and centralized planning as over-generous social programs, a bloated bureaucracy, and the disproportionate influence of public employee unions has bled the government dry and brought it to the brink. In the past year, there have been many so many extreme measures taken by the California government that it is has been hard to follow. In order to make up a budge shortfall that is predicted to reach over $40 billion by 2010, California has had to do the following from 11/08 to the present:
-Furlough of all public employees for three days every month.
-Eliminate Columbus Day and Lincoln Holidays
-Asked the Federal government to back state bank-guaranteed notes, Obama refused, thus lowering California’s credit rating, making it harder to obtain much-needed loans.
-With its credit rating lowered, California began issuing IOUs in order to meet its short-term financial obligations.
-Has promised to release 37,000 prisoners from the state’s prisons.
-Has cut thousands of jobs from education and health care.
All this has caused a massive exodus of business leaving the once mythical state of unfettered personal freedom, spiritual exploration, and endless sunshine to fall into an unemployment rate that is now at 12.3%; one of the highest in the United States.
Then there’s Texas.
As a poll in Chief Executive magazine found, Texas was the best place in the United States to do business. (Guess which one was the worst? Yep, California.) Also, amidst a national recession, with the national average rate of unemployment near 10.5%, Texas had positive job growth in October 2009 and has kept their unemployment rate below the national avg., with the highest being reported at 8.3%. Many Texas economists and businessmen believe that they have hit the bottom this year and are expecting sustained job growth for 2010.
According to two separate studies, one by the Brookings Institution and one by Forbes magazine, the 5 top job-creating cities in America are located in Texas.
And, of course,Texas had a $11 million budget surplus for fiscal 2009.
The difference in the economic trajectories for these states generally goes unreported, I believe, because they show the strength of fiscal conservatism and the utter failure of liberal economics.
This is confirmed by an article Trends Magazine and reviewed by Tony Gattis at newgeography blog. The article asks the question: What’s wronmg with California and what’s right with Texas? Gattis says, “It really comes down to four fundamental differences in the value systems embodied in these states:”
First, Texans on average believe in laissez-faire markets with an emphasis on individual responsibility. Since the ’80s, California’s policy-makers have favored central planning solutions and a reliance on a government social safety net. This unrelenting commitment to big government has led to a huge tax burden and triggered a mass exodus of jobs. The Trends Editors examined the resulting migration in “Voting with Our Feet,” in the April 2008 issue of Trends.
Second, Californians have largely treated environmentalism as a “religious sacrament” rather than as one component among many in maximizing people’s quality of life. As we explained in “The Road Ahead for Housing,” in the June 2009 issue of Trends, environmentally-based land-use restriction centered in California played a huge role in inflating the recent housing bubble. Similarly, an unwillingness to manage ecology proactively for man’s benefit has been behind the recent epidemic of wildfires.
Third, California has placed “ethnic diversity” above “assimilation,” while Texas has done the opposite. “Identity politics” has created psychological ghettos that have prevented many of California’s diverse ethnic groups and subcultures from integrating fully into the mainstream. Texas, on the other hand, has proactively encouraged all the state’s residents to join the mainstream.
Fourth, beyond taxes, diversity, and the environment, Texas has focused on streamlining the regulatory and litigation burden on its residents. Meanwhile, California’s government has attempted to use regulation and litigation to transfer wealth from its creators to various special-interest constituencies.
Gattis says the article also has six forecasts for both states:
- …expect to see California’s loss of jobs to Nevada accelerate…
- …expect to see a backlash in California and across the country against regulations, especially green initiatives that can’t clearly demonstrate a positive ROI…
- Watch for the smart money, including venture capital, to begin migrating to Texas for start-ups in many areas, including energy, info-tech, manufacturing, and biotech. Just as Delaware’s tax laws once encouraged numerous businesses to incorporate there, even when they had no connection to the state, Texas will become a magnet for new businesses by offering cheap land, a favorable regulatory environment, a business-friendly culture, and a large supply of skilled labor. Unless California revamps dramatically, expect to see its economy languish, even as the recovery takes off.
- To make its business climate even more business-friendly, Texas will invest heavily in secondary education and work hard to attract the best talent to its research universities (note the recent Tier 1 proposition and funding). Keep an eye especially on the University of Texas, which already has a first-rate campus and faculty. Within 10 years, UT, as the locals call it, may well rival Stanford or Berkeley.
- Other states will adopt tort reform measures pioneered in Texas. Unlike California and most other states, Texas has been aggressive in minimizing the enormous burden of frivolous lawsuits…
- Look to Texas to become a cutting-edge cultural mecca. Houston has always offered a vibrant cultural scene, ever since the Alley theater company was founded there in 1947 by Nina Eloise Whittington Vance. In the 1950s, John and Dominique de Menil moved to Houston with one of the most significant private collections of art in the world and began donating art and money to the Houston Museum of Fine Arts. Both institutions have grown to world-class status since then. In the coming years, this trend will spread to the major cities of Texas (take that, Dallas!), attracting the best talent and money and shifting the cultural balance of the nation away from New York and San Francisco.
Resistance Literature
(from First Principles)
We don’t just face a smug cosmopolitan elite, aggressive do-gooders, and an ever-growing welfare state. “Advanced liberal society,” Kalb writes, “is reproducing the error of socialism—the attempt to administer and radically alter things that are too complex to be known, grasped, and controlled— but on a far grander scale. The socialists tried to simplify and rationalize economics, while today’s liberals are trying to do the same with human relations generally.” Inevitably, the round peg must be pounded into the square hole. And we don’t even notice. “So dominant is liberalism,” Kalb worries, “that it becomes invisible. Judges feel free to read it into law without historical or textual warrant because it seems so obviously right. To oppose in any basic way is to act incomprehensibly, in a way only explicable, it is thought, by reference to irrationality, ignorance, or evil.” Dissent is medicalized as a psychological “fear of change,” an infantile desire to “escape from freedom,” or criminalized as “hate speech.” (Read more by clicking above link or here.)
Never Let Your Opponents Define You
Is Conservatism Dead? (from The New Criterion)
A Reply to Sam Tanenhaus’ new book The Death of Conservatism
The liberal analysis of conservatism that was passed down from the 1950s and 1960s has caused endless confusion about what conservatism in America is and is not. It is never a good thing for any philosophical movement to permit itself to be defined by its adversaries, but this is more or less what happened to conservatism in the post-war period, as liberals sought to define it in such a way as to guarantee its failure or ineffectiveness. For one thing, they created a combination of traps and paradoxes for conservatives that gave added meaning to Rossiter’s concept of “the thankless persuasion.” On the one hand, conservatives, if they wished to maintain that designation (at least in the eyes of liberals), were obliged to endorse all manner of liberal reforms once they were established as part of the new status quo. Thus, self-styled conservatives who attacked the New Deal were not acting like conservatives because they were in effect attacking the established order—and, of course, “real” conservatives would never do that. So it was that conservatives who wished to reverse liberal victories became radicals or extremists. Conservatives, moreover, could have no program of their own or, at any rate, any program that had any reasonable chance of succeeding, because any successful appeal to the wider public would turn them into populists and, through that process, into extremists and radicals. Not surprisingly, they viewed a popular conservatism as a contradiction in terms. Conservatives, in short, could only win power and influence by betraying their principles, and could only maintain those principles by accepting their subordinate status. Thus, in the eyes of the liberal historians, conservatism could never prosper in America because, if it did, it could no longer be called conservatism. (Read the rest at the link above or here.)
Let’s Rebuild This Thing, People!
An Economic Agenda for the GOP(from City Journal)
If Republicans ignore popular anger, as the party establishment did last autumn, they leave a powerful and potentially disruptive force in the hands of Democrats. The majority of the Democratic establishment does not believe in the American dream, in the importance of providing incentives for economic growth, or in the market as the best mechanism to allocate available resources. The Democrats could channel popular anger into protectionism, 90 percent tax rates, and onerous new market constraints…
In Republican hands, though, populism could become a strong force for positive change…Thus a wise pro-market party understands that any strategy is only as good as it is politically sustainable. Markets enjoy political support primarily because of the well-founded belief that they do a better job of providing goods and services than any other arrangement. This conviction often weakens during major crises like the current one. So a pro-market party should favor a robust safety net—for people, that is, not companies. Of course, this safety net should be run on market principles as much as possible. For example, unemployment insurance should retain incentives to look for work, and the health-insurance industry should be opened up to competition. But defenders of markets cannot ignore the importance of providing such security for citizens. (Above link or here for more.)
Help Me With My Research
Share This Blog
Conservative Policy News 
Obama Will Be Forced to Resign If He is Forced to Renege on KSM Trial in NYC
First, I’d like to wish everyone a happy Guantanamo Bay Closure Day!
Now, although some may think the heading for this post is overblown, it must be recognized that there is a crisis brewing in Washington over Obama’s treatment of the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and there are signals that his decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City is in peril.
If the crisis over treating the Detroit terrorist Abdulmutallab as a criminal continues to brew, and the Congress is able to sideline the New York trial of KSM, I predict that credible calls for Obama to resign the presidency will begin to be heard.
These two missteps, if widely disseminated, should be the final straws that break Obama and from which he will never be able to recover politically. No matter which direction Obama pivots after the devastating election in Massachusetts, these two national security missteps show that he has become an ineffective and incompetent leader. And with his incompetence fully exposed- especially on foreign policy and national security issues- he has become a dangerous liability not only for the Democratic Party, but more importantly, for the country as well. This should be unacceptable to a country trying to recover from economic crisis, that is in a war with extremists, and which is being challenged internationally on a every level.
The crisis over giving Abdulmutallab civilian legal rights was exacerbated Wednesday by the congressional testimony of Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence. In that testimony, Blair said that it was a mistake that Abdulmutallah was not held for interrogation by the High Value Interrogation Group, of HIG, an agency created for the express purpose of making decisions about terrorist interrogations. Blair explained that even though the FBI was able to question Abdulmutallah briefly before his surgery on Christmas Day and that it revealed a “a treasure trove of intelligence,” shortly after his surgery, Abdulmutallah was read his Miranda rights and clammed up.
It was also revealed at the same hearing that Blair, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael E. Leiter, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano-the four most important counter-terrorism officials in the country- were not consulted about the charging decision. Essentially the decision to treat Abdulmutallah as a civilian with full legal rights was made on the ground, and many questions have been raised about the Administration’s preparedness on domestic terrorism.
Also, in a Newsweek blog, Michael Isikoff reveals that there is growing consensus in Congress that locating the trial in New York City was a really, really bad idea. Isikoff reports that Republican Senator Lindsay Graham will soon force another vote on his previously failed amendment to strip funding for the trial. Isikoff reports that there is renewed support for the measure in Congress:
These are epic failures by Obama and his Administration. Add this to his clearly inept handling of Iran, his admitted failure on Middle East peace, and not to mention his falling popularity and stalled domestic agenda, and it is very conceivable that even people within his own party will begin calling for his resignation.
No matter which direction Obama pivots now, I think it is almost impossible for him to reclaim any political ground. If he moves to the center, he loses the far-Left. Why would they support this move before he gets health care? Why should they put their issues on hold in an attempt to save Obama’s presdency and a possible second term? They have the political clout now and can’t get things done.
No, unless they believe him blindly, the Left must demand that Obama moves to the left now, and if he pivots to the center, they will move against him and start clamoring for a third party or support a more progressive candidate in 2012.
Consequently, if Obama moves to the Left, there is a good chance he will be finished altogther. While this may inspire his far-left base to get out in the streets again, it will alienate the moderates and resurgent conservatives even more. They will not give him the cover he sorely needs on his foreign policy and national security incompetence, and he will then appear to be flailing and ineffective on that front.
So, his best move is probably going to the center. Once there, he must hope that his administration’s repeated attacks on Bush and conservatives in order to decimate them are forgotten. He must hope the Tea Party Movement goes away (and it isn’t), and that the electorate forgets his massive failures and lies to date. If “moderates” and conservatives are unwilling to support Obama’s move to the center and he simultaneously loses the far-left, what will be the point of him serving out the next four years? (He is already in danger of losing the far-left anyway, given that he has not repealed some of the most hated of Bush’s anti-terror policies. Discarding the radical domestic agenda now, I think, will put them over the edge.) He will then be unable to garner support for anything he does, and the country will enter a protracted stage of political crisis as its leader will be powerless. And political crises are consistently resolved throughout the world by the main perpetrators of the crisis being forced to step down. Here and now, that would be Barack Obama.
_____
Incidentally, I found a video that sends chills down my spine. And in accordance with my series on the crisis in Honduras, I made a connection that is very unpleasant.
Watch the video below, especially the first 2:20 (especially 1:50-2:18) minutes and you’ll see what I mean. See if you make the same connection I do. Don’t believe you are just paranoid if you do, this documentary was produced by the CBC in the 1980s, and was not funded by the Birchers or any anti-Communist group in America.
Perhaps protracted political crisis in the United States is what Obama wants. If it is, we’re in for a bumpy ride in the coming year.