Posts Tagged ‘Patriot Post’

From the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ File

August 22, 2009

You can fool some of the people all the time…

From the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ File

The Leftmedia continue to portray town hall protestors as right-wing, gun-toting racist nutjobs, even when the shoe clearly doesn’t fit. As we noted last week, some “protestors” are carrying signs with Barack Obama sporting a Hitler mustache and the message “I’ve changed.” Of course, the media dutifully highlights the signs, while ignoring that they are distributed by and bear the Web site name of LaRouche PAC, the political action committee of seven-time Democrat presidential aspirant and committed socialist conspiracy nut Lyndon LaRouche. That doesn’t fit the template.

Protestors with guns are also a target. The Leftmedia frets that citizens can carry guns near some of these town halls, including outside one held by the president in Phoenix, Arizona. MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer commented, “A man at a pro-health care reform rally … wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip…. [T]here are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency, and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or onto their legs.” What Brewer failed to mention is that the man carrying the rifle was black. In addition, the video shown on MSNBC was carefully cropped to avoid showing that the man was black — it only showed the man’s back and waist, not his face.

Of course, the anti-gun narrative is not new to MSNBC or Contessa Brewer, and neither is the racial double standard mentioned Thursday by Mark Alexander. Truth, unfortunately, is kicked to the curb.

Abortion Will Be Part of ObamaCare

It should come as no surprise that the health care overhaul being designed by congressional Democrats include provisions for federally mandated coverage of abortions by insurance providers. After all, liberals embrace what President Obama has called “reproductive justice,” which apparently includes killing unborn children. (The “justice” aspect has us scratching our heads.) Some members of Congress and the president himself on occasion have stated publicly that no such mandate exists, but they are lying.

The word abortion does not appear in the draft legislation, but several provisions would not only force insurance companies to cover abortions, they would override several state laws and would ultimately lead to taxpayer funded abortions. This is what groups like Planned Parenthood have worked for all along, but the secret is out now, thanks in part to some liberal members of Congress who brazenly admit their stance that taxpayers should pay for abortions, regardless of their moral stance on the issue. “Abortion will be covered as a benefit by one or more of the health care plans available to Americans,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), “and I think it should be.” Naturally, a broad cross-section of the public is opposed to this idea, but that’s never stopped liberals before.

SOURCE

Calling All Informants

August 8, 2009

More from the Patriot Post.

THE FOUNDATION

“In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.” –Alexander Hamilton

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

ObamaCare opponents beware

Calling All Informants

The White House this week took to quoting John Adams in an effort to “debunk” criticism of and opposition to ObamaCare. “Facts are stubborn things,” said the administration. After videos resurfaced of Barack Obama saying in 2003, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program,” and in 2007, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process,” damage control became imperative.

Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, came to the rescue with a video of her own, claiming that opponents were simply cherry-picking quotes to create a “very false impression.” The trouble is, simply repeating Obama’s claims about Americans keeping their insurance plans isn’t the same as disproving the critics. Facts are stubborn things, Linda.

Not only is this administration intellectually lazy, it is thuggish. “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care,” says the aforementioned post. “These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.” Got that? Team Obama wants you to be a snitch; they want you to report even casual conversation with those who oppose ObamaCare directly to the White House itself.

Red State blogger Erick Erickson says that could be illegal. “According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President, shall ‘maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.'”

Next, the erstwhile community organizer and his Chicago thugs attacked community organizers around the country for attending town hall meetings hosted by congressmen and expressing their disapproval of Washington’s takeover of health care. According to some Democrats, American citizens, when they actively protest the policies of the ruling party and the president, are a “mob” that is out to “hurt our president,” not Americans exercising their constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly and petition to the government. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) went so far as to claim that the protesters were “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” Class act, that Speaker of the House.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) strongly implied that ObamaCare opponents are all just pawns of the insurance companies: “I hope my colleagues won’t fall for a sucker punch like this. These health insurance companies and people like them are trying to load these town meetings for visual impact on television. They want to show thousands of people screaming ‘socialism’ and try to overcome the public sentiment, which now favors health care reform.” He added, “There are health insurance companies that are … very profitable and they don’t want to see this reform so they are helping to organize these rallies.”

To recap then, more than half the population is opposing massive, unconstitutional government intervention in health care only because profit-making health insurers told us to. And Obama supporters are supposed to rat out their friends and family for opposing this unprecedented Socialist power grab. Witness the Democrats’ version of America.

Quote of the Week

“‘Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.’ We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away…. Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should ‘do something’ about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don’t have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.” –economist Thomas Sowell

News From the Swamp: ObamaCare Costs More

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 31-28 last Friday to approve health care legislation. The Senate Finance Committee is nearing a “compromise” bill, as well. The only real compromising going on, however, is that of the principles of so-called fiscally conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats. A public option insurance plan still dominates the House bill and the estimated cost is still about $1 trillion over 10 years, though we don’t believe that low-ball figure for a moment. As The Wall Street Journal notes, “The press corps has noticed the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the House health bill increases the deficit by $239 billion over the next decade. But government-run health care won’t turn into a pumpkin after a decade. The underreported news is the new spending that will continue to increase well beyond the 10-year period that CBO examines, and that this blowout will overwhelm even the House Democrats’ huge tax increases, Medicare spending cuts and other ‘pay fors.'”

According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, new revenue to pay for health care would grow at 5 percent per year for the decade following 2019, while spending will increase at more than 8 percent per year. Worse, the Journal adds, “[T]he CBO score almost surely understates this deficit chasm because CBO uses static revenue analysis — assuming that higher taxes won’t change behavior. But long experience shows that higher rates rarely yield the revenues that they project. As for the spending, when has a new entitlement ever come in under budget?” Democrats may indeed win approval for their plan by claiming it will be “deficit neutral” through 2019, but that’s what we call the BIG lie.

From the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ File

“President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can’t let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring.” –Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who admitted that she has “no idea” about a provision in the health care bill that requires her to “develop standards for the measurement of gender.” Details, details…

Best of the web

August 8, 2009

Here’s a compilation from The Patriot Post of this weeks Best of the Web.

On ObamaCare:

Utopia Versus Freedom by Thomas Sowell

Impossible Promises by John Stossel

Health Politics Quagmire by Tony Blankley

Sebelius: Don’t Sweat the Details by Cal Thomas

Hazardous to America’s Health by Debra Saunders

Fat Load by Jacob Sullum

Tea Party-Bashers Gone Wild by Michelle Malkin

The Villains of Health Care by Paul Greenberg

On politics:

Obama’s Great Race to Change America by Victor Davis Hanson

The Global Redistributionist at Obama’s Left Hand by Terence Jeffrey

On foreign policy:

Russo-Georgia One Year On: From Reset to Repeat? by Austin Bay

On the birth certificate kerfuffle:

Obama Birth Certificate Spotted in Bogus Moon Landing Footage by Ann Coulter

Patriot Post Round Up

July 31, 2009

Here’s a round up from the Patriot Post for this week. (see sidebar)

The Right Opinion at PatriotPost.US

Editor’s Note: Mark Alexander is traveling with his family in Alaska for the next two weeks. In his absence, we invite you to read this week’s best columns on The Patriot’s opinion page.

But first, on Monday, Alexander provided this analysis in response to Obama’s accusations about police “acting stupidly” when they arrested his old friend, Henry Louis Gates Jr.

Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Watcha Gonna Do…?

Don’t miss more on Obama and Gates:

How About a National Conversation on Race Hoaxes? by Ann Coulter

Obama, Gates, and the Problem of Black Guilt by Ben Shapiro

And a contrary view:

Liberty and Lippiness by Jacob Sullum

On health care, the economy and the lack of constitutional authority to interfere:

Why Obamacare is Sinking by Charles Krauthammer

Are Republicans the Economic Pessimists? by Lawrence Kudlow

A Minimum Wage Equals Minimum Jobs by John Stossel

Exploiting Public Ignorance by Walter E. Williams

On foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan:

The Obama Doctrine on Its Deathbed by Michael Gerson

Sacrifice in Afghanistan by Oliver North

On the Obama cult:

All-Access Obama by Brent Bozell

Second Amendment permits…

July 25, 2009

I have posted several times about unalienable rights, and why in the world any permit or license should be needed. But, such is life these days in our not so United States…

Second Amendment Reciprocity?

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” –Alexander Hamilton

As of this writing, Barack Hussein Obama’s “fundamental transformation of the United States of America” has obligated taxpayers for an admitted $7 trillion in current and future debt for his so-called “economic recovery” act. Heaping insult upon near-fatal injury, Congress is now considering an additional $2 trillion in proposed tax increases for BO’s CO2 folly, over $1 trillion for his nationalized healthcare experiment and untold trillions for another round of “economic recovery” programs. Furthermore, TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky announced this week that total Federal exposure for all TARP “spending” had been leveraged to $23.7 trillion, equal to approximately one and one half times GDP.

All of this tax obligation comes amid the worst economic decline in decades, and is sure to test the limits of “Trickle-Up Poverty.”

Of course, none of the aforementioned Obama initiatives, or the collection and redistribution of wealth to fund them, is authorized by our Constitution (unless of course you subscribe to the so-called “Living Constitution” as amended by judicial diktat).

Therefore, if these schemes are not authorized by our Constitution, then we have an outlaw government, and if we have an outlaw government, then by what authority does that government assess and collect taxes?

That question will be the subject of an upcoming essay, but I raise it here in order to highlight an expenditure that our Constitution does authorize Congress to enact — defense appropriations.

The National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (H.R. 2647) passed the House by a vote of 389 Ayes, 22 Nays (2 Republican) and 22 Present/Not Voting. It contained 69 amendments, mostly related to defense expenditures.

The Senate version of the NDAA (S.1390) with its 216 amendments is now being debated.

One of those amendments, a liberal effort to expand so-called “hate crimes” legislation, resulted in heated discourse on the Senate floor, including this scolding by John McCain (R-AZ) toward Harry Reid (D-NV): “The majority leader has made it clear that their highest priority … is a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatsoever with defending this nation. While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars, we’re going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that’s more important … than legislation concerning the defense of this nation.”

Indeed, McCain has this one exactly right.

However, I draw your attention to another amendment, this one added by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), authorizing interstate reciprocity of concealed-carry permit holders cross state lines with their weapons. Thune’s amendment was stripped from the legislation even after mustering 58 votes for and 39 votes against.

Yes, that is a strong majority in favor, but still two votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to block a promised filibuster by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). (In today’s milquetoast Senate, just the threat of a filibuster is treated as an actual filibuster.)

Deplorably, two Republican senators voted against Thune’s measure: Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of neighboring Ohio.

For the record, I am not suggesting this measure would have passed had Lugar and Voinovich changed their votes — the Democrats were not going to let this one through. These votes always come down to who cut the best backroom wink-and-nod deals on some other piece of legislation in return for a aye or nay on this one. But I do wonder what Lugar and Voinovich got in return…

Schumer protested, “This amendment is a bridge too far, and could endanger the safety of millions of Americans. Each state has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we’ve had in reducing crime in most all parts of America. Whether you are pro-gun or pro-gun control, this measure deserves to be defeated. We will do everything we can to stop this poisonous amendment from being enacted.”

There was a concerted effort by the Left to paint Thune’s reciprocity amendment as having nothing to do with national defense — a tit-for-tat in response to McCain’s complaint about Reid’s “hate crimes” amendment.

However, I subscribe to the notion that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That would be directly from the Second Amendment in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Sidebar: For those who don’t know enough about American history to comprehend that “a well regulated Militia” refers to “the People,” stop reading this essay and take Civics 101 at any accredited institution. Oh, wait, they don’t teach Civics 101 any longer, which not only perpetuates but, in fact, institutionalizes ignorance of our Constitution.

The Second Amendment’s assurance of the right, nay, the responsibility to own and carry firearms, with the attendant proscription against government infringement of that right, is our most essential reassurance of self defense, national defense and defense of our Constitution from “enemies, domestic and abroad.”

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison (our Constitution’s principal author), wrote in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833), “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

On that note, let’s take a closer look at Schumer’s complaint in an effort to discern what the Second Amendment really provides.

“Each state,” says Schumer, “has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas.”

Schumer is asserting that the Second Amendment prohibits only federal government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms while that prohibition is not incorporated to prohibit state governments from infringing on the same right.

So, would Schumer likewise argue that states have authority to regulate First Amendment rights of religious freedom, or freedom of speech, or of the press? Of course not.

Ironically, the First Amendment notes, “Congress [emphasis added] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Our Founders chose their words with great deliberation.)

Though the First Amendment is clearly a proscription on congressional legislation, not state legislation, the Second Amendment contains no such language and declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

However, the Left has errantly incorporated proscriptions of the First Amendment upon the states (while completely redefining “speech” to include even the most grotesque forms of expression but restricting political speech,) while arguing that the Second Amendment is a prohibition only upon the federal government.

Sidebar: When an über-leftist attempts to make an argument for federalism, beware. Though the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights defines federalism — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” — this does not suggest that the previous amendments apply only to the federal government.

In order to consider whether there is a constitutional basis for Thune’s reciprocity amendment in the first place, we must first discern our Founders’ original intent.

The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 after great disagreement on whether the enumeration of such rights was even required. Alexander Hamilton aptly summed up the basis for this disagreement in Federalist No. 84: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. … For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

Indeed, read in context, the Bill of Rights is an affirmation of innate individual rights, of Natural Rights as noted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “[All men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Bill of Rights, then, is a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government in regard to infringement of those rights.

Further, it is ludicrous to argue that the enumeration of those rights was a prohibition on only the federal government since, in the words of Hamilton (and echoed in the writings of many other Founders), “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

These rights were enumerated, according to those who favored inclusion, in order to explicitly recount the rights of “the people,” as noted in the Bill of Rights Preamble (yes, it has one): “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”

In other words, our Founders argued that they enumerated both “declaratory and restrictive clauses” in order to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of [central government] powers” that would infringe on the inherent rights of the people.

More than a century after the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Supreme Court (of Jefferson’s “Despotic Branch”) began incorporating the provisions in the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. This, in and of itself, implied that somehow the inalienable rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might not already extend to all people in all jurisdictions.

The High Court construed the 14th Amendment’s Section 1 as support for incorporation: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It is notable that the 14th Amendment makes direct reference to the Bill of Rights’ Fifth Amendment prohibition against depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property.”

In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court increasingly used the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause to make portions of the Bill of Rights binding upon the states. The consequence of this interpretation was and remains that the inalienable rights enumerated by our Founders are now awarded at the discretion of the judiciary, not endowed by our Creator.

However, given the fact that our Founders’ intent with the Bill of Rights was to enumerate certain declaratory and restrictive clauses to ensure the Declaration’s “unalienable rights” of all men, one must conclude by extension that those rights are inalienable by any government jurisdiction, irrespective of the 14th Amendment.

So, in regard to Sen. Thune’s reciprocity amendment, I ask, “Reciprocity for what?” Are we so steeped in the errant notion that our rights are a gift from government that we no longer subscribe to the plain language of our Constitution based on the inalienable rights of man? Has the temperature been turned up so slowly over the last eight decades, so incrementally, that when we finally feel the heat, it will be too late for us to jump, like frogs, out of the pot?

With our Constitution now in exile, I can understand why Sen. Thune would forward an amendment to provide interstate reciprocity for law-abiding concealed weapon permit holders.

However, the Second Amendment still enumerates my right to carry.

When senators such as Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin declare, “We’re able to breathe a sigh of relief,” in regard to the defeat of Thune’s amendment, let me suggest that you obtain a copy of our Constitution, and be prepared to educate anyone charged with enforcing the law, just what it is that they have sworn to “Support and Defend.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Obama to Cut U.S. Nuclear Capability

July 10, 2009

President Barack Obama and his Russian comrade, President Dmitri Medvedev, agreed this week on the framework of a nuclear weapons treaty, planning to cut both nations’ inventories by as much as a third. The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires December 5. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Under the agreement, deployed nuclear warheads targeted at each country would be reduced to between 1,500 and 1,675 over seven years from the current ceiling of 2,200.” Additionally, “Nuclear-weapons delivery systems would be reduced to between 500 and 1,100 from the current ceiling of 1,600. The wide gap reflects continued division over four U.S. Trident submarines, the entire U.S. B-1 bomber fleet and dozens of B-52s that have been either converted to release conventional weapons use or mothballed.” The Russians want them counted; the U.S. does not.

Obama declared, “As the world’s two leading nuclear powers, the United States and Russia must lead by example…. It is very difficult for us to exert that leadership unless we are showing ourselves willing to deal with our own nuclear stockpiles in a more rational way.” By rational way, of course, Obama means to systematically get rid of them. Not exactly peace through strength.

SOURCE

First, a little bit of history

July 3, 2009

Independence Day 2009: We still hold these truths…

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” –Patrick Henry

As we celebrate the 233rd year of our Declaration of Independence, let us look at the common parlance associated with the polar spectrum of current political ideology (while such a review is still permitted by the state), and explore what is meant by “Left versus Right,” “Liberal versus Conservative” and “Tyranny versus Liberty”?

Tyranny v. Liberty (poster available at PatriotShop.US)

First, a little history.

On July 4th of 1776, our Founders, assembled as representatives to the Second Continental Congress, issued a declaration stating most notably: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. … That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

In other words, our Founders affirmed that our rights, which are inherent by Natural Law as provided by our Creator, can’t be arbitrarily alienated by men like England’s King George III, who believed that the rights of men are the gifts of government.

Our Founders publicly declared their intentions to defend these rights by attaching their signatures between July 4th and August 2nd of 1776 to the Declaration. They and their fellow Patriots pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor as they set about to defend the Natural Rights of man.

At the conclusion of the American War for Independence in 1783, our Founders determined the new nation needed a more suitable alliance among the states than the Articles of Confederation. After much deliberation, they proposed the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, ratified in 1788 and implemented in 1789 as subordinate guidance to our Declaration of Independence.

Since that time, generations of American Patriots have laid down their lives “to support and defend” our Constitution — and I would note here that their sacred oath says nothing about a so-called “Living Constitution” as advocated by the political left.

Given that bit of history as a backdrop, consider the lexicography of our current political ideology.

On the dark side of the spectrum would be Leftists, liberals and tyrants.

(Sidebar: One should not confuse “classical liberalism” with “contemporary liberalism.” The former refers to those, like Thomas Jefferson, who advocated individual liberty, while the latter refers to those, like Barack Hussein Obama, who advocate statism, which is the antithesis of liberty.)

Statism, as promoted by contemporary American liberals, has as its objective the establishment of a central government authorized as the arbiter of all that is “good” for “the people” — and conferring upon the State ultimate control over the most significant social manifestation of individual rights, economic enterprise.

On the left, all associations between individuals ultimately augment the power and control of the State. The final expression and inevitable terminus of such power and control, if allowed to progress unabated, is tyranny.

The word “tyranny” is derived from the Latin “tyrannus,” which translates to “illegitimate ruler.”

Liberals, then, endeavor to undermine our nation’s founding principles in order to achieve their statist objectives. However, politicians who have taken an oath to “support and defend” our Constitution, but then govern in clear defiance of that oath, are nothing more than illegitimate rulers, tyrants.

(Sidebar: Some Leftists contend that Communism and Fascism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Properly understood, however, both of these forms of government are on the left, because both have as a common end the establishment of an omnipotent state led by a dictator.)

Over on the “right wing” of the political spectrum, where the light of truth shines, would be “conservatives,” from the Latin verb “conservare,” meaning to preserve, protect and defend — in this case, our Constitution.

American conservatives are those who seek to conserve our nation’s First Principles, those who advocate for individual liberty, constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, strong national defense and traditional American values.

Contemporary political ideology is thus defined by tyrannus and conservare occupying the Left and Right ends of the American political spectrum, defining the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Though there are many devoted protagonists at both ends of this scale, the space in between is littered with those who, though they identify with one side or the other, are not able to articulate the foundation of that identity. That is to say, they are not rooted in liberal or conservative doctrine, but motivated by contemporaneous political causes associated with the Left or Right. These individuals do not describe themselves as “liberal” or “conservative” but as Democrat or Republican. Further, they tend to elect ideologically ambivalent politicians who are most adept at cultivating special interest constituencies.

That having been said, however, there is a major difference between those on the Left and the Right, as demonstrated by our most recent national elections. Those on the Left tend to form a more unified front for the purpose of electability; they tend to embrace a “win at all costs” philosophy, while those on the right tend to spend valuable political capital drawing distinctions between and among themselves.

I would suggest that this disparity is the result of the contest between human nature and Natural Law.

The Left appeals to the most fundamental human instincts to procure comfort, sustenance and shelter, and to obtain those basic needs by the most expedient means possible. The Left promises that the State will attain those needs equally, creating a path of least resistance for that fulfillment.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Right promotes the tenets of Natural Law — individual liberty and its attendant requirements of personal responsibility and self-reliance.

Clearly, one of these approaches is far easier to sell to those who have been systematically dumbed down by government educational institutions and stripped of their individual dignity by the plethora of government welfare programs.

That easy sell notwithstanding, the threat of tyranny can eventually produce an awakening among the people and a reversal of trends toward statism. But this reversal depends on the emergence of a charismatic, moral leader who can effectively advocate for liberty. (Ronald Wilson Reagan comes to mind.)

For some nations, this awakening has come too late. The most notable examples in the last century are Russia, Germany, Italy and China, whose peoples suffered greatly under the statist tyrannies they came to embrace. In Germany and Italy, the state collapsed after its expansionist designs were forcibly contained. In Russia, the state collapsed under the weight of 70 years of economic centralization and ideological expansionism.

The Red Chinese regime, having witnessed the collapse of the USSR, has so far avoided its own demise by combining an autocratic government with components of a free enterprise economic system. (My contacts in China, including that nation’s largest real estate developers and investment fund managers, believe the Red regime will be gone within five years.)

Of course, there exists an American option for the rejection of tyranny: Revolution. And it is an essential option, because the Natural Rights of man are always at risk of contravention by tyrants. At no time in the last century has our Republic faced a greater threat from “enemies, domestic” than right now.

“Our individual salvation,” insists Barack Obama, “depends on collective salvation.” In other words, BHO’s tyranny, et al, must transcend Constitutional authority. And in accordance with his despotic ideals, Obama is now implementing “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America” that he promised his cadre of liberal voters.

It is yet to be seen whether the current trend toward statism will be reversed by the emergence of a great conservative leader, or by revolution, but if you’re betting on another Ronald Reagan, I suggest you hedge your bet.

Our Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson, understood the odds. He wrote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground,” and he concluded, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Accordingly, George Washington advised, “We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.”

Indeed we must.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Obama Care, Teddy Care, and so on…

June 20, 2009

I don’t know about you, but the more I am hearing about “health care reform” the more skeptical I become. From making gun control into a health care issue to deciding who gets what care, and when?

This entire issue is becoming a Trojan Horse from the looks of things. Here’s a thought though. On another thread a person argued in favor of a complete ban on mentally ill people from owning firearms. Alright, that sounds reasonable prima facie. In many places those will mental illness are also banned from voting. Therefore, those afflicted with the mental illness of Hopolophobia will be forever banned from voting, or owning weapons! Fat chance that will happen in this day and age of political correctness.

Obamacare Takes Center Stage

ABC News is lending itself to the Obama administration for the night of Wednesday, June 24, for a live broadcast of ABC World News Tonight from the Blue Room of the White House. This will be followed by an hour-long primetime special entitled “Prescription for America,” which will advocate the Obama health care plan. The Republican National Committee noted that with the absence of opposing views, the programming amounts to little more than a campaign commercial — one that should rightly be paid for by the Democratic National Committee.

ABC predictably took offense and claimed that it will have complete editorial control over the content of the program. Or at least as much control as the White House wants them to have. As columnist Cal Thomas observes, “By the way, guess who’s the new director of communications for the White House Office of Health Reform. It’s former ABC News correspondent Linda Douglass, who left journalism last year to join the Obama campaign.” How convenient.

The network claims it will have “thoughtful” and “diverse” perspectives on the plan, but one noteworthy absence is “20/20” anchor John Stossel, who will not be participating. A pity, too, for if anyone at ABC has the requisite “thoughtful” and “diverse” perspective, it’s Stossel. (See his 2007 health care report for more.)

Obama’s reason for taking to the airwaves is that his proposal is facing stiffer opposition than anticipated. First, his estimate of $634 billion over 10 years is wildly optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the plan will cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years and “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1 trillion,” despite Obama’s reassurance that his reform (read: takeover) “will not add to our deficit over the next 10 years.” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) promised to cut $600 billion from the proposal and to pay for it with tax increases, spending cuts and other offsets. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) said the plan includes $600 billion in tax hikes and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

Furthermore, the CBO estimates that 23 million Americans will lose the insurance they currently have, contrary to Obama’s key promise that no one will lose insurance. “[T]he number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million,” the report says.

Obamacare only tastes good after the alcohol kicks in

The CBO estimate is so ugly for Democrats, The Hill reports, that “lawmakers are talking about changing the chamber’s normal accounting procedures,” substituting estimates from the White House Office of Management and Budget for those of the CBO. So much for “transparency.”

Considering the whole of Obamacare, one Patriot reader declared, “I haven’t heard health care advice so laughable since Lucille Ball flogged Vitameatavegamin on TV. ‘It’s so tasty too. It’s just like candy.’ Has our president been hitting the Vitameatavegamin bottle himself? Not to worry, though. Even though socialized medicine has proven an abject failure in every venue trying it, the United States is such a big country that, like Lucy and Ethel selling homemade salad dressing below the cost of their ingredients, no doubt ‘We’ll make it up in volume.'”

The BIG Lie

“Let me also address an illegitimate concern that’s being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan Horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest: There are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe — and I’ve taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief — that it’s important for our efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.” –President Barack Obama to the American Medical Association

When asked which countries’ citizens enjoyed their socialized medicine, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs later admitted, “I don’t know exactly the countries. … I assume Canada, Britain, maybe France.” Not the examples we’d pick to bolster Obama’s case.

On Cross-Examination

“It’s hard to know whether President Obama’s health care ‘reform’ is naive, hypocritical or simply dishonest. Probably all three. The president keeps saying it’s imperative to control runaway health spending. He’s right. The trouble is that what’s being promoted as health care ‘reform’ almost certainly won’t suppress spending and, quite probably, will do the opposite.” –Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson

This Week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ Award

“I do not want the government to run things. I’ve got enough to do.” –President Barack Obama, attempting the equivalent of a Jedi mind trick: “These are not the droids you’re looking for.”

SOURCE

While Mark is away…

June 18, 2009

No, the mice won’t play. But you can find some top notch commentary at

Visit The Patriot’s Opinion Page

Mark Alexander is away participating in a strategy symposium at the Naval War College this week. In his absence, we invite you to read this week’s best columns on The Patriot’s opinion page:

More on the first 100 days…

May 2, 2009

It’s no secret to regular readers of this blog that I think that the impostor in chief is the single biggest disaster this nation has encountered in my fifty-seven years. Beating out Jimmy Carter and the socialism of Lyndon Johnson takes some doing but, he has succeeded in doing so, and in a very short amount of time. Mark Alexander distills these first hundred days with class and style well beyond my meager skills.

The Peaceful Revolution’s First 100 Days

By Mark Alexander

Last fall, Barack Hussein Obama pledged that his administration would carry out a “fundamental transformation of the United States of America.” Today, as we reflect on the first 100 days of the Obama regime’s occupation of the executive branch, with Party allegiance in the legislative branch, it pains me to report that he has exceeded the wildest expectations of his Socialist constituencies.

In the wake of last year’s “October Surprise” (the catastrophic meltdown of the nation’s largest financial institutions), his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said of Obama’s strategy, “Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.”

Indeed, Obama has done BIG things. In the words of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Obama’s first 100 days have been spectacularly successful. Obama is the strongest domestic Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. … In just 100 days, Obama has been devastatingly effective in moving forward swiftly the most radical, government-expanding agenda in American history.”

How did that happen?

Some political scientists argue that democracy is a conduit for “peaceful revolutions,” including radical shifts in political ideology, without a shot being fired.

I agree, except that our nation is not a “dumbocracy.” It is a republic, or at least it was before the once proud Democrat Party became infested with Socialists, who masterfully co-opted the education system along with the modern “opiate of the masses” (television and print media), and re-educated those masses.

So successful has this Leftist strategy been that their dumbed-down constituencies now follow their messianic leader like dullard lemmings.

Consequently, here is an account of a few notable events from the first 100 days of “hope and change.”

Under the aegis of “economic stimulus,” Obama promptly raided the Treasury and doled it out to his constituencies — at terrible expense to this and future generations. Asked how one might evaluate the effectiveness of his plan, Obama replied, “I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving four million jobs.” Not even Bill Clinton had the hubris to suggest something as slick as “saving four million jobs.”

Remarkably, Obama managed to ram that one through Congress without a single Democrat claiming to have read it.

As for his cabinet, a long list of Obama nominees agreed to pay back taxes in return for rubber stamp appointments, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who, despite owing more than $40,000 now oversees the IRS.

Poor nominee Tom Daschle, who in a previous life as Demo Senate Majority Leader proclaimed, “Tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter.” He was all but confirmed as HHS Secretary until we learned that he had cheated us out of $130,000 in back taxes. Apparently even Obama’s hypocrisy knows some limits.

Obama last fall repeatedly promised to end the practice of special interest earmarks. Then, he signed an appropriations bill with more than 8,000 earmarks, including $2 billion for House Appropriations Chairman David Obey’s lobbyist son’s projects, $3.7 billion for contracts to Sen. Diane Feinstein’s husband’s company, and $4.19 billion for Obama’s favorite voter fraud outfit, ACORN.

When the pork-laden bill passed, Obama had the audacity to proclaim, “I’m proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks.”

Obama also converted the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation into instruments for nationalizing the banking system.

Under the pretense of responding to “global warming,” Obama has plans to impose almost $2 trillion in cap-and-tax energy taxes — this despite his oft-repeated pledge that 95 percent of Americans wouldn’t see their taxes increased.

Obama’s $3.5 trillion 2010 budget includes projections for more than $9 trillion in near-term increases of national debt. Feigning fiscal integrity, Obama demanded budget cuts of $100 million — which is to say that even while obscenely expanding the size of government, he targeted some spending that was out of line with his ideology. For the record, $100 million represents three one-thousandths of one percent of Obama’s FY 2010 budget, or approximately what the central government redistributes every 13 minutes of every hour of every day of every week of…

Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw also offered some perspective on this $100 million spending cut, noting that it’s the equivalent of a family with a $100,000 income cutting a $3 latte from their budget.

Of Obama’s budget, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exclaimed, “[F]or the first time in many, many years, we have a president’s budget … that is a statement of our national values. … It’s a very happy day for our country.”

Meanwhile, according to The Wall Street Journal, in February, the price of single-family homes in 20 major metropolitan areas fell 18.6 percent from the previous year, after a record 19 percent drop in January.

In the first quarter of 2009, the U.S. economy contracted at a seasonally adjusted 6.1 percent annual rate, and Americans lost more than two million jobs. No doubt Obama’s bold and swift action saved four million other jobs.

Perhaps the most dangerous of all the Obama policy shifts, however, is his framing of our foreign policy with atonement for America’s past, which he says has been “arrogant,” “dismissive” and “derisive.” In doing so, he lends credibility to the anti-American attitudes and actions of our enemies.

Some of the most telling examples of Obama’s ideology are apparent in the last few of his first hundred days. For example:

Day 97: Obama’s White House Military Office appointee, former Clintonista Louis Caldera, authorized a photo shoot of Air Force One over Manhattan, an event which involved the low flight of a large jet plane with two F-16s in pursuit over Ground Zero and points nearby. Because the public wasn’t told, many feared another 9/11 attack was in progress.

Indeed, an FAA memo prior to the flight warned of “the possibility of public concern regarding DoD aircraft flying at low altitudes.” To which Obama responded, “It, uh, was, uh, a mistake. It, uh, will never, uh, happen again.”

The Air Force reported that the flight of the VC-25 (customized Boeing 747) and its two attendant F-16s cost $328,835. However, the actual cost associated with the operation of VC-25 alone, when considering all support and planning for this photo folly, was closer to $775,000 (and who knows how many Al Gore carbon credits had to be purchased to offset this operation).

On the other hand, the one-time purchase of Adobe Photoshop costs around $600.

In January, Obama chastised private sector executives for using corporate jets to commute, most of which cost $3-$5 thousand per hour to operate. The plane we taxpayers fund for Obama costs $260,000 per hour to operate, and Monday, it was cruising around without him.

Day 98: Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, in an NPR interview about Obama’s Orwellian cap-and-tax policy, remarked, “The president has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is one single national roadmap that tells automakers, who are trying to become solvent again, what kind of car it is that they need to be designing and building for the American people.”

The interviewer asks, “Is that the role of the government? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.”

Jackson, obviously in need of her ObamaPrompter, replied, “Well, it, it, it is free enterprise in a way. Um, ah, you know, first and foremost, the free enterprise system has us where we are right this second. And so some would argue that the government has a much larger role to play then we might’ve when Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line.”

Some might argue that “we are where we are” because government has played “a much larger role since Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line.”

Day 99: After the media fanned the flames about a “swine flu pandemic,” Obama warned, “This is obviously a serious situation, serious enough to take the utmost precautions.” He then promptly applied his “Rule 1” and asked Congress for $1.5 billion in emergency funding.

Day 100: The Obamaprompter addressed the nation yesterday, and not only did he claim, “We inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. That wasn’t me,” but once again trotted this one out: “[My recovery act] has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.”

We checked, and Congress sets budgets, the Democrats have controlled the Senate and House for the last two years (which coincides with the housing and financial market collapses) and Obama was in the Senate for two of those years.

â?¨As for jobs, I am sure that Obama has “saved” all our jobs! Hail Obama! Let’s us all bow down to “The One.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner correctly surmises, “The president’s first 100 days can be summed up in three words: spending, taxing, and borrowing.”

Suffice it to say, the list is as long as it is absurd, and you can bask in a litany of examples we’ve compiled for your reading displeasure at “The First Hundred Days.”

As for “peaceful revolutions,” John F. Kennedy declared in 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

I would argue this case: “Those who undermine our republican rule of law make violent revolution inevitable.”

To that end, there is some good news on the “checks and balances” front, though some may find this a bit disconcerting.

There are now more than 65 million gun-owning Patriots across this nation, many of whom have taken sacred oaths “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

We stand ready to honor that oath, understanding that, in the words of John Adams, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

And the ranks of Patriots are growing.

In the last three months of 2008, Americans bought enough guns to arm the national armies of both China and India — a total of 12.7 million guns last year. Gun sales in the first three months of 2009 were 27 percent higher year-over-year than the first three months of 2008 (which also recorded record sales).

Perhaps all these gun purchases are coincidental, not consequential. But I doubt it. As Americans begin to awaken to the reality of Obama’s Socialist agenda, it will be interesting to see how his next 1,361 days unfold.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked if the delegates had formed a republic or a monarchy. “A republic,” he responded, “if you can keep it.”

We will see.

Quote of the Week

“There’s something very curious — even laughable — about watching the media assemble to offer President Obama a grade after the first 100 days. They weren’t exactly a team of dispassionate scientists in a lab. They continue to be what they’ve been all along — a rolling gaggle of Obama cheerleaders — only before it was a campaign, and now it’s an administration. So now they’re assessing whether their awe-inspiring historic candidate still glows with the luster of victory. Hmm … let’s see. They applied the luster, they boasted of the luster, and you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll continue doing both. … After 100 days, the media still look more like the president’s advertising team than the people’s watchdog.” –Media Research Center president Brent Bozell

On Cross-Examination

“Barack Obama is the frivolous man who concocted his own presidential-looking Great Seal before he was elected. An ego big enough to publicly display a ridiculous ‘Vero Possumus’ (‘Yes, we can’ in Latin) motto and a regal eagle with the Obama campaign logo emblazoned on its chest is an ego capable of far more reckless things. Obama orchestrated a grand photo-op in Berlin, Germany, to declare his world citizenship at the Siegessaule — the Victory Column — a soaring monument of arrogance championed by Adolf Hitler and Third Reich architect Albert Speer. He manufactured his own Open Temple of The One in Denver for the Democratic National Convention last summer, replete with fake Greek columns.” –columnist Michelle Malkin

Open Query

“Obama’s very activism these days arrogates to himself the blame for the success or failure of his policies. Their outcome will determine his outcome, and there is no way it will be positive. Why? You can’t borrow as much as he will need to without raising interest rates that hurt the economy. The massive amount of spending will trigger runaway inflation once the economy starts to recover. His overhaul of the tax code (still in the planning phases) and his intervention in corporate management will create such business uncertainty that nobody will invest in anything until they see the lay of the land. His bank program is designed to help banks, but not to catalyze consumer lending. And his proposal for securitization of consumer loans won’t work and is just what got us into this situation.” –political analyst Dick Morris