David Horowitz: 'Creepy Marxist Take-Over of the Democrat Party'

Source:Daily Idea- New-Right commentator David Horowitz, talking about the Democratic Party.

"David Horowitz: The Democratic Party is Now a Communist Party

David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative writer. He is a founder and current president of the think tank the David Horowitz Freedom Center; editor of the Center's publication, FrontPage Magazine; and director of Discover the Networks, a website that tracks individuals and groups on the political left. Horowitz also founded the organization Students for Academic Freedom.

Horowitz has written several books. In this talk he talks about his new book  "Big Agenda, Trump and The Left." 

From the Daily Idea

"David Horowitz: The Creepy Marxist Take-Over of the Democrat Party." Is originally what this post was about, with former New-Left (now New-Right) commentator David Horowitz talking about what he apparently believes is a Marxist-Communist takeover of the Democratic Party. But what said about the Democratic Party then, is longer available online, except for what I wrote about it here.  

David Horowitz is wrong about a big point here: the Bernie Sanders Socialists are at best 1/3 of the Democratic Party right now. And if you don't believe me, just look at Congressional Democrats where the so-called Progressive Caucus in the House (Progressives in name only and Socialists in actuality) have maybe 60 members in a caucus of around 200. 

And then you look at the Senate, only Bernie Sanders is a self-described Socialist and then you have people like Ed Markey and perhaps a few others who are very left-wing, but are also very pragmatic and will vote with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer most of the time. Who is a New York Progressive Democrat, but would be an insult to any Socialist anywhere in the world.  

The Republican Party has their Far-Right wing of Christian-Nationalists and Nationalists who claim to be Christian, but who are really just anti-minority, anti-women, militiamen. And the Democratic Party has their Far-Left wing made of Socialists (self-described and closeted) who in come cases want to transform the United States into a social democracy, but the radicals of that movement want America to be a socialist state, whether they ever admit it or not. 

Alabama Policy Institute: 60 Minutes Leslie Stahl- 'Tom Coburn’s Farewell-from-Congress Interview'

Source:Alabama Policy Institute- CBS News's Leslie Stahl, interviewing U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (Republican, Oklahoma)

"Tom Coburn, the former senator from Oklahoma and forthcoming keynote speaker at API’s 2016 Annual Mobile Dinner (for information, visit www.AnnualMobileDinner.com), discusses his life and career in his farewell interview, given shortly before he retired from Congress, on “60 Minutes.”

This is an abridged version of the television broadcast, which originally aired on CBS on Sunday, December 21, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. (CST)." 

From the Alabama Policy Institute 

I don't agree with Senator Tom Coburn on most if not all social issues. He's what's called a Christian-Conservative and I'm a Liberal across the board, but if there were 535 Tom Coburn's in Congress (House and Senate) Congress's approval rating would be in the 60s, 70s, maybe 80s. I'm not talking so much about policy, but as it relates to his personal character. 

The term American Patriot gets thrown out a lot (especially on the Right) but the term was invented for the Tom Coburn's of the world, because he's a man whose only in Washington and serving in Congress to represent his beloved State of Oklahoma and to serve his country. Not to get reelected or elected to higher office (which is what your average member of Congress does today) but to do what he believes is best for his state and country, regardless of what political price he may  have to pay. 

And again if there were more Tom Coburn's in Congress, Congress's approval rating would be a helluva higher than your average spam caller or accident attorney (which it currently trails) and Americans would respect their politicians. Perhaps not even look at them as politicians, but as public servants, which Senator Coburn always was. 

National Geographic: 'Lockdown Prison Oakville Maximum Security Prisons Documentary'

Source:National Geographic- a corrections officer at Oak Park Maximum Security Prison, in Minnesota. 

"Lockdown Prison Oakville Maximum Security Prisons Documentary" 

From Larry Long 

It's hard to feel hard for people who not just hurt innocent people, or hurt innocent people for a living, or just hurt innocent people for prison, but then hurt innocent people while they're in prison. At some point the Department of Corrections has to take a stand and not just say that they're not going to tolerate this horrible behavior, but then do whatever they can within the law and Constitution, to prevent that violent behavior from happening again. 

The whole point of maximum security and supermax prisons is to prevent further violence in prisons. It's said that maximum security and supermax's are designed to house the worst of the worst, but not from society, because once you enter prison, you leave the free society, at least, but these prisons are designed to house the worst of the worst in the Department of Corrections. Meaning the inmate population regardless of what state you're talking about.  

Having said all of this, it's called the Department of Corrections for a very good reason, when you're talking about Minnesota or any other state. So these institution are supposed to be designed to at least make the inmates better inmates and responsible people while they're in prison at least, if not prepare the inmates for life on the outside, if they're released from prison at some point. And even in a supermax or even in solitary confinement, the inmates need to be incentivized to get with the program and cooperate with the prison staff and not have to come back to solitary in the future.

Young Americans For Freedom: Governor Ronald Reagan (1975)

Source:YAF- Governor Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) addressing YAF in 1975.

"Ronald Reagan gives this address to Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) at a 1975 meeting.  He talks about how to use bold banners, not pale pastels, when activists advance conservative ideas."

Source:Young Americans For Freedom

Back in this time period of 1974-75 just as then Governor Ronald Reagan was leaving the state house in California and looking into running for President in 1976, he described his politics as libertarian. His politics were very similar to Senator Barry Goldwater. These were both "get big government out of our wallets and bedrooms" Republicans and Barry Goldwater would probably be called a Libertarian today. 

Representative Ron Paul comes the closest to Goldwater-Reagan today. Foreign policy would be where they are different and both Goldwater and Reagan believed in at least some forms of taxation as well. And would be probably be (excuse the term, but this is how it is) shitting bricks if they were alive today and saw what had happened to the Republican Party. 

If Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan were alive today, instead of seeing a party that they built a lot of it on themselves, a party that was around to fight big government. Instead Reagan and Goldwater they would see a party that was promoting big government. Thanks to the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives and all their new big government ideas, with their borrow and spend fiscal policy of the last decade. 

Ronald Reagan was talking about a new Conservative Republican Party that would be dominated by Classical Conservatives, Constitutional Conservatives, Federalists. That wouldn't make race, ethnicity, cultural, or gender, as issues in their party, but instead constitutional conservatism, that could appeal to Constitutional Conservatives of all racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, or economic backgrounds. That would take on the left-wing of the Democratic Party. And he accomplished a lot of what he was talking about in 1980, when the he won the presidency and the Republican Party finally won back the U.S. Senate and picked up 30 seats in the U.S. House.

American Enterprise: Charles Murray: The Trouble Isn't Liberals, It's Progressives

Source:AEI

Charles Murray hit it on the head in his AEI article about liberalism and how that is different from today's so-called progressivism. Even though even what is supposed to pass as progressivism today is really not progressivism either. But some form of leftist fascism and statism. A true Progressive is not a fascist and doesn't believe in unlimited government to serve or take care of the people either. But today's so-called Progressives seem to do and have an unlimited view of what government can do for people.

As a Liberal myself I'm finding everyday that I have more in common with real Conservatives. Not the big government religious fundamentalists, but real Conservatives the Rand Paul's of the world or Libertarians. Because we tend to believe in similar things. That it is not that Americans have too much freedom both economically and personally. But that we don't have enough in too many areas and tend to agree on things like the failed War on Drugs. Criminal justice reform, the prison industrial complex and the military industrial complex. That these two areas need to be reformed and that when people are educated they are much more qualified to run their own lives than government.

Of course I as a Liberal do not agree with Conservatives on economic policy in general. I would invest a lot more in infrastructure than they would and do not want to over regulate business, but believe they need to be regulated to protect workers and consumers from predators. And Conservatives in general tend to believe that regulations are a bad thing. And perhaps would privatize infrastructure all together in this country. But real Liberals and real Conservatives or Conservative Libertarians tend to have similar goals when it comes to these economic issues, but with different policies. And tend to have similar positions when it comes to social issues as well. That these things should be left up to the individual.

It's not Liberals that are the problem to paraphrase Charles Murray. But people on the Left who are called Liberals because the so-called Liberals either self-define their politics that way. Or the media is too dumb to tell the difference between a statist or fascist or Socialist or Communist even from a real Liberal. People who truly do believe in individual freedom and individualism and that there is a limit to what government can do for the people especially the central government.

It's not the Liberal that is alway trying to expand the state and eliminate all disagreeing points of the view to what the far-left preaches in America. About equality and collectivism at all costs. And that "freedom is dangerous even from a personal perspective and that we big central government to manage the social welfare of the country for the good of the country". But the far-left in America whether you want to call them collectivists or statists or even Democratic Socialists people who believe in the collective and collectivism and that individualism and freedom is dangerous and needs to be limited who believe in these ideas.

The Federalist: Scott Lincicome: A Free Market Guide to Assessing Reform Conservative Policies

Source:The Federalist

Hum 'reform conservative', that almost sounds like an Oxymoron if you take the official definition of conservative seriously which I do. Because reform means to change and generally improve something whatever something is. A conservative is supposed to be someone who believes in the status-quo. That is keep as is. To put it simply and risk stating the obvious a conservative believes in conserving. Its the progressive who is supposed to believe in changing and moving forward, adapting with the times.

But having gotten past that and lets say reform minded Republicans are only throwing out terms like 'reform conservative' because they grasp the obvious of the current state of the Republican Party. Which is a party that simply doesn't appeal to enough Americans to be a governing party. A party that can run more than just the lower chamber of Congress the House of Representatives with a tight divided majority. But could also run a united Congress that includes the upper chamber the Senate and win back the White House as well.

And for the Republican Party to be able to achieve these goals they are going to have to appeal to more than just their business lobby, libertarian anti-government right and the religious-right. As well as Americans besides their Anglo-Saxon Protestant base. And however they label an agenda that can do that 'reform conservative' or whatever it is going to have to bring in non-traditional (going back forty-five years) Republicans for them to be a true national governing party again.

Commentary Magazine: Jonathan S. Tobin: In Defense of the Vice Presidency

That is really the main and perhaps only function of the Vice President. And whatever responsibilities is given by the President and how well the Vice President carries out those duties determines how well the function of being ready to be President is carried out. Which is critical for any presidential nominee to select someone who is not only qualified to be Vice President of the United States, but President of the United States as well. Just in case the Vice President has to step into the Presidency even in a short-term basis during the President’s term.

With a Vice President the American people know who they are getting if anything were to happen to the President. Because the Vice President is from the same party and in a lot of cases has similar political beliefs. And a good and active Vice President which is what we’ve had for the most part since Walter Mondale in the Carter Administration. And I would even add Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney to that list whatever you think of them personally and politically. Who both had major roles in their President’s administration and were ready to step into the Presidency if needed.

For me at least it is not a question if whether or not we should have a Vice President or not. But what exactly should be the Vice President’s duties besides representing the administration oversees and keeping a close eye on Congress to step in and be able to negotiate deals with them for the President. And because of the possibility that the Vice President may at some point become President before the President’s term is over you want the Vice President to have a major role in the administration.

For me that means having the Vice President as the 1st Officer of the Administration or Executive Branch. In on all and able to weigh in on all decisions that the President makes and having all of the access to information and reports that the President gets. And being in on all of the major presidential meetings. Being a member of all the key presidential councils so the Vice President has the intelligence, knowledge, and experience needed if and where they become President at some point during the President’s term.

Long are the days where the Vice President for the most part is a ceremonial role and just attending funerals and other functions outside of the Executive Branch. And presiding over the U.S. Senate even when a tie vote doesn’t occur as President of the U.S. Senate. Which is a good thing because for the Vice President to be useful to the country that person needs to know what is going on and able to help the President govern the country.

The Federalist: David Corbin & Matt Parks: Who Killed Federalism?

(via Who Killed Federalism?) 

Federalism isn’t really dead at all even though there is a Far-Left faction in the Democratic Party and outside of the DP that would probably like to get rid of federalism all together and create a social democracy with unitarian form of government. And a faction in the Republican Party that would like to eliminate federalism as it relates to social issues like homosexuality and marijuana to use as examples. 

America is still a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy with fifty states. As well as all of the localities with big cities and big counties and smaller communities inside of these counties and states. Having a lot it not most of the responsibility as it relates to domestic policy. With the Federal Government serving as  supporter for the states, locals and people. And providing national standards on things that we should be doing as an entire country. Like making sure that special education is available to everyone that needs it. And that social insurances are there for the less-fortunate in society. Not be there to run these services and in a lot of cases the Feds do not. But there really for the most part to see that everyone who’s eligible for them receives them. And to provide the needed financing for them. 

As much as today’s so-called Progressives like to point to Europe especially as Scandinavia as the economic and governing model for how America should function because of our unique setup with the fifty states and unique diversity in a whole range of areas still function best when decision-making is made closest to the people it is supposed to serve. The only countries that have are similar to our size or bigger that have centralized power with the central government have been authoritarian states for the most part. Russia and China come to mind and that is not the direction where we want to go. 

A country with all of the diversity that we have in so many areas that has three-hundred and ten-million people that lays between two large oceans with fifty states in it functions best when we take advantage of all of our resources especially our human capital. And not centralize so much power with just one authority.

The Federalist: Robert Kraniski: What the Left Gets Wrong About the Constitution

 

(via What the Left Gets Wrong About Constitutionalism) 

"What the Left Gets Wrong About Constitutionalism". Perhaps not the best title for this post because it implies that the Left meaning the whole Left doesn’t understand the U.S. Constitution, or doesn’t understand perhaps aspects of it. Even though it was actually Liberals who wrote the Constitution and as a Liberal myself the U.S. Constitution is a big reason why I’m a Liberal. Maybe the title of this piece should be what "parts of the Left get wrong about the U.S. Constitution". Or what today’s so-called Progressives who are actually Social Democrats, or what I like to call Eurocrats get wrong about the U.S. Constitution. 

But being that is it may to talk about the factions on the Left who do not like aspects of today’s Constitution, or agree with it which is where I agree with classical Conservatives and Libertarians on I’m going to focus on people who are called Progressives today but are really what is common in Europe and called Social Democrats. People who believe in social democracy as opposed to liberal democracy and constitutional federalism. Which is how America is governed to day with a lot of power and responsibility put on individuals over their own lives. And with the states and locals in a lot of cases playing the supportive role when it comes to people who can’t take care of themselves. As opposed to social democracy or unitarian government where a lot of power in the country is centralized with the federal or central government. Not just to support people who can’t fully support themselves. But to take care of and provide a lot of if not most of the basic services that people need to live well. 

Its social democracy and unitarian government that today’s so-called Progressives want to bring to America. And almost if not do away with the Constitution then to completely rewrite it only leaving in what they like about it. But where the Federal Government would be a hell of a lot bigger when it comes to supporting all Americans regardless of income level. And where there would be a lot less power for the private sector, states and locals, as well as individuals over their own lives. 

The problem that Social Democrats as I call them have when it comes to establishing a Scandinavian or Anglo style of government in America is the U.S. Constitution itself. Because it limits what government can do when it comes to the economy and into Americans lives for good or bad. And their idea of governmental power is again social democracy. That if a majority of the people want government to do something for them. Or outlaw or limit what government can do for themselves. That they believe majority rule is all that Congress and the President need to pass whatever the so-called “will of the people”. America is simply not governed that way for the most part. We have a Constitution that lays out what government can do. And it takes a huge consensus to reverse that. 

So what Social Democrats get wrong about the U.S. Constitution is their own governing philosophy. They believe if the people want government to do something than all they need is for Congress and the President to make that happen. They want majority rule all the time when it comes to government. And the American form of government is simply not set up that way. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: 'Urges Obama Administration to Reject Anti First Amendment Rule'

Source:Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell- talking about the Internal Revenue Service in the Obama Administration.

"U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor calling on the Obama Administration to reject a proposed IRS rule that would suppress American free speech." 

From Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Hoover Institution: Bruce Thornton: Illiberal Liberalism

Source:Hoover Institution

Reading right-wingers about people they call "elitist Democrats," or wine and cheese Democrats, people whom I call wine and cheese progressives, the wing of the Democratic Party that believes that anyone who didn't graduate from an Ivy League, other Northeastern university or a school on the west coast is not real bright and needs big government to take care of them, is a little difficult, if I were to take their arguments seriously (good luck with that).  On the other hand, I can just enjoy the unintentional humor and hypocrisy of it and think to myself, "Damn, these guys (including Ann Coulter) have a serious set of balls, balls that you could use to play basketball."  If you've ever been hit in the head with a basketball, you know that it it hurts like hell.  It's like getting punched by a world heavyweight champion boxer.  I would only recommend it for my worst enemy.

Seriously, these are the people who run the country.  They have the money to do it or they serve and are in business to protect the people who do it.  They get on Democrats for elitism when they are constantly putting down organized labor, government workers, and blue collar workers, trying to transfer wealth from the middle class to the upper class and looking for ways to increase taxes on low-income Americans.

You have elitist Democrats like the Kennedy Family and others and you have elitist Republicans like the Bush Family and many others.  You know what they have in common.  They all have a hell of a lot of money and have a hard time communicating with working class people who aren't Ivy League educated, who drink beer, eat chicken wings, hot dogs and french fries.  And go bowling, which I guess is a sin amongst yuppy snobs and elitists on both sides of the isle.  They have a hard time communicating with people who work very hard for a living and spend their free time doing working class activities like going to ball games.

Hearing someone like Bruce Thornton, who may or may not be a right-wing snob himself, using the same language that other right-wingers use when they talk about elitist Democrats, is like trying to swallow a mouth full of horse shit.  It's a little tough to swallow, even if you had to in order to survive because there was nothing else to eat, that is if you take them seriously.  If you don't, you can just laugh it off and make fun of them. 

Inside Out TV: '47 Million Americans on Food Stamps'

Source:Inside Out TV- from the Inside Out piece on Food Stamps.

"There are currently 47 million Americans who turn to food stamps to help make ends meet. The program was just cut by $5 billion on November 1 and more cuts are expected. 

November 1st marked the end of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was passed in 2009 to temporarily expand the SNAP or food stamp program in the US following the economic recession." 

From Inside Out TV

If you want to know how bad the Great Recession was and still is to a certain extent: it's officially over, but we haven't fully recovered from it. Middle class people as of 2008 are now living in poverty, collecting things like long-term Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, perhaps seeking early retirement income from Social Security, Food Assistance, some of these people have gone back to work but are making maybe half of what they use to, or not even that. 

Intelligence Squared Debates: 'The GOP Must Seize the Center or Die'

Source:Intelligence Squared Debates- Republican political strategist Ralph Reed.

"2012 was a disappointing year for Republicans. The failure to win key swing states in the presidential election and surprising losses in the House and Senate have prompted some reflection. Was their embrace of small government, low taxes, and a strong conservative stance on social issues at odds with shifting American demographics? Or did the GOP embrace the right platform, but the wrong candidates?" 

From Intelligence Squared Debates

Forbes Magazine: Fred Allen: 'Gun Control: A Congress of Cowards'

Source:Forbes Magazine- U.S. Vice President Jospeh R. Biden (Democrat, Delaware) and President of the U.S. Senate.

"Why was the Senate unable to even hold an up-and-down vote on legislation that 80% to 90% of Americans support?" 

From Forbes Magazine

"The United States Senate displayed a mass failure of leadership yesterday when it killed, without even allowing an up-and-down vote, the measure that would have required background checks for sales of guns at gun shows and on the Internet and in other commercial transactions. The action was not really about differences of philosophy or Second Amendment rights, not when polls show that 80% to 90% of Americans favor expanded background checks. It was mainly about cowardice, in both parties. Democrats feared reelection challenges from the right. Republicans feared both electoral challenges and having to support both gun control legislation and immigration reform, two middle-of-the-road initiatives both backed by President Obama.

Moreover, the Senate defeated the bill in its most cowardly way, with a filibuster defeating the will of the majority of senators. The vote was as much a mark of dysfunction as of cravenness. As Gabrielle Giffords wrote this morning:

I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending.

The filibuster offended Americans across the political spectrum. It even provoked Joe Scarborough, the conservative former Republican Congressman from Florida,  to say this on his show Morning Joe this morning... 

From Forbes Magazine

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CSPAN: Senator Rand Paul at Howard University

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) speaking at Howard University in Washington.

"Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke to students at Howard University about the Republican Party's outreach efforts to young people and minorities." 

From Jay Argonaut

This is actually very smart politics by Senator Paul here and I'll explain why. African-Americans, including by left-wing African-Americans have been stereotyped, at least since the 1990s as a community of leftists that expect the Federal Government to do everything for them and want government to just give them things and take care of them, to make up for everything that the United Kingdom and the United States has done to them, since the 1st African was kidnapped and forced to live in North America as slaves, in the 1600s. 

The truth is, African-Americans voted Republican, perhaps not as a majority, but the Republican Party was very competitive, at least in that community, all the way through Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. It's really not until George H.W. Bush's presidential campaign of 1988 and his reelection campaign of 1992, where you started to see the African-American community as a large and reliable voting bloq of the Democratic Party, because of the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right influence in the Republican Party. 

You go back to the 1960s with Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, or go way before that with Frederick Douglas, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell today, there's always been a conservative or classical liberal movement in the African-American community. 

Of course there are Socialists and Black Nationalists in the African-American community. But you can say that about every racial community in America. There's also a Christian-Right in the African-American community, like with European-Americans, especially Anglo-Saxons. 

But there's always been a core faction of African-Americans that believe in limited government, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, and property rights (economic and personal) and I believe those are the folks that Senator Paul was trying to reach at Howard University.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Washington Examiner: 'Competitive Federalism Can Restore Government's Credibility'

Source:Washington Examiner- Newspaper.

"Among the most serious threats to the continued health of the American republic is the extraordinarily low esteem in which the public holds the federal government. And who can blame them when Congress and President Obama seem locked in perpetual partisan warfare, even as millions of Americans have given up on finding jobs, the economy bounces along in the weakest recovery since the Great Depression and the national debt soars to previously unimagined heights.

What is to be done? A coalition of state-based conservative think tanks led by the Oklahoma-based Liberty Foundation is advancing an old idea that if implemented could revolutionize American governance. The idea is "competitive federalism," which the coalition defines as "the powerful harnessing of our tri-partite sovereignty system that allows states to compete with each other over a broad range of issues to provide citizens with the best value goods and services at the lowest cost." Think of the difference between having only one place to buy food versus having 50.

To illustrate, imagine two scenarios: In the first, Congress and the president decide that trillions of dollars must be spent on a centralized health care insurance program managed by Washington bureaucrats. In the second, Congress and the president instead decide to return to the states the hundreds of billions of tax dollars previously spent in this arena by Washington, along with encouragement to assume the related responsibilities for insuring care and coverage.

Now, if the first scenario results in a bureaucratic monstrosity in which health insurance costs skyrocket, doctor shortages spread and the quality of care plunges, everybody in the country will suffer. In the second scenario, there can be as many as 50 distinct approaches to health care insurance. In states with failing systems, residents can pressure their officials to adopt reforms along the lines of states with successful approaches.

Under which scenario are the smallest number of people likely to suffer? And which scenario would be the most responsive to demands for reform? Would more people receive quality health care under the first or second scenario? Most Americans would likely choose the second scenario in answer to all three questions. Lest anybody think these considerations are merely theoretical speculation, recall that the founders based the Constitution on the same concept. As Publius observed in the Federalist Papers, ours is "a federal, and not a national constitution." As a result, federal powers are "few and defined," while those of the states are "numerous and indefinite," encompassing "all the objects" that "concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people," Publius wrote.

To put it in the most practical possible terms, if Californians choose a system that provides poor quality, only the taxpayers in the Golden State have to pay for it, while residents of states that choose better systems only have to pay for theirs. When the federal government imposes a uniform solution like Obamacare, all 300 million Americans pay the cost. Expect to hear more competitive federalism thinking as the federal government staggers along on its present disastrous course." 

From the Washington Examiner

The Daily Telegraph: 'Margaret Thatcher: The Woman Who Made Britain Great Again'

Source:The Daily Telegraph- Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1979-90)

"Almost 25 years have passed since Margaret Thatcher left Downing Street, and yet the full scale of her achievement is still surprisingly hard to set out. So completely has her legacy shaped modern Britain, so fully have she and her ideas been woven into its fabric, that it can be hard to appreciate the depth of our debt to this most extraordinary of individuals. For she was not one of those politicians who had the good fortune to go with the grain of her times. She was a leader who wrenched this nation from the path of demoralisation, diminishment and... 

From The Daily Telegraph 

Margaret Thatcher, in some ways was very lucky because she arrived on the seen as first Leader of The Opposition in the United Kingdom in the mid 1970s and then of course Prime Minister in 1979 at the perfect time when Britain was down and when socialism was not working and when the British were looking for a different message. Not so much different from what the United States was going through in the late 1970s. And Ronald Reagan came onto the scene.

Margaret Thatcher, didn’t set out to destroy socialism, but empower Brits to have the freedom to take care of themselves and take on more responsibility in governing their own lives. And handing more power down from the central government in Britain to the British people themselves. 

Maggie Thatcher, coming to power in Britain was truly a Conservative Revolution from when the Socialists in the Labour Party had all the power in Britain, to a time where there was a new message in Britain, that was conservative and getting government out of the business of running people’s lives.

I believe Maggie Thatcher, would be called a Northeastern, or Bob Dole even Conservative Republican in America. Someone who was in favor of having a public safety net. But that it wasn’t the job of government to take care of physically and mentally able people for their entire lives to help people who truly need it, but to help them help themselves. To put physically and mentally able people to work. Help people who are out-of-work get back to work, or go to work for the first time in their lives. As well as move Britain away from Marxist state economics and create a larger private sector in Britain.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

John Kass: ‘Will Tolerance For The Faithful Be Tolerated?’

Source:Chicago Tribune- columnist John Kass.

“With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one’s faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

The issue of same-sex unions is by nature contentious and divisive. It is not merely about equal protection under the law, but redefining the foundation of our culture, which is the family itself.” 

From Real Clear Politics 

I already talked about this in my piece about what Jack Hunter wrote on so-called social conservatives, that you can see here:The FreeState. 

As I pointed out in that piece when it comes to Conservatives and conservatism, I guess it depends on what you mean by Conservative and conservatism. Conservative to me is about conserving. And when you’re talking about politics and government, a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution for everyone. Not just Anglo-Saxons and perhaps other European-Americans, or just for Protestants, or just for straights, but everyone, including gays.

If you really are a Conservative, I don’t think the question shouldn’t be: “What’s the conservative position on same-sex-marriage?” The question should be: “What’s the Federal Government’s role if any here?”

Marriage has traditionally a state issue. I don’t think you change that because we now have states that recognize gays as Americans and human beings who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else and therefor it’s now time for Uncle Sam to step and just regulate marriage for the entire country, but perhaps other social issues that have traditionally been handled by the states. For the simple reason that we’re a Federal Republic that has sovereign states that get to regulate social policy within their own state.

Of course you can be a Conservative and say that same-sex-marriage is wrong and homosexuality is bad as a whole. But you can’t make a constitutional conservative case for the Federal Government stepping in and taking over functions that have always been left to the states. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Jack Hunter: ‘Libertarianism For Social Conservatives’

Source:The American Conservative- talk about your political odd couples: Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

“At the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives, many speculated that the GOP might be veering in a more libertarian direction—or at least influential leaders within the party might be prodding it or might be anxious for it to go in that direction. The Daily Beast ran the headline “Libertarians run the show at CPAC.” In his CPAC speech, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warned that conservatives should not surrender their principles, referring specifically to social issues.

Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism. Some libertarians even think this. This is not only a misperception, but flat out wrong—libertarianism offers social conservatives a better hope for success in our current political environment than the nationalist approach often favored by some social conservative leaders.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives, many speculated that the GOP might be veering in a more libertarian direction—or at least influential leaders within the party might be prodding it or might be anxious for it to go in that direction. The Daily Beast ran the headline “Libertarians run the show at CPAC.” In his CPAC speech, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warned that conservatives should not surrender their principles, referring specifically to social issues.

Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism. Some libertarians even think this. This is not only a misperception, but flat out wrong—libertarianism offers social conservatives a better hope for success in our current political environment than the nationalist approach often favored by some social conservative leaders.

Part of the beauty of libertarianism is that you can be socially liberal or socially conservative and subscribe to the label. For the millions of social conservatives who constitute a significant base of the Republicans Party, embracing libertarianism is not an all-or-nothing question of accepting or rejecting deep convictions about life, traditional marriage, or drug regulation. It simply means rethinking the approach to these issues.

The distance between mere rhetoric and tangible success for social conservatives essentially comes down to this question: Does the federal government always have to become involved? Or should certain decisions be made at the state and local level, as the framers of the Constitution intended?

The protection of innocent life is the number one concern of millions of Americans in both parties. Most pro-lifers believe that Roe v. Wade was constitutionally unsound, and indeed, some pro-choice advocates even admit that the legal reasoning was flawed. Given the gravity of what’s at stake, it is understandable that many would demand federal protection of the unborn.” 

From The American Conservative 

I guess I’m just old fashion here, but when I think of the term conservative, I think of someone who believes in conserving. And when I think of conservative in a political and governmental sense, I think of someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution. Not someone who wants to blow up the U.S. Constitution and our Federal Republic to advance some fundamentalist, religious and cultural agenda and try to stuff their fundamentalism on the rest of the country, with the force of Uncle Sam.

Jack Hunter’s best line in his column was: “The distance between mere rhetoric and tangible success for social conservatives essentially comes down to this question: Does the federal government always have to become involved? Or should certain decisions be made at the state and local level, as the framers of the Constitution intended?” I mean this is what this is about really, which is the role of the Federal Government.

If you really are an American Conservative, do you really believe it’s the role of Uncle Sam to decide social and cultural policy for the rest of the country, as if America is now the United Theocratic or Unitarian States of America and we’re no longer a Federal Republic with sovereign states?

Or do you believe in American traditionalism and are a traditionalist when it comes to culture and religion, but you also understand that America is a Federal Republic with a strong Constitution and there’s only so much for the Federal Government to do constitutionally. And therefor the states are better left to deal with social and cultural policy both constitutionally, but also in practicality, since they’re the folks who are closest to the people.

I don’t think this is a question of whether Conservatives should be opposed to same-sex-marriage, pornography, adultery, gambling, abortion, alcohol, tobacco, dancing, rock culture, hip hop culture, women working and managing and owning businesses, all issues that Rick Santorum and his supporters made part of his 2012 presidential campaign. I think the real question here is whose best to deal with these issues; the states and localities or Uncle Sam? If you are a Federalist and a Constitutionalist, I think the answer is obvious. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Mark Levin: ‘The Republican Party Is Going To Split, And There’s Going To Be Two Parties’

Source:Real Clear Politics- right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin.

“MARK LEVIN: The autopsy report. They don’t even know how to name a report. The autopsy report. Here’s the deal, folks: Reince Priebus was ahead of the Republican National Committee when Romney lost. Why hasn’t he been fired? Why hasn’t he been fired? Karl Rove ran the biggest independent PAC in America, or one of them. He won 1.3% of his races. Why do people keep promoting him? On TV, donors, and so forth. These losers are not going to save the Republican party.

LEVIN: A year ago, a poll was done, it’s not every year, except this year so far, and I believe it’s Gallup, the political ideology of the American people. ‘While 47% of Americans continue to describe their views as conservative, 35% moderate, 21% liberal. For the third straight year, conservatives outnumber moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives. I’m giving you this information for a reason.

February, 1, 2013, Gallup did another poll of the individual states. Which ideology outnumbers which ideology in the states? Conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 out of the 50 states. So what’s the problem here? Well, the word conservative can be a little ambiguous. But what’s the real problem here? If you’re going into elections and your political party, where every survey and poll shows that Americans identify themselves more as conservatives than liberals, and you can’t beat Barack Obama, what’s the problem here?

The problem is execution. The problem is your being outworked, you’re being outsmarted. The problem is you’re not standing on “conservative principles.” You’re not believable. You’re not an alternative to Obama. You’re not an alternative to Pelosi and Reid. Less and less people view you that way. I mean, I’m amazed by this. When we look at the last thirty years, who was the most successful Republican president electorally? Ronald Reagan. Of course the times have changed, but the principles haven’t. Just apply them, wisely.

That’s like saying, ‘the times have changed, so our Constitution needs to be living and breathing.’ No it doesn’t! These principles are invaluable. These rights are inalienable. The fact that the modern politician in the Republican party is incapable of articulating them and applying them to modern society is the problem with that politician. The fact that the chairman of the Republican National Committee can’t do it and the Speaker can’t do is a problem with the Republican party and it’s leadership. And damn it, if it’s not changed, if these people aren’t thrown out, we’re going to lose. And the Republican party is going to split, and there’s going to be two parties. (Mark Levin Show, March 18, 2013)”

From Real Clear Politics 

I would argue that in actuality there is already two Republican Party’s in America or at least two political parties that call themselves the Republican Party. It’s just officially there’s just one Republican Party, but in all intense purposes it functions as two political parties but with two names. If you are dizzy now, I understand and I’m not insulted by that.

You have the Grand Ole Party which in my view is the conservative Republican Party made up of a very elite group of Americans that believes in old fashion values like intelligence, hard work, economic freedom, personal freedom, a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility. That’s what the Republican Party was up until the early 1990s when you saw the party split into two political parties ideologically: a Center-Right conservative and a right-wing populist party. And thanks to the Tea Party, the right-wing populists have a bigger role in the Republican Party, the dominant role in the party now.

What Mark Levin and others call Conservatives, are right-wing, religious and cultural populists, who interested in one’s and the country’s religious and cultural values, as well as lifestyle, and even to a certain extent their race and ethnicity, then what someone’s positions on economic and fiscal policy, national security, and the Constitution. You don’t have to be a believer in free trade, pluralism, economic freedom even, to be a member of the Republican Populists. You just have to share their religious and cultural values.

The Democratic Party is going through a similar split with their Center-Left led by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others, versus their left-wing led by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other left-wing Democrats in Congress. This can happen in a country of 320 million people that has in effect a two-party system where there are no other options for the hardcore political partisans, other than the two major political parties. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.