Listen online || Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes
http://podcastexcellence.net/podcasting/sr/SR091.mp3

Listen Online || Subscribe to the Podcast in iTunes
Strictly Right Radio – Episode 89

We are pleased to announce that StrictlyRight.com has been acquired by the Landmark Report, and as of March 31st, 2011, will feature its content on a new website, The Landmark Report (LandmarkReport.com.) In addition to conservative political commentary, Landmark Report will feature opposing views, debate, entertainment news, sports, film and movie reviews and loads more categories, along with a community-based focus allowing its readers and podcast listeners to get everything they need from one place.

A major part of this transition is that I, Andrew Lawton, will be heading up this project as Landmark Report’s Editor-in-Chief. While it will be hard to leave Strictly Right, I know that having the opportunity to write more — on a full time basis fortunately — about a variety of topics, and feature many more talented writers will be best for both our readers and myself. As far as my podcasts, they will remain to be produced by Take That! Media as Strictly Right and Strictly Pop, but will now be available through LandmarkReport.com, as well as various other forms of media such as photo galleries, online T.V. channels, and other podcasts.

This new project is a big one, but it’s one that can revolutionize media in the world as it will be a project that breaks boundaries, reaches all corners of the globe via the internet, but still will be operating as a brick-and-mortar business at the same time (very special announcements to follow.)

In order for Landmark Report to meet the goals that we are confident it will, we need a team of talented writers behind us generating original content and sharing content from their own blogs and websites to always have a cross-section of writers covering all different topics, from all different angles, in all different parts of the world. If you are interested in contributing either original content or having your writing featured on Landmark Report through cross-posting to build your audience and portfolio, please send your interest and/or a writing sample to landmarksubmissions@gmail.com.

This is a big undertaking, but it’s our way of being a part of the new wave and shaping the next generation of news.

Categories to Write In (Also accepting pitches for departments not on this list):

• Politics (Any ideology)
• World, national or regional (state/provincial) news
• Religion
• Sports
• Business/Finance
• Entertainment
• Movies/Music
• Book Reviews
• Culture/Lifestyle
• Technology

The long-awaited answer to Canada’s lack of choice in news is coming. Sun Media’s project to launch a 24-hour news network exists to put a stop to boredom, political correctness and liberal slant that exists in the Canadian mainstream media. The much anticipated and much discussed Sun News Network will be launching next month, and at the risk of shamelessly promoting myself, I want in. Throughout the growth of StrictlyRight.com and the rapid growth of Strictly Right Radio, you guys have been absolutely incredible at supporting me, spreading the word about this site, and it has lead to me being fortunate enough to appear on radio and television programs across the continent. I’m looking for something permanent now. If you would support the Sun News Network having a show hosted by Andrew Lawton (me) or them having me on as a regular, please send a Tweet to them at @SunNewsNetwork, send an email to sunnewsinquiries@sunmedia.ca, and link to this page on your Twitter, Facebook, email lists, and anywhere else you can think to post it.

Canada has for too long been forced to hear news and analysis from the same faces that have been around for years, and it’s time to bring on a fresh face with a background in new media, one who has interviewed guests such as Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, Ezra Levant, Wayne Rogers, Tom DeLay, and David Limbaugh (to name a few.) With a shameless record of self-promotion, proven track record in political commentary and celebrity guest interviews, I know that I can bring a fantastic energy to Canada’s next top news network! To rise above the status quo, Sun News needs to take a leap and reach out to a younger demographic that has been virtually ignored in the media today. I am the guy to do that.

What can you do?

Tweet them @SunNewsNetwork, email them  sunnewsinquiries@sunmedia.ca, link to this page wherever you can, and/or leave a comment of support here. I want the good folks at Sun Media to see how many of us “normal people” there are out there!

Andrew Lawton has a cowboy hat.
What better reason do you need?

Reassessing Warren G. Harding
And a call for normalcy.

By Ryan Cole & Amity Shlaes

Change isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. That’s what most of us have come to realize in recent years, whether the change proposed came from Pres. Barack Obama or the Tea Party movement. Still, most haven’t quite reached the point where we oppose change and fight for stability.

Maybe we ought to: Maybe sometimes it is the time for no change. That, at least, was the position of Warren Harding. Warren who? On the presidential roster, Harding is POTUS 43. No, that doesn’t mean he’s replaced George W. Bush: Harding’s “43” is his aggregate rank among presidents. Since there’s a tie somewhere in there, this means Harding is the worst-ranked president in the history of our land.

Still, the most despised chief exec had something to say about the issue that’s preoccupying the country. Nowhere did Harding put the case against change, and the case for realism, better than in his inaugural address, delivered 90 years ago today.

When Harding sat down to plan that address, he was confronting a nation suffering the kind of uncertainty that is familiar to us today. After the war, unemployment hit 14 percent. Inflation raged. The economy contracted severely, and the stock market followed suit. Restless veterans and angry workers thought they might imitate the revolutions taking place overseas.

In his 1920 campaign, Harding ran as the anti-revolutionary: He sought “a return to normalcy.” His choice of Calvin Coolidge as his running mate underscored his commitment to that concept. Coolidge stood for caution and for drawing the line at extremism. It was Coolidge who had pulled a pre-PATCO and, Reaganesque, fired the Boston police force for leaving the city to looters when they went out on strike in 1919.

One of our problems today is that politicians are unwilling to concede certain truths about the economy. One is that housing prices may fall more. Another is that government intervention will inevitably force upon us a period of inflation. Yet another is that wages may not go as high as we like until the economy sorts itself out. Instead of skirting those issues, Harding spelled them all out, trusting voters to accept the truth.

While government would do all it could, there were imbalances it could not rectify, Harding allowed. “Perhaps,” he said, “we never shall know the old level of wages again.” To assume that life might be instantly reordered was also to overreach: “There is no instant step from disorder to order. We must face a condition of a grim reality, charge off our losses and start afresh.”

Next Harding turned to the topic of change. “Any wild experiment,” the new president said, “will only add to the confusion.” He went on: “Our supreme task is the resumption of our onward, normal way. Reconstruction, readjustment, restoration, all these must follow. I would like to hasten them.”

Harding went on to lay out what he thought normalcy should be like: “I speak for administrative efficiency, for lightened tax burdens, for sound commercial practices, for adequate credit facilities . . . for the omission of unnecessary interference of Government with business, for an end to Government’s experiment in business, and for more efficient business in Government administration.”

If Americans could accept all these realities, the new president argued, “We can reduce the abnormal expenditures, and we will. We can strike at war taxation, and we must.”

Harding was right. The decade began with a recession. But soon enough, and while Harding was still living, those other things he predicted did follow. After Harding’s Teapot Dome Scandal in 1923, and his death that summer, the new president, Coolidge, sought to clear his own administration of scandal. But Coolidge was careful not to abandon Harding’s theme of normalcy. Normalcy for both presidents meant keeping government out of the way, reducing what the scholar Robert Higgs today calls “regime uncertainty.” Harding and Coolidge after him honored Harding’s inaugural-speech promise to drop the nation’s high tax rates. Harding promised to create a Bureau of the Budget, and did. New presidential authority from the law he signed in 1921 aided both him and his successors in their effort to trim spending.

Normalcy gave the United States a Wunder-decade of strong growth, low unemployment, and little inflation. Americans got cars and electricity for the first time. They got healthier. The federal budget moved into surplus and stayed there. The 1920s also saw strong productivity gains, so strong that Americans began to accomplish in five days what they used to in six.

Continue

Follow @AndrewLawton and @AriMFine on Twitter for the latest updates.

Subscribe on iTunes

Listen online
Strictly Right Radio – Episode 88

The World Needs a Strong GOP
Republicans can show the way with careful fiscal conservatism at home and quiet idealism abroad.

By DAVID DAVIS

It is always hazardous for outsiders to offer opinions on a foreign country’s political landscape, and as a lifetime admirer of America and its values I have always been cautious in doing so. Nevertheless, the world today is as volatile and dangerous as it has been for a long time, and it needs a strong and coherent Republican Party leading American opinion and policy. With the streets of the Arab world in flames, an ever more ascendant and ambitious China, and a global financial crisis that has not been well managed, let alone resolved, the rest of the world needs America to be a confident champion of Western values.

As a political movement, the various strands of Republican opinion have a force and vigor rarely witnessed elsewhere in the Western world. What is more, each strand brings its own wisdom and insight to the political debate.

Take, for example, the tea party movement. European liberals deride it as unsophisticated and simplistic. Yet we should remember that they said much the same of Ronald Reagan when he was alive, even as they now recognize him as the great, world-class statesman that he was. Discovering the right answer after the event is a luxury often exercised by the political left, but not one that we can afford now.

So the tea party brings vigor, but it also reflects a skepticism about big government that is a wisdom of our times. In the aftermath of a historically unprecedented bank rescue and economic stimulus, and in the absence of a serious intellectual answer to the banking crisis, who is to say that they are entirely wrong?

Similarly, it is fashionable to dismiss the neoconservatives for their aggressive foreign policy. I am uncomfortable with some of the incompetences of Western interventions, but the current explosion of unrest across the Arab world adds some validity to their claim that democracy is a universal human value wanted by everybody, irrespective of their culture, religion and history.

Even more unfashionable with the political left are the social conservatives in Republican ranks. It may be that the problems facing the U.S. economy will ensure that social issues take a back seat to candidates’ fiscal policies, but to America’s 60 million evangelical Christians social issues still matter. Those candidates seeking the Republican nomination in 2012 who choose to ignore social-issues voters will do so at their peril.

It would be naive to claim that the Republican Party, with its 47 senators, 241 representatives and millions of voters, can be neatly divided into a small number of distinct factions. It is potentially problematic for the Republicans, however, that there are groups within the GOP which hold widely different views not only about the party’s policy priorities, but also about what those policies should be.

For instance, there is a sharp divide within the GOP on federal spending. A recent Pew survey showed that Republicans identifying themselves as tea party supporters would broadly welcome cuts in spending on education, social-security and environmental programs, while non-tea party Republicans were more supportive of increased spending in these areas.

Continue

Leadership: For years, Barack Obama called Iraq “a dumb war.” But considering how that conflict undeniably scared Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi into ending his WMD program, the 2003 invasion has never looked smarter.

‘I don’t oppose all wars,” future President Barack Obama told Chicagoans Against War in Iraq during a 2002 rally. “What I am opposed to is a dumb war … a rash war … the cynical attempt by … armchair, weekend warriors in this (Bush) administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Obama called the plan to liberate Iraq an “attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us.” And he warned that it “will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida.”

Goading the then-commander in chief, Obama said: “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the U.N. (nuclear) inspectors can do their work … let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people.”

Today, after two years of President Obama, our “so-called allies” like Egypt are destabilized, or threatened, and in danger of becoming enemies — nothing “so-called” about it.

Turns out that if it hadn’t been for those “armchair warriors” and their “dumb war” in Iraq, Libya might well be a nuclear weapons power today. All the U.N. inspectors in the world wouldn’t be able to stop Gadhafi from using atomic and chemical weapons to slaughter tens or even hundreds of thousands of his own people to keep himself in power, instead of just conventional weapons to kill a fraction of that number.

Continue

Uncivil Unions
By Ann Coulter

As Obama rakes in historic campaign contributions from Wall Street money, liberals claim Republicans are beholden to “the rich.” However that may be, it is far more true, and far less remarked upon, that the Democratic Party is the party of public sector unions.

And now, the nation watches helplessly as public sector unions and their Democratic allies say to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Nice state you got there, governor. Be a shame if something bad happened to it.

For Democrats, the purpose of government is to generously provide jobs for people who otherwise couldn’t be hired — because their skills, attitude or sense of entitlement are considered undesirable in the private sector. And no, I’m not just talking about Barack Obama.

Democrats use taxpayer money to fund a government jobs program, impoverishing the middle class and harming the people allegedly helped by the programs — but creating a vast class of voters who owe their jobs to the Democrats.

This is a system designed to ratchet up costs. Look at the history of every entity where public employees have unionized, and you will find that not only are government workers paid more, but there are also a lot more of them doing a lot less useful work.

There could be two students per class, and the Democrats would still be campaigning for “smaller class size,” so that the government would be required to hire more public school teachers to staff classes with one student. For Democrats, the purpose of public education in this country is not to teach children; it’s to create jobs for “educators.”

Forget the nonsense about working men with dirt under their fingernails, slugging it out at dangerous jobs with a heartless management riding them to get more production at lower wages –- those guys are what liberal journalist Harold Meyerson calls “dead weight.”

We’re talking about government employees, most of whom — when they show up to work at all — sit in comfortable, air-conditioned offices, kick off at 3 p.m., are entitled to endless sick days, personal days and holidays, whose performance can never be evaluated and who retire at age 50. (Again, I’m not focusing just on Barack Obama here.)

Government employees are even worse than welfare layabouts. In a triple-whammy for the taxpayer, they are: (1) hideously expensive, (2) impossible to fire, and (3) doing things you don’t want done at any price.

Hey, guess what? I’m from the government, and I can burn down your garage for $300!

NO! I’M NOT INTERESTED!

OK, fine, I’ll do it for you for $20.

BUT I DON’T WANT MY GARAGE BURNED DOWN AT ANY PRICE!

OK, the guys with the matches and gasoline will be by sometime between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. one day next week.

As with so many other things, such as vegan restaurants and the crack epidemic, California leads the country in destruction by government unions.

California’s civil service unions have employed all the usual thug techniques –- regular strikes (illegal until the California Supreme Court approved them in 1985), rolling strikes, the “blue flu” (cops and other public-safety workers calling in “sick”) — all of which are almost as harmful to the state as when they actually show up for work.

Continue

Hallway medicine is hitting new highs in congested Lower Mainland hospitals, as was demonstrated Monday night when Royal Columbian Hospital was forced to use its Tim Hortons outlet as an overflow ward.

Fraser Health officials say a combination of multiple trauma case airlifts earlier in the day and heavy pressure on the emergency department led staff to put patients in the hospital coffee shop.

It’s an unusual example of what has become a routine problem across the region: too many patients and not enough beds.

“Last night the hallways were two and three stretchers deep with patients,” said Dr. Sheldon Glazer, an emergency physician at Royal Columbian, the region’s trauma centre.

“This is just a natural progression of what we’ve been dealing with for a long, long time,” Glazer said. “We are forced to see patients in waiting rooms, in hallways and, now, in the Tim Hortons.”

The veteran ER doctor says halls jammed with stretchers are both inefficient and dangerous – particularly if a fire broke out.

Whenever the inevitable topic of wait times comes up in a discussion about healthcare, proponents of the socialist system will say, “Well, no system is perfect.” They’re absolutely correct. So assuming that the private and public system both have their flaws, which is preferable — having to spend money on insurance or medical care instead of having it for free? Or, dying while waiting for ‘free’ medical care? Seems like a simple decision to me.

Regarding my recent hospitalization, I stated — and still maintain — that I am not going to engage in a debate about healthcare, because my opinion still holds. However, despite the extraordinary emergency care I received, follow-up wait times were unacceptable. In the internal medicine unit, patients were being admitted who had been waiting in the emergency room for upwards of three and four days. Were they dying? No, but they certainly weren’t getting any healthier.

The Tim Horton’s spin on this story makes it more amusing, but being so backed up that you can’t even have patients in the waiting room is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Even under perfect circumstances, the province of British Columbia considers it a success if patients are admitted with less than 10 hours of waiting.

Remember, I had a stroke in a waiting room. But hey, at least I didn’t have to pay anything (just ended up hobbling around like an old lady with a walker, but whatever.)

H/T KonReport