This video come from the Heritage Foundation. Ronald Reagan juxtaposed with liberals, be it Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama, provides a wonderful contrast between what works and liberalism. In honor of the Gipper’s 100th birthday, which is this coming Sunday, here is another great Reagan video:
The GOP tsunami of 2010 should have sent a clear message to the established political forces in the nation’s capital: no more socialism. Instead, the Tea Party has continued to be the recipient of constant ridicule. Ordinary citizens who are standing up to an out of touch government have been painted as extreme, and a problem for the GOP. Members of the intelligentsia have determined that the only way for Republicans to real move forward is to compromise with the Left, and ignore the Tea Party.
Ignoring the voters is a dangerous political position. More importantly, why should the GOP compromise? “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” The GOP should take Ayn Rand’s advice, and avid compromises with the Democrats. Compromise bequeathed a $14 trillion dollar debt. Compromise sickened voters and lead to the GOPs demise just four years ago. Compromising with the Democrtas will be the end of the Republican Party.
Thankfully, there is a growing roster of solid conservatives on the GOP bench. One new rising star is Senator Rand Paul:
Rep. Paul Ryan Gives Republican Response to the State of the Union Address:
As many of you know by now, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann — a leader in the Tea Party movement — is planning her own Tea Party Express-sponsored response to Obama’s upcoming State of the Union Address at the same time as Congressman Paul Ryan’s official Republican Response. This will be the first State of the Union with the new Republican Majority in the House, and it’s the best time for the GOP to establish themselves as a conservative Majority, if that’s the direction they are planning on heading. If so, Paul Ryan is a great choice to deliver the response. This is the guy who plotted out the American Roadmap, one of the most common-sense set of policies seen in government in quite a while.
Despite Ryan’s common-sense approach to governance (which, obviously, is somewhat comforting given his position as budget chairman) Bachmann and the Tea Party Express are still trying to steal the show and stand apart from the Republican Party. Like many conservatives, I have some concerns with the direction Speaker John Boehner et al may take the party, but allowing Paul Ryan to deliver the speech gives conservatives — you know, the Americans who matter — the chance to hear what the GOP wants for the country and hold them to account later. Perhaps it’s somewhat idealistic, but I’m in the “give the party a chance” camp for now.
Like most people, I’ll be keeping Fox News on to watch the official response, not partaking in the soon-to-be-failed attempt by the Tea Party Express to replace said response. Don’t expect any servers to be crashing on their website.
In related news:
If the GOP does have a Michele Bachmann problem, it’s an issue it may have to face in the lead up to 2012. Bachmann recently traveled to Iowa for a fundraiser. When asked several weeks ago if she was considering a presidential run, she said, “I’m going to Iowa—there’s your answer.”
On this Strictly Right, Ari takes a look at the role of government, the Repeal of Obamacare, a Mike Pence presidential run, the hoax of global warming and more.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.
A great interview with Human Events’ conservative of the year, Senator Jim DeMint:
Jim DeMint, Conservative of the Year
By: Erick Erickson
“I want to sincerely congratulate Senator DeMint on this award. Fully aware that Human Events cannot give the award to me every year, Human Events has made the only other choice they could make. Tough, courageous, rock-solid and unflinching, Jim DeMint charts the way for all of us in truly historic times.”
— Rush Limbaugh
Conservative of the Year, 2007
He did not start out a conservative fighter. He was no warrior when he first arrived on Capitol Hill in 1999. Jim DeMint had replaced Rep. Bob Inglis in South Carolina’s 4th Congressional District. Inglis had vacated the seat to run a losing race against Senator Ernest Hollins.
DeMint’s tenure started out like that of most freshmen congressmen — anonymous and committed to bringing home the bacon, much like Rep. Inglis who, when Senator DeMint moved up to the Senate, moved back into his old House seat until the tea party movement threw him out in 2010.
Something happened to DeMint though. In a National Journal article last month, Michael Hirsh fingered the fight over No Child Left Behind, which DeMint originally opposed, but then ultimately supported.
Among the conservatives who cooled on Bush was Sen. Jim DeMint. DeMint recalled that Bush told him, at a White House meeting back in 2001, when the South Carolinian was a second-term House member, that Bush would fight for “flexibility” for state charter schools as part of his new federal education program, No Child Left Behind, according to a DeMint aide, who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press. DeMint was then far from the small-government agitator and tea party champion he has become. But the Bush plan disturbed DeMint, and he decided to vote no—until the president called him in and said, “Jim, I promise to get this [state flexibility] back in conference. But I need you not to make an issue of it on the House floor,” the aide recalled. “DeMint said, ‘OK, Mr. President, I’ll trust you.’ But Bush didn’t even lift a finger to get it in conference.”
For DeMint, it was the beginning of a decade of disappointments in his president and his party, as he gradually became more alienated from the GOP leadership.
After the No Child Left Behind incident, DeMint started teaming up with other conservative fighters like Mike Pence (R-IN) to fight back. Congressman Mike Pence tells Human Events, “Senator Jim DeMint is a force of nature in the conservative movement. His steadfast and consistent stand in defense of fiscal discipline, a strong national defense and traditional moral values is unparalleled in Washington, DC and should give hope to millions of conservatives across the country as they look for conservative leadership in our nation’s capital.”
Elected as social conservatives who were fiscally responsible, the GOP under George W. Bush had largely become pro-life statists with even Fred Barnes championing the idea of “big government conservatives” in the Weekly Standard. DeMint had had enough.
In 2004, Jim DeMint ran for the United States Senate for the seat vacated by Ernest Hollings. He ran against Inez Tenenbaum, the state schools superintendent. Decisively beating her by over 9%, DeMint’s win put both of South Carolina’s Senate seats in the hands of Republicans for the first time since Reconstruction.
With the 111th Congress finally out of Washington, the Left’s toadies in the media are all pushing the same talking point: that the ousted Congress was the “most productive Congress since the Great Society”:
Is a productive Congress supposed to be a good thing? The 111th Congress was very busy, passing horrendous legislation that the vast majority of people opposed – that is why Nancy Pelosi is no longer the Speaker of the House.
‘Productive’ Congresses have been the greatest bludgeon used against liberty. The Hundred Days of the 73rd Congress, often cited as the most ‘productive’ Congress in history, was quite possibly the most harmful 100 days in American history. In just 100 days, Congress rammed through much of President Roosevelt’s New Deal, among the worst and most damaging legislation ever passed.
Likewise, the 89th Congress, which passed the bulk of President Johnson’s Great Society, is often praised for their ‘productivity.’ Is the government ever going to read us the score from the Great Society? Instead of ending poverty, the government scheme fostered dependence degradation. In fact, the Great Society played a seminal role in the destruction of minority families.
In contrast, the 52nd United States Congress, which sat for 13 months in their two year term, passed little of note. They weren’t concerned with “spreading the wealth around,” there was no imposition of “fairness,” and there was no debate over “tax cuts for the rich” because there was no income tax (and the sky didn’t even fall).
In the 1920s the government controlled 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. A law was passed limiting the height of buildings in Washington D.C. because government officials were worried that tall buildings would emphasize the irrelevancy of the government. If only we still had that ‘problem.’
With Obamacare passed, the government is poised to takeover 6 per cent of the economy in one fell swoop. ‘Productive’ should not be a compliment when applied to Congress. In fact, ‘productive’ is probably the worst thing a Congress can be. The last thing a Congress should do is hurry through masses of legislation, especially bills that no one has read.
Rather than ‘productive,’ Congress should be prudent. Every bill should be carefully considered, with arguments from all sides given voice. Elected officials should only vote on a bill when all alternatives have been considered. If that means less legislation is passed, all the better. Bring on a ‘do nothing’ Congress – for about the next hundred years.
Was Scrooge a liberal or a conservative? Last week Ann Coulter and Paul Krugman both wrote articles assigning the notorious skinflint to the opposite’s ideology.
Hey, has anyone noticed that “A Christmas Carol” is a dangerous leftist tract?
I mean, consider the scene, early in the book, where Ebenezer Scrooge rightly refuses to contribute to a poverty relief fund. “I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing,” he declares. Oh, wait. That wasn’t Scrooge. That was Newt Gingrich — last week. What Scrooge actually says is, “Are there no prisons?” But it’s pretty much the same thing.
Anyway, instead of praising Scrooge for his principled stand against the welfare state, Charles Dickens makes him out to be some kind of bad guy. How leftist is that?
As you can see, the fundamental issues of public policy haven’t changed since Victorian times. Still, some things are different.
…So in this holiday season, let’s remember the wisdom of Ebenezer Scrooge. Not the bit about denying food and medical care to those who need them: America’s failure to take care of its own less-fortunate citizens is a national disgrace.
How original. Not exactly the first time Newt Gingrich has been called Scrooge:
On the other hand, Ann Coulter titled her weekly column “Scrooge Was a Liberal.” Coulter’s argument is that while liberals have a monopoly on “caring” it is religious conservatives who put their money where their mouths are:
Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity — $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.
Conversely, secular liberals are particularly stingy:
secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also “significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier.”
However, Newt did say “I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing,” and that settles who the real Scrooge is, right?
What Newt was saying in the 90s and a week ago is that government funding of bad behavior only reinforces bad behavior. If you pay able bodied people not to work, they will remain wards of the state.
But this isn’t about good policy, it’s about which ideological camp Scrooge really falls into; an easily answered question.
Near the beginning of A Christmas Carol Scrooge is solicited for a donation to provide food and shelter for the poor over Christmas. Scrooge refuses to part with so much as one sent. His explanation? Scrooge claims that he pays enough for the poor in taxes, and that they should seek food and shelter in local prisons, poorhouses and workhouses.
Ebenezer Scrooge’s position and justification are a doctrinaire liberalism. Scrooge’s belief that government programs are there to care for the downtrodden in lieu of charities is a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism.
By the end of A Christmas Carol Scrooge becomes a conservative. Reversing his miserly attitude, Scrooge discovers that the best way to help the indigent, and everyone else, is with private charity. Instead of sending people to government-run poorhouses, Scrooge decides that he knows how to help his neighbors better than anonymous government bureaucrats. Could there be a more conservative message?
The debate over tax cuts and tax hikes has been devoid of one key factor: who the money belongs to.
On MSNBC‘s Andrea Mitchell Reports Mrs. Mitchell grilled Senator Judd Gregg on his support of extending of the Bush tax cuts – in other words, Senator Gregg’s opposition to one of the largest nominal tax hikes in history:
The economic argument made by Mitchell is pure sophistry. ‘Tax cuts’ can be a misleading term. Tax rate reductions do not necessarily mean tax revenue reductions. The static modeling used by many economists is premised upon “ceteris paribus” – with all other things being equal. In reality, all other things are never equal.
In a dynamic economy nothing happens in a vacuum. Tax rate reductions leaves more money in the supply side, which results in businesses big and small having the needed capital to expand. A growing economy results in higher earnings and the creation of jobs. More earners means more taxpayers, the result being increased government revenues. Government revenues increased when presidents: Harding, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush cut taxes. This stubborn set of facts has been presented ad nauseam, and yet the Left continues to deny reality.
However, there is more to the debate surrounding taxes than just what will result in higher government revenues. In the segment above, if you disregard Mitchell’s painful economic ignorance, her point that not raising taxes costs the government money is illustrative of how Democrats think.
The Left believes that all capital belongs to the government. Furthermore, the benevolent ruling class should decide how much capital you, the citizen, is allowed to keep, in the Left’s view. Using that logic, liberals view tax cuts as a reduction in the government’s money.
The aforementioned view is diametrically opposed to the fundamental precepts of private property rights. On one side, there are those whom believe that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor – their property. On the other side is the modern Left, which believes that all property belongs to the government, and should be disbursed among “the masses” by altruistic planners.
Senator Gregg’s simple response, “it’s their money,” reflects a sound understanding and belief in private property rights.
The government does not have the moral authority to seize your wealth and distribute it as they see fit. That type of broad and arbitrary power, the very type the Democrats have pursued at least since Franklin Roosevelt, is exactly what the Constitution sets to limit.
While it is well and good that lower tax rates result in larger government revenues, it is of secondary importance. The primary issue is that when you work, you are entitled to the fruits of your labor. Tax rate reductions are not about the government losing money, they are about taxpayers keeping what is rightfully theirs.
A Message to Garcia was written in 1899 by Elbert Hubbard. The pamphlet, and later book, sold over 40 million copies, was made into two movies, and for a time, “taking a message to Garcia” was a commonly used expression, meaning to undertake a difficult task. Over 100 years later, the lesson in A Message to Garcia is as pertinent as ever. It should be required reading for all conservatives. For that reason, I have posted the entire original pamphlet:
In all this Cuban business there is one man stands out on the horizon of my memory like Mars at perihelion. When war broke out between Spain & the United States, it was very necessary to communicate quickly with the leader of the Insurgents. Garcia was somewhere in the mountain vastness of Cuba- no one knew where. No mail nor telegraph message could reach him. The President must secure his cooperation, and quickly.
What to do!
Some one said to the President, “There’s a fellow by the name of Rowan will find Garcia for you, if anybody can.”
Rowan was sent for and given a letter to be delivered to Garcia. How “the fellow by the name of Rowan” took the letter, sealed it up in an oil-skin pouch, strapped it over his heart, in four days landed by night off the coast of Cuba from an open boat, disappeared into the jungle, & in three weeks came out on the other side of the Island, having traversed a hostile country on foot, and delivered his letter to Garcia, are things I have no special desire now to tell in detail.
The point I wish to make is this: McKinley gave Rowan a letter to be delivered to Garcia; Rowan took the letter and did not ask, “Where is he at?” By the Eternal! there is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land. It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing- “Carry a message to Garcia!”
General Garcia is dead now, but there are other Garcias.
No man, who has endeavored to carry out an enterprise where many hands were needed, but has been well nigh appalled at times by the imbecility of the average man- the inability or unwillingness to concentrate on a thing and do it. Slip-shod assistance, foolish inattention, dowdy indifference, & half-hearted work seem the rule; and no man succeeds, unless by hook or crook, or threat, he forces or bribes other men to assist him; or mayhap, God in His goodness performs a miracle, & sends him an Angel of Light for an assistant. You, reader, put this matter to a test: You are sitting now in your office- six clerks are within call.
Summon any one and make this request: “Please look in the encyclopedia and make a brief memorandum for me concerning the life of Correggio”.
Will the clerk quietly say, “Yes, sir,” and go do the task?
On your life, he will not. He will look at you out of a fishy eye and ask one or more of the following questions:
Who was he?
Which encyclopedia?
Where is the encyclopedia?
Was I hired for that?
Don’t you mean Bismarck?
What’s the matter with Charlie doing it?
Is he dead?
Is there any hurry?
Shan’t I bring you the book and let you look it up yourself?
What do you want to know for?
And I will lay you ten to one that after you have answered the questions, and explained how to find the information, and why you want it, the clerk will go off and get one of the other clerks to help him try to find Garcia- and then come back and tell you there is no such man. Of course I may lose my bet, but according to the Law of Average, I will not.
Now if you are wise you will not bother to explain to your “assistant” that Correggio is indexed under the C’s, not in the K’s, but you will smile sweetly and say, “Never mind,” and go look it up yourself.
And this incapacity for independent action, this moral stupidity, this infirmity of the will, this unwillingness to cheerfully catch hold and lift, are the things that put pure Socialism so far into the future. If men will not act for themselves, what will they do when the benefit of their effort is for all? A first-mate with knotted club seems necessary; and the dread of getting “the bounce” Saturday night, holds many a worker to his place.
Advertise for a stenographer, and nine out of ten who apply, can neither spell nor punctuate- and do not think it necessary to.
Can such a one write a letter to Garcia?
“You see that bookkeeper,” said the foreman to me in a large factory.
“Yes, what about him?”
“Well he’s a fine accountant, but if I’d send him up town on an errand, he might accomplish the errand all right, and on the other hand, might stop at four saloons on the way, and when he got to Main Street, would forget what he had been sent for.”
Can such a man be entrusted to carry a message to Garcia?
We have recently been hearing much maudlin sympathy expressed for the “downtrodden denizen of the sweat-shop” and the “homeless wanderer searching for honest employment,” & with it all often go many hard words for the men in power.
Nothing is said about the employer who grows old before his time in a vain attempt to get frowsy ne’er-do-wells to do intelligent work; and his long patient striving with “help” that does nothing but loaf when his back is turned. In every store and factory there is a constant weeding-out process going on. The employer is constantly sending away “help” that have shown their incapacity to further the interests of the business, and others are being taken on. No matter how good times are, this sorting continues, only if times are hard and work is scarce, the sorting is done finer- but out and forever out, the incompetent and unworthy go.
It is the survival of the fittest. Self-interest prompts every employer to keep the best- those who can carry a message to Garcia.
I know one man of really brilliant parts who has not the ability to manage a business of his own, and yet who is absolutely worthless to any one else, because he carries with him constantly the insane suspicion that his employer is oppressing, or intending to oppress him. He cannot give orders; and he will not receive them. Should a message be given him to take to Garcia, his answer would probably be, “Take it yourself.”
Tonight this man walks the streets looking for work, the wind whistling through his threadbare coat. No one who knows him dare employ him, for he is a regular fire-brand of discontent. He is impervious to reason, and the only thing that can impress him is the toe of a thick-soled No. 9 boot.
Of course I know that one so morally deformed is no less to be pitied than a physical cripple; but in our pitying, let us drop a tear, too, for the men who are striving to carry on a great enterprise, whose working hours are not limited by the whistle, and whose hair is fast turning white through the struggle to hold in line dowdy indifference, slip-shod imbecility, and the heartless ingratitude, which, but for their enterprise, would be both hungry & homeless.
Have I put the matter too strongly? Possibly I have; but when all the world has gone a-slumming I wish to speak a word of sympathy for the man who succeeds- the man who, against great odds has directed the efforts of others, and having succeeded, finds there’s nothing in it: nothing but bare board and clothes.
I have carried a dinner pail & worked for day’s wages, and I have also been an employer of labor, and I know there is something to be said on both sides. There is no excellence, per se, in poverty; rags are no recommendation; & all employers are not rapacious and high-handed, any more than all poor men are virtuous.
My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the “boss” is away, as well as when he is at home. And the man who, when given a letter for Garcia, quietly take the missive, without asking any idiotic questions, and with no lurking intention of chucking it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught else but deliver it, never gets “laid off,” nor has to go on a strike for higher wages. Civilization is one long anxious search for just such individuals. Anything such a man asks shall be granted; his kind is so rare that no employer can afford to let him go. He is wanted in every city, town and village- in every office, shop, store and factory. The world cries out for such: he is needed, & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia.
THE END