Make A Radical Feminist's Head Explode With This One Easy Blog Post!

**Note--I am a pro-life conservative.  I am NOT endorsing abortion on demand.  This is rather the inescapable end game if you a) embrace abortion on demand, b) obliterate the idea of any distinction on the basis of sex/gender, and c) use internally consistent logic.**

Allow me to play devil's advocate for those who argue for abortion on demand.  There is a stunning and inexcusable gap in current practice that must be addressed:

Abortion on demand must be available, without any additional restrictions beyond those already in place, for fathers.

I'm sure many radical feminists are even now taking to their fainting couches outrage blogs at the previous sentence alone, but we're only beginning.

Allowing only the woman carrying the baby to decide to have an abortion on demand is a clear violation of civil rights and equal protection.  It is obvious gender discrimination on its face alone.

Since having an abortion on demand is a right, per modern feminist theory and jurisprudence, one cannot deny that right to someone.  Furthermore, because it is a right, one may compel another to take actions to preserve and fulfill that right.  Denying that right to men is therefore a violation of men's civil rights on the basis of gender.

The father bears an equal burden financially for the baby as the mother by force of paternity laws, and so if the mother can have an abortion on demand because a child would be a financial burden to her, the father should be able to compel an abortion for the same reason.  In fact, since a mother is not required to provide any reason to have an abortion up to the 20th week of the pregnancy, a man should be able to have an abortion performed without providing a reason as well.

Feminists have long said that if men could get pregnant, there would be abortion clinics on every corner.  If men can obtain abortions on demand, I have no doubt that the demand will increase and that more clinics will open to supply that demand, which means more abortion clinics for women to use.

**Since this post is about a feminist issue, I will honor the great radical feminist blog custom of presenting straw men arguments and burning them down by indulging in it.  Cue the outrage blogs again.  It never is as much fun when someone apes the flawed tactics and statements of your most extreme members to make you look like absolute idiots, right feminists?**

**Andohbytheway, this whole blog post is satire, which is not hate speech, and thus protected speech.  Since I'm not a raving idiot who ignores the simple, obvious truth that there are in fact differences between the sexes/genders, I don't actually believe these arguments.**

Some feminists would argue that hoary old "her body, her choice!" line.  Well, I suppose one could argue that a risky medical procedure against a woman's will is unethical and possibly illegal, but fortunately feminists have abolished that concern with very public arguments that abortion is so safe that it needs no oversight and simple measures such as making sure that there is a nearby hospital that would handle any potential complications or that abortion clinics need to pass the sort of inspections for cleanliness that any other healthcare setting must are totally unnecessary burdens.  Bravo, Wendy Davis!

The father contributes half the genetic material, and so he has every bit as much claim to ownership of this "clump of cells" as the mother.  Now, some feminists might claim that we know with certainty who the mother is but not the father.  However, with a simple genetic test we can establish paternity beyond a reasonable doubt.  We don't even need to do an invasive procedure on the mother to obtain a sample, a simple blood test will accomplish it, which is such a minor burden for the mother that I'm certain courts would be happy to permit it.

Still other feminists might argue that since only a woman can get pregnant, only a woman can decide.  That sounds like gender discrimination pure and simple, which any good feminist will shriek is wrong in any other context, and we must be consistent.

As a side benefit, since there is a great deal of crossover from radical feminism to environmentalism, having abortions on demand for men will probably lead to a dramatic decrease in the birth rate once the men get to take mulligans on pregnancies, and there will be less people running around to pollute the Earth.

So, feminists, when it comes to abortion, remember to check your pregnancy privilege.

An Open Letter To Witchwind, Radical Feminist

Dear Witchwind:

I am a straight male (translation: cis-normative heterosexual oppressor of wymyn) who came across your blog after you wrote a fascinating exposition on your own phobias and pathologies entitled PIV is always rape, ok? This piece was published by you on your blog December 15, 2013, and I believe I first read it (translation: collected information with which to batter radical feminism) a few days later when it was linked at Ace of Spades HQ. I have also recently read your post entitled In retrospect to the 85,000, reformism and other things which expressed fear of men reading your blog and that the very fact that men read your piece was a threat.

I find this definition of threat curious, but it is consistent with your apparent willingness to ignore accepted definitions of words in your posts. You describe heterosexual intercourse as PIV (penis in vagina), and state that it is “a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.” This is not plain and simple at all, primarily because it is not true. Your formulation means that either intercourse and rape are identical, meaning the words are perfect synonyms, or that all intercourse is a subset of rape.

Your working definition of rape appears to be any sexual activity that may potentially cause harm to a woman. To quote your working definition, “intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. . . . Pregnancy = may hurt, damage or kill. Intercourse = a man using his physical force to penetrate a woman. Intention / purpose of the act of intercourse = to cause pregnancy. PIV is therefore intentional harm / violence. Intentional sexual harm of a man against a woman through penile penetration = RAPE.”

Logically speaking, your argument is complete bullsh*t. For example, all PIV would not qualify as rape under this definition because there are scenarios where pregnancy cannot happen—a woman who has had a total hysterectomy is not raped by PIV, because she cannot suffer any “intentional sexual harm” since she cannot become pregnant.

By your logic, anyone who walks down a flight of stairs is an attempted suicide, because the risk of falling down the stairs cannot be completely eliminated, and a fall may hurt, damage or kill.

I will also assert that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that not every man desires pregnancy as an outcome every time he has intercourse, which would render one of your underlying premises invalid.

Even if I concede your invalid premises, however, it still leads to absurd conclusions. Every male of every species that ever procreates or even engages in intercourse is a rapist by your argument. Furthermore, rape ceases to have any meaning of its own, as you reduce it to simply another word for intercourse (or PIV, to use the absurd RadFem term). You very much do in fact belittle the experiences of women (and men) who have suffered rape, particularly violent, forcible rape, which is in no way synonymous with consensual intercourse. You further insult non-RadFem women by telling them that they have no sexual liberty, and cannot consent to intercourse because they are brainwashed and could never allow anything in their vaginas other than an infant being born. In my opinion, this shows a heterophobia on your part that I suspect you would label rank bigotry and discrimination if it were applied in reverse, i.e. a straight male decrying all lesbian relations as felonious.

You seem to have an all-pervading hatred of all things men. You not only oppose their (imagined) Illuminati-level control of all things, but state that there is no room for any male in the agenda or cause to advance women's rights. You state that enlightened women, such as yourself, can see through all this and that men will never change, yet then demand that men give you money, property, essentially the universe. I offer you and all your RadFem allies this instead (WARNING—SATIRICAL CONTENT AHEAD):

Settlement in a location that has not been pillaged by men—an intact region of the Amazon rain forest seems reasonable, as it has not been despoiled and contains adequate food and water.

And nothing else.

No heavy equipment for clearing the land for farming, because such equipment was invented and built primarily by men.

No gasoline or any products dependent upon the petrochemical industry, since these all come from a crude simulation of intercourse by penetrating the earth with drills (which are just phallic symbols, of course).

No vaccines or antibiotics, because these were discovered/invented by men.

No firearms for defense, since they were invented by men.

Finally, no men for procreation, no male domestic animals for maintaining your herds/flocks. After all, we're all rapists anyway. I'm sure you can start from scratch in mud huts with stone tools and get to successful cloning within 30 or 40 years before your movement goes extinct.

Or, maybe, you could renounce your irrational hatred of men. I don't expect that, of course, since your writings indicate a zealotry wholly divorced from reality, but this Femtopia sounds like exactly what you want. No men, no influence from the patriarchy's toxic ideas or desire to control your womb. Just you and your fellow RadFems, sitting in the jungle telling each other how smart and superior you are, dying off one by one from illness, injury or starvation, and with no way to propagate yourselves, until the last RadFem living lives out her days ranting at the trees how this is all the fault of men.

 

Sincerely,

 

Conservative Crank

Remembering 9-11 and Benghazi

The most important part of today for me, aside from remembering and honoring the innocent victims and brave emergency responders and passengers of Flight 93, is to not forget why it happened and who is to blame.

9-11 happened because radical Islamists hate the United States--it's culture, it's wealth, it's defense of Israel/Jews.  Islamists hate the freedom that is at the foundation of America because it allows for liberty, and for people to make decisions that might conflict with the Islamists' view of a perfect sharia caliphate.  To them, any act no matter how barbaric is permissible if done for the greater glory of Allah or to cause harm to the infidels.  Alas, my understanding of history is that when religion and politics are in bed together, the usual product of that union is bloodshed.

Benghazi happened--well, we still don't have an openly acknowledged reason why Benghazi happened.  It certainly was not about a YouTube video.  My best understanding (cribbed from various sources) is that the Libyan mission included CIA running arms to Syrian rebels fighting against Assad (where the fighting is primarily two strains of Islamists pitted against each other, though there are some less extremist elements in the Syrian rebel forces), and another group of extremists (the Al Qaeda affiliate in Mali) decided to make a little statement and perhaps score some surface-to-air missiles in the bargain.

My point is, radical Islam is a mortal foe of the United States.  Radical Islam will accept nothing but complete obedience and adherence to its vision of the world.  Radical Islam must be marginalized and, when an imminent threat, crushed ruthlessly.  Those who renounce extremism and allow for the peaceful coexistence of others are not my enemies, or enemies of the United States.  But those who would kill another because they pray to a different god, or do not follow their particular strict moral code, those have no place in the world and are the enemy of all.  Those who would give no quarter to the infidel deserve no mercy, and the sad reality is that millions who believe "death to the infidel" is a central part of good religious practice would rather die than tolerate a Christian or a Jew living peacefully nearby.  Those who can change and tolerate others, all well and good, but those who do not must be dealt with, by force if necessary to prevent their ability to harm others.

The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of mixing religion and government.  This is why the First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly addresses it.  However, the Founding Fathers also understood the value religion has in society for contributing to moral well-being and order, at least in the Christian faith.  Although often now misunderstood, particularly by atheists with an agenda, the First Amendment does not call for the banishment of religion from the public sphere or anywhere there is government involvement.  Instead, it prohibits government from establishing a state religion or church, and also prohibits the government from abridging religion.  I could rant for pages about how this element of the First Amendment is often ignored, but that is for another time.

A Case For Impeachment of President Obama--Libya, Syria, and the War Powers Resolution

I will attempt to lay out a case for the impeachment of our 44^th President that, had the Congress any integrity at all, would surely result in the filing of Articles of Impeachment and likely a successful conviction in the Senate. I will also make a brief argument for the timing of this, should Boehner grow a pair.

A couple disclaimers up front: I am not a lawyer, nor what most people would recognize as a “scholar” of the Constitution—i.e. I do not have a degree in Government or Law, with an emphasis on the Constitution. What I do have is a pretty good grasp of political philosophy and philosophy in general, which is certainly adequate for an understanding of the Constitution as intended by Madison and the other framers. I will not be seriously entertaining penumbras and other such perversions of the original language as understood at the time of passage of the Constitution or the relevant Amendments.

Two relevant links here. This is the full text of the U.S. Constitution and here is the text of the War Powers Resolution (sometimes also called the War Powers Act).

It is also important to note that the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution is itself an open question.

Okay, enough with the pre-game, on to the matter at hand.

A Return to Blogging and Some Tidying Up

It's been quite some time since I posted here.  Some of that has to do with frustration at the electorate, and much of it has to do with the demands of meatspace--job, family, etc.  Nonetheless, I hope to begin writing again here, probably 2-3 posts a month.

I've also changed the description of the blog somewhat.  Whereas I once described myself as "a committed conservative with some moderate tendencies", I realize that is not really accurate.  I was allowing myself to be trapped by a leftist prism on what constitutes conservative and moderate in regards to social issues.  Although I have compassion, I would not categorize myself as a "compassionate conservative" in the mold of George W. Bush.  Specifically, this realization came to me during the recent Supreme Court deliberations and decisions on gay marriage.  I realized that it does not make me a moderate to support fair treatment of homosexuals, just as it does not make me some reactionary h8ter because I oppose state-sanctioned gay marriage.

Further introspection has made me aware that I have a fair libertarian streak in me as well.  Again, I had previously allowed my interpretation of libertarianism to be unfairly biased due to a false preconception, that libertarians were simply about legalization of drugs.  What I discovered was that libertarians (as opposed to the Libertarian party) were those who wished to maximize individual liberty.  To my thinking, this puts libertarians (classical liberals, as Locke or Madison might have understood them) much closer to conservatives than the modern liberals (Democrats, Socialists, Communists, etc.), although on a different axis.

However, I am in no danger of going on full-on libertarian, which stands only a few steps away from anarchy in some respects.  I believe that a strong but tightly limited government is necessary for the common defense, a precursor to having any degree of liberty in society as opposed to a Hobbesian jungle.  I believe the Founding Fathers were much, much smarter than many people give them credit for by choosing a constitutional republic rather than a democracy or even democratic republic as the blueprint for the United States.  Unfortunately, the original Progressive movement from Teddy Roosevelt over a century ago has gradually altered that blueprint, building up paper mountains of laws and regulations that have pushed inexorably in a direction of statism.  But this author will not quietly submit to a socialist agenda, or the implicit messaging of der State über alles that modern leftists such as President Obama support.

Culture Wars, Part II--Schools and Socialism

In the prior post, I briefly covered two topics, acceptance that conservatives have lost the culture war, and what that meant in terms of the loss of cultural touchstones.  This post addresses the how and why.

How did this happened? We let it. We let liberals, by which I mean socialists, take over the schools and destroy our youth. The nanny state believes that it, through the schools, is the proper authority to raise and guide children, not the parents and extended family. I laughed when I heard that Hillary Clinton wrote a book called It Takes a Village, because even as a teenager I knew the premise implied in the title was ridiculous, but I'm not laughing any more because I now know that there are a great number of people who actually believe that.

Why did this happen?  Because the socialists waged total war, while the conservatives sought a limited action.  Socialists fought on every front all the time, always making sure to keep an eye on the long game as well, whereas the conservatives were focused on the individual battles and merely lamented about gradually losing the war.  Ask any Vietnam vet how well a limited action works out in the long run.  And the ultimate long-term goal was to gain control of the schools, because compulsory education guarantees that virtually every young, malleable mind will be able to be shaped by teachers, without the children realizing it, until they become just like the teachers.

For a more specific example, the Left fought to have prayer removed from schools for decades, and have achieved almost total victory in this.  They lost many court cases along the way, but always they probed for a new angle, a different judge, and gradually they chipped away at a ritual that was once a given and have turned it into a historical footnote in most districts.  Having accomplished this, they now attack the most sacred of the American Christian cows--Christmas itself.  How many districts now insist on parity between Christmas and Kwanzaa, or have banned any sort of Christmas celebration?  Does anyone actually know what Kwanzaa is and celebrate it for those reasons?  Search Ann Coulter's column archives for a devastating indictment of Kwanzaa and its founder--the short version is that the holiday's roots are about as genuine as a three-dollar bill and that it not-so-secretly promotes radical socialist redistribution.

Volumes could be written on how public schools have been subverted to left-wing ideology, but I don't have the desire to tackle all the evils at this time.  For my purposes at this time, it is sufficient to acknowledge that this is the case.

The next post in this series will be Culture Wars, Part III--The Triumph of Relativism and Divinity of Self.

Culture Wars, Part I--Where We First Went Wrong

In the ongoing culture wars, conservatives continue to be routed by liberals.  The recent election proves this, where a slim majority reelected a man--Barack Obama--who has made negative net progress on the economy in the past four years over a man--Mitt Romney--who has rebuilt numerous now-successful businesses.  Now, we could argue a great deal about who on the Right is to blame for this specific failure, but the truth is that it is all of us.  We have ceded the entire war on culture and values in the name of political correctness.  To be sure, other elements are in play--which I hope to discuss later--but we have failed the Founding Fathers.

We have allowed separation of church and state to be twisted to mean virtual banishment of religion, especially Christianity, from the public sphere.  We have failed to inculcate entire generations with mores and norms that were a given for centuries in Western Civilization.  How many children or young adults can describe the framework or the meanings of even a fraction of Aesop's fables?  Would they see the ant as a horrible villain and the grasshopper as oppressed, or would they even understand that so much of the current culture encourages them to become grasshoppers?  Would they jeer the mouse for removing the thorn from the lion's paw?  What about other former cultural touchstones?  Would they understand Hansel and Gretel is an object lesson on poor planning and disobeying one's parents, or would they decry the violence of the story as too toxic for children?  Would they understand the parable of the prodigal son as the love of a father (and God) for his child, or see it as a template for endless largess for the wealthy to the poor, even if one is poor after having squandered his own wealth so foolishly?
This is the first post in a series on this topic.  Next will be Culture Wars, Part II--Schools and Socialism.

Thoughts on the RNC, and Paul Ryan

I watched or listened to a fair bit of the Republican National Convention the past few days.  Now that the convention is over, I have a number of thoughts.  Some of them may not be strictly convention related due to the gap since my last post, especially some of the material on Paul Ryan, but the focus will be the RNC.

Overall, I think the convention was very successful.  There was a concerted, focused effort to build up Mitt Romney and illuminate the shortcomings of Barack Obama, and I imagine the organizers are probably, and rightfully, quite pleased with themselves today.  And now to my thoughts, organized in almost no particular order (Ryan is last for a reason, though).

1) Ann Romney--There were multiple speeches by non-political figures, including members of Romney's church with stories that cannot fail to move a person with any sense of compassion, but Ann Romney's speech was the most memorable, and the most helpful, to the cause of making Mitt Romney more approachable for those who only knew him as that rich Mormon guy from Massachusetts.  Frankly, I liked him more after her speech--and I already was finding him more likable than I did in the heat of the primaries or even a couple months ago.  She has shown that she will be an asset to Mitt Romney as First Lady.

2) Clint Eastwood--The most talked about speech of the convention right now, a bit of political commentary and improv comedy that has extremely polarized responses--I caught it on the web later.  Ace at Ace of Spades HQ is a huge fan, as is Sean Hannity.  Most liberal commentators are not.  While I personally appreciated what he was trying to do, and think it was funny, it certainly was a bit of a non-sequitur.  If it gets people to laugh at Obama, and opens their eyes to his flaws, then it was a success.  I don't think it will cause any harm to the Romney brand, though Clint may find himself invited to a lot less parties.

3) Mitt Romney--I did not see or hear all of Mitt's speech, but I've read both left-wing and right-wing takes on it.  With the exception of actual Democratic operatives (CNN includes high-ranking members of the DNC in its review of the the convention), the consensus seems to be that the speech advanced the cause of his candidacy.  Some of the more right-wing pundits believe it was Mitt's best speech--though he does not exactly have the reputaion of being a barn-burner on the stump.  Nonetheless, he did not commit any gaffes, and nothing else that happened this week appears to have harmed him.  Incidentally, getting ahead of Obama on going to Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Isaac is a brilliant move.

4) Governor Susana Martinez--This speech was a tour de force, and was tied for the second best speech of the convention that I heard.  A remarkable life story, a conversion that comes from a small epiphany--not like Paul on the road to Damascus, but a sudden realization that her own values align with conservatives and the Republicans, not the liberals and the Democrats--this is a story that wins converts, not just voters for a single cycle.  Her delivery of the speech was very impressive, and I sincerely hope she remains prominent in the party.

5) Senator Marco Rubio--I missed this speech as well (Thursday's schedule was not conducive to following the convention), but once again he is gaining lots of accolades.  He is one of the true rising stars in the GOP, and has acquited himself quite well in the Senate as well as a speaker--but I still need to see a lot more before I am ready to nominate him for President.  Having read the transcript and heard the speech, he did well, very well indeed.  I do have high hopes for Senator Rubio, but his time has not come yet.

6)  Condoleezza Rice--This speech I rank with Governor Martinez's, although for different reasons.  Ms. Rice's story is in some ways the most remarkable of any of the speakers, summed up in her one line about going from Jim Crow Birmingham to the highest diplomatic position and most prestigious cabinet office of the United States.  Furthermore, she gave this speech without benefit of a teleprompter, which is almost unheard of for a scripted speech in the modern political environment.  It is easy to see why many in the Republican party, especially the more moderate elements, are drooling at the prospect of her running for office.  It is not clear, however, that she has a desire to hold office.

7) Representative Paul Ryan--To my thinking, Paul Ryan was the true star of the convention.  Krauthammer wrote a piece a couple weeks ago that echoes my own thoughts, namely that Ryan is set up to be the standard bearer for the Republican party for a generation.  I disagree only in that Ryan might actually be a two generation figure.  If Romney does become the next President, and can in fact manage to turn around the economy, Ryan would then be able to stroll into the White House in another 8 years, since he will have played a significant part in said turnaround.  After 2 terms as vice president and 2 terms as president, Ryan would sill be under 60--a younger, wonkier Reagan figure who could still have a strong voice for another 20 years.

And then there is his speech--a speech that was filled with pointed truths (don't believe the fact-checkers--everything they harp on is either factually accurate or a matter of opinion) that several have called "devastating" and led Ace (hardly a font of unrelenting optimism) to pronounce the election "over".  (Ace is feeling his oats a little less since the Nielsen numbers are in, but he still seems pretty positive.)  The word I used at the time, listening to the speech, and that I've also seen used by others including Ace, was "evisceration".  It was utterly damning of Obama's policies and failures, with both national elements and personal touches.  Like many other speakers, he allowed for former Obama supporters to save face by not voting for him in 2012, but no other speaker that I am aware of managed to destroy Obama's record so thoroughly in the process.

I thought Perry had fire in the belly at the onset of his campaign, but his nomination was not destined to be.  Romney, I believe, will be adequate to the current challenges, but it is Ryan, with fire in the belly to spare, who can lead the Republican party, and conservative philosophy, into the future--and as of this moment, I do not see anyone on the political landscape who would make me happier in that role.

Executive Privilege and Fast and Furious

With all due respect to the offices of Attorney General of the United States and President of the United States;

Mr. Holder, President Obama, the two of you are a disgrace to this country, and anything short of impeachment and a criminal trial is too good for you.

Executive privilege has been asserted by the Obama administration in response to multiple subpoenas from the Congressional Oversight Committee regarding documents from the program known as Fast and Furious.  In case the reader has not been following this story, it is the operation run by the Department of Justice through the ATF that involved selling guns to known straw purchasers (illegal gun buyers) who would then sell or otherwise provide these weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.  Another brief summary of the particulars of the operation can be found in this post by Dedicated Tenther.  As a bonus, that link contains DT's thoughts on what should happen to those responsible.

Why Wisconsin Matters

I will try not to echo here what has been said in other parts of the blogosphere regarding Walker's victory in the recall effort yesterday in Wisconsin.  I do think that there is much truth in the notion that this election is more important than the Presidential election this November.  I have listed before my reasons why a conservative victory in November is critical, especially with regard to upcoming Supreme Court vacancies.  In terms of what Joe Public will see and hear and be conscious of, Romney versus Obama will be the story of the year.

However, in terms of a true shockwave to the American political system, Walker's victory likely heralds a sea-change.

The Longest Day

Plenty of other tributes out there today to commemmorate D-Day, the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany and ultimately, World War II.  Veterans and even their widows are becoming very scarce, so thank one if you know one.  Band of Brothers is a good introduction to the chaos, bravery and heroism of that Day of Days, but is only one small part of the entire story.  The Longest Day features several stories and offers a larger view, both the book and the movie.  If you have any family or friends who don't understand the significance of this day, take a moment to teach them.

The die is cast

With the results of the most recent primaries in the books and Gingrich (unsurprisingly) supsending his campaign, the GOP primary is essntially a fait accompli, and we can get to the 6 1/2 month slugfest that is the general election.

I admit that I had many resevations about Mitt Romney, and that I still have some.  He is not the second coming of Reagan, he is not what I hope to have with Rick Perry, but he is the nominee.  Romney is not as conservative as I would like (or as Ann Coulter has been screeching from her blog for the last 4 months), but neither is he as moderate as many feared, and he has already shown a willingness to go after Obama aggressively.  There will be no McCain style, "my good friend," kid-glove treatment from the Romney campaign.

Newt Gingrich said earlier today that while he personally believes he would have been the better candidate, that even he must unite behind Romney and that defeating Obama MUST be the priority.  I would add that almost as critical is securing a majority in the Senate.  It's going to take serious work from both branches to undo the damage from the past 4 years.  There's also the minor matter of possibly as many as four Supreme Court appointments coming up in the next term, and a court packed with liberal justices for the next few decades could do tremendous harm to this country.

I will not get needlessly dramatic about the importance of this election.  The continued growth of the deficit and national debt may become an existential threat if it is not addressed and ultimately reversed, something the current administration has addressed in much the same manner that a 2 year old addresses having to go the doctor's office with a temper tantrum.  The Republic will not fall if Obama is re-elected--but I fear that American exceptionalism will be put on life support, that our economy may be crippled to the point of an entire generation being lost to rehabilitating it, and that an unconstitutional expansion of executive powers will continue, more reminiscent of Roman tyrants than the limited powers envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Remembering Breitbart

I'm not a blogger of note, and I never met Andrew Breitbart.  Others have written far more moving tributes, and more meaningful tributes, than I could.  But the conservative movement has suffered a tremendous loss with his passing.

However, I am certain that he would wish for people to carry on his tradition of challenging false narratives, maintaining intellectual honesty, and supporting all who are helping to advance the truth.  I am reminded of the famous line by Jimmy Valvano, "Don't give up.  Don't ever give up."  Well, if the response of the blogosphere is anything to go by over the last few days, no one is giving up.  Andrew's work was not done, because it never could be done.

What he was, was the Prometheus of the conservative movement.  He brought the vital spark that first pierced the darkness of the liberal media oligarchy, giving rise to hundreds and thousands of new flames to burn away the lies.

I am Andrew Breitbart.  And so are you.

Reviewing The GOP Field And The Crank's Pick

This post is not a comprehensive review of all declared candidates; rather, it is of the six major candidates who remain: Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, and Santorum.  I will comment at least briefly on each, but I may as well make this clear up front--I have considered myself a Perry supporter since he jumped in, and intend to continue to support him as long as he is a candidate.  I will make my reasons for this clear in my comments.  I will not say I endorse Perry, because I don't have sufficient influence for it to matter, but if I did, I would.

Huntsman: I have not conversed with any registered Republican who has any enthusiasm for him.  I've heard plenty of avowed liberals tout him as the best candidate in the field, though.  I do not think Huntsman is a particularly good GOP candidate, though his record is fairly decent and he has been blasted unfairly for having been Obama's choice for ambassador for China.  The man has no real charisma for me, and I have yet to hear him articulate a meaningful vision for how he will get this country back in order.  To me, he is an also-ran and should drop out.

Paul: I believe he is dangerously naive in his views of foreign policy.  As I understand him, he would overturn the entirety of American foreign policy going back to Monroe, enacting an isolationist doctrine.  I cannot support this philosophy even in the abstract, and definitely not when taking the particulars of the current world political environment into consideration.  Given that I believe in a moral authority and duty to remain a superpower and force for good in the world, this disqualifies Paul for me.  There is also the questionable (to put it politely) views he shows towards Israel, the seeming lack of discomfort he feels with being supported by white supremicist groups, and the newsletters he claims to have no knowledge of despite his name appearing on them and the income he derived from them.  I do appreciate many of his ideas to limit federal power and reform the domestic agenda, but being this is 2012 and not 1796, we need someone with plans for dealing with problems both domestic and foreign.

Gingrich: Newt has several problems.  First, his personal life and scandals--the GOP does not get a free pass on dubious moral behavior the way a Democratic candidate does.  Second, his legislative history is somewhat checkered--he failed to push his advantage as Speaker as far as he should have.  He did help push through meaningful reform of welfare, and there were budget surpluses under his leadership, but in both cases he likely could have extracted even more from Clinton.  His immigration policy is awfully lenient and sounds a lot like amnesty to me, without solving the border problem first.  All this aside, however, he understands the need for a pro-active foreign policy, he has some ideas for attacking entitlements (though spit the bit with attacking Paul Ryan's plan), and he's not afraid to call out Obama or the media for their mistakes.  I can support him to some degree, but I'm not convinced enough of the American public would, especially with months of non-stop media attacks.

Santorum: Excellent social credentials, but weak on fiscal matters.  He was destroyed in his home state in his last election, which doesn't speak well for his chances nationally.  He has shown new viability in the past month, but it is not clear to me he can win the primary, yet alone the national election.  I am not enough of an accountant to determine if his tax policies will work or not, and while I am ignorant of his specific plans for entitlement reform; his record is one of someone who will make changes, but is also unwilling to cause too much pain as he is compassionate in the modern political sense.  I can support him more strongly than Gingrich, but he would not be my first choice.

Romney: The perpetual candidate, Mitt is complex.  Despite campaigning for essentially 6 years, he cannot crack even 30% support in his own party.  There is little doubt that he has benefitted from the large number of candidates, dividing the opposition against him.  He was quite successful in the business world before becoming a politician, however it is questionable if that experience is as useful as it might have been had he built a company from the ground up instead of gutting failing companies and selling the parts for profit.  True, he has turned some companies around, but it's not as if he can sell off a third of the states to make the rest of the country more economically sound.  His policies and views seem quite opportunistic and prone to change; but the image he projects is one who does so out of expediency rather than a genuine conversion to a new point of view.  He is the moderate Republican equivalent of John Kerry, only without the unseembly sanctimonious attitude.  He has shown an awfully thin skin when challenged or called out, whether the charges are legitimate or not.  Most damning of all is the gruesome abomination known as Romneycare.  If Pawlenty had used the opportunity in the early debates to press the attack on Obamneycare, he might have crippled Romney's campaign months ago.  Instead, if nominated Romney will automatically cede away the ability to attack Obama's signature legislation, an incredibly unpopular and ill-conceived bundle of statutes that, unlike the economy (which Obama does own now, although quite a few of the problems predate him), could be easily and wholly hung around Obama's neck without reservation by almost any other candidate.  I am not convinced that the "anyone but Obama" mandate is strong enough to rally sufficient voters to win an election, and if Romney's expected electability is a myth, he is at best a fall-back candidate instead of the proper standard-bearer.

Perry:  A victim of multiple gaffes and unrealistic expectations when he first entered the campaign.  It is questionable if the strains of recent surgery and the wildfire outbreak in Texas distracted him and contributed to his poor early performances.  However, poor they were, and he did not rally quickly.  Whether this was lack of preparing, or unfamiliarity with how things changed on a national scale, is also debatable, but the reality is it hurt him severely.  He also harps on quixotic issues at times, like the part-time Congress--a plan I support, but hardly a major talking point at this stage in the game.  By most accounts he has strengthened his debate performances recently, though it may be too late.  In terms of policies, the two big knocks against him are Gardasil and the Texas Dream Act.  From my perspective, Gardasil is a non-issue, and Perry has expressed he would change his approach if he had it to do over.  The Texas Dream Act on the surface seems antithetical to border security, but it reflects the reality that the federal government did not secure the border, and contributing illegal aliens are better than those who simply absorb resources.  On the other hand, Perry did use significant state resources to try to limit illegal immigration, and has articulated a realistic, workable plan to protect the border instead of the symbolic but mostly ineffective physical fence.  He has made calls to actually reduce the size of the government, which only Reagan had ever done before.  He has proposed simplification of the tax code, slicing the budget, and has a firm grasp of the ugly nature of world affairs and the need for an active role in them.  Perry's record in Texas is one of creating jobs, of fighting tough but fair with the opposition and winning support when needed, and of winning charged, tightly contested elections.  He is not the perfect candidate, but Ronald Reagan is not rising from the grave to run for a third term, and Perry is the closest thing to the Gipper that we will see this election cycle.  That is why I support him.

Debt Supercommittee Failure and the Blame Game

(Note--this is a rapid reaction to Obama's press conference on November 21 regarding the lack of a budget deal from Congress.  It will be shorter and less sourced than other posts typically are, and may well have revisions subsequently.)
Obama's brief (about 4 minute) press conference this afternoon had only one purpose--for him to use his bully pulpit as President to get out his approved message, namely that the failure for a supercommittee solution to the mandated $1.2 trillion cuts is all the Republicans' fault.

However, the truth of the matter is that both sides showed an unwillingness to sacrifice certain sacred cows, though the intransigence is greater on the left.  The Republicans did include a proposal for a tax increase of as much as $300 billion dollars, which is a major concession on their part.  The Democrats on the committee, to my knowledge, did not advance or approve of any idea that included a similar amount of cuts to entitlement programs.

As detailed on this blog in a prior post, the current budget problem is one of spending, not revenue.  Tax, tax, and tax some more, but there is not sufficient income by the top 1% (who apparently have trees that really do grow unlimited sums of money, according to the continued Democratic delusion that taxing the rich will provide a bottomless supply of cash for their programs), even if confiscated in toto, that can solve the deficit problem.  There would have to be significant tax hikes on the middle class as well to support the current budget projections, yet alone actually decrease the debt.

Make no mistake, Obama will use this as a campaign talking point next year.  Congress, especially the Republicans, blocked his earnest efforts to fix this problem.  This is crap, but the media will dutifully report it as gospel truth.  The key is to spread the word that taxes cannot solve this problem, that an axe must be taken to the federal budget, and that Republican control of one half of Congress does not excuse the utter failures of Obama and the Democrats who control the other half of Congress, not to mention control of both branches of government in 2009-10, and succeeded only in digging a bigger financial hole.

High Crimes And Misdemeanors

While much of the talk among conservatives right now seems to resemble a circular firing squad, with picking at candidates' flaws with occasional breaks to note just how terrible the economy is, it is easy to forget what should be daily headline news--the scandals of the current administration.

The most recent, and hottest topic, has been Solyndra, et al.  This is certainly a scandal, as the appearance is that those who donated to Obama and the Democratic Party received preferential treatment in both having the loan applications approved and in being the first to have loans repaid when the companies filed for bankruptcy.  This is not a particularly novel scandal, and favortism for donors is as old as the political system, and this actually rates comparatively low on the scandal scale for President Obama.  It looks bad, but is more a matter of creativity in policy and law than criminal behavior.

Next is the ATF clusterjob, made up of Fast and Furious and Gunwalker.  On a scale of fixing a traffic ticket to selling the nuclear codes to the highest bidder, this ranks right about the same as Iran/Contra--I think.  There is a lot about F&F and GW that we just don't know yet.  Was tracking the guns the actual plan, and if so why did it not happen?  The existence of a weapons pipeline was not serious doubted, but taken as a given.  Similarly, the government already knew who the straw buyers were, so it was not an attempt to identify them.  A federal agent is dead, and an as yet unknown number of Mexican civilians have also been killed, with weapons from this operation.  The whole operation could be reasonably argued to be an act of war against Mexico.  Reagan was not impeached for Iran/Contra, but there was some serious consideration given to the idea at the time.

Finally, we come to the forgotten scandal, at least from where I stand as I have not seen any serious coverage of it in months--the conflict in Libya.  Now, there is serious debate as to whether or not the War Powers Resolution is constitutional or not, but it unless and until it is in fact deemed unconstitutional or repealed, it is the law of the land.  Obama did not keep to the letter of the law, or even the spirit of it, during combat operatoins in Libya.  Obama has even possibly violated the Separation of Powers enumerated in the Constitution, which is almost certainly an impeachable offense.  Short of committing treason, it is hard to imagine an action by the President that is more contrary to the Constitution and Rule of Law than claiming the powers of another branch of government for his own.

Now, from a practical standpoint, filing article of impeachment against President Obama may be virtually meaningless, especially if he fails to win re-election.  However, the symbolism of it is important.  Whether or not he were to be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors by the Senate, the articles should be filed by the House to show remind everyone that no one, not even the president, is above the law.

Cut The Fat--Why Budget Cuts, Not Higher Taxes, Must Be Used To Balance The Budget

Numbers and figures here.

The money quote (pun intended):  Finally, to put everything in perspective, think about what would need to be done to erase the federal deficit this year: After everyone making more than $200,000/year has paid taxes, the IRS would need to take every single penny of disposable income they have left. Such an act would raise approximately $1.53 trillion.

That's right--to save the current nanny-state model, every person making $200K or more a year would have to turn over every cent of that income, to keep us revenue neutral!  That's on top of all the taxes already collected on everyone making less than $200K/year.  Putting every high-earning individual on welfare in order to support welfare is, well, insane.  It makes sense in a pure communist or pure socialist society, though practically speaking those societies do not function.

Harbinger Of Great Depression 2.0?

Full story here: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/downgrade_rumors/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

Before anyone packs up all the ammo and moonshine they can carry and heads for the hills, let's take a moment to think all this through.

First, yes, this is unprecedented in American history.  Not during the Great Depression, not during stagflation in the 70s, not under any other recession in our history have we lost our AAA bond rating.  This is not a good thing.  It demonstrates the complete and utter failure of government to manage the world's largest economy, and the nearly unimaginable sums of money it generates.

Second, this is a klaxon call to action to fix the problems with government spending.  Nonwithstanding how banal it is to talk about the meaning of the Chinese character for crisis, this is the time for reform.  Lots of people may have to eat their peas, but that's hardly the worst that could happen.

Third, let's look at the Great Depression with perspective.  It was an awful economy, to be sure, but the majority of Americans did not lose their homes, did not go hungry, and did go to work every day.  History tells us that the current storm will likely last several years, but that prosperity will return after a time.  We would all do well to remember that going forward.

Opinion On Program Cuts

There will be cuts of some sort to federal spending later this year.  With each side having sacred cows (Defense and Medicare) slated for the sacrifical altar if the double secret super-duper commission cannot come to a consensus solution for trimming the budget, it is pretty safe to assume that almost everything else will be open for discussion, if not necessarily for cuts (Social Security being the obvious candidate to remain sacrosanct).

Disclaimer: I do not know the current outlays for various programs, so I will not be dealing with hard numbers.

Clearly, I am willing to trim most things in order to preserve Defense, but I'm not naive enough to think that there won't be cuts there as well.  I'm also a big believer in grants and loans for education, and I would not going to cut that funding either if it can be avoided.  Short term, obvious targets seem like the government programs which accomplish very little for the money spent--some of the more outlandish EPA enforcement issues, many agricultural and industrial subsidies, and all the redundant bureaucracies.  Is there a reason why TSA has to be a separate entity from the DOT?  How much money is saved by folding one department into the other, even if no one is actually let go?  I'm wagering it makes for more than a rounding error and would be a mostly painless step for those employees.

Incidentally, I'm mildly upset by the change to the loan program in the debt compromise, to wit the loss of having a portion of federal loan interest being subsidized for grad students.  The total amount of money available to grad students is unchanged, but the loans did just become a little more expensive in terms of repayment for those who take them.  I have no idea what that program cost the federal government, but I'm betting it's a pittance compared to what needs to be slashed from total expenditures.  Still, I did benefit from the program when I was in school, and I would like it to have stuck around for future students.

So, long term, where should the fat be cut out?  As this columnist rightly pointed out, start with the biggest programs around.  (H/t to AoS HQ where I originally saw this linked, long since disappeared from the sidebar there.)  Until someone grabs the third rail of politics and holds on long enough to actually change its trajectory, this problem will continue.  The age for full benefits for Social Security must be raised, and the benefits themselves probably should be cut.  When the program was implemented, 1 in 7 people lived long enough that they reached the age for full benefits.  Today, the average man will make it at least a decade past 65, and the average woman even longer, and if anything the average lifespan will only lengthen.  I'm not suggesting that we cut Grandma off at the knees; there are ways to do this reasonably.

For example, preserve the current plan for everyone already retired or close to retirement, say 60 years or older.  Do an across the board cut of benefits by some amount, let's say 10%, for anyone under the age of 60.  Change the reitrement age for anyone currently under the age of 55, so that going forward it increases by one year every other year until the age is raised by 10 years.  Finally, add in some means testing that scales based on reported income, so that the most well-off seniors do not receive as much, because frankly they don't need it.

Let's say this is approved sometime next year, but will start in 2015, government inertia being what it is (and makes it a little easier for me to do the math here).  Anyone born before 1955 is grandfathered in to the current age/percentage benefits calculations.  Anyone born before 1960 still gets full benefits (though those benefits are 10% less than previously) at age 65.  In 2025 the retirement age goes to 66, in 2027 the age goes to 67, etc.  So, for example, in 2035 the retirement age becomes 71, and anyone born before 1965 can get the full benefits.  By the time 2043 rolls around, the retirement age is up to 75 for full benefits.  One doesn't need to be an actuary to know that such a regime would save money.  I also doubt such a plan could pass in the current political environment, probably an increase in age by 1 year every third year is more realistic, as well as an increase in the age to 70 for full benefits.  But it would be interesting to see the CBO game some numbers for plans like this and see how much savings it creates.

Then again, with how horrible things look right now, candidates who run on platforms of gradual changes to entitlement programs and not altering the programs for those already enrolled in them may have a chance in 2012--and that's a mandate I'd like to see.

Debt Ceiling Debate

Balanced, bipartisan, fair, smart...these are some of the words President Obama used in his press conference today.  Certainly, the president has not shown through his actions that he is interested in any of these things--he gives high-minded speeches, but they are only empty words until backed by action.  Historically, countries in this sort of economic stall return to growth only with significant cuts in spending, not by increasing taxes.  While the House (Republicans) has advanced numerous plans that have actually been voted on and passed, the Senate (Democrats) has been running in circles for the past few weeks trying to create a single plan, and the president hasn't put a single bloody idea to paper.  Now, there can be debate over which of the House plans is the best option at this time, but the Senate and Oval Office combined have given not a single plan.  If Obama wants a deal so badly, simply send the marching orders to the Democrats that they should pass Cut, Cap and Balance in the Senate.

As to Obama's biggest complaint with the current plans, namely that we will have the same crisis again in a few months and we must have a solution through 2013--this is even more b.s. than usual political gamesmanship.  The only way we go through the same crisis again in a few months--is if he sits on his a** for those few months and doesn't use that time to come up with a long-term solution!  I could continue on a screed against Obama and his failures, but frankly I'm worn out by the whole debt debate debacle at this time.