Call His Bluff

If we’re being completely honest, I think we all know deep down that if it were a president Mitt Romney calling for war on Syria, most of us would support the endeavor. Of course, had Romney been president these last 5 years, something tells me the Middle East today would be different. The current circus of death and destruction on display now across much of the middle east, not just Syria, could have been managed by someone with a better foreign policy. Romney understood American exceptionalism and the value of our allies, while Obama has defined way down our exceptionalism while abandoning our allies.

In fact, Assad, president of Syria since 2000, was once one an ally of ours as well, and yet it wasn’t until the Obama era that he decided to start gassing his people. This isn’t just a coincidence. When being an ally of America ceases to mean anything, when the threat of U.S. intervention ceases to mean anything, when American exceptionalism and the cause of freedom ceases to mean anything, as it has with Obama’s less than thoughtful foreign policy, then regimes such as Assad feel less compelled to adhere to America’s wishes, and sometimes people get gassed as a result. Egypt too was a relatively stable place too prior to the implementation of the Obama doctrine. While President Obama famously spoke in Cairo in 2009, it’s doubtful that he would do the same 4 years into his foreign policy.

And perhaps this is the point behind why so many, on both sides of the aisle, do not support Obama’s war in Syria. We know that this entire endeavor is equal parts craven politics, and personal legacy elixer. Obama’s not asking us to go to war because it’s the right thing to do. In fact, up until the UK had their vote on the matter, and subsequently voted no, Obama wasn’t even going to ask. Recent comments by the Obama’s aides confirm that this is all about politics:

The White House and its allies promptly reinforced those suspicions. ‘Congress is now the dog that caught the car,” former senior adviser David Axelrod tweeted Saturday. The Post’s Scott Wilson quoted an unnamed aide making a similar point about congressional second-guessing: “We don’t want them to have their cake and eat it, too.”

Hugh Hewitt yesterday made the point that if we do not make good on the red line, much much more is at stake then merely Obama’s reputation. And to me this is perhaps the most compelling argument in favor of voting for the war. But that line was drawn by an amateur president, one who never treated the office he holds with the respect and dignity, and frankly awe, it deserves. His love for America is as shallow as his desire to transform it is earnest. After all you tend to want to keep the things you love, exactly the way they are.

I can’t support Obama’s wishes to go to war simply because I have no faith in Obama. I have no faith in his ability to execute this war with any semblance of competency. The last five years of his bumbling foolishness to wit.

One thing though. We are about to fall into an Obama trap – in fact we already fell into it the moment Obama sought authorization. If Congress refuses to give Obama authorization and things in Syria go south, which they inevitably will, you can only imagine the blame gaming the entire leftist machine, from Obama himself all the way down to segments on Good Morning America will engage in. “If not for the obstructionist GOP in Congress, more lives could have been saved…”

One wonders whether this entire move to gain authorization is really just two birds with one stone – a way for Obama to save face, and get out of his ill-considered comments all the while setting up yet another bludgeon to beat conservatives with. In other words, his quest for authorization is a bluff – he doesn’t want the GOP to agree to it.

As feckless as this may sound, and with the backdrop of a president who has already said he may act without congressional approval, perhaps we should call his bluff.

NSA Spying Is Obama’s Fault

Don’t blame George W Bush or the Patriot Act

The NSA Spying case has revealed that our government has been monitoring the private phone records, social media, email and other digital records, of virtually every single law abiding American citizen. Such widespread and untargeted monitoring of the lives of law abiding Americans is plainly un-American. Worse, in light of the IRS and DOJ scandals, where dissent or merely investigative journalism is suppressed by a powerful government behemoth, the obvious questions as to the ultimate use of such information arises.

The leftists, in their never-ending efforts to defend every Obama action, no matter how reprehensible, have dusted off the only card more tired than race: They claim that the NSA Spying is a direct result of former President George W Bush’s Patriot Act – It’s Bush’s Fault! The line of argument posed in many internet forums these days goes, if you don’t like what the NSA is doing, then you shouldn’t have been in support of Bush nor his Patriot Act, so suck it up GOP losers. Like all things eminating from the left, the less you know about the facts, the better this claim may sound.

The case George Bush made in favor of the Patriot act simply wasn’t about spying, en masse, on every single American. The famous wiretapping debate (if you can call the entire left, including virtually every television network, newspaper, and other media extolling the lack of virtue of the Patriot act, a debate) centered around the government’s ability to monitor specific calls originating from the US, to known terrorists on the other end.

At no point was the goal of the Patriot Act to create a database of every American’s facebook post, twitter utterance, or private google email. In fact, the Patriot Act was passed several years before the founding of many of the services we use today: Twitter was founded in 2006, facebook and GMail in 2004, none reaching widespread use until several years later. Obama’s 2008 election victory was notable in part because it was the first time social media had played a significant role in a national election. And this is largely because social media, by and large, didn’t exist in previous election cycles to the extent it does today or in 2008.

Moreover, President Bush was quite clear on the need to fight terrorism “over there” so it doesn’t come “over here.” He had no problem defining terrorism, nor it’s roots, which are obviously external and antithetical to Americanism. The Obama presidency, by contrast, has turned this terror fighting infrastructure inward, focusing the instruments of Government, such as the DHS, on American citizens, defining “rightwing extremism” as an emerging terror threat, despite the fact that virtually every terrorist attack in the last 20 years has been the result of Islamic fundamentalism. The IRS targeting of conservative Americans happened under Obama’s watch. The DOJ targeting journalists that might not carry water for the administration happened under Obama’s watch. While George W Bush focused his terror fighting apparatus on the middle east and even Iraq, Obama focuses his on Americans.

Per wikipedia, hardly a bastion of conservative ideology, the Patriot Act wouldn’t allow for anything like what has been revealed in the NSA matter:

FISA was modified by section 215 (Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to allow the Director of the FBI (or an official designated by the Director, so long as that official’s rank is no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The act specifically gives an example to clarify what it means by “tangible things”: it includes “books, records, papers, documents, and other items”.

It is specified that any such investigation must be conducted in accordance with guidelines laid out in Executive Order 12333 (which pertains to United States intelligence activities). Investigations must also not be performed on U.S. citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Does anyone have a problem with the above? Can anyone explain how the above gives the NSA the right to engage in the widespread monitoring of Americans that was undertaken?

The claim that this intrusion by Government is all somehow Bush’s fault when Obama has been president for nearly 5 years is simply unbelievable and those peddling such a fantasy should be ashamed. Considering the efforts of our Government during Obama’s terms to use national security issues to target every day, law abiding Americans for such crimes as dissent, shows just how far Obama has succeeded in his fundamental transformation of America.

The NSA Scandal isn’t the same as Wikileaks

Why Snowden Is Different From Manning

I’m hearing lots of folks on the right trying their best to display consistency in the face of the NSA revelations thanks to consultant/whistleblower Edward Snowden. Snowden worked as a consultant for Booz Allen and the NSA and released details about the U.S. Government’s massive data-gathering efforts where it’s been revealed that every American is basically under government surveillance. The panel on the Fox show “The Five,” for example, was fairly unanimous that something wasn’t right about all of this, that it hurts national security, and that Snowden perhaps didn’t do this for the right reason.

None of us can speak to Snowden’s true motives.   And while I hated with every fiber of my being Julian Assange and felt that no punishment is too good for Bradley Manning, I strongly believe we should be very thankful for what Snowden did. Here’s why:

Bradley and Assange conspired to release actual, national security information. Information that gave our enemies and competitors direct, usable data with which to better counter our position in the geopolitical arena and putting human assets in the field in direct jeopardy. Their action had no positive side, unless you subscribe to the “America last” school of foreign policy. What was the wikileaks bombshell? That we practiced foreign policy and worked with our allies to thwart our enemies? The fact is that nothing of note, other than actual national security information of direct use to our enemies, was released by Manning/Assange. The wikileaks debacle was akin to a teenager rebelling against his parents, whose main goal is to see their child attend college and not get caught up with the wrong crowd. If you hated Bush’s war on terror, then you supported Bradley’s sticking it to the man. But that’s all it was – a disgruntled, low level military man with access, who decided to stick it to the man.

Snowden by contrast accomplished something very different. There is a bombshell in the Snowden affair – He has informed the American people about a widespread, un-targeted monitoring of Americans. He confirmed that not only could each of us be watched by Government at any given time, but that in fact, we all were, whether or not we were acting suspicious or even guilty of anything. And while yes, the release of this information may make us less secure, it also clues us in to a major over-reach where even authors of the Patriot act are claiming abuse.

Snowden is a hero for his actions because for the first time, we are truly aware just how far our rights to privacy, if they ever existed, have been infringed. We now know that every online interaction, and many offline ones (going through toll booths, using your credit cards, borrowing books from the library) are not only being recorded, but assembled into a massive tracking database that allows government to know our very thoughts as we have them.

And while the left is chomping at the bit, once again trotting out the old, “Bush did it” meme, noting that this effort started in 2005, it’s important to take a step back and remember what our technological life was like back then – facebook and gmail (google mail) were brand new, and most people were not using them.  Twitter didn’t even exist till 2006.  Far fewer people were even online 8 years ago, and even less used social media. The first iPhone was released in 2007, android in 2008.  The expansion of the online world to every corner of our daily lives is a phenomenon that has happened primarily under the Obama presidency.

Furthermore, it was pretty clear that the Bush administration focused on terrorists, especially foreign terrorists. The catchphrase of the Bush admin was that the wars allowed us to fight the terrorists over there, instead of over here.

However, since the election of Barack Obama, the government seems more focused on us. Redefining terrorism as “man caused disasters,” refusing to call several terror attacks terrorism (Fort Hood, Benghazi, and at least initially, the Boston bombings) and famously and repeatedly seeming more concerned with so-called home grown radical right wing terrorists that never seem to actually kill anyone or destroy anything, other than the president’s false narratives.   Even after the Boston Bombings, the admin seemed more concerned about a muslim backlash and jumping to conclusions than they were about understanding why this failure of our security occurred.

Bush may have laid the framework for the NSA’s activities, but it seems to me the expansion of the online culture, and the government’s tracking of it, has happened primarily under Obama’s watch. And it’s not like he’s been powerless to stop it if he so desired. He didn’t.

In the context of the IRS/OSHA/FBI/ATF targeting scandal, the obvious lies parlayed by the Obama administration in the wake of Benghazi, and the targeting of journalists, the Snowden revelations seem even more sinister, and seem to put the average citizen at direct odds with his or her Government. Can any of us ever type a politically charged comment again without the thought arising in the back of one’s mind that perhaps we may get in trouble for expressing our views?

The NSA scandal forever and completely changes the relationship between American citizens and their government. Between America and other nations (who prior to this, still thought we were free citizens). Between Americans and the technology they use in their daily lives. Snowden will certainly be punished but make no mistake – for letting us understand the full extent our government has transgressed from the ideals of American civil liberties and individual freedom, Snowden is most assuredly a hero.

The Emotional Tyranny of the Newtown Families

Using the emotion of personal tragedy to take away the rights of the law abiding

On yesterday’s drive time news it was reported that Newtown families are in New Jersey, lobbying the state legislature for more gun control laws, in a state that already boasts some of the toughest gun control laws in the country.  It’s hard not to feel anything other than the deepest sympathy and bewilderment at what these families had to deal with, suffering the loss of young children guilty of nothing more than attending school.  However, since the day of the violent crime at Sandy Hook elementary, what seems to be a majority of these families, have decided to engage in the worst kind of emotionally charged partisan politicking as their form of grieving their loss.

Frankly I’m sick of it.  The murderous coward who committed the crimes against their children was not a law abiding gun owner.  He wasn’t a member of the NRA.  He wasn’t excersizing his second amendment rights.  In fact, he killed his own mother to obtain her weapons because he had previously failed a background check.  Killing someone, engaging in matricide, and stealing weapons, are all against the law already and yet this fact did nothing to stop the massacre.  So the idea that we somehow need more gun laws, which would only effect everyone who didn’t kill those children, isn’t just arbitrary and ultimately ineffective at stopping future incidents, but is also shocking in it’s sheer partisanship (of the left wing variety).

A thoughtful response to the attacks would be to look at root causes, take steps to try and identify and preemptively deal with people who would commit such crimes before they happen, and of course consider perhaps securing our schools in much the same way we secure our banks, our malls, and our offices of Government.  We expect classless political demagogues like President Obama, Gabby Giffords and Senator Diane Feinstein, to use tragedy, any human tragedy, for the sad goal of inflicting their political ideology on the rest of us.  What’s a shock in this situation is how grieving parents would likewise do the same, restricting the rights of other Americans to satisfy their need for what they perceive to be justice.  Sandy Hook, both in terms of the horrific act itself, as well as the parent’s gullibility in letting their grief be distilled into yet another left-wing political tool, speaks to just how far gone our society and it’s adherence to the rule of law, the very basis of our freedoms, has fallen.  Sadly, for both us and them, what the Newtown families will get isn’t justice, and the rest of us will suffer infringements on our rights as a result of their misguided efforts.

I’m a member of the NRA.  I own several weapons including some similar to the ones used at Newtown.  Had I been at that school on that fateful day, I would like to think I would have done my best to have fought to save those kids.  Before you think of this as chest puffing, bear in mind that there is nothing special about me.  I’d bet that nearly every member of the NRA, scratch that, any gun owner, would have laid his or her life down to try and stop the crimes and protect the children.  Because while we may own guns, we do so in the name of lawfulness, and the ability to defend oneself.

This said, it’s worth pointing out that had I actually been at Sandy Hook on that fateful day, I wouldn’t have been able to defend those kids, because Connecticut, just like New York and New Jersey, doesn’t readily provide it’s citizenry the ability to carry weapons for self defense.  So the perpetrator walked into that school knowing full well not only was he facing defenseless children whom he could victimize, he faced defenseless adults as well, whose only recourse was to use their own bodies as makeshift shields thanks to the very laws that the Newtown families would push for more of.

We spend lots of time talking about rights and dignity, mostly in the context of accepting modern gender roles and a woman’s right to abort her baby.  How about the right of a family man, a law abiding, hard working father, who merely wants to defend his family in a more effective way than being reduced to flesh and bones based cover for bullets as was the case in Sandy Hook?  Is human dignity served by asking law abiding Americans to cower at the feet of a criminal, who obtains his weapons without following any of the laws?  Is it right to ask that person to give up their life, merely so that the rest of us can pass anti-constitutional, feel good legislation that does nothing to stop the next round of criminal violence?

The above isn’t a hypothetical.  Ask any of the victims of gun crime (if they are still alive) in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Chicago or elsewhere where extremely restrictive gun laws are on the books, all the while suffering from high levels of gun crime, how well those stringent gun “control” regimes worked for them.  Restricting the law abiding their ability to defend themselves means that at some point, someone is going to die at the hands of a criminal, because they lacked the means to defend themselves.

The families impacted by the crimes at Sandy Hook deserve our prayers for their loss.  However, with their misguided political agitation, they now also deserve our scorn for using their tragedy to infringe on our rights, and setting the stage for hundreds of mini Sandy Hooks to occur, with victims unable to defend themselves merely to suit a misguided partisan ideology.  Message to Sandy Hook parents: Please stop your misguided efforts!

Issues with Current Immigration Reform

Why you should be for immigration reform, just not this version of it

Let me set the table here and say flat out that I am pro-immigrant. I see lots of fellow conservatives engage in what can only be described as xenophobia of the worst kind, suggesting that we not let anyone else into America, and police the borders ala East Germany pre-1989. Quite frankly, this is misguided and silly behavior, and ignorant of the great American history:

Immigration is what built this country. We’re ALL immigrants. My great, great grandparents came to America through Ellis Island, and had their name surreptitiously changed to something more American (and for that I am thankful). Does this mean they came here “legally”? Who knows what legal meant 100 years ago. I’m pretty sure that you could get into America back in those days simply by hopping on a boat bound for U.S. shores. And in either case, the influx of hard working people, willing to work, to earn, to pay taxes, is what made this country into more than what it was. It’s helped sustain important benefits such as Social Security, increased the size of the American economic pie, and turned America into that shining city on the hill. Countless immigrants contributed in a huge way to the great experiment, from Alexander Hamilton to Alexander Graham Bell, from Albert Einstein to Edward Teller. Where would our country be today without the influx of great minds in search of individualism and freedom?

All those unwashed, non-english speaking immigrants. My ancestors and yours, came here, with not much more than the shirts on their backs, looking to create a better life for themselves and for their children. Make no mistake, this IS the American dream, and any conservative who doesn’t support that is frankly out of their mind.

That’s not to say, however, that any conservative should support the legislation being forwarded by Marco Rubio and the bi-partisan “gang of eight”.

Some questions are in order for Mr Rubio, of whom I have previously been extremely fond of:

– What will this law do to help our country?

Seriously? Taking 11-30 million illegal immigrants “out of the shadows” is only a good thing, if it results in something good. Will these people become instant Democrat voters? If so, that’s not a good thing for freedom or the adherance to our system of constitutional laws. Will they be elligible for all manner of assistance? If so, that’s not a good thing given the precarious financial state of our government. So what actual benefit is there to doing this, other than the liberal, feel-good emotionality of it all?

– How will this law improve enforcement of our borders?

Based on reports by even milqtoast Republicans like Fred Barnes, this bill only pays lip service to actually improving our Mexican border. A committee would be established, along with some funds. But large swathes of our border with Mexico, at least for the foreseeable future, will remain open for even more illegal immigrants to come over.

– Does this law include anything designed to prevent the further erosion of American culture?

One huge difference between my immigrant ancestors, and many of the folks crossing the border today, is that by and large immigrants of the past came here fully expecting to change who they were in order to become part of the melting pot. They wanted to learn english, they wanted to become American. They may have been Russians or Italians originally, but their desire was to come here and become Americans. Not Russian-Americans or Italian-Americans, but simply “Americans.”

A disturbing trend among both legal and illegal immigrants these days, actively abetted by foolish liberals, and results in the xenophobia on the right, is that there seems to be no real interest in assimilation. Instead, we have images of illegal immigrants protesting our laws while waving flags from their native lands. We have Government producing documents in tens of different languages to make it easier for those that come here who do not speak or even want to speak english. And it’s not quite clear whether immigrants these days are coming here for the American dream, or the American government’s free benefits.

In Sum

Aside from ensuring constitutionality, laws enacted by our elected representatives should pass a simple test, a question as to whether the legislation will have positive or negative consequences for the country. Europe’s failed experiment with multi-culti should be guiding for us. The simple fact that for decades we’ve talked about building a border fence, without ever actually having done so should be equally guiding. The erosion of the idea of what it means to be American, enabled by Democrats more concerned about the feelings of others and their own electoral prospects, than the future of our country should be deeply concerning. Yet nothing in this proposed legislation would address any of that. So even though I am pro-immigrant, and believe that a strong influx of hard working future Americans is crucial to the future success of this great land, I do not support the “gang of eight’s” bill. And you shouldn’t either.

The really sad part about all of this is that perhaps our greatest asset for winning the 2016 elections, namely Mr. Rubio himself, has been horribly wounded in this process. No matter what happens with this ill-fated legislation, the Democrats by that fact alone, win another round.

Our Pet Goat

Obama has his 7 minutes

A major criticism of Bush’s handling of 9/11 started almost immediately after the first plane hit. The president was at a school, reading a children’s book, “The Pet Goat” to a class of schoolchildren when he was first informed of the attack on the twin towers. When Bush heard the news, he just sat there, admittedly dumbstruck, or pissed off, I can’t tell which. It took a full 7 minutes before he excused himself from the classroom, to ostensibly deal with matters.

Obama railing against Americans following the attacks in Boston.

Liberals had a field day, positing that this might be due to the president’s lack of intellect, or caring, or both. It caused such a stir that it was a major feature of liberal documentarian Michael Moore’s Fareinheight 911. As a New Yorker who actually supported Bush, I often had to hear complainants talk of Bush’s utter lack of an appropriate response in that classroom on that fateful day. I was never sure as to what kind of response they expected, perhaps a Hulkian tearing off of the shirt and primal yowl?  And in either case, wasn’t the actual response more important than the reflexive one?

Sadly, the attacks in Boston represent the first time since 9/11 that we’ve been hit on our shores, that is if you don’t count Benghazi or Fort Hood. And if Liberals were unhappy with Bush’s response after 9/11, well Obama has provided conservatives with something much more insidious and tangible to be concerned about.

On Wednesday, a mere 48 hours after Americans were cut down by terrorists on the streets of Boston, and with the nation mourning those killed and praying for those maimed, Obama decided that this was an opportune time to chastise fellow Americans who might disagree with him on the partisan issue of Gun Control.

You see, his party’s gun control bill had just failed in the Senate, which is incidentally controlled by his own party. The fact acknowledged by pretty much everyone with objectivity was that the bill, which was introduced in response to the murderous tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, wouldn’t have actually done anything to prevent Sandy Hook. It was obvious the bill represented a vain attempt by liberals, including Obama, Diane Feinstein (D), and other reliable gun control advocates, to capitalize politically on a tragedy. As a result, the opposition to it was more bi-partisan than most legislation that passes these days.

So with eyes glued to news channels across the country, waiting with baited breath to understand the changing facts on the ground in Boston, the president decided to take the bully pulpit. Surrounded by a cadre of human props consisting of the omnipresent former-gun-advocate-turned-gun-control-advocate Gabriel Giffords (D) and the parents of those murdered at Sandy Hook (except of course, any parents who don’t agree with Obama’s gun “control“), and Joe Biden, Obama took to the lectern and laid in to fellow Americans.

“A minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it,” he said. “They worried that that vocal minority of gun-owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment. And obviously a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse, any excuse, to vote no.”

And then in full-on emotional blackmail style, he dramatically cuts to the caskets in Newtown:

“Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their — their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?”

Let’s just put aside the fact that it was a bi-partisan majority, and not a minority as Obama claimed, that voted against the legislation.  Just two days after the first bombing on our shores in over a decade, all the president can do is call the opposition to his questionable gun control plans fearful, suggest that their opposition to the bill wasn’t honestly held and based on constitutional values, but rather an example of a lack of principles, and that it is the ominous “they” who are just looking for excuses to vote no to his plans which are for the good of all. And when that’s over, Obama whips out the families of kids who were murdered by a guy who failed his background check and had to resort to killing his own mom to obtain weapons, to make a nakedly ideological and emotional appeal, while suggesting that the opposition is somehow taking away their rights.

It’s beyond astounding. And what’s even more outrageous is that no one in the media seems to be talking about it.

If you’ve forgotten what a real president sounds like, George W Bush gave a speech three days after the attacks on 9/11. He didn’t denigrate other Americans who might not have agreed with him. He spoke of the greatness of our country, and of all of the people, regardless of their party affiliation. He talked about praying for each other and for those lost, and standing together. He left us with the following words:

“I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people — and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

Ms Noonan, What the Heck Are You Thinking?

The formerly esteemed Ms Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, (and prior laureate of the Reagan administration) made the terrible mistake of throwing in her support for Obama during the heady days of the 2008 election.  However, she came out strongly against Obama during his second presidential run, and as such I was willing to cut her some slack. After all, while sensible Americans had issues with the reality of Obama in 2008, there was always the more appealing, “Idea” of Obama – that a change was needed from the policies of Bush, that it would be an amazing achievement for a Black man to achieve the highest office, the promise of a healed America from a racial perspective, yadda yadda yadda, and so on.

I cast my vote for John McCain, but when he lost, and out of a sense for the same patriotism that we all practiced prior to the poisoned poltical sphere of late, I though, well, at least Obama is a good role model for young minority children everywhere, and perhaps he will govern in the same somewhat moderate spirit as Clinton seemed to. That was before “I won,” “the police acted stupidly,” “millionaires and billionaires” and so on. Obama started failing within weeks of winning the election and my first article noting such was written within a month of his taking office.

Ms Noonan on the other hand, decided not only to see a silver lining in the Republican party’s loss – she supported and presumably voted for Barack Obama in 2008, despite the many questions and lack of traditional vetting any Republican candidate would have had to endure. In some respects, because of her initial support for the activist-turned-senator-turned-president, when she did finally come out against Obama, and she certainly did and continues to do so, it was all the more biting. Obama losing support from people who voted against him is to be expected, but to lose the faith of people who crossed party lines to support him was devastating (or should have been had the media reported it). Peggy was back in the fold, and in my good graces. I even linked to more than one of her weekly columns.

However, this week, I am done, forever, with Ms Noonan. It seems that she felt Congress didn’t act quickly enough on Gun Control:

In the case of Newtown, I feared in the days after that Congress would not move quickly but instead take time to create a more “comprehensive” approach, not understanding that the minute voters see the word comprehensive they think, “Uh oh, they’re hiding things again on page 873, paragraph 8, subsection 5, line 12!” And opposition would build. And nothing good would happen.

I urged a quick, short, simple bill that would ban the use of big ugly monstrous high-capacity magazines. Make people reload after seven or eight shots. It won’t hurt hunters, it won’t leave your house less safe, and in the cases of crazy people attacking children and mallgoers it will force them to reload, in which time someone might be able to knock them down or get the gun from their hands.

Get that? Noonan “feared” that nothing “good” would happen. The use of the term “good” refers to a ban on hi-capacity magazines. Because, don’t you know, the whole problem at Newton was that the shooter had a magazine that held 30, instead of 15, or 10, or 7. And such a new law would be ok, Noonan asserts, because it won’t hurt hunters or leave those who take their self defense seriously, any less protected.

What about the facts ma’am? You know, the bit about how big bad magazine laws aren’t respected by criminals who are bent on breaking laws?  Or how the last gun control bill didn’t do anything other than infringe on the rights of the law abiding?  Or how about the revelation that the Obama administration isn’t even prosecuting actual federal firearms crimes in NYC and Chicago, or the fact that in parts of the country where people have the right to carry, there is less crime? Or the fact that in parts of the country where there are stringent laws, crime is common place? Or the fact that throughout history, the regulation of the citizen’s rights to own weapons have often been followed by confiscation, then tyranny?

What about the constitution, and the rights of those that didn’t commit those horrible tragedies in Sandy Hook. You know, the other 349,999,999 people in this country? What about them? What about the mini-Sandy Hook that’s in the making for the thousands of outed Gun Owners in upstate New York, who now serve as a pit stop for potential criminals on their way to committing other crimes? Or the mini-Sandy Hook that’s in the making for thousands of Americans who might not be afforded the rights to protect themselves from devastating “every day crime” which takes the lives of so many, and wouldn’t be stopped one iota by any proposed laws on the law abiding.

On this, Ms Noonan is silent. She laments the lack of quick action. I celebrate it. Note to the Wall Street Journal: Time to get a new columnist, or a new set of readers.

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

One of the key underlying suppositions in the right’s fight against Gay Marriage is that being homosexual is a choice. Thus, those opposed to Gay Marriage claim that gays are merely choosing to behave in an immoral way, as defined by the Bible. As a result, legalizing Gay Marriage means that as a society, we’re condoning immorality, and codifying it as a legitimate option for those who wish to indulge in such things.

At first, I thought that this was one of these unknowable questions. Perhaps gays are making a choice, just to be different and obstinate. Or perhaps they were just made this way. Who really understood what was in the mind of homosexuals, and since obviously most would support changing the definition of marriage, their stated view would hardly be unbiased.

But then I thought to myself, if being gay was a choice, then conversely we’re saying, being hetero is likewise a choice. And as a hetero, I can certainly weigh in on whether my being hetero was a choice. I can tell you that I wouldn’t be interested in having relations with the same sex under any circumstances. Growing up in NYC, there were ample opportunities for me to experiment. In fact, given the promiscuity of gay men in my experience, for me, there were more opportunities to get it on with men than with women who are more concerned about finding a viable mate. Being completely obsessed with the female figure and allure, I never did experiment, primarily because I simply wasn’t interested. Speaking for myself, having sex with men is about as appetizing as eating plastic. Was this a choice, or something hardwired? Judging for myself at least, quite clearly, the latter.

With all of that out of the way, and the requisite chiming in from the peanut gallery that the lady doth protest too much, I’m willing to bet many readers have had a similar experience and view. Which is why homosexuality represents such a small minority of our populace. If it were merely a choice ala coke versus pepsi, then there’d be a lot more pepsi drinkers out there.

I still stick to my main concern with the U.S. Government defining marriage. Mainly, that as a constitutional matter, our government has absolutely no say in the matter. No where in our founding documents is defining or otherwise managing marriage listed as a function of government. As such, government should operate in a marriage-neutral way, without respect to heteros, gays, those practicing multiple marriages, marriages with animals or even inanimate objects. If government wants to offer prospective couples of any stripe some form of legal recognition, then they can provide civil unions, and let people get marriage in their respective house of God. This would be the constitutional way.

Conservatives by and large (aside from myself and a small number of others) haven’t made this case, instead opting for a moral argument which has no basis in our constitution. This not only confuses what conservatives are supposed to stand for (a government limited by the constitution), but equates our cause with the same nanny-statism practiced by such liberal luminaries as Michael Bloomberg and his 16 ounce soda ban, and Diane Fienstien with her repeated efforts to step on our second amendment rights.

The solution here is simple. We as a party need to reverse course on this one. We can object to Gay Marriage as a social and cultural matter, but any discussion of bans or other government intervention must be dropped if we are to be consistent in our message and what we stand for. Consistency is no small thing. Before you dismiss this as accommodation, consider the alternative – we have no constitutional ground to stand in the way of Gay Marriage. None. So our stance here will not withstand the supreme court challenges coming and sure to come in any case.

The time to change course on this is now. Right now, in the shadows of our recent national election loss and before the supreme court weighs in. If we wait till later, closer to the 2014 or 2016 elections, and after our views have been certified as unconstitutional (which they will be) then it will be too late, and it will come off as pandering for votes. People have short memories. Let’s be smart and use that to our advantage, and get this petty and silly episode behind us so we can focus on more pressing matters for the country in 2014 and beyond.

An Education for Economists

Teaching econ 101 to the folks at Marketwatch and elsewhere.

I was taking a shower and listening to the radio the other day. Someone had left the radio on 880 WABC, which is an all news channel here in the New York Tri-state area. I didn’t realize what I was listening to until a news segment started talking about how we can expect the economy to go back into recession given the extreme spending cuts by the sequester. As usual for mainstream media, no mention of the fact that the sequester only reduces the rate of new spending, and even with the sequester, we’re still spending more than last year, and over $1 trillion more than we take in. And of course, the segment didn’t mention that this was Obama’s idea, but did call for Republicans to do something about it. Disgusted, I quickly changed the channel to more sane offerings on AM 970 “The Answer.”

So today, while perusing RealClearPolitics list of news stories, I noticed one from the economics site, CBS Marketwatch, talking about how Jobless claims have stayed steady. Good news, I thought, and clicked.

The article mentioned that since only 336,000 people filed for new unemployment benefits, up only 2000 from the last reading of 334,000, it’s a sign that the economy was improving. Putting aside the obvious issues with this, what really struck me was the following paragraph:

“Moreover, some economists expect hiring to be partly constrained in the spring and early summer because of billions in federal spending cuts that kicked in earlier this month under a law known as a sequester. ”

A few lessons for the so-called journalists/economists at CBS’s Market Watch:

– The sequester is not a cut in federal spending. Federal spending will go up even with the sequester. The sequester means that the increase in spending will be slightly less than it was.

– Reducing federal spending doesn’t constrain hiring AT ALL, unless you’re one of those folks who thinks that government is the only entity that can spend or hire people effectively. The fact that you clearly need to be reminded of is that if the government stopped hiring tomorrow, and gave all the money they collect in taxes back to the people, the economy wouldn’t be negatively affected one bit. In fact, the economy would flourish.

– It all comes back to the age old question: Who can spend your money most effectively, you, or the Government. Certainly, we know where CBS Marketwatch stands on this one.

A few other points worth mentioning.

– It’s not just “a law known as a sequester,” it’s Obama’s law, one he pushed through, without any of the modifications Republicans wanted. The GOP House signed it, but so did the Democrat Senate, and it was invented by Obama’s own staff. Perhaps it would make it easier for the folks at CBS Marketwatch if we called it the “Obamaquester.”

– 330,000 unemployment claims are hardly a sign of improving economic conditions. What they likely show is that the size of the workforce, smaller now that at any time in the last several decades, has stabilized. The fact is we have nearly 10 million less people working today than we did during the majority of Bush’s presidency.

There is a seemingly herd-like rush within the media to blame future economic hardships on any and all spending cuts happening today. I fully agree the economic picture going forward is bleak, but not because of the sequester. The fact that energy prices continue to skyrocket, that Obamacare will fully go into effect next year, that even after tax increases at the start of the new year Obama, is once again asking for taxpayers to pay ever more, and the banana-republicism of this admin’s policies on such issues as Keystone, are much larger factors in our likely future economic ills. Yet no one seems to be talking about that.

All of us on the right know full well that the people working at CBS and Marketwatch are died in the wool liberals. But you’d think that they’d still try to do their job with an iota of honesty and respect for the audience. They don’t.

The Only Legitimate Argument Against Same Sex Marriage

I agree with Rob Portman. Sort of. Before you dismiss he and I as RINOs, bear in mind one thing: If you’re a conservative against gay marriage for religious or moral reasons, then you are the RINO.

You see, there simply is no constitutional basis for objecting to Gay Marriage. None. Our founding fathers never created a clause, or worded a line, in our constitution, bill of rights, or even in the declaration of Independence, as to how our government relates to the institution of marriage. At least on the abortion issue, there is a constitutional argument – that the mother is infringing on the right of the unborn child. What’s our constitutional stand against Gay Marriage? That the bible makes one or two references about men laying with other men being an abomination? Last I checked, the bible isn’t the bill of rights. So while we claim to be this great party standing tall for freedom and a limited government as per our founding documents, we’re also waging some ill-conceived culture war where we’d want government to legislate morality in no better a fashion that Mayor Mike Bloomberg wants government to legislate the size of people’s soft drinks.

As a result, we’ve only hurt ourselves in this debate. We’ve permanently alienated an albeit small section of Americans. Worse, we’ve given endless fodder for the enemy to repeatedly use against us to convince a wider subset of Americans to distance themselves from us. And they have, time and time again now, with the oft-repeated phrase about how they don’t discriminate based on who people love. The fact, is, we do, and we’ve done all of this in the name of a cause that is the very antithesis of what we are supposed to stand for. Trust me, this will continue to come back to bite us, because even if we did change direction on this issue at this late date, it would forever seem coerced, and half-hearted. If you’ve ever wondered why I may seem dour at our future prospects, well this is one of the reasons.

As the title suggests, there is but one argument that is legitimate for a conservative to make regarding same-sex marriage. Sadly, it’s an argument I’ve rarely, if ever, heard being made by anyone who matters. Namely, why is government defining marriage at all? Government certainly didn’t invent marriage – God did. In fact, I’m pretty sure there is something in the bill of rights that speaks to government being prohibited from passing laws with respect to religion. It would certainly seem to me that government defining who is allowed to marry is as much a religious incursion as if they tried to define the meaning of Christmas, or how many Hannuka candles one should light. Clearly, government has no role in defining the institution of marriage, just like it has no role in defining how one might observe the Sabbath or Lent.

What this means by extension is that conservatives should support equal rights for gays who are in a civil union, in terms of things like insurance, tax benefits, spousal rights, etc, and I think for the most part, true conservatives do feel that way.

What this also means by extension is that perhaps, what this battle should be about, is getting government completely out of the business of marriage, including hetero marriage. For example, anyone can get a civil union down at city hall, even if they want to cohabitate with a goat. But they’ll need to see their priest or rabbi if they want to get married.

But do we conservatives want that? A world in which our houses of worship are the only place where a couple could be deemed married? Would we be willing to give up our ability to have a state sanctioned marriage merely to ensure that government can’t define it for us? Perhaps but my guess is that there are bigger fish to fry. And perhaps that’s what we should have considered when we first decided to wage this misguided battle about whether people who love each other should always be allowed to marry, no matter the details.