Thankfully, the Republican controlled House just passed the repeal of Obamacare by a 245-189 margin.  Three Democrats; Mike Ross (AR), Dan Boren (OK), and Mike McIntyre (NC), joined every Republican in support of repeal.  This means that 10 of the remaining 13 Democrats who voted against Obama Care to win reelection last year, showed their true colors by opposing repeal.

Here are the ten Democrat turncoats:

Ben Chandler ( Ky.), John Barrow ( Ga.) Heath Schuler ( N.C.), Larry Kissell ( N.C.), Stephen Lynch ( Mass.), Jason Altmire ( Pa.), Tim Holden ( Pa.), Collin Peterson ( Minn), Dan Lipinski ( Ill.) and Jim Matheson ( Utah).

If we include the other Democrats who represent R rated districts (Cook PVI) but supported ObamaCare from the beginning, that number increases by another 6, for a total of 16:

Jerry McNerney (CA) Joe Donnelly (IN) Tim Walz (Minn) Bill Owens (NY) Mark Critz (PA) Nick Rahall (WV)

These 16 Democrats must be targeted for their disingenuous conservative talk at home, as they vote with the radical left in DC.  It looks like their symbolic vote against Nancy Pelosi was nothing more than window dressing.  Let’s end the blue dog and pony show and defeat these clowns in 2012.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

The Democrats have a habit of sabotaging our economy and then demanding that we pass their legislation to avert impending doom that would result from their original policies.  Unfortunately, Republicans credulously accept their premises and acquiesce to the emergency legislative actions.  We watched this unfold during the debate over TARP, in which Republicans naively bought into the notion that the Great Depression would return unless they supported the Democrat bailouts.  We agonized over it when Republicans agreed to extend unemployment welfare and ethanol subsidies for another year, lest taxes go up for a week in January.

The same dynamic is now unfolding with the debate concerning the debt ceiling.  The national debt currently stands at $13.95 trillion, as we accrue over $100 billion in new debt every month.  By that calculation, we will surpass the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling in less than three months.  The Democrats are demanding that Republicans consummate and perpetuate their unconstitutional spending habits by raising the debt ceiling, or suffer the peril of defaulting on our credit.

Never mind that it was the Democrats who caused the credit, housing, and budget crises in the first place!  They seem to forget that programs like TARP, bailouts, porkulous, union payoffs, cash-for-clunkers, 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, Franken-Dodd, and Obama Care are the culprits for the doubling of the national debt.  Should the Republicans reward the pillagers by granting them one more opportunity to purloin the taxpayers?  Are we ever going to stop passing the buck down and indefatigably fight against big government in the present?  Even the much anticipated repeal of Obama Care was oddly postponed to placate the Democrats’ shameless politicization of the Tucson shooting.  Why not start reversing the $1.4 trillion deficit now?

Instead of falling into their sinister trap once again, we must uproot their premise by demanding a lowering of the spending floor.  If we lack the intransigence to block Democrat proposals due to threats of peril, how many more Democrat initiatives will we support under the guise of “a one time emergency fix”?  Will Republicans support one last tax increase on Social Security to preclude its bankruptcy?

Here is another important question to consider.  If we don’t strike out at the heart of the dependency state when the public finally has an apatite for spending cuts, then when will we ever cut the debt?  It is well known that Republican consultants have more regard for positive polling data than principled conservative policies.  But the reality is that the public now supports the Republicans on issues of spending more than ever.  In fact, according to a new Reuters poll, the public opposes raising the debt limit by a whopping 78-19 margin.  We will never enjoy a higher level of support for any conservative issue, let alone for aggressive spending cuts.  The Democrats are the ones who are forced into an awkward position on the issue of the debt ceiling, so why back down now?

Unfortunately, it appears that Congressmen Steve King and Michelle Bachmann are lonely in their opposition to raising the debt limit.  Most Republicans are buying into the argument that we will face imminent default if we fail to raise the debt limit immediately.

To that end, we must be prepared to force a compromise.  Not the sort of “bi-partisan compromise” that gives the farm away to the Democrats, but one that would permanently undermine their ability to spend.  Rand Paul and others have suggested that we demand a balanced budget amendment in return for a temporary increase in the debt limit.  I think that a more prudent and strategic demand would be the passage of Mike Pence’s Spending Limit Amendment.  This would automatically limit spending to no more than 20% of GDP, except when there is a declaration of war.  This is far superior to the balanced budget amendment because it directly attacks the spending side of the ledger and denies the Democrats the opportunity to raise taxes to balance the budget.  Also, many states have balanced budget amendments, yet they are able to run a structural deficit, while using accounting gimmicks to complete their balance sheets.  Now is the time to demand direct and permanent spending cuts.

The bottom line is that we must make our stand now.  With bloated government spending crowding out private investment, the U.S. has fallen to ninth place in the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom.  We need to ensure that any increase in the debt limit is less than $200 billion, while demanding a permanent budgetary fix in exchange for the increase.  Otherwise, we will continue to repair the disastrous results of big government with more increases in government.  After all, who has the heart to let the country go bankrupt and the poor eat dog food?

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

As Americans continue to shiver from the cold, they will continue to pay more to heat their homes and power their cars.  Sadly, yet ironically, the culprit is the man-made hoax of global warming.  For years, the left has attempted to demonize oil and energy producers with their hateful rhetoric.  Now, they are turning their vituperative rhetoric into action.  Oil prices surged again yesterday following the release of the recommendations from the President’s Oil Spill Commission.  Bloomberg News reports:

Crude advanced 2.1 percent after the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill recommended exploration in U.S. deep waters be overseen by an independent agency in the Interior Department. Producers suspended most output from Alaska’s North Slope after a Jan. 8 pipeline leak.

“The market took off after the release of the presidential panel’s report,” said Phil Flynn, vice president of research at PFGBest in Chicago. “There’s concern that it will become more difficult to develop resources and there will be less oil available.”

Oil for February delivery gained $1.86 to $91.11 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest settlement since Jan. 3. Futures have risen 10 percent in the past year.

They recommended to ostensibly lock up all Gulf coast drilling with new and duplicative regulations, red tape (or more appropriately, green tape), and global warming “science”.  Keep in mind that 85% of coastal waters are already off limits to domestic oil exploration.  The new regulations would tamp down oil drilling in the remaining 15% of coastal areas that are open to drilling leases.  Here is a sample of their new regulations:

The panel’s recommendations included increasing the liability cap for damages when companies drill offshore; increasing budgets and training for the federal agency that regulates offshore drilling and lending more weight to federal scientific opinions in decisions about drilling. (emphasis added)

Let’s analyze this for a minute.  There is a sharp increase in demand for oil due to global cooling, yet the government will decrease supply as they “lend more weight to federal scientific opinions in decisions about drilling” a.k.a. global warming science.  Now, the “working class” whom the liberals purport to endear, will be forced to pay more for their vital needs!

The “findings” of this commission were a forgone conclusion from its inception.  The seven member panel was comprised of Democrat politicians and environmental activists, not oil and energy experts.  We all understand that the Macondo spill was an isolated disaster amidst 60 years of successful drilling and exploration in the Gulf.  This was the type of successful drilling that has helped keep energy prices in America lower than those of Europe.  If the commission’s recommendations are implemented and the moratorium on drilling permits continues, we will permanently suffer from a European style energy shortage.  Then again, that is exactly what Obama and his minions have desired from the beginning.

The House Republicans must embark on an aggressive media and legislative campaign to fight the administration, while simultaneously promoting a policy to explore, drill, mine, and build (refineries).  Energy policy must be a cornerstone of any presidential campaign platform for our eventual nominee as well.  Energy policy must be one of the litmus tests in deciphering the true conservative among the flock of presidential candidates.

Despite the triumphant ascendancy of conservatism in our times, many Republicans are impetuously ‘punting on first down’ in the battle for social conservatism.  Some prominent GOPers feel that not only is social conservatism not a priority, it is something that should be unconditionally and unilaterally surrendered to the left.  There are elected Republicans supporting the repeal of DADT, radical homosexual organizations sponsoring CPAC, and party leaders supporting a pro-abortion woman for chairman of the party.  Today, I came across a story of a local Republican leader advocating for gay civil unions in my home state of Maryland.

The Republicans are down to a pitiful 12 seat caucus in the Maryland Senate.  Twelve!  Yet, even the remaining holdouts won’t stand up for conservatism.  What’s worse is that the minority leader, RINO Allan Kittleman, is planning to introduce a bill next week that will recognize civil unions in the state of Maryland.  His proposal would give couples entering in a civil union the same rights given to married couples.  The amazing thing is that Kittleman represents part of Carroll County, one of the most conservative jurisdictions in Maryland.  The Columbia Flyer explains Kittleman’s rationale:

“I believe that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage,” Kittleman said. “I think the government should be involved in civil unions.”

That belief, and his views on civil rights, are what prompted him to draft this legislation, Kittleman said.

“This is something I have felt strongly about for a long time,” he said, noting that with several new state senators elected in the November mid-term elections, it is “a good time to put in new ideas and to see where people stand.”

What exactly does he mean by recognizing government’s role in civil unions, but not in marriage?  What planet is he living in?!?  Also, he says that this is an issue that he feels strongly about.  So let’s get this straight.  The Democrats control every facet of government in Maryland and the leader of the rag-tag Republican caucus feels strongly about supporting a Democrat cause!  So why doesn’t he just become a Democrat?  We already have a robust party that spits on our American values, infringes on our rights, and destroys our free markets.  Now we are saddled with an Orwellian opposition leader who pushes left wing legislation even before the ruling party gets a chance.  This is a question that we need to confront not just in Maryland, but across our nation.  Do we really need two left hands in public policy?

There are ostensibly three facets to our nation’s right hand (red America); fiscal, social, and national defense conservatism.  Unfortunately, many within the Republican Party have increasingly taken an antagonistic posture towards the one facet that is the conscience of conservatism; social values. Much ink has been poured over Mitch Daniel’s suggestion last year that we enact a truce on social issues.  However, what has taken place within the Republican Party recently is anything but a truce.  It is a complete surrender and capitulation to the nefarious efforts of the radical left to decay the core of the American culture from within.

After being utterly destroyed at the polls in November, the left was crowned with their prize jewel of open homosexuality within our military, the paradigm institution of American pride and patriotism.  This victory was gratuitously granted to them by 8 Republican Senators, many of whom represented conservative states.  At the time, Senator Richard Burr defended his betrayal of his supporters by asserting that DADT repeal was “outdated and inevitable”.  Really?  Doesn’t the left seek to portray every liberal policy change as inevitable and timely?  If we retreat like cowards in the face of the leftist onslaught, won’t every liberal fantasy become inevitable?  In fact, Joe Biden is now using that same rationale of inevitability to push for recognition of gay marriage.

Some in the conservative movement are now trying to elevate the militant GoProud to a position of prominence at CPAC.  We now have distinguished Republicans pushing for recognition of gay civil unions.  Some are already supporting gay marriage.  Even as a staunch social conservative, I understand that fiscal and national security issues might be more important at this point.  However, that doesn’t mean that we should unilaterally withdrawal our opposition to the rot-gut leftist social values, thus surrendering social conservatism completely.  Also, if we abjure social conservatism because of the new and inevitable immoral climate that the liberals have created, what is to stop us from surrendering the rest of the battlefield?  If we acquiesce to every liberal premise, then they are on the cutting edge of every issue.

Hey, with so many scientists predicting global warming, isn’t it inevitable that we support appropriate legislation to deal with it?  Isn’t it indelible that we will need to shut down oil drilling and exploration?  As more and more American youth become indoctrinated into socialism through the liberal educational system, isn’t it inevitable that we acquiesce to a planned economy?  As our nation is flooded with 1.2 million immigrants and about as many illegals every year, isn’t it inevitable that we pander to their wishes in order to sustain our party?  With the permanent reality of globalism and the rise of NGO’s and IGO’s, isn’t it inevitable that we lay American exceptionalism to rest for the sake of global stability?

We must understand that the liberals play for keeps.  They control media, academia, entertainment, non-profits, and all other major influences over the American culture.  They are vociferously attempting to tear down our liberties, fiscal conservatism, and national defense with as much zeal as they are assailing our social values.  If the social fabric of this nation becomes a casualty to the liberal cultural warriors, everything else that makes America exceptional will follow shortly.  Our only plan of action is to fight the liberals on all three fronts with more fervor than they employ, before our demise indeed becomes inevitable.

The reality is that we still have strong support from the public in our battle against the “soc-libs”.  More than thirty states have supported ballot referendums to ban gay marriage, with many passing by wide margins.  We have succeeded even in deep blue state like California despite being outspent and outgunned by machine politics.  On the abortion front, Gallup reports that American support for life is at an all time high.  Why surrender when conservatism is making such a momentous comeback?  Why snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?  I guess we would have to understand the psychology of the lame duck Republican Senate to answer these questions.

As I watched the transition of power in the House last week, I couldn’t help but marvel at the fighting spirit of Nancy Pelosi and the far left.  Even as she was forced to hand over the gavel, Pelosi delivered an unprecedented partisan farewell speech in which she defended every aspect of her unpopular tenure.  Even as her approval numbers dip into the single digits and liberals all over the country suffer humiliating defeat at the ballot box, the Democrats will not back down from their support of her or the ideals she represents.  In fact, DCCC Chairman Steve Israel declared that his goal is to “make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House again”.

If the left is able to stand by their leaders and ideals even when they are on the decline, why can’t we stand by ours when they are on the ascendancy?  The answer is that once we throw away our social values (DADT repeal), we will easily capitulate on the fiscal (unemployment welfare, FDA takeover bills) and national security issues (START) as well. As the venerable Jim DeMint said, “When you have a big government, you’re going to have a little God.  You’re going to have fewer values and morals, and you’re going to have a culture that has to be controlled by the government.”

We always hear Republicans preface their disdain for social conservatism by extolling their commitment to fiscal conservatism.  However, we all know that you can count the number of social liberals who are red meat fiscal-cons on one hand.  As Jim DeMint so aptly said at the Value Voters Summit, “the fact is, you can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.”

When Bernie Madoff was caught running a Ponzi scheme, he was sentenced to lifetime imprisonment. Needless to say, the Ponzi scheme was prorogated immediately.  Unfortunately, when the leftists in government were caught purloining the funds from the mandatory Social Security retirement program, they were rewarded with reelection.  Worse yet, they still have the power to force us to contribute more, receive less, and raise the retirement age in order to perpetuate and exacerbate the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time.

It is quite evident that Democrats are content with their ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy concerning Social Security.  They are happy to continue bankrupting this nation, while remaining silent regarding the impending implosion of Social Security.  Republicans are justified in their vocal concern over the program’s insolvency and their calls for reform.  However, it is extremely disconcerting to hear many conservatives support the idea of digging deeper into this unconstitutional confiscatory program.  Many conservatives have adulated the recommendations of the debt commission because they “address” the Social Security crisis.  The problem is that they address the insolvency by implementing one or more of the following changes; cutting benefits, raising payroll taxes, raising the exemption limit, means testing benefits, and (most egregiously) raising the retirement age. The need and desire to address a policy problem is no excuse for proposing the wrong solution.

On Sunday, Lindsey Graham made headlines by asserting that he would not support raising the debt ceiling until the long term fiscal problems are solved.  Sounds conservative, right?  Think again.  Here is the full quote from Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press:

“I will not vote for the debt ceiling increase until I see a plan in place that will deal with our long-term debt obligations, starting with Social Security, a real bipartisan effort to make sure that Social Security stays solvent, adjusting the age, looking at means tests for benefits. On the spending side, I’m not going to vote for debt ceiling increase unless we go back to 2008 spending levels, cutting discretionary spending.” (emphasis added)

So, now we have Republicans openly suggesting that we perpetuate a Democrat disaster by means testing the hard earned retirement money that Americans toiled for their entire life.  Worse yet, if Graham has his way, we will be working until we are 70 in order to receive our money.  This is the ultimate application of socialist theory.  They mandate that all workers (and employers) give a large percentage of their earnings to the government (on top of means tested income taxes).  Then, they have the power to keep extending the retirement age at which we can receive our poorly invested capital.  Furthermore, if the worker dies before he receives all or part of his money; the government eats the balance, thus denying his family the inheritance of the fruits of his labor.  Finally, even after receiving his retirement money, it is ravaged by the means tested taxation.  If this is not socialism; what is?

Liberals have always defended the constitutionality of Social Security by calling it an insurance program.  Their willingness to means test the earnings incontrovertibly proves that Social Security is a gratuitous tax that is not covered under the 16th amendment.

The only conservative solution that is constitutional, fair, and economically prudent, is the gradual privatization of Social Security.  Instead, we have Republicans (including those who endorsed the debt commission) who support the further nationalization of people’s wealth under the guise of “entitlement reform”.  Imagine a situation in which Obama Care would go bankrupt in twenty years, and Republicans would then suggest that we pump more money into the unconstitutional program.  Would we praise those ‘reforms’ as conservative entitlement solvency initiatives?

The objective is not to make a Democrat-run program solvent.  Our objective vis-à-vis entitlement reform should be focused on returning the wealth to the American worker and tax payer by promoting more liberty and prosperity.  Many conservative economists have suggested ways of achieving budget solvency through partial privatization.  Liberals and many Republicans retort that there still would not be enough funds left to meet our obligations.  Frankly, I don’t care if this plan in itself would achieve solvency.  We must honor our obligations to those who already paid into the system, and provide the younger generation with a way out of this socialist dead-end.  If it turns out that we need another few hundred billion to pay out the remaining obligations, there is no lack of unconstitutional government programs and expenditures that we can and must cut in order to pay our obligations.  Again, the objective should be to cut spending in order to oversee a phase-out of Social Security (as it is currently constituted), not to raise taxes to perpetuate this mandatory Ponzi scheme.

I have no problem with cutting down on Social Security benefits and making it more sustainable for those who choose to participate.  But how can we compel every American to contribute a large percentage of their income to a plan that will be means tested and be administered at the mercy of corrupt politicians?  This is purely unconstitutional and should be the next civil rights issue for young voters.  We must demand that Republicans not sign onto the perpetuation and entrenchment of Social Security as a permanent form of involuntary servitude.

As we head into the 2012 Presidential election, we will be faced with a choice between candidates who are movement conservatives and those who are “Mr. Fix It technocrats” (in addition to the unambiguous RINOs).  The former will always stand for life, liberty, and prosperity. The latter will be willing to sacrifice one of those sacrosanct ideals for the sake of bi-partisan solutions as an intrinsic goal in itself.  The time is fast approaching for us to ascertain which prototype each candidate emblematizes.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

he day of reckoning for Obama Care is rapidly approaching as the Republicans have scheduled a vote next week to repeal this unconstitutional, job killing piece of socialism.  They plan to schedule two votes; one on the full repeal of Obama Care (Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act), and another on a resolution which instruct four committees to craft a new health care bill.  The resolution dictates that the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Ways and Means, report a new bill that includes the following twelve provisions:

1.  “foster economic growth and private sector job creation by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations
2.   lower health care premiums through increased competition and choice
3.   preserve a patient’s ability to keep his or her health plan if he or she likes it
4.   provide people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage
5.   reform the medical liability system to reduce unnecessary and wasteful health care spending
6.   increase the number of insured Americans
7.   protect the doctor-patient relationship
8.   provide the States greater flexibility to administer Medicaid programs
9.   expand incentives to encourage personal responsibility for health care coverage and costs
10. prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide conscience protections for health care providers
11. eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful spending; or,
12. do not accelerate the insolvency of entitlement programs or increase the tax burden on Americans.”

Although many of these principles sound a bit ambiguous, they all seem to represent a general conservative view of health care reform.  That is, except for provision number four- to “provide people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage”.  In theory, there are several ways in which congress can encourage such an outcome through free market reforms by deregulating the insurance industry and allowing more flexibility for insurers and consumers.  However, mark me down as slightly suspicious of leadership in regard to the issue of pre-existing conditions.

Last month, The Hill reported that Majority Leader Eric Cantor informed a college student that the Republican bill would cover pre-existing conditions.  We all know that the Democrats and the media have successfully distorted and demagogued this issue to the degree that it has become very popular with the typical “rent seekers” throughout the country.  We also know that Republicans have a hard enough time pushing unsullied conservative ideas when they are popular, let alone when they are not supported by the majority of the public (example: privatizing social security).

Conservatives need to ensure that the most costly provision of Obama Care is not implemented under the Republican plan.  We must demand that Republicans reject every premise of socialism and educate Americans about the true cause of the high costs of health care and health insurance.  Otherwise, we are doomed to fall into the trap of “compassionate conservatism”, by implementing the very policies that precipitate the social ills which the Democrats exploit for political purposes.

Throughout the health care debate most of the leadership focused their attacks on Democrat proposals, dubbing them “government run health care”.  While most Americans obviously share this disdain for government run health care, they also suffer from the high costs of health insurance.  If we don’t educate the voters on the causes of those high premiums and how they are directly related to the very mandates and government programs that already exist, they will not connect the dots on their own.  They will embrace the “good provisions” of socialism that don’t appear to be “government run health care” on the surface.

We need to uproot every false premise that is promulgated by the Democrats/media and show how it is these “issuance guarantee” mandates that have caused a spike in insurance premiums and will rise exponentially if we impose a “pre-conditions” mandate.  Instead of letting the Democrats seize the populist card of righteous indignation against rising health care costs, we should pin the tail on the donkey at every opportunity.  Otherwise, we let them get away with murder and are forced to acquiesce to the popular parts of their solutions that caused the problem to begin with.

We must educate voters that it is the liberals’ ownership of Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip, ambulance chasers, portability regulations, arbitrary benefit mandates, guaranteed issue, limitation of risk pool ratings, and culture of entitlement that have spiked the cost of health care for all Americans.  As the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) explains, “Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can’t afford a Cadillac loaded with options, you have to walk.”  Cantor and Boehner should be articulating how free market solutions that will roll back Democrat socialism and mandates are the only ways to deal with the high cost of insurance.

It is definitely refreshing and meritorious that they have posted the content of the legislation this far in advance.  However, we can’t assume that with Republicans in charge, we can let down our guard and ignore the fine print.  Conservatives must continue to be vigilant for any return to the Bush era Republicanism.  In particular, we must carefully monitor any legislation concerning health insurance for pre-conditions.  After all, the GOP has a pre-condition to relapse into the disease known as liberalism.  We must be ready to preempt any such relapse.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

Al right.  That is not precisely the title of the latest headline at Roll Call, but it is close.  The actual headline reads, “Reid Set a Filibuster Record”.  In other words, thanks to RINOs, Harry Reid became the most successful Majority Leader in terms of killing filibusters through cloture.

Keep in mind that the Democrats had 60 seats only for a short time during the 111th congress.  Al Franken was sworn in as the 60th Democrat Senator on July 7, 2009, and Scott Brown was sworn in as the 41st Republican Senator on February 4, 2010.  If you factor in the summer break and the month following Kennedy’s death, the Democrats only had four months with 60 Senators.  Unfortunately, they didn’t need 60 Senators for cloture throughout the session.  The Republicans were more than happy enough to spare the extra change for cloture, especially during the lame duck session.

Roll Call reports that, “Reid won 69 percent of his total attempts to shut down threatened filibusters in the two years of the 111th Congress that began January 2009.”  They further break down the numbers between the two sessions by noting, “Reid largely achieved his record in 2009, not 2010. In the first year of the session, Reid won 35 of 39 — a stunning 90 percent — of his attempts to close debate, or invoke cloture, on a variety of measures and nominations.  However, in 2010, his average dropped to 54 percent, when he won 28 cloture votes and lost 24.”

In regard to the source of the modest improvement in Republican intransigence during the second session, the article quotes a senior Democrat aid who nails it. “As the tea party showed its teeth more, you had fewer instances where [moderate Republican Senators] were willing to cross the aisle.”  A very instructive observation, indeed!  Although, I would point out that the “moderate Republicans” felt somewhat liberated to vacillate across the aisle once the elections were over.  Also, the lower success rate for Reid in 2010 is a bit misleading anyway.  Towards the end of the session, Harry Reid incessantly invoked cloture as a means to pass as much legislation as possible before Christmas.  Although he failed on many of the preliminary votes, Reid succeeded on almost all of the final cloture votes on his priority issues.  So while his official lame duck record was 6 for 14, he ultimately only failed on four bills.  To paraphrase Lindsey Graham, “Harry Reid ate their lunch”.

According to my count, only 15 of the 63 successful cloture votes were achieved when the Democrats had 60 Senators.  Even then, most of those votes garnered significant Republican support anyway.  In fact, with the exception of the numerous cloture votes surrounding the health care bill, along with one or two other pieces of legislation,  the Democrats would have been able to achieve cloture even without 60 Senators.  In many instances throughout 2009, there were only 13-18 Republicans who opposed cloture (yes, the usual suspects like DeMint, Coburn, Inhofe, Sessions, Vitter, etc.).  Many of those cloture votes concerned Executive nominees, appropriations bills, and extension of unemployment handouts.

Every one of those votes should have attracted 40 Republican nays.  Instead, there were at least 20 Republican Senators who joined with the Democrats to uphold cloture on each one of those bills.  Thus, it was the Republicans who granted Harry Reid almost his entire legislative victory during the 111th Senate, not Al Franken’s 60th vote.  I guess Harry Reid would tell you that with Republicans like these, who needs fellow Democrats?

Another amazing narrative of the 111th Senate was the adamantine cohesion of the Democrat caucus.  Despite the fact that there were so many Democrats from states in which Obama was unpopular, they voted in goose step with Reid when it counted most.  It remains to be seen if that will change during the next session.  Also, Republicans will now have 6 more seats, in addition to the replacement of Bennett, Gregg, LeMieux, and Voinovich with more conservative Senators.  There is simply no reason why Reid should accrue anything more than a 0% success rate during the 112th.  But as that Democrat Senate aid so aptly observed, the only way to ensure such failure for Reid is for our fellow tea-party patriots to show our teeth.  Let’s get to work!

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

Back in 2005, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and presidency, they were contemplating a “nuclear option” to end the filibuster on judicial nominees.  We were all aghast at the unprecedented number of filibusters that were mounted by Democrats to block highly qualified nominees to Federal Appellate courts.  At the time, the ever perspicacious George Will warned conservatives of the counter-intuitive consequences of squelching the filibuster.  He wrote in the Washington Post on April 25, 2003:

“The future will bring Democratic presidents and Senate majorities. How would you react were such a majority about to change Senate rules to prevent you from filibustering to block a nominee likely to construe the equal protection clause as creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage?

And pruning the filibuster in the name of majority rule would sharpen the shears that one day will be used to prune it further. If filibusters of judicial nominations are impermissible, why not those of all nominations — and of treaties, too?”

As it turned out, the Republicans lost control of both Houses within17 months, and by 2009, the Democrats had the presidency and 59 seats in the Senate.  Had Republicans opened the door for filibuster reform, the Democrats might have taken the initiative to completely extirpate it.  One could only imagine how destructive the 111th congress would have been with unbridled power.

Luckily, the Democrats lacked the political support and audacity to implement filibuster reform when it would have counted.  Now that they are irrelevant, they are calling for changes in the filibuster.  The reality is that such radical changes in Senate rules can only undermine the Democrats and benefit Republicans.

Although the Democrats will still control the Senate for the next two years, the Republican-controlled House would block any measure that passes the Senate.  Therefore, even if they were to abolish the filibuster altogether, they would never benefit from it.

Now, let’s fast forward to the 2012 and 2014 elections.  By any objective measure, the Republicans have at least a 50% chance of winning the presidency in two years.  The Senate elections for the next two cycles will be calamitous for Democrats.  Let’s start with 2012.  The Democrats are forced to defend 23 seats, while the Republicans will only defend 10.  But the prognosis for the Democrats is even worse than these numbers suggest.  Many of the Democrats are either dead men walking or seriously vulnerable.  Very few Republicans, if any, are underdogs for reelection.  The Democrats will have to defend 6 seats that are in solid red states.  Worse yet, they will be running for reelection with Obama at the top of the ticket.  Obama’s approval rating is as low as 30% in some of these states.  Here are the most vulnerable red state Democrats in 2012:

Claire McCaskill in Missouri
Jon Tester in Montana
Ben Nelson in Nebraska
Kent Conrad in North Dakota
Jim Webb in Virginia
Joe Manchin in West Virginia

In addition, they will have to defend Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Bill Nelson in Florida, two states that shifted back to their former Republican tilt. Let’s add Herb Kohl in Wisconsin and Debbie Stabenow in Michigan to that list.  They are both very vulnerable, and now the Republicans have strong farm teams in those states.  Purple states like Minnesota and New Mexico will be challenged, especially if Jeff Bingaman retires his seat in New Mexico.  This adds up to 12 vulnerable seats, even before factoring in some vulnerable Dems in blue states like Bob Casey in Pennsylvania (it’s not even a blue state anymore), Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, and Robert Menendez in New Jersey.  The Democrats are overexposed in the Senate much like they were in the House heading into the 2010 midterms.

The Republicans on the other hand, don’t have a single member who is an underdog for reelection.  Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown (for what they are worth) are the only blue state Republicans up for election, yet they poll very strongly among the broad electorate of those states.  The reality is that barring any criminal negligence on the part of the GOP, the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in 2012.

What about 2014?  The prognosis for the Democrats is just as bleak.  Every Republican up for election in 4 years will be in a solid red state, except for Susan Collins.  The Democrats will have to defend 8 red state seats and several purple states that are trending red.  If we win the Presidency in 2012, it is hard to see how we don’t have a control over every facet of government, with the possibility of 60 seats by 2014.

The bottom line is that the constitutional mandate of allocating equal representation to small states is coming home to roost.  The Senate was always a god-send for conservatives because there are so many more red states than blue states, yet they receive the same number of seats.  It is only due to Republican incompetence that these states have elected so many Democrats and RINOs.  Once the realignment of the red states is completed, the Democrats could face a permanent reality of being reduced to 40-45 seats.  Their only hope of preserving Marxism will be the incessant use of the filibuster (and the inclusion of some RINOs if we get 60 seats in 2014).  By eliminating the filibuster or reducing the threshold for cloture to 55, they will legislate themselves into oblivion.

As George Will noted in his 2005 defense of the filibuster, it is the Democrats who usually benefit from the high threshold for cloture:

“It has been 98 years since Republicans have had 60 senators. But in the past 50 years, there were more than 60 Democratic senators after seven elections: 1958 (64), 1960 (64), 1962 (67), 1964 (68), 1966 (64), 1974 (61), 1976 (62).”

In fact, since the article was written, the Democrats captured 60 seats yet again in 2009.  However, if the Republicans capitalize on their chance at realignment (the same way they did with the House in 2010), not only will the Democrats never achieve a 60 seat majority, they will struggle to crack 45-47 seats.  In addition to the geographical juggernaut, the Democrats face a demographic encumbrance as well.  One of the reasons why the GOP lost so many seats was because they experienced a sudden spate of retirements, creating vacancies in vulnerable states.  Now it is the Democrats’ turn.  Eventually, Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka of Hawaii will have to retire.  Frank Lautenberg was already taken out of Jurassic Park when he reentered the Senate in 2002.  Jay Rockefeller is already 73, and West Virginia is not the same state that originally elected him 25 years ago.  Tom Harkin and Carl Levin are both over 70 and represent swing states.  The Democrats really have their work cut out for them over the next decade.

The Democrat Party is a sinking ship that contains only one lifeboat; the filibuster.  It appears that they are trying to vanquish their only means of survival.  Hey, isn’t it comforting that the GOP is not the only party that self destructs?

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

Roll Call reports today that the DCCC is already formulating a strategy to target the most vulnerable Republicans in the upcoming election cycle.  The DCCC is defining a “marginal Republican district” as one in which Obama carried in 2008, or a seat that the Republican won with less than 55% of the vote.  According to Roll Call, the GOP holds 61 seats won by Obama, and 32 that fit both criteria.

This might sound like a cause for disquietude, as Republicans will only hold a 24 seat majority in the 112th congress.  However, not everything is as rosy for the Democrats as the DCCC would have you believe. While the Democrats are trying to compare their electoral prospects in 2012 to the GOP’s in 2010, there are some major differences that provide a more optimistic outlook for Republicans.

1. The Obama electoral map was an anomaly and is totally obsolete.  Nobody believes that he will carry the second district in Nebraska, or even come close to it.  Based upon his dismal approval ratings, it is highly unlikely that he would carry Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia.  The reality is that the Bush electoral map (or the Charlie Cook PVI) is a better standard to which one should measure the vulnerability of a district.

By that measure, the Republicans aren’t nearly as overextend as the Democrats were, headed into the 2010 Midterms.  Prior to November, the Democrats held almost 70 R rated districts.  As we head into the 2012 elections, the Republicans will only hold 18 D rated districts and 7 that are rated as even.  Also, most of those 14 Democrat districts are rated as D+2 or less, while only one district (Mark Kirk’s old seat), is rated over D+5.  Contrast that to the Democrat majority of 2008, in which they held 35 seats rated as R+5 or more, with many of them being R+10 or more.  The bottom line is that despite all of the hype concerning the potential for Republicans to win deep blue districts like Barney Frank’s, it never materialized.  Most of their gains were from the red districts of the Blue Dog Democrats.  They are in a solid position to hold every one of those conservative leaning seats.

2. Even though the Republicans decimated the blue dog coalition, they did not pick the map clean of red district Democrats.  In fact, there are still 17 R rated districts and two even ones held by Democrats.  Thus, there are still more overexposed Democrats than Republicans, even after the midterm shellacking!  Furthermore, 8 of those Democrats are in districts rated R+5 or higher, with a couple that are still in R+10 districts.  Although these Blue Dogs were able to hold to their seats in 2010, they only did so by the skin of their teeth.  Keep in mind that Obama was not on the ballot in 2012, so they were able to distinguish themselves as “conservative Democrats”.  Blue Dogs like Joe Donnelly (IN-2) won by a diminutive margins after running ads attacking Reid and Pelosi.  These pseudo-moderates will have to defend their seat in states like Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia with Obama on the ballot in 2012.  They will face a more daunting task in distinguishing themselves from the top of the ticket.

3.  All of these calculations don’t factor in the effects of reapportionment and redistricting.  Let’s first examine the states that have gained or lost seats:

States gaining Congressional seats: Arizona (1), Florida (2), Georgia (1), Nevada (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (4), Utah (1), Washington (1).
States losing Congressional seats: Illinois (1), Iowa (1), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (1), New York (2), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1)

With Republicans gaining several red state districts from reapportionment, and Democrats losing several blue state districts, we are automatically slated to net a few more seats.  For example; while Republicans will inevitably gain a seat in Utah, the Democrats will automatically lose a seat in Massachusetts.

Once we factor in the Republicans’ unrivaled control over most of the redistricting, the outlook is even bleaker for Democrats.  The Republicans should easily gain a seat in Arizona, Georgia, and South Carolina, while netting one or two seats in Texas.  The Republicans will also control the process in some states that are losing seats.  This provides them with an easy opportunity to net a seat, simply by eliminating a Democrat district.  In Missouri, they can easily obliterate Russ Carnahan’s district and combine it with the St. Louis district of William Clay.  They will also have an opportunity to eliminate Mark Critz in Pennsylvania, an urban district in Michigan, at least one Democrat seat in Ohio, and possibly a seat in Iowa.  Even in New York, where the Democrats control everything except the Senate, the population shift will force them to eliminate a NYC district and an upstate one.  The worst outcome of such an arrangement would be a draw for Republicans.

In other states slated to gain or lose seats, Nevada and New Jersey have divided governments, which will provide us at least with an even chance.  Florida gained two seats, but based upon the demographic shifts, and the fact that redistricting is controlled by an independent panel, there will probably be no net gain for us.

The only state that is a major problem for us is Illinois.  The Democrats will control the redistricting process and will have an opportunity to eliminate one of the four freshmen Republicans.  In addition, they will try to make life harder for the other three.  Louisiana might present a minor problem because we must eliminate a Republican district.  However, there is no doubt that as a package deal, reapportionment and redistricting will be a net boon for Republicans.  At worst, it will merely help preserve and strengthen the existing Republican majority.

In conclusion, based upon the electoral map, reapportionment, and redistricting, it is very unlikely that the Republicans will incur a net loss in the 2012 elections.  On the other hand, there is at least an even chance that they will gain seats.  Redistricting alone can result in a net gain of 10 seats.  And although there is a reasonable chance that we can lose a few seats (especially in Illinois), there are even more pickup opportunities to overcome those losses.  It is not outlandish to envision an election result in which we net 20 seats in the House, even if we take a conservative approach to redistricting.  Amazingly, we still would not be as overexposed as the Democrats were this past year.  Keep dreamin’ away, Democrats.  Get used to being in the minority.  No wonder why they are so obsessed with granting minorities extra rights!

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

Here are the thirteen Republicans who gratuitously gave Obama his biggest foreign policy victory of his presidency.  They pointlessly voted to entrust Putin and Obama with our missile defense, and capitulated to a tyrant during a time when American is exuding weakness throughout the world. All they had to do was hold out for two days and the session would have been over. Not only did they support this repudiation of American exceptionalism, they did so in a lame duck session, thus empowering those whom the voters rejected, while disenfranchising those new Senators who were elected. The resolution of ratification passed with 71 votes, but 9 of those supporters no longer belong in congress.

The Thirteen Traitors

Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Bob Bennett (Utah), Scott Brown (Mass.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Johnny Isakson (Georgia), Mike Johanns (Nebraska), Richard Lugar (Indiana), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine), and George Voinovich (Ohio).

The amazing thing is that they are from such conservative states as Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Utah! Imagine if the Democrats had as many traitors among their ranks as we do. Imagine if Democrat Senators from Vermont and Massachusetts would vote for staunch conservative legislation. Unfortunately, they don’t have any sellouts.

Bennett, Gregg, and Voinovich are retiring, but felt the need to flip one last birdie at the American people. Isakson took the resounding conservative support he just received in his reelection and pocketed it. But Brown, Corker, Lugar, and Snowe are up this cycle. Corker and Lugar must be toast at all costs. Collins, Cochran, Johanns, and Alexander are up in 2014 and every one of them must be defeated. This is not the first infraction of any of those on this list, and many of them were part of the lame duck massacre that has served to undermine the mandate of the midterm elections. Hey, when Lindsey Graham thinks that the Senate Republicans have wimped out, we really have a problem.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

It is widely being reported that the data from the new decennial census provides us with good news.  The new reapportionment based upon the population shifts will have ramifications on the presidential election and on House seats.  We’ll start with this article by analyzing how reapportionment affects our prospects to win the presidency in 2012.

The New Reapportionment

States gaining Congressional seats: Arizona (1), Florida (2), Georgia (1), Nevada (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (4), Utah (1), Washington (1).
States losing Congressional seats: Illinois (1), Iowa (1), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (1), New York (2), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1).

In order to properly assess the ramifications of reapportionment on the 2012 elections, we need to divide up the states into several categories; solid GOP, solid Dem, and swing states (red, blue, and purple).  Any meaningful appraisement of the political leanings of specific states will judge them based upon their election returns during the past three presidential elections.  The 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections have ostensibly set the table for the modern electoral dynamic.  Let’s categorize the solid red states as those that voted Republican all three times (McCain states), solid democrat states as those that voted Democrat all three times, and swing states as those who vacillated between elections.  Based upon this criteria, here is the breakdown of the states:

Red States

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

Blue States

California, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

Purple States

Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia

According to the new census, the Red states net gained 6 seats, the blue states had a net loss of six, and the purple states canceled out for no change.  Expressed another way, if the 2012 Republican nominee would win the same states that McCain won in 2008, he (or she) would win 180 electoral votes, instead of 174.  Please note that I am automatically counting the one electoral vote that Obama won in 2008, as there is no chance in hell that he’ll do it again.

As we attempt to construct a pathway to the magical 270, let’s first go through the list of purple states.  Of the ten purple states listed above; North Carolina, Virginia, and especially Indiana should be in our column.  They were easily won by Bush in both elections and were only lost by small margins in the worst of political climates, with the worst of Republican nominees.  This brings the total number of electors to 219.  Out of the four remaining “purple” states in which Bush won both times (Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio), Florida appears to be the most promising.  With Florida’s extra two seats this will add another 29, for a total of 248.

If you will notice, we are still 21 votes shy of a tie, and 22 short of a victory without Ohio (18 more votes).  Thus, the new favorable reapportionment doesn’t change the fundamental electoral calculus that in order to win the presidency we still need Florida and Ohio.  The only way to add another 22 electoral votes without Ohio, is to win Nevada (6), and  Colorado (9), for another 15, plus two of the three remaining purple states; Iowa (6), New Hampshire (4), and New Mexico (5).  If that were to occur, it is highly unlikely that we would lose Ohio anyway.  Based upon the electoral results in 2010, we appear to be in a stronger position in Ohio than either Colorado or Nevada.

The only major paradigm shift that I can ascertain is the following.  Until the release of the census, the states in which Bush won twice (all of the red states+ Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) were worth 274 votes.  Thus, we could not afford to lose any marginal swing state.  Now, they are worth another eight, for a total of 282.  This new electoral map would allow us to lose either Nevada (6) or Colorado (9), and still come out on top.  This is very significant because we did not do as well in those two western states in 2010 as we did in Florida and Ohio.  Of course, we might also have a shot at Wisconsin or even Pennsylvania and Michigan, depending on how many drones remain infatuated with The One.

Next time, we’ll examine the repercussions of reapportionment and redistricting on the House races.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

Richard Lugar has become the leader of the rampaging RINOs.  Ever since the November electoral repudiation of liberalism, Lugar has voted for the FDA farm takeover, Amnesty for illegals, and co-sponsored the child nutrition law.  Lugar also opposed the moratorium on earmarks.  He has also been the chief architect of the near confirmation of the START, unilateral disarmament treaty in the Senate.  In fact, he is so incorrigible in his quest to carry water for America’s enemies that he even voted against the McCain amendment to the treaty.

The McCain amendment would have clarified the language of the treaty to exclude missile defense from the reduction of offensive arms.  The language of the treaty clearly interconnects the two.  For any Senator, much less a Republican, to vote against this amendment, is stupefying.  Richard Lugar is so focused on undermining this country’s security and screwing fellow Republicans that he is willing to oppose a common sense amendment that would still allow the treaty to be ratified.  Lugar, Bennett, and Voinovich joined every Democrat (except Joe Lieberman) to defeat McCain’s amendment.

It is important to note that on the likelihood that Republicans capture the Senate in 2012, Lugar would become chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.  Throughout his tenure on the committee, Lugar has given cover for Kerry and the radical left in their support for all of America’s enemies, including Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Chavez, and the Palestinians.  There is a reason why the Latin American thugs recently named several House Republicans on the foreign relations panel whom they view as threats, but mentioned nothing of Dick Lugar.  They know that he is in their court.  Lugar despises the notion of American exceptionalism, and embraces every precept of moral relativism and globalism.  He has nothing in common with Middle America and his Indiana constituents.  Dick Lugar is a Kerry Republican who must be defeated in 2012.

Unfortunately, Lugar is not our only red state RINO.  4 other Republicans voted along with Lugar and every Democrat to defeat the Risch amendment to the START.  They were Alexander, Bennett, Corker, and Gregg.

This amendment was a mere attempt “to amend the preamble to the treaty to acknowledge the interrelationship between no strategic and strategic offensive arms”.  Yet, for Lugar and his band of RINOs, this clarification was too much of an affront to Obama and Putin.

Notice that some red state Republicans opposed these commonsense revisions even while the blue state RINOs (Snowe, Collins, Brown) voted with conservatives.  Also, not a single Democrat crossed party lines to strengthen this flawed treaty.

There has clearly been an imbalance of power between the two parties in the Senate for many years.  Even Democrats who represent solid red states tend to support the left on almost every issue.  It’s frankly astounding how even after suffering a shellacking in November; the Democrats have been able to shove through a far left agenda in the lame duck session that affects every aspect of policy; foreign, social, and fiscal.  For most of the radical agenda, including START and DADT, the Democrats have been able to retain almost every red state DEM vote, despite their vulnerability in 2012.

Contrast that to the dismal showing from Republicans, in which they not only face dissent from blue state RINOs (Snowe, Collins, Brown), but even from those who represent friendly constituencies.  We have Bennett, Corker, Alexander, Murkowski, and Lugar, who represent solid red states, yet have dissented on almost every major issue in the lame duck session. Even when they joined with conservatives to filibuster the omnibus bill, they vacillated until they couldn’t find 9 Republicans to break the opposition. Another striking aspect of the omnibus battle was that McCain said it was “the first time since I’ve been here, we stood up and said ‘enough.’” I’m not sure if that was a Freudian slip, but he was sure on to something there.
People often focus too exclusively on the blue state RINOs, and ignore the plethora of red state ones.  We have had fifth columnists from Utah, for goodness sakes!  Imagine if the Democrats would tolerate the election of a social conservative from Vermont!

The 112th congress will undoubtedly improve slightly as we will be rid of Bennett, Voinovich, Gregg, Lemieux, and Bond.  All of these Senators have undermined our position in recent months and we will be happy to see them go.  However, the imbalance will still be quite pronounced.  While the Democrats can count on red state, vulnerable Dems like Manchin and Webb to do their bidding time and again, we will have plenty of red state, safe Republicans who vote against conservatives.  We will still have to contend with Murkowski, Lugar, Alexander, Corker, Hutchinson, Grassley, McCain, Graham, Cochran, and many more red state R’s who have a tendency to stab us in the back.  If we add to that list those who supported the FDA takeover and the DADT repeal, we would be down to single digits.

The reality is that although grassroots conservatives did a great job in challenging some coronated RINOs this past cycle, we still have a monumental job left.  Results from last cycle have shown that had we gotten involved in some primaries at an earlier date, we would have been more successful.  We need to challenge every one of the following Senators:

Kyl
Lugar
Snowe
Wicker
Ensign
Corker
Hutchinson
Hatch

Some observers on our side would recoil at this list and at the notion that these Senators should be challenged.  But, they would be missing the point.  Incumbents don’t own Senate seats until they die or commit a crime.  Their term of office expires after six years.  Once they are up for reelection, they should have no more of an entitlement to that seat than anyone else.  They must stand before conservative primary voters and articulate why the past six years shows that they have served as a proper counterweight against the liberal assault on this country.  There are only a few brave souls like Jim DeMint whom we can affirmatively say yes.  Most others are lackluster at best and downright contemptible at worst.  Unfortunately, we will be forced to suffer through six more years of backstabbing from Lisa Murkowski.  Let’s get to work now, so we won’t be saying the same thing two years from now concerning Lugar and his gang.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

“I know this is a seminal moment, because for the first time since I’ve been here, we stood up and said ‘enough.’”

These were John McCain’s comments regarding the successful GOP filibuster of the Omnibus bill.  Hey, Senator McCain, now that you realize the effectiveness of a united Republican front against the liberal assault on this country, maybe you will use it more often?  You are precisely correct about this being the first time in your tenure that the RINOs stood up.  Please don’t let it be the last.  According to your own admission, it took 28 years to unconditionally stand up to the Democrats on a single issue.  We can only hope that it doesn’t take another 28 for the next time.  Imagine if you had coalesced opposition against DADT, the tax porkulus, and START.  In fact, you voted for the introduction of the START treaty, even though that only required 34 Republicans to obstruct it.  The first time is a real charm, isn’t it?

Our brave soldiers have been dying every day in Afghanistan due to political correctness and egregious rules of engagement. Unfortunately, conservatives have failed to importune public outrage over the misdirection of the war because everyone is focused so keenly on the Democrats’ unrelenting, multi-pronged assault on our freedoms back home. However, in light of the killing of a border agent on our own soil, we need to refocus our outrage on national security and the safety of those who are protecting us.

Brian Terry, an American hero, was killed Tuesday night in a shootout with illegal armed bandits near Nogales, Arizona.  KPHO reports:

National Border Patrol Council President T.J. Bonner said Terry was waiting with three other agents in a remote area north of Nogales late last night when a gun battle with the bandits ensued. No other agents were injured, but one of the suspects was wounded in the shootout. The Border Patrol said that Manuel Arianes, a.k.a. Manuel Arellanes Osorio, was wounded in the gunfight. Arianes, 34, and a Mexican national, was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court in 2006 for aggravated assault on a police officer, and had been deported to Mexico twice, according to sources familiar with his case. Border Patrol spokesman Eric Cantu and FBI spokeswoman Brenda Lee Nath declined to confirm Bonner’s account, but said authorities have four suspects in custody and are searching for a fifth. FBI Special Agent Manuel J. Johnson confirmed authorities were still searching for a fifth suspect. Johnson said Terry died shortly after he was shot about 11:15 p.m. in a remote and rugged area near Rio Rico, just north of Nogales. (Emphasis added).

So, once again, our brave border agents are obliged to conduct law enforcement operations in areas that are ostensibly war zones and require military action.  Not only do we send thousands of our boys into the meat grinder to fight a politically correct war on the other side of the world, we have them die on our own soil as well.  How did this guy reenter the country after he was apprehended and arrested twice?

The answer is quite simple.  Earlier this summer, AFGE National Council 118-ICE, the official union of the rank-and-file ICE agents, issued a vote of no confidence in the politically appointed leadership. The declaration, which passed unanimously, charged the ICE directors as having “abandoned the Agency’s core mission of enforcing U.S. Immigration Laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty”.

The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing immigration laws outside of institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty though policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.

Thus, we see that all of the promises of increasing the border patrol and sending the National Guard to the border are irrelevant because they are ordered not to enforce the law.  This is especially evident when the troops are forced to deploy unarmed.

There is nothing more fundamental to the survival of this great nation than the sovereignty of our own borders and the security of every American to live peacefully in this land.  It’s time to end the nonsensical, empty rhetoric of “securing the borders”.  We need to give the Mexican government an ultimatum to take control of their northern border and immediately put an end to the illegal crossings.  If they fail to take charge of their own sovereignty, then we must secure ours.  Conservatives need to push for a full scale military operation to stabilize northern Mexico, kill all of the narco-terrorists, and implement a buffer zone along the Mexican side of the border to ensure that every single Arizonian can live in security.  If we can fight wars and gather intelligence along the mountains of Afghanistan, then it should be child’s play to secure our own backyard.

Although it is imperative that we stop the Democrats’ and Rinos’ assault on our economic freedom, our number one priority must be the immediate eradication of the Mexican terrorists along our border.  Sadly, with this criminal administration in charge, a military operation in Mexico will only lead to more GI’s coming home in body bags.  The only form of war that they can cogently prosecute with expertise is class warfare. The Democrats and Rinos are like the Navy SEALs of domestic, economic divisions. These “warriors” suddenly lose their temerity when it comes to fighting our enemies. It is high time that conservatives draw a line in the sand and pummel them with the issue of our border war.

Now is the time for Steve King and Lamar Smith to shine and demand accountability from this 5th column president.  If they don’t act soon, there will be many more patriots like Brian Terry (along with thousands in Afghanistan) who will die on the altar of political correctness.  Maybe when Senator Kerry is finished pimping Putin’s treaty, he will explain to us “How you ask a [border agent] to be the last person to die for a lie?”

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

From the diaries by lexington_concord…

It’s always politically advantageous to support tax cuts.  However, it takes more intransigence and fortitude to oppose big government programs and special interest handouts.  It is even more arduous to oppose such programs when they are coupled with tax cuts as part of a backroom compromise.  Based upon Senator Jim Inhofe’s comments to NRO, it appears that there aren’t too many GOP Senators who are down for the struggle.  Concerning the green handouts hidden in H.R. 4853, Inhofe told National Review’s Robert Costa:

“94 percent of the provisions are meaningful. For people talking about wind and ethanol subsidies, you’re talking about 2 percent of the whole deal.”

Well, if Inhofe is signing on to this, then there won’t be too many others joining Jim DeMint.  If today’s cloture vote to proceed with debate is any indication of the final outcome, only 5 Republicans oppose the bill: Coburn, DeMint, Ensign, Sessions, and Voinovich.  (Although Voinovich opposes it on liberal grounds).  What concerns me more than Inhofe’s support for the tax deal is the way he expresses it.  I could respect the fact that some believe that this is the best political decision we could make, given the circumstances.  However, to dismiss the permanent welfare benefits, the special interest handouts, and the regressive ethanol “Hawkeye Handout” as “2 percent” is very disconcerting.

If Republicans lack the will to strike out at the heart of the dependency and welfare state after a stunning electoral victory, then when will they assert themselves?  The Democrats will always demagogue the issue by attaching big government programs to honey traps.  Does anyone really believe that the GOP will have the tenacity to fight the extension of the unemployment subsidies after they expire in 13 months from now?

Read More →

President George W. Bush and his compatriots introduced a new typology of conservatism called “compassionate conservatism”.  They believed in big government, entitlement and transfer programs, market distortions such as ethanol mandates, and special interest handouts.  They felt that it was all fine and dandy to grow government, as long as they advocated for tax reform.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has always been a paradigm Bush Republican.  It is therefore not surprising why he so emphatically supports the Obama tax deal.

All of these permanent concessions are being used as bait for temporarily retaining the marginal tax rates and reinstating the death tax.  I’m glad to hear that Rush is categorically rejecting the compromise even if it means that we miss the deadline.  The tax rates for 2011 will not be finalized until the end of the year and we will have the political clout and mandate to repeal them retroactively when we retake the House on January 3.  On the other hand, if we acquiesce to this deal, there will be no way to repeal the destructive entitlements, market-distorting corn welfare and tariffs, and God knows what other special interest handouts will be slipped into this bill before the session is over.

It is surprising to me that the likes of Grover Norquist and some at the Heritage Foundation (although, they appear to be coming around) have come out in support of the deal so soon.  Don’t they realize that the President doesn’t legislate?  By agreeing to “the deal” up front we will wind up supporting a piece of real legislation that is dubbed as “the deal”, but in reality, will be a new monster filled with budget busting special interest handouts and market distorting mandates.

Many Republicans will retort that this is the best deal we could secure in this political dynamic and if we reject the compromise, we will be doomed on January 1st.  However, I have a sneaking suspicion that McConnell and the other Bush Republicans don’t view this deal as a necessary evil.  In fact, this is the type of legislation that they promote all the time.  It cuts taxes, but increases spending and big government regulations.  That’s what compassionate conservatism a.k.a. big government liberalism is all about.  They wouldn’t have it any other way.

We must remind them that “green provisions” in the bill are backdoor tax cuts and are just as destructive as the sun setting of the Bush tax cuts.  Let’s hope that the folks at ATR score this bill and treat it as a violation of its tax pledge.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

As conservatives, we understand that not everything that is dubbed as a tax cut is a good thing.  Liberals are wrought to describe handouts as tax cuts and tax cuts as handouts.  Thus, the extension of the regressive, job killing, price hiking ethanol subsidies are not good tax cuts and should not be extended.  Yet, through all of the discussion concerning the deal on the Bush tax cuts, there is a total blackout concerning the deal with the ethanol subsidies.  Tim Carney reports at the Washington Examiner, that Chuck Grassley (R-Ethanol) is claiming that a one year extension of these subsidies is part of the deal.  He draws attention to this article from the Quad-City Times:

“A deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts also includes action on ethanol and biodiesel credits, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Tuesday.
The details aren’t clear yet, but Grassley told reporters that the ethanol and biodiesel tax credits would get a temporary extension, through 2011.
The biodiesel credit of $1 a gallon expired last year, and farm-state lawmakers have blamed the expiration for the idling of biodiesel plants.
The ethanol credit, at 45 cents per gallon, is scheduled to expire at the end of the year.
Grassley said the biodiesel credit extension also included applying it retroactively to 2010.”

Republicans have already agreed to a permanent unemployment welfare system in order to extend the tax cuts for just two years.  They also agreed to bring back the death tax, albeit at a lower rate.  Are we now going to agree to more corn welfare for special interest groups?  Where is this deal anyway?  What else is hidden in this compromise?  Could Senator Kyl provide us with a hard copy?

There is currently a robust debate among conservatives whether the current tax deal is the best we could get from Obama.  But don’t the supporters want to see the full copy of the deal before they sign off on it?  Is there any limit to the number of poison pills that the deal  would contain before Republicans will oppose it?  How can we blindly trust an invisible deal made with the devil that already contains extraneous details that are detrimental to this country?  I guess it is all about compromise for some GOPers.  To hell with the details.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

The GOP won their greatest electoral victory since 1938, but you wouldn’t know it from most of the recent news.  Let’s round up some of the GOP’s greatest hits since November 2nd.

• The House Republican Steering Committee, led by leadership, appointed big government, big liberals Fred Upton as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Hal Rogers as Approps Chair, and Spencer Bachus (R- Freddie Mac) at Financial Services.  So we have three wolves guarding the hen houses by leading three of the most vital committees.
• Last week, 6 Republican Senators (including John Thune) joined Tom Harkin in signing a letter of support for extension of Ethanol welfare.  This comes at a time in which these same regressive policies of the progressives have already spiked the price of gasoline to $3 a gallon.
• Last week, 8 Republican Senators voted against the earmark moratorium.  Mark Kirk, a member of the class of 2010 voted against it.
• After the health care and financial services takeover, the FDA food-Nazi bill was one of the most egregious nanny state, job killing, cost raising, special interest pandering pieces of legislation to come out of the 111th congress.  15 Republican Senators, including the likes Vitter, Burr, and Enzi, ensured its passage.
• The Debt Commission.  Yes, even Conservatives like Coburn and Crapo voted for massive tax hikes and the exacerbation of the current Social Security ponzi scheme that will force young workers to pay even more into a bankrupt system until age 69.
• Incoming Majority Whip Eric Cantor announced that he would support the pre-conditions and slacker (26 year old’s on parent’s plans) previsions of Obama Care.  These mandates are the very reason why insurance is already so expensive and will ensure that costs rise to the point that all Americans will beg for single payer.  This is exactly what Obama had envisioned all along, and Cantor is being played like a fiddle.
• Loads of GOP Senators seem to support unilateral disarmament, the return to Soviet era rivalries, and the gutting of our missile defense by ratifying START.  Even John Kyl has indicated that Republican support of START might be part of a compromise to other issues.

The list is unfortunately too long to mention the numerous other policy hits from the GOP.  Are there any conservatives left aside for Jim DeMint?   Did we just have an election, or are we living in the twilight zone?

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

John Kyl is proud of his compromise with Obama that has resulted in an agreement to extend all of the Bush tax cuts until the next election, except for the death tax.  Those who are content with the death tax compromise are remembering the time when 55% of anything over $1 million was taxed upon death.  They therefore are praising the new rate of 35% on assets above $5 million.  The problem with it is that a 35% tax for dying is immoral, unconstitutional, and confiscatory no matter how you slice it.

The reality is that most of these taxable assets from estates were already taxed at least once (if not several times) and there is simply no reason to tax them again upon the owners death.  Also, if we cut through much of the class warfare rhetoric we will see that $ 5 million is not that much.  Keep in mind that we are not referring to $5 million in annual income.  The death tax confiscates all land, equipment, and assets of businesses and farms that have accumulated during the lifetime of its owner.  It is not hard to understand that any successful entrepreneur would be able to accrue such assets during his lifetime without reaching the top 1%.  Why should his descendants pay a dime to inherit the fruits of his labor?  The death tax, in any shape or form, fundamentally violates the spirit of liberty and property rights that the country was founded upon.

Even some authentic conservatives are applauding the Obama deal, especially in light of his surprise tax holiday on payroll taxes.  They believe that we have achieved an unimaginable victory by securing the Bush tax cuts while the Democrats control all branches of government. However, the fact is that the Democrats have been backed into a corner on this issue for quite some time and were forced to pass the tax cuts.  This is not only a result of the midterm elections, but also a consequence of so many red state Democrats up for election in 2012 (including Obama himself).  Despite their bravado shown through their class warfare rhetoric, in private, they knew that they could not raise taxes on anyone in a recession.  This is why they waited until the last minute to agree to the deal.  They didn’t want to be perceived as giving into the Republicans until the last week of the session in which it would be do or die for the Democrats.

With this in mind, it is quite transparent that a temporary extension of all the tax cuts was a foregone conclusion.  The Democrats were compelled to approve at least a temporary extension of all the tax cuts.  It was the Republicans who gave in on everything else.  They didn’t push for a full extension.  Also, they agreed to extend unemployment benefits (which are nothing more than welfare at this point) for a whopping 13 more months!  This will bankrupt the nation while perpetuating and exacerbating unemployment.  The Republicans could have negotiated for spending offsets or for just a four month extension.  Instead, they agreed to everything on the spending side of the equation.

So the question begs, after all these concessions, did the Republicans really need to agree to reinstate the Death tax in any capacity?  Once they gave the Democrats everything they wanted on the spending and dependency side of the equation (which was more important to them in the first place), couldn’t they have forced a full extension of the DT repeal, especially considering that it is only for two years?

Another interesting dynamic of this tax deal is its effects on the politics of debt.  For many years, the Democrats have successfully tainted the Reagan administration with the explosion of the national debt as a result of his tax cuts.  We all know that the real reason for the debt is that although Reagan successfully cut taxes, he could not succeed in stemming the tide of the growing welfare state because of the Democrat congress.  This tax deal will do the same thing.  Any benefits of the Laffer curve will be mitigated by the insane 13 month subsidy of unemployment.  The payroll tax cut will also raise the debt because the liberals will not cut back on any of the FICA benefits despite the lost revenue in taxes.  Then, the left will get to blame the debt calamity on the tax cuts.

The bottom line is that whatever one feels about the necessity for the Republicans to cave on the welfare part of the deal, they could have gotten away with another two year extension of the death tax repeal.  Unfortunately, it appears that Senator Kyl has bought into some of the class warfare rhetoric, even in time of death.  He believes that if you accumulate more than $5 million worth of assets, your death should trigger a confiscatory tax.  He therefore felt there was no reason to negotiate for a “tax cut for the rich”.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

If the only legislative option is to vote on the entire report from the Debt Commission, then the changes in Social Security should serve as a poison pill to prevent any Republican from supporting it. While there are definitely some good proposals in the report that call for spending cuts, anyone who calls themselves a conservative cannot support the commission’s report as a package deal.  It is therefore disappointing to hear that Senators Coburn and Crapo plan to vote for the report unconditionally.

The Hill is reporting that these Senators believe that if something is not done soon we are headed for a fiscal ruin.  Therefore, they will vote for any proposal, irrespective of how flawed it is.  Coburn declared at a press conference,” I am scared to death of the potential that could unwind this country far greater than anything we’ve seen before.”

Senator Coburn is correct in asserting that if we don’t cut the spending then we will face peril.  However, we need to understand that this is not about balancing a budget, it is about limiting government.  If our only option of immediate reform is to vote for modest spending cuts in conjunction with dramatic tax hikes, entrenchment of Obama Care, and the perpetuation of the SS ponzi scheme, then it is better that we wait two months so we can propose drastic limits in government spending without any tax increases.

Paul Ryan has already expressed his concern about the provisions in the report that will cement Obama Care and even impose taxes on employer health plans.  As Ryan explains to The Hill:

“The plan accelerates and entrenches ObamaCare,” Ryan said. By taxing employer health plans but leaving the rest of the healthcare reform law in place, the plan presented by the chairmen of the deficit commission would push too many people into healthcare exchanges, which Ryan said would balloon subsidies paid by the government.”

What concerns me is that there is not enough outrage from conservatives about the commission’s plans for Social Security.  The commission calls for reform of Social Security by implementing any one, or mix of the following changes; cutting benefits, raising payroll taxes, raising the exemption limit, means testing benefits, and most egregiously raising the retirement age.  Unfortunately, some conservatives are applauding this move as a much needed cut in entitlement spending.  However, they would be wise to note that this “entitlement” is quite different from most others in that we are forced into it!

Let’s get this straight.  The government runs a ponzi scheme in which they steal up to to 14% (including the employer’s share) of everyone’s hard earned money for a supposed retirement plan.  Then, they use current workers to pay off those who are retired, while making extra money from eating the contributions of those who die before they can receive it.  Finally, when the program goes bust and they are caught, instead of going to prison like Bernie Madoff, they get to force us to contribute more!  Worse yet, they continuously raise the age in which we can receive our own money!  If this is not tyranny, slaving until you are 70 years old for the government, I don’t know what is.  How can anyone who calls themselves a conservative even think of supporting this?

I have no problem with cutting down on SS benefits and making it more sustainable for those who choose to participate.  But how can we compel every American to contribute a large percentage of their income to a plan that will be means tested and be administered at the mercy of corrupt politicians?  This is purely unconstitutional and should be the next civil rights issue for young voters.  The bottom line is that none of these changes can be fairly implemented without offering younger voters a way out of this ponzi scheme.

We need to pressure our elected Republicans and fellow conservatives not let the enticement of minuscule budget cuts buy their vote for tax hikes, expansion of government, and entrenchment of Social Security as a permanent form of involuntary servitude.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative