Category Archives: Politics

The “Marketplace Fairness Act”

Posted by Tim on

We’re all for fairness, right? So who could possibly be against something called the “Marketplace Fairness Act”? If I’m in favor of free markets and everybody playing by the same rules, should I be for such a bill? Unfortunately, many small businesses have bought into the notion that the new internet tax bill before the US Senate will somehow help them by “evening the playing field”; forcing online retailers to collect sales tax the same way brick and mortar stores do. I’m curious how many of those supportive of the bill have actually read it.

Online retailers are much like the catalog sellers of the past. Back in 1992, in the Supreme Court case of Quill vs North Dakota, the Supreme Court rightly found that a state cannot force out-of-state catalog businesses to collect sales taxes for them. Although the federal government has the power to “regulate” interstate commerce, the commerce clause was put in place to keep states from applying taxes and regulations on out of state businesses. The Marketplace Fairness Act does just that; requiring retailers to collect taxes for states they do not operate in, clearly violating state sovereignty.

onlineFar from evening the playing field, this bill places an enormous burden on small online retailers. The bill is aimed at internet giants like Amazon, but the majority of retailers are NOT Amazon, and can not easily absorb the costs associated with collecting taxes for 10,000 different taxing jurisdictions. The law is simply unworkable, and the costs are unimaginable for small online sellers. A woman who sells arts and crafts online should not be put out of business so that “brick and mortar” stores can compete with Amazon.

The tax is not just laid on consumers. It costs businesses a lot of money to worry about paying taxes;  hiring accountants, lawyers, etc. and going through different audits for each of the 10,000 taxing jurisdictions. Come on! The sales tax is more than a tax on consumers; it is a tax on businesses. In this case, out of state businesses – and that is called taxation without representation.

In fact, the unknown reason behind this bill is not that it will help small brick and mortar stores compete with Amazon, but that it will hurt small online retailers and help Amazon. That’s right – guess who is supporting the bill – Amazon! That is because Amazon can absorb the costs associated with the Marketplace Fairness Act, but their smaller online competitors can’t.

The bill will likely not help traditional sellers anyway. If brick and mortar stores believe that the sole reason people shop online is because of sales taxes (or the lack thereof), they need a reality check. Better selection – better prices – more convenient. Unfortunately, many small business owners favor this bill because they think it will “hurt their competition”. In reality, it doesn’t, and will help big online retailers push small online retailers out of the market. The way to win the race isn’t by slowing the other guy down; its by speeding yourself up. Passing laws to hurt the competition is called crony capitalism, folks.

Perhaps the worst thing about this bill is all the people only looking out for themselves. Regardless of who the bill “helps” or “hurts”, (because it is clear that it is anything but “fair”), first ask – does this bill help the country as a whole? Is this a good thing for business, or a bad thing? Will this help government grow, or shrink? Will people end up paying more in taxes or less, and have less disposable income or more? The point of having different taxes for different places is competition – but this system does away with that. If states want to compete with online sales, they should do away with their sales tax altogether.

There is a supposed $11 billion in sales taxes left out there uncollected because of internet sales. When this bill becomes law, as it likely will, that means that $11 billion will leave the private sector, and end up in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, where it will be spent much less wisely than it would have been otherwise. Call it fairness, but this bill forces consumers to pay, which means less money all around. When the government takes a piece of the pie, it hurts online and traditional retailers alike.

The bill is one more way that Congress can avoid actual tax reform. By pandering to various groups, in this case the National Retail Federation, politicians make promises and try to help this guy or that guy. The right thing to do is lower taxes all around, let people keep more of their money, and lower the burden of doing business. Unlike the Marketplace Fairness Act, this would help ALL businesses, regardless of where their customers find them.

A One Party System

Posted by Tim on

The tyranny of political correctness is perhaps one of the biggest contributing factors to the lack of real progress for anything being done in Washington with regards to touchy issues. Not only are politicians afraid to use language that would actually describe our current situation, but by doing so they deprive low information voters (a Limbaugh term, I know) of the knowledge of just how bad things are. That same political correctness is what prevents the American people from calling our their government for what they really are – frauds.

Just recently, it has been reported that Congress, both democrats and republicans, have been working on getting themselves exempted from the rules of Obamacare. Not just members of Congress themselves, but also high ranking officials, as well as Congressional assistants. While these actions seem to prove that not only were opponents of the bill right from the beginning, that Obamacare is a train wreck, and that even democrat politicians who voted for it now agree; these actions should leave you with a bitter taste in your mouth.

When the government exempts itself from a law that most Americans still hate (and that number is growing), it says to the American people, “There are different laws for you than there are for us.” These actions show that politicians are not looking out for you, your tax dollar, or the economy. Their main objective is keeping themselves safe, regardless of whether it is morally right, or best for the country. The politicians serving in Washington DC today are not statesmen.

sowellEconomist Thomas Sowell once said, “No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems – of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.” It is time to recognize this and throw crummy politicians our of office, and especially out of powerful positions – Speaker of the House, for instance.

While John Boehner has been trying to exempt himself from Obamacare, he still signed a budget that provided funding for it. The way to destroy Obamacare is simple – Congress has the power to defund it. John Boehner, however, is a spineless wimp, who is not concerned with doing that. He is the classic example of a Washington establishment politician, looking out for his own re-election, making sure his friends get what they want, screwing the country to get what he wants. Who could blame him. The Speaker’s salary is $223,500 a year.

I’m not into class warfare, but I feel like there is something truly wrong when a Congressman makes $174,000 a year, but the median income is $52,000, meanwhile there are completely different sets of rules for government and private citizens. What is illegal for one is perfectly fine for the other. Take for instance, pollution. While democrats have been screaming about the negative effects of an iron mine in northern Wisconsin, recently the city of Milwaukee dumped 2.1 billion gallons of untreated sewage into Lake Michigan. That is more than the BP oil spill! One thing, pollution, would be illegal for a citizen to do (yes, you can get a ticket for urinating in a lake), but its perfectly fine for the government to do. Double standard?

I really wish people would take the time to read and understand the Constitution. The Constitution was set in place for be rules for the government, not rules for the people. The Bill of Rights said to the government, “These are things you can’t touch!”. The Constitition laid out the jobs for various parts of government and said, “This is you job! Do it!”. But every year government ignores the rules we have for them, and what do we do about it? While the Congressional approval rating is at 10%, America re-elects 90% of Congress.

Politcal correctness and the insider rules for DC have crippled the voice of the American people. “Never attack your own party.” What is that garbage? No matter the party, if a politician does something wrong, we need to call them out for it. And if we need to replace them, we shouldn’t be afraid to do so. If that means removing John Boehner from office, so be it. And yes – if that means removing Paul Ryan from office, so be it. I hate to break it to you Wisconsinites, but Paul Ryan is a big government, big tax, big spending fraud. Look at his voting record – it tells a very different story than his rhetoric.

The Republican party does not stand in the way of government tyranny. Either the party must drastically change or we are left with a de facto one party system. The American people have two options – vote for more government, or vote for more government. I for one, will vote to change the Republican party, eliminating RINOs who raise taxes and grow their own power, and replacing them with people who actually share the values I have as a voter; smaller government, more liberty, less spending, lower taxes. And if my options are limited to either more government or more government, then I’ll either sit out or…. (wait for it…) go third party.

Is There Hope For Conservatism?

Posted by Tim on

I love Thomas Sowell’s story about how he went from being a devout Marxist to a conservative. It didn’t happen during his economic studies, even after studying under Milton Friedman and George Stigler at the University of Chicago. Rather, it happened years later when Sowell landed a job in government and he realized that government just wasn’t capable of doing all of the things he wanted it to do. The level of incompetence, the amount of red tape, the incredible waste of tax payer dollars; all of this adds up and it just makes you shake your head and really think twice about letting the government get anywhere near your healthcare.

C33301-23But Sowell isn’t alone. There are countless great conservative, libertarian, and classical liberal minds that have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other – John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, and (if I’m not mistaken) even Adam Smith, just to name a few. The transformation these men went through can be inspirational. A man who once thought the only way to achieve prosperity was through authoritarian rule (Locke) is now considered the father of classical liberalism.

Sowell’s story might offer a clue on how to get the message across to those who deem themselves liberal and consistently vote democrat, but occasionally, even if only by accident, agree with conservatives that government is just plain screwed up. If there was only a way to make them realize it! If we could just have them work in government for a month, maybe then they’d realize how messed up it is.

In times past, it was best selling books like Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged that got young people interested in the idea of liberty. Most recently it has been Texas Representative and Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul, who struck a chord with young voters, starting the “Ron Paul Revolution”. Even Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose 10 episode special that ran on PBS in 1980 gave uninformed Americans a basic overview of how the free market works.

Are there new up and coming people that can deliver the message of limited government, individual sovereignty, property rights, and personal liberty? As technology changes, so does the way people accept information. Long interview shows like William Buckley’s Firing Line, just aren’t what its about any more. Unfortunately, the yelling heads on Hannity or O’Reilly are what passes for conservative media. (Not that I have anything personal against Sean Hannity, but he’s no William Buckley or Russel Kirk. Just saying.)

There are other media outlets that are available. Talk radio, often seen as a safe-haven for conservative hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, is a growing medium for information. At a time when FM stations are rebranding, going online, or closing all together, AM radio, “news & talk”, is doing perfectly fine. This is simply because there is a demand for the product. People want to hear what Rush Limbaugh thinks. Not only is talk radio informative and entertaining, but it also offers listeners a chance for their own views and beliefs to be validated. “There are other people out there who feel the same way I do!”

Just as democrats have been trotting out celebrities to make their cause, conservatives should be doing the same. Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller) is an outspoken libertarian. Other libertarian celebrities include Howard Stern, Drew Carrey, and Denis Leary. Not exactly what young people would think of when they hear “republican”. But this is also part of the problem. Too many people associate the GOP with Bush, McCain, and Romney. (It’s been said before – W Bush has done an enormous amount of harm to the republican party with his wild deficit spending. There’s no excuse for it.) It is up to conservatives to spread the word that the Republican party is the party of small government, lower taxes, and more freedom. This is a message the resonates.

Atlas Shrugged was turned into a 2 part movie. Ron Paul still sells best selling books. Even NBC’s Parks and Recreation pokes fun at the failures of government with the libertarian character, Ron Swanson. Is there hope for the future of liberty minded politics? One can only hope. On one hand, nothing is inevitable until it happens. Any law passed can be repealed. On the other hand, there is such a thing as a point of no return. Some already think we are past that point (Sowell, for instance), while others hold a more optimistic view.

I tend to think that an out of control central banking system, a fiat currency, a growing dependency class, schools ditching American history for “social studies”, and trillion dollar deficits will all lead us down a bad road. Even if things turn around, it will be painful, and it is at those times when politicians vote for the path of least resistance and kick the can down the road. If Americans continue to put their faith in politicians and government, there is no hope.

A Week In Review

Posted by Tim on

Once again, the American people’s eyes have been taken off the ball. Politics works the same way as a magic trick. While the magician is getting you to focus on one thing in his right hand, his left hand is somewhere else. Both hands may be in plain view, but people are so distracted by the right hand that they completely overlook the left hand. What’s the distraction this time? Oh that’s right – same sex marriage.

It may offend some of you who are passionate about “marriage equality” for me to refer to it as a mere distraction, but in the grand scheme of things, that’s really all it is. In the 5 days since the Supreme Court took up the cases of DOMA and Proposition 8, the federal government has added over $15 billion to our national debt. The national debt now stands at $16.75 trillion; quietly working its way to the next big number – $17 trillion. Oh joy!

clintonAt the same time, Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is set to keep up with QE3 (Quantitative Easing 3) until unemployment recedes to 6.5%. This means he’ll be printing $85 billion each month, used to buy up government bonds, and flood the market with cheap money. The problem, of course, is that printing money actually does make the rest of money cheaper – when you have more of something it is worth less. If someone said that Bernanke was printing a trillion dollars a year, there would be a scare, but because we divided it up by 12 months – to a measly $85 billion – it doesn’t sound so bad. Continue on, Benny.

And who could forget about the 10,000 drones set to be flying above US cities by 2020. Although Rand Paul’s filibuster did get the Feds to concede that they would not use drones to kill Americans on American soil, there is still something unsettling about 10,000 drones just flying around. What exactly are they looking for? These are the drones that are used to survey and kill terrorists in the middle east; why is our government using them in America? Seems like the set up of a 21 century totalitarian state.

Speaking of totalitarian states, the North Koreans are at it again. North Koreans nix their agreement to be peaceful with South Koreans; Americans and South Koreans get together and publicly display their military might; North Koreans shut down their military hotline with South Koreans; America sends a couple B-2 bombers to South Korea; North Korea tells everyone that their preparing a plan for bombing the US – namely Hawaii, Washington, Los Angeles, and Austin. Didn’t hear about that, did you?

Then there’s Planned Parenthood, who defended killing babies after they’ve already been born, but hey – let’s get real. What’s the difference between 9 months pre-born and 2 minutes born – only 2 minutes. That’s hardly a life, right? Where exactly is the line? Most people, even those who call themselves “pro-choice” would admit that once a baby is out of its mother, it is a human life. Do the circumstances make a difference? If the baby was born accidentally due to a botched abortion, apparently it isn’t really a life, and therefore can be killed. What if a mother just has her baby at home, and then 5 minutes after its born, decides to kill it – what’s the difference? Sickening to know that every year Planned Parenthood receives millions of dollars from state and federal government.

While the assault weapons ban has stalled in Congress, Barack Obama (and Piers Morgan, by the way) aren’t done with the issue. They still want guns out of the hands of legal owners. Obama and New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, still want “universal” background checks. This of course means that if a father wants to give his son a gun, he has to go check it in to the police department and have them legally transfer the gun to his son. By no means will this limit the guns criminals buy, because criminals aren’t going to get a background check. This is really just a way to get more information on legal gun owners.

Perhaps the real solution to gun crime isn’t to go after law abiding gun owners, but to prosecute gun criminals. Interestingly enough, the district that is the worst at prosecuting these crimes is also a haven of criminal behavior – Chicago. Out of 90 districts in the US, Chicago ranked dead last for how many federal gun crimes its attorneys have prosecuted. Number 2 was Central California (Los Angeles) and number 3 was Eastern New York (New York City). Wait a minute – isn’t that Bloomberg’s city? Why is he calling for new laws, when he came in 3rd to last place for enforcing the ones already on the books?

All this has happened and nothing was said about it on my personal Facebook news feed. Instead, everyone was too busy hopping on board the “gay rights” issue by posting pictures of a red equals (=) sign. I sure wish there was this much enthusiasm about balancing the budget, national security, the outrageous hypocrisy over the gun control issue, or 10,000 drones flying over our heads, spying on us from every angle. But debt isn’t an emotional issue; its a thinking issue, and thinking just isn’t what the left does.

On Marriage Equality

Posted by Tim on

supreme_court_buildingThis will be an interesting week in the realm of “same sex marriage” and “marriage equality” as the Supreme Court takes up two major cases. First – California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and then the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which restricts federal benefits for same-sex couples legally married in their respective states. I haven’t written much on this issue, and with good reason – its a complicated one, and the more I think about it, the more I feel like saying, “Why is the federal government even involved in this issue?”

Prop 8, to me, is simply a state voting on an issue, and because people didn’t like the outcome, they’re taking it to the Supreme Court. It was surprising to me when the amendment was passed, because… well – this is California we’re talking about! I had assumed that along with the de facto-amnesty, sanctuary cities, legalized “medical” marijuana, high tax rates, heavy regulations, extreme land use laws, and everything else, that Californians were in favor of same sex marriage. I guess not. And since that is the case, my belief is that same-sex marriage advocates have the liberty to work hard and campaign for their beliefs, and try to repeal the amendment. Work to gain the support that wasn’t there in for the initial vote, but don’t disregard the democratic process just because you didn’t like the outcome.

DOMA is a bit trickier in my mind, because it limits federal benefits to only traditionally married couples, even if a same-sex marriage is done legally in a state that allows it. This means that legally married same sex couples who are federal employees do not receive the health benefits that a traditionally married couple would. It also means that same-sex couples cannot file joint federal tax returns, and that they are not eligible for social security survivors benefits (kind of like life insurance, but run by the government.) DOMA also says that states that do not allow same sex marriage do not have to respect marriages done legally in other states.

I’m not an expert on Constitutional law, so I’m not entirely sure where the DOMA case will stand. The federal government has managed to finagle around the 10th amendment by giving money to states with strings attached. It would be easy enough for me to say that there should be no tax breaks for married couples, traditional or same-sex. I’d prefer a flat-tax that would eliminate deductions for marriage, no matter who you are, who you married, and what state you live in. The argument that tax breaks are needed as an incentive to marry is a little bizarre for me. The benefits of marriage are already there when people live together, split the bills, and split the responsibility of raising children - those are the incentives for marriage; not taxation.

Why exactly is the government involved in life insurance, either? Wouldn’t it be easier to just let actual life insurance companies deal with this? Some companies may choose to offer their services only to certain couples, but by doing so, they will miss out on business. The same way businesses’ behavior was changing before the Civil Rights Act, it will change here, regardless of laws. Like Peter Griffin once said, “The only color that matters is green.” Free markets naturally move toward less racial, gender, and orientational discrimination, because businesses really just want to make money, no matter who the customers are.

I tend to think that this whole issue should be left to the states, and that if there wasn’t so much government involvement revolving around marriage in the first place, it wouldn’t be an issue. If a Methodist church wants to marry two men – let them. If a Catholic church doesn’t want to marry two men – you can’t force them. But once these laws are passed, all of a sudden Catholic churches will be forced to either marry gay couples or get out of the marriage business altogether. Is that right? I don’t think so.

If people in one state are for or against some law that is passed, it is their job to either raise awareness about the issue and move people to their side, or simply move out of that state. The one thing I don’t want is a giant blanket law regarding marriage coming from Washington DC. Federalism works because different states can try different ideas and compete with other states for residents and businesses. Let different states try different laws, and we’ll know soon enough which way works best. Or maybe we won’t have to make that judgement, and we’ll just accept that some states and some people work differently.

Rand Paul vs the GOP Establishment

Posted by Tim on
randpaulTwo weeks ago I was proud as I watched bits and pieces of Rand Paul’s 13 hour filibuster. There was a live video feed on Fox News much of the day, #StandwithRand and #RandPaul2016 tweets were popping up all over Twitter, and Facebook was ripe with Rand Paul quotes from the Senate floor. Apparently, all this earned Rand some national attention. Charles Krauthammer said that because of the filibuster Rand would be remembered. He was officially on the big stage.

Lo and behold, this past weekend at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Rand Paul won the straw poll for who attendees would like to see in the White House come 2016. His closest opponent was Florida Senator Marco Rubio, another rising star in the Republican party. What does all this mean? Well, it’s all very good news, if you ask me, but there are reasons not to get too excited as well; namely, because the GOP establishment are already aiming to remove Rand from his current position as King of the Mountain.

Following Rand Paul’s filibuster, Arizona Senator and former presidential candidate, John McCain, showed showed his distaste for the move. According to McCain, Rand had blown the entire drones-attacking-Americans-in-America thing way out of proportion. I’m not sure he did. McCain has roughly 10 years left in him, and he may very likely never see drones used on Americans. But legislation passed today, (or people put in power today) can steer history long after they are gone. Rights given up today will not be returned later. History teaches us that tyranny is not swift, but slow-moving. For McCain to scoff at Paul’s filibuster shows his lack of foresight, and willingness to just “go with the flow” in order to “get along” with those in power.

Either that, or McCain is just jealous because someone younger, more articulate, and more principled than himself, is taking the nation by storm. Meanwhile, McCain and Obama were sitting down to dinner, being completely ignored. McCain’s chance to be in the spotlight and appear as the mature Republican reaching across the aisle was overshadowed by Rand Paul – one of those “radical libertarians”.

Soon after the news was made that Rand won the CPAC straw poll, Bill Kristol (another establishment-type Republican) was remarking on Rand’s take on foreign policy. By referring to him as “isolationist”, Kristol is trying to align Rand with his father, Ron Paul. Ron Paul was no isolationist, and neither is Rand, but once a title is given to someone, especially in politics, it can be hard to get rid of. The “isolationist” title is meant to scare off Republican voters who may have taken a liking to Rand Paul. The mission is to destroy Rand’s reputation with the base of GOP voters and prevent a Rand Paul victory over more typical presidential nominees, such as Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush.

It seems that once again, the guys pulling the strings are working their magic. Unfortunately, this could mean another election of losses for the Republican party in 2016. After moderate candidates keep losing – Romney, McCain, Dole – why would the GOP be so hell-bent on trying the same old song and dance? Because it is their candidates they want, not ours. The GOP operates much the same way as the Democrat party, handing out privileges to their friends in order to keep themselves in power. Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and others represent a threat to the status quo.

Political Lessons From 1 Samuel

Posted by Tim on

religion-politicsThey say that you should never discuss politics or religion in polite company. I’m not sure who said this, or exactly what they meant by it. (I know there’s an old Peanuts special that said something along those lines, though. The Great Pumpkin, I believe it was.) Why even have religion or politics if not to discuss? I love learning about politics and religion, but spreading the message is the true joy in these areas. I know when to hold my tongue and when to let loose, and it can occur in polite or less-than-polite company.

I’ll go ahead and break that rule, and also break another – don’t mix religion and politics. That would make sense if the two weren’t already amazingly intertwined. Although I’m no expert on theology, I do try to read the Bible regularly, and I do truly believe that the answers to all of life’s most difficult questions can be found in the Good Book. Not just what is right and wrong, but advice on the best ways to deal with people, and how to address different situations. Perhaps the biggest thing I’ve taken away from the Bible is that there is always more to learn, and some things will forever remain a mystery. There is a plan, but much of this plan is given to us on a “need-to-know” basis.

One pillar of conservatism that separates it from liberalism is how it views government. While liberals tend to welcome government, anticipating relief from problems of the world of scarcity in which we live, conservatives believe otherwise. Our view of the world is the tragic view – there are no solutions; only trade offs. Because no solutions exist, giving anyone power is a bad idea. As Lord Acton said over 100 years ago, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

But warnings against government power have been around for ages, long before Acton spoke his famous line. Around 1100 BC, Samuel was judge over Israel, but when Samuel retires the people do not want another judge. Instead, they want a King – a ruler.

So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.” (1 Samuel 8:4)

Samuel came to God with the request of Israel – to have a king. God, although unhappy with the request, granted it. But it came with a warning.

Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights. (1 Samuel 8:9)

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.” (1 Samuel 8:10-17)

These verses are a direct parallel to what happens in tyrannical countries around the world. Kings take children and use them for war. Notice that these children are put on chariots in front of the king’s chariots. The king doesn’t fight the battle – the soldiers do. Presidents and Congress don’t fight wars; instead they send young Americans around the world.

The king will take the fruits of your labor, the best of your fields, vineyards, and groves, and give them to his attendants. Sound like crony-capitalism at all? Sound like a president taxing some, and then giving it others – perhaps his own friends?

This post wouldn’t be complete without the most important line regarding kings.

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. (1 Samuel 8:6-7)

The reason people always want a king, a dictator, a leader, a ruler, is because they are lacking a king in another part of their lives. People need something to have faith in, something to tell them that everything will be okay, something to save them. When there is a lack of God, people turn to something else – government. As Americans reject God, they will cry out for a King.

Rove vs the Tea Party

Posted by Tim on

The Republican party, currently America’s “opposition” party, has an interesting journey ahead of it. The GOP is at a crossroads. One path take the party towards the Republican establishment; moderate Washington elites. The other takes the party to middle America; the Tea Party, conservaties, and libertarians. One journey is set to be led by George W Bush advisor, Karl Rove. The other is to be led by no one. Just as there is no “leader” of the Tea Party, there is no leader of the movement to kick GOP pretty-boys out of office and replace them with constitutional conservatives.

If there was any leader behind the Tea Party, perhaps it would be one of the politicians who was elected because of the Tea Party. Take your pick – Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz,  Allen West, or countless others. These are not just the run of the mill Republican politicians. Rather, these are men carrying a message from the American people. Government growth needs to be stopped and reversed. Men who have been in office for a mere two years – Rubio and Paul, are already becoming the leaders of their party in the Senate, with or without the official title of “Minority Leader”.

Compare these office holders with the Republican establishment; politicians the likes of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Eric Cantor. Can anyone name a time when these politicians actually stood for something? Was there ever a moment when their constituents said, “Way to go, Boehner!”, the way Kentuckians support Rand Paul, the way Floridians support Marco Rubio, or the way Wisconsinites support their Governor, Scott Walker? The strength of the party, the balls of the party, reside not with the career politicians who are more concerned with keeping their jobs than with the national debt, but with the Tea Party and the grassroots conservative movement.

But after the latest round of elections, which delivered Barack Obama another 4 years in office, as well as a Democrat majority in the Senate, Karl Rove is upset. The “architect” (as he likes to be called) was among those quietly pulling for Mitt Romney during the 2011-2012 Republican primaries. Low and behold, the candidate who was seen by most Republicans as “moderate”, lost against Obama. The problem to begin with was that Romney didn’t connect with people. I often make the remark that Romney acted as if he was made of wood – bland, boring, a Massachusetts moderate. But with millions of dollars in campaign money, both from his own war chest as well as the backing of the Republican establishment, Romney bulldozed his way past Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

Months later, the news came – Obama won the election. Why, if Mitt Romney could not beat John McCain in 2008, and if John McCain could not beat Obama in 2008, did people believe that Mitt Romney could beat Obama in 2012? How many more Bob Doles, John McCains, and Mitt Romneys will have to lose before Republicans realize that moderates do not necessarily attract “independent” and “swing” voters? The last landslide election for a Republican came in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won in a landslide, and then did so again in 1984.

The Republicans who opposed Reagan in the 1976 and 1980 Republican primaries are the same ones who oppose Tea Party candidates today. The “Grand Old Party” is just that – old. The American people are seeking something different from Barack Obama, but Mitt Romney didn’t really offer that. He made no play for evangelical voters. He made no play for Tea Party voters. He made no play for gun owners. Romney’s message was simple – Obama is failing on the economy, and I’m a rich businessman, so I must know more than he does. Is this an emotional argument that is going to get people out to vote in droves? The polls say tell the story.

The Republican party is up for grabs. Either it will go the way of moderate Republican establishment hacks like Karl Rove (who, by the way, LOST the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000. Some “architect”!), or it can go the way of the Tea Party. Think of the candidates that both teams have put forth – Mitch McConnell vs Rand Paul. John Boehner vs Marco Rubio. After elections are over, who would you trust more to get the country back on track?

The Gun Battle is Over

Posted by Tim on

Feinstein came out with her assault weapons ban this week. There isn’t a whole lot to go over (since I’ve already written about the meat of it) but I do find it somewhat interesting that people are already doubting whether the bill will even be able to pass the Senate. Even after Obama’s bland speech regarding “gun violence”, during which he urged Congress to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, there are still democrat senators that are feeling uneasy about the whole thing.

What’s the reason? Simply put – we are. Politicians know that across the country, people are very upset about potential bans on their weapons. Somewhere around 4 million AR-15s are in the hands of legal owners, hurting no one. For a government official to suddenly ban these – that’ll lose at least 4 million votes. The issue hits home with a lot of responsible law abiding gun owners who feel that they are being attacked for doing nothing wrong. (Click HERE to see a list of specific guns to be banned.)

feinsteinBecause these Americans have something at stake (their guns) they tend to be more informed about the issue, and they tend to be more involved with the issue. The NRA, America’s largest gun-rights organization, has gained hundreds of thousands of members in the last couple of months. These members are both young and old, rich and poor, black and white; but they all have one thing in common – the value they place in the 2nd amendment. Just last weekend, pro-gun rallies were held at every state capital in the US. If this doesn’t send a signal to politicians, nothing will.

But surprisingly, these rallies even sent a signal to democrats, who, at least in recent history, have a habit of not listening to their constituents. Because of this, at least 6 democrat Senators seem unwilling to vote for Feinstein’s AWB. 6 down doesn’t leave enough room for a majority vote, let alone a super-majority which could over-ride a filibuster from someone like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. If the bill doesn’t get through the Senate, the bill won’t get to the House, and won’t be signed into law by el Presidente. Even if the bill were to pass the Senate, it would be “dead on arrival” in the House.

The fact that it is unlikely to pass the Senate is a big sign that the America people just aren’t against “assault weapons”. People are informed, and they know that assault weapons are no more dangerous than other firearms. They know that the problem is not with guns, but with criminals. They understand why our founders gave us the 2nd amendment; to fight a tyrannical government. And they see through the cheesy propaganda put forth by Feinstein and her goon-squad. Feinstein’s AWB isn’t popular, and that is the reason it won’t pass.

The life of politicians can be long, and many of those currently in office remember the 1994 elections. Earlier that year, President Clinton signed the ’94 assault weapons ban (put forth by – you guessed it – Dianne Feinstein). The result was a massive surge in NRA memberships, a surge in gun sales, and a landslide election for Republicans in November. Politicians are not about to risk their careers over the bill. They saw what happened last time.

I was at a gun store earlier this week, and I must say, that I was happy to see so few people in there. This is probably in part because the store had sold out of almost everything on the ban list, but it is also because people are settling down. For a couple months things were crazy. Packed parking lots, long lines, and shortages of guns and ammo. If the stores are seeing sales drop off, that means that people aren’t worried about the ban. The media has started to talk about other things, the story has moved on. The war isn’t over (Feinstein will be back eventually), but it seems this battle is.

This has been a true testament to the power of the American people. The free press has allowed us to hear the news, free speech has allowed us to say what we think, and the right to assemble has allowed us to take our message to the doorsteps of politicians. Pat yourselves on the back. Good job.

But the real reasoning behind the AWB wasn’t ever about guns. It was about distracting the American people from the debt ceiling debate. Republicans have already vowed NOT to make the ceiling an issue (at least Boehner has), which means that America’s debt will continue to rise. Last time we did this our credit rating was downgraded. It wasn’t downgraded because we fought over the ceiling, but rather because we showed no interest in finding solutions as to how to pay all this money back. So far, Washington has done the same thing again, and as we tee-up another debt ceiling increase, a credit rating downgrade may be right around the corner.