August 2011 – Page 3

Protesting Jim

Unfortunately I could not be there to see this with my own eyes, but both published and eyewitness reports indicate that Salisbury Mayor Jim Ireton attended a small protest today at the local office for Congressman Andy Harris.

The reason for the protest was to show support for a document called “A Contract for the American Dream,” with the title obviously a play on the Republicans’ “Contract With America” from 1994 and 2010.

So let’s assume Jim Ireton is foursquare behind the document – what is he backing?

It begins with a call to rebuild America’s infrastructure. That’s commendable, but they go beyond roads, bridges, and utilities in calling for “national and state infrastructure banks.” To me, that’s code for more federally- and state-controlled land, whether through outright acquisition or regulating usage. Money should be allocated for these tasks, but preferably at the local and state levels and for meaningful, development-friendly projects like expanded highways or new utility lines – not wasted on items like public transit or bike paths few use.

The second point: creating “21st Century energy jobs” – in other words, continue to subsidize expensive and inefficient “renewable” sources at the expense of proven fossil fuel technology that we have in plentiful supply. When the market is ready, someone will tap into those renewable sources. Jim, it’s not time for that yet.

Thirdly, we’re asked to “invest” (read: throw money at) public education. So much for educational choice, right? And the idea of “universal preschool” fits right in with a plan for indoctrination. It makes me wonder what their definition of a “high-quality” teacher is. Mine would be one who teaches critical thinking instead of regurgitating the latest propaganda.

The fourth point is “Medicare for all,” which equates to a single-payer health care system. Lefties have been pining for this for years, always saying we’re not in step with the rest of the industrialized world. So where do those who can afford it come to get medical care again? (Hint: it’s not Cuba.)

Idea number five is to “make work pay;” in other words enact a so-called “living wage.” We have a “right to fair minimum and living wages,” they say. What part of the Constitution was that again? It’s not in my copy. We’d be better off abolishing the minimum wage, since those who own businesses know all about working long hours for little pay. If a worker is only producing a net three dollars an hour for the company, that’s what they should be paid.

Sixth, they want to “secure Social Security” by – guess what? – raising taxes on the rich. They would eliminate the tax cap on earnings so every penny of what one earns would be taxed. How about giving us all a break and beginning to sunset the program instead?

The “soak the rich” philosophy continues with item number seven, which would be to not just eliminate the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts but enact a “millionaire’s tax.” We see how well that works for Maryland, don’t we?

Number 8 continues the class warfare by calling for a .05% tax on each Wall Street trade, which supposedly would raise $100 billion a year. Besides the fact that we’re talking chump change in this era of trillions, the effect of such a tax would be to destroy billions in wealth as the stock market plummets in reaction to the toll. Of course, when the desired amount is not raised they’ll simply increase the tax, continuing the vicious cycle.

Ninth in the order is bringing the troops home. I can agree with that in part – there are a lot of countries we don’t necessarily need to be in. But we also need to give those troops we leave in the field the tools and strategy for victory. If we want to rout the Taliban, well, let’s stop playing around and throw out the silly rules of engagement which bind our hands. The enemy has no rules of engagement, why should we?

And finally, they call for restricting free speech in the most “catch-all” of bullet points:

We need clean, fair elections – where no one’s right to vote can be taken away, and where money doesn’t buy you your own member of Congress. We must ban anonymous political influence, slam shut the lobbyists’ revolving door in D.C. and publicly finance elections. Immigrants who want to join in our democracy deserve a clear path to citizenship. And we must stop giving corporations the rights of people when it comes to our elections and ensure our Judiciary’s respect for the Constitution. Together, we will reclaim our democracy to get our country back on track.

So let’s follow this to a logical conclusion – everyone here gets a vote whether they’re here legally or not (and will be rewarded for breaking the law to get here), elections will be publicly funded (except when a candidate chooses not to follow those rules – *cough*Barack Obama*cough*), lobbyists won’t be allowed but “czars” will, and corporations will lose their right to free speech but unions won’t.

But the last sentence of the document provides the fatal flaw, and one needs to ask Jim Ireton whether he really believes this.

Our nation is NOT a democracy – it is a republic. If we were a democracy, we would soon be defunct under the tyranny of the majority. As the old parable goes, a democracy is where two wolves and a sheep vote on what’s for dinner.

While Jim Ireton had the majority of those who could be bothered to vote in the 2009 Salisbury city election, that was by no means a clear mandate. And having a so-called “contract” signed by 125,000 Americans is invalid in the face of millions of voters who desired the more conservative direction Harris and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives have attempted to push government toward. I’ll see the backers of the “Contract for the American Dream” and their puny 125,000 total nationwide and raise them the 30,000 additional citizens here in the First Congressional District who gave Harris his mandate by voting for him. If Frank Kratovil had 125,000 votes he would have only lost by 30,000 instead of 35,000.

Shoot, the 9-12 rally back in 2009 did better than that.

But if this is what Jim Ireton truly stands for – a group of items which would effectively federalize much of government and make princes paupers by taxing the producers of society – then we really need to find a conservative challenger for him in 2013. He’s leading Salisbury in the wrong direction, and real help needs to be sent on the way.

Dramatic foreshadowing

Crated by Bob McCarty of Bob McCarty Writes.

My blogging friend Bob McCarty created the image above, but there’s something much more serious afoot. The phrase “may you live in interesting times” continues to come to mind, because we do.

What image do you have of the Great Depression? In a lot of minds, the thought conjured up is people standing in bread lines, while others who invested heavily in the stock market and saw their fortunes wiped out in a day’s trading stepped off the nearest tall building.

So when Franklin D. Roosevelt became President, he eventually expanded a number of the measures put into place by President Herbert Hoover (a ‘progressive’ Republican) and created more governmental agencies and programs like Social Security, growing the government to new levels in an effort to bring relief. It was all designed so we’d never have to live in desperate economic straits again.

Well, guess what? We live in interesting times.

Since the housing boom began to go bust five years ago we have seen millions of jobs lost, entire neighborhoods become little more than a sea of foreclosed homes, local and state governments come under strain, and trillions of dollars in personal wealth vanish. Thousands of businesses – small and large – which thrived during good times closed up shop, their shuttered facades a grim reminder of the boom we no longer enjoy.

As Americans, we elected our current leader in reaction to the hopelessness and stagnation we felt under a recessionary economy being dragged down by a pair of wars in far-off, distant lands. His message of ‘hope and change’ was enough to convince the people to give him a try despite his being relatively untested and lacking executive experience.

Over the last thirty months, we’ve seen the results – more jobs lost, more foreclosures, and most certainly more government. TARP begat the Stimulus, which begat quantitative easing, which begat the recent debate over raising the debt ceiling. While the public doesn’t understand the ins and outs of the economic theory behind all these machinations, they completely understand the disappearance of their 401.k balances, the equity in their homes, and perhaps eventually their livelihoods.

Yes, we live in interesting times.

So where are we headed? Last year, Greeks rioted when their government had to enforce strict austerity measures at the direction of those who bailed them out. London erupted in its own strife over the weekend, perhaps due in part to bitterness among those down-and-out long-term jobless and others living on the dole – much of the destruction simply seems to be a cover for looting and theft.

The question to me isn’t IF this sort of situation will arise here on this side of the pond, but when and where?

While there’s at least one account of an “eviction riot” during the Great Depression, much of the unrest came in battles between workers and employers. Indeed, we have that same sort of tinderbox these days – just look at Wisconsin for a recent example. While labor demonstrations both there and closer to home were peaceful for the most part, what’s to say the next one may not spread from its original intent of showing Big Labor’s strength and turn violent? Of course, the TEA Party will get the blame, but in retrospect they as a community have been quite restrained considering they’ve borne the brunt of the economic damage caused so far.

I’m not an old man, as I’ll turn 47 next month. But it seems to me that I’ve seen a lot more trouble in the world over the last half-decade than I saw in any other time.

Bear in mind I came of age after the Vietnam War wound down, but I remember Watergate and the fall of a President. I recall the “malaise” we were in during the Carter years, and the arrival of “morning in America” with Ronald Reagan. We’ve had Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a number of terrorist attacks with the granddaddy of them all being 9-11.

After 9-11 we were frightened but we were ready to fight, even if we didn’t know just who the enemy was. Now we’re just plain scared and perhaps many are resigned to the fact that times will be hard for awhile to come.

Every year around graduation time, we reflect on what an 18-year-old American has and hasn’t seen in his or her life – for example, a person turning 18 in 2011 has no concept of the Persian Gulf War except in books. They’ve never known a world without the internet being commonly available, and their first memory of political scandal probably had to do with what the meaning of “is” is or whether the 2000 election was stolen or not.

But neither their lifespan nor mine is such that we’ve lived through an economic time like this – sure, things were tough in the early 1990s but “the worst economy of the last 50 years” had nothing on this. Unemployment was higher in the early 1980s but that recession was short-lived once Reagan’s tax cuts took hold and wealth trickled down. In this instance we seem to be attempting a new model of redistributing wealth which works for certain favored groups – others, not so much.

Undoubtedly, we as Americans will find our way out of our economic slump. But whether that day will arrive in time for many Americans on the verge of losing everything is the key question, and the answer may be in whether cooler heads will continue to prevail.

We live in interesting times, and it’s likely our children will too. But the curse could eventually turn to a blessing if we solve the problem properly.

‘Here are my colors, bold and clear’

I thought about adding this item to my ‘odds and ends’ last night but decided it was worth more in commentary than that.

At this time last year Jim Rutledge was a barely known contender for a U.S. Senate seat with little money, at least compared to eventual nominee Eric Wargotz. But he drew crowds wherever he spoke because he articulated a conservative message with the zeal and passion of a Pentecostal preacher. Instantly he became a TEA Party favorite, and it was a testament to their support that he drew 30 percent of the vote in a crowded field.

The other day he wrote a short treatise, which I’m reprinting here.

“Nail the Colors to the Mast!”

That is an old naval battle cry when the Captain determined that the ship will never surrender. In contrast, “To strike the colors” means to lower the flag in a clear sign of surrender. “Striking the colors” was an option that was usually kept open to salvage the lives of the men and save the ship from a watery grave. So nailing your colors to the mast meant that surrender was not an option. Colors that have been nailed to the ship’s main mast could not and would not be lowered in the heat of battle when all seemed lost. By giving the terse order “Nail the colors to the mast” the Captain was telling the men, “Today men we fight, and if we must, we die, For God and For Country. Today, by God’s Grace, you will fight like you never have before. Today, you will not be a prisoner of war. Today, you will not be a slave. Today, you are a warrior.”

Is today the day you will give the order, “nail the colors to the mast”?

To nail your flag to the mast, you must know what you believe and know where you stand.

So here is my flag. Here are my colors, bold and clear.

The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God give every man and woman the right to live free from rulers who deprive them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The ruling political elites have violated the Laws of Nature and have abandoned their duty to secure our God-given liberties from tyranny, by, among other things, using government power:

to steal the fruits of labor,

to feed themselves with pensions and fete themselves with lavish parties;

to give unfair market advantages to those who keep them in power;

to demonize talent and entrepreneurship;

to crush the virtues of work, property ownership, and religious charity;

to destroy economic freedom and social mobility by nurturing a growing underclass who are consigned to a lifetime of dependence on the government.

Western civilization moved people toward freedom and away from slavery and serfdom based on the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Western civilization as informed by a Judeo-Christian ethic is our best hope for a society that can be both virtuous and free, albeit not perfect. Utopia is folly.

I am nailing my colors to the mast. How about you?

If you read through the items they serve as an indictment of the system we have now.

First of all, as a society we have forgotten that we the governed are supposed to give our consent to those who govern us. Sure, we dutifully elect our political leaders every two to four years but that lack of vigilance in the interregnum has led to the state within which we exist. And what of the unelected bureaucrats who pass regulations without so much as a cursory check from our elected leaders – or worse, their assent?

It leads to the six subpoints which make up the second charge of government power leading towards ‘tyranny.’ Just look at what the current administration has done in the 30-plus months they’ve been in charge. The TEA Party was a natural reaction to the very thought we were being led in that direction and as time went on it became more and more obvious we were indeed on a path toward an all-encompassing state.

And then Jim discusses a clash of cultures – the elites who forty years ago were chanting, ” hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go!” have pretty much succeeded in their task of eliminating the concept. Now we have the political correctness of all cultures being of equal value, even if they are stuck in the seventh century and treat women as little more than property. “If it feels good, do it” seems to be the new national motto, regardless of the eventual outcomes – in truth, any consequences and responsibilities are to be absolved and forgiven by the public at-large as opposed to a higher power.

Yet in his statement Rutledge is only paraphrasing what another great leader once said: “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?” Yes, that was Ronald Reagan in 1975, just before he made his first run for President. Sadly, after Reagan left office the Republican Party has too often put up nominees composed of pale pastels rather than bold strokes of conservative governance at all levels of government.

Perhaps Jim has another run for office in him, too – maybe not in 2012, but perhaps 2014. Unlike the cookie-cooker mealy-mouthed politicians who couch their remarks to the lowest common voting denominator, Jim had a refreshing way of clearly stating his message. This is something to be emulated as today’s TEA Party leaders become tomorrow’s political candidates.

Once they win election – and they will – here’s hoping their colors stay nailed to the mast throughout their terms of office. Those on the left don’t have much trouble with adhering to the principle that bigger government is always better and power is all that matters because it’s easy and doesn’t require a whole lot of thought. Conversely, we need to continually convince the public of the benefits of liberty to be a stronger pull in the opposite direction.

Oh, and consider my colors nailed.

Odds and ends number 32

Yes, it’s another edition of those items which deserve a paragraph or three but maybe not a full post.

Let’s begin with a rescheduled event. Originally scheduled for last month, Andy Harris will hold his “healthcare discussion” fundraiser on Wednesday, August 24 at 6 p.m. at the original location. It’s still $50 and you can still contact Cathy Keim at (443) 880-5912 for details.

That may be the last time you have a spare $50 in your pocket, though, since the Maryland General Assembly is spending their summer trying to figure out just how they can squeeze more revenue out of the citizenry. Take this report done by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services.

There’s a couple not-so-obvious things which jumped out at me and were buried in the report. One is the idea of considering those who are online affiliates to a company such as Amazon.com as a presence in the state, necessitating the collection of sales tax. As a website owner who indeed acts as an Amazon.com affiliate (and makes a few pennies off the website in that manner) the last thing I really want to do is collect sales tax. Amazon doesn’t have affiliates in states with such laws, and for good reason.

But notice what South Carolina did – in order to create jobs they waived their requirement, and Tennessee is considering the same. Yes, they would lose sales tax revenue but would presumably make that up and more with increased economic activity. Maryland? Well, I guess they seem to believe that making more taxes will make the state more attractive. Not.

In fact, the Republican Caucus in the House of Delegates continues to point out this fatal flaw:

For years, the House Republican Caucus has offered plan after plan to bring Maryland’s spending in line with revenues and ultimately lower taxes; knowing that real spending cuts, not fantastical numbers games, would ultimately protect the taxpayers of Maryland from another mugging by their government. We have warned repeatedly against the reliance on federal funds. Real, meaningful spending reductions have not occurred; in fact the budget has grown year after year. Rather than listening to sound fiscal advice, the Democratic monopoly has chosen instead to demonize anyone who suggests true spending reductions and terrorize the public with tales of apocalyptic calamity should true reductions in government spending happen.

The only “apocalyptic calamity” seems to be the job creation numbers in Maryland, which are dismal to say the least.

But there’s no calamity in the ozone layer, as the EPA fortunately has held off on new, tougher job-killing ozone standards so stringent that even Yellowstone National Park couldn’t qualify. Perhaps a reason why is that Fedzilla couldn’t hide their cooking of the books nor justify the benefits versus the costs.

It’s foolish, though, to believe that this was ever about costs or even public health. It’s about control, and something tells me that well-connected companies could make sweetheart deals with regulators to carve out an exemption or two. In Washington these days you have to pay to play, and the sale of regulations favoring the highest political contributor seems to be in vogue more than ever.

Then again, drug cartels have a lot of money. And in the wake of a deepening protection scandal involving the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, maybe Gary Johnson and his libertarian ilk is right on this one:

While I certainly disagree with several parts of Gary’s platform, I do believe perhaps it’s time we considered the legalization option. Granted, the cartels may still operate because there are a lot of other illegal substances out there but I’m not so sure the benefits of the War on Drugs outweigh the costs. It’s a little surprising that Barack Obama hasn’t pushed for this himself given past history – in theory, the act of drug possession could have landed him in jail in some jurisdictions.

Imagine how things may have turned out had that happened. (Oh wait, I’m undercutting my own argument!)

I must say, though, that Gary is perhaps the most blogger-friendly candidate out there. If only Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann were as accomodating… *sigh*

By the way, I didn’t forget that I’m still in the midst of grading candidates. I’ve just been a little busy lately and now I have an issue with the laptop where all those text files are, so it’s temporarily out of commission.

And now for something completely different.

I was asked by a nice lady to include her website as one of my links.

Now this sort of thing happens on occasion as spam e-mail and this particular message was in that folder as well. A lot of the time it’s one of those “we should trade links” sort of things to cover as an advertisement for a poker or porn website. But I checked out the site in question and it’s definitely legit – and it’s striking in the amount of photography used, along with the fact that Kathy covers an area that I don’t often get to for this gig – up around St. Michaels (also known as “the town that fooled the British.”) So dig in and enjoy.

Blessing of the Combines in pictures and text

Today my significant other and I wandered down to Snow Hill for the 13th Annual Blessing of the Combines. In its short history the event appears to have placed the otherwise sleepy town of Snow Hill on the map.

(Just so you know, some of the photos I’m featuring come from my girlfriend, and if you can’t figure it out from the enhanced quality of her photography compared to mine I’ll have to clue you in. The one to start this post is by Kim Corkran.)

The event begins with a parade, and seeing a row of combines coming down the road can be impressive.

Some of the combines had politicians on them. Andy Harris joked that it was one of the few times he was on the left, but Norm Conway and Jim Mathias were at home there.

I did get the chance to bend Andy’s ear a little later. The lady in the center is former Delegate candidate and Worcester County Republican Chair Marty Pusey. (Photo by Kim Corkran.)

Now that they’ve wrapped up the budget, I want Andy to work on reducing those government mandates!

Both political parties were represented there, although the Republicans were a little more open about it.

Meanwhile, two tables down the Democrats were trying to register voters as well.

But there was something I noticed about their table – not one item I saw mentioned President Obama. Odd, don’t you think? Maybe the local Democrats are running away from him?

Interestingly enough, the featured speaker was Nelson Brice. He serves the federal government as the District Conservationist for the USDA, and he pointed out how farmers were helping the environment.

Still, most of the people there weren’t interested in politics. The actual blessing was handled by the Rev. Rick Edmund, a former Snow Hill pastor who now serves a church in the village of Ewell out on Smith Island.

For the kids, there was plenty to do – crafts, face painting, a bounce house, a petting zoo, and the chance to play in a bed of soybeans, all tucked away on Pearl Street.

If their parents wandered around the block the kids could have a pony ride as well.

This feathered friend awaited across the way (photo by Kim Corkran.)

And kids of all ages who like to eat had plenty to choose from. I took this while standing in line waiting for some pit beef.

While standing in that line, Kim took this unique crowd shot. (So did I but hers came out better.)

While we were eating, the band began to play. Mike Short, Jr. and Statewide were the featured performers, playing a mix of country and rock originals and covers.

The second photo of Mike is by Kim Corkran.

After listening to his band for a spell, we worked our way down to one of my favorite parts of the event, the Wheels That Heal car show.

Here’s a pair of Pontiac Firebirds from a bygone era.

My dad used to have a truck like this but it was in nowhere near this good of shape.

For those who wanted to really relive a bygone era, there was the opportunity to ride a horse-drawn carriage.

It also was a chance to meet friends old and new. Kim took this last picture of this couple, who have been married 55 years. Surely they saw a lot of people they knew and probably recalled a lot who are no longer with us.

If you weren’t there, you missed a chance to celebrate our rural heritage with a family-friendly event. Come the first Saturday in August 2012 you just might find us there again!

The drive for top 100

Later today I’m putting up a poll that I would like my readers to consider seriously.

I’ve been doing quite a bit of thinking lately about my writing career and this website’s place in it. While I certainly enjoy writing in this space and have done so for quite awhile, lately it’s become a case of diminishing returns. The site needs a growth spurt in the worst way!

Granted, I have an Alexa rating that is pretty good, and recently I came across a list compiled by a fellow blogger which would put this humble site in the top 150 or so conservative sites around the country based on Alexa rating. Yes, that’s pretty good for a public-school educated guy from the rural farmland of northwest Ohio, but I think there’s plenty of room for improvement. After all, I have goals like everyone else and I think the best way to achieve them is to grow this website’s prominence.

As regular readers have come to find, I don’t always discuss politics here. What I need to know, though, is whether that’s helping or hurting my cause. Obviously there are some features I’d keep around regardless but I’m curious to know what you, the loyal readers, like best about this site. Maybe it’s time to do some prudent pruning of branches which have become little more than dead wood.

But one thing which I have noticed is that my Alexa rating has remained within a pretty narrow range for several months despite the fact my actual readership has done its usual tapering off over the summer. I guess what could explain this is that everyone else is seeing a dip as well, and that makes sense because more people are outside. Heck, I sometimes find it’s hard to sit down and write when the weather is warm and inviting.

Yet I’d like to increase my readership enough to halve my Alexa rating and safely ensconce myself into the top echelon of conservative websites. Knowing my numbers, I think I see where improvements can be made but that could also be a variable I can’t control – hence my interest in what people prefer to see on my site.

Having toiled as a professional writer for a couple years now, it’s clear that I have at least a little talent for this avocation. But to be a success I think I need a larger platform, and what I’m looking for is direction on how to build it.

On the next American Revolution

Rarely do I completely give over my website to guest commentary, but this is too good to chop up and I don’t feel the need to add to it – this stands well all by itself. The op-ed comes from Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post.

**********

(PUBLISHER’S WARNING: The following essay may cause heartburn and knee-jerk reactions, especially in those who are predisposed to “give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety.” But as Benjamin Franklin concluded, they “deserve neither liberty nor safety.” For such feeble souls, Samuel Adams advised, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” For those who are not cast among that faint-hearted lot, please read on.)

I receive hundreds of messages every day from Patriots across the nation. For the last three years, one thematic question has emerged with ever-increasing frequency. To paraphrase that question: “What is the authority to rebel against the central government?”

That question is most often asked by those who have taken their oath of allegiance to our Constitution, particularly active duty, reserve and veteran military personnel. Typical is this note from a disabled combat Patriot this week: “Please clarify for me when my solemn oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND [his emphasis] domestic,’ kicks in.”

Such questions were once considered too radical and discordant for consideration in civil discourse. However, as Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution has been all but completely usurped by the rule of men through the Left’s so-called living constitution, the frequency and tenor of questions about the future of Essential Liberty for our once-great Republic is propelling them into mainstream debate.

The unfortunate ascension of Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist cadres had a silver lining: It revitalized the spirit of American Patriotism in dozens of millions of our countrymen. The imminent threat to Liberty posed by Democratic Socialism is the catalyst driving this great awakening and it is spreading.

To the question of the authority to rebel against government, we turn to the Constitution’s guiding document, our Declaration of Independence. It clearly affirms the “unalienable rights” upon which our Constitution was instituted, and those rights supersede the authority of the Constitution itself as they are the inherent rights of man.

This authorizing language reads as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

So, is it time for another American Revolution?

The answer to that question depends upon the answer to a more fundamental question: Is it too late to restore authority of our Constitution? Moreover, will the current dire circumstances result in a sunset or sunrise on Liberty?

In my enthusiastic analysis, the degraded state of the union presents a great opportunity for restoration of Rule of Law, and this sunrise on Liberty is already in progress under the broad heading of the Tea Party movement. Further, having been in close proximity to revolutions on foreign soil, I am intimately aware that restoration (or revolution without shots fired) is a far more desirable path than the violent one — not that the latter must ever be excluded as an option.

But behind every sunrise is a sunset. As Ronald Reagan warned thirty years ago, when the “Reagan Revolution” temporarily restored our nation’s course toward Liberty, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.”

Make no mistake; there are formidable obstacles to the restoration of Liberty. The most daunting of these impediments is complacency, the result of either a false sense of comfort, institutionalized ignorance or both. Nonetheless, I still believe that the ballot box is a viable alternative to the bullet box at this juncture. Every effort to work within what remains of our Constitution’s framework to restore its Rule of Law, as outlined in The Patriot Declaration must be exhausted.

If the 2012 election cycle does not provide sufficient momentum toward the goal of restored Liberty, there are substantial measures of civil disobedience that can ratchet up the pressure — measures which will find support among true conservatives in both the House and Senate.

Either way, we face a long, uphill battle. It has taken many years to degrade Rule of Law, and it will take many years to fully restore it.

As for timing, Obama has already dropped a debt bomb on our economy, the goal of which is to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” The greatest systemic risk to Liberty that this act of economic violence poses is the destruction of free enterprise by way of taxation, regulation and insurmountable debt. U.S. debt has now surpassed 100 percent of our annual gross domestic product (economic output).

It should, of course, be the highest aspiration of every Patriot to restore our Constitution’s Rule of Law, a fundamental principle of which is theseparation of economy and state. But is there still time, and are we sufficiently resolute?

Leading the forces arrayed against us are the statist extremists, the “useful idiots” on the Left who now vilify as “terrorists” those seeking to restore Rule of Law.

In a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting this week hosted by Veep Joe Biden, Demo Rep. Mike Doyle said of the recent budget negotiations, “We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Biden, to his everlasting shame, concurred: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Biden, Doyle, and the Kool-Aid-drinking legions of the Left are formidable. But history shows that Barack Obama’s model for prosperity, is a blueprint for economic collapse, a model that is antithetical to prosperity and ultimately at odds with Liberty.

Patriots, we have an obligation to secure Liberty for our posterity, and in the words of John Adams, “Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison dated January 30, 1787: “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. … An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

Today, Tea Party “terrorists” should expect no such accommodation, as “honest republican governors” are few and far between.

That same year, Jefferson famously wrote more pointedly to John Adams’s son-in-law, William Smith, “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. … And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

Short of the bullet box, it is my fervent prayer that on 6 November 2012, an unprecedented army of American Patriots will use the ballot box to further alter the course of our nation toward Liberty and Rule of Law.

That notwithstanding, American Patriots remain well aware of both the authority for rebellion and more importantly the obligation to overcome tyranny, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. There may come a time to fight, and our Founders wisely extended to us the means for rebellion. We also fully understand the cost outlined in its closing: “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

We do.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

Shorebird of the Week – August 4, 2011

After being brought up for the second half, Joe Oliviera has provided punch for the Shorebird offense.

While the second half of the season has been a little disappointing record-wise, there are players who came on board that are standing out. Moreover, much of the time over the last several seasons the catching position has been a black hole offensively as those who donned the tools of ignorance for the black and orange have more or less been an automatic out. Not so with Joe Oliviera.

Joe came to us after a brief 9-game stay at Frederick where he was hitting .308 in 26 at-bats, and since his arrival he has made the catching position one where there’s offensive prowess. That’s a bit surprising given his 2010 stats in Aberdeen (.204/0/7/.574 OPS in 36 games) but many’s the time a player “gets it” in his second season after making the transition to professional ball from high school or college during his first go-round. A 15th round pick last year out of the University of the Pacific, the 23-year-old San Diego native has put together a nice 80 at-bat run for the Shorebirds, hitting .325 with a homer and 13 batted in. He’s appeared in 23 games since becoming a Shorebird at the halfway point.

In looking at his splits, one thing that jumped out is that Joe has been money with runners in scoring position, collecting 9 hits in the 19 situational at-bats and driving in 11 of his 13 runs. Guys who come through in the clutch are golden for a team, and given the offensive struggles the Shorebirds as a whole have endured (after hitting nearly .280 as a team early on, Delmarva has slumped to a .253 overall average) it’s clear Oliviera is providing a spark.

It’s been years since we could claim a catcher who hit much above the Mendoza line on a consistent basis. But with Joe and fellow backstop Michael Ohlman leading the way the catching position isn’t the easy out this time around.

‘More,’ Fedzilla screamed, ‘more!!’

I thought I could let this go, but then this Washington Times story by Stephan Dinan begged to differ.

Now I realize that the situation over the last few months was akin to walking a tightrope, but to rack up a record $239 billion in debt in ONE DAY – almost 60% of the wiggle room gained by the Republican sellout – simply boggles the mind. Notice that the previous record deficit day came in 2009, after Barack Obama took office. So don’t blame it on Bush.

In fact, consider that in one day our deficit exceeded that of the entire final Bush budget submitted with a Republican Congress (fiscal year 2007) – $239 billion beats $161 billion in any sort of math, fuzzy or not.

And the public is skeptical too. Today a Rasmussen Poll was released and it showed just 22% of the public approved of the budget deal. Of course Republicans are dead-set against it (by about a 4-to-1 margin) but the poll also showed unaffiliated voters in with the same feelings toward the agreement. Only Democrats had a more favorable impression, with 34% favoring the package with 40% against.

The reason the public doesn’t like the agreement? They don’t trust Washington to cut spending.

Another interesting facet of Rasmussen’s summary is that, despite the frenetic coverage by the media, people had expected the outcome. Perhaps it’s a natural cynicism Americans have with their government. “You can’t fight City Hall,” they often say.

While the TEA Party has made great strides in fighting the excesses of government, its biggest problem is that we only control a small portion of government. Look at the strides certain states like Wisconsin and Ohio have made in curbing their governments – they managed to elect enough conservative legislators in both their legislative bodies to complement the reformist ideas of the governors elected – Scott Walker and John Kasich, respectively.

Both Walker and Kasich also have to overcome continued threats to their reform packages as several GOP state senators are subject to recall elections this month in Wisconsin and Ohio’s Senate Bill 5 – an act which severely curbed union influence in Ohio – goes before Buckeye State voters this fall. Don’t be surprised if unions aren’t looking to dump tens of millions into the campaign to overturn SB5.

So the TEA Party fight may be over for the time being in Washington, and those of us skeptical that Fedzilla could curb its spending appetite may be vindicated based on the one-day deficit record. But we have a lot of state capitals where the fight needs to be renewed.

Come this fall, the scene in Annapolis may rival the one back in March, but contenders will on the opposite sides. I’d love to see 10,000 TEA Party members outnumber 50 union thugs in demanding fiscal responsibility.

If TEA is for ‘terrorist’ then what are R and D?

Joe Biden, king of the malaprop, now believes that TEA stands for “terrorist,’ as in “acting like terrorists.” Now we all know Joe is slow, but I seem to recall it stands for “Taxed Enough Already.”

However, in my case after the budget deal I may fall under “Totally Enraged American.”

After all, the “R” in Republican seemed to me to stand for “roll over” and the “D” in Democrat has been standing for “destroyer.” Maybe the extended version would be “destroyer of our Constitutional Republic” because they’re doing a damn fine job of that.

Now the Obama administration may have believed the debt crisis had passed and we gave him enough breathing room to get to 2013 before we have this debate again. But I think the way he’s spending – in a manner which puts drunken sailors to shame – he’s going to blow by that debt limit before the 2012 election.

Remember two things: in Washington, a “cut” is generally only a reduction in the amount of increase (except in defense, where fewer dollars are actually spent) and Democrats don’t bind themselves to promises they made. So they will figure out any number of ways to spend trillions more than we take in and I predict we’ll revisit this debate before November, 2012.

And if not, I sure as hell ain’t forgetting it. This budget deal is like the 9/11 of fiscal responsibility and I haven’t forgotten the original after nearly 10 years – so don’t expect me to just let this one go either. There’s a lot of people who voted the wrong way on this one, many of whom disappointed me by doing so.

In the end, though, I’m not angry – but I am determined. Freedom fighting isn’t an easy business but we’ll be back.

But I do have one question to ask of my friends across the border – what the heck did you see in Joe Biden to elect him in the first place? He’s like the ultimate insurance policy against Obama’s demise.

And people laughed at Dan Quayle? He may not spell ‘potato’ correctly but Dan’s a decent writer and I had the pleasure of meeting the man. Compared to Joe Biden, Dan Quayle looks like a champion on ‘Jeopardy.’

So just keep talking, Joe. Every time you open your mouth it’s another thousand votes for our side.

A bright spot in a dismal vote

At least Andy Harris listened.

Today, Rep. Andy Harris voted against the debt ceiling increase. The plan did not require passage of a balanced budget amendment, which Rep. Harris feels is essential to bringing permanent common sense accountability to Washington.

“A balanced budget amendment is the only way to make sure the federal government spends what it takes in and lives within its means,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “Over the past few weeks I have repeatedly voted for reasonable proposals to raise the debt ceiling that included passage of a balanced budget amendment. But I didn’t come to Washington to continue writing blank checks. Maryland’s families and job creators sent me to Congress to permanently change the way Washington does business. I appreciate Speaker Boehner’s remarkable, historic efforts to craft a proposal to solve the debt ceiling issue. But today’s debt ceiling deal just doesn’t go far enough to build an environment for job creation by requiring passage of a balanced budget amendment to bring permanent common sense accountability to Washington.”

Currently, the U.S. Government has a national debt of $14.3 trillion and runs an annual deficit of $1.65 trillion.

I have been told by someone close to the Congressman that Andy was “one of the ringleaders” in getting the BBA into the original Boehner plan that was quickly shot down by Senate Democrats, so it was fitting and proper that he didn’t vote for this version.

Unfortunately, Andy’s dissent was in vain since the measure passed 269-161 – Republicans passed the bill 174-66 while Democrats evenly split 95-95. But at least Andy got some face time on the evening news (from about the 17-minute mark through the end.)

So the country is “saved” from having to stick to a budget plan – after all, that which is cut can be restored at any time. But if there’s a Constitutional amendment passed it would be more difficult (but not impossible, of course) to overspend.

You know, almost a century ago we passed a series of Constitutional amendments in less than a decade. In 1913 we allowed the income tax (16th Amendment) and provided for direct election of Senators (17th Amendment.) Six years later we enacted Prohibition with the 18th Amendment and in 1920 women gained the vote (19th Amendment.) That’s a lot of radical change in what was considered the “progressive” era.

Perhaps 2013 will begin a new series of Constitutional amendments, beginning with the passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment. But truly progressive reform would continue with the enactment of Congressional term limits (extending the 22nd Amendment enacting Presidential term limits to the legislative branch,) repealing the 16th Amendment to pave the way for a truly fair taxation system (one based on consumption,) and several other ideas I’ve had before.

So the fight’s not over, but it gives us all some breathing room before the fight begins anew in the 2012 election.