Super Bowl Playlist for The Who

It seems lately the Obama administration is inclined to take the advice of this amateur observer. I remain humble, but honored.

1)   Mr. Obama announced in his State of the Union address he will support drilling for domestic oil and gas, as well as upgrading the domestic nuclear power industry - as rational steps toward "energy independence." Good ideas, both. The problem is he tied these things to carrying the Cap and Trade madness forward. Sorry, Mr. Obama - more domestic drilling and more nuclear power were good ideas before Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade will always be a bad idea. We can do the right thing together this year, or force the right thing down your throat next year. Your call.

2)  The Obama administration is now re-evaluating its indefensible decision to try KSM and four co-conspirators in Manhattan. The latest news is they are considering alternate locations inside the continental US, perhaps even (gasp!) military installations. Come on guys, stop the kabuki dance now and just fall back to where we all know it will eventually end up again - military tribunals at Gitmo. The longer you drag this out, the more the perception grows you are willing to take risks with Americans to give a show trial platform to the enemy. Bad policy any way you slice it. And worse (I can hear the gasps eminating from 1600 Penn now) bad politics for you. Too many independents have now had the chance to think about the lunacy of not using Gitmo. You’ve already lost your grip on the Looney Left with the health care debacle. Do the calculus, who swings elections – independents or true blue Looney Lefties?

==

Anyway, I've decided to use my new found influence to assist The Who with their Super Bowl playlist. Basically, my idea is to organize the theme of the playlist around the themes of my humble little blog. The Who has always been thematically minded (see The Who Sells Out, Tommy, Quadrophenia), so I'm hopeful Mr. Townshend and Mr. Daltrey may give this some consideration. I've embedded selected You Tube videos, so grab a pair of headphones and enjoy one of the greatest Rock and Roll bands ever.

1. Substitute

A good opener - highlighting the stark differences between Obama the candidate and Obama the President.
"Substitute me for him ..."





2. My Generation Blues

Not the top 40 radio hit. The slower, bluesy, version The Who often played in concert. In thematic context, think of it as 1960's era Lefties lamenting the now visible inevitability of the fall of Liberalism. The problem for the Social Security program is most of them won't "die before [they] get old."




3. The Seeker

A concise statement of what it means to be a conservative and a libertarian - i.e. figurin' stuff out for yourself. And always being suspicious of "iconic" figures - "I asked Bobby Dylan, I asked the Beatles, I asked Timothy Leary; but he couldn't help me either." It now appears there is someone on You Tube known as the 'Obama Girl' who has learned this lesson the hard way. Where are the feminists acclaiming the buxom beauty’s demonstrated capacity to learn from harsh experience?




4. Summertime Blues

In thematic context, the lyrical content is dedicated to every teenager who couldn't get a summer job because it was occupied by somebody's dad who needed something after losing his real job.



5.  905

The least likely suggestion to be played at the Super Bowl - since it was penned and sung by the now deceased John Entwistle. However, it perfectly fits the theme because the lyrics were inspired by Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," a book that eloquently describes one version of the statist nightmare we could expect if the Looney Left were allowed to run wild.




6.  Eminence Front

Most every physical thing in DC - the people, the buildings - is a temporary facade. The only thing that matters is those two founding documents on display at the National Archives. The closing line is an invitation to all patriots throughout the nation this upcoming April 15 - "Come on, join the party ..."  Plus, Roger Daltrey plays guitar on this one; and I find that strangely interesting for some reason I can't quite put my finger on. 




7. Won't Get Fooled Again

The obvious closing anthem. Pete Townshend could have written the lyrics specifically for the situation we now find ourselves in. For the video I chose The Who's post-9/11 performance in NYC; also for the obvious reasons.

Contemporary Politics and Newton’s Three Laws of Motion (Part 2)

All hell has broken out in the news since Scott Brown was elected Senator from Massachusetts, hasn’t it?

If you are an American citizen, and even remotely sentient, there’s no need to exhaustively recount the tsunami of news since then. I would be entirely unequipped to even attempt to do so, anyway. How is a poor amateur observer to make sense of all this? Well, this amateur observer has chosen to cut right to the chase.

The wheels are coming off for the Obama administration. The wheels are coming off for the Democrat party. The wheels are coming off for the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex. The wheels are coming off for the American Progressive project.

Immediately after Obama’s inauguration I predicted to anyone who would listen to me this administration was destined to overreach its priorities, and would thusly go down as a failed Liberal experiment (along the lines of James Earl Carter). By summer 2009, the only thing I found surprising was the speed with which they seemed to be fulfilling my prediction. By December 2009 it had become apparent to me the Obama administration was hell bent on trashing the Constitution, and I began contemplating the birth of this blog. Now we are nearing the end of January 2010, and it is apparent even to the mainstream media (MSM) that the Obama administration is barreling headlong toward a collision with the American public.

What alerted the MSM? A guy named Scott Brown who drives a pickup truck was elected in Massachusetts to sit in the US Senate seat formerly occupied by Ted Kennedy. How contemptibly dense of the MSM to need this bus to run over them before seeing through Obama's empty suit.

Anyone who had the privileged perch of an MSM position during the campaign season of 2007-2008, and who failed to see through Obama’s empty suit to the dangerously unprepared ideologue, has nothing but contempt from me. MSM has always told us their profession is objectively sorting out information for our consumption. Instead, they were complicit propagandists in the most dishonest Presidential campaign ever waged. I could go off and do the research, and perform the due diligence, to name names; but my budget for this enterprise (zero) precludes that for now. For the moment, I’ll just say you know who you are. And the American people are on to you. Many of them have already read Bernie Goldberg’s “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.”

Obama’s blatant disregard for separation of powers in last night’s State of the Union address is the flare briefly lighting a glimpse into our future. Imagine the chutzpah to scold the Supreme Court: a co-equal branch of government! And imagine the condescension behind the off-script chide to Republican members “that’s how budgeting is done.” And imagine the naiveté behind his foolish schoolyard taunt to Republicans – challenging them to introduce alternative health care solutions; when he has to know they’ve been trying for weeks and months. If he doesn’t know this, that’s even scarier.

Obama’s State of the Union performance showed him to be equal parts partisan hack and inexperienced pseudo-intellectual. Why should this surprise anyone? His failed governance of 2009 also showed him to be equal parts partisan hack and inexperienced pseudo-intellectual. So did his campaign performance, for anyone who cared to look into it carefully. The so-called Leader of the Free World is dangerously over his head in the Oval Office. The republic can survive this, but only if we as a nation take full advantage of the checks and balances given to us by the Constitution.

We will effectively have one party control of Washington until November 2010. All the Democrat whining about the loss of their Senate supermajority just shows how pathetically weak they are at governing. Before Scott Brown, they had 100% of the White House, 59% of the House of Representatives, and 60% of the Senate. After Scott Brown, they now have 100% of the White House, 59% of the House of Representatives, and 59% of the Senate. They couldn’t get anything done before Scott Brown because they governed in such a nakedly partisan manner, making it easy for the opposition minority to hold together (with a little spine-stiffening help from the American people, of course). They won’t get anything done after Scott Brown because they’ve lost their supermajority (by a single seat!) and have already alienated the opposition beyond any possible repair.

The path from here to November will require patriots nationwide to continue and intensify what was started last year in the Town Hall meetings and at the TEA parties. The concluding six paragraphs in my January 11 posting, “Contemporary Politics and Newton’s Three Laws of Motion,” set up a framework for observing and analyzing the Nation’s passage down this path.

In the January 11 posting I identified three factors that will play into determining the acceleration factor for one hell of an “F=ma” collision come November.

1. GOP TEA Party Alignment Factor

2. Leftie Lunacy Factor

3. Events Factor

The special election in Massachusetts was set before I even started this blog, so I place it under factor 3 (Events). Talk about a serious accelerant! Democrat desperation to save a previously safe seat, combined with GOP enthusiasm for capturing it, produced the conditions for a very clarifying string of news days.  I’m also sure we all would have seen a completely different State of Union address last night if this election had gone differently.

With respect to factor 1 (GOP TEA Party Alignment) , it was very encouraging to me to see the established GOP and TEA party patriots came together so swiftly and effectively to capture a strategic victory. Not because I’m convinced one must necessarily consume the other; but rather because it shows each is able to act rationally and pragmatically to the overall benefit of the republic. I do say if the established GOP apparatus can earn the active support of the TEA party movement, the impact felt in November will be maximized. But the right to this marriage must still be earned by the GOP. The GOP opposition to Obama’s radical program in 2009 was a good start. More is necessary, though – staying united in opposition was much too easy given Democrat bumbling in 2009. The announcement last night of a website collating previously proposed common sense Republican solutions is another step in the right direction (http://solutions.gop.gov).

With respect to factor 2 (Leftie Lunacy), I grossly underestimated the potential impact in my January 11 posting. I should know better than to underestimate the ability of Lefties to form up into a circular firing squad under any form of external pressure.  Henceforth it will be viewed as a contributing factor with weight equal to the other two.

All of this is why, today, I introduce the Conservative Ascendancy Thermotron 2010. This meter – now sitting at the top of my blog – will be updated from time to time on the road to November; as a measurement of the current intensity along these three factors, as well as a probability assessment for eventual impeachment of President Barack Hussein Obama. It’s early yet; I’ve conservatively fixed the initial setting for impeachment at a mere 10%.

DRAFT OBAMA STATE OF THE UNION: Take the Quiz

On January 20, I submitted a draft State of the Union speech to the White House on this blog. I have heard nothing back from the administration. Not even a thank you for the unsolicited assistance. I’m beginning to think they don’t get the joke down there on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. So, I thought they could use some feedback from the American people. I thought a good format might be having you take this quiz, after reading the draft speech. Sorry, it’s not interactive. You'll need to print it off, or save it, and fax your answers to the official White House fax number: 202-456-2461.




1) Why is New Czar of Homeland Justice Cheney needed at every important meeting?

О Judgement.

О Leadership.

О Competence.

О All of the Above.



2) Why can’t President Obama fire Secretary of State Clinton?

О She has the pictures.

О He knows Bill would issue him a beat down in the Oval Office.

О He has too much work ahead of him firing other appointees.

О All of the Above.



3) Why must President Obama fire Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano?

О She can’t identify the enemy.

О She is on the wrong side of every mission related issue in the department.

О She has said amazingly stupid things in public - on national television no less.

О All of the Above.



4) Why must President Obama fire Attorney General Holder?

О He doesn’t understand the Constitution.

О He is on the wrong side of every mission related issue in the department.

О He has said amazingly stupid things in public - under oath no less.

О All of the Above.



5) What the hell is a Czar anyway?

О The royal title used by the former inheritance monarchy of Russia (prior to the Communist Revolution, which culminated with the murder of last Czar’s entire family).

О A Friend of Barack (FOB) not subject to congressional approval and oversight.

О A Friend of Barack (FOB) with limitless and undefined powers.

О All of the Above.



6) Who is George Soros?

О An enormously wealthy European capitalist.

О A former Nazi sympathizer.

О Barack Obama’s dark lord.

О All of the Above.



7) Why is a Bill Ayers lecture torture?

О You have to be concerned he might blow up the room.

О You have to be concerned Bernadine Dohrn might blow up the room.

О You have to be concerned about the lecture boring you to death.

О All of the Above.



8) To whom should Barack Obama give a bow to in 2010?

О The American people, as an admission bowing to foreign monarchs in 2009 was inappropriate.

О Rush Limbaugh, as an admission Mr. Limbaugh was right.

О Joe Wilson, as an admission Mr. Wilson was right.

О All of the Above.



9) On which major policy issue has Rush Limbaugh been consistently more right than Barack Obama?

О Health Care.

О Global Warming.

О Economy and Jobs.

О All of the Above.



10) What should President Obama do with the Health Care bill?

О Start over and tell the Democrats to invite the Republicans into a bi-partisan process.

О Start over, stating reform is a good idea, but hardly an immediate crisis, and definitely not George Bush’s fault.

О Start over and take the White House passes away from the health care industry lobbyists.

О All of the Above.



11) What should President Obama do with the Cap and Trade bill?

О Admit Global Warming is an unscientific religion and a political hoax.

О Host a nationally televised ceremony in Lafayette Park to bury every single page - a minimum of six feet below the ground.

О Issue an executive order instructing the EPA that the gas you, I, and he exhales is not a pollutant.

О All of the Above.



12) If New Czar of Homeland Justice Cheney misses a meeting on the economy, what will happen?

О Vice President Biden will spend the whole day determining how many letters are in the word “jobs.”

О Secretary Geithner will use the extra time to “fix” his tax return.

О The staffers will nationalize another industry.

О All of the Above.



13) What should President Obama stop doing with jobs and the economy?

О Stop punishing healthy privately-run banks.

О Stop subsidizing dysfunctional nationalized banks. (e.g. Fannie, Freddie, GMAC).

О Stop plowing returned TARP funds into the rat hole of more Keynsian “stimulus,” and use them to reduce the debt instead.

О All of the Above.

DRAFT OBAMA STATE OF THE UNION (Almost Teleprompter Ready)

My fellow Americans, before I get started I want to give a “Shout Out” to Rush Limbaugh. Hey, Rush, how’s the old ticker? Man, were you ever right – my first year has been one big fail, hasn’t it?


That’s why the theme of my speech tonight is PIVOT- President Is Veering Off Track - PIVOT.  Now let me be clear…………………this means I want you to believe everything I say tonight and forget everything else I’ve ever said before. Got it?

First…………………I come here tonight able to tell the American people I have successfully delivered on the first promise I made as President. George Soros just texted me on my Blackberry to say he will buy Guantanamo Bay from the United States. See, we don’t own it anymore! Not our base, not our image problem.  See.  Problem solved.

Second…………………Janet Napolitano is out of a job. Man, I just don’t know what planet Janet is from. She can’t identify the enemy, never got the job description, and really – who cuts her hair, anyway? That’s why I’ll be appointing as Secretary of Homeland Security the man who showed in 2009 he’s the best man for the job – Dick Cheney.

And that Eric Holder guy gave me nothing but terrible advice all year. He’s fired, too. That’s why I’ll be appointing as your next Attorney General - Dick Cheney. Hey, I guess that makes Dick Cheney the Czar of Homeland Justice. Anybody who shoots like Mr. Cheney can be a Czar in my book anytime.

And speaking of Czars – they all need to have their desks cleaned out by the end of the week – except for Dick Cheney, of course. I never knew what the hell a Czar was supposed to be, anyway. Special memo to Kevin Jennings – do us all a favor and don’t let anyone see what you pull out of that desk of yours.

As for foreign policy…………………I apologize to the American people for the Apology Tour. I extended my open hand to the world….and now look at me, running my cabinet meetings looking like Captain Hook.

I have directed new Czar of Homeland Justice Cheney to start speaking truth to power. “Man Made Disaster” will be “Terrorism” in 2010. “Overseas Contingency Operation” will be “War on Terror” in 2010. Our message to Radical Islam is simple: stop blowing stuff up or we’ll make you sit through a Bill Ayers lecture. Now that’s torture. New Czar of Homeland Justice Cheney will hold his first news conference tomorrow to fill in the details.

Now…………….. to Iran. Well, to be honest - no good options here. I already gave away the missile shield, and all I got for my trouble was this stupid hook hand. I’ve invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House so he can give me a clue on this one. New Czar of Homeland Justice Cheney will be in the meeting, of course.

There are going to be some changes at the State Department, too. No, no – Secretary Clinton keeps her job. Almost got you there, didn’t I, Hillary? Don’t get yourself all up in a tizzy girl - you can just keep the pictures sealed. No, I'm saying I have told the State Department there will be no more trips to Copenhagen during the remainder of my Presidency. The Office of Management and Budget has calculated this single decision will save the American taxpayer a million bazillion dollars between 2010 and 2013.

Now, to my transformational domestic program……….………my unprecedented universal health care initiative WILL GET DONE in 2010. [This space to be filled in the day of the address, depending on the latest news of the day].

My administration’s relentless pursuit of energy independence will be turned over to new Czar of Homeland Justice Cheney. We already have two focus-group tested slogans ready to roll out. Rahm Emanuel thinks the slogans are good, and he is really smart.
Ready, everybody, say it with me!
“Drill, Baby, Drill!” “Drill, Baby, Drill!”
“Fire Up the Nukes!” “Fire Up the Nukes!”

Quick “shout out” to Al Gore – Sorry, buddy, Cap and Trade is dead. Give David Axelrod a call; he started a short sale operation for green stocks last fall. He’s making a killing for his clients because he is really smart.

My administration’s domestic policy in 2010 will be dominated by this simple five letter word: J, O, B, S; “JOBS.” Vice President Biden will continue to be my point man counting the jobs. Nobody messes with Joe, you know. I have also directed the Vice President to co-chair a task force with Secretary of the Treasury Geithner. The mission of the task force will be to draft legislation for deep across-the-board tax cuts for anyone making more than two dollars. New Czar of Homeland Justice Cheney will attend every meeting.

Good night and good luck.

Obama: Brought to You by Ely, Holmes, Dewey, and Croly

The cover story on the December 31 issue of National Review (NR) is an excellent read for anyone wishing to understand the intellectual roots of today’s progressive Lefties. I’ve been meaning for days to finish this posting. But, frankly, it’s just been too much fun enjoying hand-to-hand combat on the web with sarcastic comments. (See my “random droppings” link on the right, or my NY Times Censorship Poll at the top, if this form of amusement appeals to you).


For the uninitiated, NR was founded by the great William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955. I like to think of NR as the original “conservative underground” (with apologies to Sean Hannity, who has been using this tag line for his radio show). As NR grew in circulation over the years, it gained a well-deserved reputation as the flagship publication for conservative opinion. To this day, if you read it in NR, you can take it to the bank.

The 12-31-09 NR cover story is four short articles describing the careers and influences of four original progressives. NR’s writers plainly show the philosophical line that stretches directly from these men to today’s liberals. If you can break away from the People magazine puff piece on Obama for half an hour, you should give this a read.

Richard Ely was an influential professor of economics at both Johns Hopkins University and the University of Wisconsin. He is credited with a collection of ideas that emphasize the collective over the individual. The one Ely quote on economics that jumped out at me from the article is: “The nation in its economic life is an organism, in which individuals, families, and groups…form parts.” Some of the specific policies he advanced had merit in his time - abolishing child labor, for example. Perhaps his biggest impression on liberals was stylistic. Ely was raised in an extremely pious religious tradition, and he lived out his life literally believing he was doing God’s work (according to how I read the article). Another Ely quote from the article: “It [the State] is religious in its essence …” I get the sense it was Ely who first taught Lefties the ends justify the means.

Ely also influenced many other people who rose to high public positions. One of them was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who served on the Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. Holmes was appointed by Theodore Roosevelt, also heavily influenced by Ely. Holmes laid a strong foundation for today’s judicial activism. His three decades on the court are a long record of decisions based on the judge’s interpretation of moral right versus wrong, instead of the previously traditional strict interpretation of the Constitution. The only problem I have with this article is it presents “pragmatism” as a negative “ism” that was behind Holmes’ thinking. I’ve always thought it a virtue to be pragmatic – i.e. taking care to react realistically to the real world, and the opposite of automatic ideological responses. I choose to stick with my interpretation for the remainder of my time on this Earth. It’s beside the point, anyway. Holmes showed Lefties how to use the courts to achieve the ends they fail to achieve in representative bodies.

John Dewey was a professor of philosophy and education who mainly taught at the University of Chicago and Columbia University. He also regularly contributed to New Republic magazine, then edited by our fourth suspect, Herbert Croly (see below). Dewey worked tirelessly to redefine the concept of “freedom.” For Dewey, “freedom” did not simply mean the individual being free of government obstacles. He devoted himself to the proposition “freedom” means the government actively enabling individual results. Dewey indoctrinated Lefties with a belief in “social justice” and a sense of entitlement.

Herbert Croly was an author and editor whose writings were used on university campuses all the way up to the 1960’s. He was a strong proponent of centralized government. He also espoused the idea of cleanly breaking from the past of our Founding. I also interpreted from the article that Croly carried with him a strong streak of elitism.  The governing style of today’s Lefties reflects the attitudes handed down to them by Croly.

The most important reason to read this stuff is today’s Lefties are already planning to change the label they use for themselves. They know they’ve worn out “liberal” with us. They are already starting to pivot back to “progressive,” because they think we’ve forgotten about the history of these original “progressives.” The problem for them, however, is we can look this stuff up for ourselves.

*************

Footnote 1

JAY! EEE! TEE! ESS!

Jets! Jets! Jets!


Footnote 2

Tomorrow’s election for the Massachusetts Senate seat will be a victory for the Conservative Ascendancy, regardless of which way it falls. Just as Doug Hoffman’s run in New York 23 was. If Coakley (more accurately the Massachusetts Democrat machine) squeaks through; we can just look back at both of these races, along with the Virginia and New Jersey victories, as harbingers for November. If Brown pulls off the improbable win, then all I can say is the Conservative Ascendancy is rising quicker than even I thought. Keep up the charge, patriots!

Contemporary Politics and Newton's Three Laws of Motion

Recent polling data on the American population’s ideological identification has brought to mind Newton’s Laws of Motion – seriously. :)



The Polling Data

Gallup has just come out with a poll with this bottom line on American self-identification: 40% conservative, 36% moderate, 21% liberal. This is the link to a full article.

A December 2009 Battleground poll shows a 63% to 33% advantage for conservatives over liberals. This is the link to a full article.

The data affirms both my long held assumptions and my reading of current political trends.

First of all, the American nation has historically been all about the individual pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Hell, the nation was founded with these specific words in the Declaration of Independence. This means the American people are usually paying attention to anything but politics and government. Conservatism is a philosophy that respects precedent and the proven qualities of ideas that have endured in real world practice. In other words, conservatives honestly value stuff people already know. Don’t get me wrong, we like new stuff too. It’s just that we require new stuff to show value before we adopt it – and definitely before we try to get other people to adopt it. Russell Kirk said it perfectly when he described conservatism as “the negation of ideology.” Plainly understood this way, it should be no surprise most Americans are in fact conservative, whether they realize it or not. It’s the realization part that is at the heart of the matter.

For my entire lifetime, there has been a long march (Mao pun intentional) of left wing ideologues (liberals, progressives, and socialists) through the institutions of government, academia, and media. As a result, the great majority of Americans alive today have mostly been governed, educated (sometimes indoctrinated), and had their news edited by people of an entirely different ideological stripe. Think of these elites as the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex. The ideology of the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex says a small percentage of intellectual elites should make all of the decisions for everyone else. Their ideology is also prone to falling for the latest ‘revolutionary theory’ springing from any fellow ideologue. The Democrats are their standard bearers in contemporary American politics. In some ways, we should feel sorry for the poor souls – whipsawed back and forth by constantly falling for, then being let down by, stuff that sounds good at first but then fails to deliver. (Watching their meltdown over Global Warming will be a source of amusement for some time going forward.) What makes me feel not at all sorry for them is they also believe they must tar and smear their opponents, to achieve the ascendancy of their ideas.

For example, one such sustained attack has been the ugly caricature of social conservatives as ignorant, bible-thumping rednecks. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what these so-called elites are afraid of. It seems to me social conservatives have organized their lives around preserving the most effective institution man has devised for continuously maintaining civil order – the family. As a conservative libertarian my approach is more like trying to stay between lines of an “all things in moderation” framework. So, the social conservatives have stricter rules serving as their guideposts? Why should I care, so long as neither one of us infringes on the other’s inalienable right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness?

All of this now brings me to three proven and demonstrable laws of science. Yes, the poke at Global Warming is intentional.



Newton’s Three Laws

The exceptional Internet reference site Wikipedia defines the laws of motion as so:

• First Law: "An object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force" [inertia] or "A body persists in a state of uniform motion or of rest unless acted upon by an external force." [momentum]

• Second Law: "Force equals mass times acceleration" or "F = ma."

• Third Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Applying this framework to today’s national political scene identifies the following analogs. 2009 was all about inertia and momentum. The first ten months of 2010 will be about acceleration. Election Day in November 2010 will illustrate the second law. The third law will set the stage for politics in 2011 and 2012.

With respect to politics, the vast majority of Americans would prefer to remain a body at rest. They would like to pursue their own lives, simply trusting that the stewards to which they have handed the keys to city hall are responsibly protecting their rights. Left wing ideologues, by far the minority of the general population, are a body in constant motion politically. They believe in the ability of government to run other peoples’ lives. They are in fact attracted to the idea of running the government, in order to get the chance to run other peoples’ lives. While in government, they can’t help themselves from acting as busybodies in constant search for new ways to run other peoples’ lives. The prospect for a collision between these two bodies has been building for decades; at least since left wing ideology began take the high ground on campuses in the 1960’s. This prospect came to a head in 2009. Both major political parties have played a part in overcoming the inertia of the American electorate – the Democrats as standard bearers of the left, the Republicans as enablers for Democrats and failed stewards for the people.

The Republican led congress of 2000-2006 disappointingly governed as a Democrat-lite caucus. By the way, am I the only person in America who blames Dennis Hastert and not George Bush for this? Bush obviously decided to concentrate his energies on homeland security and the war on terror, and basically delegated domestic party politics to congress. Hastert & company chose to concentrate on taking pork home to secure re-election. They hadn’t come yet to understand the naturally conservative American people were already in motion, in reaction to a long building resentment over failed stewardship by professional politicians. That generation of Republicans earned well-deserved electoral defeats in 2006 and 2008.

The Democrats completely misread the elections of 2006 and 2008 as endorsements of their philosophy. They shallowly figured the American people had rejected the Republican “brand,” therefore they must want the Democratic “brand.” The presidential campaign they ran in 2008 was brilliant politics. They identified a candidate with the (almost) perfect attributes (polished black woman would have been a little better). They masterfully manipulated an American electorate that was very much in motion, but still sorting out why. To the naturally conservative majority they were purposefully vague about their program. It was all about agreeing on the buzz word “change” – skipping the part about defining the direction of change. Thus the Democratic Party and their natural constituency in the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex completed their long march into governmental power. Or so they must have thought. What else could explain how quickly they have imploded simply by overreaching their priorities in governing?

A tremendous collision between the American conservative majority and the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex is guaranteed for November 2010. The only variable needing further definition is the acceleration variable. The following factors will contribute to its final value.

Can the established GOP effectively capture the 2010 spirit of the American body politic? If they do, the force felt in November will be simply historic. For this to occur, the GOP must field candidates who can demonstrate fidelity to conservative principles first and foremost. New York 23 was a missed opportunity for the GOP’s professional politicians. The entire point of this posting is illustrated by Doug Hoffmann coming as close as he did on short notice and on a financial shoe-string. Now it appears there is a politician named Scott Brown who actually has a chance to win a US Senate seat in the progressive stronghold of Massachusetts (of all places), running under the combined endorsements of the GOP and TEA parties. This is the link to follow if you wish to lend support - http://www.brownforussenate.com/. I am also temporarily adding it to the top of my list of linked sites.

How foolishly and nakedly left-ward will the Democrats continue to govern? This question is less important than the previous one. The Democrat party has already forfeited any votes from anyone thinking in patriotic terms. They can only slightly diminish the force by attempting some sort of “pivot” to a more conservative governing stance. My prediction, however, is they cannot and will not abandon the pursuit of their ideological goals. That’s what ideologues do. Plus, they are so deliciously hilarious to watch in office. Irony – comic sibling to hypocrisy – simply radiates out from them like carbon dioxide and methane from a flatulent cow. The Reid ruckus in this morning’s news illustrates my point. In a rational, settled, world it would hardly even be news. At this highly volatile point in history, it gives us a drain to circle around and figure things out.

How will external events unfold and affect the discussion? Thank God the crotch-bomber misfired. It served to elevate the discussion without further loss of American life.

I expect the force of the conservative American majority will be felt by the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex in November at a historic magnitude. We will then amuse ourselves by watching the reaction in equal force by the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex, which will set the stage for 2011-2012 politics.

Strap in, folks, it’s going to be a bumpy ride for awhile. But, at least the news will be anything but boring. That’s one consolation.

Quickie Analysis of the Big POTUS Terrorism Speech

Well, the words were a little better. First time he’s accepted any responsibility for running his administration. First time he’s admitted we are at war with someone. I liked some of what he had to say about coming over to the side of liberty in the fight for Islamic hearts and minds. However, he misidentified the enemy. Al Qaeda is merely the highest profile offshoot of the real enemy – which is the world-wide political/religious cult known as radical Islamic jihad. It looks like his “review the reviews” directive places too much emphasis on defensive measures, no emphasis on offensive measures. And, most importantly, what do his words mean to anyone at this point anyway?


Let’s hope the analysts and the operatives in the Intel community respond to a sense of patriotism going forward. It’s still not clear they are getting leadership from the White House. Leadership is a perception thing. It’s looking the enemy square in the eye, speaking his name plainly, letting him know you mean to do him harm if he continues, and letting the patriots who know how to do him real harm know they have your full support. We haven’t quite seen that yet. (I just hate the word “disrupt.” Can we start saying it is right and good to “defeat” the enemy, please?) I’d like to give credit to Bryan Nehman, 1/3 of the Grandy & Andy Morning Show (yes, it adds up folks), for neatly summing up my feelings in his blog: “ I’d feel a lot better with a DHS purge, and a CIA/NSA surge.” Tack on Special Forces to the surge part, Bryan, and we’re completely on the same page. [http://www.wmal.com/article.asp?id=1650528&SPID=26685]

An Update, Upon Some Reflection

I performed a little thought experiment today, while shuttling the kids around to appointments.

What if we just take Mr. Obama at his word that we are at war?

Well, then, (with apologies to Ricky Ricardo) - he has some splainin’ to do. Consistency of vision is an important leadership function, and there are a few inconsistencies hanging out there. For rhetorical purposes, I won’t even quibble over the definition of who we are at war with. For the sake of this thought experiment I grant him his narrow definition of Al Qaeda.

If we are at war, he needs to explain why non-citizen enemy combatants are afforded constitutional rights. The explanation needs to provide the administration’s rationale for granting these rights to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He needs to explain why any Al Qaeda affiliate should ever be released after being captured. It is traditional to hold enemy POWs indefinitely until war hostilities officially cease.

He needs to explain how proceeding with the courts martial for the three Navy SEALs, on dubious and trivial grounds, contributes positively to the prosecution of the war.

He needs to explain the justification for targeting with military attacks the American-born citizens Adam Gadahn and Anwar al-Awlaki. This one should be easier. The administration is already acting in a manner consistent with a war footing. They just need to assemble the words explaining why they are doing it. I’ll even give them the first draft right now. Gadahn and al-Awlaki are traitors. Gadahn has in fact been convicted of the crime of treason already. The only problem I have is it took the Bush administration about two years to achieve this result. In the al-Awlaki case Obama needs to explain what steps have been taken to expedite a treason conviction against al-Awlaki. I’ll even grant him one shot at the Bush administration for not doing so earlier in al-Awlaki’s radical career. Plus I’ll grant him one additional shot at his predecessor - if he makes a serious effort at implementing reforms that will create an orderly but swift process for treason convictions based on classified intelligence. This sure would have been handy in the Maj. Hasan case, don’t you think?

A written statement will suffice; the sound of his voice has grown annoying.

Debating Mr. Brooks

I’d like to thank David Brooks for encouraging me to continue with this blogging thing. He’s been writing opinion columns as a living, for a very long time. When I read his New York Times column today, I thought to myself: “hey, I could be this stupendously stupid in just a few minutes a day for no pay.”

The thesis of his article seems to be that if you disagree with the Liberal Left’s agenda, you are not part of the “educated class.”
The next few paragraphs are Brooks’ most appalling paragraphs (all italicized) followed by my reply to each.

***

[Brooks]


The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

[LibertyAtStake]

Global Warming: Your use of the word “believes” is very telling. Your educated class has fallen for an unscientific religion that recently had to change its name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change;’ because the facts of worldwide temperature readings were not cooperating with initial assumptions. Try googling Dr. Fred Singer, or Christopher Horner, or Lord Christopher Monckton, and get back to me on whether you still think the science is settled and the danger justifies drastic measures. Actually, I’m kind of surprised you hadn’t gotten the memo and used the ‘climate change’ label instead. I’d expect more from an educated guy.

Abortion rights: So, you see lack of education in someone acting on the conscientious conviction an aborted fetus equals a killed human being? God help us if we must hold the reverse to be true: education equals a coarsening of the conscience to questions of morality.

Gun Control: The smart kids like cause and effect analysis, right? Why don’t you reflect on this one and get back to me: The murder rate in the District of Columbia is the lowest it has been in 45 years. 2009 is also the year legal gun ownership became possible in DC.

[Brooks]


The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.

[LibertyAtStake]

2nd Sentence: The phrasing sets up a false dichotomy between internationalism and isolationism. It is perfectly possible to engage the world while protecting our own national interests. A growing percentage of  the ‘uneducated class’ (your thesis) is being stirred to action by the perceived failure of the current administration to protect America’s interests and protect America’s citizens.

3rd Sentence: Your phrase “go your own way” has a fancier name – unilateralism. I looked it up for the rest of us. It means acting in accordance with your own interests. If to be educated means to subordinate US sovereignty to unaccountable UN kleptocrats, count me in as proudly uneducated.

[Brooks]


The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.

[LibertyAtStake]

All transformational movements start out ‘fractious.’ Some stay that way – just ask Leon Trotsky after Lenin’s assassin buried an ice-pick in his forehead.   And, besides, a better moniker for the TEA party at the present would be 'leaderless.'  That's why it is also authentically 'grass roots.'  Tea Party patriots are united in being for smaller government. They don’t give a hoot about big business, except to the extent they are hurt when big government bail outs big business – see GM, TARP, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. They don’t give a hoot about big media – except to the extent they are now sorting out who spins and who reports. There are easily understandable reasons Fox News wins in the ratings. They want an America where anyone can become an affluent professional, not an America where affluent professionals are a ‘class.’

Do you contend government is not bloated, the deficit is sustainable, taxes too low, and regulations too few? I contend otherwise.

[Brooks]


The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to implement programs to solve the country’s problems. Many Americans do not have faith in that sort of centralized expertise or in the political class generally.

[LibertyAtStake]

You can use ‘Obama’ and ‘pragmatic’ in the same sentence? Really? Have you been awake for the past year?

Our Founding Fathers did not have faith in centralized expertise or permanent political classes. That’s why they wrote the Constitution and the bill of rights the way they did.

[Brooks]


In the near term, the tea party tendency will dominate the Republican Party. It could be the ruin of the party, pulling it in an angry direction that suburban voters will not tolerate. But don’t underestimate the deep reservoirs of public disgust. If there is a double-dip recession, a long period of stagnation, a fiscal crisis, a terrorist attack or some other major scandal or event, the country could demand total change, creating a vacuum that only the tea party movement and its inheritors would be in a position to fill.

Personally, I’m not a fan of this movement. But I can certainly see its potential to shape the coming decade.

[LibertyAtStake]

I’ve attended some tea parties. I’ll wager the terms “suburban” and “voter” describes nearly 100% of the attendees. And as far the word “angry” is concerned – yes, there is a good amount of righteous anger at the gatherings. The righteous anger is directed at ruling elites who the TEA party patriots see as irresponsibly exercising the powers granted to them by the people.  What could be a more authentically American gathering, I ask you? I also recommend you reflect on this question: where are the news stories of riots by TEA party patriots? Now think a moment about the rioting that is routine at impassioned left wing gatherings (oh, say, COP15 , for example).

If events create a vacuum, and this vacuum is filled by the kind of people I’ve met at TEA parties, the republic will be better off for it.

***

Brooks’ article is especially galling given who he is – the New York Times’ supposed house ‘conservative.’ This mere fact itself could serve as fodder for a long dissertation on the corrupt state of modern journalism. Point one: a house ‘conservative’ positing arguments based in class distinction.

Since I disagree with Brooks on all these issues, he gives himself no choice but to label me as ‘uneducated.’ I therefore label him in return as a ‘pseudo-intellectual.’

Thomas Sowell – a real conservative – has a new book out (“Intellectuals and Society”) that serves as a scholarly examination of the dangers of pseudo-intellectualism. Brooks should give it a read.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzczMzhmNjZhNzRiMWI3ZjMyOWZjMGViZDc4ODY2NjA=#more

Stupid or Treasonous?

A number of news stories broke while our President was vacationing in his alleged birth place of Hawaii. The composite has me asking myself a question: “Is this administration full of idiots, or full of traitors?”

Mind you, I’m merely addressing some of the news since Mr. Obama went on vacation. A full review of his entire record in office, asking this question, would be positively exhausting. And I’m not being paid for this, you know.

The Christmas Day bomber plot raises this question on multiple levels.

Take Janet Napolitano’s statements on the Sunday talk shows immediately afterward. She basically said “the system worked, folks, nothing to consider here.” One could hardly imagine a more stupid response to a complete breakdown in her area of responsibility. (And with two full days to consider it, no less). But, if it were one’s objective to aid and abet the enemy, maybe trying to use your position of authority to lull its victims (you and me) to sleep, hmmmm …. Well, I’m just thinking out loud.

And who decided to give constitutional rights to the pantybomber? And who then let John Brennan go on the Sunday shows to announce our government would be offering a plea bargain to the terrorist? I’ve argued on this blog before how fundamentally stupid it is to fight the terrorists with the law enforcement response. This approach is also a stupid bet on a political level. If, God forbid, one of the pantybomber’s jihadist classmates succeeds in the near future, and it becomes apparent a different approach might have yielded intelligence sooner – well, this administration will own the result completely and forever. I thought these guys were political geniuses? In his 2009 testimony to Congress, Eric Holder gave the administration wiggle room to selectively treat individual terrorists in either the civilian or military systems. The administration could have used that wiggle room to immediately place the pantybomber into military custody and avoid the situation it is now in – in effect rolling the political dice with American lives. But … if one actually sympathized with the enemy … Well, I’m just thinking out loud.

Now, let’s address Obama’s reaction. Did he even look like he cared 300 fellow Americans came within a Dutch artist’s whisker of dying? He looked more annoyed that his vacation had been interrupted – 3 days after the event occurred! Isn't this guy supposed to be the greatest political orator of our time?  He couldn’t summon any righteous anger after three days of preparation for an address to the nation? Talk about a tin political ear. But … if one were deep down kind of disappointed with the botched execution of the pantybomber … Well, I’m just thinking out loud.

How about the White House insisting it will continue to repatriate Yemeni terrorists to Yemen? This is another gem from John Brennan’s mouth. His one word answer was “absolutely” when Chris Wallace asked the question. In light of recent developments - AYKM? For crying out loud, he could at least show the political acumen to dance around the question, instead of instantly inserting his foot. On the one hand, they close the American embassy in Yemen (an admission Yemen is a dangerous place). On the other hand (and at almost the same moment!) they stick to their guns on sending Terrorists back to Yemen (a denial Yemen is a dangerous place). Stupid or treasonous? To be honest, I just can’t tell yet through all of the logical contradictions.

Then there’s the story Newsweek broke as an exclusive today - that Obama (along with Napolitano, Holder, and others) was briefed on intelligence credibly indicating the threat of a Christmas day bombing before Obama went on vacation; and in response he did … nothing. Does he not understand the job? Or is he secretly performing a different job (i.e. Manchurian President)?

Then there’s this little gem the White House tried to bury in the quiet period of Christmas break - [Washington Examiner article - Obama signs executive order subordinating FBI to Interpol]. I haven’t entirely wrapped my head around this one yet. But I have to say the very notion of a President of the United States widening the authority of an extra-national institution on American soil smells like a rotten catfish right off the bat.

The republic has survived incompetent presidents before (see Carter, Jimmy). But I don’t think we’ve ever been given as much cause to actually wonder about a President’s loyalties.

For the moment, I’m holding to the most logical explanation. This administration is full of left-wing ideologues. They came to office really believing the law enforcement response to terrorism can be effective. They came to office really believing everything would be cool if they just said nice things about, and offered concessions to, our adversaries. The real question is whether or not they can learn from recent events, set aside their ideological pride, and admit these assumptions have been dead wrong – before it’s too late. A good start would be a strong profiling program for TSA. Profiling may be PC heresy today – years ago it was just good police work.

A shake up in Congress in November is already practically a foregone conclusion. If this administration sets its mind to an honest assessment of its initial assumptions, and the feedback from the real world, there is a chance for a period of bi-partisan governance beginning in November. The problem is honest assessments are not in the nature of ideologues. Idealogues tend to act reflexively based on their preset assumptions, in ways that make them appear to be stupid (i.e. unresponsive to real world feedback). Therefore, the more likely projection for 2010 is a contentious year of Washington resistance to grass roots feedback, possibly leading to impeachment articles in 2011. If the grassroots uprising succeeds in installing principled patriots into Congress, the next Congress will have almost no choice but to draft articles of impeachment – whether the executive is dangerously stupid or treasonous, it just won't matter.

Baseline Thoughts - Liberty and Me

When did I start describing myself as “libertarian”? I really don’t know.

As an adult I’ve been busy raising a family and making a living in fields not directly related to social/political sciences.

I grew up in a tiny, non-descript lower middle class village. The place literally was a two stoplight town – one at the east end of the main drag, one at the west end of the main drag. The first two politically philosophical influences I can recall were more properly labeled ‘conservative.’ For most of my childhood we had three TV channels – the 3 networks and PBS. At the time, PBS ran a show by the great William F. Buckley. The show was called ‘Firing Line,’ and it resonated with me. At first, I think I connected with Buckley’s ironic sense of humor, which he often displayed in debate. Plus the show was absolutely unlike anything else on TV at the time – unabashedly opinionated. The format was quite literally Buckley arguing the conservative point of view in a one-on-one format against an equally impassioned advocate of the opposite point of view. There are some examples preserved online – I recommend looking them up to all young people who wish to see an example of civil political discourse – which is all too rare today. Anyway, I must have picked up some conservative values - as I watched the shows I found myself siding with Buckley more often than not. I also, somehow, found and absorbed some writings by Russell Kirk. I can’t remember exactly where I found them – there were a couple of public libraries and a college book store within bicycling distance. It was just interesting reading to me at the time, though – most of the “literature” I was reading then fell under the heading ‘Science-Fiction.’

As a voter, my voting patterns were heavily influenced by the Carter and Reagan presidencies. During the election of 1980 I saw the impotence of Carter’s presidency and knew a change was needed. On the other hand, I was still young and naïve enough to buy into the main stream media’s biased portrayal of Reagan as a ‘war-monger.’ I was a few months shy of voting age – if was able to vote I would have thrown it away on 3rd party candidate John Anderson. By 1984 I was enthusiastically voting for Reagan’s landslide re-election. I had witnessed and come to understand the bedrock conservative values in his governance: his program of across the board tax cuts that revived the economy of ‘stagflation’ he inherited from Carter, his ‘starve the beast’ attitude toward big government, his ‘Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall’ peace through strength foreign policy.

Somewhere along the line I combined these influences with an appreciation for the well-known phrase ‘He who governs least governs best,’ and decided that makes me a libertarian philosophically.

I have always voted with the Republican coalition in every election local, state or federal. Pragmatism is one of the conservative values I practice. As a pragmatist, I can see the only two viable options for having a practical effect on an election (at least so far) is voting (R) or (D). As such, (R) really has been the only viable alternative for a practical Libertarian. Social conservatives are not exactly my cup of tea, but on the whole I find them to be better people than the so-called ‘civil libertarians’ who oppose them. I am not particularly religious, but I have observed religious people are generally better people than non-religious people. I don’t own a gun, (or a pickup truck for that matter), but I am staunch supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. I also know how to shoot and find myself thinking a lot lately about finding time to get back out to the range. Finally, (R) generally stomps (D) on economics and foreign policy for a libertarian.

This brings me to a conversation with a liberal Democratic friend I recall from few years ago. She initiated the conversation along the lines of (paraphrasing) “you seem like such a nice person, why do you always vote Republican?” Her implication was, of course, “they are such meanies.” After a few minutes of verbal jousting, I made this point: “As a Libertarian, I believe all politicians are by nature hyper-ambitions and craven. At least the Republican variety usually has enough sense to keep its hands out of my wallet.”

Liberal Friend (after pausing to apparently process the alliterative properties of libertarian and liberal): “Shouldn’t Libertarian mean you believe in individual freedom?”

Me (unsuccessfully going for the clincher): “Well, there’s really not a dime’s worth of difference between me as a libertarian and you as a liberal.”

Liberal Friend: “What’s the dime?”

Me: “You believe government can teach people to be free, I know they need to learn it for themselves.”

(Note the conversation continues as my brilliant parry failed to carry the day)

Liberal Friend: “So it’s government you hate?”

Me (using hyperbole to try to get out of the conversation): “All in all, if the government did nothing but raise an army, provide police protection, and pave the roads, I think we’d all be a lot better off.”

Liberal Friend (looking as if stunned by a dart): “Do you really believe that?”

Me: (sipping beer with churlish smile): “Yep.”

I leave you with this scene to understand future posts.

Baseline Thoughts - Liberty and the Constitution

The most important book of 2009 was "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto," by Mark Levin. It is a must read for anyone who wants a plain language foundation for understanding the historical and philosophical factors that explain the current political mood in America.

I’ve thrown together the following table as fodder for reflection.

Liberty values …	Tyranny (or the statist) values …
The individual over the collective or state.	The collective or the state over the individual.
Individual freedom in commerce.	State control of commerce.
Individual opportunity for the creation wealth.	State control over the distribution of wealth.
Individual freedom of religion.	State freedom from religion.
Individual ownership of property.	State regulation of property.
Individual accountability to the collective (personal responsibility).	Collective responsibility for the individual (personal  entitlement)
Restrictions on government power to protect individual rights.	Restrictions on individual rights to protect government power.
Supremacy of smaller (more localized) divisions of government.	Supremacy of larger (more nationalized or globalized) aggregations of government.

When Patrick Henry declared “Give me liberty, or give me death,” he meant it.

The words ‘liberty’ and ‘libertarian’ are much misunderstood today. Libertarian values do not grant a license to the individual to do anything he or she wishes to do. Libertarians value civil order in the society as necessary to the free exercise of individual rights and commerce. The individual is accountable to society for the continued maintenance of the civil order. The priorities of American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are anything but libertarian. They seek at every turn to break down civil order. A more apt name for this organization would be the American Entitlement Organization.

Libertarians are also not anarchists when it comes to government. Libertarians recognize the need for minimal government, properly restrained from trampling individual rights, as necessary for maintaining civil order and protecting sovereignty. Libertarians recognize the Constitution of the United States as the greatest governing framework ever conceived by mankind. Libertarians are also deeply concerned at this time about ongoing abuses against our Constitution in domestic and foreign affairs.

The Founding Fathers were very wise in the national governing framework they gave us. Separation of powers between executive, legislative, and judicial branches places firewalls between the statist and his worst impulses. The way the Constitution grants legitimacy to the national government only insofar as the individual state’s agree to it (“federalism”) simultaneously limits the statist’s ability to implement top-down control and provides for a bottom-up laboratory for democracy. All in all, the document is an excellent libertarian framework for protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

The Bill of Rights (1st through 10th Amendments) was a masterstroke. They are protecting us still.

I believe future historians will look back at 2009 as a very good year for the 1st Amendment. Despite one party control of the executive and legislative branches, despite effective control over most of the popular media by the same party’s fellow travelers, despite the tendency for the American people to give a new administration the benefit of the doubt, the agenda of this party has been slowed and held in check – by nothing but the freedoms of assembly, petition, and speech protected by the First Amendment. The TEA party movement is a perfectly beautiful expression of the First Amendment. Ironically, and old media (AM radio) and a new media (the Internet) have been key factors in the continued relevance of the First Amendment. We must stay vigilant in 2010 – the statists already have anti-constitutional legislation in the pipeline for further regulating both (‘Fairness Doctrine’ for radio and ‘Net Neutrality’ for the Internet).

I believe 2010 will be a good year for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Amendment 9 – Construction of the Constitution - “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. “ Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, the national government is strictly limited by the language in the document, the states and people are not.