On Hayek’s “Fatal Conceit” and BHO’s Energy Policy

Recent political events have brought to the forefront of LAS’ mind F.A. Hayek’s pithy concept of the ‘fatal conceit.’  Hayek, of course, is remembered as the founder of the Austrian school of free-market economic theory – later carried forward by the so-called Chicago school under Milton Friedman.

The basic idea of the ‘fatal conceit’ concept – specifically applied to economics - is this: no one is smart enough to direct the exchange of resources in any economy of any appreciable scale.  Not a single person ever born or who will ever be born is that smart.  The market must be allowed to freely produce profit and loss signals to producers and consumers for an economy to function and grow.   

When the market is replaced by the directives of a centralized command and control authority, both producers and consumers are reduced to beggars seeking favors from an omnipotent but hardly omniscient god-state run by fallible people.   This dysfunctional beggar citizenry is what we have come to mock with the label ‘crony.’  We have our crony capitalists (producers), such as Buffet and Immelt, seeking favorable advantage by short-cutting the market with favors dispensed by the dispensers of gub’ment favors.  But we also have crony consumers  throughout the republic  - such as anyone buying Obama’s latest line that the pathetic little payroll tax cut given to you out of his philanthropic instincts (a pander) is an offset to the rise in gas prices for which he has no responsibility (a lie).

Socialism in every one of its forms rejects market forces - and therefore inevitably degrades into a society broken down as 99% beggar citizenry seeking alms from 1% ruling elite.  The point is proven by a simple compare and contrast of conditions in East vs. West Europe, East vs. West Germany, and East vs. West Berlin immediately after we won the Cold War.  The Cold War (in Europe) was a giant social / economic experiment conducted on two groups of culturally and historically identical people living under two distinct systems.  The plainly observable economic conditions on each side, when the Berlin Wall finally came down, could not have been more black and white.

==

This book review of Hayek’s so-called “collected works” explains the concept of the fatal conceit as the false idea "man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes."

As I recall many of my high school classmates exclaiming from time to time ... "yeah, right!"

(Note: Before you buy the book, the last of Hayek’s career, read this more in depth review including the history of the book’s creation. LAS does not want to be responsible for consumer disappointment.)

And via the magic of the Intertubes, I have come across this excellent definition of the fatal conceit concept, as it applies to socialism in particular.

Socialism fails, unavoidably, because it is based on the flawed concept, the “fatal conceit,” that one man or one group, one cabinet of commanding officials or one central committee, or one team of planners from Harvard and Yale, can gather and understand enough information in order to reshape the world around them according to their wishes, reshape human nature, and design an economic system that can outstrip the overall and long run performance of the decentralized and basically self-ordering and spontaneous processes of the marketplace.

==

Having now probably expended too many words on establishing a conceptual baseline for this humble post … for the modern blog reader, that is ... let us now return our attention to the original point of the post – recent news from the field on the topic of fatal conceit.

Let’s start with the energy policy coming from the Empty Suit Known as Barack Hussein Obama, which can only be described as a product of Andrew Klavan’s “Imagination Land.”

In one breath, the Empty Suit tells us drilling for more oil on American land won’t lower gas prices at the pump, yet in the next he tells us convincing Saudi Arabia to drill for more oil will achieve the same end. Huh? Perhaps he’s actually a super patriot with a secret strategy to get them to exhaust their reserves before we exhaust ours!

On the one hand, he derides oil as the energy of the “past”, and on the other hand lauds windmills – which have been around for centuries – as an energy of the “future.” I like Rush Limbaugh’s rule … talk to me about the energy of the future when you have something other than oil that can lift a jet airplane off the ground and keep it there. Nuclear might fit the bill … but I’m afraid it would entail too large a regulatory bureaucracy. You know, for the crash investigations.

Nuclear is a very efficient generator of electricity when kept stationary, produces zero carbon emissions in the process … and so naturally the Empty Suit’s administration insists on closing more nuclear plants. His EPA is closing coal-fired plants, too – on the grounds they produce too many carbon emissions. The alternatives they push – wind, solar, and now algae – produce not a scintilla of a percentage of the existing demand. Yet they exhort us to increase demand for plant produced electricity by driving electric cars. WTF, Barry?

Simply the Energy Policy From Imagination Land. As it can only come from BHO and his corrupt gang of progressives, faculty lounge wankers each and every one, adding up to zero days real world private sector experience.

==

Meanwhile, the real world relentlessly moves forward governed by the immutable laws of supply and demand …

Gas Prices rise precipitously, naturally. But that’s actually what they want – just not until *after* the election. BHO’s Secretary of Energy – Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven F. Chu - said he didn’t want lower gas prices before saying he didn’t really mean it. Look it up yourself on the Google machine. What I said.

The Consumer Price Index increases, in large part due the increase on gas prices at the pump. Then … drum roll please … something happens to really catch the Empty Suit’s attention - his approval ratings tank. (They will go lower. Mark it.)

How can this be! They’ve already worked it out in the faculty lounges! They imagine it and it will be! What is wrong with you people! Then the fatal conceit taps them on the shoulder and informs them the only possible explanation is … you’re stupid.

That’s what explains how a card-carrying member of BHO’s Information Ministry – aka the corrupt and biased Leftist media – was able to go out and give this disgracefully unreflective performance. The inflection in the voice of this pinhead John Harris – whoever the hell he is – each and every time he spews the word ‘stupid’ - makes it perfectly clear what he thinks of you. (memo to the pinhead Harris: Regarding the Muslim thing, dopey Mr. Harris, BHO technically is Muslim, according to the Islamic rule that the paternal religion determines the religion of the offspring. And note BHO’s faux Christianity makes him an ‘infidel’ in the very same Islamic code of law. Better not drop that Secret Service protection when a private citizen, Barry.)



Of course BHO himself received a telegram from the fatal conceit messenger. It instructed him to go out to a local community college to give an embarrassingly slapstick (read ‘unpresidential’) speech serving red meat to his devoted followers … ably refuted by conservative yeoman Charles Krauthammer. (Have your people call my people, Charles.)



Here’s the bottom line, kiddies. Fatal conceit will be the character flaw primarily responsible for BHO’s defeat at the polls in November. Mark it.

==

Footnote

My dog dragged in an ancient outdoor chew toy today. I wonder if the accumulated algae could power the battery of the smart phone that snapped this photograph. For that matter … if the entire chew toy were magically converted to a giant lump of algae, and used as the power source for this laptop … how many of these words could have been produced? Not many, I’ll wager. Alright, time to remove the disgusting chew toy and see what the real world has in store next. Good night, dear reader.

Update 3/19/12

You people are sooooooooooooo stoooooooopid!

Click the pic for the full story behind the fatal conceit of Obama's signature legislation.

LAS 2011 Review & 2012 Preview (Part 4 of 4)

Part 1 covered domestic conditions.
Part 2 covered foreign affairs.
Part 3 covered the current electoral situation.
Part 4 covers this blog project.

When I inaugurated this blog nearly 25 months ago, the Democrat Party (usually referred to on this blog as DemoHacks or the Donkey Party) held commanding majorities on both sides of Capitol Hill and was also in command of the White House. This version of the Democrat Party held – and still holds - policy positions closer to Nikita Kruschev than to John F. Kennedy. The hapless GOP establishment had lost the entire store to the Donkey Party, mostly because they (the GOP) had foolishly governed as ersatz progressives. The Donkey Party, long ago taken over by real progressives, was riding high and hell bent on “fundamentally transforming” America into a European social democracy like Greece or, more likely, if given sufficient time to slide down the slippery slope, a communist misery pit like Cuba. It was a dark time for liberty.

The only countervailing political force was a grass-roots citizen driven movement whose name matched precisely its message – Taxed Enough Already (TEA). While simultaneously weathering a withering caricature assassination mercilessly coordinated by the corrupt and biased liberal media, the patriots in this movement, political novices for the most part, accomplished the initial stages of a hostile takeover of the empty husk that was the GOP. The initial fruits of this takeover were the historic “shellacking” of the Donkey Party in the election of 2010, giving the GOP control of the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the Empty Suit Known as Barack Hussein Obama was not on the ballot, and therefore still sits in the White House scheming and dreaming for “fundamental transformation.” His method for furthering his socialist, statist dreams is to constantly pick fights with the House GOP with the objective of dividing the American people into competing factions. Just as he was instructed so long ago by the teachings of Saul Alinsky in “Rules For Radicals” and Bill Ayers in “Prairie Fire.”

The election of 2012 will be a monumentally decisive and historic election for this 235 year old republic. Just as the Newtonian F=M*A theme running through this blog archive predicts and documents. If control of the government is given to a newly TEA Party infused GOP, the future for liberty will be restored. If the government remains split, especially if BHO holds onto the White House, the prescription is four more years of chaotic gridlock and whatever that may lead to at street level. If, in the least likely event, full control is restored to BHO and his corrupt gang of Progressives: Hello Cuba! This blog will remain in operation until this historic decision is made by the American people. Whether or not it turns out to be “Shellacking II” as I fully expect, this blog will shutter operations once the decision is made. Assuming, for the sake of argument, a period of postscript extending from election day 2012 to inauguration day 2013 – what, then, to expect from LibertyAtStake over the next twelve months or so?

==

Keeping up a decent blog is hard work. That’s why so many of the hacks paid to do it suck at it. The ubiquitous bell curve that applies to all of life’s undertakings does not spare the blogging community.

In recognition of this, and the old saw “work smarter, not harder,” the evolution of the blog format has been a constant search for higher returns on lower investments (of effort).

I have also tried to keep in mind the first keystone to success in any endeavor is a clear and unambiguous mission statement.

“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

==

With these things in mind, I have settled on a few tweaks for the 2012 run.

I’m stripping down the header section. It will contain only one widget devoted to political cartoons. A picture being worth a thousand words, as they say. This will also allow the meat of the matter – my own genius spilling forth from my own archive – to rise closer to the top of the blog.

I’m pretty happy with the sidebar as it is. The Assigned Reading List will continue to grow as a library in its own right to fuel the Conservative Ascendancy. The Daily Barry will automatically update itself each day as a tool for monitoring the Conservative Ascendancy’s progress. The JAUL Gallery has grown in direct correlation to the scourge of the White House directed Occupy movement, and the 2012 projection is for explosive growth. The video roll will continue to be rich source of mirth for conservatives, and the Bob Schieffer Blog Roll will continue to be the best damn conservative RSS feed on the planet.

==

Getting back to the dual objectives – return on level of effort and mission – I think the 2012 run will have more frequent, but shorter, posts. I will be less concerned about delivering the essay format personified by this four part series. I will concentrate more on hitting one issue at a time, with a short commentary designed to connect it to larger themes.

Like, for example, when Barry and his corrupt gang were patting themselves on the back for hitting 8.5% unemployment, I would have put together something like:

• Link to some corrupt and biased MSM cheerleading piece.
• Link to that chart everyone has seen, reminding us these are the same hacks who told us the trillion dollar crap sandwich known as Stimulus was needed to keep the number below the 8% they expected if we did nothing.
• Link to a piece reminding us they got down to 8.5% in large part by not counting people who have stopped looking for work.
• Link to a piece reminding us the only number that really matters – real jobs added per month – was half of what is necessary to get back to pre-crash employment levels. (200,000 vs. 400,000)
• Something about the anemic growth being a product of the American spirit and free market despite being saddled by the most anti-growth administration in American history.
• A snarky conclusion – something like, “It’s called math. They should try doing it honestly some time.”

There will be ten more opportunities to do this one. You get the idea for now.

==

I’m sure there will be the occasional essay as my muse (a truly lazy fellow, truth be told) dictates.

For example, I’d like to find the time to write an essay contrasting progressivism and conservatism in a way that makes clear why progressivism is perpetually at a competitive advantage. Not because it has superior ideas; but, rather, because it is an easier “sell.” Progressivism allows its’ adherents to simply feel good about intentions. Consequences, intended and unintended, never seem to come into the calculus of the progressive mind – at least not an honest accounting of consequences, anyway. Any idiot with a beating heart can embrace progressivism – functioning brain totally optional. By contrast, conservatism requires its adherents to start out by thinking clearly and honestly about human nature, and then to apply this understanding to an honest calculation of policy consequences, before spending other people’s money or issuing mandates for everyone else.

As an aside, this contrast brings to my mind the one word answer I whip out whenever a progressive pulls out that favorite canard of theirs – “how can you be pro-life and for the death penalty?” The one word answer is accountability. The fetus in the womb has had zero opportunity to make any choices, and is therefore accountable for nothing. The defendant in the court room, as well as the mother carrying the fetus, is accountable for all the choices leading up to the circumstance they find themselves in. But I digress.

I’d also like to do an essay piece on the commonalities between agile software development and conservatism. Both begin with a hardheaded acceptance of reality as it is given to us, both value transparency and individual accountability, and both emphasize disciplined adaptation to constant change, while always maintaining contact with a few governing principles to guide the change management process. And, yes, I am quite aware there may be as many of three of you out there who will understand what I’m talking about.

==

I’m certain Jack Wiley Dithers and his cracker-jack investigative journalism team will make a few contributions. JWD informs me they are now busily intercepting Instant Message (IM) communications sent and received by the hirsute raggedy-ass recycled hippie that has been using the Starbucks store wi-fi ever since OccupyDC has been in town.

The ‘Commentapalooza’ format will make the occasional appearance – because the raw content is so easy to collect systematically. Which means the url signed comments will continue to seed the input. Sorry comment board prudes, the beatings will continue until morale improves.

I’m also considering mounting a comment board invasion on the Leftie and biased MSM sites. This has to be carefully timed, however. While the repartee of a comment board fight is fun for me (yes, I know I am on the extreme edge of this bell curve for conservatives), Lefties are a time-consuming bunch to engage directly. They possess a tireless capacity for circular argument, the non-sequitur, ad-hominem attack, and setting straw men on fire. The overall experience is like chasing a bevy of moonbats with a tennis racket. It’s a good work out largely achieving nothing but the workout itself. But, timed properly, it could change the minds of a few observers, perhaps.

==

What to do after this blogs closes its’ shutters? Well, first and foremost, I fully expect to be celebrating the inauguration of Not-Obama in January 2013. And I still enjoy what I do outside of politics / blogging for compensation. I also enjoy the political blogging, though it remains uncompensated. However, this blog archive will forever stand as a resume bullet on the political blogging side. The question of what to do beginning from 2013 and beyond looks like a nice problem to have to LAS.

ACTION REQUIRED: Style Guide Revision

A post to announce our field operatives have submitted a comment to the Suggestion Box that has been accepted by management.

LibertyAtStake’s Anatomy of the Blogosphere

Or: A Beginner’s Guide to the Blogosphere - From a Certified Beginner

The following words are contained in the song “We’re Not Gonna Take It,” an integral movement in the rock opera “Tommy,” by The Who.

My name is Tommy
And I became aware this year

These words could be the introduction to any number of timely themes for a post today, substituting “Tommy” for any number of people or groups.

• The American people becoming aware of the destructive agenda the Progressive Left has in mind for their country and way of life.

• The Progressive Left, in a panic, as it becomes aware that the American people are becoming aware of their agenda.

• The Democrat Party becoming aware, far too late in the game, it has been hijacked by the Progressive Left.

• The Republican Party becoming aware, perhaps in the nick of time, that principled conservatism is the path to enduring governing majorities.

• Barack Hussein Obama becoming aware, much later in life than most of us, and with far more profound consequences, that voting ‘present’ doesn’t work when you’re supposedly in charge.

• Pollsters becoming aware that if it walks like a Muslim and quacks like a Muslim, a large swath of the public will come to believe their own eyes.

• Team Amnesty, Team Deficit, Team Enviro, and Team Jihad all slowly becoming aware “We’re Not Gonna Take It” anymore.

• Glenn Beck becoming aware he can make money hand over fist by preaching founding principles.

• The criminally biased MSM becoming aware that those patriotic crowds gathering in the in the streets are mainstream America. Oh wait, the time hasn’t quite arrived for that particular theme.

==

This post is not about any of those things (at least not directly). Rather, it is about me becoming aware of a vibrant ecosystem called the blogosphere.

I did not come to it naturally. My own wife of 18 years has labeled me “anti-social.” My own kids have wondered aloud how I could possibly have any friends at all. I have trouble remembering the names of acquaintances and business associates I have not met personally at least three times. Then, if I don’t meet them again for an extended period of time, the cycle repeats. The concept of maintaining a large network of “BFFs” I’ve never actually met is absolutely beyond my comprehension. Trust me, you will not find me on Facebook nor Twitter. And I’m OK with all of that – I am comfortable in my own skin.

On the other hand, a lifetime of professional experience has acquainted me closely with the concept of applying Information Technology to mission directed systems. So, a particular line of thought came easily to me within the past year or so:

• BHO and the Progressives are obviously hell bent on trashing the Constitution ….
• That really pisses me off because I’m a Conservative …
• What can I possibly do about it …
• Well, there’s this TEA Party thing rising up in opposition to BHO and the progressives, maybe I’ll wade into the crowd and check it out ….
• Hmmmm…this TEA Party thing seems quite visceral, but it could possibly use some grounding in the Conservative principles it has tapped into ….
• Well, blogging technology may have matured to the point where it could be possible to reach a lot of these folks with a free blogger utility …
• {Some messing around online}
• Blogspot seems good enough, let’s get started …

==

The first month or so, I felt like Axl Rose's character getting off the bus in the "Welcome to the Jungle" video.




My original design vision for the blog – essentially writing an online book chronicling these intense times – kept me plowing forward. Among other early lessons, I learned how trivial it is to embed videos – so long as the publisher allows it. Seems like a perfectly libertarian model to me – supporting the free flow of information with respect for property rights.

By February my comment board style was taking full shape. The comment board is a place where a guy can have a good opinionated dust up (aka policy argument) without worrying about doing business or breaking bread with the idiot you just called an idiot. Excellent. It’s the Arena. Don’t step into the Arena unless you are prepared to drop the gloves and get dirt and maybe some blood under your fingernails. The really interesting thing is the key to success here is the same key that applies to so much of the rest of life – good humor. The well structured joke at your opponent’s expense is the Arena’s form of “disagreeing without being disagreeable.” Straight up vulgarity remains unpersuasive in the Arena.

I think it was March when I discovered I could use the Feedjit utility to gain some measure of understanding around who was coming to my blog, and use this information to direct my comment board activity to boards that were bringing people to my blog.  I allowed them to do so by signing my comments with my url. Shamelessly whoring my blog? I recall applying that label to the marketing department myself in the past.

For a brief period, I played a little game with Feedjit. Whenever I commented on Huffington Post, within seconds a swarm of HuffPo readers would follow the link to my right wing extremist blog. Then the effect would disappear. It was absolutely unlike any other effect I’ve observed before or since on Feedjit – exactly like a swarm of bees agitated by Dennis the Menace poking at their beehive. Soon my HuffPo account was banned without explanation. Make of this experience what you will. I am bemused by yet another indicator of Looney Left mob mentality.

If the Leftie Astro-Turf Coffee Party is any indication, the Left Wing blogosphere must be a stale and stultifying place to inhabit – with rigid rank hierarchies and top-down driven agendas. It must be a lot like trying to get anything done in any randomly chosen federal bureaucracy.

The right wing blogosphere I inhabit, by contrast, is a loosely knit and eclectic confederation of  individualists gathering together voluntarily. There are the Aggregators and Amplifiers, who keep those of us who are easily distracted on point. The News Analyzers and Policy Opinionators constantly pre-process it all to lend a bit of initial organization. The Humorists keep it entertaining. The Philosophers connect it all to back to founding principles and a roadmap for the future. Bloggers who stay on my blog roll do so because they consistently fill one or more of these roles for me as a reader.

I think I’m settling into a special sub-division of the Philosopher role – the Predictor. I think it fits. I’ve always been opinionated, and never gave too much of a damn what anybody thought of my opinions.

Prediction: 70-12. That’s the November seat turnover count for the House and Senate, respectively. It’s pre-ordained by Newtonian physics, you know.

LibertyAtStake 2010: Mid-Year Review

This blog is the result of one man observing, orienting, and acting.


Observation

The observation phase really encompasses most of my adult life. I’m one of those weird ducks who voluntarily pays close attention to the news, politics, and policy issues - even though it’s not really necessary for me to make a living. Putting me in an even smaller minority (I think), in parallel with this pursuit, I have developed a cohesive political and policy philosophy. It is classic American Conservatism: limited government, free market economics, respect for tradition, and strong (but reluctantly interventionist) national defense. I also have what I would call a “disciplined” libertarian streak on social issues. That means, for example, I’m the “tolerance, sure; acceptance, hell no" guy regarding the gay rights agenda.

In short, I’ve always been that guy you saw yelling at his TV at home, or yelling at his radio on the road - especially when Democrats or so-called “compassionate conservatives” have been in office. It’s been a long 21 years since Ronald Reagan left office.

Therefore, I was perfectly equipped to instantly appreciate the potential of the TEA Party movement, from moment I first saw Rick Santelli’s seminal rant on CNBC. Along the way, I’ve been alternately amused, bemused, and contemptuous of the MSM’s abject incompetence in its reporting on the movement.

I started wading into the crowd, even though I am temperamentally crowd-averse, starting with the Tax Day 2009 rally in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Along the way, I talked to many patriots from around the country at various Capitol Hill rallies. The capstone was the Tax Day 2010 rally, my personal experience with which I chronicled in my 04/12/10 post "Prelude To April 15th" and my 04/16/10 post "April 15: MSM Still Clueless, Party Crashers a No Show."

Orientation

Toward the end of 2009, I resolved to get directly involved in this historic grass roots movement that had real potential to bring the United States back to her Founding principles. The question was “how?” Just schlepping to a meeting in someone else’s family room to write a check for somebody else to disperse wasn’t going to do it for me. I could step up my old game of yelling at the TV and radio, maybe even start yelling at people on the street; but that wouldn’t make much of a difference, except maybe getting me locked up on a public disturbance charge. Running for office, or joining an organization backing someone specific to run for office, all seemed far too quixotic.

I can’t pinpoint when the idea of joining the blogosphere first occurred to me. I do know that when it did, I instantly started thinking about how to design it to be distinctively my own. I came up with the general idea of writing the archive chapter by chapter in a manner that would support it being read front to back cohesively like a book. I don’t think I need to tell you this is a contrarian, maybe even comically absurd, concept given the basic nature of the blog format. On the plus side, it gives me a framework to wrap my head around when I’m writing. This notion of allowing it to read like a book is why the first two posts have the respective titles "Introduction to the Blog" and "Foreword to the Blog."

The thematic framework for the faux “book” was significantly filled in when I wrote the 01/11/2010 post "Contemporary Politics and Newton’s Three Laws of Motion." The spark was a Gallup poll showing the great majority of Americans think of themselves as “conservative.” As this citizenry is now governed by a gang of committed Progressive ideologues, certain political upheavals (yes, indeed, massive Newtonian collisions) are inevitable. This framework also allows me the freedom to make bold predictions no one in the MSM (including Fox) can make for fear of losing professional credibility. I have no such credibility to lose – only credibility to gain as my bold predictions come to pass. For example, I have advanced to openly stating the inevitability of impeachment proceedings during Barack Hussein Obama’s first term. Fox will be the first network to report it to you when it becomes more obvious.

Action

Obviously, the blog itself is the action. The first order of business was to select a tool. My requirements were simple – it needed to be free, and it needed to be low maintenance for me. It needed to be free not only because I had nowhere to expense it, but to emphatically make the point it could thrive with nowhere to expense it. I needed to be low maintenance for me because my primary source of revenue it was not to be. I did what I often do in my professional life: I surveyed the marketplace, measured the sales pitches against my requirements, narrowed the contenders down to a few finalists, put my hands on demos/prototypes for the finalists, picked one and got on with it. I have not been disappointed by my selection of Google’s Blogger service.

I have purposefully avoided monetizing the blog. Not that there’s anything wrong with that (gratuitous Seinfeld reference) – I just don’t want the extra clutter to detract from the blog’s mission. I see that mission as contributing toward informing the great American majority precisely what it is that makes them naturally conservative – so they never, ever, behave so stupidly again as to give both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to the Progressives. iow - So I can yell at my TV and radio less.

In accordance with this mission, the design lines on the blog are intentionally simple – that is, designed to not distract from the dispensing of information. The archive serves as my “book” in progress, Sites That Make Sense to Me links to other various other conservative information sources, The Blog Roll links to various other conservative bloggers, and the Assigned Reading List is for those of you who prefer to be told what to think in a less self-directed format. The spaces in between will contain video and clickable widgets designed to subliminally instill conservative values while remaining entertainmening. I just added the Simple Chart of the Week(ish) – a picture being worth a thousand words, as they say.

Along the way I’ve toyed with the idea of introducing you to a fictional character who is writing the blog. His name is Francis Charles Hamilton. He allows a few close acquaintances to call him “Charlie,” goes by “Charles” with business associates, and insists on “Mr. Hamilton” from everyone else. Mr. Hamilton is aristocratic, eccentric, and idiosyncratic. He blogs from his well-appointed study, surrounded by shelves full of hardbound classics. He has very refined mannerisms, but would bristle at the thought of being considered effeminate. He has distinctly defined tastes. He says things like “I like my cheese white – never yellow, my beer dark, and my women feisty.” He’s the kind of guy that will silently raise a toast of the finest sherry in his study on the election night Obama loses, and then anonymously join the crowd on the subsequent inauguration day for a rousing and invigorating chant of “Barry, You Suck!” For years now, Mr. Hamilton has every so often gone to the downtown bars to pick fights with liberals – for the sport of it. On the few occasions it has escalated to police involvement, Mr. Hamilton’s interactions with the officers have always been cordial and dignified.

I sometimes draw on Mr. Hamilton as my muse when I go troll hunting on the comment boards – for the sport of it. Click on my Random Droppings feature for the raw data.

My 02/11/2010 post "Sparring in the Dark Alleys of American Opinion" documents the process of me wrapping my head around the tactics of the enemy – the Leftist troll. Deception and Diversion are pretty much it in a nutshell.

The next two posts after that document Mr. Hamilton reaching accord with my now favorite comment board haunt – the Daily Caller. I’ve seen obvious trolls come and go on this board. They have been completely ineffective in their mission of moving the debate leftward. On the evening of June 7, I got into it with a Daily Caller regular who may or may not be troll, having the screen name "anniebanannie." Her comments on the Daily Caller are superficially conservative enough. The thing is there seems to be an “anniebanannie” on virtually every board on the Internet, each with a distinctly different profile befitting that particular board. Hmmmmmm, maybe it’s just a really, really, I mean really, popular screen name.

This is why I always sign my comments with my URL, folks. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why some in the blogosphere frown on the practice as bad etiquette. Of course, the very few times I’ve been told directly it was bad etiquette, the person raising the issue was obviously a Leftie and probably a troll. Hmmmmm, maybe sowing confusion around identity serves the larger agenda of the army of Leftist trolls.

Mr. Hamilton is toying with the idea of underwriting a documentary on Leftist Internet trolls, to be produced his precocious young nephew – Jack Wiley Dithers, currently serving as cub reporter with the AP. For the sport of it.

Happy Independence Day, Patriots!

Prelude to April 15

I went camping this weekend. While I was preparing on Friday, Sean Hannity speaking thru the AM radio wavelength made me aware of crashtheteaparty.org. While at the camp site I found time to read an excellent article in the April print edition of the American Spectator by the magazine’s founder, R. Emmett Tyrrell. While driving back, I listened to an audio CD documenting 1967’s Monterey Pop Festival, and the outline for this post clicked in my head.


The light bulb moment (and, believe me, it’s still incandescent for me!) came while I was listening to the closing lines of one of the better Monterey Pop performances – Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit.” We’ll circle back to this data point.


Crashtheteaparty.org

If this latest creation of the subversive Left has its way, TEA Party patriots will be indelibly caricatured as “racists, homophobes, and morons” by means of a dishonest “false flag” operation. (“False Flag” operations are an age old military intelligence tactic for posing as the enemy and doing things under the enemy’s banner to embarrass the enemy). Their game plan is to send operatives into the middle of TEA Party rallies with signs that reinforce the negative stereotypes – these signs will have the predictable garbage on them: swastikas, N-word, explicit endorsements of violence, et cetera.

This morning I poked around their site a bit and had an unexpected reaction after a few minutes – pure mirth at their Internet incompetence.

My first reaction: they forgot to add the “gun toting maniacs” talking point to “racists, homophobes, and morons”; so how thorough can these people be anyway? Then I started to notice a high percentage of, perhaps even a majority of, the postings were by patriots mocking the Party Crashers. So far it looked like the Lefties getting pummeled by their usual lack of appreciation for Free Speech and their usual futile attempts to control speech.

Now for the mirth part. It then became apparent the Party Crashers site had actually been administratively hijacked by patriots possessing the requisite skills, at least for a time. See the screen shots in this post’s footnote documenting the claim. Who the hell are the unionized web developers and web administrators who allowed this to happen? LMAO! If you are so inclined, you can continue to watch this running battle for administrative control, as it will surely rage in the coming days. I earned my Computer Science degree in the mid 80s, so I have no intention of participating directly – but the (presumably) younger Computer Science patriots taking this particular fight to the Lefties get a hearty “shout out” from LibertyAtStake.

However, I have no illusions these Lefties have any intention of abandoning their ideological plans, despite this embarrassment. So - on with the post.


Up from Ideology

R. Emmett Tyrrell’s article in the April 2010 issue of American Spectator (“Up From Ideology”) was, for me, one of those reading experiences that just make you go “yeah, that’s it.”

I’m glad I caught it. Historically, my regular rotation for “right-wing extremist reading” has been National Review and American Spectator. (Sorry, Weekly Standard, you’re good too, but a guy has to make decisions about how to apply his finite resources.) However, given the chaos brought to us lately by BHO and the Progressives, and my related decision to get proactively involved somehow, most of that particular time allocation has been re-allocated to the care and feeding of this blog project.

First, Mr. Tyrrell brilliantly establishes the essence of “conservatism” is to be the non-ideological ideology. We conservatives are grounded in the present, subordinate politics to our normal every day pursuits, and seek to use politics as a corrective mechanism only when those normal every day pursuits are threatened by the present political environment. For example (let’s just say) – if your country is presently ruled by a gang of Progressives driving the economy into the ground, causing your personal economy to crash, and you are therefore unable to afford some or all of the activities that used to make you happy – I’m guessing you might consider activating politically.

I also like how Mr. Tyrrell holds up the French Revolutions as the perfect example of ideologues gone wild. If you felt your life’s mission were to fundamentally transform everything during your lifetime, to achieve some vague utopian agenda, you too might actually consider redefining time itself.

Mr. Tyrrell then gets into the meat of the article with a great short biography of Frank Meyer, one of the leading lights of the 1950’s and 1960’s “New Conservatism” movement, and mentor to (among many others) the great William F. Buckley, Jr. First of all, the description of Mr. Meyer’s drive and work habits makes very clear it is entirely possible to be simultaneously conservative and radical, when circumstances make it necessary. We are presently living in such a time. Mr. Meyer’s great contribution to conservative thinking was called “Fusionism” at the time. “Fusionism” provides the intellectual basis for holding together Social Conservatives and Conservative Libertarians. Fusionism explicitly finds its roots in the limited government philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Fusionism recognizes the ethical values husbanded by social conservatives are the guideposts that keep chaos and anarchy at bay, allowing conservative libertarians to pursue their individual version of happiness in a society ruled by peace. Fusionism essentially tells social conservatives that freedom of religion (meaning no government imposed restrictions) gives them the vehicle to promote ethical values, while allowing conservative libertarians to take what they need and leave the rest (meaning no government endorsement of any of it).


Remember What the Dormouse Said

Now I shall reprint the closing lines to “White Rabbit.” Grace Slick wrote the song making reference to LSD trips and the children’s classic “Alice in Wonderland.” This type of “Through the Looking Glass” type of experience is what we as a nation are now entering politically, beginning in earnest with the April 15 TEA Party rallies.

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen's off with her head
Remember what the dormouse said
“Feed your head, feed your head”

Dedicated Lefties such as the TEA Party Crashers will be hell bent on engaging in whatever strange subterfuge they can conceive to turn the TEA Party uprising on its head. Lefties with provocative signs, designed specifically to be sensationalized by the MSM, will likely be at your TEA Party rally. Fortunately for me (and you) I had a ‘dormouse’ named William F. Buckley (blog archive : ’Baseline Thoughts – Liberty and Me’ : January 2, 2010), who had ‘dormice’ of his own like Frank Meyer. If I learned anything watching Mr. Buckley on ‘Firing Line’ with an impressionable young mind, it was this: best to eviscerate your ideological opponents one-on-one in full documentary view of the camera lens. So, here’s the plan, Patriots.

Rule #1: Bring your easily affordable personal digital recording devices to the April 15 rally.

Rule #2: Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want your family or friends to see uploaded to YouTube. (Leave that to the Lefties).

If you see a Leftie carrying a sign with any of the dead giveaways (swastika, N-word, etc.), make sure they know you are filming them and you are not one of their MSM sympathizers. If you are the non-confrontational type – thank you, you’ve already done enough to get the gears grinding in their paranoid little pinheads.

If, however, you are more confident in your confrontation management skills –

a) Call for documentary backup in the unlikely event MSM is anywhere nearby,

b) Keep rule #2 in mind,

c) Start by politely asking the Leftie to ditch the sign,

d) Follow your own lights based on the opponent’s reaction.


I think it will be buckets of fun. I’ve got a sign to make, hope you enjoyed the read.

 
Footnote: The Battle of Party Crashers Administrative Control
 

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.

Foreword to the Blog

I still have one indelible memory of President Obama’s inauguration. While the “dignitaries” were entering to take their seats, I took notice of Rahm Emanuel’s demeanor. His wide smile as he entered the seating area reminded me of the Cheshire Cat. He held this Cheshire Cat smile while executing a celebratory “low five” hand slap on his way to his seat. His demeanor seemed more suitable for a high school locker room than a solemn constitutional event. Thus were the politics of 2009 kicked off, from my personal perspective.

The Obama administration’s first piece of major legislation came on the economic front – the so-called “Stimulus” bill. I have always felt the most succinctly apt label for this bill was the phrase radio talk personality Monica Crowley coined at the time: “trillion dollar crap sandwich.”

The Obama team allowed the Democratic leadership in Congress to lead the legislative process. As anyone could have predicted for something designed by a partisan committee of the congressional majority party whole - it turned into a gigantic Keynsian spending program. In the end the overall price tag was $787 Billion. The Obama administration told us it was necessary as an emergency measure to create and save jobs in the economy. The official unemployment number stood at 8%. If this is your justification, some of us asked ourselves, why is most of the spending back-loaded into the period 2010-2014? Another question was the burgeoning federal deficit, which was already hovering around $10 Trillion, and which candidate Obama had campaigned on reducing. Remember, the ultimate outcome of the TARP bailout Obama had inherited from Bush was still in doubt, representing another $700 Billion of taxpayer money then at risk of disappearing forever. How is this math supposed to work out - knowing health care reform and cap and trade are in the pipeline?

The sheer irresponsibility of the proposed spending was appalling to many Americans. This immediate spending binge, coupled with a growing awareness of what the administration’s priorities would be - based largely on a stream of news about controversial associations attached to Obama’s staff, appointees, and “czars” - contributed to the rise of the most extraordinary grass roots political movement I have witnessed in my lifetime; the TEA party movement.

I attended the April 15 Washington, DC TEA party in Lafayette park with my wife. There were a few thousand intrepid souls who came out on a bleak, rainy day. But the patriotic spirit was high, very high. All the TEA party patriots I met there were articulate, well-mannered, and driven by principle to exercise their First Amendment rights. Fresh in the news that day was Janet Napolitano’s moronic warning that the biggest threat to American homeland security is homegrown “right wing extremism.” The biggest guffaw my wife and I had that day was when we saw a well-dressed gentleman walking around with a giant home-made sign that had the words “right wing extremist,” and an arrow pointing down to him. We also laughed at the only left-wing counter-protest we saw. It was a few college-age stooges dressed up like the rich guy from Monopoly. I think they were trying to make the point that the TEA party patriots were rich, tools of the rich, or something like that. Mostly they were greeted by the TEA party patriots with the phrase “get a job” and dismissive laughter. I assume the Monopoly men were being paid by ACORN. Their suits looked too perfect. I also assume it was too rainy for anyone else who might have been available on ACORN’s payroll, which explains why the Monopoly men were so lonely. All in all, it was a fun day, really. But I digress.

After “fixing the economy” with passage of the Stimulus bill, President Obama’s other major policy thrusts in 2009 were health care reform, energy, and a complete reversal of Bush administration policies in foreign relations and national security.

Health Care

As an executive, Obama made the same rookie mistake on this initiative he made on Stimulus – that is, he did not guide the process from the White House toward a bi-partisan solution. He instead allowed the Democratic leadership in congress to lead the entire process. By summer it was obviously a wholly partisan process, and worse, it seemed to be on rails headed downhill toward publicly funded socialized medicine. Democratic congressmen on summer break heard about it (to say the least) from their constituents at the Town Hall Meetings. I believe news coverage of the Town Halls – which simultaneously highlighted the power of public activism and the silliness of congressional fecklessness – was the tipping point of 2009. At minimum, it aided the further rise of the TEA party movement, as well as the organization of the 9-12 march on Washington (which I regret having missed).

I did make it to the emergency house call on November 5, conceived by Rep. Michele Bachmann. I spoke to patriots from all over the country; including a grandmother from Missouri whose big concern was the deficit her grandchildren would need to pay off. One personal “free association” moment occurred when I witnessed the grandchildren dashing against a yellow light on Independence Avenue, oblivious to their grandmother chatting up a taxi driver in the middle of the street. A patriot from Texas estimated the November 5 crowd to be 10% of the September 12 crowd; which places the September 12 crowd at maybe 200,000 in my mind. The next morning my wife and I had a huge guffaw over news reports my local congressman had panicked under the pressure of actually witnessing constituents in his office space. He tried to have an old lady arrested for assault (she touched his arm lightly to get his attention). When the house vote came down as close as it did, I thought to myself this train can be derailed.

I also attended the code red emergency senate rally on December 15. This time I took the step of carrying a homemade sign. For the front side, I focused on a recent news report which highlighted the confusion and rush in the administration’s process: “Obama HHS Predicts Insurance Death Spiral. WTF? Kill the Bill!” The back side poked fun at the very idea of the government running anything efficiently; jumping on breaking news of massive H1N1 vaccine recalls: “Big Gov Flu Vaccine? LOL. Big Gov Health Care? SSDD.” I left this sign on the bicycle rack in front of the Russell Senate office building. I fantasized about a swing-vote Senator encountering it, having an epiphany, and giving an historic speech on the floor to kill the bill. I was not surprised when it did not work out that way.

Things were moving fast by November/December. Soon there were reports that the Obama administration was shocked, shocked I tell you, that the official unemployment figure had reached 10%. News was also coming in at a steady rate casting doubt on official White House statistics about “jobs saved or created” by the Stimulus bill. The administration’s response was an empty one day seminar they called the “jobs summit.” The most salient idea that came out of this empty seminar was to raid the TARP funds finally being returned to the American people - for more Keynsian government spending. The bill became known as “Son of Stimulus.” Against all of his liberal instincts, my local congressman voted against the measure, citing the growing federal deficit, already ballooned up to $12 Trillion at the time of the vote. I took this as a ray of hope for the republic.

“Health Care Reform” narrowly passed the Senate along purely partisan lines, despite multiple polls showing the majority of Americans didn’t want it. The final version was written in a rush behind closed doors (so much for campaign promises of “transparency”). In early 2010 it will need to go to conference for final passage. There’s still a chance the Democrats will implode over the abortion issue - if the congressional caucus led by Bart Stupak stands tall on principle and the liberal wing of the party doesn’t come on board with abortion restrictions. We’ll see. If not, it seems likely there will be legal challenges to the constitutionality of the final bill. There has been talk of challenging the special Medicaid treatment afforded to Nebraska and a few other states in the Senate version. I’m not sure how much mileage this constitutional argument actually has - but it certainly highlights the sorry state of affairs on Capitol Hill for all to see (now that’s transparency you can count on). The individual mandate is more clearly unconstitutional under any reasonable interpretation of federalism, and surely overreaches the spirit of the Commerce clause. This issue is now pregnant with the possibility of a constitutional crisis in 2010.

Energy

Similar to the health care debate, this administration showed a willingness to defy public opinion on the question of Global Warming. (I refuse to use the focus group tested new marketing label “Climate Change.”) This administration acts on the belief Global Warming theory presents an existential threat sufficiently dangerous to take measures limiting economic activity – in a deep recession. The House passed a Cap and Trade bill in June. My local congressman unsurprisingly voted in favor, despite my eloquent fax informing him this was the last straw for me.

Then in late November, the Climategate email controversy broke out. It was a beautiful confirmation of everything I had personally concluded since 2007 about Global Warming, mainly from reading books by Dr. Fred Singer and Christopher Horner. I have an indelible memory of a perfectly pithy blog post I ran across in the heat of the debate: “Hurray for this year’s Secret Santa – the Climategate email hackers.”

Despite the legitimate uncertainty Climategate raised about the science underlying Global Warming theory, the Obama administration bored ahead with the UN-sponsored empty seminar on Global Warming in Copenhagen. Predictably the conference broke down; as the world’s kleptocracies were unable to successfully shake down the rich economies, China and India were unwilling to cripple their growing economies for unproven theories, and left wing activists rioted. After witnessing all of this, our President still flew over there to “save the day.” As it turned out, he crashed an eleventh hour meeting China/India/Brazil/S.Africa were trying to have without the US, and came out with an empty “accord” devoid of measurable targets.

Recent news reports suggest some Democratic Senators are calling for President Obama to drop the issue. I doubt he will. He has shown he is an ideologue first and foremost. Such people do not drop their ideas in the face of contradictory facts and developments – at least not without a fight. He even seems willing to unconstitutionally use the EPA to exercise enforcement powers not ratified by the legislative branch. This is possible constitutional crisis #2 for 2010.

The other element of this administration’s energy policy is a set of initiatives they’ve labeled “energy independence.” I can hardly think of a more unreal Orwellian label. In the name of “energy independence” they seek to double down on government investment in “green” sources such as wind and solar - which have failed to become economically viable after a 30+ years of subsidies already! Simultaneously they discourage expanding the nuclear power industry – which is perfectly “green” (i.e. zero emissions of green-house gases), is capable of scaling up to meet national demand (unlike wind and solar), and certainly does reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Then there is the most direct means of reducing dependence on foreign oil – drilling domestically for our own sources of oil and natural gas. While promoting solutions for “energy independence” they must know cannot scale to meet the need, this administration is dead set against domestic drilling for precisely the products we now import. How’s that again? This policy could ultimately have direct implications on national security. The places on Earth that supply us our oil are not exactly our closest friends.

Foreign Relations and National Security

This is the policy area that is most plainly the constitutional responsibility of the executive branch. It is also where we as a nation face the most immediate danger in 2010.

Mr. Obama opened his presidency by declaring Guantanamo bay would be closed by a date certain in 2010 - another rookie mistake. Declaring a measurable goal, for a complex problem, with no idea whatsoever how to attain it - incompetent executive work, plain and simple.

Guantanamo bay was (is) a perfect solution to a sticky problem. What to do with illegal combatants in a global war? Well, we just happen to have this naval base we acquired after the Spanish-American War, on an island 90 miles from the continental US. Perfect. Obama’s first official statement in foreign relations was to declare we would close this perfect solution for a solution to be named later. The solutions so far have included taxpayer-underwritten Bermuda accommodations for several Uighurs, plans to repatriate some number of the 97 Yemeni terrorists back to Yemen, and a plan to move the remaining prisoner population to a facility in Illinois. Obama’s rationale has been the negative image Guantanamo presents to world. How does a replacement prison in Illinois present a less negative image? And can somebody please explain to me how the tradeoff of Illinois for Cuba makes Americans more secure?

He also went on a global apology tour to declare to the world that America would be different under his leadership – more tolerant, or something like that. There was the ‘New Beginning’ speech in Cairo. The Islamic government in Iran was certainly intended to be a partner in this ‘New Beginning’. In response, the mullahs who rule Iran spent all of 2009 thumbing its collective bearded noses at UN demands to halt its nuclear weapons program, and ruthlessly putting down freedom demonstrations by Iranian dissidents.

There was the also the strange bow to the Saudi king. Why would the head of state of the United States of America – a nation founded with the words “We the People” – bow to a monarch? It made no sense. Later in the year, our President bowed to the monarch of Japan. Huh? The best I could come up with is he was trying to obfuscate the earlier bow. It doesn’t matter - bowing to any foreign monarch is never, ever, even remotely appropriate for an American head of state.

Then there was the decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several other 9-11 co-conspirators to New York City for civilian trial, complete with the full array of constitutional rights. These rights have never been extended to illegal foreign combatants in all our national history. The fundamental problem this decision highlights is the current administration’s misguided and dangerously deadly view that Terrorism is a law enforcement issue. The problem with the law enforcement approach is you have to wait for the terrorist act to occur before doing something about it. The eight years of relative safety under the Bush administration were made possible by the war footing it maintained in relation to radical Islamic jihadism. Under a war footing, you can go on the offense –find the enemy where he lives; kill him, or capture and interrogate him. To the extent we are still doing that in Afghanistan it is a good thing. Recent news suggests we will need to be doing more of it in Yemen if we intend to win this war.

On the cusp of 2010, this administration still seems to hold fast to the law enforcement response, despite an extraordinary series of events in 2009 amply demonstrating the will of radical Islamic jihadis to wage war on us. A simple enumeration: the Arkansas recruiting station shooting, Major Hasan’s attack on Fort Hood, the five Northern Virginia men who traveled to Pakistan to volunteer for jihadi service, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted Christmas day airliner bombing.

Even as news now breaks showing Major Hasan and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab both took “spiritual guidance” from the same radical Imam (an American citizen named Anwar al-Awlaki who is operating out of Yemen), this administration cannot bring itself to say the words “radical,” “Islamic”, “terrorist,” and “jihadi” in the same speech; much less the same sentence or phrase. If you can’t speak the enemy’s name, you have no hope of defeating him.

A recent speech by Obama offered tepid words of support for the Iranian dissidents. This may show he is pivoting, however slowly, toward the side of freedom and away from the mullahs in Iranian relations. We’ll see.

I witness the progress made in 2009 by Iran and North Korea in their nuclear weapons programs and it doesn’t take much imagination to worry about the potential for biblical scenarios.

2010 is a dry tinderbox, and our current administration stands by with a blowtorch. I will try to find the time to blog some more as events unfold throughout the year. I definitely expect to meet more patriots at 2010 TEA parties.

Introduction to the Blog

2009 was an extraordinary year, both for me and for my country.

As for me, I was rocked by something that had never happened to me before as an adult. I lost my job. This blog will not be about that personal experience. Losing my job is purely incidental to the birth of this blog. I am, after all, one of many who have recently experienced job loss – perhaps 1 in 5 of all Americans by some measures. I fully expect to land on my feet and anticipate 2010 will be a much better year for me personally. This blog is not about me.

This blog will be my way of organizing my thoughts on the extraordinary and historical American political trends that began in 2009, and seem poised to come to a head in the years 2010 – 2012. I will use it to make occasional postings on the current events of the day, with a particular focus on fitting them into what I consider to be at the core of contemporary American politics – quite simply the popular understanding of Liberty and Constitutional Government.

The events of 2009 gave birth to the idea of maintaining this blog. It is not in my nature to use social networking media, at least not in the way it is typically used. It seems to me the assumptions underpinning everyone tweeting what they had for lunch today might be appealing to extroverts. I am, however, an introvert. I don’t care what you had for lunch today, and it is none of your business what I had for lunch.

However, “web 2.0” technology certainly does afford anybody the possibility of reaching anybody else with information and personal opinion that can affect general opinion. It seems to me this is a powerful modern tool for Liberty and Constitutional Government, and I intend to use it throughout 2010, maybe beyond.