Archive for category National Politics
John Hayward at Human Events has an analysis on the current debate over the federal debt and the debt limit. Put simply, Hayward believes that the huge debt burden carried by our bloated government is an intentional and vital element of maintaining that bloated mass:
High corporate and individual tax rates lead to high unemployment rates. If you suggest reducing those tax rates to spur private-sector growth and lower unemployment, you will be accused of making the debt situation worse. That wouldn’t be very intimidating if the national debt was low. Why not lower those taxes and see if the resulting growth generated more net revenue at the lower rates? Read the rest of this entry »
Tom Robertson at the American Thinker has some suggestions for how the Tea Party might apply its efforts to accomplish its goals:
Now that the midterm elections are over, Tea Party energy is at risk of dissipating due to the lack of a pressing goal to work towards. If the Tea Partiers are going to become a long-term, serious force, they must be willing to tackle serious problems without an immediate payoff like an election, else they risk going home and becoming a flash in the pan. This is exactly what the establishment hopes will happen. Read the rest of this entry »
An executive of the Nevada Branch or ACORN has plead no contest to conspiracy to commit election fraud. From the America Spectator:
ACORN executive Amy Busefink has pleaded “no contest” to conspiracy to commit voter registration fraud in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review-Journal is reporting. Sentencing is set for Jan. 10. Read the rest of this entry »
I haven’t been on top of the blog for a bit, and hence have not gotten around to commenting about the 2010 elections yet. So, here goes.
The election results have been out for a while, so I’ll give them little attention. The Republicans won fairly big, and by a decent margin. The GOP now controls the House and has a good standing of the Senate. The big win was over 600 state legislature seats around the country, meaning that conservatives have had major successes in local campaigns and offices. Since this is where most of the governance should be coming from, this is a good thing.
But what I am interested in is not the office numbers or even conservative/ Tea Party reactions to the elections, but the reactions from the left. I am interested in them because they confirm the hubristic attitude that has been the primary complaint of the Tea Party, and show that the aristocratic elites on the left have opted to continue their pathologically narcissistic politics and ignore just why the people have rejected them. Read the rest of this entry »
President Obama is extremely unpopular right now. The Democrat-dominated congress has the lowest approval rating in decades. And millions of bitter-clingers are attending Tea Party rallies to eagerly support candidates that will oppose the Progressive agenda.
In short, the question is not will the Democrats be solidly defeated in this week’s upcoming election, but how bad will it be?
Well, thanks to the typical efforts of Leftists to manipulate the vote, it won’t be as bad as it should be. With advance voting taking off this year, voter fraud has already become evident. Read the rest of this entry »
Erick Erickson at Red State has some observations on the Left’s inconsistency regarding religious faith: when convenient, faith is a virtue, but also when convenient, it is a failing.
In Missouri they are running an attack on a Republican saying he covered up pedophilia in the Catholic Church.
In Minnesota the Democrats are attacking Catholics full on for not living up to Christ’s teaching to help the poor.
In Kentucky they are attacking Rand Paul for blaspheming Christ or some such nonsense.
But then Erickson latches on to Michael Bennet, a Democratic candidate in Colorado:
Michael Bennet, you see, rejects religion. Yes, he says he believes in God, but he makes clear he does not go to worship, does not believe in organized religion, and does not affiliate with a religion.
And they say the Republicans are running candidates outside the mainstream.
If Bennet is really a favorite of Obama, as Erickson claims, then he will get no love from me. But seriously, does his religious inclination really matter? A lot of Americans claim a belief in God to some degree but do not affiliate with a particular denomination or regularly attend worship services. Are all of these Americans “outside the mainstream”?
The Constitution prohibits a religious test for a reason. Who is to determine what religious beliefs qualify one for public office? Obviously, voters are free to take religious affiliation into consideration when selecting a specific candidate if they choose, but should a politician be chosen based upon political beliefs rather than religious ones? Does it really matter if a candidate is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or even Pagan if that candidate is earnest and consistent in those beliefs and supports the political policies and positions that a given voters wants to see implemented?
So disagree with Bennet on politics, Mr. Erickson. Criticize any political inconsistencies he shows. Highlight any major moral failings that question his abilities to fulfill the duties of office. But please keep in mind that holding vague religious views that are different from your own is not, in itself, a justifiable reason to keep someone out of office. If the strongest argument you have against someone is the fact that he’s agnostic, perhaps you need to find some better reasons to oppose him.
Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy covers the recent dismissal of a lawsuit against the Obamacare mandate by a California District, on the basis of lack of standing:
This decision is at odds with rulings by district courts in Virginia, Michigan, and Florida, all of which concluded that a variety of plaintiffs challenging the mandate — state governments, individuals, employers, and the National Federation of Independent Business — do indeed have standing. Read the rest of this entry »