Pure confirmation that this nation remains very much center-right. Unfortunately, the 20% are now at the wheel and driving our nation off a cliff. (h/t Gateway Pundit)

Nancy Pelousy is on quite the roll the past few days. Yesterday she mustered up her best Orwellian newspeak to claim that letting the Bush tax cuts expire wasn’t a tax increase.

Ah, yes. It’s not a tax cut but ‘eliminating a tax decrease that was there.’ Mmmm….Okay!

Then, yesterday the Speakerette was asked by a CNS News reporter where in the constitution the Congress had the power to force people to by health insurance. Here’s how that went down according to CNS News (h/t Gateway Pundit):

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.

(Click here for the audio of this exchange)

Afterwards, Pelousy’s office justified the mandate by – what else – invoking the Interstate Commerce Clause; liberals’ favorite part of the constitution to pervert and abuse in their undying quest to expand the federal government.

Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

Not too long ago, I posted regarding the constitutionality of healthcare. Embedded in that post was this quote form The Heritage Foundation on this very issue:

Lastly, proponents might argue that national health insurance is part of Congress power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.”  While progressives have often used this clause to expand the federal government, it does not apply especially to the creation of a national health insurance, because to create and engage in commerce is not the same thing as regulating commerce among the several states.

Nobody during the framing generation expected the commerce clause to expand the federal government’s authority to anything relating to or resembling commerce.  James Madison wrote that it is a power “which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.”  The clause was designed to prevent some states from taxing goods that passed through their boundaries as those goods proceeded to market.

In Mark Levin’s book, Men In Black (pp. 131), Mark also highlights how the commerce clause was undermined by the Supreme Court and, in turn, used to expand government.

Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had been free to issue its own currency and set its own tariffs. The purpose of the commerce clause was to promote commerce and trade by breaking down these barriers. But over the years, the Supreme Court has adopted an expansive definition of ‘commerce’ to justify virtually unfettered federal intrusion into the conduct of state and local governments, and to defend the establishment of massive bureaucracies and their imposition of seemingly endless regulations on private enterprise. As a result, the government has become increasingly centralized, and the economy is lurching toward socialism.

In this sense, Pelousy’s views are just symptomatic of years of abuse and wrong-headed decisions. This is the logical end when the clear intent of the constitution has been tossed aside, its limits on federal power ignored and the rights of the individual have been disregarded. And that end result is essentially tyranny.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Now that the Senate Finance Committee has approved its health care bill, it’s a good time to step back and take a look at the long term consequences should its provisions be enacted into law.

The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums. [1] It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.

However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.

Those driving this plan no doubt have good intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough. There were good intentions behind the drive to increase home ownership for lower-income Americans, but forcing financial institutions to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them had terrible unintended consequences. We all felt those consequences during the financial collapse last year. Unintended consequences always result from top-down big government plans like the current health care proposals, and we can’t afford to ignore that fact again.

Sarah Palin, of course, clearly has Presidential aspirations and, in that light, saying the proponents of government-run healthcare have ‘good intentions’ is certainly a diplomatic approach. In fact, I think most Republicans and conservatives have been of the opinion that our leftist friends generally have good intentions but are simply naive or misguided. For most of my adult life I have shared that opinion as well.

However, I can no longer say that I subscribe to such a view. There simply are no good intentions behind socialism. There is only misery, poverty and tyranny. That the leaders of today’s Democratic Party would pursue such an agenda – an agenda that subverts our very constitution I might add – when they are presumably knowledgeable about the history of socialism, let alone the disastrous consequences of socialized medicine in other nations, is the epitome of bad intentions. One who would pursue such an agenda does not have good intentions, but instead has a selfish quest for power and control over our lives.

As such, the days of Republicans and conservatives being kind enough to attribute ‘good intentions’ to the statists and socialists on the left need to cease. We need to begin calling a spade a spade. And we need to begin forthrightly telling our fellow citizens that intentions are only good when they begin and end with unapologetically promoting individual liberty and unbridled capitalism.

It would be a good start if Sarah Palin, the darling of many conservatives and potential 2012 Presidential nominee, would carry this torch and bring this message to the American people instead of - dare I say - trying to ‘put lipstick on a pig.’

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

…my thesis is simple: The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline–or continued ascendancy–is in our hands. 

Which leads to my second proposition: Facing the choice of whether to maintain our dominance or to gradually, deliberately, willingly, and indeed relievedly give it up, we are currently on a course towards the latter. The current liberal ascendancy in the United States–controlling the executive and both houses of Congress, dominating the media and elite culture–has set us on a course for decline. And this is true for both foreign and domestic policies. Indeed, they work synergistically to ensure that outcome.

But the liberal internationalism of today is different. It is not center-left, but left-liberal. And the new left-liberal internationalism goes far beyond its earlier Clintonian incarnation in its distrust of and distaste for American dominance. For what might be called the New Liberalism, the renunciation of power is rooted not in the fear that we are essentially good but subject to the corruptions of power–the old Clintonian view–but rooted in the conviction that America is so intrinsically flawed, so inherently and congenitally sinful that it cannot be trusted with, and does not merit, the possession of overarching world power.

For the New Liberalism, it is not just that power corrupts. It is that America itself is corrupt–in the sense of being deeply flawed, and with the history to prove it. An imperfect union, the theme of Obama’s famous Philadelphia race speech, has been carried to and amplified in his every major foreign-policy address, particularly those delivered on foreign soil. (Not surprisingly, since it earns greater applause over there.)

And because we remain so imperfect a nation, we are in no position to dictate our professed values to others around the world. Demonstrators are shot in the streets of Tehran seeking nothing but freedom, but our president holds his tongue because, he says openly, of our own alleged transgressions towards Iran (presumably involvement in the 1953 coup). Our shortcomings are so grave, and our offenses both domestic and international so serious, that we lack the moral ground on which to justify hegemony.

I would strongly recommend reading the piece in its entirety. It’s a bit lengthy but well worth the time.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

And here is a portion of Speaker Gingrich’s address. The one thing I have always loved about hearing Newt speak is, along with so ably discussing issues of the day, he also brings a historic perspective that few others can. In this portion of the speech the Speaker does just that in describing how George Washington led the revolutionaries to victory. Enjoy!

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Not surprisingly, Congressman Rothman contended that “he believed the power was there.” Of course, liberals tend to see a lot of powers that are not in the document that safeguards our rights and liberties for they simply reject the idea of a limited federal government. In this case, the Congressman (scary enough, a former constitutional law professor) would have us believe the Founders thought it OK for our elected officials to be de facto insurance salesman (Can you say ‘Senator Willie Loman,’ anyone?) Of course, this notion is absurd.

Interestingly enough, our friends at The Heritage Foundation have addressed this very question, debunking Congressman Rothman quite thoroughly.  

We have heard a great deal about the costs and benefits of a “public option” and “single-payer system.”  We have heard about the financial costs—and the other costs—of allowing the government to interfere with matters of life and death.  However, we haven’t heard whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact these plans. What does this say about the status of the Constitution in the minds our policymakers today?  If a concerned citizen asks a proponent of nationalized healthcare to point to the constitutional authority for such a law, he may hear that the “General Welfare” clause, the “Necessary and Proper” clause, or the “Interstate Commerce” clause enables Congress to create national public health insurance to act.

None of these clauses—or any others found in the Constitution—gives Congress the power to create a government healthcare system.

The “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”  This clause is not a grant of power to Congress (as constitutional law professor Gary Lawson has shown). It is a limit to a power given to Congress. It limits the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes.

During the founding, some Anti-Federalists were concerned that this clause “amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.” But James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” explained very clearly that it granted no power to Congress. If the “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power to promote the general welfare, then why specifically list the other powers in Article I, such as the power to establish post offices and post roads, or to coin money? Wouldn’t it be redundant to list them?

In short, as Madison argued, Congress derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes.  Congress can only do so for purposes of common defense or general welfare, in the service of the powers granted to it elsewhere in Article I.

Second, “Necessary and Proper” gives Congress the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.”  Like the general welfare clause, this clause was not a stand-alone grant of power to Congress.  Rather, it authorizes Congress to make laws that are necessary (and also proper) to make the other grants of authority in Article I effectual.

In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance.  One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution.This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started.

Lastly, proponents might argue that national health insurance is part of Congress power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.”  While progressives have often used this clause to expand the federal government, it does not apply especially to the creation of a national health insurance, because to create and engage in commerce is not the same thing as regulating commerce among the several states.

Nobody during the framing generation expected the commerce clause to expand the federal government’s authority to anything relating to or resembling commerce.  James Madison wrote that it is a power “which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.”  The clause was designed to prevent some states from taxing goods that passed through their boundaries as those goods proceeded to market.

In case proponents of government healthcare latch on to another clause, the three clauses above and rest of Constitution are explained in depth in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution .

Of course, most progressive advocates of national health insurance are unconcerned whether the Constitution authorizes such a law when a pseudo-constitutional reasoning to reach the desired result will suffice.  But constitutionalists should not allow such attempts to dismiss the Constitution go unanswered.

Not only should this question not go unanswered, but as we conservatives engage with others on healthcare, it is imperative that we address – not just the specifics of the bill being proposed - but the larger issue at hand: that the nationalization of healthcare represents a direct threat and attack on our individual liberties for it undermines the very document the Founders established to protect those rights. It is the only way we will gain the high ground in the debate and the only way to begin to re-establish the system of limited government the Founders desired and created.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Sexist. Homophobe. Racist.

These are always the default arguments for Leftists bereft of any logical thought and an inability to put forth a coherent counterpoint to conservative views.

However, I have to admit. The one attack that irks me most is being called racist, for nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing. Nor is it true of most people I have conversed with in my life who share similar views. Conservatism, as it were, is a color-blind ideology.

Thus, when someone like Alicia Menendez, daughter of our fair Senator Bob Menendez, pens an article baselessly accusing Republicans of not caring about Latinos I can’t help but be angered. Not just as a conservative, but as an American who wants nothing but prosperity for all citizens.

You see, the real race-baiters are people like Alicia Menendez who do not treat people as individuals. Rather, Menendez prefers to segment us into groups and then pit us against one another; all, of course, with one aim - gaining political power.

For demogogues like Miss Menendez, pointing to the widespread appointments of Hispanics throughout the Bush Administration will not matter. Pointing to the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as the first ever Attorney General, fruitless.

You see, to Miss Menendez, GOPers are anti-Latino if they do not send a representative to a meeting held by the controversial group La Raza; a group that favors open borders and amnesty and consists of Mexicans who believe that the Southwest territory rightfully belongs to Mexico. And, of course, no such current attack is complete without a mention of Sonia Sotomayor.

This inability (or unwillingness) to connect with Latino voters brings back sweet, sweet memories of 2008, when right-wing extremists alienated Hispanics by pulling the GOP rhetoric to the right on immigration. Last fall, the contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination, save John McCain, all declined invitations to a Univision-sponsored presidential debate. Here we are, a year later, and the GOP is still turning down invites.

I’m a progressive Latina—I should be throwing a fiesta, right? Democrats have an opportunity to lock-down the fastest-growing, most brand-loyal group in the country and Republicans aren’t even trying to compete. On paper, it’s great.

But regardless of which party Latino voters show up for on election day, our community needs Democratic and Republican lawmakers to care about our issues the other 364 days of the year. And if the GOP cannot get it together enough to send a high-profile representative to one of the largest gatherings of Latino leaders in the country, what should we expect when comprehensive immigration reform hits the House floor? More of the same rhetoric? Another no-show?

Just as the story of Sonia Sotomayor, a Puerto Rican, overlaps with the story of so many Americans, the concerns of Hispanic-Americans are shared by much of the country. When a community who voted for health care reform, economic revival and comprehensive immigration reform is ignored, we are all ignored.

That’s bad for Latinos, it’s bad for immigrants, and it’s bad for America.

Somehow, I’m sure, Democrat opposition to Miguel Estrada was not ‘anti-Latino’ in Miss Menendez’ mind. Another fact to be ignored in the quest for political power.

All of this would be of little consequence if this tactic were not effective. Unfortunately, all too many Leftists seem to buy into it hook, line and sinker. Ergo, you see vicious comments from her readers such as…

The problem is not that the Republicans don’t care about Latinos. The problem is they consider Latinos to be sub-human law breakers and either dislike or actively hate them.

Its not just Latinos that the GOP hates, they also hate blacks, gays, Arabs, Muslims, Canadians, Europeans (especially the French), Asians, and liberals. Did I leave anyone out? That’s basically the whole world and 70% of America that they hate. GOPers are one sad pathetic, bigoted, racist hate filled group of people.

The republicans and especially those like buchanan, limbaugh, hannity, coulter, and beck firmly believe that white people are superior to people of color – any color. They are terrified of losing their presumed preeminent position and therefore spew anger, hate, and racism. They have not yet come to grips with the declining demographics of the GOP base.

…to name a few.

Miss Menendez, let me tell you this. What is bad for America is not that the GOP doesn’t address La Raza. It’s not that Republicans or conservatives oppose your socialist agenda. What is bad for America is when you accuse fellow Americans of not caring a whit for their brethren, without possibly knowing what is in their hearts. What is bad for America – truly bad for America – is when people like you attempt to stoke the fires of race in order to promote your agenda.  For so doing, you ought to be utterly and unabashedly ashamed of yourself.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

When Sotomayor comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republicans should approach the hearings with the intent to educate the American people on the proper constitutional role and function of a judge; that it is NOT their role to legislate from the bench. This is a debate that is long overdue and Republicans ought to embrace it.

Republicans need to, once and for all, put to bed the ideas put forth by the Left that one’s race, gender or economic circumstances in life have any bearing on one’s qualifications for the Court. They need to explain to the American people that the only role of a judge is to fairly apply the law. Justice, as the old adage goes, ought to be blind.

Republicans might not win the battle over Sotomayor’s appointment, but they should at least strive to win in the court of public opinion by convincing the American people of the destructiveness of the judicial activism and the need to return the the kind of constitutional jurisprudence our Founders desired.

Some may cringe at the thought of having a ‘litmus test’ when it comes to judges. However, there are two areas where Republicans ought to have one. First, any potential judge who has a record of activism (read: legislating from the bench) should automatically be disqualified. Likewise any potential judge who has a record of looking to foreign law in their rulings also should be disqualified.

Senate Republicans, particularly those on the Judiciary Committee, will be under considerable pressure to oppose this nominee and advocate for the positions I have outlined above. I can only hope that they will have the backbone to do so.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude! 

Let’s make no mistake. Colin Powell is an American hero and success story. His accomplishments serving his country are beyond admirable. Unfortunately, his credibility as a Republican is little. He has never run for office and compiled a record of legislative or executive accomplishments. He has not done anything to help the party win elections as far as I can recall. When he was Secretary of State under ‘W’ he was known more for being a voice of opposition in the administration. But now somehow we should listen to him when it comes to rebuilding our party?

For argument’s sake, let’s accept Powell’s premise. RINOs like Powell like to use rhetoric about expanding the party’s base and being a big tent. Shouldn’t they then be asked to provide us with a plan on how to do so? However, they NEVER say what they mean by that. They never lay out a road map for it.

Shouldn’t RINOs also then be asked to provide evidence that moderating the party’s stances will actually be effective and also be able to point to the successes of moderates in the party? This, too, never occurs.

Powell points to his previous votes for Republican candidates over the years. That may be well and good. But as in the world of sports, one has to ask “what have you done for me lately?” Last time I checked, Colin Powell was endorsing and voting for a Democrat for President. Can someone please tell me how this helps build the Republican Party? Couple this with Powell’s unfounded criticism of the party moving too far right and, in my mind, he has undermined any credibility he has as a Republican.

John McCain represented the EXACT kind of candidate Powell suggests the party needs and he publicly shunned him in favor of the most left-wing candidate in the nation’s history. Party building indeed.

RINOs, of course, also love to castigate conservatives and marginalize them as being divisive. Former Homeland Security chief and Pennsylvania Governor, Tom Ridge, took this page out of the RINO playbook today saying about Rush Limbaugh: 

“I think Rush articulates his point of view in ways that offend very many,” Ridge said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“It’s a matter of language and a matter of how you use words. It does get the base all fired up and he’s got a strong following. But personally, if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourselves but let’s respect others opinions and let’s not be divisive.”

You see, it also helps to build the party by attacking the base. Yet, on the other hand, RINOs never seem to have a bad word for their liberal opponents, do they?

As a result, it is hard for conservatives to see the message coming from the moderate wing of the party that we need to “reach out” to really mean that we should “sell out.” What they really mean is that Republicans should act more like Democrats – NOT that we need to do a better job of explaining why Republican principles and ideas are better. If Powell were a real Republican, he would have stood up and said last fall that Barack Obama was smart and articulate but just had the wrong ideas for America; then threw his support behind John McCain. But that he did not do.

So, the burden is on the RINOs and moderates to show the rest of us evidence that they are right because, quite frankly, up until now I have not seen it. However, what I have seen is that when the Republican Party has had its greatest successes, it has been boldly conservative; like it was under Ronald Reagan and, again, in 1994 with the Contract with America. Being boldly conservative, Mr. Powell and Mr. Ridge, is what the Republican Party needs to do to win elections; not watering the party down and turning it into a bad replica of the Democrat’s.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!