Garden State Patriot

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court presents Republicans with a huge opportunity. Sotomayor represents the typical, very left-wing jurist Republicans and conservatives have decried over the years. A nominee who has a record and philosophy of activism, with public statements to back it up (for more on Sotomayor’s record, you can check out Michelle Malkin’s write-up)

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! 

Colin Powell appeared on Face the Nation today and, among other things, reacted to comments made last week by Dick Cheney while, typically, calling for expanding the party’s base. Here is the interview in full.

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.

(more…)

Yesterday, the newly formed National Council for a New America (NCNA) held its first conference. The meeting consisted of numerous prominent Republicans including Mitt Romney, House Whip Eric Cantor and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Richard Ross reported here on CWA! last week regarding this effort aimed at ‘rebranding’ the party and ‘updating’ its message.

After the meeting, though, Jeb Bush had this to say:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it’s time for the Republican Party to give up its “nostalgia” for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.

“You can’t beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don’t like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that,” Mr. Bush said.

The former president’s brother, often mentioned as a potential candidate in 2012, said President Obama’s message of hope and change during the 2008 campaign clearly resonated with Americans.

“So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging. I mean, it’s great, but it doesn’t draw people toward your cause,” Mr. Bush said.

Now, I understand to some extent what Jeb is saying. The party can not rely on nostalgia alone to win elections. This is true. But the problem has not been that the party has done this. The problem is we are no longer the party of Reagan. We haven’t been the party of Reagan, arguably, since Bill Clinton used the government shutdown to kill very bit of momentum built up by the 1994 victories.

And the drift away from Reaganism started before 1994 with Jeb’s dad. The minute Bush #41 took over he left Reaganism behind by supporting tax increases and employing a softer tone - think “thousand points of light” and a “kindler, gentler America.”

The 1994 elections certainly signaled a step back towards Reaganism. For about 4 years we saw the kind of vision Reagan had for America being implemented by Republicans in Congress led by Newt Gingrich and the ‘Contract with America.’. Tax cuts, balanced budgets and returning power back to the states were several of the hallmarks of this movement.

When George W. Bush came onto the scene and announced his candidacy for the Presidency, you may remember many in the media saying that he was more conservative than his father. In retrospect, “W” was only slightly to the right of his father. As they say, the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree. In fact, “W’s” use of the term “compassionate conservatism” drew the ire of conservatives even back in during the 2000 campaign. 

George W. Bush, of course, ultimately did not govern completely like Reagan. “W” was indeed a proponent of a strong, tough foreign policy in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but his domestic agenda was hardly Reagan-esque save tax cuts. “W” sanctioned excess spending and inexplicably signed into law the prescription drug benefit entitlement. He also promoted and signed into law No Child Left Behind which only increased intervention of the federal government in the area of education, rather than devolving that power to the states. On illegal immigration, “W” also was right there with the pro-amnesty crowd until conservatives put a stop to it (amnesty did occur under Reagan but he would later say that it was a mistake).

So, to some extent I do agree with Jeb. The party does need to update its message. But it should do so by taking the principles of Reaganism and applying them in a personal and relevant way to the problems the nation faces today.

The approach, though, that needs to be tossed in the trash and be forgotten is the “Bush” approach for it is the one that has crippled the Republican Party.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Many of you may know Jonathan Hoenig from his Fox News appearances. Well Jonathan gave a terrific, spot-on address at one of the tea parties yesterday. Here it is in its entirety. Read it and pass it on.

The Collectivist Threat and Capitalist Promise By Jonathan Hoenig  Delivered at Chicago’s Tax Day Tea Party Protest , April 15, 2009 Federal Plaza, Chicago IL 

What an honor to be with you today!  I’m the finance guy here, so let me clue you in on some truly frightening numbers.  The US Government has pledged, promised or spent an unfathomable amount of your money over the last year.  The total amount, as calculated by Bloomberg, is over $12.8 trillion dollars, which amounts to $42,105 for every man, woman and child living in America today.  

It is 14 times the total amount of currency in circulation and approaches the entire GDP for 2008.  It’s enough to pay off every home mortgage in the country and still have two trillion to spare.  To put it in perspective, twelve trillion is the number twelve followed by twelve zeros.  
 
To those who solely blame President Obama, remember that it was the Bush administration that expanded the federal budget by $1 trillion, passed the disastrous Sarbanes Oxley regulation and the Medicare Prescription Drug Program.   Bush added more than $4 trillion to the national debt, a 70% increase. 
 

It was Bush’s administration who got the entire bailout orgy started.  You might recall him telling CNN that “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system”.  If that’s not doublespeak, I don’t know what is.

But today’s protests, being held in over 500 cities nationwide, aren’t simply about taxes, rather the philosophy behind those taxes.

It has been described as socialism, fascism or communism.  In various contexts, all are true, but let’s refine it.  From loans to the automakers to the bailouts for the banks, the taxation, spending and control, the primary philosophy that’s powering the country now is collectivism. 

Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights.  Your life and the product of your labor now belongs to the group.  If the group wants a bailout, heath care, green cars, low mortgage rates, a job, an education – anything at all, it now becomes your responsibility to provide it, whether you want to or not. 
 
You see it in taxes that take money from people who’ve earned it and give it to those who have not.  You see it in the language itself.  Phrases like “we’re all in it together”, “I am my brother’s keeper” and “shared sacrifice” all speak to the same idea: you are here to serve.  And unlike charity of volunteerism, the “will of the people” is implemented by force, not by voluntary trade. 

This is a profoundly un-American ideal.  From the original Boston Tea Party came the Declaration of Independence which put forth the morality of individual rights.  In this country, you are born free, not with a duty to serve the King but with a moral right to live your own life.  “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” refers to your life, your liberty and your happiness.  You do not owe society a thing.   

For socialists, collectivists, and others who support a high tax, high spending, government controlled economy, sacrifice is an absolute.  You’re expected to sacrifice for your neighbor, your government, for AIG or Citigroup, or deadbeat homeowners or poorly run municipalities, whomever the geniuses in Washington decide deserves your money.  

This is wrong.  The Founding Father’s view of government was that its scope was limited and clearly defined.  

Is the purpose of government to own and run a car company?  An insurance firm?  A bank?  A mortgage company?  Of course not.   We’ve become one of the state-owned basket case European economies we used to make fun of in this country.   

This country was the once land of “rugged individualism.”

“Individualism” is a term you might hear a lot.  Fundamentally, what it means is that the individual, not the group, is what is important and valuable. Individuals have rights, groups do not, because groups after all, are only collections of individuals.   

You want to help a needy deserving homeowner?  Fine.  Write them a check.  Charity is a perfectly legitimate thing — but government doesn’t own you, nor does your neighbor, the needy, the children or anybody else.  In America, there are no masters, there are no slaves.  

In recent decades, and certainly over the past year, we’ve moved away from rugged individualism and toward a collectivist society that forces everyone to sacrifice for the group.

In a political context, individual rights means free market capitalism.  AIG never cost me a dime until Tim Geithner put my hard earned savings into it.  The financial crisis can be directly traced not from capitalism, but from a collectivist, interventionist government.  The Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac,  Fannie Mae, the Community Reinvestment Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, not to mention the $12 trillion bailout and stimulus efforts are not mechanisms of the free market.   

Tax Day Tea Party Protests are rallies against taxes, yes, but even more so against collectivism, that immoral notion your life, your energy, your wealth are Washington’s property.

Look around at this incredible city.  It wasn’t a bailout that created the most prosperous country in the history of human civilization, but a society that limited the role of government and protected the individual rights of each citizen to live his own life. 

A return to that philosophy is our only hope. 
 
Jonathan Hoenig is managing member at Capitalistpig Hedge Fund LLC 

A little education for my readers. Here is a video explaining our true form of government. Should be required viewing for every American citizen. (h/t Justified Right blog)

While I’m on this subject, I should give a mention regarding Mark Levin’s new book, Liberty and Tyranny – A Conservative Manifesto. Just released this week, the book is selling like crazy (#1 already on Amazon.com) and is surely a must-read.

At a time when so many of our fellow citizens seemingly ignorant of the foundations of our democracy, and so willing to surrender their freedoms to an authoritarian central government, Mark’s book couldn’t come at a more appropriate time.

Here’s an excerpt of American Thinker’s review of Mark’s book.

Mark Levin’s new book, published today, is essential reading. It is a remarkable work on several different levels. It takes no degree of clairvoyance to predict that it will become an enormous best seller and very soon begin to influence the national political debate.

Liberty and Tyranny artfully presents a harmonious marriage of the timeless with the timely. On the one hand, the book is a thorough yet compact briefing on the major political issues of this era. On the other hand, the author brings to bear the principles of the American Founders and Framers of the Constitution (and the great thinkers who guided them), illustrating, dissecting, and explaining our current political arguments, while enlightening the reader with the genuine wisdom bequeathed to all of us — the sacred trust of the Founders, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and Federalist Papers, all of which are quoted and applied with insight and precision.

All in all, this is essential reading for every American.

In case you missed it, at last week’s CPAC conference, 14 year old Jonathan Krohn gave an address on the meaning of conservatism. Jonathan explains it better than many of our elected officials and so-called leaders. He has even written a book on the subject called ”Define Conservatism.” In a word: impressive.

And for more on Jonathan, check out this article from the New York Times.

Listen here as CNN liberal dweeb pundit, Bill Schneider, mischaracterizes Rush’s speech as “angry” while bringing back the pejorative phrase “angry white men.”

Sorry, I’m sick of these arrogant, condescending jerks in the MSM.

Rush Limbaugh delivered the final address at CPAC yesterday. In typical Rush fashion, he compellingly and wittingly made the case for conservatism and standing for our Founding principles - and railed against the Big Government, fascist agenda of Barack Obama and his cohorts. If you haven’t yet seen it, you should.

The speech ran over an hour so I am posting just the first installment. Links to the remaining parts can be found below.

Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10

Rep. Boehner gave an excellent speech at CPAC and pulled no punches – warning about the path to ’socialism’ the Democrats are leading us down.

Part 2 contains the meatiest part of the speech. To see the entire speech, here are the links for Part 1 and Part 3.

That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild.  It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing.  For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? -Alexis de Tocqueville

I came across an interesting pair of articles by Michael Ledeeen. Ledeen’s thesis is that we are currently on a road to fascism - not socialism. I find his argument compelling.

Indeed, the real issue in my mind with the Scheme-ulous bill is one of liberty and the proper role of government. Certainly, the economic aspects of this incredible transfer of wealth are extremely troubling. But money is in essence a means to an end; it’s a means to our freedom and liberty; a means to find our own course in our own unique pursuit of happiness. Above all else, this confiscation of wealth which we have just witnessed is a direct assault on that liberty. Its aim is to empower government and wrest away our ability to control our own destiny.

Of course, for us as a nation to have arrived at this point has required a slow, gradual erosion of freedom. It requires a populace who has not resisted, but who has embraced, the notion that government is merely implementing policies which are in our own best interests. As Tocqueville points out, this is exactly what will undermine our democracy. 

He foresees a slow death of freedom.  The power of the centralized government will gradually expand, meddling in every area of our lives until, like a lobster in a slowly heated pot, we are cooked without ever realizing what has happened.  The ultimate horror of Tocqueville’s vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it.

I highly recommend reading Mr. Ledeen’s tandem of articles. Perhaps, it will open some eyes. (h/t Little Green Footballs)

1. We’re All Fascists Now
2. We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!