Parker County Blog

The GOP Race Gets Messy

parkercountyblog — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:13:48 +0000

Mitt Romney speaks in Grand Junction, Colo., February 6, 2012.

From NationalReviewOnline, By Jonah Goldberg, February 10, 2012 -

Okay, I give up.

About a week ago, I wrote a column

Jonah Goldberg

making a case for Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee. My argument was aimed at fellow conservatives who just can’t get their minds — or at least their hearts — around a Romney candidacy. The details aren’t important right now (and they’re easy enough to find with the interwebs these days).

The reason I wrote the column in the first place was that I felt the cold steel barrel of reality’s revolver pressing up against the back of my head, saying “write it.”

Romney’s going to be the nominee. He’s vastly preferable to Obama. If he’s the inevitable nominee, then better for conservatives to make peace with the idea.

And then, lo and behold, Rick Santorum bursts into the motel room, knocks the gun from reality’s hands and puts reality in a chokehold. “Not so fast.”

Even if Romney becomes the nominee, it’s difficult to exaggerate the significance of Santorum’s trifecta this week in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. In 2008, Romney won Minnesota by a mile (if you define a mile as 19 percentage points), winning more than half the counties. On Tuesday, he lost every county and came in third place. In Missouri, he lost every county, and Santorum won every county. In Colorado, where Romney was the heavy favorite, he lost by 5 percentage points, 40- 35. In 2008, Romney won Colorado with 60 percent of the vote; he won 56 counties out of 64. On Tuesday, he captured a mere 16 counties in Colorado.

The lamentations of Team Romney count for little. They prattle about low turnout, as if the “front-runner’s” failure to excite the base is an asset. They mutter that these were beauty contests and non-binding votes where no delegates were awarded.

True enough. But no delegates were awarded in the Iowa Caucuses either. Romney seemed to think those mattered. More important, these three states offered a huge referendum on Romney, and the crowd rose up to say, “Meh.”

Team Santorum understandably wants everyone to believe that this was a huge endorsement of their guy’s message and candidacy. “I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” Santorum proclaimed Tuesday night in Missouri. “I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”

I’m sure he’s sincere. Indeed, that’s one of the things people genuinely admire about Santorum: He doesn’t need to fake his sincerity about anything.

But I don’t really buy it. The single biggest factor in this campaign remains the fact that the base of the GOPis uncomfortable with Romney and refuses to believe that it can’t do better than the guy who invented Romneycare and talks to conservatives like he’s reading from a right-wing Berlitz phrasebook. He rails about “Washington politicians” –— which looks great on paper but sounds somewhat ridiculous coming from Romney, given that he seems more like a Washington politician than any of the Republican opponents left in the field.

The irony is that, in a weird way, Santorum has many of the same problems Romney has. Superficially, he looks like an anti-Romney when it comes to personality. Romney often sounds like HAL refusing to open the pod-bay doors in 2001: A Space Odyssey, while Santorum overflows with passion and emotion.

But simply having an authentic personally doesn’t necessarily mean you have a presidential one. All too often, Santorum looks like he has a thumbtack in his shoe that he presses down on to fool the polygraph. He can be dour and resentful.

Likewise, on substance, if you were going to design a GOP candidate to fit the moment, it wouldn’t be Santorum. The difference between him and George W. Bush: Santorum’s deadly serious about compassionate conservatism. He is honestly and forthrightly committed to using government to realize his moral vision for America. That’s his prerogative, and he has many good (and some very bad) arguments on his side.

But, suffice it to say, he is not the one the tea partiers have been waiting for.

Now, the race is just a mess. I feel like the revolver in reality’s hand is full of blanks, and anyone who thinks they know what happens next is stabbing in the dark. I could live with either man being the nominee. And while I would happily vote for either in a contest against Obama, I honestly have no idea who would be more electable. Frankly, I find the prospect of any of them becoming the nominee worrisome and hard to imagine. A brokered convention seems ever more plausible –— and desirable.

______________________________

Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of the forthcoming book The Tyranny of Clichés. You can write to him by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

What a Big Government Conservative Looks Like

parkercountyblog — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:40:54 +0000

From RedState.com, by Erick Erickson, January 9, 2012 - I’m rather tired of all the people who don’t like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative, or not a pro-life statist. I would support him before I would support Romney too, but I have no intention of giving up ideological and intellectual consistency in the name of beating Mitt Romney.

Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state.

In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.

Suddenly we’re all forgetting what a big government conservatism is. The term was coined by Fred Barnes in defense of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservative” agenda. Bush intended to use domestic social welfare policy for conservative ends. In the process, he expanded the welfare state to do so through No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, etc. Rick Santorum was a willing participant in this.

Santorum is a conservative. He is. But his conservatism is largely defined by his social positions and the ends to which government would be deployed. But he has chosen as the means to those conservative ends bigger government. We see big government conservatives most clearly when they deviate from the tireless efforts of people like Mike Pence and Jim DeMint and the others who were willing to oppose George W. Bush’s expansion of the welfare state. Rick Santorum was not among them.

I and some friends, none of us Romney fans, have set about exploring Santorum’s record since Wednesday morning. Here now is a non-exhaustive list of what we have found. It does not even include his support for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, debt ceiling increases, funding the bridge to nowhere, refusing to redirect earmark allocations to disaster relief along the Gulf Coast post Katrina, etc.

This is not the record of a man committed to scaling back the welfare state or the nanny state. Had he been up for re-election in 2010 instead of 2006, this is the record of a man who the tea party movement would have primaried. The only real justification for supporting him now is he is not Mitt Romney, but I still believe we can do better.

Consider, if you will, this contrast. Ronald Reagan said, “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom.” Rick Santorum, in 2008, said, “This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.” I can handle Santorum’s view of social conservatism and the need for cultural integrity. But he goes off the rails when he blends it with a version of fiscal conservatism that is anything but conservative and which fuels the government leviathan that, as it expands, takes away core freedoms and is run by entrenched progressive civil servants who are anything but conservative.

Rick Santorum’s voting record reflects his rejection of small government.

See for yourself.

NEA

Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.

Bankruptcy

Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Defense and Foreign Policy

Voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

Voted against requiring the President to certify that the CWC is effectively verifiable.

Voted against requiring the President to certify that that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, and all other countries determined to be state sponsors of terror have joined CWC prior to submitting the instrument of ratification.

Voted for the START II Treaty.

Voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.

Voted to ban antipersonnel landmines.

Voted against increasing defense spending offset by equivalent cuts in non-defense spending.

Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same payraises as uniformed military.

Voted to allow food and medicine sales to state sponsors of terror and tyranical regimes such as Libya and Cuba.

Voted to limit the President’s authority to impose sanctions on nations for reasons of national security unless the sanctions were approved by a multilateral regime.

Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia.

Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea.

Voted to weaken alien terrorist deportation provisions. If the Court determines that the evidence must be withheld for national security reasons, the Justice Department must still provide a summary of the evidence sufficient for the alien terrorist to mount a defense against deportation.

Voted against delaying the India Nuclear until the President certified that India had agreed to suspend military-to-military exchanges with Iran.

Voted against the Conventional Trident Missile Program.

Nominations

Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture).

Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge.

Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN.

Voted for Margaret Morrow to be District Judge.

Voted twice for Marsha Berzon to the 9thg Circuit.

Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge.

Voted for Tim Dyk to be District Judge.

Voted for James Brady to be District Judge.

Labor

Voted against National Right to Work Act.

Voted against Repeal of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages.

Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor.

Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding.

Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance.

Voted for Job Corps funding.

Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization.

Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.

Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here

Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.

Voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws.

Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.

Guns

Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.

Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device.

Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18.

Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.

Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.

Reform

Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.

Voted twice for a Congressional payraise.

Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapits, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.

Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.

Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians.

Voted for a McCain amendment to require State and local campaign committees to report all campaign contributions to the FEC and to require all campaign contributions to be reported to the FEC within 24 hours within 90 days of an election.

Immigration

Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators.

Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens.

Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.

Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to to the earnings of their sponsors.

Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border partrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.

Taxes

Voted against a flat tax.

Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs.

Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.

Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.

Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.

Voted twice for internet taxes.

Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.

Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.

Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.

Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.

Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.

Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.

Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.

Welfare

Voted against food stamp reform.

Voted against Medicaid reform.

Voted against TANF reform.

Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion.

Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.

Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

Waste

Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million.

Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA).

Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion.

Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.

Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million.

Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL).

Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry.

Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation.

Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.

Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%.

Voted against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.

Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.

Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.

Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

Spending and Entitlements

Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.

Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.

Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.

Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.

Health Care

Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.

Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.

Voted against a allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

Education

Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing.

Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.

Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.

Energy

Voted to allow the President to designate certain sites as interim nuclear waste storage sites in the event that he determines that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent waste repository. Those sites are as follows: the nuclear waste site in Hanford, Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; Barnwell County, South Carolina; and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.

Voted to make fuel price gouging a Federal crime.

Obama ‘taking Iran’s side’ on damages from ’83 bombing that killed 241 Marines

parkercountyblog — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:41:13 +0000

From WorldTribune.com, January 31st, 2012 | Posted by admin -

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, in a bid to reconcile with the
Teheran regime, has blocked legislation that would hold Iran accountable for the Hizbullah bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1983.

A survivors group has asserted that the administration is pressuring Democrats in Congress not to support a bill that would enforce massive judgements against Iran by the families of the Marines. In 2007, a U.S.
federal district court judge found Iran liable for the Beirut bombing and ordered Teheran to pay $2.65 billion in damages.

A U.S. Marine searches the rubble on Oct. 31, 1983, after an Oct. 23 attack on the headquarters of the U.S. troops of the multinational force in Beirut, Lebanon. In twin attacks on U.S. and French military installations, suicide bombers driving trucks killed 299 French and Americans, including 241 U.S. service members.

“This administration talks a lot about sanctions, but we know Iran is watching this case closely and, astonishingly, Obama’s people are taking Iran’s side,” Lynn Smith Derbyshire, a lobbyist for the legislation, said.

Ms. Derbyshire, whose brother Marine Capt. Vincent Smith was killed in the 1983 bombing, said survivors and their families were urging Congress to support amendments to the Iran Sanctions Bill, scheduled for mark-up in the Senate Banking Committee on Feb. 2.

But they said committee members were being pressed by the White House not to vote for amendments that would hold Teheran responsible for the 1983 attack and transfer the $2.65 billion awarded in 2007. The Iran Sanctions Bill would enable U.S. sanctions on foreign companies that purchase or ship oil through the Iranian government or sell telecommunications equipment to Teheran.

“We have petitioned Congress to prevent the government of the Islamic republic of Iran from avoiding its obligations to pay judgments awarded to past and future victims and survivors of Iranian terrorism,” Ms. Derbyshire said on Jan. 30. “We’ve spoken with many sympathetic members of Congress but

they won’t act while this administration is blocking what we and the American people know is right.” Over the last decade, the families of Iranian-sponsored attacks have won billions of dollars in suits against the Teheran regime. But the federal government, particularly the State Department, has blocked access to Iranian assets or funds in the United States.

Ms. Derbyshire said she represents more than 1,000 families across the United States in the campaign to target Teheran and its finances. The group has also lobbied Congress to strengthen the U.S. law that bans Iran from laundering money in the United States to finance Hizbullah and other insurgency proxies.

“We can show that international banks have moved billions of dollars of funds from Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank, through banks in the U.S.,”

Ms. Derbyshire said. “So far that money has been untouchable. We believe that is wrong. We are confident that most Americans would agree. Yet, the Obama administration is thwarting our efforts.”

Who Would Jesus Tax?

parkercountyblog — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:19:12 +0000

Doug Giles

From TownHall.com, by Doug Giles, February 5, 2011 - This past Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama said that his Christian faith crafts his domestic policies—particularly his desire to rob from the rich and give to the poor. In my humble opinion, I think the president is getting Jesus and His disciples confused with Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

I don’t know which White House wizard crafted that speech for him, but the verse he or she gave to our Spender in Chief to back his socialism was more twisted out of joint than a Gumby doll being worked over by a frustrated Gary Busey.

I can’t believe that hot coffee didn’t spew from hundreds of Christians’ mouths when Obama took a text that refers directly to believers’ judgment and contorted it to be interpreted as a ratcheted-up government imposed higher tax rate upon those who already bear the brunt of the tax burden.

From a theological standpoint it appears as if the president takes more of an eisegetical approach to Luke 12:48 than and exegetical one—which is convenient. But who are we to judge? Judge not.

Now … before I plow on with the topic of Obama’s Christian faith influencing his policies, I thought that in our current culture of sassy secularism elected officials, especially the president, are forbidden to merge biblical beliefs and public policy. Hell, GW couldn’t even tell Cheney “God bless ya” after Dick phlegmed his tie without Media Matters, Maddow and Matthews calling him a theocratic dominionist Nazi who was violating the Establishment Clause and who, left to his own devices, would be hanging homosexuals and burning Harry Potter books. Does Obama get a pass when he parlays his faith-based policies? Shucks … that ain’t fair, is it MSNBC?

I wish Christianity did influence Obama’s politics; if it truly did then there would be an end to abortion, bearing false witness, and obtrusive government and would allow for more liberty than ever before. In addition:

• The entitlement mentality would be history;

• We’d yield up a solid Protestant work ethic;

• We’d enforce a tougher immigration policy;

• Our military would be stronger;

• We’d have a balanced budget;

• We’d see a decrease in national debt and an end to prodigal spending;

• We’d have a defense of traditional marriage;

• And we’d revisit worshipping God rather than feckless humans and their stilted and stymied worldviews.

Lastly, with just a cursory glance at the gospels, the honest reader will note that Christ Jesus never commanded Caesar or Herod to collect taxes in order to take care of the poor. He told his disciples to give to the needy, of their own volition, as worship to God and in service to mankind, and only—only—when it’s done by these means and motivations is it deemed virtuous and Christian.

Oh, and by the way, the Scripture has a lot to say about taxes. Progressives might want to put on a cup before they click this hyperlink to see what “God” thinks about Obama’s tax plan.

Amen.

___________________________________

Doug Giles is the author of Raising Righteous & Rowdy Girls. Follow him on Twitter @Doug_Giles and on Facebook. You can see and hear Doug’s video blog and talk show at ClashRadio.com.

Ron Paul’s House record marked by bold strokes, and futility

parkercountyblog — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:45:01 +0000

From WashingtonPost.com, By David A. Fahrenthold, December 26, 2011 -

The passage of H.R. 2121, in fall 2009, unfolded without drama. It allowed for the sale of a customhouse in Galveston, Tex. The House debate took two minutes, and the vote took eight seconds. The ayes had it. But something historic was happening. On his 482nd try, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) had authored a bill that would become law.

Paul has become a surprising force in the Republican presidential race, promising to use “the bully pulpit of the presidency” to demand deep cutbacks across government. But Paul has had only limited success using his current pulpit — a seat in Congress — to rally lawmakers behind his ideas.

Of the 620 measures that Paul has sponsored, just four have made it to a vote on the House floor. Only that one has been signed into law.

House colleagues say the genial Paul has often shown little interest in the laborious one-on-one lobbying required to build a coalition behind his ideas. This year, for instance, Paul has sponsored 47 bills, including measures to withdraw from the United Nations, repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones and let private groups coin their own money.

None has moved, and 32 have failed to attract a single co-sponsor.

“He’s somewhat of an introvert [and] a little quirky, so he doesn’t work the legislative process like most do,” said former congressman Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), who served with Paul from 1997 to 2010. But Wamp said Paul, as president, might succeed where Paul the legislator had not.

“When you’re president, they can’t just ignore you,” Wamp said. “Because you have a mandate.”

Rejection as a constant

In Congress, failure is often the norm: Many legislators file bills only to please some hometown constituency or to publicize their ideas. Most bills go nowhere, especially if their sponsor is not a powerful committee or subcommittee boss.

The other current legislator in the GOP race, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), has introduced 45 bills in her five-year-old career without one passing both houses.

During Paul’s years in office, only 4 percent of the more than 69,000 bills filed by House members have become law.

But Paul’s record stands out for its futility. His lifetime success rate: about 0.2 percent.

“This is an indication of Ron’s strength of leadership. He has had the courage to stand alone and to fight for principle, ignoring the pressure to sell out,” Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign chairman, said in a written statement. Benton said these failures were not proof that Paul, as president, would struggle to get his ideas passed through Congress.

“Now, the American people are demanding his principled Constitutionalism that will bring together broad coalitions from across party lines,” Benton said.

Paul, 76, has served three stints in Congress, covering 11 terms and part of another. His first bill was introduced just 11 days after he arrived on Capitol Hill in 1976. It would have repealed the law that had created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration six years earlier. It didn’t get out of committee.

In the terms that followed, Paul sponsored legislation to abolish the Education Department. He sought to repeal the income tax. He wanted to limit the census to just three questions: name, address and number of people in a household.

These measures also got little traction. The only time Paul got a full House vote for one of his sweeping ideas was in 2001, when he proposed to withdraw from the agreement that created the World Trade Organization. The House voted it down, 363 to 56.

Instead, his success came mainly on small-scale resolutions for Texas causes. In 2006, Paul authored a resolution congratulating NASA on a shuttle flight; it passed both houses unanimously. And in 2009, Paul wrote the bill that sold the Galveston Custom House to a local historical society for use as its headquarters.

Paul’s campaign says its candidate has also won legislative victories by amending bills written by others.

During the fight over the Dodd-Frank financial regulation in 2010, for instance, Paul won a partial victory: A provision was included to require a limited audit of the Federal Reserve’s transactions. The audit was still not as broad as Paul had long insisted.

Benton said that, in that case, Paul had marshaled more than 300 lawmakers behind his idea. “He had some of the most progressive Democrats to some of the most conservative Republicans on the same bill,” Benton said.

But Paul’s House colleagues say they have rarely seen him put forth the kind of sustained lobbying effort necessary to get a big idea passed into law.

Paul “has his ideas and puts them out there. And if people want to get on them, they can,” said Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.). “But I don’t necessarily think that he goes out and works — lobbies for them — like some of the younger guys.”

A quiet approach

For most members of Congress, passing a bill starts with one-on-one lobbying: They look within their party, or their state’s delegation, to build up a large number of co-sponsors. Then a member lobbies the relevant committee chairman to take up the bill, using those co-sponsorships as proof of support.

Other Republicans said Paul takes a more low-key approach. He will seek out a small circle of lawmakers who have supported him on previous issues, and he will let potential allies come to him.

“He has a particular spot on the floor: about four rows up on the middle aisle,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). If you want to be lobbied, Chaffetz said, you walk by, and “he’ll say, ‘Hey, Jason, I want you to look at this.’ ”

That approach has paid limited dividends, even in the current Congress, which is controlled by Paul’s fellow Republicans. Among his 47 new bills, Paul has attracted a very large number of co-sponsors for only one, which demands a full audit of the Fed. It remains bottled up in committee.

His other bills are as ambitious as ever. In H.R. 1098, Paul proposes allowing private groups to coin their own money to circulate alongside dollars and cents. Some libertarian groups like the idea, saying that the new money could be useful if the dollar loses value through inflation.

Other experts have their doubts. “We’d have to spend probably the first four hours of every day trying to figure out which currency to use today,” said James Livingston, a professor at Rutgers University who studies economic history.

Paul has attracted no co-sponsors for that bill, and he doesn’t appear to be pulling out all the stops to find some. The Congressional Record contains a March 15 speech from Paul: “I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies.”

But the speech is a common congressional illusion: Paul didn’t give it aloud to his colleagues. Instead, he simply wrote it and had it inserted into the record later.

Ron Paul, Constitutional Scholar

parkercountyblog — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:21:58 +0000

From RedState, by Leon H. Wolf, February 8, 2012 -

People like to say, “Ron Paul’s got a great domestic program, it’s just his foreign policy I don’t like.” Really, people only say that because they don’t take the time to understand what Ron Paul’s domestic program is all about, or at least the more insane details thereof. One particular example of this is Ron Paul’s view on monetary policy.

Paul, who likes to present himself as some sort of Constitutional scholar, has said in his last several concession speeches that “the Constitution still says that only gold and silver can be legal tender!” This absolutely absurd reading of the Constitution is universally rejected by anyone who can read English.

Let’s look at Article 1, Section 10, from which Ron Paul draws his support:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Emphasis mine. However, it is also worth noting that Article 1, Section 10, is conveniently titled “Powers Prohibited of States.” Ron Paul might still have at least a non-farcical point if it were not for the existence of Article 1, Section 8 (helpfully titled “Powers of Congress”):

The Congress shall have Power. . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof[.]

Get it? The reason states do not have the power to create their own legal tender (other than gold or silver coin) is because that is a power expressly reserved to the Federal government. Remember that this was one of the central evils of the Articles of Confederation – that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos – and so the founders reserved to the Federal government the right to establish a single currency for the whole nation. States are absolutely and completely prohibited by these sections of the Constitution from generating their own currency other than literal gold and silver coins.

Therefore, even if you ignore that Article 1, Section 10 is expressly confined to restrict the powers of the States, it would not stand for the proposition that Ron Paul wants it to stand for, which is that the Federal government must constitutionally adhere gold/silver standard. It would instead mean that the Federal government was prohibited from using currency that was not literally gold or silver coin. This conclusion is of course absurd (and ultimately would have no salutary effect on monetary policy whatsoever) which is why no person who hasn’t suggested that the government is using paper money to try to track you has ever suggested it.

I get that some people want someone who is a principled, small government isolationist constitutionalist. Sadly, Ron Paul is not that person – he’s just a nut onto whom people are projecting those qualities.

Pop Quiz On The Constitution

parkercountyblog — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:09:39 +0000

From RedState.com, by TobyToons, February 8, 2012 –

Background Information on Ruth’s comments to Egyptians looking for guidance on writing a new constitution:

Justice Ginsburg And The Need To Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Trashes Constitution

Ginsburg to Egyptians…

Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons)

Obamacare Awakens a Sleeping Giant

parkercountyblog — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:40:47 +0000

From The Foundry, by Mike Brownfield, February 7, 2012 -

It is a rare moment indeed when faith denominations of all stripes unite together in common cause, and it is rarer still when that cause is a political one, with a sole piece of legislation as its principal target. But when that law eviscerates the very foundation of religious liberty in America as protected under the First Amendment, it should not be surprising that Catholics and Jews, evangelical Christians, and mainline Lutherans alike find common cause in defense of their liberties.

Such is the case with the firestorm of opposition to Obamacare and the Obama Administration’s attack on religious liberty. Under a new Obamacare mandate issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the White House is mandating that virtually all religious employers, with the exception of churches, provide health care coverage for contraception — including abortion-inducing drugs — thereby trampling upon their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. And it is this mandate that has caused a vehement response in churches and synagogues across the country.

Yesterday, the head of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue, warned that the nation’s 70 million Catholics are ready to go to war with the Administration’s dictates, saying “Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church. This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets.”

Donohue’s remarks follow those of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and at least 153 Catholic bishops across the country who have weighed in with opposition to the mandate. “We Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so,” wrote Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette, Michigan. Those penalties include fines imposed by the federal government that could cost larger organizations millions of dollars per year.

The Catholic Church is not alone in its opposition to Obamacare’s onslaught against religious freedom. David Addington, The Heritage Foundation’s vice president of Domestic and Economic Policy, details the growing ranks of the faithful who say the Obama Administration has crossed a very dangerous line. The National Association of Evangelicals commented that “The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent” and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America stated, “In declining to expand the religious exemption within the healthcare reform law, the Obama Administration has disappointingly failed to respect the needs of religious organizations such as hospitals, social welfare organizations and more.” The Agudath Israel of America stated its opposition, as did the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America.

The Obama Administration is beginning to feel the pressure. On Sunday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius authored an op-ed in USA Today defending the Obama Administration’s actions, claiming that a very narrow exemption to the mandate is evidence that the White House is “working to strike the right balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing women’s access to critical preventive health services.” That exemption, though, does not apply to institutions like religious schools and hospitals. Sebelius might claim the Administration is offering grace to people of faith, but in fact it is not. In an editorial that ran the same day as Sebelius,’ USA Today agreed with those standing on the side of religious liberty, writing that “in drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform” the Obama Administration “galloped over” the line and violated the “simple proposition that the government should steer away from meddling in church affairs.”

The Obama Administration’s actions, though entirely counter to the freedom of religion, should not be surprising given the nature of the President’s health care law. Obamacare has given the federal government broad power over one-sixth of the American economy and thereby purports to grant Washington the power to force religious institutions to take actions contrary to their faith. Addington writes that this kind of concentration of power “has proved to be a drastic and dangerous experiment.” America’s religious leaders and the faithful have awoken to this wolf at their door and are lashing out in defense of their freedoms. Congress, too, should act now by repealing Obamacare and restoring the religious liberty that is so central to our way of life.

Quick Hits:

Where does pork barrel spending go? A new investigation by The Washington Post finds that congressional earmarks are sometimes used to fund projects near lawmakers’ properties.
Will California’s ban on gay marriage stand? The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is set to decide today whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution.
Gas prices are again at record high levels. At an average $3.37 per gallon in January, a typical household spent $168.50 on gas last month — $30 more than in 2010.
Iran is responding to U.S. sanctions targeting the country’s central bank, calling it “an antagonistic move, psychological warfare which has no impact.” Lawmakers there are also vowing to ban crude exports to European countries.
Is the individual mandate at the heart of “ObamaCare” a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no. Read more about it on The Foundry.

Posted in Family and Religion, Health Care

Print This Post

An orderly EMU break-up, à la Française

parkercountyblog — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:52:12 +0000

The Telegraph, By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Economics, Last updated: February 7th, 2012 -

Is the French franc on its way back?

Salut souverainistes. For those wanting more details on the euro break-up plan drafted by French economists, here is the link to the L’Observatoire de L’Europe website.

A few extracts, loosely translated: “The obstinate determination of governments to take us by forced march deeper into the euro impasse can only lead to the general aggravation of the economic situation in Europe.”

“Even though our American and Chinese competitors have an interest in the survival of the single currency, the euro is condemned to an uncontrollable explosion sooner or late”. (A nice twist that one, inverting the false and widely believed conspiracy theory that the US is trying to destroy the euro.)

“National currencies should be recreated in each eurozone country”. There will be a short transition period of dual notes as old euros are stamped by country (‘U’ for France) until new francs etc are printed. (This is what happened when the Austro-Hungarian monetary union fell apart in 1919.)

The new exchange rates will be determined by a formula that takes into account the accumulated inflation differential and trade balances since the launch of EMU.

The devaluations/revaluations will be set against a new unit of account reflecting the average weighting of the old euro (not anchored on the new D-Mark).

“The public debt of each state will be converted into the corresponding national currency, whoever the creditors may be. By contrast, the external debt of private entities will be converted into the European accounting unit. Even though this helps the stronger countries and penalizes the weak, it is the only feasible way to uphold preceding contracts.”

“All governments will declare a bank holiday for a limited period. They will temporarily close banks to determine which are viable and which will need to apply to the central bank.”

The central banks will lose their independence, returning to their pre-1970s status. (Quite right too. Central banks beyond democratic control are an outrage.)

The new currencies will be fixed for a period, then subject to a dirty float with 10pc margins. The economists said the whole operation would be easier if the euro first saw a big depreciation on global markets.

If Germany did not like this, France could precipitate the euro slide by abrogating the Giscard Law of 1973 – which banned central bank financing of state debt. (I don’t really understand this point.)

There you have it. Would it work? Any thoughts?

The group of twelve economists are of course in the eurosceptic camp, not in any way linked to the Sarkozy team. What is new is that they are gaining a platform. They are: Gabriel Colletis, Alain Cotta, Jean-Pierre Gérard, Jean-Luc Gréau, Roland Hureaux,Gérard Lafay, Philippe Murer, Laurent Pinsolle, Claude Rochet, Jacques Sapir, Philippe Villin, Jean-Claude Werrebrouck.

____________________________________

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has covered world politics and economics for 30 years, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. He joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels. He is now International Business Editor in London. Subscribe to the City Briefing e-mail.

parkercountyblog — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:15:21 +0000

Parker County TEA Party – Monthly Meeting

Tonight – 7:00-8:00 – Victory Baptist Church

Agenda…

1. Roger Williams – redistricting map update

2. Weatherford Animal Shelter – Update by Lynette McCracken and members of the Reform Weatherford Shelter now group (formerly Parker Paws Volunteers)

3. 10 minute video on Obamacare – HOLY COW!!!

4. OPEN MIC! If we have the time- it will be your opportunity to talk about anything from city politics to ANWR.

Bring a friend – see you there!

Dawn King

Parker County Tea Party

*** For such a time as this ***