Tulare County Young Republicans

I was just doing a little research this morning and I came across this nice little quotation from Elihu Root:
"...[I]n estimating the value of any system of governmental institutions due regard must be had to the true functions of government and to the limitations imposed by the nature upon what it is possible for government to accomplish. We all know of course that we cannot abolish all the evils in this world by statue or by the enforcement of statutes, nor can we prevent the inexorable law of nature which decrees that suffering shall follow vice, and all the evil passions and folly of mankind. Law cannot give to depravity the rewards of virtue, to indolence the rewards of industry, to indifference the rewards of ambition, or to ignorance the rewards of learning. The utmost that government can do is measurably to protect men, not against the wrong they do themselves but against the wrong done by others and to promote the long, slow process of educating mind and character to a better knowledge and nobler standards of life and conduct. We all know this, but when we see how much misery there is in the world and instinctively cry out against it, and when we see some things that the government may do to mitigate it, we are apt to forget how little after all it is possible for any government to do, and to hold the particular government of the time and place to a standard of responsibility which no government can possibly meet."
It goes on, and the whole section is great.

<br>

George F. Will - Japanese American heroes, bereft of bitterness

2010-05-06T11:47:00.000-07:00

George F. Will - Japanese American heroes, bereft of bitterness

Book Review of Interest

2010-04-27T10:41:00.000-07:00

The National Interest

The Anti-American Fallacy

2010-04-22T10:55:00.000-07:00

The Anti-American Fallacy

RealClearPolitics - The Hostility Follies

2010-03-31T11:08:00.000-07:00

RealClearPolitics - The Hostility Follies

The Day After by Andrew E. Busch

2010-03-25T11:12:00.000-07:00

The Day After by Andrew E. Busch

Costs of this debacle will be high - JSOnline

2010-03-24T10:56:00.000-07:00

Costs of this debacle will be high - JSOnline

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

2010-03-23T11:52:00.000-07:00

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

Kesler

2010-03-10T10:46:00.000-08:00

RealClearPolitics - The Tea Party Spirit

Obama Quotes on Senate Rules in 2005 Given New Scrutiny - Political Punch

2010-03-02T10:12:00.000-08:00

Obama Quotes on Senate Rules in 2005 Given New Scrutiny - Political Punch

Washington Times - American reliance on government at all-time high

2010-03-02T10:04:00.000-08:00

Washington Times - American reliance on government at all-time high

Destiny of America speech by Calvin Coolidge

2010-02-25T07:26:00.000-08:00

Destiny of America speech by Calvin Coolidge: "There is no end of the things which the government could do, seemingly, in the way of public welfare, if it had the money. Everything we want cannot be had at once. It must be earned by toilsome labor. There is a very decided limit to the amount which can be raised by taxation without ruinously affecting the people of the country by virtual confiscation of a part of their past savings."

An Exceptional Debate by Richard Lowry & Ramesh Ponnuru on National Review / Digital

2010-02-24T09:29:00.000-08:00

An Exceptional Debate by Richard Lowry & Ramesh Ponnuru on National Review / Digital

2010-02-23T11:11:00.001-08:00

Niall Ferguson

2010-02-11T09:53:00.000-08:00

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - A Greek crisis is coming to America

WH: Some Critics 'Serving the Goals of al Qaeda'* - Political Punch

2010-02-09T11:19:00.000-08:00

WH: Some Critics 'Serving the Goals of al Qaeda'* - Political Punch

Ezra Klein - Rep. Paul Ryan: 'Rationing happens today! The question is who will do it?'

2010-02-04T11:14:00.000-08:00

Ezra Klein - Rep. Paul Ryan: 'Rationing happens today! The question is who will do it?'

SOTU

2010-01-31T11:05:00.000-08:00

Randy E. Barnett: Obama Owes the High Court an Apology - WSJ.com

The Return Of Ulysses | The New Republic

2010-01-28T16:26:00.000-08:00

The Return Of Ulysses | The New Republic

President Wrong on Citizens United Case - Bradley A. Smith - The Corner on National Review Online

2010-01-28T14:03:00.000-08:00

President Wrong on Citizens United Case - Bradley A. Smith - The Corner on National Review Online

SOTU

2010-01-28T14:00:00.000-08:00

My Way News - FACT CHECK: Obama and a toothless commission

Will on the Supreme Court Decision

2010-01-28T09:39:00.000-08:00

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Print Article

CA v. TX

2009-11-08T10:03:00.000-08:00

The Big-Spending, High-Taxing, Lousy-Services Paradigm by William Voegeli, City Journal Autumn 2009

Michael Barone's Analysis

2009-11-04T10:54:00.000-08:00

Lessons from the 2009 election results | Washington Examiner

Mark Steyn - The New Criterion

2009-06-01T13:21:00.000-07:00

The state despotic

Attack of the (Liberal) Robocalls

2009-02-24T10:02:00.000-08:00

Coming to a home phone near you:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has started robocalling households in California to blast Republicans who voted against the massive government giveaway known as the "stimulus." Don't fall for it. Support the Republicans who stood on principle against the boondoggle.

Brooks

2009-02-01T21:52:00.000-08:00

Cleaner and Faster
"Throughout 2008, Larry Summers, the Harvard economist, built the case for a big but surgical stimulus package. Summers warned that a “poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured.” So his proposal had three clear guidelines.

First, the stimulus should be timely. The money should go out “almost immediately.” Second, it should be targeted. It should help low- and middle-income people. Third, it should be temporary. Stimulus measures should not raise the deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.”

Summers was proposing bold action, but his concept came with safeguards: focus on the task at hand, prevent the usual Washington splurge and limit long-term fiscal damage.

Now Barack Obama is president, and Summers has become a top economic adviser. Yet the stimulus approach that has emerged on Capitol Hill abandoned the Summers parameters.

In a fateful decision, Democratic leaders merged the temporary stimulus measure with their permanent domestic agenda — including big increases for Pell Grants, alternative energy subsidies and health and entitlement spending. The resulting package is part temporary and part permanent, part timely and part untimely, part targeted and part untargeted.

It’s easy to see why Democrats decided to do this. They could rush through permanent policies they believe in. Plus, they could pay for them with borrowed money. By putting a little of everything in the stimulus package, they avoid the pay-as-you-go rules that might otherwise apply to recurring costs.

But they’ve created a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord, which has spun off a series of unintended consequences. First, by trying to do everything all it once, the bill does nothing well. The money spent on long-term domestic programs means there may not be enough to jolt the economy now (about $290 billion in spending is pushed off into 2011 and later). The money spent on stimulus, meanwhile, means there’s not enough to truly reform domestic programs like health technology, schools and infrastructure. The measure mostly pumps more money into old arrangements.

Second, by pumping so much money through government programs, the bill unleashes a tidal wave on state governments. A governor with a few-hundred-million-dollar shortfall will suddenly have to administer an additional $4 billion or $5 billion. That money will be corrosive both when washing in, and when it disappears in a few years time.

Third, the muddle assures ideological confrontation. A stimulus package was always going to be controversial, because economists differ widely about whether or how a stimulus can work. But this bill also permanently alters the role of the federal government, thus guaranteeing a polarizing brawl at the very start of the Obama presidency.

Fourth, Summers’s warnings about deficits have been put aside. There is no fiscal exit strategy. Instead, permanent spending commitments are entailed with no permanent funding stream to pay for them.

Fifth, new government expenditures on complex matters are being designed on a hasty, reckless timetable. As readers may know, the policy I am most passionate about is pre-K education. Yet I fervently hope that the Head Start expansion is dropped from this bill. A slapdash and shambolic expansion could discredit the whole idea.

Wise heads are now trying to restore structure and safeguards to the enterprise. In testimony this week, Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton’s former budget director, raised the possibility of separating the temporary from the permanent measures and focusing independently on each. “A long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package,” Rivlin testified. “The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away.”

The best course is to return to the original Summers parameters — temporary, targeted and timely — thus making the stimulus cleaner and faster.

Strip out the permanent government programs. Many of them are worthy, but we can have that debate another day. Make the short-term stimulus bigger. Many liberal economists have been complaining it is too small, so replace the permanent programs with something like a big payroll tax cut, which would help the working class.

Add in a fiscal exit strategy so the whole thing is budget neutral over the medium term. Finally, coordinate the stimulus package with plans to shore up the housing and financial markets. Until those come to life, no amount of stimulus will do any good.

This recession is scary and complicated. It’s insane to try to tackle it and dozens of other complicated problems, all in one piece of legislation. Leadership involves prioritizing. Those who try to do everything at once will end up with a sprawling, lobbyist-driven mess that does nothing well."

Republicans still Happier

2008-11-15T09:51:00.000-08:00

Republicans: Still Happy Campers

Will

2008-11-15T09:42:00.000-08:00

Bipartisan Socialism
"Conservatism's current intellectual chaos reverberated in the Republican ticket's end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big government -- verily, "socialism" -- would impend were Democrats elected. John McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a Toledo plumber that he would "spread the wealth around."

America can't have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans -- whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society gave birth to Medicare in 1965; and a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American people-cum-corporations who farm -- and their administration were partially nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking around to see if some bit of what is smilingly called "the private sector" has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be "spread around."

The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well."

Obama and the Founder's Intent

2008-11-11T10:25:00.001-08:00

Will

We Blew It

2008-11-11T10:15:00.000-08:00

P.J. O'Rourke

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.

NYT on Recent Obama Ads

2008-09-26T09:04:00.000-07:00

Dubious Claims in Obama’s Ads Against McCain, Despite a Vow of Truth
"A radio advertisement running in Wisconsin and other contested states misleadingly reports that Mr. McCain “has stood in the way of” federal financing for stem cell research; Mr. McCain did once oppose such federally supported research but broke with President Bush to consistently support it starting in 2001 (his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, does not support it).

A commercial running here on Thursday morning highlighting Mr. McCain’s votes against incentives for alternative energy misleadingly asserts he supports tax breaks for “one source of energy: oil companies.” Mr. McCain’s proposed corporate tax break would cover all companies, including those developing new sources of power.

A new television advertisement playing in areas with high concentrations of elderly voters and emphasizing Mr. McCain’s support for President Bush’s failed plan for private Social Security accounts misleadingly implies Mr. McCain supported “cutting benefits in half” — an analysis of Mr. Bush’s plan that would have applied to upper-income Americans retiring in the year 2075.

A much criticized Spanish-language television advertisement wrongly links the views of Mr. McCain, who was a champion of the sweeping immigration overhaul pushed by Mr. Bush, to those of Rush Limbaugh, a harsh critic of the approach, and, frequently, of Mr. McCain.

The advertisement implies Mr. Limbaugh is one of Mr. McCain’s “Republican friends,” and quotes Mr. Limbaugh as calling Mexicans “stupid and unqualified.” Mr. Limbaugh has written that his quotes were taken out of context and that he was mocking the views of others.

In all, Mr. Obama has released at least five commercials that have been criticized as misleading or untruthful against Mr. McCain’s positions in the past two weeks. Mr. Obama drew complaints from many of the independent fact-checking groups and editorial writers who just two weeks ago were criticizing Mr. McCain for producing a large share of this year’s untruthful spots (“Pants on Fire,” the fact-checking Web site PolitiFact.com wrote of Mr. Obama’s advertisement invoking Mr. Limbaugh; “False!” FactCheck.org said of his commercial on Social Security.) "

Don't take a knife to a gun fight

2008-09-16T08:28:00.000-07:00

...or a teleprompter to a rodeo.

Obama and the Economy

2008-09-13T08:46:00.000-07:00

If You Like Michigan's Economy, You'll Love Obama's

I've lost what little respect I had for Charlie Gibson

2008-09-12T16:30:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'll admit it. I was mildly inclined to respect Charlie Gibson as a journalist. Not anymore. What a condescending twit. Charles Krauthammer rightfully skewers him over his interview of Gov. Palin.

Speech!

2008-09-03T22:44:00.000-07:00

Read Gov. Sarah Palin's Full Speech

Obama/Palin Compared

2008-09-03T16:42:00.000-07:00

Administrative Order No. 232"I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the State of Alaska, under the authority of art. III, secs. 1 and 24, of the Alaska Constitution, and in accordance with AS 44.19.145(c) establish the Alaska Health Care Strategies Planning Council (council) in the Office of the Governor."

What was Obama's first executive order again?

Feel free to browse through the Governor's executive orders and compare them with what Obama did in his 143 days in the Senate.
Here is Obama's voting record in WaPo's "Key Votes." And in those key votes this is the only time, that Obama crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans and against the Democrats.

And this is the only time, the only time, that Obama crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans and against the Democrats.

2008-08-29T09:57:00.001-07:00

Will

2008-08-27T21:08:00.000-07:00

The Devils in His Details

Dick Armey

2008-08-27T10:39:00.000-07:00

The Four Horsemen of Economic Apocalypse

Will

2008-08-26T21:56:00.000-07:00

Where Paternalism Makes the Grade

AP Fact Check on Dem Claims

2008-08-26T21:48:00.000-07:00

Fact check says it ain't so:
"DENVER (AP) - The shotgun-style charges Democratic National Convention speakers fired at Republican Sen. John McCain Tuesday night weren't necessarily half-truths. But in some instances, they weren't the whole story either.

Some examples of who said what—and what they left out:

___

_SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON of NEW YORK: "John McCain wants to privatize Social Security."

THE FACTS: The Republican-sponsored plans McCain has supported over the years would privatize part of Social Security by letting workers invest some of their payroll taxes into private retirement accounts. In the past, McCain has proposed that up to 20 percent of payroll taxes be funneled into private retirement accounts for younger workers. He recently said all solutions for the funding crisis facing Social Security "are on the table."

_CLINTON: "And in 2008, he (McCain) still thinks it's OK when women don't earn equal pay for equal work."

THE FACTS: In April, Senate Republicans killed legislation aimed at removing limits on how long workers can wait before suing their employers for pay discrimination. The bill was designed to address a Supreme Court decision that threw out a discrimination case brought by an Alabama woman. McCain said he opposed the measure because it would lead to more lawsuits, although he was campaigning that day and did not vote.

_PENNSYLVANIA GOV. ED RENDELL: "John McCain has never believed in renewable energy, and he won't make it a part of America's future. For all his talk, here's the truth: John McCain voted against establishing a national renewable energy standard. He voted against tax incentives for renewable energy companies. And for all his talk of drilling, he refused to endorse a bipartisan effort to expand domestic oil production because that bipartisan proposal would end tax breaks for big oil."

_MONTANA GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER: "After eight years of a White House waiting hand and foot on big oil, John McCain offers more of the same. At a time of skyrocketing fuel prices, when American families are struggling to keep their gas tanks full, John McCain voted 25 times against renewable and alternative energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind energy."

THE FACTS: In fact, McCain's energy policy favors tax credits to encourage marketing of wind, hydro and solar power. However, since becoming a candidate for president, McCain has not shown up for eight Senate votes last year and this year to extend those tax credits, which expire at the end of this year. The last such vote was July 30. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama didn't show up for that vote, either, but he has voted for extensions of the renewable energy tax on several other occasions. McCain also has opposed legislation calling for a national renewable energy mandate for utilities, and he did not show up for a vote on such a mandate last year.

_SEN. ROBERT CASEY JR. of PENNSYLVANIA: "John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick."

_RENDELL: "And guess who voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time? Sen. John McCain."

THE FACTS: McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time from January 20, 2001, to when Congress left Washington on its annual August recess, according to a study by Congressional Quarterly. But McCain wasn't always a staunch Bush backer. In 2005, his support for Bush's position on legislation reached a low of 77 percent; last year, when he launched his latest bid for the GOP presidential nomination, he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time.

_IOWA GOV. CHET CULVER: "Now the oil companies are placing their bets on John McCain, bankrolling his campaign, and gambling with our future."

THE FACTS: McCain has received more than $1.5 million in contributions from oil and gas industry employees and their spouses, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Obama has received about $423,000. But the center's analysis found that Obama has received more than McCain from employees of the oil industry's major companies. Employees (and their spouses) of Exxon, Chevron and BP had given more than $93,000 to Obama as of the end of June; McCain had received $75,000, according to the study.

_RENDELL: Said the fact that top McCain advisers have lobbied for oil and gas companies "explains why he wants to give another $4 billion tax break to oil companies."

THE FACTS: The $4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies is part of McCain's plan to reduce corporate taxes overall and does not represent an additional tax benefit for these companies. The corporate reduction McCain has proposed would apply to all corporations, including oil companies.

_SCHWEITZER: "At a time when America should be working harder than ever to develop new, clean sources, John McCain wants more of the same and has taken more than a million dollars in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Now he wants to give the oil companies another $4 billion in tax breaks. Four billion in tax breaks for big oil?"

THE FACTS: McCain has collected $1.5 million from that industry. But it's a small slice of the $142 million McCain has raised so far in the campaign, ranking 11th on his donor list. Ahead of the oil and gas industry are lawyers, retirees, banking and securities interests, real estate and insurance. "

Biden

2008-08-26T09:49:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden has, as one writer puts it, a "creepy" side.

Barone

2008-08-26T09:46:00.001-07:00

Michael Barone tells us a story about Obama, Chicago politics, and a terrorist.

2008-07-17T14:53:00.001-07:00

Lieberman Nails Obama

2008-07-15T22:54:00.000-07:00

As seen at The Corner:

" Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no."

" Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London."

Obama Vs. Reality

2008-07-15T20:51:00.000-07:00

I have been waiting for a while for someone to sum up my frustration with the Obama campaign. Thomas Sowell's Are Facts Obsolete? comes close. Change for change's sake? Really? Raise taxes? Attack business? Attack friends and trading partners? Go after the "rich"? I keep waiting for someone to call him on this nonsense or confront him with reality. It hasn't happened yet. Maybe there is still time.

Have a Conservative Independence Day

2008-07-04T12:04:00.000-07:00

From Calvin Coolidge:
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

2008-07-02T10:41:00.001-07:00

GOP senator: McCain roughed up Nicaraguan

2008-07-02T10:37:00.001-07:00

I know this is supposed to make me like McCain less, but somehow it doesn't. First, the charge is coming from Thad Chochran of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Second, it might not be true. Third, if it is true, who cares? Fourth, if it is true, maybe that Communist deserved it (or worse).

Shucks. McCain denies the story.

Vindicating Our Founder

2008-06-25T23:23:00.000-07:00

Allen C. Guelzo's review of Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of our Greatest President in the Claremont Review of Books, "Washing Mud from Marble"

2008-06-25T23:15:00.001-07:00

Support McCain

2008-06-23T15:33:00.000-07:00

For those of you who attended the event today click here to donate. Give a little sustaining donation. Most of you should be able to give at least $5 a month. Do it.

Obama's first Ad

2008-06-23T15:24:00.000-07:00

A little padding of his legislative record:

"About 46 seconds into the ad, we are told that Obama “passed laws” that “extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected,” and in the usual manner of these political commercials we are given a little citation at the bottom. The citation reads “Public Law 110-181 1/28/08”. That law is the only federal legislation cited in the ad — the other two items mentioned were from the Illinois legislature and referred to other issues raised in the ad."

"Public Law 110-181 was the 2008 defense authorization bill. It passed the Senate by 91 to 3 in January, with six Senators not voting. Among those six absentees was Barack Obama. So he cites a bill he didn’t even vote for. Did he contribute to it in some way that might be reasonably referred to as extending healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected? It certainly doesn’t seem that way, as even Obama supporters at the Daily Kos discovered when they tried to answer some of the bloggers who pointed to Obama’s citation of the bill. They found that Obama had tried to insert an amendment that had to do with screenings for service members returning from deployments, and one that would ease the discharge of service members found to have personality disorders, but neither amendment passed. Another part of the bill, calling for inspector general reports about hospital facilities, had come from a different bill Obama had sponsored."

Be There!

2008-06-20T17:00:00.000-07:00

McCain to visit Fresno Monday

Brooks on Obama

2008-06-20T10:21:00.000-07:00

The Two Obamas

Nota Bene

2008-06-18T15:14:00.000-07:00

The Myth of Multitasking

Energy

2008-06-18T13:50:00.000-07:00

Real answers to tough problems: McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

VDH vs. Buchanan

2008-06-16T14:14:00.000-07:00

Advantage Hanson

Battleground Summary

2008-06-16T14:03:00.000-07:00

The WSJ breaks the race down.

McCain Makes a Start on Health Care

2008-05-04T18:02:00.000-07:00

This editorial breaks down McCain's plan:
"It is already apparent that health care will be a major issue in the 2008 presidential election, and John McCain joined the fight with his April speech. While he praised Health Savings Accounts, called for medical tort reform, and promised to promote preventative medicine, the heart of his address consisted of a proposal to begin shifting from employer-based health insurance to individual-based health insurance that subscribers could take with them from job to job.

As McCain pointed out, such a system would have many advantages. Individuals and families could shop for policies that fit them best, promoting greater competition and innovation among insurance companies. Because rates would presumably, as with life insurance, be determined on an individual basis, individuals would have greater incentives to protect their own health and be more careful about the use of services. There would be a tighter connection between individual decisions and the cost to the individual. It is precisely that lack of connection that promotes spiraling health care costs today. And no one would lose insurance just because he or she lost a job.

In McCain’s plan, Americans could choose to go this route, receiving a direct $2,500 tax credit for individuals or $5,000 for families to use purchasing their own health insurance, or they could remain in their employer-based program.

In economic terms, McCain’s plan would try to solve the nation’s health care problems by harnessing the free market rather than working against it."

Will

2008-04-15T14:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifCandidate on a High Horse

"...Obama does fulfill liberalism's transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them."

Nunes Magazine

2008-04-11T09:27:00.000-07:00

Congressman Devin Nunes has launched a new magazine "Nunes Magazine." Click here to get to his online press office. The Magazine is the first thing listed under "Publications Archive." Worth a look.

Ending the Cold War

2008-03-19T16:51:00.000-07:00

Mikhail Gorbachev admits he is a Christian

Inga Barks

2008-03-19T12:22:00.000-07:00

If you weren't at the wine and cheese social, you missed out. Inga Barks gave a nice talk. The locale was perfect. All in all it was a great event.

Jonah Goldberg Responds to a Reader

2008-03-05T08:30:00.000-08:00

When I went to the city council and spoke on behalf of bike lanes, I think it raised a few eyebrows. Were my actions conservative? Perhaps even libertarian? As it happens, Jonah Goldberg explored those issues in a recent exchange with a reader.

Here is the link

"From a reader:

Dear Mr. Goldberg,
I am writing this as I read your unbelievable book. This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. It has opened my eyes up to the truth. I salute you sir for this fine work.
The question that I have is, you point out that fascism is a community driven ideology such as Nazism was. When my liberal fascist friends ask me if I do not believe in building community and helping the community what do I say? Because I see in their words my times how they have no idea what they are talking about, but have a sincere heart.
Thank you so very much,

Me: Thanks very much for the kind words. A couple points. First, I don't know that your liberal friends are necessarily liberal fascists.
Second, and more important, I don't know that you should be against building community and helping the community. I'm not against either of those things. What I generally (though not absolutely) oppose are efforts to build the state while invoking the language of community as if the two are the same thing. The state isn't the community and the community isn't the state. And what I passionately and absolutely oppose in almost every instance (freeing slaves, smashing Jim Crow, are good exceptions to this rule) are efforts to destroy traditional community with inorganic state-imposed customs all the while claiming to be on the side of community.
But it would be absolutely crazy for me to say that I don't believe in building community. I am 100% for "building community" — rightly understood.
This gets us to an important point that I haven't discussed too much around here. People ask me why I've become more libertarian because of writing this book. The simple answer is that the one thing libertarians grasp better than conservatives or liberals is the danger of the category error when it comes to the role of government. While there are certainly plenty of radical individualists swelling the ranks of libertarianism, libertarianism is not in fact an ideology of radical individualism. Or at least it need not be. The fundamental insight of libertarianism is that the government is the government. It cannot be your mommy, your daddy, your big brother, your nanny, your friend, your buddy, your god, your salvation, your church or your conscience. It is the government. A big bureaucracy charged with certain responsibilities, some of which it is qualified to carry out, many of which it is not.

Now, I would invest more cultural authority in the government than a typical libertarian would (see Jim Manzi's post here for clues as to why). And generally speaking, conservatives, because of their patriotism and faith in a culturally coherent and sovereign nation, are prone to over-romanticizing the government. But libertarians are simply immune to this temptation. This immunity sometimes blinds them to the poetry — for want of a better word — inherent to politics, but it also blinds them to the totalitarian temptations hardwired into human nature. That's not a bad trade-off.

Meanwhile, most libertarians I know believe passionately in the Burkean little platoons of civil society. They support their local communities, churches, associations, whatever (read Charles Murray's elegant book "What it Means To Be A Libertarian" for more on this). This is real community. The category error comes when you try to translate that sense of community to the national level. It cannot be done, save perhaps in time of war (hence the eternal liberal desire for the moral equivalents of war). And even in wartime, what you have isn't community, so much as unity of purpose. Many on the left seem tone deaf to this distinction. Real community is diverse, local, particular, quirky, organic and grown from the bottom up. You can have something like a national culture, but the idea of a national community makes me very nervous.

This is my chief complaint about the New Deal and why I find nostalgia for it so troubling. “At the heart of the New Deal,” I quote William Schambra in the book, “was the resurrection of the national idea, the renewal of the vision of national community. Roosevelt sought to pull America together in the face of its divisions by an appeal to national duty, discipline, and brotherhood; he aimed to restore the sense of local community, at the national level.”

I don't want a "new New Deal" as so many liberals do, precisely because I don't want the State to foster a single one-size-fits-all conception of a healthy community on the entire nation.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. But you get my point."

In other words, Goldberg is arguing (and I would agree) that conservatives and libertarians should focus on local and community issues in order to avoid the (as he calls it) "one-size-fits-all conception of a healthy community" that might be foisted on the whole country by social engineers. So I do support some local organizations that focus on local problems. To do so does not make me a liberal. It makes me more conservative.

Roundup of WFB stuff from Claremont

2008-03-02T11:11:00.000-08:00

The Claremont Institute - Remembering William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925-2008)

You can download the mp3 of Charles Kesler's talk on Buckley

VDH Interview

2008-02-29T13:58:00.000-08:00

Link to the Full Interview

One interesting exchange:

"JF: Professor Hanson, you criticize U.S. immigration policy in your recent book Mexifornia. What is it that bothers you about the development at the Southern border?

VDH: Many things. 1)We are wide open to terrorist infiltration; 2) We privilege illegal immigration from Mexico, while penalizing and delaying legal immigration from Asia, Africa, and Europe; 3) We serve as a safety valve and enabler for Mexico, which therefore will never make needed reforms; 4) We are creating a chauvinistic tribalism, a race industry that tries to convert the presence of 15 million illegal aliens into some sort of political movement; 5) We use cheap illegal labor to ensure our own entry level workers cannot bargain or organize."

Other People Noticed Obama's Answer

2008-02-29T10:09:00.000-08:00

Steve Huntley in the Chicago Sun-Times:
"It began with a question to Obama during the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday. Obama has pledged to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and was asked if he reserved the right to go back into Iraq. He responded that "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

"The next day McCain mocked Obama, ''I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq." Obama fired back, ''I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets. But I have some news for John McCain. There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

"So what is Obama's Iraq strategy? It seems to be that he knows al-Qaida is in Iraq but he's going to pull out anyway. But if al-Qaida establishes a base in Iraq, he will go back in. Does that sound confused to you? Me, too."

Obama's Foreign Policy

2008-02-28T19:19:00.001-08:00

James Taranto's Best of the Web summarizes Obama's Iraq policy:
"Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't worth fighting because it wouldn't be there if it weren't for Bush and McCain. Obama is going to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq to go fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, although he will send them back to Iraq if al Qaeda are there, even though he now wants to withdraw notwithstanding al Qaeda's presence."

"Yes, we can!"

Congress Gone Mad

2008-02-28T14:01:00.000-08:00

Renewable-Energy Tax Breaks Pass House Despite Dispute Over Citgo

Charlie Rose on WFB

2008-02-28T12:20:00.000-08:00

The Corner has posted two halves of Charlie Rose's tribute to WFB. Make sure to watch both videos. Take the measure of both men. Consider Buckley's legacy of kindness and civility. Useful reminders.

Charlie Rose - An hour with William F. Buckley, Jr.

2008-02-27T22:48:00.000-08:00

RIP William F. Buckley Jr.

2008-02-27T21:08:00.000-08:00

The great WFB passed away. Perhaps the best way to remember him upon his passing is to take a look at the original Mission Statement of National Review, published in 1955.

Look at the original credenda:

"Among our convictions:

It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.

The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.

The century's most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider "coexistence" with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory.

The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than "newness") and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).

The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties(under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as "national unity," "middle-of-the-road," "progressivism," and "bipartisanship.") Clever intriguers are reshaping both parties in the image of Babbitt, gone Social-Democrat. When and where this political issue arises, we are, without reservations, on the side of the traditional two-party system that fights its feuds in public and honestly; and we shall advocate the restoration of the two-party system at all costs.

The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother government, but by the pressure of monopolies(including union monopolies. What is more, some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume(almost instinctively) that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and intransigence on the part of management. Sometimes they are; often they are not. NATIONAL REVIEW will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman's side of the story.

No superstition has more effectively bewitched America's Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, international atomic pools, etc. Perhaps the most important and readily demonstrable lesson of history is that freedom goes hand in hand with a state of political decentralization, that remote government is irresponsible government. It would make greater sense to grant independence to each of our 50 states than to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization."

Tulare County represented well at CRP

2008-02-25T23:11:00.000-08:00

After I attended the California Republican Convention this last weekend, it was very obvious that the leadership in Tulare County is the cream of the crop in California. I wasn't sure what to expect as it was my first convention, but there were several highlights. The election of a new national committemen, Shawn Steele, that will bring fresh ideas and fight for the Golden state on the national level. In addition, I was amazed at the sheer number of youths participating at the convention. Easily 25-30 percent of the participants were in the 40 or younger age group. So the Dems can't say we are dead yet. But the real highlight was Congressman Devin Nunes and Central Committe Chairman Laura Gadke. Gadke, serves as a director to the state committee and fought hard on the the party platform to keep the conservative values that the Central Valley holds so dear. Nunes, became the keynote speaker on Saturday night and gave a rousing speech that the crowd went crazy over. Nunes encouraged the crowd on redistricting reform, energy independence and the importance of rallying around McCain. But the most important part was rallying republicans to fight for what we believe in and not giving in to the Dems. We have no where to go but up. Great convention

An Interview with Jack McCain

2008-02-14T12:54:00.000-08:00

This is a very interesting interview with John McCain's son--worth a look.

George Will

2008-02-14T12:44:00.000-08:00

This is George Will at his most GeorgeWillian: Howlers, Whoops And Miracles

Club for Growth praises Rep. Nunes

2008-02-12T13:37:00.000-08:00

The Club for Growth recently lauded Rep. Devin Nunes for his self-imposed moratorium on earmarks in the federal budget until real reforms are implemented. The Club for Growth Club is a national network of Americans who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom.

Here's one of the Club's latest posts analyzing a story in the Fresno Bee in which some public officials decried Rep. Nunes' stand.

Club for Growth article

Brooks

2008-02-08T11:06:00.000-08:00

The education divide in the Democratic Party

The Attack Plan

2008-02-08T11:04:00.000-08:00

Gloves off: The Dem plan to hit McCain

Goldberg

2008-02-08T11:01:00.000-08:00

on the Democratic Primary on National Review Online

McCain

2008-02-07T11:23:00.000-08:00

Now that Romney is out, howsabout clicking here and kicking down a buck or two for McCain?

Will

2008-02-04T11:38:00.001-08:00

The Biofuel Follies: "To avoid drilling for oil in ANWR's moonscape, the planet savers evidently prefer destroying forests, even though they absorb greenhouse gases. Will ethanol prevent more carbon-dioxide emissions than would have been absorbed by the trees cut down to clear land for the production of crops for ethanol? Be that as it may, governments mandating the use of biofuels are one reason for the global rise in food prices, which is driving demand for more arable land. That demand is driving the destruction of forests—and animal habitats. In Indonesia alone, 44 million acres have been razed to make way for production of palm oil."
[...]
"Bill Clinton, by executive edict, declared 1.7 million acres of Utah to be a national monument. Under those acres are the largest known deposit—more than 60 billion tons—of low-sulfur, clean-burning coal. The second largest deposit, the value of which rose because of Clinton's action locking up an alternative supply, is in Indonesia and is owned by a member of the Indonesian Riady family, of fragrant memory, which was generous to Clinton's 1992 campaign.
James and Stephen Eaves, writing in Regulation quarterly, note that if the entire U.S. corn crop were turned into ethanol— it might have to be to meet the goal of 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017—it would displace 3.5 percent of gasoline use, just slightly more than would be displaced if drivers properly inflated their tires. And because the United States produces 40 percent of the world's corn supply and 70 percent of global corn exports, turning corn into fuel will damage the world's poor at a time when rising demand will require a tripling of world food production by 2050."

TC Young Republicans in the News

2008-01-29T08:46:00.001-08:00

The Tulare County Young Republicans are getting attention in the media. Here are some links:

Fresno Bee

Visalia Times-Delta

Porterville Recorder

Valley Voice Newspaper

Clinton gets the Nader treatment

2008-01-28T14:13:00.001-08:00

There isn't much - okay, actually nothing - that I can recommend Ralph Nader for, but I think this email blast he sent out to his supporters was fairly instructive of the Clinton years.

EIGHT MORE YEARS

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2008/01/nader_rails_on_clinton_family.html

Podcast

2008-01-25T15:19:00.001-08:00

Peter Schramm talks to Andrew Busch about the primaries.

2008-01-25T13:07:00.001-08:00

Click here to see McCain's conservative record, issue by issue.
Click here to see that McCain's Lifetime ranking from the American Conservative Union is 83% (2005, 80%)
Click here to see a list of conservative and Republican McCain endorsements (and others)
Click here for polls that show how McCain is the only Republican candidate who beats Clinton and Obama in head-to-head matchups. No other Republican comes within ten points.
Click here for an article about McCain's actions as part of the so-called "Gang of 14."
I won't post any more pro-McCain stuff. I promise.

Divide and Conquer?

2008-01-24T21:14:00.000-08:00

With McCain claiming to be the frontrunner along with all of the press, it is apparent that the liberal media and the Democratic party is using the tactic of "Divide and Conquer". By supporting a wannabe Republican such as McCain, the press can insure a Democratic victory in November. Now you will hear the talking heads claim that McCains' appeal is his ability to attract independents, which supposedly would allow him to beat Clinton or Obama. But independents don't usually win elections. When was the last time an independent was President? The dirty trick is to divide the conservative base, force them to vote for a bleeding liberal, or vote for a guy who decided to take take away your first amendment rights, provide amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and fillibuster on conservative judges. The Conservative base is much larger than independents and that is why the press wants to divide the vote. In fact, if McCain wins Florida and carries that momentum into "Super Tuesday", conservatives will go to the polls, but they won't vote for McCain for president, instead they will vote for more conservative Congressmen and Senators to balance the equation.

$50

2008-01-24T16:38:00.000-08:00

My McCainSpace Site has raised $50. Not bad. Thanks to those of you who donated. Every little bit helps. It is still there for those of you who might be inclined to give a buck or two.