Campaigning for the Presidency


In the good ole days of the republic, during the 19th century, it was a cardinal principle of American politics that the man did not seek the office; instead, the office sought the man.  This was especially true in presidential elections when candidates never took to the stump, especially if one held an office and was seeking a second term.  That’s not to say that they were not involved, just not openly and actively involved.

Today it seems we have come full circle.  Rather than concentrate on his work as president, like say, attending all of his intelligence briefings so he can know what’s going on in hotspots like Libya, President Obama has spent the better part of this year doing nothing but campaigning.Continue reading “Campaigning for the Presidency”

Early Episodes of American Socialism


In last week’s column, I posed the question of whether Barack Obama was a socialist or not, given the current definition of the ideology.  I think the evidence is clear that he is.

Obama likes to boast that we, as a nation, have learned from our history.  But, as he seeks to implement more socialism, have we really learned anything?

In the academic world it is common to hear defenses of the failures of socialism, most notably the oft-repeated statement that “true socialism has never been tried.”  But alas, my dear friends, it has.  As a matter of fact, it has been tried right here in America, during our earliest years, and it is being tried right now.Continue reading “Early Episodes of American Socialism”

A Lesson in ‘Kenyan’ Economics


Is Barack Obama a socialist?  Many on the right say yes; most on the left say no.  It is a major question that has pervaded our politics for the last four years with no definitive answer either one way or the other.  But I think the answer is obvious, if one will only look objectively at the clear signs.

First of all, how do you define socialism?  The historical definition is a simple one: government ownership of the means of production and the central economic planning that makes such an arrangement possible.  Yet in the modern era, it has undergone a necessary re-evaluation.

In 1976, Nobel Prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek, in an updated version of his influential book The Road to Serfdom, re-defined it for contemporary times:  “Socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state.”Continue reading “A Lesson in ‘Kenyan’ Economics”

The new Neville Chamberlain


On the 11th anniversary of September 11, 2001, the United States was again the victim of terrorism, as attacks on our embassies in Egypt and Libya, led by Al Qaeda, resulted to the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, including two former Navy Seals.  The upheaval then spread across the region and into Asia.

What has been our response?  To lie, grovel, and apologize, a reply led by President Obama, a graduate of the Neville Chamberlain School of Foreign Policy.

This has happened once before, under the presidency of James Earl Carter, another graduate, when in 1979 extremists in Tehran took control of the US embassy and held Americans hostage for more than 400 days. Carter showed himself to be impotent.  So has Obama.Continue reading “The new Neville Chamberlain”

The Truth About Wealth Re-Distribution


A recurring theme throughout this campaign season has been the distribution of the nation’s wealth, stirred by President Obama and the Occupy movement.  A new phrase has entered the American political lexicon:  the 99 percent versus 1 percent.

Mitt Romney stirred up the political waters recently with remarks about wealth distribution and government dependency.

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” he told supporters at a private fundraiser.  “All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.  [They believe] that’s an entitlement.  And the government should give it to them.  And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Though what he spoke was truth, the Mainstream Media went wild.  At the same time, a 1998 tape was released of then-state senator Obama speaking in favor of re-distributing wealth.  Yet the media just yawned.Continue reading “The Truth About Wealth Re-Distribution”

The Re-Distribution of Wealth Debate in 1894: An Excerpt from The Last Jeffersonian


On December 19, 1893, William L. Wilson, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, rolled out a new tariff reform bill, which passed the House on February 1, 1894 by a significant margin, 204 to 140.  Tariff duties were modestly cut by 15 percent.  However, to make up for any projected loss of revenue, the final House version of the bill included a provision for an income tax.  The young Democratic congressman from Nebraska, William Jennings Bryan, introduced the tax amendment and vigorously defended it.  “There is no more just tax upon the statute books than the income tax,” he told the House.

Though not a new concept, a tax on incomes had been first enacted in 1862 to help finance the Civil War, and, despite the Constitution’s prohibition against direct taxes, federal courts had left it alone as a war revenue measure.  The original act created the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the forerunner to the IRS, to collect the tax.  It covered all incomes over $600 a year at two graduated rates.  Income above $600 and up to $10,000 was taxed at three percent, while everything over $10,000 at five percent.  In 1864 the top rate was increased to ten percent.  When applicable, the federal government had actually withheld the tax from people’s income, such as government salaries, dividends and interest from bank stocks and bonds, as well as from railroads and other corporations.  By the end of the war, some 15 percent of households were paying the tax.  In 1872, the law expired and Republicans were content to leave it dead, as the tariff was continually pouring money into the federal treasury, making additional taxes unnecessary.Continue reading “The Re-Distribution of Wealth Debate in 1894: An Excerpt from The Last Jeffersonian”

The Case Against President Obama


Regardless of what anyone thinks of Barack Obama’s term in office, it simply cannot be argued that he has fulfilled any of his campaign promises.  The soaring rhetoric of his historic 2008 run for the presidency was nothing more than a well-orchestrated marketing campaign.  He said what he had to say in order to be elected.  What puzzles many is the fact that he has as much support in the polls as he does.

His campaign promises, as well as those he made once in office, were legion and his failures to achieve those goals are nearly as numerous, much too lengthy to detail here, so let us look at some of the major ones.Continue reading “The Case Against President Obama”

Exposing Liberal Attacks


In every election cycle liberals pull out their ancient political playbook and bag of tricks, running the same old plays against conservatives.  And every election cycle many of our citizens fall for it.

In 2008, Obama the candidate ran as a new contender for president, pledging to change the fractured and divided nation and to end the old politics, which was a great part of his appeal to so many voters.

In his inaugural address he pledged a new beginning:  “On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.  On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

He had built his career around that theme.  Who can forget his 2004 DNC speech:  “I say…tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America – there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America.”

And during his Greek column-themed nomination acceptance speech in 2008:  “Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”

Yet Obama the president has not lived up to the hype.  He has divided us, chosen fear over hope, and, with no record to run on, tried to paint Mitt Romney as someone to run from.  He’s done the exact opposite of everything he ever said prior to the 2012 race.Continue reading “Exposing Liberal Attacks”

Died of Politics


Confederate President Jefferson Davis remarked during the War for Southern Independence that “If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone:  Died of a Theory.”  President Davis was referring to the political theory of states’ rights and how it was undermining the war effort, as state governments were constantly resisting repeated calls for cooperation with Richmond.

Should America fail, our tombstone should read:  Died of Politics.  As the nation stares a serious fiscal crisis in the face, most of the political talk in the last couple of weeks has centered around a Missouri US Senate candidate’s stupid remarks about rape, as the Democratic Party and its allies in the media attempt to tie the comments to every single Republican, including Romney and Ryan.

Our political culture has become so inundated with petty, partisan politics that it is becoming more and more difficult to get much-needed reforms enacted because any serious discussion of major policy changes is meet with the usual litany of demagogic attacks designed to scare one group or another in order to score political points.Continue reading “Died of Politics”

Why Do Liberals Compare Conservatives to the Nazis?


For decades it seems liberal Democrats have tried to pin the label “Nazi” on conservative Republicans.  And I don’t mean the beatniks in the street waving ugly signs with George W. Bush’s image depicted as Hitler.  I’m talking about high-ranking Democratic elected officials and office holders.

During the national conventions the last two weeks, new Nazi vile came spewing out of liberal mouths.

John Burton, the California state Democratic chairman, compared Republicans to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.  “They lie and they don’t care if people think they lie…Joseph Goebbels – it’s the big lie, you keep repeating it.”  Paul Ryan told “a bald-faced lie and he doesn’t care that it was a lie. That was Goebbels, the big lie.”

To his credit, Burton apologized.

South Carolina’s Democratic Party chairman, Dick Harpootilian, compared the Palmetto state’s Republican governor, Nikki Haley, to Adolf Hitler’s mistress, Eva Braun.  Governor Haley held a press conference recently from the basement of a building in Charlotte, site of the DNC.  Harpootilian responded that Haley “was down in the bunker a la Eva Braun.”

Unlike Burton, Harpootilian has refused to apologize, despite repeated calls from both parties.  “Hell no. What am I apologizing for?” he told CNN.  “This is fake. Nikki Haley is feigning [outrage]. There is not a sincere bone in her body.”

So, let us examine to merits of this claim, that conservatives are more closely aligned with National Socialists. True conservatives believe in constitutional government, with a strict interpretation of that sacred document, as well as the rule of law. True conservatives believe in individual liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.  True conservatives believe in laissez faire economics, that government should keep its hands off the private sector.

Did Hitler believe in constitutional government and the rule of law?  NO.  Did Hitler believe in individual rights?  NO.  Did Hitler maintain a Bill of Rights to protect German citizens from the government?  NO.  Did Hitler believe in laissez faire economics and keeping his hands off the private sector?  NO.

Nazi comparisons are wrong and should never put used by anyone against political opponents, BUT, while we are on the subject and considering the facts, which party would align itself more closely with the Nazis?