•June 24, 2009 • Leave a Comment

Tweet-4-Truth is a grassroots movement started by people who are fed-up with ABC News and, their decision to give President Obama an estiamted $50 million in free air-time to promote his government domination of health care. ABC said “no thanks” to airing the republican plan, they said “no thanks” to running paid ads critical of the president’s plan to have a small group of people in Washington decide who gets what care. Here’s Fox News on ABC’s partnership with President Obama.

Enough — As of today, 479 people have joined the Tweet-4-Truth Facebook group: all of us are going to do the de-spinning ABC apparently won’t do.  

Here is the plan: we start Tweeting-the-truth today, all day—but, we aim our big effort at the highlight of ABC’s night, their one-hour “townhall” meeting (um … townhalls meetinsg aren’t normally so secretive or exclusive). We watch for the president to over-simplify, gloss past the cost of “free” health care, we see if ABC details what health care rationing looks like in the UK. Then, we use the magic Twitter-button to Tweet-4-Truth. And, we always use the #Obamercial tag because, our goal is to make #Obamercial a trending topic on Twitter so other people will click over and learn the truth about President Obama’s plans.

Here’s the programming schedule from ABC for 6/24—this coming Wednesday:

For those who tweet in the morning: President Obama and the First Lady on “Good Morning America.” Get tweeting early and, remember, please use the #Obamercial tag.

For early evening tweets: ABC will do a White House-set telecast of “World News” But … #AllBarackChannel is just warming up.

The Main Event: The One gets his own Infomercial:

Starting at 10:00 EST (please check your local listings) a one-hour prime-time town-hall type discussion with the President on health care on June 24.

REMEMBER: ABC and the White House decided who would attend, they shut out the opposing views. ** This is where every one of us needs to Tweet-4-Truth ** use the #Obamercial hash tag, listen for the slippery phrase, the lie or the pure spin and tweet it.

Some resources for you:

The indespensible Heritage Center Blog on health care: 

The American Spectator and what they say is the $4 TRILLION cost of Obamacare—will ABC mention this?

Point of law de-bunks the oft-quoted “hundreds of thousands of medica casulties per year.”

The Cato Library on why you probably will not get to keep your current coverage once the government applies its strangle hold to doctors and nurses and, what they can charge.

My Questions for Ms. Meghan McCain

•April 23, 2009 • Leave a Comment
Meghan McCain, INC. from GQ.

Meghan McCain, INC. from GQ.

Like most of you, I have never met young Ms. McCain and, like many of you, I have such an admiration for her father’s character and service that I want to wish her well in her politcal career, as I do in her life.  But, I feel forced to respond to Ms. McMcain’s snarky critique of us old school republicans in kind.

Launch the counter-snark: I shudder at the challenge of questioning the wisdom of a 23-year-old woman who has enough looks and star-appeal to be elected president (if she will simply check off that quick term in the Senate first). Yet, I shall risk it.

Perhaps it is the globe trottting that has made her dizzy.

“Republicans are scared sh*tless about the future,” Ms. McCain recently explained to the Log Cabin Republicans.

I am scared, not of the future, but of the way that the New-Left wants to revive elitism, authoritarianism and collectivism all rolled up into a neat, edible package called “hopenchange”. If people want collectivist authoritariansim that is quite one thing. It is quite another mess to see so many people convinced that there is anything new in the Obama adminsrtation’s policies when, in fact, they are leading American down paths that Jefferson, Washington and Cicero rejected.

In her zeal to be modern, Ms. McCain has indiscriminately swallowed the new-left’s uber-meme which powers and funds the democrat machine of today: they are progressive. The problem is, that is a lie.

While they will not be answered, I will still issue forth some questions for Ms. McCain:

1. What is “progressive” about high taxation rates? The United States has been down this road before –as has every other nation on earth– and, it one famous case it was a democrat, John F. Kennedy, who realized the error of high-taxation and issued a record tax-cut later mimicked by President Ronald Reagan. More disconcertingly, president Obama knows that raising taxes, like he has done and, will have to do –at record speed– to pay for hopenchange, hurts the economy.

2. What is “progressive” about ennobling the idea of going with the flow of what feel good at the time? Like Ms. McCain, I have gay friends and gay family members. I love them dearly. I want them to be happy. If they choose to form a union between they and one they love, I welcome it, as I welcome with all my heart, my dear family member’s partner of many years, a man I both like, respect and don’t get to see enough. That is not, however, a marriage; it is a union with a dynamic different from that of a man and a woman. This does not make me a regressive, that which Ms. McCain –never seen in less than decked out form one would expect from a hopeful actress auditoning to play the “slightly bad” good girl–fears being called by the cool kids. There is simply nothing progressive about changing the meaning of words or, more importantly, the predictability of laws and institutions. It is “changey” to do so but, not all change is progressive: ask Coke about New Coke, Microsoft about Vista or CBS News about Katie Courick.

Though Ms. McCain fancies herself  “schocking” with her tattoos and glibisms, she stopped short of coming out in favor of gay marriage—though, from th very tone of her speech, I think the Log Cabin Republicans would be justified in feeling that she did. If she is a fan of that, I would geuss that Ms. McCain may well be a fan of judicial determinism –the most common way gay marriage comes to be– but, she will become an un-fan when what feels good to judges is something she dislikes.

What people who desperately want to be liked and applauded for their openness cannot seem to consider is the greater picture of what feelgoodism makes possible. Feelgoodsism begets a society where laws shift like the wind, a foundation upon which a functioning society cannot be built. The precedent we set by creating laws based upon feelgoodisms is law by personality, legal interpretation, law by way o fpop-culture narraritive, by way of popularity contest. Ms. McCain chastises people like me for having these pesky-principles, “Breaking free from obsolete positions and providing real solutions that don’t divide our nation further will [win elections for republicans]. That’s why some in our party are scared. They sense the world around them is changing and they are unable to take the risk to jump free of what’s keeping our party down.”

Really? I work for Michael Steele and, he does not come off as a man afraid to break free of what is really keeping our party down. The difference is, Chairman Steele knows we are a party because of–not in ansk-ridden rebellion against–our principles.

3. What is “progressive” about throwing away one’s principles in exchange for “modernizing?”  The single most pogressive act ever achived in government is the creation of the United States for America, the tri-cameral nature of our power structures (quadra-angular if you count the States) and, specifically within that, the revolutionary recognition that we are born with rights God gvies us—not a politician or ruler.  It was upon that basis that the wrongs that existed in our country–slavery, prevention of women voting as two examples–were corrected; it is upon that basis that we republicans stand in stark difference to the New-Left. There is nothing in that paragraph that the New-Left -which powers and funds the democrat party- respects or considers worthy of keeping in place. I assume that Ms. McCain, desirious of adoration for her wide-open-mind, will agree that these worn out relics should be put way so that we can be “modern.”

Am I scared of the wholesale abondonment of these principles? Yup. And, when feelgoodism strikes against her personal likings, Ms. McCain will be as well.

The Obama administration has made it obvious to everyone that the very idea of any restraint upon their powers is noxious to them. From memos in which the Homeland Security Department warns local police to be on the lookout for people who “cling to state’s rights”, to David Axelrord, one of the President’s two whip-smart street -fighters (the President’s “brains” in the nomenclature of the New-Left), calling the Tea Parties “unhealthy”, to the President’s refusal to allow healthy banks to return, with interest, the money the president took from the shrinking population of actual taxpayers.

Nancy Pelosi, the president’s parlimentarian, saw fit to write language into the massive borrowing bill which allowed the Federal Government to sidestep working with a state’s elected governor, should they reject their part of the pirate’s booty of “stimulus” and go straight to the legsilature. That blatantly violated the 10th Amendment.

Societies have already walked down the path of throwing away laws for expediency, and principles for modernism. Our Founders studied those societies, so can we. It was very modern for the U.K. to set-up separate treatment for their Muslim citizens and, as the Telegraph notes, that has extended to a separate legal system of Sharia Courts.  Ms. McCain would have to like that–it is modern, it casts away obsolte positions such as the entire jurice-prudential underpinnings of English Common Law–but, her father, Senator McCain, is far too level headed, smart and moral to forget what Sharia law does to people, women in particular; Sentaor McCain, I wager, would argue against abonding the entire legal foundation of our Country—no mateter how hopenchangie it might tatse.

All snark aside, an opinionated, passionate, ambitious, shrewd and clever woman like Meghan McCain would, I think, have to stop applauding progressivsim and feelgoodism at the point where women are sentenced to stonings. Yet … some “progressives” will not stop there, some of them apparently hold office in the U.K.

4. How does one have a small, accountable government run by judicial fiat? You don’t; and that encapsulates the problem with Meghan McCain’s feelgoodism: it’s so terribly easy to be “for” being modern and, as a result, be loved. Ms. McCain wants to be package herself republican-with-benefits, but, at the same time, she appears to have a frail understanding of why being republican means making the hard choices; the ones that, at first blush, don’t feel warm & fuzzy but, upon deep reflection, create a society of real law, from a fair and predictable construct with clear steps to changing them when thet go wrong. They create a scoiety of real fairness. In other words, real republicanism delivers what Ms. McCain claims to want from government: accountability. When society perceives an ill, as it did with racism and women’s right to vote, society can change them within a legal construct that delivers a unanimity, certianly not of heart, but of genuinely arrived at compromise; it delivers the type of acceptance that will never come from judicial fiat. Abortion is rightfully the most emotional of topcis, made more so because it was a “right” invented by a court.  Yet … there I am, praddling on about principles and process when I could simply opt for the Soma of feelgoodism.  

At the end of the day, Meghan McCain is very clearly in this for MegPAC, or whatever she will call her funraising mechanism; she gets to make the mouth moves of a “conservative” (she claims to like a small government), while, at the same time being that very thing the media is most apt to report: the republican who reognizes the fallacy of beleiving in the tired principles of Republicanism. It is smart packaging, a great political narraritive, almost like it came from Hollywood. In this, Meghan McCain is verifiably modern. Yet, Ms. McCain–despite her years of consuming “dounts and Red Bull” along side her father—seems to have an utter misunderstanding of just how ho-hum her shock and awe ploy is to real conservtaives. To wit: no republican I know would be shocked–the way Ms. McCain would hope they would be–by hearing her say, as she gushed, “I have gay friends.” So do we. The difference is, we can really care for people while being honest enough to say that their desire for a marriage, at least by judicial whim (and maybe at all, by that name), does not fit within what we think makes for a society based upon predicatable laws and, as part of that, definitions. Being republicans is not easy; it requires honesty and rigor.

But, Ms. McCain does have tattoos and wear black and, at that, all of us stodgy, cramped-up republicans shreak in terror. Or not.

As I finish this piece, I find myself liking Ms. McCain and betting I would have a good laugh with her. But, I wonder if, as hindered as I am by my obsolte principles, she would be able to join me in having a good laugh at them, the New Left, or whether she would find herself uncomfortable around someone with such defined ways of thinking. Well, I shall risk it: if Ms. McCain finds herself in D.C. to see the Senator, I will buy the drinks: tea for me, perhaps one of those micro-brews all the kids seem to like for her; it is, afterall, a big tent and she is, you can bet, going to be a bigger part of it than will I.

RSS without the orange logo

The President Loans Out His TelePrompter

•March 27, 2009 • Leave a Comment

Why do I find it so disturbing that, though he offers no link to his actual budget, the President offers a complete script for his “supporters” to dutifully read into the ears of congressional staff?

With all of his promises to be transparent winks and nods about transparency, shouldn’t the President first ask that his supporters all Americans read his plan before they read his -oh so convenient- TelePrompter version of what they should say? Or, should that read: what they should think?

Define Radical vs. Reasonable

•March 27, 2009 • Leave a Comment

Tax-Cheat & Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, formerly of Wall Street, has an interesting idea of what constitutes “radical” power for his office. In Geithner’s view, it is not radical to give him undefined and, by virtue of that, unlimited abilities to seize any businesses of undefined and, therefor, unlimited size for … wait for it … undefined (read: unlimited) reasons.

No, I did not make this up. See the Washington Post.

Geithner, though, apparently finds it ridicuolus to even consider banning “Naked Credit Default Swaps“, an instrument that may have contributed to our financial meltdown -and, for which he has forced the 57% of Americans who pay Income Tax to pay out their bleeding-noses- despite the fact that this is something that is actually within the existing legal authority of Geithner’s fiefdom.

Why use exisitng legal authority when you can make one up, out of thin air? Because you want more power.

A Note On Email Disclosures

•March 26, 2009 • Leave a Comment

A few days ago, I featured a Comment of The Day from Ed. This gentleman wrote a thoughtful, amazing note that offered the RNC advice on how to gain a new audience. I found this particularly profound coming from someone who finds himself to hold opposite views to my own. His comment, in fact, is going into a presentation I am making to Republican leadership.

Not so with a comment from Julie, who simply wrote into to call me names.

About that: my WordPress software gave me two choices as regards publishing the email addresses of people who comment: I will or I won’t. I chose the latter.

I suggest WordPress create a third option: “I you are needlessly rude and attack me in a personal way, I will.”

This, then, will serve as notice that, should you post here with a purely personal attack upon me, I will publish your email address.  To be clear: if you simply want to call me names, go ahead: I may publish your note … I will publish your email address.

What is rude? Not much, actually. Feel free to attack my views, my competency, my specific beliefs, my “cheesy” banner on the site, Republican polices, conservative ideas as a whole; all examples of fair game. Under these circumstances I will not publish your email addresses.

Responsible people will fill in the blanks.

PS: Julie, I have removed your email address from my response. Care to try again with an actual point?

Blunt U.K. Politicians: Don’t You Love Them?

•March 26, 2009 • 3 Comments

Especially when they are right?

Iranian Bloggers Caution The YouTube President

•March 25, 2009 • Leave a Comment

The Wall Street Journal‘s Bret Stephens writes today of an apparent divorce between dissident Iranian Bloggers and the lofty goals of our President, who set forth via YouTube and DVD gift-packs  to “heal the World” and to “repair America’s image.”

Barack Obama extended the olive branch to Iran’s leaders last Friday in a videotaped message praising a “great civilization” for “accomplishments” that “have earned the respect of the United States and the world.” The death of Iranian blogger Omid-Reza Mirsayafi in Tehran’s Evin prison two days earlier was, presumably, not among the accomplishments the president had in mind.

Our President’s handlers, ever mindful of the power of a well rehearsed President Obama in front of a camera, have embraced –some day over-embraced– the medium. But, will the President’s professional political team be as quick to embrace the other sides of the digital media spectrum? Will they listen to Iranian Bloggers who tell them that their approach to the Iranian Regime is exactly the wrong one? Stephens:

Shortly after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, Mr. Sanjari put his name to an open letter to the new president, signed by several prominent young Iranian dissidents, calling on him “to pay special attention to the repressive, unaccountable nature of the regime” that now threatens and provokes the U.S. and our allies. Its conclusion is as fitting a tribute as any to Mirsayafi’s notable and too-brief life.

Read what he said and how he died for, sadly, they are related. It is in The Wall Street Journal, here.

It is an exciting time in technology when we can look across an Iron Wall; we are wise to make an effort listen to those whom risk their lives to make the virtual balloon ride over the Internet to the relative freedom of your screen.