WWRD: What Would Reagan Do (About Obamacare)?

The following is expansion on a comment I made on Allan Bourdius' radio show Monday night. On the topic of Ronald Reagan's gift for communication compared to the current crop of Republican representation, I have the following thoughts, which I have previously expressed in private conversations:

If Reagan were alive today, and were a leader in Congress, here would have been his approach to Obamacare: Knowing that there aren't enough votes in Congress to repeal it, and knowing that any complicated messaging attempt or legislative maneuvering will be distorted by the mainstream media and be used to hurt the party, and knowing that all the Republican party has is a single opportunity to message on this, Reagan would have done what he was best at: Crafting and delivering a message which resonates with the public, unifies the party, and is so bulletproof and simple that it couldn't be distorted by the press.

That message would have been something like this: "If Obamacare is so wonderful, why doesn't President Obama want to live under it himself? Why don't the members of Congress want to live with it? Why have the President's backers and donors gotten waivers from it? If President Obama thinks this is good enough for you and your family, why isn't it good enough for him and his family?"

In other words, tie funding the government to the Vitter amendment- which, in reality, came too little and too late.

That message is one which every Republican could get behind- it's a unifying message.

That message resonates with the public, who hate the fact that Congress "plays by a different set of rules than you and me".

That message is so simple that it leaves no room for media spin.

And as a aside, we couldn't have known in advance that the Obamacare website would be such a failure on Day One. However, if this had been our message, we could've pointed to the Obamacare website failure and said "That's why he doesn't want it for himself!".

(By the way, Allan posted this technical analysis of the website problems, and it is well worth reading)

Obama would look like an idiot. Every subsequent failure of Obamacare- which is, by the way, designed to fail- would hurt the President's approval more and more.

And when it does ultimately fail and the Democrats propose a single-payer health care system- which is the end goal of Obamacare- they'd be made a laughing stock.

Instead, we got the "defund" attempt- which accomplished nothing- and a government shutdown which has been hung on our necks. And instead of a unifying message, we've gotten divisiveness from the orchestrators of the "defund", accusing anyone on our side who thought it was bad strategy of being a "moderate", a "squish", a "RINO", and so on.

The conservative movement would do well to stop talking about Ronald Reagan so much, and start acting like him.

One Sentence Which Would Have Changed American History For The Better

Readers of this blog are well aware of the problems which face our country, and most of these problems- out-of-control government spending, a massive welfare system, federal dominion over functions which belong rightly to the states, for example- are directly tied to one big whopper of a problem: The absurdly long, complicated, and punitive federal income tax code.

A brief history lesson: in the first decade of the 20th century, the problem arose of funding new government services which couldn't be funded by the historical (constitutional) limits of federal taxation power. It was quickly learned, for instance, that a wooden-ship navy and a domestic militia were simply insufficient to defend the United States, and a more-modern military would require substantially more funding.

The new progressive movement found an opportunity to advance its agenda- namely, the socialist agenda. Karl Marx had suggested levying a progressive income tax as a major part of the communist goal of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, by taxing according to income level and giving the money away through a welfare system.

What we got, of course, was the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

As an aside, for those who stop reading at this point and begin chanting the FairTax mantra (link), let me point this out: The operative term isn't "income tax", it's "progressive". Had a national sales tax been adopted in 1913 instead of a national income tax, we would have a progressive sales tax today, which accomplishes the same goal by taxing consumption according to the value of the purchase. FairTax is not, by any means, a solution to this problem.

Back on point: Americans in 1913 would not, if they had known of it, accepted income taxation. What they did accept was a promise of a limited tax (another link), which most people would never pay. So, progressives played a monumental game of "Just The Tip" (yes, I mean that "Just The Tip", the game popularized on high school prom night; I use the term because I'm tired of the phrase "slippery slope"). The champions of the 16th Amendment claimed that the income tax would only be applied to the very wealthy, and the rate would never exceed 7%. Boy, did they lie their collectivist asses off.

What we have today is precisely what Marx intended from a progressive tax: Government power exercised through manipulative granting and loaning of money and tax carve-outs; a massive welfare and entitlement system made possible by massive revenues (and borrowing, but that's another story); and whole sectors of the economy which are so heavily taxed and regulated, that they cannot survive without government subsidy.

You, the reader, undoubtedly asks at this point "What one sentence would've prevented all of this?"

Here it is, in bold:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration; provided that no person or corporation shall be subject to pay a sum greater than seven per cent of his annual income in a given year.

And there it is. The addition of that single sentence- a limitation on the rate (or, a guarantee in writing of the promised rate), would have left no "wiggle room" for a massive, progressive tax. What would we have today? A 7% flat tax, with no deductions, credits, etc.; no Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid (which are ostensibly funded by another income tax), and instead, private savings and investment; and no federal welfare system, since a 7% flat tax wouldn't provide enough revenues to pay for it, with welfare programs being left to the states (where they rightfully belong). And a change in the tax rate would require another Constitutional convention (good luck with that).

We'd also have less government interference in business, and more money in the pockets of taxpayers.

Oh, and by the way: Discussions about government debt, borrowing, and the Federal Reserve would be much broader and encompass more of the public than they do now. Why, you ask? Because the majority of Americans believe most of the government's revenue comes from taxation, because they don't comprehend the tax code (who does, really?), and the incomprehensibility of the tax code conceals the federal government's other revenue sources.

PS: Most of the links in this post are links to some of the previous posts I've done about FairTax, flat income tax, and the like. Read some of them!

The Story Of 'Stand Your Ground'

In the wake of the Zimmerman decision, the Obama administration- pursuing its usual strategy of race-baiting and rabble-rousing- has committed itself to a "national dialogue" on "Stand Your Ground" laws; ironically, exactly the sort of laws the President supported as a state senator in Illinois.

The claim against SYG goes something like this: a duty to retreat from a deadly confrontation deescalates deadly confrontations, which leads to fewer deaths. Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear over the deaths of violent criminals who are killed by their intended victims, but, the Obama administration does.

There is no question that the administration is pursuing an "all avenues" approach to gun control, and one of these avenues is the attempt to dismantle self-defense for individuals. This is nothing new: such attempts have been made throughout the history of our country, and have often been alarmingly successful. The most common means of accomplishing this is through the courts; prosecutorial and judicial abuse of people who lawfully use force. These abuses, cumulatively, are intended to create so much uncertainty about lawful self-defense that common citizens are afraid to defend themselves.

The mechanism used in most such cases is re-interpretation of the "duty to retreat", where such duty exists.

Background: The old common law "duty to retreat" was intended (and for centuries, it was faithfully interpreted this way) to require an individual to retreat under a very limited set of circumstances. Namely:

1) When the immediate need for deadly force became apparent (i.e. at the exact moment that the encounter turned deadly);
2) When retreat could be accomplished safely (i.e. turning to run wouldn't mean getting shot in the back);
3) When no other persons in the area would become potential victims of the aggressor.

This is a very sensible policy. It permits individuals to protect others in their vicinity, it doesn't create a dangerous requirement to retreat under all circumstances, and it doesn't require a person to exercise psychic powers to predict a future deadly encounter.

Unfortunately, this is not how "duty to retreat" is interpreted today. Today, when it is applied, it is often applied in a manner which is unthinkable to reasonable people.

The first SYG case was a U.S. Supreme Court case, Beard v. United States (1895). Beard confronted three men trespassing on his property; two of them menaced him with firearms and he responded by using the butt of his rifle to strike them. One died of the head injury Beard inflicted. Beard was denied a self-defense claim at trial, because the law in Arkansas at the time mandated a duty to retreat from all places, including one's own property. SCOTUS overturned his conviction, stating that no person could be reasonably held to a duty to retreat under his circumstances.

Consider the implication of this: Had Beard not successfully appealed his conviction, the precedent in Arkansas would've required him to a) abandon his own home, b) expose himself to being shot in the back, and c) psychically predict that his attempt to "knock out" his attacker- a relative of his wife, incidentally- would, by freak chance, kill him.

As a result of this decision, states started changing their self-defense laws to conform. The first was Virginia, in Jackson's Case (1898). This decision abolished all duty to retreat in cases where the defender was otherwise acting lawfully.

Other states, however, have not changed, and have continued to permit the persecution of law-abiding people. Although I could cite hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples, I'll use a few of the more illustrative cases.

--

 State of West Virginia v. Tanya Harden (2009): During a "night of domestic terror", Harden was beaten and raped repeatedly by her husband, who also beat their son. When Harden said she was leaving the home, her husband beat her head with the buttstock of his shotgun, breaking bones in her face, and pressed the barrel of the loaded shotgun against her, telling her "nobody's leaving this place tonight". Harden, believing any attempt to leave the home would alert her husband, who would carry out his threat to shoot her, waited until he dozed off, then snatched the shotgun and killed him. The state's prosecutor argued Harden had a duty to retreat from her own home because her husband "had a legal right to be there" and that she wasn't justified in shooting because the husband was asleep and "didn't pose an imminent threat", and Harden was convicted of manslaughter in 2004. Mercifully, the West Virginia Supreme Court overturned her conviction; however, she spent more than four years in prison before this relief occurred.

Since she was denied a self-defense claim by the trial judge, her defense counsel resorted to a backup option: "Battered Spouse Syndrome". This case was the impetus for states to adopt "battered spouse" rules of evidence- as opposed to changing their self-defense laws.

--

In State of Hawaii v. Van Dyke on behalf of Montez (2003), Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the manslaughter conviction of Montez, an attorney who, while visiting the area, was forced to defend himself in his temporary lodgings. His conviction was based on the trial court denying his claim of self-defense (since his home was a "temporary" one), and allowing "character assassination" evidence to be used against him, such as an expert witness who testified that Montez was "predisposed to violence" because he was intoxicated at the time. Montez died in prison while awaiting appeal; his sister, Van Dyke, continued the appeal on his behalf.

Consider that: A man who lawfully defended himself died in prison because of a judge and prosecutor with a political agenda. His sister worked after his death to clear his name.

--

State of Indiana v. Richard Barnes (2011): This is a case I have covered extensively here, here, here, and the state legislature's solution here. Barnes' home was unlawfully entered by police, who subsequently arrested him for a violation of law which didn't occur. Barnes was, despite Indiana's SYG law, held to the standard of "retreating" (i.e., allowing the police to enter unlawfully) in his own home.

--

Occurrences of this nature aren't the exception in states without "duty to retreat", they are the norm. They occur more rarely in states with "Stand Your Ground", as in the Indiana case above.

And for those who succumb to the race-baiting, and believe that SYG laws "allow white people to shoot black people" or some such nonsense, consider this: Minorities benefit far more often from SYG than whites. Most cases of prosecutorial and judicial abuse of this nature are inflicted on minorities, and women defending themselves from an abusive spouse or partner.

Make no mistake: The current attempt from the left to strip away Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with "safety". It has everything to do with creating in the public a greater degree of fear and uncertainty in the legal system. As the saying goes, "a right not exercised..."

"The Florida Package"- Clarifying 'New' Self-Defense Terminology

During the lengthy news coverage of the George Zimmerman case, from the initial encounter through the trial and now in trial post-mortems, a number of different terms referring to Florida's self-defense laws have been thrown around and mixed together, resulting in some degree of confusion as to the meaning of these terms. I didn't really consider this a problem, until US Attorney General Eric Holder's speech yesterday at the NAACP convention- where he called for an effort to 'combat' changes in self-defense laws, claiming these changes "cause more violence than they prevent".

Let's clarify some terminology. I will likely use this post as a reference for other posts on the subject.

First, I use term "Florida package" to refer to a set of self-defense law improvements first passed in Florida in 2006 and subsequently adopted in more than 20 other states. In most cases, these states wrote Florida's language, verbatim, into their own state law. Since it is the entire package which is under attack, or will be soon, this is an important distinction.

The package consists of the following changes:

1) "Stand Your Ground"- a provision which states that the individual has 'no duty to retreat' when confronted with a potential deadly threat. In another post, I will go into greater detail as to the need for this provision.

2) "Castle Doctrine"- every state already has (or had) a "castle doctrine" law- a provision which, at the very least, exempted a person from the duty to retreat when confronted in their home. There are two "castle doctrine" changes found in the package: 1) An extension of the doctrine to include a person's temporary lodgings, place of business, and occupied motor vehicle; and 2) a 'rebuttable presumption' that a person using deadly force in one of these places did so out of a reasonable fear of imminent danger. This is important because it adds a 'layer of protection' in the event of prosecution- the prosecutor must disprove the presumption in order to prove his case.

3) Lawsuit immunity- To prevent the defender from being sued by the aggressor or someone else on the aggressor's behalf. The worst cases of this, by the way, were cases from Florida, which is why Florida was the first to enact this.

4) Self-defense hearings- This was discussed during the Zimmerman trial, because his defense attorneys opted not to request this hearing. It also varies the most among the states which have adopted it. In basic terms, the defendant may request a hearing to have charges dropped, in the judge believes there is insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant's actions were not consistent with state self-defense laws.

Some states prohibit the arrest or detention of the accused, unless the state can establish probable cause (to a judge's satisfaction) that the accused's actions were inconsistent with state self-defense laws. This differs from the traditional procedure, where the state only has to show probable cause that the accused committed a criminal offense (easy to do, since the accused essentially admits this, claiming self-defense as a defense to the criminal charge).

One major point of contention: Zimmerman's defense counsel, and virtually all of the media coverage, have suggested that these changes to state law are 'isolated', if you will, from the rest of the self-defense law, and form a separate legal defense- i.e. "We're claiming 'self-defense', not 'Stand Your Ground'"; "We're reserving the right to invoke 'Stand Your Ground'"; "If (Zimmerman) wants to be immune from lawsuit, he'll have to have a 'Stand Your Ground' hearing", etc. I have seen nothing to suggest that this is the case; in fact, in reading these statutes, I can't see how they can be read in this fashion. Each section of the package deals with a different aspect of self-defense laws.

For example- there has been considerable commentary on the last example I gave- that Zimmerman would have to request a "Stand Your Ground" hearing in order to claim lawsuit immunity. This notion ignores the following points:

1) That hearing, as described above, is a pre-trial hearing to determine whether the defendant may be prosecuted at all;

2) The lawsuit immunity appears to be automatic- i.e. the defender is already immune from lawsuit from his aggressor, until he is convicted in criminal court (which Zimmerman was not).

Is this a case of various authorities attempting to limit the application of this package of laws, or is it legal commentators on TV succumbing to the same confusion TV watchers have?

OK, Fine, I'll Talk About Abortion; or, "The Bumper Sticker War"

I've had a rule since I started this blog: I wouldn't write about abortion. The subject is simply too much of a minefield, since very few people want to hear any discussion which doesn't involve mindless regurgitation of their sides' bumper sticker slogans. I skirted that rule on only one occasion, but I wasn't talking about abortion per se, but rather, talking about legislative language.

Well, now I'm going to cross that minefield.

I'll start with this: Abortion is a horrifying thing. Absolutely horrifying. If you've ever watched one, or know someone who works in medicine and has performed one, you know this. If you're staunchly pro-choice, you probably haven't experienced this, and you should. First-hand experience with the subject really does take the starch out of most people's "pro-choice" fervor. It changes the context of the abortion conversation from "ON DEMAND!" to "is this really necessary?".

Once upon a time, "is this really necessary?" was the context. Prior to Roe v. Wade (and the bumper stickers which followed), there was a much more sober discourse on the subject. From this more-conscientious discourse came the slogan "Safe, Legal, and Rare"- the notion that clinical abortion was preferable to back-alley abortion.

What ever happened to the "Rare" part? Our government started subsidizing abortion with taxpayer money, and abortion became free-of-charge (or nearly so) for many women. Yes, it's true, Federal law prohibits direct subsidy of abortion. But organizations like Planned Parenthood receive taxpayer money for other services, and since money is fungible, it all goes into one big pot. It should go without saying, but collecting tax money from a taxpayer who believes abortion is wrong, and using it to (indirectly) pay for abortions, is a mortal sin of government; any honest pro-choicer should recognize and respect this.

Any honest pro-lifer, on the other hand, must recognize the fact that the abortion rate will never be "zero", and has never been zero in our nation's history. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were aware of the primitively-performed abortions of their day, but didn't address them in the law (the first state ban on abortion was passed in Connecticut in 1829). A nationwide ban on abortion, in addition to being politically impossible, would also fail in its objective: the demand would still exist, and- as has happened in every developed country with an abortion ban in the modern era- would be filled by a black market, operating outside the scrutiny of government regulation. There is no better example of this than the black market in Chile, which has lined the pockets of organized crime families with obscene wealth (yes, I know, that's an odd phrase for a libertarian to use) and where, despite every effort of law enforcement and policy makers, abortion can be obtained quickly with very little risk of prosecution. Instead of the horror show of the Kermit Gosnell case being an exception, it would be the rule of abortion.

"Politics is the art of the possible", said Ben Franklin. Let's face reality: A ban on abortion isn't possible, either politically or legally. Continuing to expend manpower, money, and clout on an impossibility damages our credibility (what little we have left, at the federal level) and erodes our ability to do anything else. Those of us who are horrified by abortion should seek to do what can reasonably be done: Reduce the "need" for abortion as much as possible, thereby saving as many lives as possible, without creating the conditions for a black market and without violating Constitutional liberties.

So, I propose a new bumper sticker slogan: "Your Body, Your Choice, Your Dime".

As a matter of practicality rather than strict libertarian principle, I have no issue with subsidizing contraception if it prevents pregnancies which might be aborted. This is a critical component of the concept: If contraception is available, free or nearly free for low-income women, and they choose not to use it, then they have no moral claim to a taxpayer-subsidized abortion. They made the choice to not use the available options to prevent pregnancy. The welfare culture is a culture: It will adapt to the lack of cheap abortions by adopting contraception en masse, in the same way it adapts to changes in the rules for disbursing welfare dollars and administering programs.

Likewise, nobody has a moral claim to use another person's money for a purpose that person finds unconscionable. Since there's no way to separate tax dollars from pro-choicers from tax dollars from pro-lifers, it's wrong to subsidize abortion providers with tax money- directly or indirectly. But in order to approach this, we need an acceptable alternative. Here's my suggestion: an income tax return line, for voluntary contributions to a fund to subsidize abortion in rape and incest cases (which current federal law allows). If you, the taxpayer, want your tax dollars to fund abortions in these cases, then put your money where your mouth is. Add another line for donations to pregnancy crisis centers and adoption agencies, so the pro-lifers have a way to put their money where their mouths are, too. Personally, I'd be interested to see which fund receives more donations (I already have a guess).

I am, by the way, opposed to limiting abortion in rape and incest cases. Rape is a weapon of terrorism, class warfare, and racial warfare (see the current situation in Sweden).

And there it is- a way to drastically reduce the number of abortions performed, and save as many lives as possible, without advancing an agenda which has no hope of success, and while taking the blood out of the water on the subject and pulling together the sensible pro-lifers, the honest pro-choicers who actually believed the word "rare" in "Safe, Legal and Rare", and the people in the middle who are just tired of the abortion debate, while excluding the worst elements of both sides.

If one needs an example of this blood in the water effect, look no further than Justice Clarence Thomas' comments on the abortion debate and how it has ravaged the federal judiciary.

If we take the sensible road, the vitriolic pro-choicers- people like Wendy Davis- will, through their actions and their rhetoric, expose themselves for the lying rabble-rousers they really are. They only gain credence because our side's antics make them look reasonable by comparison.

And one other thing: For the pro-lifers who believe a total, nation-wide ban via Constitutional amendment is a good idea, let me point something out: Andrew Breitbart was right when he said "Politics is downstream of culture". Your current strategy is wholly ineffective. If ever you want to get people to listen to you, and possibly change their minds- leading to, eventually, a policy shift reflecting that changed culture- the only way to do so is to adopt a strategy of this nature.

Or, you can continue being totally ineffective, and projecting a sense of smug moral superiority, while not saving one single baby from termination.

Marriage Equality Omnibus

 

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering same-sex marriage over the course of two days: Yesterday, they considered California's Proposition 8, and today will consider the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Marriage equality is a touchy subject, in no small part because so many irrelevancies crop up in the discussion and 'muddy the waters'. I say, let's strip away the irrelevancies in order to discuss the subject plainly.

Let's eliminate one irrelevancy right away: Just because the Bible prohibits something, doesn't mean that civil government has any cause to prohibit it. The United States is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy. End of story.

That argument being unequivocal, the next absurdity which emerges from that camp is the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage must also legalize polygamy, since unfettered marital choice must allow the option of marrying multiple partners. This argument fails for one very simple reason: Gay couples are asking to be married under the same conditions as straight couples. One of those conditions is that a person cannot have more than one licensed marriage at a time. Polygamy is a red herring.

Then there's the "biological" argument: Since homosexual couples can't procreate, their marriage is invalid. Please go find a heterosexual couple without children and inform them of this, right away.

Some people argue that gay marriage is an "invented" right; since the Constitution doesn't address marriage specifically, it may be regulated at will. Sorry to burst the bubble, but the Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled against them on that count, in the most aptly-named case of all time: Loving v. Virginia. The court ruled that the right to marry is one of the numerous rights protected by the Ninth Amendment. "Gay marriage" is not a distinct right from "straight marriage"- marriage, itself, is a right, and must be freely available to all persons who may lawfully exercise it- i.e. all persons who are of the age of majority and not mentally handicapped. To argue otherwise is to argue that a liberty may be converted to a privilege, which directly violates my favorite SCOTUS ruling, Murdock v. Pennsylvania: "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and attach a fee".

Then comes the 'conservative' legal argument: SCOTUS considering this case is akin to the Supreme Court considering Roe v. Wade, in that advocates are asking the federal courts to overturn an action of a state democratic process. I respond with the following:

1) That is precisely the function of the U.S. Supreme Court: to overturn democratic acts which violate individual liberties. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.;

2) Roe was an attempt- and a miserable one at that- to resolve an irresolvable conflict between two diametrically opposed viewpoints of personal liberty. The last time such a conflict of liberties occurred, half a million Americans killed each other. I won't address either the Civil War or the abortion debate; I mention them to point out that same-sex marriage is not an irresolvable conflict of this type. Person A's exercise of religious rights is not affected in any way by Persons B and C's gay marriage, except in the one circumstance I will address below. This is an issue of equal protection, plain and simple. A minority wants to enjoy the same 'privileges and immunities' enjoyed by the majority;

3) On the subject of 'state's rights': States don't have rights! The United States is a constitutional republic, not a conglomeration of oligarchies. I am frequently astonished by how often I must remind my Republican fellows of this fact. States have powers granted to them by the public or prohibited them by the Constitution, and one of the legitimate functions of the federal judiciary is to ensure that these powers are applied consistently to all persons.

The one circumstance I referenced above, with respect to the exercise of religious liberties, is the prospect that individual gay couples or gay advocacy groups will use legal actions, or other means, to harass churches and businesses for choosing to not participate in same-sex weddings. This is not only a legitimate concern: it has already happened multiple times and it will continue to happen. For this reason, were I a legislator, I would refuse to vote for any gay marriage bill which doesn't include specific protections for those who choose not to participate. If you, the reader, support gay marriage but aren't of the same mind, then you are a hypocrite. We must preserve the rights of all individuals, including the freedom of individual conscience and the freedom of choice.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the stock-standard libertarian position that government shouldn't be in the business of licensing marriage in the first place. To this, I respond thus: I agree wholeheartedly. However, eliminating marriage licensure is simply not going to happen. Continuing to bring it up serves no purpose but to change the subject away from this debate (and attempt to capture some degree of perceived intellectual superiority in the process). We must address the facts as they currently exist.

And then there is the "compromise" position: Recognize same-sex civil unions in all states. This sounds feasible and moderate enough, with one glaring problem: A civil union isn't a marriage! There are inequalities between marriage and civil unions- inheritance issues, immigration issues, health insurance and tax filing problems, etc. Even if these issues were all resolved perfectly, however, a civil union would still be less than a marriage. SCOTUS determined a long time ago that "separate-but-equal" was not a legitimate form of equality.

Now that we have eliminated all of these irrelevancies, I pose the following question to those readers who oppose marriage equality: Without making a biblical argument, a biological argument, side-stepping the issue with fantasy scenarios, asserting a fallacious legal argument, imposing a Jim Crow-era legal doctrine, falsely comparing gay marriage to abortion, or converting the right to marry into a privilege, I ask this: What else about gay people marrying bothers you so much that it's worth defying the Constitution (and continuing to lose popular support for the rest of the conservative agenda) in order to continue its prohibition?

Getting Back In The Swing Of Things

For the last several months, I've been absent from blogging here and at Conservative Daily News and Typical Shooter- largely due to constant moving as part of my new job.

In that time, I've been "Pulling a Romney", to coin a phrase- doing my part to fix a small, privately-owned company experiencing difficult times. It's tough work, and I've been living away from home, but it's worth it.

But I miss blogging- and it's time to get back into it.

Like alot of you, I was disheartened by the election. The loss seemed to be so total and caught us by surprise. We thought we were guaranteed a win.

We were wrong.

And now it's time to get back into the fight.

To this end, I'm going to CPAC. I went last year, and it was a terrific time. This year, I'm going in order to reinvigorate myself. I need a transfusion.

Then... we go to war. Come join me.

Why THIS Libertarian Is Voting For Romney

In the last few weeks, there's been quite a battle in political circles between Romney supporters and Johnson supporters. I realize this may be a bit late to fully capitalize on the meme, but, oh, well.

I've made no bones about being a Romney supporter (though reluctantly, at first).

To set out why, I have to start with an "uncomfortable truth": The Libertarian Party isn't capable of getting someone elected town dogcatcher, much less President of the United States. The reason for this is simple: That element of libertarianism has assumed the intellectual "high ground" of defeatists: "I know I will never win, so I will make no effort to do so; I will sit here and complain about how terrible everyone else's performance is". They are the armchair quarterbacks of politics.

Meanwhile, in the last five years, libertarian-minded people have made tremendous progress- within the Republican party. Five years ago, we weren't welcome in the house of politics; now we have a seat at the dinner table.

Need proof of this? Let's start with Rick Santorum complaining about the emergence of the "more libertarian-ish right". Or the number of Republicans who like what Ron Paul has to say "on everything except foreign policy". I would even go so far as to say Mitt Romney's campaign has been a validation of us: His message is purely about government spending, debt, budgeting, free trade, and economic liberty. Social issues have been pushed aside.

The GOP's message, today, is essentially our message in the most rudimentary form. Why did the GOP win so handily in 2010? Because our message- individual autonomy and economic liberty- resonates with Middle America. Freedom is intoxicating. Our opportunity, now, is to use our newly-found voice to mold that popular sentiment. We know we're right, and we've been right all along. Rather than act smugly, we need to show the rest of the country why we're right.

Want to end the war on drugs? The best argument for it goes like this: It is costly and ineffective, and it funnels money to some of the world's most evil people. Legalizing drugs would deny substantial funding to terrorist organizations and put Mexican drug cartels out of business. Our interests are complimentary to the interests of the defense hawks and the budget hawks alike.

Want to address the "warfare state"? Make the rational argument that we will only have "a military so powerful that nobody dares to test it" as long as we can afford it. This is essentially the argument Admiral Mike Mullen made, when he said "the greatest risk to our national security is our national debt" (and he offered up $100 billion in defense budget cuts). Once again, our interests are complimentary to those of the defense hawks and the budget hawks. Spending absurdly- which includes defense spending- is detrimental to our long-term national security.

Want sound money? The 99-year lease on the Federal Reserve expires in December of this year. Congress will renew the lease (which is a disappointment). However, this is a prime opportunity to bring sound money into the national political discourse, and it's an opportunity which won't come around for another 99 years. Let's not waste it. We won't "End the Fed", but we just might have a chance to put it in chains, if we act wisely.

These are just examples of the potential in-roads available to us. Either we continue to advance, within the Republican party, or we sit on the sidelines and whine about seat belt laws. We can build on our accomplishments, or choose to accomplish nothing.

And for those libertarians concerned about the evangelicals within the party- and I am one of those libertarians- fear not; they are losing their influence. Rational people of faith agree with us, for the most part. They have no interest in "regulating your body". The few who really do want to regulate people's bedroom behavior are becoming a relic, because the GOP has learned that they lose elections when they cling to them. Witness the vast barrage of criticism fired at Todd Akin by mainstream Republicans.

We have the public's attention- and the party's attention too. We are demonstrating the correctness of Ronald Reagan's assertion that "the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism".

For this reason, I am voting for Mitt Romney, and I encourage my libertarian fellows to do the same. Now is not the time to throw away the gains we've made- now is the time to capitalize on them! Make no mistake- we're going to have setbacks, we're going to be disappointed frequently, and we're going to get angry. A hard road is ahead of us. But, little by little, we can change opinions and show people the wisdom of our position. After all, our principles are the consummate American principles. Freedom is intoxicating!

And a word to mainstream Republicans who attack Gary Johnson personally: He is probably the least-corrupted person in politics. His character is unassailable. This is the reason for his success as Governor of New Mexico, a state which is two-thirds Democrat (and one of the several reasons I had hoped he would be the GOP running mate). There is no doubt that he was shunned by the "establishment", and any resentment he harbors is, in my view, wholly justified.

It is, to me, tragic that he is in the position of being unelectable. We need more Gary Johnsons in government. He is a good man, and I am indignant toward anyone who claims otherwise. Remember who our common enemy is.

Martin/Zimmerman: Fuel For The Democrat Attack Machine

Recently, the Huffington Post Enquirer ran a post regarding the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, entitled Trayvon Martin Case: 'Stand Your Ground' Law At Center Of Shooting. The unwritten implication of this article is that enhanced self-defense laws, such as Florida's, grant protection to murderers.

The left have already begun spinning this killing into an attack on Republicans. Note, for instance, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski making a sloppy attempt to connect this shooting to Rush Limbaugh. Jay at The Right Sphere reports Media Matters has already begun spinning this tragedy for political points in a number of posts.

Let's debunk the assertion that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law somehow protected Zimmerman. To do so, we need to examine the 2006 changes to Florida's Justifiable Use Of Force law, specifically, the portion contended here- Zimmerman's immunity from criminal prosecution:

776.032 (1) A person who uses force as permitted (...) is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force (...) As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Stated in plain English, Florida requires police officers to establish probable cause before arresting someone for using force in self-defense. This is a far cry different from HuffPo's claim:

The Florida law lets police on the scene decide whether they believe the self-defense claim. In many cases, the officers make an arrest and leave it to the courts to work out whether the deadly force is justified. In this case, however, police have said they are confident they did the right thing by not charging 28-year-old George Zimmerman.

The failure, then, isn't with the "Stand Your Ground" law- a point which even Al Sharpton concedes- but with the failure of Sanford police to thoroughly investigate the shooting. The recording of Zimmerman's 911 call alone debunks his self-defense claim. From Doug Mataconis' excellent article:

The police on the scene appear to have reached the conclusion that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense, but the 911 calls from that night raise some doubt about just how much danger Zimmerman was actually in, and the extent to which he may have pursued Martin despite being told by a 911 operator not to do so.

Rep. Dennis Baxley, the author of the 'Stand Your Ground' law, wrote this op-ed for FOX News, summing up the issue thus:

Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the "Stand Your Ground" law for anyone who pursues and confronts people.

The "pursue and confront" phrase is especially applicable here: While Florida has a very well-written and well-articulated law on self-defense, it is one of the few states which has no statute authorizing private persons to use force to pursue and arrest fleeing criminals. Even if Florida did authorize this use of force, however, Zimmerman still wouldn't be justified, because Martin had committed no crime.

The anti-gun crowd, however, never let facts or the law stand in the way of their political agenda.

This law, championed by Republicans and vilified by Democrats, was contentious when it was passed in Florida in 2006; now there's a murdered boy, and a wrongful claim of self-defense. This is an election year, and the Democrat attack machine feeds on accusations that Republicans are "bitter clingers" and racists.

Take this for what it is: the Democrat attack machine working to make all Republicans look like George Zimmerman's accomplices and enablers.

Outrage In Indiana Part Four: The Barnes Bill

Last night, the Indiana General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1, which, once signed into law, will resolve a nearly year-long deprivation of the civil rights of residents of the State of Indiana. Readers who have followed me for the last year will be aware of my previous "Outrage In Indiana" posts on this very subject. For those who haven't, let me recap.

In Part One, on May 13th of last year, I described the appalling decision by Indiana's State Supreme Court in the case of Barnes v. State of Indiana. The court determined that a private person had no right to resist unlawful police burglary of their home. I detailed the 800-year-old legal precedents which allow for such use of force, and the farce of the court's decision. In Part Two, I published an open letter to Governor Mitch Daniels, imploring him to take whatever action he possibly could to provide relief to Hoosiers subjected to police lawlessness. In Part Three, I published the very thoughtful response I received from his office.

To review the matter at hand: Richard Barnes had an argument with his wife, and neighbors called the police. Upon their arrival, the Barneses had reentered their home, and no further argument was occurring. Officers Lenny Reed and Jason Henry (more on them in a moment) insisted on entering the home, and Mr. Barnes refused them entry. The police, unlawfully, entered the home anyway. Mr. Barnes attempted to use non-deadly force to expel them, and he was tased and arrested.

Eight centuries of legal precedent, from the Magna Carta to two 20th century SCOTUS decisions, explicitly authorize the use of reasonable force to prevent unlawful acts of the police. The laws of the state of Indiana do not privilege police officers from justified force if they are acting outside the bounds of the law. The Fourth Amendment, and a substantially similar provision in Indiana's Constitution prohibit precisely this conduct- the unwarranted and unlawful entry into a private home by government agents.

Nonetheless, Indiana's Supreme Court ignored the eight centuries of legal tradition, multiple decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the United States Constitution, and the Constitution and laws of Indiana, and determined that a Hoosier's only lawful recourse was to sue the police agency for damages after being the victim of a violent crime (in this case, burglary and assault) committed by a police officer.

Our Second, Third, and Fourth Amendment rights were established by our Founding Fathers for expressly this reason: Prior to, and during, the American Revolution, armed agents of the British government- soldiers- would routinely enter private homes without cause, assault homeowners and arrest them without charges, and quarter themselves in private homes in order to intimidate homeowners into submission. Expressly for this reason, we have a right to keep and bear arms, a freedom from quartering in private homes, and a freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

We also have a natural, or God-given (depending on your outlook), right of self-defense, a topic which I have written about extensively. The instinct to protect ourselves, our families, and our property from violent attack is as natural to us as the need to eat. A government decree that a certain class of persons- namely, police officers- are "untouchable", and may commit violent crimes at will, and the prosecution of private persons who exercise this right against them, is wholly offensive to the basic principles enshrined in our founding document.

Thankfully, Indiana's legislature has taken up the cause of preserving individual liberties in this matter. Senate Bill 1, introduced by State Senator Mike Young and sponsored by numerous other state legislators, seeks to amend the Indiana Code to explicitly authorize the use of reasonable force against law enforcement officers who commit crimes against private persons.

In short, SB1 changes the language of the state's use-of-force laws to state that "any person" may be the recipient of defensive force, and adds a section specifically addressing the use of force against police officers. This section authorizes the use of non-deadly force against "any law enforcement officer" to prevent the police officer's criminal attack upon the person or property, and authorizes deadly force to prevent a law enforcement officer's criminal attack which may inflict death or serious bodily injury.

Once signed into law, Indiana will become only the second state in the nation to specifically authorize the use of force against police officers acting unlawfully. North Dakota authorizes the use of force to terminate a police officer's unlawful use of deadly force. Indiana's statute would dramatically exceed this limited level of protection.

I applaud the state legislature for taking this necessary step to improve the right of self-defense. I also understand Sen. Young is facing a primary challenge this year. I hope Hoosiers will go to the polls in droves and show their support for this fine representative of the people.

And on a final, and ignominious note: Officer Lenny Reed, one of the two goons who burglarized Mr. Barnes' home, and (ironically) the medic for Evansville PD's SWAT team, was also involved in an incident involving racial profiling and substantial damage to an innocent man's RV- which the man was delivering to a buyer- when Reed initiated a wrongful drug search. This incident occurred less than four months before the Indiana Supreme Court's Barnes decision. Inexplicably, Reed was promoted to Sergeant during roughly the same time frame.

The other goon involved, Officer Jason Henry, resigned from Evansville Police Department after beating up a former sheriff's deputy, only three months before the Barnes decision. The beating occurred at a meeting of the Indiana Fraternal Order of Police, no less.

Residents of Vanderburgh County have ample reason to question Evansville Police Chief Brad Hill's professional judgment. Apparently Hoosiers can't even rely upon the common sense of local officials and police administrators for relief from police lawlessness, which makes the passage of SB1 all the more vital. Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star tweeted last night that SB1 passed the Indiana Senate 38-12 and passed the Indiana House 67-26, and is now on its way to Governor Daniels' desk.

Many thanks to my dear friend April Gregory for her invaluable assistance in researching this post.

Rick Santorum: The Least Patriotic Republican

Super Tuesday results are in. Mitt Romney has won six of the ten states, and is the clear frontrunner now more than ever. The question Republican voters must ask is this: Why are we still slogging through this primary season?

The answer to that question is simple: Rick Santorum.

As I noted in this post, we have two goals for 2012: 1) winning the White House, and 2) winning the Senate. The time, money, and attention spent on our primary detracts from accomplishing those two goals. I can't overstate this point: Every moment, every dollar, every ad wasted on our primary is one less to use in defeating Barack Obama.

And the object of this distraction- Rick Santorum- doesn't share our values. The concept of separation of church and state- specifically, JFK's speech on the subject, vowing that he wouldn't take orders from the Pope- makes Santorum "want to throw up". The greater personal and economic freedom of the "libertarianish right" (read: the Tea Party movement)- which Ronald Reagan referred to as "the very heart and soul of conservatism"- can't "succeed as a culture" according to Santorum.

And he's an embarrassment to our party. He is, after all, Michael Moore's favorite Republican, the target of Moore's "Operation Hilarity", designed to keep our primary running longer- with exactly the consequences I described above. Santorum gleefully, and cluelessly, accepted Moore's "support", stating that the pro-Union, Democrat-oriented robocalls "proved" he could attract Democrats. Just as I noted with Newt Gingrich in this post, the left salivates at the prospect of Rick "Man-on-dog sex" Santorum being our nominee, as it would guarantee an Obama victory.

Rick Santorum doesn't realize the amount of damage he's doing to our cause, and he doesn't realize that his presence in the primary endangers our chances of winning this election. He is costing us money, time, attention, and the support of independents- whom we need in order to win.

If Santorum had one scrap of concern for our country's future, he would drop out and clear the field for our party to focus on defeating Barack Obama, winning the Senate, and righting this ship. He won't do that, however, which makes him the least patriotic man in the Republican party.

Make no mistake: The 2012 election is the hill to die on. Our success or failure in this election will determine whether we fix our broken economy, restrain our government, and put America back to work, or become Greece.

It's time to get behind our nominee and take the fight to Barack Obama and Harry Reid.

(Photo credit Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia.org)

In Defense Of Sheriff Paul Babeu

This weekend, Pinal County, AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu resigned his post as Mitt Romney's Arizona campaign manager amid revelations about his private life, and allegations of personal misconduct. These allegations may also endanger Babeu's prospects for a U.S. Congress seat.

The question of the hour, then, is this: Are the allegations true? Did he, a nationally-known figure in the battle over illegal immigration, have a sordid relationship with an illegal immigrant and then threaten him with deportation to keep the relationship secret?

I think it's important to tell the full story of Sheriff Paul Babeu.

Babeu was born in North Adams, Massachusetts on February 3, 1969. He is the 10th of 11 children of Raymond and Helen Babeu. His political career began while still in high school, when he rallied against a pay increase for the members of his city council. At age 18, he ran for city council and won, and at age 23- as a recent college graduate- he was elected County commissioner.

After a few failed attempts to run for higher office in Democrat-controlled Massachusetts, he became the headmaster and executive director of The DeSisto School in Stockbridge, Mass., a position he held from 1999 to 2001. At this point of the narrative, an uncomfortable corollary must be made: Babeu, who has publicly spoken about his extensive sexual abuse as a child by a Catholic priest, became the headmaster of a private school for troubled youths. The school was frequently the center of criticism and allegations of abuse of students by faculty, and was eventually closed in 2005. The school's founder, Michael DeSisto, was something of a megalomaniac who (quoting from the link) "envisioned a string of schools nationally and internationally based on Gestalt psychological principles, and his own therapeutic model". Mr. DeSisto had also falsified his teaching credentials and educational experience. One, naturally, wonders whether Babeu left due to wrongdoing or due to disgust at others' wrongdoing.

Following his tenure at DeSisto School, Babeu pulled up stakes and moved from Massachusetts to Arizona, and began a new career as a law enforcement officer. He started out as a patrolman in Chandler in 2002, where he was twice decorated for lifesaving and became head of the police union, and in 2008 became the first Republican ever elected sheriff of Pinal County.

Babeu also served 20 years in the National Guard, rising in rank from Private to Major. He served a tour in Iraq and served in Operation Jump Start.

All of this biographical information tells us something about the man: He is an overachiever with multiple, simultaneous careers, and who has a very finite, closely-guarded private life which takes a backseat to his career(s).

We learned something of that private life this weekend: He is gay. Moreover, his former partner is believed to be an illegal immigrant. We saw photos of Babeu in the nude, and the former partner claims Babeu threatened him with deportation if he revealed the relationship.

Let's analyze that claim for a moment: I think it goes without saying, but a man in Babeu's position wouldn't have to threaten deportation. It would, without question, be "the elephant in the room". And if I had a dollar for every criminal who has ever claimed police wrongdoing when apprehended, I could own Facebook.

Now we have an uncomfortable choice to make: Is Paul Babeu a sinister man, who seeks ever-increasing power and personal grandeur, and then uses that status to find and exploit vulnerable partners? Or is he a tragic man, whose perpetual quest for self-improvement and good works conceals guilt and shame he carries about his own abuse? As DJ Redman asked in this post, does Babeu's 'outing' constitute a vicious attempt to smear the man, or some very troubling signs of malfeasance?

We all know certain stereotypes of people who live a "dual role" lifestyle: The abused person who makes a series of bad choices about relationship partners; the overachieving, perpetually-single schoolteacher or caregiver who over-devotes themselves to their charges while concealing a sordid and secret private life; and so forth. These stereotypes exist for a reason: such people actually exist.

Therefore, lacking any substantive evidence to the contrary, I prefer to think of Paul Babeu as a "white hat"- a man who, in the finest tradition of our values, has overcome enormous personal grief and struggle; worked harder than most of us could imagine; fought, sacrificed, and become prosperous and popular; and has done tremendous good for, and earned the admiration and loyalty of, those around him. Some of us may not be comfortable with the details of his private life- details he worked diligently to conceal- and others may desire to know more, to ensure there is no sinister aspect to him. This is an understandable precaution, provided it doesn't slide down a slippery slope to become homophobic paranoia.

I've long held a belief that some famous gunfighters- often known for their 'colorful' personal lives- sought a noble death as atonement for (real or perceived) past transgressions. Death, then, became a blessed final redemption, rather than something to fear, and having no fear of death made them successful. This is how I perfer to think of Paul Babeu: A man who has sought, for reasons not fully understood by us, a noble life in order to slay his personal demons. Those who have benefitted from his quest- and who, hopefully, will continue to benefit- should respect his privacy and be thankful and supportive of him.

Live Together or Die Alone

Amid the myriad of CPAC 2012 posts currently filling the blogosphere, I would like to offer my own reflections on the event, and the powerful lesson of which I was reminded. It is rare for me to speak personally in my political writings. I am much more comfortable with the objective distance of facts and principles and analysis than I am with sharing feelings. However, this lesson is so profoundly important to me, and to the cause of freedom, that I am compelled to speak on the subject despite my reservations.

Last weekend was a whirlwind of improbable events. In a 61-hour period I spent nearly a full day on the road and slept less than four hours. It was a trial of endurance, and I hope I met that trial well (though I imagine I probably didn't!). Fortunately I didn't undertake it alone; I had a wonderful companion. While at CPAC, I received word that my sister's husband, whom I love like a brother, was badly injured, and then later found out that I received the message in error, and that he was perfectly fine. Events also tested the strength of the bond between myself and my closest and dearest friend. I am happy to report that bond is stronger than ever.

I also met some of my good friends and comrades-in-arms, many of them for the first time. It's strange that people can mean so much to us, before we've even seen them in person. It is my lingering regret that I didn't have sufficient time to spend with all of them, or to effectively communicate my admiration of them. I am profoundly lucky to stand in the company of giants, some of whom were present and some who were not and were missed.

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention my family, without whom I would never have become the staunch advocate of individual liberty that I am. My principles are part of my pedigree. Their unwavering support has buffered me through difficult times.

I only saw one speech on Saturday- Daniel Hannan's speech (VIDEO). Among the many things I took away from it, was the profound isolation he and other British patriots experience. Conservative principles, patriotism, and love of country are frequently scorned by the liberal majority there. Mr. Hannan expressed his happiness that we are not so unfortunate in the United States.

He's right. We are much more fortunate- we have each other. Our greatest strength, and the thing which our opposition works so tirelessly to destroy, are our bonds of comradeship, friendship, and love. The greatest evil of our enemy is his desire to tear us apart and render us alone and helpless, leaving a selfish and all-powerful government as our only recourse.

Milton Friedman once told a young liberal college student that we aren't an individual society, we are a family society. He was correct. We libertarians champion individual rights and dignity, and the individual's freedom to associate and pursue prosperity and happiness. But these rights are little comfort if we have no one with whom to share them.

It's difficult for me to admit, but I have, at times in my life, felt alone and disconnected from my friends and family. I have felt hopelessly outnumbered and powerless. Fortunately, I had good people to remind me that I was neither alone nor unloved.

The bonds of loyalty and trust and love motivate us. They give our lives, and our cause, purpose. They define who we are and why we work so tirelessly. We have nothing but each other. That is the root of the 'small-government and big-citizen' cause: Together, we are vastly superior to any Leviathan; Divided, we are fragile and subservient. Either we can care for, provide for, and protect one another, or we can have nobody but government to do these things for us, and do them capriciously and badly.

Our relationships are our power and our conscience. Together we live, alone we die.

Clint Eastwood: Spokesman For The New Detroit

Much ado has been made about the Super Bowl Clint Eastwood/Chrysler commercial, expressing the theme that Detroit, and America at large, is making a comeback. In some conservative circles, "Dirty Harry" has been criticized as shilling for President Obama.

But after reading this article by Mara Gay of The Daily, I'm convinced that the tough-guy libertarian may be the ideal spokesman for Motor City. Facing huge cutbacks in the city police force, abysmally poor response times to calls for service, and a general lack of police effectiveness, the residents of Detroit- which purportedly has the nation's second-highest per capita murder rate- are arming themselves in record numbers- and self-defense shootings are up 79% year-over-year, and 2200% above the national average.

The article, while clearly left-biased (it describes armed citizens as "vigilantes"), illustrates a major shift in public thinking in Detroit: People are realizing they must provide for their own protection. The city police department, with its long history of mismanagement, is even more of a failure today than it ever has been. Even as the department faces multi-million-dollar budget shortfalls, the city paid over $6 million for a former casino building (VIDEO) to convert into a new police headquarters; and DPD is rolling out a "virtual precinct" program which directs calls for crimes reported after-the-fact during evening and overnight hours to an officer at headquarters to take a report. Translation: If you come home after work to find your house has been burglarized, DPD will take a report and get around to investigating it sometime. It's no wonder foreclosed houses are selling (or not) for as little as $50 in Detroit.

Those who can afford to move out of Detroit have already done so, and those who can't are at the end of their rope. Big-government, predominantly-Democrat Detroiters are now fully realizing that their city government can't even provide essential services, and so they are forced to become self-sufficient.

Stated another way: Residents of one of the most liberal cities in the nation are getting the harshest "wake-up call" one can receive on the failings of big-government liberalism as a theory of governance: The promise of greater safety, which is the most-effective and most-often used means of convincing the public to give up their money and their liberties, is now a broken promise in Detroit. The usual socialist responses to such a crisis are unavailable: Raising taxes isn't an option, because there's nothing left to tax; begging for money from the state government isn't an option, because the state is broke; harsher gun control laws would be opposed, because people across the political spectrum are buying and carrying guns; and more stringent enforcement isn't a possibility, because Wayne County Jail has no room to house convicts.

As Detroiters begin to cope with the "new normal" of self-reliance, they'll also ask questions about the condition of the city's police force. They'll want to know how it could get to be so bad. The answers to these questions- corrupt Democrat politicians, incompetent management, greedy and self-serving public sector unions, short-sighted liberal policies, overspending and overtaxing- can't be concealed behind socialist rhetoric any longer. The city government has run out of excuses and other people's money, and there's no room in the budget to hire Robocop.

Big changes in self-defense thinking are nothing new for Detroit: The Sweet Trials of 1925-1926, which took place in Detroit, were the first occasion in our nation's history in which an African-American successfully claimed self-defense in court.

Maybe the star of Gran Torino is a good spokesman for Detroit after all.

The Left Loves Newt Gingrich

Remember when we used to say "don't let the media choose our candidate"? Well, they are, and they've convinced large numbers of Republican primary voters to do their bidding.

From this an interview with George Soros, courtesy of Breitbart.TV:

... if you have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference, which of the two comes in. If it's between Obama and Romney, there isn't all that much difference, except for the crowd they bring with them ...

Why would Soros point out something which many conservatives instinctively believe? For the reaction! He wants conservatives to jump out of their seats and shout "See, I told you so! Newt's a real conservative and Romney's just another Obama! Even George Soros says so!", which some of you undoubtedly did just now.

George Soros is a skillful manipulator. He knows how some Republican voters will react to his statement: Greater approval for Newt Gingrich (or Rick Santorum).

Then there's this tired repeat of an old accusation by Nancy Pelosi:

There's something I know (about Gingrich)... the Republicans, if they choose to nominate him, that's their prerogative...

Pelosi, like Soros, knows how she is perceived by the right: As an instigator. Why would she drop this "tidbit" (which is probably a bluff) again? Because she knows what the Republican reaction will be: An immediate defense of Newt from loathsome Nancy Pelosi. The last time she did it, Newt's response to her allegation was a memorable throwing down of his gauntlet. Giving Gingrich an opportunity to make such a spectacular riposte was not a misstep on Nancy's part- her statement was calculated to give him such an opportunity!

Speaking of opportunities given to Gingrich to render a memorably grandiose defense: The CNN debate, where John King opened with his tawdry question about the Marianne Gingrich interview. Does the reader honestly believe that liberal news outlets don't think ahead before taking an action? This question was planned in advance, to capitalize on Gingrich's speaking ability and give him an "easy win" to attract support from the audience.

You see, liberals have gained dominance through manipulation. The leaders of the leftist movement- the head honchos of liberal media outlets, the well-known bombthrowers like Pelosi, the cloak-and-dagger operatives like Soros- have succeeded because they manipulate voters. This includes manipulating Republican voters.

So why would these figures want to engender greater support for Newt Gingrich? Simple: Because he can't win in November! These people want Republican voters to choose a candidate who can be beaten by Obama. They know Gingrich will eventually embarass the party as he did before, and make their future victories easier.

And for those who salivate over the prospect of an epic Obama/Gingrich debate: There will be no Lincoln-Douglas-style debate between the two men. There will be no long series of twice-per-week prime time debates. Obama will avoid debating Gingrich, and Gingrich will be deprived of his one-trick campaign pony.

Every one of us involved in this process has implored others, at one point or another, to "not let the liberals choose our candidate". That is exactly what the liberal establishment is doing now.

And they are succeeding.

The 2012 Guide To Winning The Senate

Any discussion of Republican electoral success in 2012 has to include a major discussion of retaking the U.S. Senate. Without the Senate, it doesn't matter if we get "Anybody But Obama" into the White House.

We currently have 47 seats in the Senate, and Democrats have 53.

Here is the breakdown of the Senate seats which will be contested in 2012 (via Wikipedia):

Democrats/Independents retiring:

Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (Independent)

Daniel Akaka of Hawaii

Ben Nelson of Nebraska

Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico

Kent Conrad of North Dakota

Jim Webb of Virginia

Herb Kohl of Wisconsin

Democrats/Independents running for reelection:

Dianne Feinstein of California

Tom Carper of Delaware

Bill Nelson of Florida

Ben Cardin of Maryland

Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

Claire McCaskill of Missouri

Jon Tester of Montana

Bob Menendez of New Jersey

Kirsten Gillibrand of New York

Sherrod Brown of Ohio

Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania

Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island

Bernie Sanders of Vermont (Independent)

Maria Cantwell of Washington

Joe Manchin of West Virginia

Note the seats I've highlighted. These are opportunities for the GOP. I'll return to them in a moment.

Now look at the Republican seats:

Republicans retiring:

Jon Kyl of Arizona

Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas

Republicans running for reelection:

Richard Lugar of Indiana

Olympia Snowe of Maine

Scott Brown of Massachusetts

Roger Wicker of Mississippi

Dean Heller of Nevada

Bob Corker of Tennessee

Orrin Hatch of Utah

John Barrasso of Wyoming

What do we see in this breakdown? We are likely to lose one seat we currently hold, and we have one other at-risk seat, whereas the Democrats have eight at-risk seats- some because they are in purple states, others because the incumbent isn't very popular. We need a net gain of four to have a majority.

In other words, the way to retake the Senate is three-fold:

1) Put substantial money into those nine races. That means getting Republicans in the other 41 states to contribute money to those races. That also means convincing Republicans in Democrat-stronghold states to put money into races which can be won, rather than throwing money away in their own state's senate races. For example, I live in New York; I know Kirsten Gillibrand will still be my Senator in 2013. So, I'll put my contribution into, say, Claire McCaskill's opponent.

To illustrate the power of this type of fundraising: There are 55 million registered Republicans in the United States. If each of them contributed $5, that'd be more than $30 million into each of these key campaigns. Obviously we won't get 55 million people to donate; this is just an illustration.

2) We need to ensure that voters in those nine states select good candidates. If 2010 and the current Presidential primaries have shown us, this isn't an easy proposition. We all remember some of the more-prominent GOP senate candidates- Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, and Joe Miller- going down in flames. We need to avoid a repeat of the process which selected them.

Both of these points would be greatly assisted by having some national organization which could a) focus on promoting well-qualified candidates and b) facilitating donations from individual donors across the country to these few races.

3) As I stated in a previous post, we need to select a presidential candidate who makes the rest of the party look good enough that moderates and independents (and some reluctant Dems if we're lucky) vote Republican in the Senate elections as well as the Presidential election. This is key; a candidate who ruins our image and our appeal to the voters will guarantee Democrats hold both the White House and the Senate.

Folks, we know what needs to be done. Now it's a question of doing it.