The Red Republic

Test

2006-09-14T22:48:00.000-04:00

Test to see if the archives are updated.

Roundup of Interesting Posts

2005-03-08T22:27:00.000-05:00

Below is a roundup of some interesting posts from today...

- Polipundit discusses more Democrat shenanigans.

- Dave Friedman points out a potential modern day Robin Hood.

- I joined the Navy Reserve about a year after 9/11. I had always wanted to be a part of the military and I felt compelled to get off my butt after the terrorist attacks. It is a very rewarding feeling to put on the uniform (even if it's only one weekend a month and two weeks of annual training per year) and so I support this idea very much! Hat tip to The Moderate Voice

Open Letter to the United States Senate

2005-03-04T14:38:00.000-05:00

Captain's Quarters has posted an open letter to the United States Senate to express outrage over the direction that the FEC has been forced to take in regulating political speech on the Internet. I have copied the entire letter below for your convenience.

To the honorable Senators McCain and Feingold, et al:

I have read with considerable dismay the effect that your recent lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, upheld by Judge Colleen Kollar-Ketelly, will have on political speech on the Internet. I write a political media-watchdog blog, Captain's Quarters, which enjoys a not-insubstantial daily readership. No one pays me to do this; I operate my site and write on topics purely from personal convictions and a deep desire to improve the world around me and make the nation stronger. I can unequivocally say the same about my many colleagues in the "blogosphere", both liberal and conservative.

Now we understand from Bradley Smith, one of the FEC commissioners, that your lawsuit forcing them to regulate speech on the Internet will have the effect of turning our efforts into in-kind contributions, especially when we provide hyperlinks back to candidate sites for referencing their positions and excerpt text from their on-line documents. Hyperlinks allow our readers to check our references to ensure our accuracy and context, and perform the hygienic task of holding our politicians accountable for their campaign practices. All of this not only should fall under the protection of the First Amendment, but it should be the primary reason for the First Amendment -- to protect and encourage free political speech and foster genuine debate.

Your legislation and the accompanying lawsuit that forced the FEC to regulate Internet political speech threaten all of that. If my links to political sites such as Georgewbush.com and Johnkerry.com counted as contributions and I was forced to accept responsibility for the cash value that the FEC designated to them, I would have been charged with several misdemeanors and possibly felonies, as I provided many such links during the past election cycle. During this cycle, my blog published over 680 essays on the presidential election. In fact, I linked to Senator Kerry's site four times as often as President Bush's site, which would have meant to the FEC that I was a major contributor to his campaign -- when in fact I opposed Senator Kerry and supported President Bush. These regulations would have forced me to retain the services of a full-time accountant and retain an attorney to understand when and where I overcontributed. At the very least, the burden of proof would be on me to make the FEC believe that my blog does not constitute in-kind contributions subject to the limits imposed on both hard and soft money contributions.

The effect of this would have been to force me to shut down my blog, or convert it to something else. In fact, it would have caused me less legal heartache to convert my site to a porn blog and do nothing but post hard-core pictures all day long. In the twisted environment of the McCain-Feingold Act, that kind of website would enjoy greater First Amendment protection than my political speech, a result for which every single Senator should feel shame and outrage.

Each of you should read the Constitution you swore to uphold and defend, and reflect on the unequivocal language of our forefathers:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
We may debate about the effect of unregulated cash on our electoral system, but if this new FEC effort comes to pass, the only people debating will be the corporate-owned media and the politicians. The rest of us will have been effectively bound and gagged, unable to contribute in any way thanks to the efforts of those who fear their own constituents. You can be assured that none of us in the blogosphere will fail to recognize those who do not act to defend our rights to free and unfettered political speech, and regardless of political party, none of us will rest until those voices of repression are stripped of office by the voters they hold in such low regard.

I, for one, will not be daunted by your attempts to stifle us. My many friends and colleagues on both sides of the political aisle stand as ready as I to defend the Constitution. We demand a hearing on McCain-Feingold, with open testimony before the press and our colleagues, and we demand action to reform or repeal this dangerous and un-American muzzle on political speech.
We await your response, sirs.

Edward Morrissey
Captain's Quarters

As noted in the update at Captain's Quarters, most Senators will only accept letters from constituents within their own state. I am going to modify the letter above and send it to Senator Dole and Senator Burr. I encourage everyone interested in protecting free speech in this country to do the same with Senators in your own home state.

FEC to Regulate Blogging?

2005-03-04T12:16:00.000-05:00

Evidently, big brother is trying to regulate blogging. Check out this post over at Red State.

Update: Here's an interesting response. This may get nasty!

House Backs Common Sense (barely)

2005-03-03T12:13:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the US House passed a job training bill (224-200) that would allow faith-based organizations receiving federal funds to consider a person's religious beliefs in making employment decisions.

Opponents argued that allowing organizations to use such considerations in employment decisions amounted to government sponsored discrimination.

Our laws should and do provide a conceptual framework to determine whether or not discrimination has taken place based on age, race, religion or sex. But at some point, you must take this conceptual framework and put it to work in reality. When you place the framework into practice, it cannot ubiquitously cover all cases. The conceptual framework must be coupled with the context of what each individual organization is trying to achieve

Obviously, ninety nine percent of the time, the conceptual laws regarding discrimination are going to hold no matter the reality of the situation. But in the case where our conceptual discrimination laws are in conflict with the very foundation of what a certain organization is trying to achieve, we have to judge each case on an individual basis.

Would it be logical for a professional baseball team to be forced by law to hire someone based on something other then their skill at the game of baseball?

Or how about a doctor? Should anyone be considered for a job as a trauma surgeon, regardless of whether or not they attended medical school?

Of course not. Because we understand that baseball teams require baseball players and emergency rooms require licensed MDs. Even though this causes discrimination against people without baseball or medical skills, society accepts it because it's common sense.

But what happens to common sense, in the US House of Representatives, when the legitimate needs of an organization, conflict with society's conceptual discrimination laws? What happens when a faith based organization wants to hire individuals with that particular organization's faith? Evidently, 200 Representatives forget about common sense and instead get lost in an ideologic battle for "freedom for freedom's sake." The concept becomes more important than reality.

My Political Philosophy

2005-03-03T12:10:00.000-05:00

Last night, I had a long conversation with a good friend about what it means to be a conservative. His opinions are very different than mine, and our debate prompted me to think hard about my own ideology. So, I decided to write this post, in an attempt to define what I believe.

I hope this post will accomplish two goals: one, to give you an idea of who I am and what values guide the decisions I make and the policies I support; and two, to force me to think logically about my positions and thereby ensure that I am being honest with myself, and that I'm not simply caught up in conservative rhetoric. Besides, I've been blogging for two weeks now, without having given you any information about me. So, for what it's worth...

My conservative ideology is made up of two parts. The first is a belief in "classical liberalism." Classical liberalism can be defined as the values that the founding fathers held in the highest esteem; the pillars of liberty if you will. These pillars of liberty are as follows:

Political freedom
Economic freedom
Freedom of expression
Freedom of religion

The second part of my conservative ideology is a belief in an external moral order that holds the following virtues:

Patriotism
Nationalism
Discipline or strong work ethic
Personal responsibility and responsibility to family

What this means in a comparative sense is that I believe in equality of rights versus equality of outcomes, personal responsibility versus social responsibility and moral standards versus personal autonomy.

One of my friend's biggest critiques of the conservative worldview is that you can't legislate morality. My response is that any law can be defined as a limit on freedom and any decision that a society makes to limit someone's freedom is ultimately based on an underlying moral conviction. So, all laws attempt to legislate morality!

However, I do believe that, too often, far right wing conservatives rely on government first and foremost to determine and regulate what is right or wrong. Empowering government to legislate every aspect of our society constrains the pillars of classical liberalism that I described above. Also, as this mentality progresses, people become more and more dependent on government and the result is a weakening of personal responsibility.

So, in summary, I would describe myself as an economic libertarian and a social conservative with the caveat that any legislation should avoid, to the best degree possible, mitigating personal responsibility. Clear as mud, huh? Hope this sheds a little light on who I am.

Republicans = Nazis (According to Byrd)

2005-03-02T15:55:00.000-05:00

The Blogosphere is all over the story of Senator Robert Byrd comparing Republicans to Nazis. Check out Captain's Quarters post here. Where is the mainstream media on this?

Insurgent Attacks Backfiring?

2005-03-01T23:03:00.000-05:00

Very rarely does the MSM report the good news coming out of Iraq. Poliblog has a great post on happenings in Hillah, the day after a suicide bomber kills 125 police and national guard recruits.

Protests in Hillah - Khalid Mohammed / AP

Memorable Quote

2005-03-01T20:00:00.000-05:00

"The sad truth about a society that becomes increasingly politicized by the day is that the principal victim is integrity. Thoughtfulness and honesty count for less and less and appearance count for more and more."

Star Parker - Founder of CURE, Columnist and Author

Roadblock on the Roadmap

2005-03-01T19:39:00.000-05:00

Barry Rubin identifies the fundamental roadblock in the Palestinian/Israeli peace process in his most recent article in the Jerusalem Post (you must register but it's free).

...the PA pretends that it governs a state, or at least provides the foundation for an independent country; but it combines this with a failure to actually rule. To avoid imposing his power, or even offending, any Palestinian faction, Abu Mazen has preferred a strategy of appeasement.

Abbas must begin to take action against terrorists amongst his people. Only when Israel is able to see tangible evidence, that the new Palestinian Authority can actually govern, will any progress be made. When Abbas finally does make a move, the reaction of his people will be the true test of whether or not peace is viable.

Democrats Suggest Politicization of the SSA

2005-02-28T16:49:00.000-05:00

Earlier today, eight Democratic Representatives from the US House, including Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, released a report entitled The Politicization of the Social Security Administration.

The purpose of the report, as stated in a press release by the Government Reform Minority Office, is to show how the Social Security Administration has altered its publications, press releases, website content, etc. to foster the impression that Social Security is "unsustainable" and "must change." Read the press release here.

Let me sum this up in a slightly different way. Our tax dollars were spent by a partisan committee of Democrats to produce a report that says that the Social Security Administration has altered its publications, not because their is an actual problem, but because it has been corrupted by right leaning partisanship. Nevermind the most recent Trustees Report released by this very agency which says major problems lie ahead!

This whole episode is absolutely absurd. Imagine....tax money being spent on left wing propaganda which claims that right wing propaganda has infiltrated the Social Security Administration; all the while, the real problem of our system going to hell, sits in the background as if it were no big deal.

Here is the first sentence of the Executive Summary from the report:

"This report investigates whether the Social Security Administration has altered its communications to the public to build support for President Bush's Social Security proposals."

No it doesn't! It simply investigates whether or not the Social Security Administration's message has changed over the past several years. And guess what? As the system has moved closer to insolvency, it has!

Once again, the Democrats are focused on demonizing the Republicans as opposed to actually suggesting a solution to the problem. Frankly, this whole thing makes me sick.

Eminent Domain Part 2

2005-02-28T15:05:00.000-05:00

Jeff Jacoby has written an excellent article discussing the stakes of the Kelo v. New London case, which I blogged about last week. Below is a quote from from the article, discussing a 1795 Supreme Court case:

"The despotic power . . . of taking private property when state necessity requires, exists in every government," Justice William Paterson wrote in a 1795 case, Vanhorn's Lessee v. Dorrance, but the state must not invoke that power "except in urgent cases." He could not imagine any situation that would justify "the seizing of landed property belonging to one citizen, and giving it to another citizen. . . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature . . . can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?"

The question is, how has our society moved so drastically from one side of the issue to the other? This country was founded on private property rights. To some degree, they are the very pillar of liberty and freedom and yet we seem to be tossing out these rights in favor of a government auction that places property in the hands of the highest taxpayer.

Lebanese Government Resigns!

2005-02-28T13:35:00.000-05:00

Lebanon's pro-Syrian government has just resigned! CNN has the story here and Publius Pundit is tracking all the action here.

Check out Caveman in Beirut for a local perspective.

Conservatives Abandoning their Principles

2005-02-27T16:25:00.000-05:00

In his most recent article, Colin McNickle writes about the consequences of conservatives abandoning their principles. He gives many concrete examples of current conservative proposals that, in the past, would have been anathema to anyone with a remotely right wing ideology. Here is a good one:

Pennsylvania's junior U.S. senator this week is planning to introduce a bill that would raise the minimum wage. The economy is growing, the Republican notes; his "sense" is that now "is probably a good time" to raise the wage floor.

I just pulled out the dusty textbook from my introduction to economics class from 1996 (Economics, 4th Edition, Dr. David Hyman - I knew there was a reason I kept this thing around for 10 years) and found the following, "Minimum wages benefit workers who are fortunate enough to find work at wage levels that exceed the equilibrium wage. However, they harm workers who seek employment at the higher wage but can't find jobs. Evidence has linked minimum-wage laws with teenage unemployment. Each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage appears to be associated with about a 1 percent to 3 percent reduction in total teenage employment. Minimum wages also appear to reduce employment of young adults aged 20 to 24 and of the elderly."

Here is another:

The debate over Social Security reform rapidly has devolved into an unseemly contest among "conservatives" to see who can snooker the American people into believing that taxes must be increased to "save" the supplemental retirement system.

The most preposterous involves raising the $90,000 cap on which workers pay Social Security taxes. Cap-lifting is billed as a way to both gain a short-term reprieve against program insolvency and to pay for transition costs for partially privatized accounts.

As 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat would have noted, that's the "seen." But Heritage Foundation scholar David C. John has been peeling away the multiple layers of paint from the proposal to expose the largely "unseen," or perhaps in this case, the denied.

A growing number of "conservatives" have succumbed to the liberal argument that it's only "fair" that the cap be raised. After all, why should income in excess of $90,000 not be taxed for Social Security purposes? Because the cap actually "serves to limit the ... benefits that a well-off retiree will receive," Mr. John notes.

Liberals would be shocked to learn that raising the cap will really stick it to the rich -- by allowing the wealthy to draw even higher Social Security benefits. That said, raising the cap will not only offer about six years of reprieve for this pyramid scheme, but it will result in serious unintended consequences. John cites a Center for Data Analysis study that concludes the elimination of the payroll tax cap would:

- Reduce take-home pay of 10.4 million workers by thousands of dollars
- Reduce family savings by thousands of dollars
- Reduce investment by hundreds of billions of dollars
- Decrease the rate of economic growth, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from this nation's gross domestic product
- And reduce the number of job opportunities and increase unemployment

For those of you who want to delve deeper into the economic theories of Frederic Bastiat, here is a link explaining "that which is Seen and that which is not Seen." Also, Radley Balko has a link to a great idea for educating people on this very topic.

The examples that Mr. McNickle points out are disturbing. I hope that many of our conservative leaders will see the light. If they need help, I'd be happy to loan them my textbook.

New Missile Defense Initiative

2005-02-27T08:33:00.000-05:00

Six Meat Buffet has an interesting solution to Canada's refusal to participate in our missile defense program. (Hat Tip to Young Pundit)

More Good News from the Middle East

2005-02-27T07:56:00.000-05:00

We can now officially add Egypt to the list of Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel/Palestine and Lebanon; countries where democracy and peace are working to replace the status quo. Can all of this change stem from President George Bush's policies in the Middle East? I believe a good part of it can.

It is premature to judge the ultimate success of any of these momentous shifts but I believe that ten years down the road, George Bush will be known as the President who changed the entire political landscape of the Middle East.

There is a great deal of work to be done and any number of events could ultimately spell disaster. Big rewards require big risks but for the first time in my life, I have real hope that their will be peace and stability in the region.

More on the Social Security "Trust Fund"

2005-02-26T20:00:00.000-05:00

Several days ago I posted a short piece that attempted to draw attention to the fact that our Social Security system is going to face significant problems long before 2042.

Charles Krauthammer has written a terrific article on this same subject. In my opinion, the major issue is how little most Americans seem to know about our government "borrowing from the left hand to pay the right."

If more people understood the reality of the situation then we could put pressure on our elected officials to get off the fence and do something about the problem. More importantly, we could eliminate the ridiculous practice of loaning the federal government money that it does not have.

Although I hate to say it, where are old Al Gore and his "Lockbox" when you need them.

Winds of Change

2005-02-24T20:50:00.000-05:00

The Daily Demarche has a great post on the changes that are taking place in the Middle East. One quote that I pulled from the post illustrates the shift in attitude among many in the region:

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

Hopefully this momentum will continue. Keep your fingers crossed.

Interpretation of the Fifth Amendment

2005-02-24T20:49:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. New London which pits Connecticut property owners against the government of the city they call home and seeks to define the limits of eminent domain. At the center of the dispute is whether or not New London has a right to condemn private property under the power of eminent domain in order to facilitate the development of privately owned offices, hotels and parking facilities. The power of eminent domain has typically been used to condemn property from citizens in order to build public improvements such as highways and hospitals. In this case, however, the government wants to redistribute property from one private owner to another.

The exercise of eminent domain is subject to a court's determination of three necessary condition: (1) that the use is for the benefit of the public; (2) that an equitable amount of compensation will be paid to the owner; and (3) that the rights of the property owner will be protected by due process of law. In Kelo v. New London, numbers 2 and 3 above are not at issue. Justice Scalia, speaking on behalf of Ms. Kelo, said, "What this lady [Kelo] wants is not more money. She says I'll move if it's for the public good, but not just so that someone else can pay more taxes." The fact that the case has reached the Supreme Court is evidence that the current property owners have been protected by due process of law.

The controversy, then, surrounds the definition of "public use" and the correct interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. The attorney for Kelo, Scott G. Bullock, argues that if the city can use it's power of eminent domain for the sake of jobs and the tax revenue that private sector development brings, "Every home, church or corner store would produce more jobs and tax revenue if it were a Costco or a shopping mall." Justice O'Connor raises the question, "whether it would be okay for a city to replace a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton if the city felt like Ritz-Carlton could pay more taxes?"

Evidently, Supreme Court decisions since World War II have broadened the definition of "public use" and more cities are using eminent domain to help spur private development. It would be foolish to deny that these types of private-sector developments have been good for many people. They serve to strengthen local economies and "clean up" areas of deterioration. They also attract new business which improves the tax base and creates jobs. But where do we draw the line? If the Supreme Court sets a precedent by ruling in favor of New London then that decision gives the green light for governments to redistribute private property in a much broader sense then ever before. If that is indeed the future then the fundamental definition of "private" property has changed. Come to think of it, is it really "private" at all?

New Indecency Legislation

2005-02-24T20:48:00.000-05:00

My initial reaction to the new indecency bill passed by the House of Representatives was one of way to go fellas....you show 'em...take back our airways from those valueless, anything for a buck, TV executives.

But after a bit more thought, I realized something that made me break into a cold sweat. I realized that I had made the decision to substitute government regulation for personal responsibility. TV stations were not breaching my system of values; I was doing that myself by not taking responsibility for my own actions.

For a moment, I had become dependent. I had forgotten that I live in a free country where I have a choice. I decide to turn my TV on or leave it off and I don't need any oversight to help me make that decision.

The only "regulation" that the broadcasting industry could use is for me to stop supporting their business when my value system does not agree with their programming.

Words of Wisdom

2005-02-24T20:47:00.000-05:00

After posting my comments on Liz Sidoti's piece yesterday, I was pleasantly surprised when, this morning, I received the following quote from The Federalist Patriot through their daily email quote service:

"When you assemble from your several counties in the Legislature, were every member to be guided only by the apparent interest of his county, government would be impracticable. There must be a perpetual accommodation and sacrifice of local advantage to general expediency." --Alexander Hamilton

Talk about good timing!

Backwards Logic

2005-02-24T20:46:00.000-05:00

In discussing President Bush's return to Europe, Keith Richburg quotes a European man by the name of Bruno Hoybel. Hoybel, while eating at an European McDonald's states, "I'm not against Americans, just their policies. You've got to admire what America has achieved, and the good things they bring over here, like clothes."

I don't get it. Aren't our policies behind our achievements? I have always thought that to be the case.

Looking Out for Number One

2005-02-24T20:44:00.000-05:00

Liz Sidoti, in her story on base closings, describes yet another example of short-sighted leadership in our country. Senator Trent Lott from Mississippi is adamantly lobbying for the protection of Meridian Naval Air Station from the next round of military base closures across the country.

Donald Rumsfeld made the case before Congress that closing or consolidating bases could save 7 Billion dollars a year and that money could be spent to improve the military's ability to battle terrorists. Congress debated. Congress voted. And guess what? The measure was approved. So why is Senator Lott making such a fuss? Because politics has become more important than policy. Mr. Lott is more concerned with keeping his job than with developing solutions to combat the problems that Americans face.

Spending tax money inefficiently simply for the sake of keeping jobs for his local constituency employs the same line of reasoning that Barbara Boxer used back in 1990 to oppose the war to liberate Kuwait. She said that the war was a bad idea because it might be harmful to Kuwait’s environment! Senator Lott...please don't miss the forest for the trees. You were elected as a leader of this country to make tough choices that might not always line up with small interest groups in your constituency. On the other hand, the employees at Meridian Air Station would probably respect you more if you were seen as a proactive legislator, fighting to defend them from terrorists, as opposed to reactively fighting for their tax money to continue to be spent inefficiently.

A Night With Richard Burr

2005-02-24T20:42:00.000-05:00

On Friday night I had the opportunity the attend a dinner where Richard Burr, the new Republican Senator from North Carolina, was the keynote speaker. Senator Burr's speech covered a broad range of topics but what impressed me the most was his discussion of "obstructionism" in the legislature. He pointed out that many democrat obstructionists had been voted out of office during the last election and that there was a new spirit of energy and cooperation in the halls of congress.

That may be going a bit far but what encourages me is the fact that our leaders have begun to initiate a dialog with the people about tackling some of our toughest problems. This is what we deserve as a nation; our leaders debating policy in order to figure out the best solutions to our problems as opposed to the typical partisan rhetoric that we normally encounter.

President Bush has hit the streets to promote his plan to fix our social security system and has repeatdly asked members of congress to propose their own ideas. What worries me is that even this open door approach doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. James Joyner recently wrote:

In their "response" to Bush's State of the Union last week, Reid and his counterpart Nancy Pelosi made it clear they have decided upon a strategy of opposing Bush's agenda per se rather than offering an alternative set of policy proposals. They're going to pretend that the election never happened and that the American people didn't just vote for the agenda Bush campaigned on for two years and repudiate the message Kerry and the Democrats offered.

Oh well. Perhaps things will never change.

Assets or Liabilities?

2005-02-24T20:40:00.000-05:00

I wish to bring to the attention of the people who’s opinion of the Social Security trust fund’s “assets” is that they are the most secure investment in the world and subsequently that our system is hunky dory are, in fact, completely missing the point.

The sad truth is that any Social Security surplus is “invested” in government treasury securities which are nothing more then the guarantee that our citizens will pay, through taxes of course, the principal and interest incurred at some future date.

So, when these “assets” must be redeemed in 2018 to cover the shortfall in the system then I hope we are ready to pay when Uncle Sam comes calling. We shouldn’t have any problems of course. After all, the American taxpayer is the most secure bet in the world.

Culture of Dependancy

2005-02-24T20:38:00.000-05:00

Did you know that the critics of American Democracy in the late 18th century said that our system of government would not last because our citizens would figure out that they could vote themselves more benefits without paying for them? Check out this recent CNN Poll...I bet Adam Smith is rolling in his grave.