Michelle Inadvertently Reveals Truth

Michelle Obama's speech last night confirmed what most of who have not been conned already knew:  that Barack Obama is completely, totally, absolutely, irretrievably out of touch with the American people.

Michelle, in telling a story that was meant to elicit respect and admiration, revealed what a clueless man her husband is.  She related that Barack spent many nights reading letters from people talking about their struggles and hardships.  Barack was said to have commented on how "unbelievable" many of these situations were.

Our President needs to read letters from us to understand our suffering?!?!?!?!  23-million people unemployed and he needs to read letters from us to figure out that a few of us might be struggling?!?!?!?  When you have no job, no money and no hope, it is unbelievable that you are suffering?

Barack Obama is one of the most arrogant, elitist, out of touch Presidents that our nation has ever had.  Obviously, the First Lady is his equal in this regard.

Clint's Commanding Performance Against the Commander-in-the-Empty-Chair

Not since Charlton Heston parted the red sea of delegates had Hollywood created such a stir at a national Republican convention.  When Clint Eastwood sauntered to the podium in Tampa last night, one sensed unbridled excitement in the arena, even from a television in Louisville.  It was like a few Derbys ago, when Jack Nicholson dropped by the paddock at Churchill Downs.  An A-list celebrity spotting in a most unexpected place.  Like Jack, Clint is a guy who wins over a crowd just by showing up.  The kind who exudes a coolness that stirs up a red hot frenzy.

Today's word for Clint's speech from the liberal media is "crazy".  That's reason enough to watch the speech on YouTube if, by chance, you missed it last night -- or to watch it again, as I did this morning.  True, Clint was mumbling and bumbling at times.  But that just added to the brilliance of the performance.  For Clint was, in a way, a metaphor for America, waking up in a stupor, asking what happened to us?  How in the world could we have voted for that man?  An America who finally got a chance to interview "the One" who has been its "employee", to use Clint's better chosen word, these past three and a half years.  The President answered as you would expect from an empty chair on the stage.  

Clint gave the speech with no teleprompter -- an absent prop that was as much a dig at Mr. Obama as the empty chair -- and with creativity and wit that, even with Oprah's coaching, the President will never have.  Clint did have to think creatively to come up with the name of another actor with enough guts to show up at the Convention (Jon Voight), and Clint's claim that there are many conservatives and libertarians in Hollywood seemed more hopeful than true.


But other seemingly ad libbed  lines played to the crowd with more authenticity:


"I remember three and a half years ago, when Mr. Obama won the election. And though I was not a big supporter, I was watching that night when he was having that thing and they were talking about hope and change and they were talking about, yes we can, and it was dark outdoors, and it was nice, and people were lighting candles.  They were saying, I just thought, this was great. Everybody is crying, Oprah was crying.I was even crying. And then finally -- and I haven’t cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country."

Ouch.

"Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn’t close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo -- why close that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an excuse -- what do you mean shut up?  OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City."

Thanks for reminding us of that early bone-headed idea from the Obama Administration.

"I know you were against the war in Iraq, and that’s okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK. You know, I mean -- you thought that was something worth doing. We didn’t check with the Russians to see how did it -- they did there for 10 years. But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and I think that, when we get to maybe -- I think you’ve mentioned something about having a target date for bringing everybody home. You gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only sensible question, you know, he says, 'Why are you giving the date out now? Why don’t you just bring them home tomorrow morning?'”

And the Ron Paul delegates went wild.




"See, I never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president, anyway.  I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they’re always taught to argue everything, and always weight everything -- weigh both sides...  They are always devil’s advocating this and bifurcating this and bifurcating that. You know all that stuff. But, I think it is maybe time -- what do you think -- for maybe a businessman. How about that? A stellar businessman. Quote, unquote, 'a stellar businessman.'"

Not since Ronald Reagan had an actor flipped an argument on a lawyer so well.


"And I think it’s that time. And I think if you just step aside and Mr. Romney can kind of take over. You can maybe still use a plane.  Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas guzzler you are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and stuff like that. You are an -- an ecological man. Why would you want to drive that around?"

More flipping of -- and off -- the Left's arguments.


"You’re crazy, you’re absolutely crazy."

Clint's chastisement of the empty chair.

"You’re getting as bad as Biden.  Of course we all now Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party."

 Another ouch.



"Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we -- we own this country.  We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.  And -- so -- they are just going to come around and beg for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just think it is important that you realize , that you’re the best in the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether you’re libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go.

Who needs Donald Trump as a speaker when you've got Clint Eastwood to deliver the message, "You're fired"?

And by this point, if the empty chair had not gotten the message, it was confirmed by the speaker's most famous line:


Clint:  "But OK. You want to make my day?"

(APPLAUSE)

Clint:  "All right. I started, you finish it. Go ahead."

Audience:  "Make my day!"


The Great Communicator couldn't have communicated it better.

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Condi Outshines Paul Ryan

Last night at the Republican National Convention produced a range of oratorical styles, some that dazzled, and some that disappointed.

Condoleeza Rice gave the speech of a lifetime.  I knew she'd be good -- her performance at Mitt Romney's donor retreat a few months ago gave rise to a "Draft Condi" movement.

Still, Rice surpassed all my expectations.  She was magnificent:  intellectual without pretense; beautiful and poised and yet humble.  Her speech reflected her training as a concert pianist in terms of the phrasing and dynamics.  And that's just the style.

The substance made the case for American exceptionalism.  She showed that domestic issues -- particularly the economy -- are linked to our global stature, and can even become security risks.

Certainly the highlight was her personal reflection that she, a little girl in segregated Birmingham, who could not eat at the Woolworth's counter, could grow up to be Secretary of State.  What a great country (and what great parents for instilling that confidence in their daughter at such a time and place.)  I teared up.

Watching Rice, I wondered,  "Why isn't she the nominee?"

* * *

Mike Huckabee gave an outstanding speech, as well. His training as a Baptist Pastor has served him well.  So, too, does his passionate belief in conservative social issues.  What a commanding presence. There was no doubt that Huckabee believed in what he was saying with every core of his being.

 Huckabee's attack on the Obamacare's birth control mandates was in some ways historic, as he, the Baptist Pastor from Arkansas, stood shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic Church, and said that an attack on the freedom of worship of Catholics is an attack on him. Catholics have not always felt this support in the Bible-Belt.  Huckabee's speech gave me hope that the chapter of bigotry against Catholics in the Deep South is closing.

* * *

I had been looking forward to Paul Ryan's speech. Maybe I expected too much.  And Condi and Mike Huckabee left some awfully big shoes for him to fill.  Bottom line:  I was disappointed.

It wasn't a bad speech.  It had some nice lines. He just looked so . . . young.  And despite his stature, he seemed small somehow. He didn't seem like the guy who had gone toe to toe with the President on the budget.

Certainly, he did not have the charisma that Sarah Palin manifested in that same spot on the roster four years ago.

That's alright.  He'll make up for it in the Vice Presidential Debate when he takes on Joe Biden.

Rand Paul Blasts Obama at Convention

Here is the transcript for Senator Paul's speech at the Republican National Convention:

“When the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, the first words out of my mouth were: I still think it is unconstitutional!

The leftwing blogs were merciless. Even my wife said -- can't you please count to ten before you speak?

So, I've had time now to count to ten and, you know what -- I still think it's unconstitutional!

Do you think Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have changed their minds?

I think if James Madison, himself -- the father of the Constitution -- were here today he would agree with me: the whole damn thing is still unconstitutional!

This debate is not new and it's not over. Hamilton and Madison fought from the beginning about how government would be limited by the enumerated powers.

Madison was unequivocal. The powers of the federal government are few and defined. The power to tax and spend is restricted by the enumerated powers.

So, how do we fix this travesty of justice? There’s only one option left.

We have to have -- a new President!

When I heard the current President say, “You didn’t build that,” I was first insulted, then I was angered, then I was saddened that anyone in our country, much less the President of the United States, believes that roads create business success and not the other way around.

Anyone who so fundamentally misunderstands American greatness is uniquely unqualified to lead this great nation.

The great and abiding lesson of American history, particularly the Cold War, is that the engine of capitalism -- the individual -- is mightier than any collective.

American inventiveness and desire to build developed because we were guaranteed the right to own our success.

For most of our history no one dared tell Americans: “You didn’t build that.”

In Bowling Green, KY, the Taing family owns the Great American Donut shop. Their family fled war-torn Cambodia to come to this country. My kids and I love to eat donuts so we go there frequently.

The Taings work long hours. Mrs. Taing told us that the family works through the night to make donuts. The Taing children have become valedictorians and National Merit Scholars.

The Taings from Cambodia are an American success story, so Mr. President don’t you go telling the Taings: “You didn’t build that.”

When you say they didn't build it, you insult each and every American who ever got up at the crack of dawn. You insult any American who ever put on overalls or a suit.

You insult any American who ever studied late into the night to become a doctor or a lawyer. You insult the dishwasher, the cook, the waitress.

You insult anyone who has ever dragged themselves out of bed to strive for something better for themselves or their children.

My great grandfather, like many, came to this country in search of the American Dream. No sooner had he stepped off the boat then his father died.

He arrived in Pittsburgh as a teenager with nothing, not a penny. He found the American Dream: not great wealth, but a bit of property in a new land that gave him hope for his children.

In America, as opposed to the old country, success was based on merit. Probably America's greatest asset was that for the first time success was not based on who you were but on what you did.

My grandfather would live to see his children become doctors, ministers, accountants, and professors. He would even live to see one of his sons ... a certain Congressman from Texas ... run for President of the United States of America.

Immigrants have flocked to our shores seeking freedom. Our forbearers came full of hopes and dreams. So consistent and prevalent were these aspirations that they crystallized into a national yearning we call the American Dream.

No other country has a Dream so inextricably associated with the spirit of its people.

In 1982, an American sailor, John Mooney, wrote a letter to his parents that captures the essence of the American Dream:

“Dear Mom and Dad, today we spotted a boat in the water, and we rendered assistance. We picked up 65 Vietnamese refugees. … As they approached the ship, they were all waving and trying as best they could to say, ‘Hello America sailor! Hello Freedom man!’ It’s hard to see a boat full of people like that and not get a lump somewhere between chin and bellybutton. And it really makes one proud and glad to be an American. ... It reminds us all of what America has always been -- a place a man or woman can come to for freedom.”

Hung and Thuan Tringh are brothers and friends of mine. They came to America on one of those leaky, over-crowded boats. They were attacked at sea by pirates. Their family’s wealth was stolen. Thuan spent a year on a South Pacific island existing on one cup of rice and water each day until he was allowed to come to America. Now both of these men and their families are proud Americans. Hung owns his own business and Thuan manages a large company. They are the American Dream.

So, Mr. President, don’t go telling the Tringh family: “You didn’t build that.”

When the President says, “You didn’t build that,” he is flat out wrong. Businessmen and women did build that. Businessmen and women did earn their success. Without the success of American business we wouldn’t have any roads, or bridges, or schools.

Mr. President, you say the rich must pay their fair share. When you seek to punish the rich, the jobs that are lost are those of the poor and middle class.

When you seek to punish Mr. Exxon Mobil, you punish the secretary who owns Exxon Mobil stock.

When you block the Keystone Pipeline, you punish the welder who works on the pipeline.

Our nation faces a crisis. America waivers. Unfortunately, we are one of a select group of countries whose debt equals their gross domestic product.

The republic of Washington and Jefferson is now in danger of becoming the democracy of debt and despair. Our great nation is coming apart at the seams and the President seems to point fingers and blame others.

President Obama’s administration will add nearly $6 trillion dollars to our national debt in just one term.

This explosion of debt is unconscionable and unsustainable. Mr. President, we will not let you bankrupt this great nation!

Republicans and Democrats alike must slay their sacred cows. Republicans must acknowledge that not every dollar spent on the military is necessary or well-spent, and Democrats must admit that domestic welfare and entitlements must be reformed.

Republicans and Democrats must replace fear with confidence, confidence that no terrorist, and no country, will ever conquer us if we remain steadfast to the principles of our Founding documents.

We have nothing to fear except our own unwillingness to defend what is naturally ours, our God-given rights. We have nothing to fear that should cause us to forget or relinquish our rights as free men and women.

To thrive we must believe in ourselves again, and we must never -- never -- trade our liberty for any fleeting promise of security.

Author Paul Kengor writes of a brisk evening in small-town Illinois. Returning home from a basketball game at the YMCA, an 11 year old boy is stunned by the sight of his father sprawled out in the snow on the front porch. “He was drunk,” his son later remembered. “Dead to the world…crucified.” The dad’s hair was soaked with melted snow, matted unevenly against the side of his reddened face.

The boy stood over his father for a minute or two. He simply wanted to let himself in the door and pretend his dad wasn’t there. Instead, he grabbed a fistful of overcoat and heaved his dad to the bedroom, away from the weather’s harm and neighbors’ attention.

This young boy became the man – Ronald Reagan – whose sunny optimism and charisma shined so brightly that it cured the malaise of the late seventies, a confidence that beamed so broadly that it pulled us through a serious recession, and a faith that tugged so happily at all hearts that a generation of Democrats became Republicans.

The American Dream is that any among us could become the next Thomas Edison, the next Henry Ford, the next Ronald Reagan.

To lead us forward, away from the looming debt crisis, it will take someone who believes in America’s greatness, who believes in and can articulate the American dream, someone who has created jobs, someone who understands and appreciates what makes America great, someone who will lead our party and our nation forward.

I believe that someone is our nominee: Governor Mitt Romney.

As Reagan said, our freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction. If our freedom is taken, the American Dream will wither and die.

To lead, we must transform the coldness of austerity into the warm, vibrant embrace of prosperity.

To overcome the current crisis, we must appreciate and applaud American success. We must step forward, unabashedly and proclaim: You did build that. You earned that. You worked hard. You studied. You labored. You did build that. And you deserve America’s undying gratitude. For you, the individual, are the engine of America’s greatness.

Thank you.”

Kentucky's Night at the Convention

Tonight, at approximately 7:00, both of Kentucky's Republican Senators will take to the podium.  It's not clear from the schedule if Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul are supposed to speak jointly or tag-team it. Whatever the format, their slot is 7:00.

Perhaps McConnell and Paul will reprise the pitch they made in Frankfort last week to repeal Obamacare?  The symbolism of a Tea Party Caucus founder and a more established member of the Republican Party works well in the big tent of the National Convention.

Rep. Paul Ryan is at 10:00.  Looking forward to him channeling all that Jack Kemp optimism about the great future that awaits our country if the government can stop stifling the entrepreneurial spirit with its massive deficits, taxes and regulations.

Apple Victory Over Samsung

As many of you know, Apple was recently awarded more than $1 billion from Samsung for patent violations on mobile devices, many of them cosmetic. 

Image Credit: Engadget

Look at the devices above. Do they look similar? Yes. Of course they do. They're both rounded rectangles. But how many other shapes can you make a phone? Apple claims that consumers have actually bought Samsung devices thinking they are Apple devices. That's crazy. How could you confuse them when the Samsung device has "SAMSUNG" written across the top? 

Suppose someone actually did confuse the devices at the store, and they asked the sales associate for the Samsung phone by accident. When the associate returned with a box that has "Samsung Galaxy S" written over it, the consumer would clearly have been able to tell that it's not an iPhone.

I think that Engadget's Darren Murph says it best:

                

"It's about as absurd as suggesting that someone could be duped into buying a Honda Odyssey instead of a Dodge Grand Caravan. They're both minivans after all, right?"

Rand Paul Gives Republican Weekly Adress

You can watch the video here.

Akin and the Fake War on Women

Rep. Todd Akin is an embarrassment to the Republican Primary.  He should withdraw from the race immediately.

The notion that this sentiment is confined to a few "party bosses" or "Establishment Republicans" is as frivolous as the supposed Republican War on Women. The only Establishment politician trying to keep Akin from withdrawing is Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Akin's comment about "legitimate rape,"  whatever that means, has obscured the second half of the sentence in which he made the remark.

As Kathleen Parker recounted,

For those who didn't pay their cable bill, Akin recently assured Americans that in cases of "legitimate rape," women don't get pregnant because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."  (Emphasis added.)

That comment suggests that Akin never took 9th grade biology.  The issue is not sexism, just plain old ignorance of the reproductive system.  It's the sort of thinking that believes that masturbation causes blindness.

It's also the sort of thinking that ignores that his election is not just about him:  it is about control of the U.S. Senate and perhaps control of the White House.

It is literally possible that the fate of the country  -- our ability to repeal Obamacare, cut spending and reform entitlements -- may turn on one sentence from some guy that most of us never heard of until he uttered that it.

The fact that Akin is digging in his heals shows that he was in this race not to advance conservative ideals, but purely for self-aggrandizement.  Anyone who really believed in putting principle first would have already withdrawn.

Andy Barr to Address GOP Convention

Andy Barr, the Republican nominee in Kentucky's 6th Congressional District, has been selected to speak at the first night of the upcoming Republican National Convention, Monday, August 27, 2012.

Those evening slots are coveted; this is a real coup for Barr.  It's a surprising choice, given that Barr is running as a challenger for a House race, one of 435.  What makes Barr an interesting speaking choice is how close he came last time to winning -- alerts went out to election lawyers to prepare to head to Barr's district in anticipation of a recount.  The margin did not justify a recount, but still, this was one of the closest races in the country.

Barr's race also merits attention due to the incumbent Barr seeks to defeat:  Ben Chandler.  Chandler sports an illustrious political name in Kentucky politics.  In terms of voting record, however, Chandler is a moderate.  Left-wingers love to rant about Chandler. If Barr is able to defeat Chandler, it will be time for Republicans to break out the bubbly.

A Fair Trade...

The Left is whining because Mitt Romney will not reveal his tax returns.  Here is a trade he should offer.  Romney should offer to provide his tax returns in return for Barack Obama providing his college and law school transcripts.

The Left could make hay out of the gazillions of dollars that Romney's tax returns would likely show, the Right could make hay out of all the Cs that Barack Obama's transcripts would likely show.

Don't Dump Joe!

Since he was nominated to run with Obama, every time poor Joe Biden makes a gaffe, there is a call to replace him with Hillary Clinton.

Oddly, many of these most recent calls to dump Biden have come from Republicans.  Rudy Giuliani went so far as to question Biden's mental capacity. Sen. John McCain and Sarah Palin have similarly opined that Obama should ask Hillary to run as V.P. this time around. Sarah Palin's Tea Party credentials are stellar.  Giuliani and McCain, not so much.  Interesting to see that of the Republicans urging Obama to replace Biden with Hillary, many are RINOs.

I don't understand why any Republican would want Obama to do the one thing that could make him more electable.

Biden is God's gift to Republicans.  And he is a gift that keeps giving.  Why would we want to replace him with someone as formidable as Hillary?  To be sure, Hillary would make a much better president than Biden in the event that the V.P. was called to serve.  That is exactly why Hillary would improve the Obama ticket.

Sarah Palin surely knows this.  So why would Palin suggest that Obama replace Biden with Hillary?  One explanation is that now that Palin has offered this advice, it would be hard for Obama to make the switch without looking like he is taking advice from -- or at least agrees with -- Sarah Palin. That is something he will not do.

Consequently, now that Sarah Palin has suggested that Obama dump Biden, she has rendered that option radioactive for Obama.  She has turned his best option into a non-option.

Liberal media like to call Sarah Palin stupid (while ignoring Biden's deficiencies). Try stupid like a fox.

Romney Surprises With Ryan

Mitt Romney surprised me with his selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate. I did not think he would go with such a bold pick. I underestimate Romney. I really did not think he had it in his constitution to pick anyone other than a safe, boring choice a la Portman.

By choosing Ryan, Romney makes clear that he is serious about getting our nation's finances in order -- more serious than the Democrat-controlled Senate, which has not passed a budget in roughly 1200 days. That's several months longer than the siege of Leningrad.

Democrats are already attacking Ryan for his efforts to reform entitlements. For conservatives, Ryan's courage in proposing real reform to Medicare is downright inspiring.

The Vice Presidential Debate -- to be held at Centre College -- will be epic. The thought of Ryan debating the hapless Joe Biden is just too good to be true. I cannot wait.

Even the name Romney-Ryan exceeds my hopes. It is not just the alliteration, but the double R. For conservatives, the Initials R.R. evoke Ronald Reagan. The Gipper would be most pleased with Romney's selection of Paul Ryan.

A Shout-Out For A Papa John's "Buycot"

The Courier Journal today claims that John Schnatter "endorse[d]" Obamacare with his recent answer to a stock analyst's question regarding the impact of that legislation on the price of pizza.  Schnatter said that the price of an average Papa John's pizza order would need to increase between 15 and 20 cents in order for his company to pay for the health care insurance mandated by the statute.  According to the C-J, "that's a bargain if it means thousands of Papa John's employees in all 50 states are going to be getting health coverage."

Gee, that doesn't sound like much of a bargain to me.  That's because, by my calculation, the price of my carry-out dinners from Papa John's (which average around $15-$20) just went up by about 1%, and if every product and service in the economy went up by the same rate (and there's no reason to believe they won't), Obamacare will take an additional $200 per year if I spend $20,000 on annual purchases, $500 if I spend $50,000 annually and $1,000 if I spend $100,000 annually.  You can do the math.  The increase in purchasing costs from Obamacare is by no means "(Small) change we can believe in!", as the C-J's editorial headline reads.

I'm sorry, but I think Papa John's employees and all other individuals in America should make their own decisions as to whether they buy insurance, pay for it out of their own pockets, and not take money out of my pocket to pay for it.  I already have health insurance and pay for it handsomely, thank you.  I don't need to tack onto my bill the tab for somebody else.

The C-J calls Schnatter "an increasingly vocal Republican".  That's news to me.  True, he hosted a dinner at his home for Mitt Romney earlier this year.  But through the years Schnatter has had the political reputation of being more a raging moderate.  He has hosted fundraisers for both Democrats and Republicans (and, I daresay, more for the former).

Schnatter's problem is that he spoke the truth, and the liberal media don't want to hear the truth, which is there is no free lunch (or dinner) when it comes to mandating health insurance.  Someone has to pay for it, and those someones will be me and you.  Schnatter's comment highlights that not only our taxes will go up to pay for Obamacare (as the Supreme Court made clear in its opinion upholding the statute), but also we will have to pay significantly more for products and services.  In other words, Obamacare will effectively mean a real reduction in everyone's purchasing power.

Not since the president of Chick-fil-A spoke his mind has a fast-food chain's head produced such a firestorm in the media.  Maybe it's time for Mike Huckabee to issue the call for a "buycot" of Papa John's so that the Silent Majority (I love that Nixonian term) can have some pizza along with their chicken.  That would be the best answer to any stock analysis's question as to how the public feels about having to pay the increased taxes and costs of Obamacare.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Prophetic?

Robert Heinlein was best known as an American science fiction writer, but he was also an opinionated and articulate political thinker.

If Barack Obama is re-elected in November, Heinlein's words, below, will have proven to be prophetic.

"'Bread and Circuses' is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure.  Democracy often works beautifully at first, but once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state.  For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader - the barbarians enter Rome."

Kentuckiana Really Don't Like Obama

The new Gallup poll on President Barack Obama's approval rating by state shows that in Kentucky, his approval rating is a lowly 38 percent.  (Cue the Courier-Journal to attribute this to racism.)Yet across the Ohio River in Indiana, a northern state, Obama's approval rating is the same: 38 percent.

In 2008, Obama lost Kentucky with 41 percent of the vote. Among the mainstream media, and the C-J in particular, this was blamed on Kentuckians' supposed racism.  Old Media could not accept that Kentucky is a conservative state and Obama's policies were just too liberal.

So do the new poll results show that Kentuckians are more racist now than in 2008?  No, Obama's "you didn't build that" slip reveals that he is even more left-wing than feared. When it comes to how Kentuckians view Obama, familiarity has bred contempt.

Forward, but to where?

Barack Obama's campaign slogan is "Forward". The problem is that forward can be a good direction or a bad direction. If your car is headed forward towards a brick wall, that is a bad direction. If your boat is headed forward towards a waterfall, that is a bad direction. If your platoon is moving forward towards an enemy ambush, that is a bad direction. Barack Obama's forward is a bad direction. It is forward towards government policies that keep poor people enslaved in poverty and reliance on government programs, rather than helping to raise them out of poverty. It is forward towards a middle class that sees fewer and fewer opportunities because of higher taxes and increased regulation. It is forward towards a rich and superrich who will remain fat and happy, like they always do. It is forward towards a health care system that will be more expensive and provide less access. It is forward towards ever increasing indebtedness which will eventually crush the country. There are apparently many people in this country that believe in Barack Obama's forward direction. God help us.

The Chicken or the Egg?

Mr. Obama's recent statement about business people are not that smart, didn't do it themselves, or should not pat themselves on the back, is not accurate. He claims that business owners needed the assistance of the government to build the bridges, build the roads, and create the enviroment for business to suceed. When I heard our president speak these words I had to ask myself which came first the chicken or the egg?

May I suggest it was the egg.

What is government if not for the people that have to first pay the taxes so that government can govern. The kings of feudal days depended on the resources of the serfs working their fields. Roads and bridges were not built by the king until the crops were sold and homage paid so the king could build the roads.

As I recall, starting my business thirty years ago, I had previoulsy been in the work force for fifteen years (less two years for my service in the military) paying my taxes and paying my way through school. When I started my business I did not pay myself for three years to allow me to build my inventory. I can assure you I still paid my taxes.

Yes, I received benifits of the government but isn't the government people, fellow businessmen, fellow tax payers? It was not the adminstration that gave me these benifits but the hard working tax payers/businessmen that paved the way. Without businessmen, taxpayers, there can be no government or the  infrastructure that is needed for the sucess of all.

I feel very comfortable saying I did it myself.

Pauls Shift Emphasis From Fed to Internet Freedom

Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Rand Paul are developing a new issue:  internet freedom, according to BuzzFeed.

The manifesto lays out five specific battles with government regulation and with liberals who state their goal of online liberty in similar terms, but who view corporate encroachment as a more immediate risk. The Paul manifesto seeks to rein in anti-trust actions against companies in new industries; to stop attempts to impose "Net Neutrality" rules on broadband providers; to prevent government control of online infrastructure; to broaden private control of the wireless spectrum, and shore up "private property rights on the Internet."


The Pauls also take a stand for the growing industry known (and widely criticized) as "big data."


They deride the notion that "private sector data collection practices must be scrutinized and tightly regulated inthe name of 'protecting consumers,' at the same time as government’s warrantless surveillance and collection of private citizens’ Internet data has dramatically increased."

Look for more to follow on this subject after the House's upcoming vote on the Fed.

Rand is Right; SCOTUS Got it Wrong

When the Courier-Journal attacks a conservative, it employs one of two devices:  it characterizes the conservative as either evil or dumb.  The C-J’s most recent attack on Sen. Paul resorts to the latter method. It’s an odd choice for anyone who has ever heard Sen. Paul speak; agree with him or not, the Senator’s intellect is formidable. 

The Courier-Journal condemned Sen. Rand Paul for his criticism of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, upholding Obamacare as a “tax.” I represented Sen. Paul as amicus curiae in the Supreme Court challenge to the Affordable Care Act.  Sen. Paul argued in his brief that the Individual Mandate violated the Commerce Clause and that the Medicaid expansion provisions violated the Tenth Amendment.  A majority of the Court agreed with Sen. Paul on these issues.  Where Sen. Paul and a majority of the Justices depart, however, is on the Court’s holding that Obamacare can be upheld as a “tax.”

Sen. Paul had noted that “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional.”  

The C-J  mocked Sen. Paul:  “’Justice’ Paul’s verdict flies in the face of more than ample precedent that reveals this usually is the way these things work, especially with majority opinions.  It’s not called the highest court in the land for nothing.” 

Sen. Paul did not dispute that the Supreme Court is the “highest court in the land.”  He did not dispute the finality of the Obamacare ruling in this particular litigation. That is not to say that he or anyone else must agree with the substance of the ruling. The C-J’s fallacy is to confuse finality with correctness. 

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that once in a while, it gets it wrong. Consequently, the Court reverses itself with some regularity. The Constitution likewise permits Congress to essentially reverse a judicial opinion when Congress determines that the Court misinterpreted Congressional intent (as Democrats did with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act).  Likewise, the citizenry can jettision a wrongly-decided Supreme Court opinion by amending the Constitution. It’s a cumbersome process, to be sure, but one the Framers included because the authority of the Court comes not from its status as the “highest” or “last” but rather from the just consent of the governed.

President Abraham Lincoln drew criticism from Stephen Douglas similar to what the C-J has heaped upon Sen. Paul. Lincoln condemned the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. In a June 26, 1857 speech on  Dred Scott, Lincoln distinguished between his disagreement with the decision and his respect for the judiciary. “We believe, as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government.”  Notwithstanding that respect for the Court, Lincoln said “But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it over-rule this.”

Lincoln went on to note that “Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to the circumstances.  That this should be so, accords with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.”  He noted that Dred Scott was a split opinion based on assumptions regarding Black Americans that were factually incorrect.

Lincoln pointed to the example of President Andrew Jackson’s response to the Supreme Court’s opinion on the constitutionality of the national bank.  Lincoln (quoting Jackson):  “If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of the Government.  The Congress, the executive and the court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.”

Sen. Paul took an oath to uphold the constitution. He was right to call out the Supreme Court for rewriting Obamacare to save it.  This wasn’t judicial review:  it was a judicial hijacking of the legislative process.  Worse, the Court picked a rationale that the President had specifically disavowed when he assured us that Obamacare is not a tax.  Either the Court is making up constitutional justifications out of whole cloth, or the president has a truthiness problem. 

The C-J’s real problem with Sen. Paul is not that he criticized the Supreme Court but rather the senator’s temerity in taking on Obamacare.  If Sen. Paul had said that the Citizens United decision was wrongly decided, the C-J wouldn’t editorialize against him:  it would send him a free subscription. 

Sen. Paul NRO Op-Ed On Obamacare

Sen. Rand Paul has posted on op-ed on National Review Online in which he reiterates his initial reaction to the Obamcare ruling and paints a way forward.

Plainly, this is a call to the Tea Party to rally for a new president, a new Senate and a return to limited government.

Here are highlights from Paul's op-ed:

[T]he 2010 Tea Party wave as an extraordinary assemblage of liberty-minded Americans who rallied around the Constitution in order to reclaim their country. One of the galvanizing forces was the passage of Obamacare — the national government’s takeover of our health care. Millions of Americans were enraged by this and other aspects of the Obama administration’s destructive political agenda, and they were sick and tired of their representatives’ failure to do anything to stop it. The 2010 wave election was a direct consequence of Obama’s unconstitutional ideals and czar-like power. And now, with the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare, it is my belief that the American people will be motivated to reorder our political priorities as they did in 2010.



On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The Supreme Court wrongly concluded that Obamacare can stand. But just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be “constitutional” does not make it so. Millions of Americans simply won’t accept it and will act to help overhaul it.

Make no mistake: Obamacare is not constitutional. As a consequence of the Court’s ruling, Americans, whether they want it or not, will be compelled to purchase a product — health insurance — or pay a penalty.

The majority held that this penalty, for constitutional purposes, is also a tax. The dissenting justices concluded that the majority, by its actions today, rewrote what Congress actually intended when it enacted the law: “For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.” The dissent then immediately cites the Stamp Act of 1765.



The Stamp Act was a direct tax imposed on the colonies by King George III. This act inevitably led to the American Revolution. Just as the Stamp Act did in 1765, Obamacare should act as a wake-up call. . . .

Obamacare exists because Obama is in the White House. This decision is a direct consequence of the American people’s political decisions. And much like Obama himself, Obamacare was deceptively sold to the American people.

In 2009, President Obama firmly stated that the individual mandate was not a tax. Here are his exact words: “For us [the government] to say that you [the American people] must take personal responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.” After the ruling, Nancy Pelosi was asked if these reforms were a tax. Her response: “Call it what you will — it is a step forward for American families.”

Obamacare has caused up to 20 million Americans to lose their health-insurance policies. . . . . [It]will destroy 800,000 jobs. An analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation from November 2009 shows that in 2016, three-quarters of the tax imposed by the individual mandate will fall on those making less than $120,000 of income for a family of four or $59,000 for an individual. Families of four making $72,000 or less and individuals making $35,400 or less will bear nearly half of the mandate tax.


This is a direct tax on the middle class. It is clear that through its proposed $500 billion in tax increases, the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and the individual mandates and regulations, Obamacare will swiftly harm our country. . . .

Although the Supreme Court declared that the individual mandate should be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power, there was a minor victory for the Commerce Clause in that the Court did hold that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. This minor victory is not much of a comfort, however, because this ruling essentially grants the federal government the right to legally tax our every breath. And tax they will.

Today the Supreme Court — the ruling body that our Founding Fathers created to protect citizens from tyranny — decided to uphold Obamacare and thus stripped Americans of their personal liberties and freedoms. We have heard the Court’s opinion loud and clear, but now it’s time for them to hear us. It is up to us to reclaim our constitutional rights. It is up to the American people to end President Obama’s political agenda. Obamacare is wrong for Americans and it will destroy our health-care system. This now means that we must fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new president and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.

Thank You, Gail Russell

Perhaps I have been too busy with Obamacare coverage; I just learned that Gail K. Russell will no longer be Kentucky's  Republican National Committeewoman.  She served admirably for eight years at a considerable cost (the post is voluntary and with all the command-performances, costs the Committeewoman approximately $25,000 per year). Gail also reached out to developing the next generation of conservative leaders, particularly young women.

I appreciate her service and will miss her in that role. She brought integrity, intellect and graciousness to her duties for the party.

Sen. Mike Lee, Tea Party Caucus Member and Former Alito Clerk, Discusses Obamacare Ruling

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), in a conference call with conservative bloggers, gave his take on yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare, and Republican plans in reseponse to the ruling.

Kentuckians may know that Lee is one of Sen. Rand Paul's favorite colleagues and with Paul a founding member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus.  In fact, Paul attributes his interest in the Federalist Society to Lee.

Lee clerked for then-Judge Samual Alito twice, once on the Third Circuit  later on the Supreme Court.

Drawing on that experience as a Supreme Court clerk, Lee said he "would not be surprised' to learn that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote at the last minute to uphold the statute.  "There are some signals in the opinion that something changed somwhere," he said, "probably late in the day."  He noted that the dissent refers to the "Ginsburg dissent" rather than "concurrance."  Further, he observed that the dissent "reads generally like a majority opinion." Lee cautioned that he cannot prove that this is so.

Lee's take on the Commerce Clause ruling was similar to what I wrote yesterday:  this limit on Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause -- only the third time in 75 years -- is historic.  "Our children and grand-children will study this."  In contrast, the holding on that the  individual mandate may survive as a tax is "a hollow and short-lived" victory for the Obama administration.

Lee called it "somewhat unprecedented" for the Court to rewrite the statute to save it.  The problem with the Court "shoe-horning" the statute under the taxing power, for the Obama administration, is that the individual mandate is "wildly unpopular," Lee said. "To put it mildly, the individual mandated's new status as a tax is not going to increase the American people's appetite for it."

Another "siliver lining" of the decision,  (in addition to the Commerce Clause ruling) is the holding on Medicaid, that Congress cannot coerce states into accepting new regulations by taking away prerviously-promised funds. Lee noted that this is the first time the doctrine from South Dakota v. Dole has been implemented to strike something down. 

Lee said he was "saddened" by the Supreme Court's failure to play its role as the "gatekeeper" of limited government.  "I didn't think it was a tax. Congress didn't think it was a tax.  The president assured it wasn't a tax."  But the Supreme Court said it was a tax in order to save it.

The only way to turn this into a victory, therefore, is to shift to a policical remedy.  He predicted that "this ruling will give us added momentum" to elect Republicans in November.

Lee had the same reaction as I did yesterday to the Court's remedy on the Medicaid provision's coerciveness:  having concluded that the coercion was unconstitutional, the Court should have stricken the entire statute on that basis, rather than just the portion that would take away existing state funds.  "I disagreed with the severability analysis," Lee said.  Seven justices found the coercion unconstitutional.  "The appropriate remedy was to invalidate the whole law at that point."

Regarding Republlican talking points about "Repeal and Replace,"  Lee said that outright repeal will be difficult without 60 Republican votes in the Senate, an unlikely prospect.  However, "there's alot we can do with only 51 votes."  Specifically, Lee suggested that given a Republican majority in January, Republicans can  suspend the "tax" provisions and refuse to fund the ACA's implementation. While cautioning that he is "not promising a repeal," Lee said there is a "strong, strong likelihood" that Republicans can disable the act.  That will be crucial because the "difficulty and expense in implementation are only going to get more severe," and will be much worse than the American people were promised.

Lee favors and incremental approach to the "Replace" part of "Repeal and Replace."  This is colored by his perspective as a consitutional conservative.  He said there is no single Republican alternative, no catch-all solution to reforming health care.  He favors proceeding "step by step" with "common sense decisions" to put Americans back in charge of their own health care. He said Republicans need to avoid rushing to pass something, and said that is how we ended up with a 2700 page bill that no one had read before voting upon.

When asked about his role in the Tea Party Caucus, Lee said he tries to remind his colleagues that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers.  Citing James Madison in The Federalist No. 45, Lee observed that there are lots of things that the states can do that the federal government cannot. Healthcare is a good example of that principle of federalism.  Some of the health care reforms, therefore need to take place at the state level, Lee said.

On a personal note, I can see why Sen. Paul is such a big fan of Lee.  The man is not just brilliant and conservative, but he is thoughtful. He thinks deeply about the appropriate role of the federal government with respect to the states and to individuals.  His presence in the Senate gives me hope for the future of conseravtism in the Republican Party.

Sen. Ron Johnson Discusses Obamacare Ruling in Blogger Call

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) spoke with conservative bloggers today in a conference call that had been scheduled in anticipation of today's Obamacare ruling at the Supreme Court.

Senate Republica Leader Mitch McConnell, introducing Sen. Johnson,noted that "repeal and replace with common sense reform" will be at the top of his agenda come January if he is Majority Leader. McConnell reiterated a point he made right after the Court announced its decision, that the Obamacare legislation was passed as a "deception" that it was not a tax.  In fact, McConnell said, the healthcare takeover is a "massive tax" that will fall disproportionaely on lower middle-class Americans.

Sen. Johnson -- who is an accountant by profession -- expressed disappointment with the Court's opinion but said that Republicans are "very unified" to move forward to.

Alluding to the holding that Congress did not have Commerce Clause power to pass the Affordable Care Act, Johnson said conservatives came "tantalizingly close."  He said the majority "rewrote the law" to uphold it.

Now, the task for Republicans is to paint a picture for voters as to exactly what the health care legislation will do to them as patients, small business owners -- and what it will do the American economy. Costs will increase, innovation will decrease and the country will go bankrupt if the Affordable Care Act is not repealed and replaced, Johnson said.

It is "jaw-dropping how underestimated the costs" of the law are, Johnson said.

He predicted that employers will have a simple deicsion to face:  pay $20,000 per family/year for mandatory health insurance or pay a $2,000 fine.  Employees, moreover, will then be able to take advantage of $10,000 federal subsidies to get insurance that their employers would have provided pre-Obamacare.  The cost to the federal government, when thousands of individuals figure that calculous into their decsion-making, will be more than the federal government can ever shoulder. Employees "in the millions" will choose to be subsidized, Johnson said.  "It is a budgetary disaster waiting to happen."

Johnson conceded that it is unlikely that Republicans will pick up enough seats to obtain a filibuster-proof super-majority of 60.  He therefore expects that the best possible result from Congress in the short term, now that the law has been re-cast as a tax, is that it could be de-funded with a simple majority through the reconciliation process.

Chief Justice John Roberts has made "clear its not their [the Court's] duty to repair bad laws," Johnson said. The solution now must be a legislative solution, and Johnson said that will require a Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican president.

Memories of Obama Saying, No Tax Here, Move Along

Hey, remember when President Obama said that Obamacare was not  a tax, before he needed it to be a tax in order to get Chief Justice John Roberts to uphold it?

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?” … PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.” (“Obama: Mandate Is Not A Tax,” ABC News, 9/20/09)

STEPHANOPOULOS: “But you reject that it’s a tax increase?” PRESIDENT OBAMA: “I absolutely reject that notion.” (“Obama: Mandate Is Not A Tax,” ABC News, 9/20/09)

Sen. McConnell Reacts to Obamacare Ruling

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who weighed in on amicus briefs as far back as the district court in Florida, issued this statement on the Senate Floor a few minutes ago:

Two and a half years ago, a Democrat president teamed up with a Democrat-led Congress to force a piece of legislation on the American people that they never asked for, and that has turned out to be just as disastrous as many of us predicted.

“Amid economic recession, a spiraling federal debt, and accelerating increases in government health spending, they proposed a bill that has made these problems worse.

“Americans were promised lower health care costs. They’re going up.

“Americans were promised lower premiums. They’re going up.

“Most Americans were promised their taxes wouldn’t change. They’re going up.

“Seniors were promised Medicare would be protected. It was raided to pay for a new entitlement instead.

“Americans were promised it would create jobs. The CBO predicts it will lead to nearly 1 million fewer jobs.

“Americans were promised they could keep their plan if they liked it, yet millions have learned they can’t.

“And the President of the United States himself promised up and down that this bill was not a tax.

“This was one of the Democrats’ top selling points — because they knew it would have never

Excerpt From Sen. Rand Paul's Brief on "Spending Power"

Sen. Rand Paul's amicus brief in the Obamacare case focused on why the statute was unconsitutional under the Commerce Clause.  (Disclosure:  I was counsel of record on that brief.)  A majority of the court agreed with his reasoning, but upheld it under the so-called Taxing and Spending power.  This was the third layer of argument that the Obama administration advanced -- the fall-back to its fall-back.

Though it wasn't the primary focus of Sen. Paul's brief, he did address it briefly, focusing on the Framers' original understanding of the "Spending Power":

So, too, with PPACA, the statute’s proponents lean on the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the spending power to form a three-leggedstool to support the Act. None of these legs can support the Act’s constitutionality either in isolation or cobbled together in the regulatory morass that is PPACA.

. . .



The spending power is not a roundabout to evade the Constitution’s federalist plan of limited and enumerated powers. See Richard W. Garnett, The New Federalism, The Spending Power, and Federal Criminal Law, 89 CORNELL L. REV. 1, 24 (2003). Indeed, there is no “Spending Clause” per se, and there is considerable scholarly debate about what constitutional provision empowers Congress to spend. See, e.g., ORIGINALISM: A QUARTER-CENTURY OF DEBATE 253-85 (Steven Calabresi ed., 2007). For most of the first seventy years after the Constitution’s ratification, the spending power was understood to be limited to the enumerated powers, rather than a free-standing power. See John C. Eastman, The Spending Power, in THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION 95 (Edwin Meese III ed., 2005) (discussing narrow view of spending power leading to vetoes by Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe).PPACA cannot be squared with this original understanding.

Here's Sen. Paul's reaction to today's ruling:

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right,” Sen. Paul said.



“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare,” he continued.

Quick Reaction to Obamacare Ruling

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare is on one level very disappointing. The good news is that Chief Justice Roberts -- the swing vote -- voted to uphold it under the taxing power rather than the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.  This is a much narrower basis for the legislation than the Obama administration had advanced all along, until the very end.

Those who believe in limited government should thank God that this monstrosisty was not upheld under the Commerce Clause coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The majority opinion, at least at first glance, appears rife with inconsistencies and hypocrisy.  If the minimum coverage provision is a tax, then why wasn't it barred by the Anti-Injunction Act?

The ruling on Medicaid and the coerscion of the states is similarly illogical.  Seven Justices found that it was unconstitutional for Congress to take away existing Medicaid funds from states which refuse to adopt new Obamacare expansions.  But instead of holding the statute unconstitutional on that basis, a majority of  five for theCourt esseentially rewrote that provision -- Congress may not take away the exisiting Medicaid funds, but may withhold new funds conditioned on new expansions.  This, despite the fact that the statute contains no provision for severability. 

This is the Court not interpreting the law but redrafting it altogether.  It is one thing to construe a statute in the best light to hold it constitutional, it is another to slice it and dice it to make it so, particuarly in the absence of the a severability provision.

More thoughts to come, but that is my initial take.

Madison Project Flunks KY Congressmen

The Madison Project has released its list of conservative poseurs, and the results for Kentucky are discouraging.  This grassroots project analyzes voting records of House of Representative members to determine whether those who ran as conservatives are actually voting as conservatives.

I pass along the list with the caveat that the methodology is not clear to me.  If anyone wants to take issue, have at it.

The "Hall of Shame" lists a number of Republicans who represent safe conservative districts and yet, according to the Madison Project, vote in the mushy middle of the political spectrum.

To put the scores into perspective,
Here is a list of members who’s conservative ratings are dramatically underperforming in strong Republican districts or have scored a failing grade in swing districts. These are our pale-pastel politicians – the ones who blur the distinction between the parties.
 Members scoring 20 points or more below their conservative districts (defined as R+7 and above). There are 52 such members!:

In Kentucky's 1st Congressional District, Ed Whitfield gets a Madison Performance Index (MPI) of -- get this:  - 38.5.

In KY-5, Hal Rogers is not far behind with an MPI of  -38.

KY-2 Congressman, and perhaps future gubernatorial candidate Brett Guthrie's MPI is -32.

KY-4 Congressman Geoff Davis scored -23.5 on the MPI scale.

The Madison Project links to Sen. Rand Paul's first floor speech and also supports the candidacy of Richard Mourdock for U.S. Senate in Indiana. I must admit I like the idea of holding conservatives accountable.

NRO: Rand an " Important" Romney Ally, possible Veep

National Review says that although Sen. Rand Paul has not née asked to submit the paperwork that is part of the vetting process, his name is continually mentioned by Romney advisers as a potential vice presidential nominee.

Paul will be campaigning as a a surrogate for Romney. He also will get to speak during the Republican National Convention,

Let's hope that Romney is smart enough to give Paul a prime-time slot. As anyone who has ever heard Paul speak knows, that could be a break-out performance -- to surpass Obama's speech at the Democratic National Comvention I. 2004.

Rand Paul Explains Romney Endorsement:

Sen. Rand Paul clarified his endorsement of Mitt Romney, clarifying that he and Romney may not agree on how a president can constitutionally wage war.  On NRO today, Paul outlined why he endorsed Romney:

I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy. I am afraid if that chokehold is not released quickly, our country may quickly follow Europe into destruction. Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments.


Where the two differ, however, is foreign policy, as Paul explained:

I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress. His exact words were:


I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.


This is a misreading of the role of the president and Congress in declaring war.


The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. The War Powers Act also clearly states that U.S. forces are to engage in hostilities only if the circumstances are “pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”


Absent these criteria, the president has no authority to declare war.


Even if the president believes he has such authority, the War Powers Act goes on to require the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of conflict.

No president is above the law or above the Constitution.


Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the executive. They were quite concerned that the executive could rule like a king.

Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications, the authorization, and the motives of the war. James Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature.

I will hold accountable and oppose any actions from any president, Republican or Democrat, if he declares war without congressional consent.

This seems to be a polite way for Paul to put Mitt Romney on notice that notwithstanding the endorsement, Paul will stand on principle even if it means opposing a Republican president.  That is, Paul has no problem being a burr in the side of politicians from either party who would disregard the limits of the constitution.

Obama Regime Bypasses Congress

The Obama administration's decision to bypass Congress and enact amnesty for young illegal -- the so-called "Dream Act" -- shows Obama's contempt for Democracy and the rule of law.

This is not even about the content of the policy. One can disagree over whether illegal aliens should be allowed to stay in the U.S. just by virtue of their age.

The more critical problem is the president's disregard of Congress as the constitutionally established body charged with making the laws. Having determined that he did not have the votes - even though his party controls the Senate - the president just blew past Congress.

Was there a coup that no one told us about? Obama's cynical ploy to woo Hispanics has been achieved with the strong-man tactics of a junta.

We need to vote this guy out of office while he still let's us vote.

Rand Paul Would Be a Good VP Pick

If Mitt Romney is not considering Sen. Rand Paul for VP, he should. It would be a "Team of Rivals" pick, a la Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about the Lincoln administration. Lincoln chose to keep his friends close but his enemies(primary opponents) closer by putting them in his administration.

A Vice President Rand Paul would have a hard time mounting a primary challenge to a President Romney, if Romney makes the mistake of governing like a moderate. I hope that Romney won't make that mistake; he seems solid on fiscal issues. But if Romney fails to govern like a conservative, he will draw a primary challenge from the Tea Party. Paul would be well-suited to that task.

The notion that the VP pick must come from a geo-politically important state is antiquated and irrelevant in an age of national media. It is therefor beside the point that Paul's state of Kentucky is safely red, or that it has few electoral votes.

The outrage among some in the Tea Party about Paul endorsing Romney is misplaced. Romney is the nominee, and he needs and deserves our support. Indeed, it would have been a mistake for Paul not to endorse Romney. But Romney should recognize that one way or the other, Paul and the Tea Party will hold him accountable. Paul can better do that if he is not VP, which is why it is in Romney's interest to pick him.

Sluts For Obama

Some in President Obama's camp are rewriting the old punch line "She's no lady; . . ." to end with "she's an Obama supporter." Susan McMillan Emry has started a site called "Rock the Slut Vote" to milk whatever voter anger is left in the Left from Rush Limbaugh "slut" comment he made earlier this year.

Emry offers various reasons for why "You might be a slut," including "if you've ever used contraception" or "if you're still downloading Dixie Chicks music" or "if you don't go to church." Lovely.

If she were an originalist (which I'm sure she's not), Emry would also include "if you are slovenly or ill dressed woman", which was the eighteenth century definition of a "slut", as used by the Founders. Jefferson, for example, once warned one of his daughters against appearing "dishabille" in public lest she be thought to be a "slut."

I suspect Embry will have about as much success in rehabilitating her four-letter word as the President's campaign will have with respect to his last four years.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Dems' War on Small Business Hurts Women

Democratic strategists are panicking that they are losing woman. As a result, Dems have renewed their push for "pay equality."  Republicans who oppose the deceptively-titled "Paycheck Fairness Act" will be described as waging a "war on women."  This is part of a theme of the Obama campaign that we saw a few months ago.

It's the same slur that Dems used against Republicans who believe in the free exercise clause of the first amendment. Obama administration has assault that right by mandating that employers pay for insurance of abortion-inducing drugs, even where that violates the employer's conscience. Anyone who supports free exercise of religion, so the script goes, is waging a "war on women."
 
The so-called Paycheck Fairness Act will hurt small businesses, including those owned by women. It will chill job creation, including jobs that women might want to apply for.  That's the implicit sexism in the Democrats' attempt to energize the feminists:  the Paycheck Fairness Act assumes that women are victims.  Its logic also assumes that all employers are male.
 
The legislation is a boon to trial lawyers, however -- the sort of law that will make John Edwards weep with joy over not losing his law license.  The law seeks to follow up on the Lilly Ledbetter "Fair Pay Act," which gave women extra time to sue for discrimination.  That is, it gave the trial lawyers a longer statute of limitations to troll for clients.
 
This most recent legislation would increase the incentive for trial lawyers to sue by allowing women to sue for punitive damages. That's where trial lawyers make their money.
 
And the suits would be easier to win, because the law would shift the burden of persuasion from the plaintiff-woman to the defendant-employers. Thus, employers would literally be presumed guilty of pay discrimination unless proven innocent.  If, for example, an employer paid a man extra money because the nature of his duty was hazardous, for example, the onus will now be on the employer to prove that this was not discriminatory against women.  Same for pay differentials based on level of education, time of the shift, local market differentials or profitability.
 
Make no mistake:  this is the Obama administration telling businesses how to do business.
 
No wonder the legislation has been opposed by so many organization that promote private enterprise:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce; American Bakers Association; American Bankers Association; American Hotel & Lodging Association; Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc.; College and University Professional Association for Human Resources; Food Marketing Institute; HR Policy Association; International Public Management Association for Human Resources; National Association of Manufacturers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Council of Chain Restaurants; National Council of Textile Organizations; National Federation of Independent Business; National Public Employer Labor Relations Association; National Restaurant Association; National Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors Association; Printing Industries of America; Retail Industry Leaders Association; Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; Society for Human Resource Management.
 
Nor is this legislation just a problem just for large employers:  even businesses with as few as two employees would be subject to this law.
 
It is wrong to discriminate against an employee based on gender.  It is also illegal -- has been for years. Employers who discriminate can be held accountable without the federal government micromanaging small businesses and without throwing an election year treat to the trail lawyers.
 
A weak economy hurts everyone, women included.  Given the lousy job numbers report that came out a few days ago, the last thing this economy needs is more red-tape to discourage small businesses from hiring.

Rand Paul Will Keep Romney From Going Wobbly

If Barack Obama is reelected, Sen. Rand Paul will declare his candidacy for president before the year is over.  If Mitt Romney is elected, the spectre of a Rand Paul primary challenge may force Romney to govern like a conservative, rather than a Massachusetts moderate.

I take comfort in that thought when I see headlines like this:  "Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare."  That's the sort of headline that gives conservatives heart arrhythmia.  It's a disingenuous headline, as it turns out, because the transition team member is implementing "exchanges," which could be done as a market reform to decrease the cost of health care. It is not as if Team Romney was arguing in favor of the individual mandate, for example 

Sure, there are conservatives who oppose the state-run health insurance exchanges.  The point here is not the merits of this part of Obamacare, but rather that conservatives will be closely monitoring how a President Romney governs.  Many of us had doubts about him, but see him as out best chance of -- literally -- saving the country from the disastrous consequences of a second Obama term.

Romney has unified the base with the prospect of defeating Obama.  If Romney then drifts to the center after elected, he will be risking a primary challenge. This is a real possibility -- one that Romney should keep in mind with each policy choice.

Conservatives are backing Romney now that he is the nominee.  But unlike Sen. Paul, Romney is not in the Circle of Trust.

Tory Burch, Vera Wang Design Obama Campaignware

Team Obama has unveiled a designer line of campaignware that will create a crisis of conscience for conservattive fashionistas.

I've never heard of many of them.  But Tory Burch and Vera Wang -- really?

Click here if you want to know which other of your favorite designers have gone over to the dark side.

H/t:  Drudge

We Have a Nominee! Now We Need a Veep

Let the wild rumpus start:  we have now entered the general election phase.  What a relief that we won't have to suffer any more of those debates (how many of them were there?)

The good news is that the most electable of the bunch won. There is growing enthusiasm for Mitt Romney among those of us who wanted someone more conservative.

Team Obama is inadvertently helping Romney to solidify his base among conservatives by running a commercial that accuses Romney of being captured by the far right.  Oh, if only that were true.  And yet, the more the Obama campaign tries to paint Romney as a die-hard conservative, the better he sounds.

This peculiar tactic by the Obama campaign is undoubtedly aimed and moderates and independents.  The problem for Obama, however, is that the narrative has no basis in reality.  None.  Romney is a New England Republican. The People's Republic of Massachusetts does not elect wing-nuts.  Voters know this.

Now that Romney has secured the nomination, speculation on who he will select as his running mate grows more intense.  Mike Huckabee's name was floated earlier this week.  Not a bad choice, really.  I opposed Huckabee when he ran for president; I found his comments on foreign policy frighteningly naive.  Huckabee's talk show, however, has showcased him as something of a statesman.  His presence on the ticket would perhaps help evangelicals who stil worry that Mormonism is a cult.

This is not to say that Huckabee is necessarily the best choice, only that he deserves a serious look.

Election Results For Kentucky Primary

Tom Massie has won the Republican nomination for Kentucky's Fourth Congressional District. This is a big victory for Sen. Rand Paul, who not only endorsed Massie but has been all over the radio in campaign ads for him. In part, Paul's support for Massie reciprocated Massie's early support for Paul in his primary race against Trey Grayson.

But the Massie victory, in addition to showing Paul's increasing influence within the Republican party, also puts the lie to the media narrative that the Tea Party is dead. It is not.

The continued vibrancy of the Tea Party is bad news for Democrats -- as was President Obama's poor showing in the Kentucky Democratic primary. Obama won, but "uncommitted" baged 42 percent of the vote as of this writing. Is It worse to give away that many votes to "uncommitted" or to a felon?

In any event, Democrats will blame Obama's weak performance on racism: bitter Kentuckians clinging to guns and bibles. Or maybe he'll blame W.

Notre Dame, Catholic Dioceses, Sue Obama Administration

Today 40 Catholic dioceses, and Notre Dame University sued the Obama administration for violating the first amendment by requiring religious employers to pay for their employees'sterilizations, birth control and morning after pills.

The Obama administration surely knew this was coming.  But the onslaught of plaintiffs -- the preeminent Catholic university in America and 40 Catholic dioceses -- sets this up to be a well-litigated constitutional show-down.

Notre Dame sued in federal court for the Northern District of Indiana.  Cardinal Timothy Dolan sued for his diocese in the Southern District of New York.

In all, there are 12 different suits around the country -- and counting.   That should be enough to guarantee a circuit split, and another trip for the Obama administration to the Supreme Court.

With any luck, Paul Clemente has already been retained to serve on the side of the angels.

We will be following the briefing with great interest.

Bree Becomes Desperate House Member, But at Least She's Still Republican

I did not  see this coming:  the finale of Desperate Housewives surprised with Bree Van de Kamp moving to Louisville to get elected -- as a Republican -- to the Kentucky state legislature!

This was not the season finale, but rather the end of the series.

Each of the characters either died, was killed off, or got her dream job.  For Bree, that meant the Kentucky state legislature.  Apparently the show's writers thought it was more humane to give Bree minority status in the House than to stick her with David Williams in the Senate.

Rand Paul Explains Mourdock Win

Sen. Rand Paul deconstructs Richard Mourdock's victory in Indiana's Republican primary over Sen. Dick Lugar. This election, Paul concludes, manifests the Tea Party's continued vibrancy.
In an op-ed for the Washington Times, Paul is gracious about Lugar while nonetheless welcoming Mourdock as the sort of "statesman," not "horse trader" that Paul hopes to see in the Senate next year.

Paul notes that Mourdock's victory over Lugar is in some respects similar to Paul's victory over Trey Grayson in Kentucky's Republican primary last year.

Just days ago, when France and Greece lurched left, Democrats pointed to this as evidence that the Tea Party victories of 2010 were a fluke, not to be repeated this year.  Mourdock's nomination says otherwise.

A few excerpt's from Paul's analysis of Mourdock's win, in which he lays out a de facto Tea Party Agenda. Reagan fans will enjoy the reference "painting with bold colors":

We win as Republicans when we paint in bold colors. We win when we stand up for issues such as smaller government, constitutional principles, true liberty and the protection of life. We win when we take strong stands for the Second Amendment and the right to work. We succeed when our vision is clear and our principles are sound.


What happened on Tuesday was not one angry group of voters rebelling. It was not one or two conservative groups pushing an agenda. It was all of them, acting as one, urging the Indiana GOP to nominate someone who would stand with them.

We must fight to continue the small battles we already have won. Hoosier voters rewarded the candidate who pledged to keep the earmark ban and rejected the senator who just weeks ago voted to restore earmarks. . . .

The Tea Party sprang up out of two main events in 2008-09: the TARP bailouts and Obamacare. These were huge new reaches for big government. They were massive intrusions into running the private sector. They were against everything we as a party were supposed to stand for.



Senators and candidates who either were on the wrong side of these issues or simply did not stand up and fight have been deservedly running for cover ever since.

The Tea Party is not a single-issue group. Rather, it is a group that is fed up with an attitude in Washington. Tea Partiers are fed up with politicians who spend money we don’t have, racking up trillion-dollar deficits year after year.

They are tired of politicians who do not see limits in the powers of Congress and the federal government to intrude into our lives.

They are sick of being told they have to accept a mealy-mouthed version of what they believe and what they know we must do to save our country.

We must balance our budget sooner rather than later, or we will face ruin. This will require entitlement reform. Tuesday, Hoosiers voted for a candidate who publicly pledged to support the Tea Party budget in the Senate, which balances in five years.

We must repeal Obamacare and ensure that nothing like it passes ever again. Hoosier voters nominated the candidate who stood the strongest for the Constitution and for freedom


Paul is correct that Lugar is a decent man who served honorably.  However, he had become an Obama apologist, and was so entrenched that he no longer maintained a home -- not even an apartment -- in Indiana.  Good for the Republican primary voters for voting for bold, unapologetic conservatism.
.

Our Troops Are Not Fighting For The One

The most startling aspect of President Barack Obama's flip-lop on gay marriage is his slip about exactly for whom he thinks American troops are fighting.  Obama told ABC,

when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

(Emphasis added.)

It's a revelatory comment.  No doubt all those soldiers, airmen, marines and soldiers were shocked to learn that they are fighting on behalf of Obama. Most of them thought that they were fighting for America, for the citizens of our country and most specifically for their friends, families and neighbors.

Obama's self-absorption is something to behold, even in the context of a profession that draws narcissists.  Nonetheless, this peak into his mind is astonishing for its utter lack of modesty.  The most charitable construction is that soldiers fight for their country, and Obama feels that he epitomizes or symbolizes America.  That's still pretty grandiose.

We knew that Obama is a narcissist just as we knew he has always supported gay marriage. Neither of these propositions is in any way surprising.

Still, the assertion that our soldiers are fighting "on my [Obama's] behalf "does not sound like something the elected leader of a democracy should think, let alone say. It sounds dictatorial.  And creepy.

Tape Leaked From Romney's Fundraiser at John Schnatter's Home

A new videotape, apparently made by cell phone, shows Mitt Romney complimenting Papa John's founder John Schnatter on his lovely home.  Oh, the horror of it!  Schnatter  hosted the fund-raiser for Romney at his Anchorage, KY home on April 19, 2012, and Romney thanked and complimented his host! Some would call this good manners; Democrats call it corporate fat cats acting elitist.

These are the same comments we knew that Romney made at Schnatter's fundraiser last month. There is no secret here - it's not like Romney was caught talking about bitter people in the hinterland clinging to their guns and religion. The only difference is that now we have video

Romney pointed out at the fundraiser that Democrats, in their never-ending invocation of class-warfare, would say that Schnatter shouldn't have such a nice home.  (One percent!  Pay your fair share!)

Yes, it is true. John Schnatter has a great home, and he opens it up for numerous events -- politicians from both parties, myriad charities and his community.

As Romney has often noted, John Schnatter is a self-made man.  He started delivering pizza out of his dorm-room in college. Romney is right:  John Schnatter is an American success story; he is proof of what America gives us the freedom to accomplish when we apply hard work and perseverance to a good idea.

Here's what the slime ball who took the undercover video forgot to videotape:  the boy scouts next door who sat outside to waive to Romney; the 70-year old woman who mowed her lawn just before Romney drove by, so that it would look nice; the Schnatter's neighbors who made signs and sat in lawn chairs to  cheer for Romney  as he drove by; and most importantly, the mother in the old car with the 2008 Obama sticker who took her son by the Schnatter's home to catch a glimpse of the next president.