Savage Republican

I was talking to a very good friend this weekend and of course our talk ventured into politics. We are very like minded, but what’s interesting is that in high school he was four hours away from going to Chicago in 1968 to protest at the Democratic Convention. And now, well, reminds me of the Churchillian quote about heart and brains, youth and maturity.
We talk often, and usually we are quite close in our feelings and outlook. But, he and I are also clear that there is no dialogue with the anti-liberty,collectivist, socialist left. Their worldview is that the government is the answer to everything. That the solution to all the problems visited upon us by ourselves (which usually is a response to another intrusive government program) or problems visited upon us by the government is ANOTHER government program.
Well, the truth is that they see the earth as flat. We see it as round. And therefore there is no common ground. Their worldview is diametrically opposed to ours. And all the reason, logic, history, truth is useless in arguing with these people. They have to have a “living” Constitution to be able to pull off their programs based upon their worldview. “You can not reason a man out of a position that he didn’t reason himself into in the first place.” -Jonathon Swift
Dr. Thomas Sowell has written a superb tome on these elitists called “The Vision of the Anointed-Self Congratulation as A Basis for Social Policy”.
A brief review:

Sowell analyzes these “anointed” people and finds that they have several characteristics in common:

1. They are absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their views and policies even when mountains of empirical evidence point to the contrary.
2. Instead of attempting to understand opposing views (much less debate them), they use verbal sleight-of-hand to evade such views – and even try to denigrate and publicly discredit those who espouse them.
3. They have a tendency of hiding behind their “good intentions” when the policies put in place based on their vision blow up in their faces, asserting that things would have been “even worse” were it not for their “vision.”
4. They view certain aspects of reality that do not conform to their vision as “problems” or even “crises” in need of “solutions,” as opposed to systemic processes involving normal human interactions and economic trade-offs.
5. In explaining the rise of black single-parent homes since the 1960s, they refer to concepts such as “income distribution,” crime, and the “legacy of slavery” in ways that fit ever-so-neatly with their vision, no matter what history, the real world, and opposing views say.

(The above is from http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/sowell3.html )
Compare what the anointed see the role of government as being as compared to what Bastiat wrote in the “The Law” ( http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html ) and you’ll see that the left is flat earth, we are round earth.
As Dennis Prager said a few weeks back, the left sees the government as the instrument to ensure that life is fair and that outcomes are equal. We see the government is supposed to ensure liberty and justice.
Flat earth, round earth.

There is a great quote from Jefferson “Where government fears the citizens, there is liberty. Where citizens fear the government, there is tyranny.”
And, so now, we have the height of arrogance from those fine folks in Connecticut who stole land to give to someone else:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45851
Reminds me of the Chinese government that sends to the family of an executed citizen a bill for 35 cents for the cost of the 9mm bullet used for the execution.
Time to reset the trip odometer. Back to Concord Bridge!

Tomorrow morning I, along with many other party activists, will be attending a Leadership Summit for the Minnesota Republican Party. Given what has happened in the last 10 months, I have several words that I would like to give to the Party Leadership. Since this is appearing to be a tightly controlled meeting, it is doubtful that I will get the opportunity to speak. HOWEVER if it were to happen, this is what I would like to say to the Governor and to Party Chairman…

Chairman Carey, Congressional District officers, BPOU Chairs and Deputy Chairs and fellow State Executive Committee members.

My point here is this is, the base is upset. Ignoring why the base is upset endangers any possible gains we hope to make in 2006. For an ignored base will, come Election Day, elect to stay away from the polls.

Dementee over at The Kool Aid Report (ok I allow myself some guilty pleasures and KAR is one of them – I’m a sucker for satire) reports here that Ms Rowley was asked some of the very same questions this morning on AM1500 KSTP that I raised in my previous post.

Colleen Rowley for Congress
The former FBI agent, Time co-person of the year and, seeker of anonymity, was on Rosenbaum and O’Connell today on KSTP-AM 1500. A caller asked a three part question:Do you agree with Cindy Sheehan that President Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist?Do you agree with her statement the Israel should get out of Palestine?Do you agree that it was an Israeli cabal that got the US into Iraq?The response to each began with, “I wouldn’t choose those words…”

You really should go to KAR to read the rest of the story. It is howlingly biting and wickedly truthful.

A lot has been said (in recent weeks) about the sad story of Cindy Sheehan and the direction that her grief has taken her. I am not going to add to this. Instead, I am going to write about the decision that Colleen Rowley (FBI whistleblower and CD 2 DFL candidate) made to call up another Gold Star Mother (DFL State Senator Becky Lowry a woman that she had never met before) and said “Let’s go to Crawford to support Cindy Sheehan”. Ms. Rowley is running against incumbent Congressman (and REAL war hero) John Kline.

I have some questions for Ms. Rowley that I would like her to answer, if she wants to be my representative. You say you are going to Crawford to support Ms. Sheehan, does that mean that you support Ms. Sheehan when she says “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.”? Do you support Ms. Sheehan when she says that George W. Bush “killed” her son? Do you agree with her characterizing convicted terrorist lawyer Lynne Smith as “my Atticus Finch”? Do you agree with her saying that the sitting President should be impeached for “war crimes”?

Think carefully about your answers Ms. Crowley. The 2nd Congressional District is a fairly red district and your answers could make a big difference in what your chances for getting elected in 2006 are.

Now, don’t we ALL feel so much safer with TSA on the job?
From the article http://businessreform.com/article.php?articleID=11440&ofid=81

Jed Babbin is filling in for Hugh Hewitt this evening. He spent quite a bit of time talking about this story filed by the AP this afternoon. Jed was making a big deal out of this story, saying that implies that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts may be racist based on the town he “grew up in”. A caller to the program said that he re-read the story 3 times while waiting to talk to Jed and thought that Jed was crazy. I went back and re-read the story myself, for I got some of the same things (as Mr. Babbin did) out of the story myself. I will let you, dear readers decide for yourself.

This is the tale of two employees, each faced with a family medical situation. One employee’s wife had to have back surgery to repair a degenerated disk, the other had to help with the post-operative care of her mother (who lived in another state). Both employees work customer service in a field that relies heavily on technology. One employee works for a large corporation that is governed by federal regulations such as FMLA. The other works for a small business owner. One employee was allowed to work remotely while caring for the family member, the other is heading to court over the issue. My challenge to you dear readers….which employee is getting the opportunity to work remotely, with no hassles from the employer and which is going to court?

Give up? The employee that is having to go to court is the one that works for the company bound by federal regulation! You see, by being bound by regulation (and thus having to fill out mountains of paperwork) the large corporation has made the process so onerous to the employee that he has had to resort to drastic action. Meanwhile, the small business owner, eager to keep his employee happy and productive, made it possible for his employee (through cellular and VPN/internet technology) to be in another state and still work and handle her familial duty.

How do I know all of this, you ask? Simple, one employee is me and the other is a dear friend of mine. My employer (the small business owner) has graciously allowed me to work remotely, thus filling the empty hours when my mother is sleeping, resting or with her doctors. My friend, on the other hand, had to fight so long with his manager (regarding his wife’s surgery and post operative care) that it has gone to HR and is possibly going to court.

The moral of this story is simple, dear reader. Government regulation is NOT the answer when it comes to situations like this. Simple human decency and belief that workers are not sheep that need to have their every move managed (regulated) are the answer.

This post is not as timely as I had hoped, and I apologize dear readers. Family business has kept me off-line for a few days. However, it is better late than never (as the old saying goes).

This is an important subject for all of us, especially our legislators. It has to do with the “law” of unintended consequences. This is the “law” of nature that causes our best intended actions to back-fire on us causing some unexpected results. For example, 6 months ago Hennepin County passed the most restrictive smoking ban (for bars and restaurants) in the state. Opponents of the bill said that smokers would flock to bars in the surrounding counties that did not have a similar smoking ban and that it would kill businesses and tax revenue. The county commissioners poo-pooed their claims saying that the non-smokers would come out in larger numbers so there were no worries. Well, now it seems that the county is considering scaling back the smoking ban. Why? What has changed their minds? The fact that the intake of tax dollars from pull tab sales has dropped dramatically since the smoking ban took effect! One bar owner told the County Board that his business was down so far that he was not going to be able to pay his taxes. We can’t have that now, can we?????


Two weeks ago there was a bill pending in the Senate (S397 the Protection of Lawfull Commerce in Arms Act) that was to protect Arms manufacturers from frivilous lawsuits brought against them. Now the anti-gun forces were out in droves against this bill as were the 2nd Amendment supporters. Sen’s Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) were subjected to intense lobbying from the constituents as five of the oldest manufacturers of fire arms are in the state of Conneticut. Job losses for millions of Conneticut citizens were expected if the class action lawsuits were allowed to continue. Thankfully (if you are a fan of the 2nd Amendment) S397 was passed overwhelmingly.

Then there is Governor Pawlenty’s “health impact fee”. What are the unintended consequences here? Well, since the “health impact fee” went into effect on August 1st, smokers in the state of Minnesota have turned to several alternative options. Many have quite smoking, others (if they live close enough to the border) are driving to Wisconsin, Iowa or the Dakota’s to buy their cigarettes, while others are ordering their smokes over the internet! Unintended consequence of raising taxes on the backs of the smokers? LESS TAX REVENUE FOR THE STATE!!!!! An ad (from the Taxpayers League of Minnesota) says it all when it says “The future of Minnesota’s education rests on the wallets of the states smokers. So light up folks! The state’s 660,000 cigarette smokers can’t live forever. And when they die, Minnesota lawmakers are going to have to find a new form of revenue.” (emphasis mine)

That about sums it up. Our governor, in caving to pressures from the DFL lead Senate, has turned the funding of our education system over to the smokers of the state. With restrictive smoking bans (like the one in Hennepin County) being pushed for ALL counties in Minnesota, smokers in Minnesota are going to be forced to quit. THEN where is the money going to come from Governor???????

I was listening to Judge Robert Bork a few weeks ago (and got upset at Teddy Kennedy all over again that this man is not on the Supreme Court). Bork made a great point in reference to judicial review. He commented that if the Supreme Court rules that a statute is unConstitutional, the remedy is that a state legislature or Congress can re-write the statute (though I flinch that a state legislature needs to be beholden to the Supremes as we have a federal not a national constitution…at least up until the 14th Amendment).
However, how does a bad ruling on the Constitution by the Supremes get remedied? Judge Bork pointed out that there was only one way- by the Supreme Court revisiting the decision. No legislative action can reverse a bad Supreme Court decision on the Constitution. Consider what state of afairs would exist in America were the Dred Scott decision not revisited? Or Plessy vs. Ferguson (the separate but equal case)?
So, we have this from Supreme court nominee Roberts: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/8/2/202839.shtml .
Left wing ideologues on the bench have no compunction against revisiting any decision. But strict constructionists seem quite reluctant to erase the past sins of the their fellow judges.
And I’m therefore concerned in light of the NewsMax story.