America's Compromising Position

What can be said about the debt ceiling debate that hasn't already been said? Even if a deal is struck to raise the debt ceiling for the promise of offsetting "cuts", the debt march will continue full force to the brink of fiscal calamity. We are drinking ourselves to death and we badly need an intervention.

The nation is nearly $15 trillion in debt. That number isn't going down. Last year's federal budget was, wait, that's right, the Democrats didn't pass a budget last year. Needless to say, government spending last year without a proper budget was a whopping $3.8 trillion. That's 35% more than the last budget passed by Republicans in 2006 before Democrats took control of Congress. So exactly who inherited a crisis from whom?

The minute Nancy Pelosi says she can't support the cuts proposed by House Republicans, remind her that she put us in this position in the first place. The Tea Party didn't create this debt. They were elected for the exact purpose of dealing with it. That's what last year's tidal wave election was about. The debt ceiling gave them the opportunity to take a stand.

For calling attention to the perils of debt at this moment in history and taking steps to deal with runaway government spending, Tea Party members have been called extremists, terrorists, suicide bombers, and all sorts of new tone rhetoric that progressives supposedly wanted to ban after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. For promising spending we can't afford and creating this government mess, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and his ilk have been referred to as "reasonable" and "pragmatic."  Since when was proposing a budget that doubled the national debt in ten years reasonable?

Yet still, conservatives have somehow won the messaging battle. You can't find an independent or moderate Democrat voter who doesn't think government cuts should be a large part of the budget solution. This is conservative turf and hopefully it will translate to Republican votes next November.

Does the supposed debt deal go far enough to limit government spending? Did George Lucas ever justify those final three Star Wars movies? Reports suggest that the compromised bill will cut $900 billion over 10 years, but depending on the baseline used by the CBO that could mean less than $150 billion of actual spending reductions. That's a mere $15 billion in cuts a year to budgets in the $4 trillion range.

More concerning, $350 billion of the proposed spending reductions, or nearly 40%, will be cuts to defense. That's a heavy price to pay in a dangerous world where Iran is developing nuclear weapons and Communist China is increasingly flexing their military muscle. Liberals like to laud military cuts they made in the 90s under Clinton, but it was those same cuts that forced the U.S. to send men into Iraq and Afghanistan a decade later without safe Humvees or proper body armor.

Perhaps the president sensed John Boehner and Republicans were bluffing all along and wouldn't allow the default date to pass. True, the Tea Party has stood firm, wanting to use the debt ceiling as a firewall to force an immediate reduction in government expenditures, but political reality has interfered. They don't have the numbers in Washington and the press has been especially hostile to their aggressive tactics of reform. Ultimately, it was a gambit other Republicans weren't willing to take.

In chess terms, what the Tea Party proposed was bringing the queen out early and attacking. The strategy is bold and shortens the battle, but can be risky. Republican leadership preferred to take a long-term approach, castle and move some pawns to control the center of the board and hope voters will hold Barack Obama responsible for the mess he's left behind. There's no need for sudden moves in a bad economy when the public is increasingly holding the president responsible, especially given the weak economic data and a potential double dip recession on the horizon (first quarter GDP has already been downgraded to an anemic 0.9%).

Unfortunately with spending still unchecked and a phony solution in the works, we may be running out of time for anything close to a soft landing.

No, 'Taking Our Country Back' Isn't Racist

Michael Medved, one of the squishiest conservative pundits around, has written a column at Townhall.com in which he suggests dropping the TEA Party slogan of "taking our country back", because some on the left might misconstrue that language as racist, given we are currently experiencing our first non-white president.

Mr. Medved writes:

"Talking about 'taking our country back,' conjuring images of an eternal battle between us-and-them, can only alienate that crucial element of the populace with few ideological attachments and chronic disinclination to firm allegiances. The moderates who decide most political battles feel uncomfortable with harsh rhetoric from either right or left, treating rivals as some alien other. After all, Howlin' Howie Dean ran his ultra-liberal presidential campaign of 2004 using precisely the slogan favored by today's conservatives, and promising to 'take our country back'—in his case, from the dreaded Bush regime. Though once hailed as the Democratic frontrunner, Dean's campaign developed an apocalyptic and paranoid edge that finally repelled even liberal voters in Democratic primaries. Republicans should avoid replicating that aura of off-putting self-righteousness.

There's also an unmistakable, uncomfortable whiff of racial animus in demanding to regain lost control of "our country" during the term of America's first non-white president. Naturally, left-wingers will seize on any excuse to charge their conservative adversaries with hatred of black people, and they have logically asked, "from whom, exactly, do conservatives mean to take their country back?” From liberals, or from people of color?"

Like the NAACP's ludicrous attack on the Tea Party as the second coming of the Klan, these charges may seem opportunistic and implausible, but why risk even the vague appearance of race-baiting when it's entirely unnecessary?"

What utter nonsense. First of all, the Left doesn't misconstrue anything about the conservative movement or the TEA parties. They purposefully construct a false premise and use ad-hominem attacks to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them. Orders to do this come from the highest levels of race-baiters in the Obama administration, aided by the partisan enablers of the Journolist group, who you might recall suggested smearing Fred Barnes and Karl Rove with the 'racist' label in hopes of taking the spotlight off Obama's relationship with the infamous Rev. Wright.

As Ann Coulter brilliantly points out in her latest column, to suggest in defense that "both sides have their fringe elements" is no defense at all. Every time the Left plays the race-baiting or personal attack game (because they can't win on the merits of their ideas and their president's job performance is abysmal), these political hacks should be called out as the liars that they are. There is no truth or proof to their claim whatsoever, and even with a $10,000 reward to produce evidence of so-called racist slurs at a TEA Party rally at the Capitol with thousands of video cameras around, the Left has been unable to produce one second of footage. 

The truth is if the Left really felt concerned about racism in this country, they wouldn't have all flocked to Sen. Robert Byrd's funeral to pay homage and make excuses for his membership (and time served as a recruiter) in the Ku Klux Klan. And they might show a wee bit more concern for the voters who were faced with New Black Panther members forcefully wielding sticks and batons at a Pennsylvania polling station.

But here's where Medved really misses the boat. "Take our Country Back" isn't the rally cry to replace Obama with a Republican or to overthrow a political party. The rally cry to "take our country back" is the call of the people to strip the ruling class of its power and restore government back in the hands of the citizens. The aim is to take our country back from lifelong politicos and entrenched special interests who have been hawking the nation into debt for years at their own personal gain, Republican and Democrat alike. In the case of this administration, it probably also means we need to take our country back from the Harvard eggheads who operate under the direction of economic theories instead of proven principles and immutable laws, because as William F. Buckley famously stated (and I'm paraphrasing), "we'd be better off being governed by the first 2000 names in the phone book than the Harvard faculty."

I might also add that Howard Dean's campaign ran into a lot more trouble than just a strongly-worded slogan. And if you've heard Howie speak since then, you realize just what a loon he is - that weird yell was no exception. Further, words to "take our country back" ring hollow from the left, because the left's view of progress is the opposite of our founding ideals. They want to take our country forward, away from our stale past rooted in liberty, as evidenced by the hostility of this administration to free enterprise.

Michael Medved's squeamish campaign for a duller slogan does the conservative movement no favors and will have the opposite effect of his intention, pushing moderates away who may not fit into an ideological camp per se, but know the difference between being ruled and being governed. When you are being ruled over and disenfranchised every day, as this Democrat-led Congress has done to the American people, it's definitely time to point out the lost voices of democracy, to not mince words but set brushfires in the minds of fellow citizens of all political stripes, and "Take our country back."

Worse Than Guilt by Association

When conservatives questioned Barack Obama's character to be president based on his association with Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers and a twenty year membership in Rev. Wright's church of liberation theology, it was frowned upon by the Mainstream Media. "This is an attempt to paint Obama guilty by association!" the Left screamed. Nevermind these weren't casual encounters. Barack Obama made a conscious decision to maintain relationships with these individuals over several years. He called Rev. Wright his spiritual mentor. He launched his political career from Bill Ayers living room. In questioning Obama, we were judging him by the company he kept, the inner circle of those who influenced his thinking. This is hardly guilt by association.

Now we see the Left was only projecting. Accusing us of guilt by association turns out to be their new modus of operandi. Actually, it's even worse. What we are now witnessing is guilt without association. How else do you explain the invisible dots Democrats keep trying to connect by repeatedly mentioning domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh in the same breath with the Tea Party?

What exactly do Timothy McVeigh and conservative demonstrators have in common? Absolutely nothing. There wasn't even a Tea Party movement fifteen years ago. Sure, they both distrust the government. But so what? According to a recent Pew research poll, 80% of Americans distrust the government, the highest level ever recorded. If we are to believe the hyperbole of the Left, then 80% of the country is a potential domestic terrorist. Of course, given the growth of the public sector over the past decade, it's likely that the other 20% work for the government anyway, so perhaps it's closer to 100% distrust.

Historically, guilt by association attempted to connect two unrelated individuals without evidence that they knew each other or shared the same values. During the dark days of McCarthyism, if anyone who belonged to a group or club confessed they were a Communist, then everyone who ever belonged to that group or could be placed at an event with any of those members must also be a Communist.

Democrats have basically made the same absurd leap of logic with the Tea Party. Already they have tried unsuccessfully to connect anyone who takes part in the movement with fringe racists. Last week, threatened by the increased popularity of the Tea Parties going mainstream, Democrat leaders including former president Bill Clinton upped the ante and are now comparing the Tea Party protesters to Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City bomber.

This is the worst of mischaracterization and guilt by association, and it's being practiced by the Left, not the Right. It's an attempt to intimidate and demonize law-abiding citizens who disapprove of runaway government spending and never-ending bureaucracy into silence. It's an attempt to discourage everyday Americans dissatisfied with the Obama administration's policies to join the Tea Party movement. It's an attempt not to win the debate, but to silence the debate.

Is it working? Let's hope not. A strong democracy requires a marketplace of ideas, not marching orders or conformity. Forced agreement with the party line is what regimes practice, not the United States of America. You can imagine the outrage if Republicans had tried the same thing when they controlled Congress. You can imagine the outrage if President Bush had called anti-war protesters like Cindy Sheehan "potential terrorists" or sent Dick Cheney out to question whether any Democrats might be spurred to violence due to the talk of "truthers" claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

Then again, conservatives are more tolerant of dissent than progressives. Conservatives are more willing to debate the merits of an idea, to draw a distinction between freedom and tyranny, between collectivism and individual liberty. In fact, it is by defining these arguments that the conservative feels they will win the debate and establish clarity, while the Left can't defeat the idea alone. An argument based on history and/or facts is never sufficient. They have to paint the conservative in a negative light. The conservative must be immoral, racist, harmful, backwards, against the poor, against women, or any number of adjectives they can come up with. This is cheap demagoguery.

Contrast this with how the Left and Mainstream Media treat radical Islam. They are afraid of ruffling any feathers. They go out of their way not to call the violent acts that some members practice acts of terrorism or to connect, for instance, the shooting by Major Nadal Hasan at Fort Hood with fundamental Islam when there were more red flags than a North Korean parade. Instead, the Left asks how they can be more tolerant of Islam. "What did we do to you to cause this reaction?" they want to know. Free people can't even draw a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed without receiving death threats or inciting riots from mainstream Muslims.

Does the Left condemn these acts of intimidation as hate speech? No, they appease it. They ask Americans to be more accommodating and sensitive, all the while unwilling to accommodate nonviolent conservative citizens with real grievances against the government. Sure, no arrests have been made at Tea Party events. But one of these vocal, flag-waving, middle class Americans clinging to their religion could be the next Timothy McVeigh.

Or Bill Ayers. In which case, Democrats should have no problem.