Barack Obama

Must-See Video: Steven Crowder Exposes CanadaCare

Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, bureaucracy, Canada, capitalism, healthcare, liberalism, media, propaganda, socialism, Steven Crowder, video

Pajamas Media’s own Steven Crowder takes a trip up north to get an up-close, undercover look at Canada’s nationalized health care to answer the big questions: Is it cheaper?  Is it more efficient?  Does it help people?

Er…not exactly.

His findings aren’t pretty, to say the least.  There’s a reason that, as Crowder pointed out, even “the father of Quebec medicare” has changed his views and now says the system is in a “crisis,” which he believes requires “a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice” to alleviate.

Every American needs to see this video.  Share it with friends, family, anyone you can.  It’s accessible, comprehensive, and eye-opening—just what we need to cut through the Left’s spin and the media propaganda on the joys of socialization before they demolish health care on our side of the border.

Climate Change Dogmatists Circle the Wagons as the “Consensus” Unravels

Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, dishonesty, global warming, propaganda

Two recent pieces on global warming merit your attention.  First, Michelle Malkin covers the Obama EPA’s suppression of an internal report on increasing concerns “that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups…as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.”  Why?  Because its “comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.” So much for “an unprecedented level of openness in Government”…

Second, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel sums up how the trumped up global warming consensus is collapsing all over the world:

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Be sure to read the whole thing.  There have always been more dissenters among scientists than dogmatic, angry lefties would have you believe.  Now that their house of cards is collapsing all around them, we can only expect them to get more shrill and defensive.

Why Sotomayor Is Wrong for the Court, & What the GOP Should Do About It

Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, conservatism, Constitution, Founding Fathers, judicial branch, law, liberalism, Republican Party, Sonia Sotomayor, strategy, Supreme Court

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is exactly the kind of person you don’t want on the Supreme Court.  Her infamous (and recurrent) “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” is a clear sign that she sees issues and situations through a racial, identity-politics prism.  Her comment that the US Court of Appeals “is where policy is made” speaks for itself.  Apologists have tried to explain these statements away as if they were detached, self-evident observations about the way things are, not the way she wants them to be.  But that won’t do—we already have examples of both ideas polluting her judicial analysis.

She opposes capital punishment on the grounds that it “is associated with evident racism in our society” and once claimed that, after reviewing “the current literature of the past two years, no publications have been found that challenge the evidence and the rationale presented in opposition to the death penalty.”  She has complained that her 1998 appellate confirmation was delayed due to racism: “I was dealt with on the basis of stereotypes . . . and it was painful . . . and not based on my record…I got a label because I was Hispanic and a woman and [therefore] I had to be liberal.” However, her racial sensitivity doesn’t extend to white and Hispanic firefighters denied promotions on the basis of their race.  She looks at the phrase, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” and somehow concludes that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”  She acknowledges that her judicial analysis is influenced in part by “foreign law and the international community.”

In America’s system of checks and balances, the purpose of the judicial branch is “to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws,” as Hamilton writes in Federalist 78.  He goes on to write that judges are to have an “inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals.”  The duty of a judge is to discern the plain meaning and original intent of the law.  Opinions regarding what the law should be—preferences for which policies to adopt and which to repeal—are for the elected representatives of the people to debate and enact.  Why would we even dream of giving policymaking power to unelected magistrates with lifetime offices?

Anyone familiar with the Framers’ thinking, from Federalist 10 to Washington’s Farewell Address, can attest to their belief in the importance of national unity and pursuing the common interest, and in the dangers of factional division along regional, ethnic, cultural, or religious lines.  The idea that it’s even legitimate, much less desirable, for a judge to view legal matters through any sort of racial or identity-politics prism would have been utterly alien to them.  The law is what it is, regardless of its observer, and the mark of a great judge is the ability to look beyond one’s personal baggage and prejudices to seek the truth.

Sonia Sotomayor fails this test, and her nomination doesn’t speak well of the judicial philosophy of the president who nominated her (especially considering that Obama once taught constitutional law).  As a matter of principle, her nomination ought to be opposed—but thanks to the Republican moderation mentality, that’s another can of worms.  The standard reaction to Sotomayor’s known failings by Republicans making the cable news rounds seems to be, “it’s troubling, but let’s see what she has to say during the hearings.”  Translation: “Yeah, we know it looks bad, but we don’t want to make any commitments because we’re scared that we might alienate the Hispanic vote further” (because pandering to liberal Hispanics worked out so well last year).

This is absurd.  Cowardly failure to draw clear distinctions between themselves and the Democrats got Republicans into this mess, and it’s not going to get them out of it.  The idea that whatever Sotomayor says during her job interview should carry more weight than her record is ridiculous.  And I don’t understand the idea that an opposition to this Supreme Court nominee will somehow deplete the “ammo” Republicans will need to battle the next nominee, or the idea that this battle is less important, since she’s just filling a seat that was occupied by another liberal anyway, and fighting isn’t ultimately going to keep her off the court.

Regardless of whether or not Sotomayor becomes a Justice, Republicans need to loudly oppose her nomination, for two reasons.  First, the base cannot be expected to keep fighting for Republicans if Republicans cannot be expected to fight for them.  Second, a fight over Sotomayor’s failings is an opportunity to bring attention to the underlying constitutional issues and principles at stake, which you cannot expect unconvinced Americans to adopt if you only mention them in passing during campaign season.  We always hear about the need to have a “national discussion” over this or that issue.  Well, here’s your chance.  Discuss.

A Tale of Two Shootings

Calvin Freiburger abortion, Barack Obama, evil, hypocrisy, Islamofascism, military, murder, national security, tragedy

Since Barack Obama is one of the most extreme pro-abortion politicians in American history, it came as little surprise that he wasted no time issuing a statement condemning George Tiller’s murder.  It was striking, however, that the commander-in-chief of our armed forces neglected to do the same about the shooting in Little Rock, which claimed the life of one of the very soldiers serving under him, and injured another.

It took him a while, but he’s finally released a statement:

I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.

It’s nice to hear the president is “deeply saddened,” but you would think that it would have “shocked and outraged” him.  Regardless of this late, halfhearted effort, the damage is done.  Obama’s perverse priorities have been made crystal clear.

Waste 101

Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, bureaucracy, liberalism, waste

Fox News has a few videos from last night’s special, “Waste 101,” in which Sean Hannity highlights 101 examples of wastefully-spent taxpayer dollars from the stimulus bill Barack Obama is so very proud of (and is so wonderful that new restrictions on criticizing it are in order).  It’s more of the same crap that groups like Club for Growth and Citizens Against Government Waste have been sounding the alarm on for years—bridges named after politicians, useless government make-work jobs, gifts to lobbyists and special interests, obscure scientific research, et cetera.  It puts the lie to the claim that Obama and the Democrats have any interest in fiscal responsibility.

Two points, though.  First, this is from the guy who not only claimed to be different (which all politicians do), but based his entire campaign on the concept.  Second, not only does Obama reflect all the problems of the status quo, but he amplifies them: Hannity’s rundown totaled over a billion dollars, out of a $787 billion bill, meaning it barely scratches the surface of the waste this administration has already spent in less than half a year in office—and there’s more where that came from.

Cleaning up the mess the 44th president is making is not going to be a fun task.

PS: Wisconsin Dems are no better.

Tortured Logic

Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Islamofascism, national security, torture

Torture is back in the news, thanks in large part to President Barack Obama’s recent speech attacking the national security policies of the Bush Administration (despite reserving for himself the right to authorize torture) and ex-Vice President Dick Cheney’s speech setting the record straight.

Among those outraged by Bush, Cheney and company is Alonzo Fyfe, who argues:

Every political speech describing what the American government may do to foreign captives should be viewed as a speech on what the speaker would allow foreign governments to do to Americans.

Of course, nobody is talking about what the government can do to “foreign captives” or “foreign nationals.”  We’re talking about what it can do to “terrorists,” meaning “foreign nationals whose goal is to kill civilians.”  Advocacy of torturing foreign terrorists cannot be interpreted as moral permission for another country to torture any Americans aside from those engaged in terrorist activities against that country.  And frankly, if a foreign government finds itself in that situation, I certainly wouldn’t object to their torturing an American-born terrorist to obtain information necessary to save lives.

As for the scenario of unjust governments or terrorist groups torturing captive US soldiers or civilians, then pointing to American waterboarding as justification, it’s preposterous.  If our enemies’ actions were only, or even primarily, motivated by a desire to retaliate for comparable grievances, 9/11 never would have happened.  Neither would the USS Cole bombing, the Khobar Towers, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing…you get the point.

Personally, I’ll take saving innocent lives over trying to psychoanalyze what might lead monsters to violate senses of moral restraint they don’t even have.

Conservatism: The Road Ahead

Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, conservatism, Republican Party, resercons, strategy

With a hard-left president and Congress just one contested seat away from a filibuster-proof Democrat majority, the present condition of the Republican Party has become the talk of the town.  How did this happen?  Can the GOP make a comeback?  How soon?  Does it need to reinvent itself?

Several moderate-to-liberal Republicans—most prominently, Bush speechwriter David Frum, ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Sen. John McCain’s daughter Meghan McCain—claim that the American people “are looking for more government in their life, not less,” but the Republican Party has been hijacked by a cabal of right-wing zealots who, by angrily purging the party of anyone who doesn’t pass a nigh-insurmountable ideological purity test, have set the party on the fast track to irrelevance.

We’ve heard this many times before, usually casting social conservatives as the culprit.  Pro-lifers wary of Rudy Giuliani were chastised for putting their pet issue over the good of the country and told they didn’t understand how politics really worked.  Conservatives were told “Maverick” John McCain was the only candidate who could beat Barack Obama—and we all know how well that went (indeed, it turns out McCain’s strongest consistent showing in the polls came after the addition of Gov. Sarah Palin to the ticket on August 29).  Liberal GOP Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat last month, complaining that the Republican Party “has moved far to the right” since 1980.

Of course, the GOP actually hasn’t moved to the right—quite the opposite.  Jay Nordlinger offers the following rundown of President George W. Bush’s domestic agenda, which the Republican Party largely supported:

Bush and the Republicans spent massively, especially in Bush’s first term. We [National Review] opposed that, mightily. The president’s most cherished initiative, probably, was the Faith-Based Initiative. We opposed that. Then there was his education policy: No Child Left Behind. We opposed that (mainly on grounds that it wrongly expanded the federal role). He had his new federal entitlement: a prescription-drug benefit. We of course opposed that. He imposed steel tariffs—for a season—which we opposed. He signed the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance—which we opposed. He established a new cabinet department, the Department of Homeland Security. We opposed that. He defended race preferences in the University of Michigan Law School case; we were staunchly on the other side. He of course proposed a sweeping new immigration law, which included what amounted to amnesty. We were four-square against that.

The party’s standard-bearer for the past decade was hardly a conservative, and 2008’s standard-bearer even less so.  The Republican National Committee certainly hasn’t been moving to expel liberals like McCain, Specter, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, or Olympia Snowe from the party; in fact, it’s doing the opposite.  It’s not as if Republicans got burned pursuing an ambitious social-conservative agenda—Congress’ actions on life issues during the Bush years stopped far short of pursuing an outright abortion ban (as Ann Coulter points out in her recent blockbuster Guilty, even public opposition to Congress’ intervention in the Terri Schiavo case was directly proportional to the dishonesty of the poll question).  Americans are becoming more pro-life, and as for gay marriage, it’s not for nothing that many Democrats, including the current president, pay lip service to marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  Hmm, what can we infer from this…?

There’s nothing new about the moderation meme, and it won’t be any more effective this time around than it was then.  And it’s not based on principle, either—as Karl notes, “if the GOP is in danger of being seen as ideologically narrow and too identified with social issues, it is in no small part because its supposedly ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ wing generally has been socially liberal and not fiscally conservative.  Having abandoned the core principles on which Republicans are supposed to agree, they would like the social cons to dump the remainder of their principles as well.”

As I’ve said before, it wasn’t conservatism that soured the American people to the GOP over the past 8 years. It was corruption, amnesty, and a White House that refused to reevaluate its Iraq strategy until the electoral winds of 2006 gave it no choice.  Late in the 2008 race, the economy took center stage among voters’ concerns, and they saw a feckless Republican who seemed not to have a coherent answer.

So how do we set things right?  Dick Morris says moderation is exactly the wrong approach.  He reasons that Obama’s domestic agenda is a sure-fire disaster in the making, which voters will be watching, and “Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative—a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted.” However, “voters will cynically conclude that there is no distinction between the parties” if they instead see a meek, moderate GOP that stands for nothing clear or different.  Morris is right.  Especially considering that both parties are currently tied on economic aptitude, a Republican comeback is entirely possible—if the GOP recognizes what they have to do.

That’s a very big if.  The two biggest obstacles to Republican rebounds in 2010 & 2012 are the temptation to buy the moderation fallacy, and the party’s utter lack of articulate spokesmen who can connect with the people (case in point: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s ineffectual reaction to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent attack on the CIA on Fox News).  And even if Republicans do win back seats—even regain majorities—what are they going to do with their power?  How are they going to ensure lasting Republican victory, and long-term conservative reform?

I believe the answers lie in a drastic reassessment of what the Republican Party and the conservative movement are, or more importantly, are not doing at the federal, state, and local levels.  In the days, weeks, and months to come, we’re going to explore the various aspects of the question.  Stay tuned.