Quotes of the Day - union leader Samuel Gompers

Samuel Gompers, born January 27, 1850, was a cigar maker. He is best known as the founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), where he was president from 1886-94 and then again from 1895 until his death on December 13, 1924.

His take on labor unions, their purpose and their actions, is a bit different from today's and so I thought it might be interesting to share some of his quotes, especially in light of the many issues facing unions - and all of us - today.

While I don't agree with everything he said and stood for, there is wisdom and insight in much of what he said and stood for, especially in his support of America during World War I and his opposition to socialism as a unsound economic solution to the ills Americans were experiencing at the time. He opposed immigration without Americanization, something many labor leaders of today fail to address.

And he opposed loyalty to a particular party. Wonder what he'd think of today's labor movement?

The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit.

I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty – the principles of voluntarism. No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion. If we seek to force, we but tear apart that which, united, is invincible. . . . I want to say to you, men and women of the American labor movement, do not reject the cornerstone upon which labor’s structure has been builded – but base your all upon voluntary principles and illumine your every problem by consecrated devotion to that highest of all purposes – human well being in the fullest, widest, deepest sense.

There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.

We want a minimum wage established, but we want it established by the solidarity of the working men themselves through the economic forces of their trade unions, rather than by any legal enactment. . . . We must not, we cannot, depend upon legislative enactments to set wage standards. When once we encourage such a system, it is equivalent to admitting our incompetency for self-government and our inability to seek better conditions.

The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.

Labor Day is devoted to no man, living or dead, to no sect, race or nation.

I have no word of censure for a man because of his views on political, social or economic questions, but I contend that trade unions are the natural form of organization for wage earners under existing economic conditions, and I propose (so far as I may be able) to keep them undefiled and free from alliance with any political party . . . . Factions who wish to dally with hobbies and fine spun theories . . . have no place in the ranks of trade unionism.

And what have our unions done? What do they aim to do? To improve the standard of life, to uproot ignorance and foster education, to instill character, manhood and independent spirit among our people; to bring about a recognition of the interdependence of man upon his fellow man. We aim to establish a normal work-day, to take the children from the factory and workshop and give them the opportunity of the school and the play-ground. In a word, our unions strive to lighten toil, educate their members, make their homes more cheerful, and in every way contribute an earnest effort toward making life the better worth living.

That which we call freedom, that which we call liberty, are not tangible things. They are not handed to any people on a silver platter. They are principles, they are questions of the spirit, and the people must have a consciousness that they not only have the term liberty and freedom, but they must have the power and the right to exercise these great attributes of life.

To strengthen the state, as Frederick Howe says, is to devitalize the individual. . . . I believe in people. I believe in the working people. I believe in their growing intelligence. I believe in their growing and persistent demand for better conditions, for a more rightful situation in the industrial, political, and social affairs of this country and of the world. I have faith that the working people will better their condition far beyond what it is today. The position of the organized labor movement is not based upon misery and poverty, but upon the right of workers to a larger and constantly growing share of the production, and they will work out these problems for themselves.

I do not think American labor is engaged in a class struggle and I do not think American labor believes it is engaged in a class struggle, because in our country we have no such thing and I hope never will have.

We are proud of the country which we claim as our own; we are proud of its history, proud of its heroes and proud of its traditions, and we hope as we struggle for its glorious future. But we maintain that patriotism does not mean the hatred of our neighbor. Nor do we believe that it is a wise policy, as some would advocate, that a foreign war might be a good cure for our domestic evils.

In the exercise of great powers often requisite under military control, the right of free meeting, the right of free speech, and free press is endangered. And when the smoke of battle is gone these rights, taken from the masses of the people under often necessary conditions, are seldom freely given back to the people.

That war transformed me from an ultra-pacifist to one willing to fight and sacrifice with my fellow countrymen in defense of the principle of living our own lives and working out our own destiny; and if there be a mad-man nation still, large or small, which will attempt to repeat that monumental crime I hope that the generations, perhaps yet unborn, of our self-governing civilized nations, may throw themselves with equal vigor in the battle to maintain the fundamental principles of freedom, justice and humanity.

[D]uring the years of [World War I] I was absorbed with the one object that it was labor's war as much as it was the war of any other group of our people; that labor had to make good in helping to win the war and to emerge from the war with freedom and democracy safeguarded and its honored name and high ideals maintained.

I want to tell you, Socialists, that I have studied your philosophy; read your works upon economics, and not the meanest of them; studied your standard works, both in English and German -- have not only read, but studied them. I have heard your orators and watched the work of your movement the world over. I have kept close watch upon your doctrines for thirty years; have been closely associated with many of you, and know how you think and what you propose. I know, too, what you have up your sleeve. And I want to say that I am entirely at variance with your philosophy. I declare to you, I am not only at variance with your doctrines, but with your philosophy. Economically you are unsound; socially, you are wrong; industrially, you are an impossibility.

You are mistaken in asserting that I am embittered against everybody or anything that savors of socialism. What I resent and what I have persistently opposed is any effort that will mislead the wage-earners and delude them with vain hope. There have been so many burdens and so much suffering and so much misery heaped upon those who are called the wage-earners, that I resent with every particle of force within me anything that would perpetuate their suffering or lead them into greater depths. Because I am firmly convinced that socialism is founded upon principles that will not lead out into broader liberty, independence and opportunity, I have done what I could to show men the fallacies of the doctrine of socialism.

There are people in the labor movement who seem to believe that success can only come by entrusting great, yes, absolute power in the hands of an individual or an executive officer. I warn you against a calamity none greater than which can occur to the labor
movement. Autocracy is as dangerous in our movement as in the state. Mistakes may be made by the masses but they learn to do better by reason of their mistakes. The individual, on the contrary, when having absolute power rarely makes mistakes, rather commits crime. The man who would arrogate to himself in the labor movement absolute and autocratic power would be a tyrant under
other circumstances and has no place in the labor movement.

One thing to be considered in discussing immigration is that the greater the number of immigrants the less American the United States becomes. . . . The American Federation of Labor believes that the foreigners now in this country should be assimilated before others are permitted to come except from such countries as Great Britain, France, Germany and Scandinavia.

America must be kept American. Those who would flood the country with hordes of immigrants from southeastern Europe care no more for America then do the Hottentots. Their desires are governed by greed.

The industrial field is littered with more corpses of organizations destroyed by the damning influences of partisan politics than from all other causes combined.

We deny the assertion made by some of our opponents when they say the American Federation of Labor is against political action. We are against the the American labor movement being made a political party machine.

I am very suspicious of the activities of governmental agencies.

We have been asked, or advised, to go for all the laws we can get. Save the workingmen of America from such a proposition! There are numbers of laws we can get, but prudence and defense of the rights and the liberties of the toilers are much more important than the effort to secure all the laws we can get.

Several times the proposition to form a labor party has been considered by the trade union movement, but after careful and thorough consideration it has been invariably decided that we can attain our purposes more quickly and more effectively by continuing our political policy of independent political action partisan to principles rather than to a party.

A law that is really a law, is a result of public thought and conviction and not a power to create thought or conviction. The enforcement of a law follows naturally because the people will it. To enact a law with the hope and for the purpose of educating the people is to proceed by indirection and to waste energy. It is better to begin work for securing ideals by directing activity first for fundamentals. Frequently, when the people concerned become mindful and eager for what will promote their own welfare, they find that they are much more able to secure what will benefit and adapt their methods to changing circumstances than is any law or the administration of that law.

There are a number of people who mistakenly charge me with being a Democrat. I never was a member of the Democratic Party. I was at one time, in my early years, a member of the Republican Party, and cast my first vote for a Republican President--U. S. Grant as soon as I attained my majority. I never did belong to the Democratic Party. In the pursuit of the Nonpartisan policy of labor in which I thoroughly believe, I supported Republican or Democrat or publicist as in the varying parties I believed that they would best serve the people without regard to party.

I love my liberty, and imprisonment would be, to say the least, very disagreeable to me; but there are some things that are even less desirable, among them one's loss of self-respect and the loss of inherent and lawful constitutional rights.

The meaning of America lies in the ideal she represents. That ideal is liberty and opportunity. But beautiful as any ideal may be, it becomes of practical value when it has effectiveness in the daily lives of men and women. Real liberty and opportunity mean a certain mental attitude toward life, certain standards of life and work, and possession of that which secures the enjoyment of opportunities. America the ideal -- the land of the free -- exists only when her people are American in all things.

By nature I am a non-conformist. I believe that restrictions dwarf personality and that largest usefulness comes through greatest personal freedom.

Note: Many of these quotes are from the Samuel Gompers Papers.

Difference between Rs and Ds on charity in 4 lines

The striking difference between Republicans and Democrats (or conservatives and liberals, if you prefer) when it comes to charity was on display last night in the Vice Presidential debate between V.P. Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan.

As the discussion on unemployment, jobs and the economy progressed, Biden brought up the 47% comment Romney made at a fundraising event.

In response, Ryan tells a touching story about Mitt Romney designed to show Romney's compassion, kindness and how he lives the principles of his faith in caring for others. It is also a perfect set-up for Ryan's zinger on the 47% comment.

Here is the transcript:

RYAN: He talks about Detroit. Mitt Romney’s a car guy. They keep misquoting him, but let me tell you about the Mitt Romney I know. This is a guy who I was talking to a family in Northbourough, Massachusetts the other day, Sheryl and Mark Nixon. Their kids were hit in a car crash, four of them. Two of them, Rob and Reed, were paralyzed. The Romneys didn’t know them. They went to the same church; they never met before.

Mitt asked if he could come over on Christmas. He brought his boys, his wife, and gifts. Later on, he said, “I know you’re struggling, Mark. Don’t worry about their college. I’ll pay for it.”

When Mark told me this story, because, you know what, Mitt Romney doesn’t tell these stories. The Nixons told this story. When he told me this story, he said it wasn’t the help, the cash help. It’s that he gave his time, and he has consistently.

This is a man who gave 30% of his income to charity, more than the two of us combined. Mitt Romney’s a good man. He cares about 100% of Americans in this country. And with respect to that quote, I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.

(LAUGHTER)

Biden's response:

BIDEN: The idea — if you heard that — that little soliloquy on 47% and you think he just made a mistake, then I think you’re — I — I think — I got a bridge to sell you.

Look, I don’t doubt his personal generosity. And I understand what it’s like. When I was a little younger than the congressman, my wife was in an accident, killed my daughter and my wife, and my two sons survived. I have sat in the homes of many people who’ve gone through what I get through, because the one thing you can give people solace is to know if they know you’ve been through it, that they can make it. So I don’t doubt his personal commitment to individuals. But you know what? I know he had no commitment to the automobile industry. He just — he said, let it go bankrupt, period. Let it drop out. All this talk — we saved a million jobs. Two hundred thousand people are working today.

And I’ve never met two guys who’re more down on America across the board. We’re told everything’s going bad. There are 5.2 million new jobs, private-sector jobs. We need more, but 5.2 million — if they’d get out of the way, if they’d get out of the way and let us pass the tax cut for the middle class, make it permanent, if they get out of the way and pass the — pass the jobs bill, if they get out of the way and let us allow 14 million people who are struggling to stay in their homes because their mortgages are upside down, but they never missed a mortgage payment, just get out of the way.

Stop talking about how you care about people. Show me something. Show me a policy. Show me a policy where you take responsibility.

There was some more and GM did go bankrupt, but never mind that fact...

It is the last four sentences that really struck me and it perfectly epitomizes the difference between the parties and their two philosophical positions.

Stop talking about how you care about people. Show me something. Show me a policy. Show me a policy where you take responsibility.

Biden thinks that charity should be a government policy.

He also thinks charity should be seen, preferably in a law or bill.

He obviously believes that something you do individually should be transported into government doing it too - or instead. He seems to be saying that unless you make your personal commitment to charity (or caring for others) into a government policy, it doesn't mean anything.

He's completely wrong, but too many people seem to agree with him.

As I always say when people challenge me and others on government charity, in my Christian faith, Jesus commanded each of us to care for the poor. He didn't tell us to pay taxes so the government could care for the poor instead. He gave the instruction to us as individuals.

And He certainly didn't tell us to force other people to be charitable, which is what results when such thinkers impose taxes on all to pay for the charity they personally believe is needed or desired.

Additionally, Jesus teaches us that our charity is not something to be done in public and bragged about. In Matthew 6: 1-4 He says:

"Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly."

This is exactly opposite of what politicians do. They take our money and then brag about all the 'good' they're doing and all the help they're giving to the poor, underserved and needy.

That's not charity.

And people who believe the Democratic position - or advocate it, as some preachers today are doing - are not only abdicating their obligation to care for others, they're expecting you to do the same.

I don't believe God is pleased by this.

Inconvenient truths conveniently omitted from Michelle Obama's speech

First Lady Michelle Obama gave a speech this past weekend at the Congressional Black Caucus Gala.

While many have criticized her math in referencing when "our great-grandparents were riding that Underground Railroad" (check the comments in the linked post), there are other truths - inconvenient for Democrats - that she conveniently failed to mention.

She said:

Now, this work wasn't always easy, especially in the early years, when many members of this caucus faced challenges they never could have anticipated. For example, back in the early '70s, Congressman Ron Dellums was appointed to the Armed Services Committee -- (applause) -- as was Congresswoman Pat Schroeder. Displeased about having both a woman and an African American assigned to his committee, the chairman at the time added just one seat to the committee room -- and he forced the two of them to share it. But Congressman Dellums was unphased. He said to Congresswoman Schroeder, "Let's not give these guys the luxury of knowing they can get under our skin. Let's sit here and share this chair as if it's the most normal thing in the world." (Laughter.)

This story is repeated in numerous places, so there is no reason to doubt its veracity. But don't you wonder who that evil committee chairman was? He had to be a Republican, opposing Blacks and women - right?

Wrong.

The Armed Services Committee chairman was none other than Felix Edward Hebert - a Democrat.

And what was his thinking in doing this? Advancing Women website explains:

Obviously, women have come a long way since the “bad old days' in 1973 when F. Edward Hebert (the chair of the House Armed Services Committee) suggested that his Democratic colleagues Pat Schroeder and Ron Dellums share a chair—because in his view, "a girl and a black" were (as Schroeder remembers him saying) "worth only half of one 'regular' member."

Now why would Michelle omit the fact that the Democrat thought "a girl and a black" were only worth half of a 'regular' member of Congress?

But that's not all.

She also said:

We knew that to end slavery, we needed a proclamation from our President, an amendment to our Constitution.

She fails to mention that the President who issued the referenced proclamation was Abraham Lincoln who was - yes - a Republican. In fact, the Republican Party was formed by individuals opposed to slavery, another fact Democrats would like voters to forget.

She then said:

To end segregation, we needed the Supreme Court to overturn the lie of "separate but equal."

She is referencing Brown v. Board of Education in which the Court overturned, by unanimous vote, the previous standing of "separate but equal."

Chief Justice Earl Warren, who wrote the opinion, was a Republican, having served in elective office before being appointed Chief Justice of the United States. He was even the Republican Party's vice president nominee in 1948.

Why would she neglect to mention that such a landmark decision was written by a Republican?

Then she said:

To reach the ballot box, we needed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act.

Here, again, she conveniently neglects history. It was southern Democrats who opposed this law, with Democrat Pres. Lyndon Johnson asking the Minority Leader for Republican support to break the Democrat filibuster against the bill.

Maybe Mrs. Obama doesn't want people to know that Republicans have a better record on civil rights than her fellow Democrats do:

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]

Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act in higher proportions than Democrats.

The article continues:

The fact that Democrats are quick to take credit for the Civil Rights Act and for the civil rights movement itself is both phony and a self-absorbed vanity.
...
Democrats do themselves no good by taking credit for the civil rights movement or for legislation that came out of it. If they do that, they also must take the blame for the failures of the policies of dependence which they created and which choked the life out of the African-American culture and family life.

If African-Americans ever do vote for Republicans or conservatives, I hope they do so because they finally realize that though conservatives don't have all the answers, they do have enough faith in people to allow them the freedom to find the answers for themselves.

Perhaps this "faith in people to allow them the freedom to find the answers for themselves" is the core of the inconvenient truth that so scare Michelle Obama and her party.

No wonder she conveniently omits it.

Wood County GOP opens Election Headquarters

Press Release:

The Wood County Republican Party will be having the Grand Opening for its 2012 Election Headquarters on Wednesday, June 6, 2012, from 5:00pm to 7:00pm, at the following address: 111 S. Main St., Bowling Green, OH 43402.

All county officials and a representative from the Mitt Romney For President campaign will be present to give brief remarks and to meet attendees. The following are confirmed: Surrogate from Mitt Romney Campaign, State Representative Randy Gardner, Commissioner Tim Brown and Commissioner Jim Carter, candidate for County Commissioner, Doris Herringshaw, and many others. There will be a grand opening with a ribbon cutting.

For those using Facebook, you can confirm your attendance and invite Republican friends to the event by following the link: http://www.facebook.com/events/286098708152391/

In last 100 years, only 1 Republican defeated incumbent Democrat president

I heard this quote from Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on the radio this morning and I found it in a Newsmax article on Santorum's discussion with CNN’s John King (emphasis is mine):

Santorum noted that the Republican establishment in Washington and New York typically pushes for a moderate like Romney to lead the party, and they typically lose.

“ … if we don’t have a conservative, we will end up with the same situation we have had over the past 100 years. There’s been over 100 years now. There’s only one Republican that’s ever defeated a sitting Democratic incumbent president, one.

“And it’s the one time we ran a strong conviction conservative, in the face of the party saying no, no, no, we need a moderate. We need to win. We need to win. They always say that. And we always lose. And the one time we didn’t listen to the establishment, the Washington insiders, we had Ronald Reagan. And not only did we win. We changed the country.”

Before Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was 1888 when such an upset occured.  Grover Cleveland was defeated by Benjamin Harrison.

There's a very powerful lesson to be learned here - but I don't know if anyone is paying attention.

Santorum to visit NWOhio

Email Notice:

Presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, will be addressing Northwest Ohio supporters at a rally in Perrysburg, OH on Tuesday, February 28 at 11:30 a.m. at the Holiday Inn French Quarter, 10630 Fremont Pike in Perrysburg (U.S. 20 east of I-75).

Conservatives and Republicans in Wood County, Toledo, Perrysburg, Maumee, and across Northwest Ohio have joined together to organize this event and are honored to have Rick Santorum spend some time with us.

We're inviting you and your friends to join us in welcoming the next president of the United States. Doors open at 10:30 a.m. This event is open to the public. Come early to get a good seat. For questions, please contact John McAvoy at 419-787-9585.

There are no tickets for this event, it is open to all!

Live coverage of tonight's Republican debate

From my friend, fellow blogger and radio host Tony Katz. You can view the live stream, beginning at 7:30, here - below this notice:

Tonight, All Patriots Media is providing LIVE coverage of the debate, and we are thrilled to be sponsored by The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity!

Our coverage starts at 7:30pm EST at http://allpatriotsmedia.com/live

Joining me in providing the coverage is Stephen Kruiser.

We will also be taking live callers at 888-955-8669.

If you live in Arizona or Michigan, we want to talk to you.

For more on The Franklin Center, visit http://franklincenterhq.org

In honor of Rev.Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In honor of his birthday, I'm sharing this column by Frances Rice, a lawyer, retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. It appeared in numerous publications, including Human Events, in 2006. Ms. Rice can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy​, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Read more.

Rice concludes with this:

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

And this is the same theme found in the movie Runaway Slave, which debuted Friday in Los Angeles. The movie "exposes the economic slavery of the black community to the Progressive, big government policies of the U.S. government. The film’s heroes are black conservatives who are speaking out so that all Americans can truly be “free at last.”" The time of the debut was specifically chosen to coincide with the MLK holiday.

Between this column and the movie, you'll get a good education about the true history of Republicans, Democrats and black Americans.

Who gets to decide: you or the government?

"[T]here are, at bottom, basically two ways to order social affairs, Coercively, through the mechanisms of the state -- what we can call political society. And voluntarily, through the private interaction of individuals and associations -- what we can call civil society. ... In a civil society, you make the decision. In a political society, someone else does. ... Civil society is based on reason, eloquence, and persuasion, which is to say voluntarism. Political society, on the other hand, is based on force." ~ Edward H. Crane

When it comes to the 2012 election, I predict that Democrats will try to portray Republicans as mean or mean-spirited and corporate or corporate-backed (as if having the support of people who actually provide jobs is a bad thing).

Their record on the economy, which they can no longer blame on Pres. Bush despite continuing to try, is dismal.

They're not promoting American exceptionalism, something that voters continue to believe in.

They're trying to divide us by race, income, class, employment - and just about every other category they can come up.

And their general philosophy - larger government - means Americans will have less control over their own lives and decisions.

Their positions are not 'American.' But then, they did say they want to "fundamentally change" our nation. I guess we should have believed them.

The 2012 election will boil down to a basic question of 'who gets to decide.' Who will decide how you will live your life? Who will decide how your money is spent? Who will decide, basically, everything?

Will it be you?

Or will it be the government?

Democrats want the answer to be government, though they'll try to couch it in such a way so that you'll believe they're doing it for your own good.

But think about that for a moment. How arrogant must a person be, especially someone who is supposed to be a servant to the public, to think they know better than you what is in your own good?

You might believe your parents, relatives or friends have your own good at heart when they advise you, but does an elected official? Someone who doesn't know you, your circumstances, your goals and interests? The only answer to that is a resounding 'no'!

And do you really believe that any decision designed for the masses is going to be the best decision for you? It may be, but chances are that it won't. Nothing designed for everyone actually works for everyone - any experience with one-size-fits-all clothing will tell you it NEVER fits 'all.'

Government and the decisions by politicians are no different.

But as Republicans battle Democrats in the election cycle, any argument against government making the decisions will be cast as 'mean,' 'mean-spirited' and 'uncaring.' How could any Republican not see that government needs to 'take care' of people?

Republicans hate children, the elderly, the poor, the down-trodden, the sick, the environment, etc... We want to kill kids, pollute the earth, let sick people die without health care, have the elderly eat dog food, starve the poor, and manipulate workers. Anyone seriously thinking about such claims will know how bogus they are, but they make such good sound bites, willingly repeated by a compliant and complicit press.

You name it and the Dems will say that the opposition is because Republicans are, well, evil. How could they not be, though the actual reasoning behind the opposition to government being in control of your life is never addressed.

No, it's much easier to appeal to the emotion of disliking mean people, which almost all of us do. That way, Dems won't have to address their dismal record - or the record they are proud of which has had the opposite effect of what was intended (think bailouts that backfired, stimulus that didn't, etc...).

Republicans don't have a good track record of communicating the difference between their answer to the question versus the Democrat answer. Sadly, it's hard to communicate a philosophy you don't fully support and too many Republican candidates and officeholders don't have the best of records on letting you control your own life. Despite what they say, some have actions which show they'd rather exercise that control themselves.

Still, they're better than the Dems when it comes to your freedom.

So when you're listening to the speeches, the ads and the sound bites, remember that the 2012 campaigns will all boil down to one easy point:

Who gets to decide?

Who is in control?

You?

Or the government?

Putting the Black back in Republican

While at BlogCon11, sponsored by FreedomWorks, I had the opportunity to view an extensive trailer of the soon-to-be released film, Runaway Slave, a documentary that "exposes the economic slavery of the black community to the Progressive, big government policies of the U.S. government. The film’s heroes are black conservatives who are speaking out so that all Americans can truly be “free at last.”

The film will be released nationwide on January 13, 2012, intentionally to coincide with the celebratory weekend of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday. And yes, they seem to find great amusement that it is also Friday the 13th.

One of the stars in the film is AlfonZo Rachel, a social/political humorist of PJTV.com and MachoSauce Productions. He posted this new video to his website recently after sitting on the Runaway Slave panel at BlogCon11. AlfonZo, better known as "Zo" to his friends and followers, is one of many black conservatives across America who have contributed to the hard-hitting and revealing documentary. He leaves no thought to the imagination in his weekly commentaries as he targets his favorite liberal thoughts and double standards in each video blog.

Warning: no political correctness will be found in this video:



I hope you'll share this with your friends.

What the GOP debt limit strategy should be

We've been hearing about the negotiations, and witnessing the antics and political posturing over the debt limit for quite some time now and last night's speeches by President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner didn't contain any new information.

The President, as Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog explains, "...changed his mind — again. Calling the President’s performance in the debt-ceiling matter during the past several weeks “Jello-like” would appear to be an insult to the referenced food product."

He also points out that Wall Street seems to be getting used to the impasse, saying, "Yeah, the media/White House “the markets will tank if there isn’t an agreement this weekend” scare tactic of the past two days didn’t work out too well, did it?"

The President's position is that raising the debt ceiling doesn't give the government any more money to spend - it just allows them to pay the bills that are due. What a maroon (as Bugs Bunny would say).

Of course it allows them to spend more money - it gives them the ability to borrow more (there's that word again) money which they plan to immediately spend on a host of worthless projects like tea pot museums, 'slow food' initiatives, shrimp and oyster research, youth soccer gang prevention, bike paths and window replacements in municipal buildings - all critical national priorities.

Additionally, had the Democrats bothered to pass an actual budget in the last 3 years (a statutory mandate that they - and the national media - seem to ignore), they'd realize that they've got more bills than money and would have had to admit that the President's line of 'no additional money to spend' was nothing more than political posturing.

Republicans, led by Speaker Boehner, have at least seen the light - belatedly, but finally - and, despite having contributed mightily to our precarious financial condition, are standing firm on cutting spending and not raising taxes. I can only hope that they've learned their lesson and have truly changed their ways, but I'm not holding my breath.

In fact, Rep. Boehner's 'two-step' plan (sounds sort of shifty, doesn't it) that he introduced yesterday afternoon didn't seem to sit well with some in the GOP, including Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio) who chairs the Republican Study Committee. His statement in reaction to the two-step plan:

“While I thank the Speaker for fighting for Republican principles, I cannot support the plan that was presented to House Republicans this afternoon.”

“The credit rating agencies have been clear that no matter what happens with the debt limit, the U.S. will lose its AAA credit rating unless we produce a credible plan to reduce the debt by trillions of dollars. Cut, Cap, and Balance is the only plan on the table that meets this standard. Only a Balanced Budget Amendment will actually solve our debt problems.”

So it seems the GOP is, thankfully, holding the line and the President is 'taking it to the people,' though not very effectively. But what should the next step be?

Currently, everyone in Washington is focusing on how to get a debt limit increase approved by all sides. The scare tactic is that failing to do so means we default on our loans. Everyone is rushing around talking about the dire consequences of a debt default and pushing their own position as the solution.

While common sense tells you that default doesn't have to happen, since the nation collects much more in revenue than is due on the debt limit, if we remove that component of the argument, the real discussion - the proper size and scope of the federal government and the funding for it - can begin. But that also means that the tool (scary world-ending scenarios on default) being used by the President goes away - certainly a good political strategy as well.

The fact is that the nation defaults when it fails to pay the interest/principle on its loans/bonds. As the chart in this article shows, there is plenty of revenue to pay the interest due. In fact, with $172 billion in income for August, the Treasury Department would have enough money to pay (in rounded numbers):

* $ 30 billion interest on debt,
* $ 50 billion in Social Security payments,
* $ 3 billion active duty military pay,
* $ 29 billion in Medicare expenses,
* $ 21 billion in Medicaid expenses,
* $ 14 billion in federal salaries and benefits,
* $ 7 billion in food stamp payments,
* $ 2 billion in TANF (welfare) payments, and
* $ 3 billion in Veterans Affairs payments.

And that would still leave us with $15 billion or so for miscellaneous items.

The problem is in prioritizing. My list above means that other entities go unpaid (like defense contractors and various departments -energy, EPA, etc...), but the vital issue of debt payments and the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government is not only addressed - it's removed as both a scare tactic and a political weapon.

After all, even Pres. Obama in his speech last night, said:

"...defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate."

How do we not default? The answer is simple: the Prioritize Spending Act of 2011. It's a very short bill that says:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Prioritize Spending Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY OF PAYMENTS IF THE DEBT CEILING IS REACHED.

In the event that the debt of the United States Government, as defined in section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, reaches the statutory limit, amounts necessary for obligations incurred by the Government of the United States shall be made available to the following obligations before all other obligations and shall be made available as prioritized in the following order (with items listed in descending order of prioritization):

(1) Amounts necessary to carry out the authority of the Department of the Treasury provided in section 3123 of title 31, United States Code, to pay with legal tender the principal and interest on debt held by the public.

(2) Such amounts as the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard) determines to be necessary to continue to provide pay and allowances (without interruption) to members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including reserve components thereof, who perform active service.

(3) Such amounts as the President certifies to the Congress are necessary to carry out vital national security priorities.

(4) Amounts necessary to carry out the authority of the Commissioner of Social Security to pay monthly old-age, survivors', and disability insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act.

(5) Amounts necessary to make payments under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

Passing this bill has several positive outcomes for the nation's economy as it ensures the threat of default will no longer exist. It also removes uncertainty and reassures creditors that the nation will meet its obligations, no matter what political posturing goes on.

When the House passes it, it goes to the Senate, forcing them to be accountable for the consequences of their actions. The Senate has failed to approve a budget of their own and unanimously defeated the budget submitted by the President.

Since they don't want to do their job of budgeting, force them to take a position on prioritizing. They'll either

* table it, sending a message to all Americans that they'd rather try to scare you and use the credit of the nation as a political ploy for their own means;

* defeat it, sending the same message while also saying they WANT to default if it accomplishes their personal political goals;

* or pass it, because it's necessary for their future re-election efforts.

If they pass it, it forces the same position on Pres. Obama.

If Obama really doesn't want to default or not get granny her Social Security check, he'll sign it. The President said:

This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

If he really means that, he'll support the Prioritize Spending Act.

But my guess is that he'd veto it. And then he'd prove to the entire world that he really doesn't care about the nation - only about getting his way so he can spend even more money that he doesn't have.

A veto and a subsequent decision on behalf of the President to not make the debt payments would be devastating to the nation and its citizens. And make no mistake - if the nation defaults, it will be because Pres. Obama made the conscious decision to do so, despite his ability to avoid default.

Either way - veto or passage - it's a win-win scenario for Republicans.

So what are they waiting for?

Partisanship and state fiscal policy

From National Center for Policy Analysis:

Since the Great Depression, the size of U.S. government has grown consistently. While most focus is traditionally on the expansion of the federal government, the states have played a significant role in this transformation, say Noel D. Johnson, an assistant professor of economics at George Mason University, Matthew Mitchell, a research fellow at the Mercatus Center, and Steven Yamarik, a professor of economics at California State University, Long Beach.

* The size of state and local consumption as a proportion of total government spending increased from 43 percent to 67 percent between 1960 and 2010.

* As a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP), it grew from 9 to 12 percent.

* Much of the growth in the states concerns local public goods such as education, law and order, social transfers (welfare programs), and health expenditures.

There are significant differences in policy preferences between Republicans and Democrats concerning these budget items -- of which both voters and politicians are highly conscious. In general, the consensus view is that Republicans favor smaller government, while Democrats are viewed as favoring a larger role for government, raising the question: what role does partisanship play in U.S. state fiscal policymaking?

* In the presence of a fiscal constraint that binds the parties to some spending position that is between their most-preferred spending levels, Democrats will adopt platforms that call for more regulation while Republicans will adopt platforms that call for less regulation.

* Republicans do generally support budgets that decrease the size of government, whereas Democrats favor higher taxes and spending.

* Furthermore, to the extent that unified Republican governments seem to be elected in states with higher spending and taxes and vice versa for Democrats, it seems that voters expect the parties to purse these policies.

* Politicians in states that prevent them from pursuing votes through partisan fiscal policies will instead substitute into regulatory efforts.

* Democrats tend to favor further increases in the minimum wage and are less likely to outlaw a closed union shop by adopting a right-to-work statute.

* Republicans, on the other hand, are even more likely to adopt a right-to-work statute in the presence of a fiscal constraint.

Source: Noel D. Johnson, Matthew Mitchell and Steven Yamarik, "Pick Your Poison: Do Politicians Regulate When They Can't," Mercatus Center, June 2011.

GOP's time for choosing

I cannot recommend highly enough this column by Erick Erickson on Redstate.com.

Here is the start:

Dear House Republicans,

In the election of 2010, voters sent you to Washington to do two things: (1) End Obamacare and (2) pull us back from the brink of financial ruin.

You have failed at the first task. Obamacare remains. You never even seriously attempted to restrain its funding or implementation. Heck, you haven’t even saved the incandescent lightbulb.

Will you now fail at the second task too?

If you cave, fold, or compromise on the President’s terms, you will have failed in both your missions. If you support Mitch McConnell’s plan, you will have decisively failed.

Now is a time for choosing. Now is your time for choosing.As I pointed out to John Boehner yesterday, despite what the pundits in Washington are telling you, it is you and not Obama who hold most of the cards.

And I agree.

In fact, Erick makes a point that few have made prominently: that if the GOP folds in this fight (or compromises or capitulates), they will lose every fight from here on in as President Obama and the Democrats will have set the precedent of holding hostage Social Security checks for granny.

It will all be because if you lose this fight now, the Democrats will know for certain from here on out that they can use withholding entitlements as a tool to force your hand.

He's right.

Erick makes great points about what pundits, the chattering class and others are saying - and how they're wrong in their assessments. He concludes with this:

House Republicans, this is a time for choosing: Do you choose to be more courageous than the Democrats who were willing to risk defeat to advance socialism? Is keeping your job more important to you than saving the country? If so, the odds are you will both lose your job and lose your country.

This is a time for choosing. Choose wisely.

I hope you'll read the entire column. It will provide you with good points to make when you call the members of the House and Senate and tell them to 'not blink' and go ahead and all Obama's bluff (especially since he's already admitted he's bluffing - lol).

Principles vs. electability: the future of the Republican Party

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ~ Mark 8:36 (King James Version)

I couldn't help but think of this verse yesterday as I filled in for Brian Wilson on WSPD and we talked about the recent flap over supporting conservatives or the best conservative who could win.

I understand that the role of a political party is to elect its candidates. But what we've seen over the past years is a tendency to look first at electability and only peripherally at the principles of a candidate.

I believe that's wrong - and it's part of the reason that the GOP has lost is 'brand' as the party of limited government, low spending, low taxation and personal responsibility.

There are many we can blame for this state of affairs, but blame is not as important as understanding why and how it happened and preventing it in the future.

In the aftermath of Christine O'Donnell's win in Delaware, individuals considered leaders in the party blasted her and her record. What they failed to understand is that the people - the Republicans - in her district (the state of Delaware) made it clear who their choice of a representative was. It is, therefore, the proper role of the party structure to accept that choice and support it.

But when the party structure and other 'leaders' assume to know better than the people voting, they are no better than the liberals we criticize for assuming the same thing.

So how did we get to this point?

We decided that winning in the short-term (an election here or there) was more important than standing on principles.

In deciding that a 'battle' at a polling booth was more important than a 'war' of ideals, the Republican Party has sacrificed the core truths on which we have stood for decades. And what we got in return was only a temporary success at the ballot box.

That temporary success was seen as a step toward control, a majority, more power. But it was really more like a toxic drug, giving us a high while destroying the body. So while we were 'gaining the world,' we were 'losing our soul.'

As a result, many people cannot identify what our party stands for and too many think there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Today, voters will look at RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and decide that if they're going to vote for someone who believes in large government, supports raising taxes and thinks government is the first solution instead of the last resort, they might as well vote for the Democrat and get the 'real thing.'

In fact, as conservatives increasingly became disillusioned with the lack of adherence to the conservative principles of the GOP, they either stayed home (as seen in the 2008 elections) or sought out others who still shared their values (as seen in the rise of tea-party and patriot groups). The rise of the tea-party groups didn't just appeal to conservatives, but to Democrats and Independents who also shared similar concerns about the overall direction of the country.

But with the future of the country at stake, these individuals are no longer sitting on the sidelines and they are seeking out ways to get involved. Sadly, because of the loss of the Republican brand, it wasn't the GOP where they found a home.

So what are we to do now? We have a choice: we can follow the misguided direction of so-called party leaders to 'trust' them as to the electability of candidates or we can vote for the individuals who represent our values.

Will we win every race in supporting Republicans who adhere to the core principles of our Party? Probably not. But we will win some - and then we will win many.

Conservatives can run on conservative principles and win. I've proven four times that can be done and there are numerous other examples. Voters appreciate candidates who stand on principles in their campaigns and in their votes once elected. While they may not always agree on the decisions, they will not find fault in an elected officials who says what they mean and does what they say when it comes to those principles.

In the long run, adherence to principles is what defines the individual - and the party.

The choice - and the obligation - is ours.

Ohio RINOs

My friend and fellow SOB Alliance blogger, Tom Blumer, has an excellent column showing all the machinations going on with the Ohio Republican Party candidates.

In RINOs, RINOs everywhere, he takes a look at several states where the GOP party leaders are backing individuals who really don't represent the core Republican values, and its especially egregious in Ohio where Gang of 14 member Mike DeWine will probably be the endorsed candidate for Attorney General. (Blumer's updated article along with current links is posted here.) As Tom explains:

Until he decided he wanted to be Ohio’s next attorney general, (state GOP chairman) Kevin’s (DeWine) relative, former U.S. Senator Mike DeWine, was last seen being repudiated twice by Buckeye State voters in a 17-month span in 2005-2006. First, despite spending $1 million, his son Pat finished a distant fourth in a June 2005 GOP primary race to fill an open congressional seat. That thrashing was accurately seen as a proxy repudiation of Mike over his participation in the Gang of 14 and other conservative-betraying votes. After yet another vote in November 2005 to stop drilling for oil in Alaska and a 2006 GOP primary where two completely underfunded challengers blockaded by ORPINO nonetheless took 28% of the vote, Mike DeWine lost his U.S. Senate reelection race against far-left Cleveland-area Congressman Sherrod Brown by a stunning 12 points.

Second-cousin Kevin and the ORPINO gang decided that this awful track record justified clearing the AG field for Mike, even though DeWine’s primary opponent Dave Yost had already racked up a 5-0 record in December and January GOP county endorsement meetings and had earned an intense level of tea party and other grassroots enthusiasm.

Nobody seems to want to own up to what Kevin and ORPINO did next, but all of a sudden early this week Yost, whose campaign slogan was “A Prosecutor, Not a Politician,” decided that he wanted to run for state auditor instead. Not coincidentally, ORPINO was also unhappy with the not-beholden CPA who had just started his own auditor campaign after Kasich selected Taylor.

As Tom concludes:

"...I understand that there is serious thought being given to going the third-party route in certain of the down-ticket races. I suspect that similar third-party moves are under consideration in other states and in higher-profile races. ORPINO and its compadres in other states will only have themselves to blame if this comes about."

I agree!

Breaking: Tea Party tops GOP

Rasmussen has released their latest poll which has a stunning wake-up call for the Republican Party: Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot.

From the report:

Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.

For this survey, the respondents were asked to assume that the Tea Party movement organized as a new political party. In practical terms, it is unlikely that a true third-party option would perform as well as the polling data indicates. The rules of the election process—written by Republicans and Democrats--provide substantial advantages for the two established major parties. The more conventional route in the United States is for a potential third-party force to overtake one of the existing parties.

Let the spinning begin!

You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round, round, round

You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round, round, round
~ Billy Idol

GOP response to Obama speech to Congress

This in via email:

GOP Talking Points on Health Care Address by Dr. Charles Boustany (R-LA)

· The American people have spoken. They oppose government-run health care. Republicans are on the side of the American people.

· Tonight, Dr. Charles Boustany (R-LA) will deliver the Republican address following President Obama's speech to a Joint Session of Congress. Dr. Boustany is a heart surgeon with 20 years of experience, who knows first-hand about the need for lower health care costs and the harmful effect government-run care would have on cost and quality.

· What Americans want are common-sense, responsible solutions that address the rising cost of health care and other major problems in a manner our nation can afford. To date, they haven't gotten that from Democratic leaders in Washington, who've proposed a costly government takeover that will replace many Americans' current health care with government-run care, add hundreds of billions to the national debt, ration care, and destroy millions of American jobs.

· What Americans want is for President Obama to take government-run health care off the table and start over on a common-sense, bipartisan health care reform plan our nation can afford.

· Reports indicate the president may mention medical liability reform, which Republicans have championed for years to help curb rising health care costs for patients and their families. But will he propose and support real medical liability reform solutions, or simply offer more Washington rhetoric that does nothing to end junk lawsuits and lower costs? We hope he does the former – and if he does, we’ll welcome his support.

· Republicans believe the president must address the harmful impact Democrats' proposed health care plans will have on American jobs. House Democrats' health care bill would raise taxes on job creators by $600 billion and destroy millions of American jobs in the midst of what is already, at best, a jobless recovery.

· The Obama Administration promised that its "stimulus" spending bill would keep the unemployment rate from going above 8 percent; instead, last week, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that the national unemployment rate has reached 9.7 percent, the highest level in a generation, and more than 2.4 million private-sector jobs have been destroyed since the "stimulus" became law.

· Americans don’t want a government takeover of their health care. They don't want a new speech. They want a new plan. Republicans hope the president uses tonight's speech to hit the "reset" button and start over, this time working with Republicans to craft a bipartisan, responsible health care reform plan our nation can afford.

Acting like children

Remember last August when the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives wanted to discuss the ‘drill here, drill now’ issue and the Democrats just turned off the lights, the microphones and the television feeds - and went home?

Turns out that New York Democrats are following the example.

Why is it that these Democrats, when faced with issues or discussions they don’t want to have just decide to take their ball and go home? What is it that they are so afraid of? That their positions won’t hold up under scrutiny? That the ‘will of the people’ that they’re so fond of touting might be something different than what they, personally, want? That given an open, inclusive discussion they might actually lose a following vote on an issue?

And if their positions are so tenuous as to not be able to withstand such scrutiny, are they really such good positions at all?

Is this what governance has come to? Maintain power and control at all costs and declare sessions closed when it looks like the ‘other team’ might actually have a win?

I guess the ‘party of diversity’ excludes diversity of thought.