In a widely publicized incident this week a man and a woman in Afghanistan were stoned to death for adultery at the orders of a Taliban commander. While this incident has been

promoted in the media as an example of the problems with Sharia law, what has largely been overlooked is that this level of punishment for adultery is not actually common under Sharia law nor is it authorized by the Q’ran.

In this instance as in many of their other extreme religious views, the Taliban and other groups like the Wahabi and Salafi sects go far beyond the punishments described in the Q’ran in how they punish certain social sins and especially in how they treat women, who are accorded some very clear protections in the Q’ran which these groups routinely ignore.

The specific guidelines for adulterous women in Sura 4-15 of the Q’ran are that they must be accused by four witnesses, which does not seem to have happened in this case, and that the punishment is that the woman should be quarantined in her home until she is no longer adulterous. The Q’ran is quite liberal about marriage and divorce and the solution which it specifies is for the woman to get married. In this case the proper application of the law would have been for the man involved to either divorce his wife which Islamic law allows him to do very easily and marry the unmarried woman he had an affair with, or take her on as a second wife because the Q’ran allows each man to have up to four wives.

However, in Sura 24-2 a more rigorous punishment for adultery is outlined in which both parties are to be given 100 lashes. While that might well be fatal, some scholars suggest that the lashes are to be more symbolic than real and it still isn’t as bad as stoning. This Sura also echoes Sura 4 in emphasizing that true repentance should exempt someone from punishment.

This practice of singling women out for extreme punishment seems to be a product of the internal culture of the more radical Islamic sects, and it is a political strategy and clearly not religiously inspired or approved. They discourage literacy and the actual reading of the Q’ran and teach doctrines which are more political in character than truly religious. They have specifically targeted countries like Afghanistan and Iran which have long histories of treating women with relative equality and have worked to radicalize the population in a way which does not fit with the teachings of the Q’ran on issues of personal morality or the cultural traditions of the tribal societies of the region.

If there is anything heartening about human rights abuses of this sort, it is that while they may intimidate, they are clearly not popular with the general population in Afghanistan or other parts of the Muslim world. When extremists like the Taliban impose this kind of perversion of Islamic law on the population it builds resentment and drives a wedge between them and the population. The intent is to terrorize the population into obedience, but that kind of strategy often backfires. Reports suggest that in this case it was mostly Taliban soldiers who participated in the stoning while forcing reluctant locals to observe.

It’s important to remember that in the war for the hearts and minds of the people of Muslim countries we are not the only ones sending a message by our actions, and that the fear and intimidation preferred by our opponents may not be the most effective long-term strategy.

Share on Facebook

While this format has served us well for the initial phase of development of the site and we’ve built some good readership, it’s time to move on to the next step, a completely custom designed theme which will handle featured content in a more dynamic way and use a more efficient method of front-loading articles without relying on super-narrow columns and the format problems they produce. The new design will also make better use of images and video. Look for full deployment by the end of July.

Dave

Share on Facebook

By:  Joel Dillard

The Republican Party of Florida has instituted an oath of loyalty where by members swear not to actively, publicly or financially support any candidate that is outside of the Party.  (Found here:  http://www.suwanneeclassifieds.com/gop/media/loyalty.pdf)  Loyalty oaths have been used in many forms throughout the history of our country as a simple Wiki Search will reveal but more importantly in today’s tumultuous times with the rise of the “Tea Party” and “Liberty” movements, it begs the question, “Where should their loyalties and allegiances lie?  Should one’s loyalties be to the Party, the People, to individual Principles or to the Constitution?  Can they co-exist?  On face value it should cause no great alarm  if only for the fact that on one end of the argument for such an oath it can be taken as fairly unenforceable and a mere formality to acknowledge the support of organizational goals.  On the other end it can be viewed as utter lunacy bordering on the offensive that any organization that would purport to be a constitutionally led organization would so inhibit its membership’s rights to free thought and speech as to make them swear to divorce their principles in favor of blind obedience.  Unfathomable is it that any politicrat would willingly make such an oath to a party despite having already sworn to constitution and country first.

The Republican Party is in a sorry state as they too often stand in stark opposition against the rising numbers of liberty minded, constitutionally driven Americans who, while believing in the stated goals and principles of the Republican Party (small government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, etc), are all together too often disappointed, misled and forsaken by the same. The Party stands accused of trying to “piggyback” on the liberty movement and “morph” or “meld” with the tea party but with little conviction.

Speaking of little conviction…  So symptomatic is it within the party that the elected members of the same are considered so completely out of touch that their existence in public life is in great jeopardy and evidence of it is in every poll that rates members of congress below 10% approval rating.  So unprincipled are they that every word that flows from between the lips is considered mere hyperbole and simple lip service to that which there is no serious conviction.  So strayed are they, that altruism to the constitution is nothing more than a punch line.  As a Party, the most conspicuous sign that the leadership within is actually returning to their principals will come when they drop the party loyalty oath and require their membership to reaffirm their allegiance to the constitution instead.

I recently joined a group called the Oath Keepers (oathkeepers.org) which exists primarily for former and active law enforcement and military personnel to re-affirm the oath they took to support and defend the constitution and to consider any order to stand against the liberties of FREE American Citizens as an unlawful one.  This got me thinking about how far we have come as a society that such a group would even be considered as necessary.  Upon being quizzed about it, by an acquaintance who is liberally bent and critical of such an organization, I had to explain that there are those like myself who are principled enough as to see it as necessary to conspicuously demonstrate to our government where we stand and what we would expect of our elected officials who have sworn the same oath and all together too often violate it.

We don’t have to look too far to find examples of politicians who flippantly, without shame and often bordering on complete contempt for their oath to the constitution, do violate it in favor of their oath to a political party.  They are found throughout the political spectrum, at all levels of government and without regard to party affiliation.  It happens so frequently and with such audacity that it reminds me of little school children who make a promise to another, with no intent to keep it and have as their only retort “Nuh uh, I had my fingers crossed.”  Just how pathetic and juvenile have our elected officials – and the party they value more than the people who entrust them to carry out their business – become?

In courtrooms all across this great but faltering country of ours witnesses take an oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God!   When it can be proven that a witness has failed to maintain their oath they are guilty of perjury and subject to any number of sanctions to include criminal prosecution.  So where are the penalties for elected officials to violate their oaths?  What recourse does the citizenry have to hold those elected officials accountable?   Could it be considered simple Perjury or to some greater extent, dare I say, Treason?

The only solace to be taken away from the idea of the Party Oath of Loyalty is that, as demonstrated daily, I believe there are very few within the party that have the courage of conviction to abide by any oath.  Not to the party and certainly not to the constitution.  It is a reminder and a call to all of us to only instill those who demonstrate principled, uncorrupted, constitutionally adherent speech, and more so behavior, because talk is cheap!  Actions do speak louder than the hollow words of empty suits who are devoid of conviction.

Where do your loyalties lie?  Are you willing to lie about your loyalties as so many do?   Are they to the constitution or to the party bosses who want to treat you as a marionette?  Are they to the people or to shameless self preservation at the expense of all that is great and glorious about this country?  Will you compromise your principals by electing those that do?   The test of your responses to these questions comes soon, are you ready?

Share on Facebook

It all started as “typo” on one of my political blogs, which quickly stirred up my inquisitive nature and led to an interaction that brought about a pondering of my own personal beliefs and stance as it relates to “liberty”. This past month, I had the privilege of interviewing the folks from the Republican Liberty Caucus of California (RLCCA), exclusively for Blogcritics Magazine.

Because of our very own Blogcritics writer and editor, Dave Nalle, I am somewhat familiar with the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC), but I wanted to get acquainted with the pulse of the RLC in my home state of California. And no better way than from those leading this grassroots organization –– Chairman of the RLCCA, Matt Heath with the assistance of RLC Secretary Parke Bostrom. My thanks!

In summary, the RLCCA is the officially chartered California chapter of the RLC (founded in 1991). They work to advance the ideals of individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise within the State of California and the Republican Party.

Considering the 2010 elections are a hot topic in the political arena these days, let’s first talk about the California primary coming up next month. So far the RLCCA has endorsed three Congressional candidates: Gary Clift, Clayton Thibodeau, and John Dennis, who is in the high-profile race against Nancy Pelosi. Do you have any inside information on how this race is going and what are your predictions for the outcome?

Heath: Given the size of the Bay Area media market and the fact that Nancy Pelosi is a polarizing figure nationally, a tough, hard-hitting campaign by John Dennis will help every Republican candidate in our region. John is already generating interest and enthusiasm in San Francisco with his small government, pro-liberty message. His race will likely be a key factor in boosting Republican campaigns throughout Northern California. His campaign is going very well, and I predict that John Dennis will do better than any Republican congressional candidate has done in San Francisco in recent memory.

Additionally, for us in the RLC it is very exciting to see Dennis receive the pre-primary endorsement of many establishment Republicans in San Francisco. It shows us that we should be trying to find and recruit strong candidates rather than engaging in political debates with other Republican activists.

As you know, I had mistakenly reported that the RLC had endorsed one of the three California Senate candidates and your very astute Secretary Parke Bostrom corrected my blog. Is there a reason that the RLCCA has not endorsed Chuck DeVore, Carly Fiorina, or Tom Campbell? And do you have a personal favorite?

Heath: We work to recruit and support candidates who will reduce the size of the federal government, and also the size of state and local governments. Specifically, we try to recruit and support candidates who are fundamentally motivated by a sincere and profound respect and appreciation for the concept of human liberty –– the idea that if you are an adult, so long as you are not harming someone else, you should be able to do whatever you want. We focus on this one core issue of liberty because we believe that candidates motivated by respect for liberty will be the most effective at reducing the size and scope of government interference in our private and economic lives.

Granted, that is a somewhat subjective criterion, and each member of our board of directors has to make her or his own subjective determination as to whether a given candidate meets that standard. We do not try to endorse candidates in every contested primary. With respect to the Senate race, it appears that the RLCCA board has yet to be convinced that any of three candidates you mentioned shares our appreciation for human liberty.

Are there candidates on your radar, that others may not be aware of, who the RLCCA thinks have a lot of promise?

Heath: The RLCCA has endorsed Gary Clift (CD10), Clayton Thibodeau (CD45), Linda “Ellie” Black (AD27), and Bill Hunt for Orange County Sheriff, as well as John Dennis in San Francisco.

I feel it would be inappropriate for me to mention specific candidates that have not yet been endorsed.

Seemingly, the “Boxer match” is receiving a lot of attention –– even from President Obama, who lent his support for her last month. Do you expect that Obama will help or hinder Boxer’s campaign?

Heath: President Obama is a popular politician in California and with many Democrats. I suspect he will bring his “bully pulpit” to California in support of Barbara Boxer as often as needed in her reelection bid.

Boxer has held the California Senate seat for three terms, and California is primarily a liberal state. What are the odds that California could pull off another “Scott Brown” type victory –– marking us “red?” Or is that just hopeful thinking for us conservatives?

Heath: Boxer can be beaten, but the race will be much more clearly defined after the Republican primary election in June. And as I mentioned earlier, it appears that the RLCCA’s board has yet to be convinced that any of the three Republican candidates shares our appreciation for human liberty.

So Matt, on a personal note, what drew you to the RLC and how did you become Chairman of the California chapter?

Heath: After becoming actively involved locally in the Sonoma County Republican Party, I looked for a larger Republican organization that promotes libertarian philosophy. I discovered the RLC and was inspired by their Statement of Principles and Positions.

Several other Sonoma Republicans joined me and we organized under the banner of the Republican Liberty Caucus to do political activism in our neighborhoods, on the street, and within the county Republican Party. Subsequently, in February 2009, I attended the state convention of the California Republican Party. I connected with RLC’ers from other parts of California, and was elected chairman. It has been an exciting year!

I noticed that the RLC welcomes constitutionalists, libertarians, classical liberals, and free market advocates. Will you expand on that?

Heath: All of the groups you mentioned agree that the government, and specifically the federal government, is too big. Constitutionalists believe the federal government is too big because it is doing more than is authorized by the Constitution. Classical liberals believe that people can best improve their lives without government “help” (or interference) and without the temptation and danger of becoming dependent on government welfare programs. Free market advocates believe that the government should not try to regulate, “stimulate”, “bail-out” or otherwise interfere our economy. (Yet strangely some self-proclaimed “free market advocates” support macro-level government interference in the economy via the Federal Reserve and the banking cartels controlling national lending policies and the supply of fiat currency.)

So all of the above groups believe that the federal government should be significantly smaller than it is today. That is a huge piece of common ground. The RLC comes into the picture because we take that common ground and work to turn it into a specific political strategy: we work as a caucus within the Republican Party to promote candidates that support these ideals.

Since I consider myself a conservative, what caught my attention was that the RLC welcomes “tolerant conservatives”. How would you describe a “tolerant conservative”?

Heath: We welcome all who support the RLC Statement of Principles and Positions. And, to answer your question, I would describe a “tolerant conservative” as a fiscal conservative who believes the government should not attempt to regulate the private lives of citizens. By “regulate” I mean things like: restricting freedom of speech, compelling military service, interfering in relationships between consenting adults, outlawing adult consumption of recreational drugs, and requiring the use of a national ID card.

I’m glad you brought up the topic of “government regulation” –– two areas in particular. I have heard that the RLC gets a certain amount of flak in the GOP in other states as being against the war on drugs and relatively pro-gay. Do you have less of a problem with that in California?

Heath: Perhaps California is more tolerant on those issues. I am not aware of our positions on those issues causing any official strife with the California Republican Party (CRP). However, there may be individuals or other caucuses within the CRP that disagree with some of our positions. This is only to be expected and is not unusual in any way.

Related to the specific issues you mentioned:

I suspect most RLC’ers believe the federal war on drugs is unconstitutional. Back in the 1930’s we as a country understood the Constitution well enough to know that attempted federal regulation of alcohol required a Constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it seems that America today does not understand her Constitution as well as she used to.

As for the claim that the RLC is “relatively pro-gay”, I suspect most RLC’ers believe that the purpose of government is to secure the natural rights of each individual in these 50 states, so that we as individuals may enjoy Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

We take our inspiration from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

Expanding on the RLC and the GOP’s rapport, I hear that the RLC in some states, most notably Florida, has had conflicts with the state GOP. How is your relationship with the state GOP?

Heath: Here in California the RLCCA has a growing relationship with the California Republican Party. Many RLCCA members work closely with their respective county Republican parties; so it is only natural that the RLCCA works closely within the California Republican Party.

At the September 2009 convention of the California Republican Party, a resolution supporting Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill (HR 1207) and the companion bill in the Senate (SB 604) passed with overwhelming support. Many RLCCA members worked hard to bring that resolution to the CRP and to get it passed. (I should again thank Assemblyman Chuck DeVore for his support in that effort.) It was very gratifying to work with the CRP to call for an audit of the Federal Reserve, as an audit is the first step towards developing an honest currency and restoring economic confidence in America.

Speaking of “parties,” what are you thoughts about the Tea Party movement, its relevance and impact on the political scene?

Heath: It is exciting to see so many new people jumping into the political process through the Tea Party movement. There is a common theme with the individuals who attend Tea Party events: they believe government, especially at the federal level, is too big and encroaches too much on our private lives. While the Tea Party has a lot of new and exciting energy, it will be interesting to see how the many diverse groups of the Tea Party movement organize over the next few years, and what long term strategies they will rally around to achieve their goals.

What are the RLC and/or your personal thoughts about our current administration and its direction –– what many deem to be an intrusive expansion of government on many fronts?

Heath: The RLC is, of course, no fan of the Obama administration as they continue down a course of greater federal government power over individual American lives.

Personally, I believe the Obama administration is just a continuation of the Bush administration with regards to the scope of the federal government: continuing interventionist foreign policy, expanding executive powers, ongoing manipulation of the free market, continuing growth of federal health care programs (after all, it was President Bush who created Medicare Part D), to mention just a few examples of the similarities.

In closing, what can we expect from the RLCCA in the near future?

Heath: You can expect the RLCCA to continue to grow in numbers and influence among Californian Republicans. If any activists reading this are inspired by our work thus far, they should contact us via our website to become active in the RLC in their local counties. You can also join the RLCCA on Facebook and Twitter.

This interview originally appeared in Blogcritics Magazine

Share on Facebook

In response to this article by Thomas Friedman in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

Mr. Friedman,

In your “Who’s Up for Building Bridges” column, you include President George W. Bush in the Reagan legacy of “tax cuts, deregulation and government-as-the-problem-not-the-solution”.  To steal an inflation-adjusted line from Meatloaf, I suppose that “one out of three ain’t bad”.  Contrary to popular belief — and, at times, his own rhetoric — President “W” was neither a deregulator nor a limiter of government.  Under his watch, and often at his urging, the federal government implemented Sarbanes-Oxley — a huge expansion of government regulation of business — and increased the total volume of regulations on the financial sector.

While he did engineer a broad-based tax cut (every single taxpayer saw his or her rates reduced, as well as economy-driving cuts in capital investment), he also expanded federal involvement in education, implemented a new drug entitlement for seniors, created a new “faith-based initiatives” program, expanded Medicaid, implemented a new health insurance entitlement for children via “S-CHIP”, and doubled down on President Clinton’s government incentivization of lending to low-income families (the so-called “sub-prime” mortgages that became the “toxic assets”).  In fact, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aside, under his stewardship domestic discretionary spending increased significantly more under President Bush than it did under President Clinton.  This was neither Reagan-esque deregulation nor limiting of government.

I would also note that even during the health care reform debate, there wasn’t simply a debate of “ObamaCare” versus “no”.  There were a number of free-market reforms proposed that would have expanded choice and competition, access and innovation while reducing costs — without raising taxes, creating new bureaucracies, and imposing new mandates and prohibitions.  These ideas were discarded early in the legislative process, leaving those in opposition to “ObamaCare” with only the choice of saying “no”.  If a car is careening out of control in reverse, the proper focus is on stopping the car and minimizing the damage first — then refocusing on plotting a direction forward.

Finally, I would submit that rather than “incentivizing businesses to build their next factory in this country”, the government should instead create a climate where not just factories but all businesses are welcome — not through subsidies, protection from competition, or special advantages for favored industries, but rather by getting out of the way and letting visionaries and entrepreneurs work their magic without unnecessary interference from the government or intrusion on the marketplace.  A simple, efficient tax code and low taxes on imports, payrolls, profits, and capital gains create a climate of innovation and productivity.  Subsidies and tax credits give politicians too much power to dole out favors to special interests, and too much influence over areas where they have limited expertise and information.

We’ve seen what happens when we rely on government to “build bridges” — we get a Bridge to Nowhere.  Instead, let’s get government out of the way, and unleash the magic of the markets.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Along the same lines, I also sent the following letter to the Chronicle:

re:  Who’s Up for Building Bridges

In his column about “building bridges”, Thomas Friedman makes two main errors.  First, he assigns to President George W. Bush the legacy of the Reagan trifecta of “tax cuts, deregulation and government-as-the-problem-not-the-solution”.  In truth, President Bush met only one of the three — one short of even the Meatloaf standard of success.  Under Bush, not only did regulation increase (even in the financial sector — remember Sarbanes-Oxley?), but domestic discretionary spending increased at nearly double the level that it did under President Clinton.

Secondly, he states that government should be “incentivizing businesses to build their next factory in this country”, implying that it is the government who should lead the way in deciding where we should invest in the future, using subsidies and special benefits to guide innovation.  Unfortunately, government tends to use such interventions to protect favored corporations from competition, and to setup benefits for favored special interests.  Mr. Friedman is asking for politicians, acting on the incentive of being re-elected, to somehow predict the future and direct future innovation in areas in which they have limited knowledge and expertise.

We’ve seen the result when we expect government to lead the way in “building bridges”:  we get a Bridge to Nowhere.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Share on Facebook

When “ObamaCare” passed and was signed into law (over much protestation), one of the things its advocates claimed was that as the “benefits” started to roll out, people would like them and reward the Democrats for pushing the program into law.  One such immediate benefit was that individuals could remain on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26.  Since young adults comprise a large sector of the uninsured, the idea was to get more young adults with coverage, and to do so at a better price — add-ons to a family insurance plan are typically less expensive than individual policies.

But why stop there?  Why stop at 26?  To fully answer the question in the context in which it is asked, some background is required.

The three fundamental aspects of a free market-based health insurance reform are individual deductibility, ability to buy across state lines, and the ability to form voluntary “group plans”.  Deductibility would give individuals and families the same tax advantages to buying insurance themselves as currently is given to employers, thus broadening the pool of consumers for whose business insurers would be competing.  Buying across state lines would broaden the pool of providers, as well as enable consumers to bypass state government-imposed mandatory minimum coverages (e.g., forcing a single male to purchase mammogram or maternity coverage).  Group plans would enable voluntary associations of individuals to purchase coverage — groups like the American Diabetes Association could pool together diabetics and negotiate better insurance terms (helping take care of “pre-existing condition” exclusions) while groups like the American Institute of Architects or even the NAACP could likewise pool members together to increase their bargaining power.

The combination of these three market-based reforms would greatly expand the competitive market:  lowering costs, increasing choices, and likely spurring innovations as insurance companies worked to attract consumers — just as occurs in the market for lap top computers, cell phones, and nearly every other product … every product except health insurance.  Best of all, it wouldn’t require scores of new intrusive government regulations, tax increases, mandates, or prohibitions — just the magic of the free market.

Which brings us back to the question:  why stop at age 26?

Under the system outlined above, no matter what the age, family members could group together and shop for a family insurance plan — no matter what the age, no matter what the relationship.  If they wanted to do so, Mom, Dad, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, and cousins could shop around for the plan that best suited their needs, then pool their tax credits together to purchase it — even if they were scattered across the country.

The free market can simply provide more choices at better prices for consumers than government edict, and no politician or bureaucrat can know better than an individual or family what kind of health coverage is best.  We don’t need more taxes, bureaucrats, prohibitions, mandates, or complexity to truly reform health care.  We just need an open, competitive market and more individual choice.

Share on Facebook

With the stakes high over passing ObamaCare –– or not –– and only days left before President Obama is set to depart on his overseas trip (or will it be delayed again?), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still scrambling for her 216 votes to "overhaul" our health care system.

In my last article about ObamaCare, I advised that we keep our eyes on Congressman Bart Stupak. Considering the vote count is close and the "Supak Dozen" (no confirmed list to be found) have threatened to vote no on the Senates' version of the health care reform bill unless the abortion language is fixed, Stupak has certainly been in the political limelight.

This morning on America Live with Megyn Kelly, Stupak was questioned in regards to the rumor that Pelosi has peeled back several of the "Stupak Dozen" votes. Stupak responded, "not even close," and announced once again, that he is a "NO" vote if the abortion language is not fixed.

Stupak also told Megyn Kelly that "the democratic majority would like to see public funding for abortion," which is consistent with other comments Stupak made public last week. Stupak's interview on Michigan's Mark & Walt Radio Show revealed a conversation he had with Representative Waxman about the Senate version of the health care bill. “I gave him the language. He came back a little while later and said, '”But we want to pay for abortions.'” “I said, 'Mr. Chairman, that's where we disagree. We don't do it now, we're not going to start.” "But we think should," Waxman answered.

More interesting is Stupak's phone interview with the National Review where he stated that the Democratic leadership's position is "that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” Stupak also pointed out that the arguments the Democrats have made to him in recent deliberations “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.” Without names this time, Stupak exposed one of the startling arguments that he was hearing, “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more."

Later, Stupak did clarify his comments for the NRO, stating that some of his conversations with Democratic members centered on the CBO's report, which claims that his amendment will cost $500 million to implement over ten years, and that costs should not be a reason to deny his amendment. That said; the update does address the "more children will be born" comment, leaving many wondering what that was all about.

A few days ago, Stupak appeared On the Record with Greta, where he explained that they [his group] have worked hard to make sure current law is kept: no public funding for abortion, yet, he stated, "we haven't seen any language to placate our concerns." When Greta Van Susteren pressed Stupak if he had been approached by anyone from the top of the leadership, Supak responded with “no, because they disagree with me on the issue, so they'll wait until the last minute and see if they can run –– do an end run, get the votes without us."

Despite the fact that the Democrats have thrown pro-life House Democrats "under the bus,” it looks like the "Stupak Dozen" are standing firm –– at least we can confirm that Bart Stupak is.

In the wake of the Stupak controversy arises that daunting question: how many votes does Pelosi have and can she pass the Senate bill without the "Stupak Dozen?" The answer could lie in the fact that the House Democrats may not vote at all because they are considering using the “Slaughter Solution” AKA the self-executing rule –– no up or down vote, just “deem and pass."

Pelosi and the rest of the House Democrats should be aware that Americans are watching: we do care about the "process" as well as the product, and whoever votes for the "rule change" is a vote in favor of ObamaCare, DemCare, or in context of the Hyde Amendment –– Dems "don't" Care.

Share on Facebook

According to the Los Angeles Times, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, told Tea Party leaders in Washington, "I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Nebraska, who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you." Apparently, Mrs. Thomas went on to count herself among those energized into action by President Obama's "hard-left agenda."

Mrs. Thomas is energized all right! So much so, that in January she launched a non-profit, conservative, tea-party-linked movement –– Liberty Central –– whose mission includes "activating informed American patriots who are seeking knowledge of the core founding principles and passionate about preserving freedom and liberty.” LibertyCentral.org will serve the big tent of the conservative movement by using a three-prong approach: education, motivation, and activism. Back in February, Mrs. Thomas (wearing her Liberty Central sweatshirt), had a pleasant interview with Ed Morrissey at CPAC, highlighting her focus and Liberty Centrals' "five core founding principles" –– limited government, personal responsibility, individual liberty, national security, and free enterprise. Mrs. Thomas also described the Tea Party as "new citizen activists," something she is very excited about and wants to be part of.

While the author of Sunday's LA Times article, Kathleen Hennessey, does point out that experts don't deem Mrs. Thomas' work as a violation of ethical rules, noting that “under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage,” her tone and tag line paint a different slant. Ms. Hennessy projects that Mrs. Thomas’ activism “is likely to test notions of political impartiality for the court." Andy McCarthy of the National Review quickly fired back, calling Hennessey’s piece a "hit job on Ginni Thomas" and documented the blatant double standard of the left-wing media and their on-going "war" against Conservatives (especially women).

Where was the left-wing media's "conflict of interest" outcry when Mrs. Obama, who was armed with a task force and got a State of the Union "shout out" –– unlike our Supreme Court who were humiliated with a “shout down” –– launched her Let's Move Campaign ? Did they miss the fact that the controversial left-wing group, SEIU, has been caught with their greedy hands in the "childhood obesity cookie jar?” Who by the way, lobby’s for and benefits from proposed legislation, who just happens to have strong and direct ties to Mrs. Obama's husband –– our President. Hmmm.

Share on Facebook

It is nearly as predictable as death and taxes:  when a disaster of some sort occurs — e.g., Hurricane Katrina, Missouri River flooding, or earthquakes in China — after the dust settles and the rebuilding effort begins, some economist or pundit will bring up that ultimately, the disastrous event could spur some sort of economic stimulus.  As Chileans are sifting through the rubble in the aftermath of their recent earthquake, sure enough, the following headline appears on this article on Forbes.com:  “Chilean Earthquake May Boost Growth”; the first sentence in the subtitle:  “If country can maintain immediate disaster relief, reconstruction efforts could stimulate economic growth.”

The theory is that the rebuilding of an area following a disaster brings in new construction, creating jobs, spurring investment, and creating demand for raw materials and other products.  Adding to the benefit, many times the buildings destroyed were older, less well-constructed, perhaps less energy-efficient, and often in the poorer areas of the afflicted area.  The reconstructed infrastructure is then more modern, built to stricter standards, more environmentally friendly, and perhaps even more aesthetically pleasing.  Sounds like a great deal, eh?

Unfortunately, such a thought process ignores a simple, fundamental aspect of economics:  resources have alternate uses.  In addition to the most tragic aspect of the earthquake, the loss of life, economically speaking the time, energy, effort, and money spent in rebuilding Chile (or Haiti, or New Orleans) could have been spent elsewhere — was being spent elsewhere (or planned to be) prior to the quake.  The economic activity from the reconstruction efforts in Chile we will see; however, the economic activity that won’t occur elsewhere (both inside Chile and out) is unseen.  Every dollar — or Chilean peso — spent on replacing a building in Santiago that can’t be spent on, say, a new factory, or on new copper mining equipment (Chile is a major producer of copper).

The aspect of the unseen economic impact was identified by 19th century economist Frederic Bastiat in his “Parable of the Broken Window”.  In his story, a shopkeeper’s window is broken by his young son.  The window must be replaced, which of course “stimulates the economy” for the glass maker employed to replace it (and of course for any involved on an ancillary basis — e.g., the labor involved in installation, the truck owner who transports the glass to the shop, etc.).  The impact on the local economy is seen.  But what isn’t seen in this specific example is what the shopkeeper was going to do with the dollars — or francs — if he hadn’t had to buy a new window.  Perhaps he needed a new heating and cooling system, or wanted to expand the size of the store to put in a sushi bar, or even was contributing to a college fund for his glass breaking son or to his own retirement fund.  Anyone of those activities could be better in the long run for the shopkeeper — and perhaps even for the entire economy at large (who couldn’t use another sushi bar?).  That alternate activity and all the economic dominoes it might have toppled are gone, replaced by a smiling glass maker.

The same principle applies to government programs that incentivize particular economic behaviors.  “Cash for Clunkers”, for example, distorted the economic incentives towards buying a car for many.  This was great news to auto dealers and manufacturers; however, what about the people for whom it really made more sense sans incentives to buy clothes, or health insurance, or braces for their children?  And what about the businesses negatively impacted — in an unseen way — by that government-funded anti-stimulus?  They will never know what hit them.  At least they have that new F-150 in the driveway.

I think, perhaps, the best way to combat this kind of short-sighted thinking is to bring the broken window parable to life in a very practical, hands-on way:  whenever someone mentions the “silver lining” of increased economic stimulus provided by a natural disaster, simply throw a brick through his window.  If he complains, tell him you’re stimulating the economy.  Somewhere, perhaps a certain 19th century economist will be watching and smiling.

Share on Facebook