MD-Sen: So Much for Moderate Democrats like Jim Brochin

As Maryland continues to deteriorate into an abyss of social and moral deprivation, it is important to remember those who have enabled this deterioration.  Many pundits were initially skeptical that the Senate would have the audacity to pass gay marriage because they counted on a number of so called moderate Democrats to defect and oppose the capricious measure.  However, these pseudo moderates proved that they have always been radical leftists, and always will be.

Senator Jim Brochin (D-Towson) represents a swing district and has won his seat repeatedly by working assiduously to convince his constituents that he is a conservative Democrat.  Like many Democrats, including President Obama, Brochin always asserted that while he enthusiastically supported civil unions, he had qualms about redefining marriage.  However, as is the case with Obama, we all knew that Brochin really supported gay marriage, but lacked the temerity to openly advocate for its passage.  Instead, he ensconced his support for gay marriage under the guise of equality and the need for civil unions.

Conservatives have known for quite some time that the push for civil unions would be the antecedent to gay marriage.  Senator Brochin knew that as well.  This is why he waited for his ultra left-wing compatriots in the legislator to propose the bill in the Judiciary Committee (where Brochin sits) in order to make his final move.  While his final support for the bill was not surprising to those of us who have followed his career, his explanation was preposterous. 

Beware the Gang of Six

Senator Coburn and his Gang of Six are ensconcing growth of government under budget austerity

Imagine for a moment a private financial services firm caught running a ponzi scheme in which public funds were spent on lavish projects for the manager's friends.  Astoundingly, instead of incarcerating the perpetrators and returning the money to the investors, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) negotiates with the criminals.  That's right.  The SEC collaborates with the criminal executives to force the public to contribute more money to the institution and leave it there longer, in order to rectify the scheme and achieve solvency.  Sounds perverse and preposterous?  Well, some Republican senators are concocting a similar approach to "solving" the budget crisis created by the Democrats. 

Last December, Senators Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo, two reliable conservatives, supported the Debt Commission's report which would attempt to cut the budget deficit by raising $3.3 trillion in taxes over 10 years.  Although Coburn admitted that he would have authored a different proposal, he supported the full package because “our country deserves us to sacrifice like the call we’re going to make to everyone else to sacrifice to accomplish what we have to accomplish and that is to get out of this hole.”

Unfortunately, the good Senator from Oklahoma has shown that he is so committed to tackling the deficit that he is willing to cut a deal with the Democrats, even if that means increasing taxes.  The Hill reports that Coburn, along with Mike Crapo and Saxby Chambliss, are in negotiations with Democrat Senators Conrad, Durbin, and Warner, to work out a long term solution which would leave everything on the table, including tax increases.  They are now being referred to as the Gang of Six.  Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the same band of lawmakers were considering a bill that would trigger increases in revenue and reductions in spending if an agreement is not reached in the near future:

"The tax-writing committees would be given two years to overhaul both the individual and corporate tax codes, with general instructions to close tax breaks and minimize or eliminate tax deductions while lowering tax rates. The committees would be given a target for additional revenues to be raised by the new code. The deficit commission's version of tax reform would net $785 billion in additional revenues over 10 years.
If Congress failed to enact the tax code overhaul, the legislation would mandate an across-the-board tightening of tax deductions to meet the higher target."

Weekly RINO Roundup

- Dick Lugar Doesn't Support the Republican House passed CR- A 1.6% cut in the budget is evidently too draconian for him.

- Scott Brown:  "I'm not a tea party member". - I guess it is the Ted Kennedy seat after all.

- Ousted Rino Bob Bennett (UT) said that Republicans need a presidential candidate who will not focus on ideological purity.   In other words, we need someone different from Bennett who was an ideological purist for the left.
- Chris Christie attacks Sarah Palin once again for supposedly be scripted.  Christie is good for New Jersey, but we need to keep him far away from national issues.

Moving RINOS Rightward is Good, Defeating them is even Better

Well, the dust has settled from the 2012 legislative session, and organizations like National Journal and American Conservative Union have published their annual voting reports.  So who are the 'top conservatives'?  You'll never guess.

Here is a list of the 'top conservatives' from National Journal and the ACU, along with their composite conservative scores.  Check out this link for the description of ACU's scorecard and this link for National Journal's methodology.

National Journal
                                                                                 
1. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) 89.7
1. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) 89.7
1. John Cornyn (R-Texas) 89.7
1. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) 89.7
1. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) 89.7
1. John McCain (R-Ariz.) 89.7
1. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) 89.7
1. John Thune (R-S.D.) 89.7
9. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) 87.3
10.Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) 86.8

American Conservative Union


1. John Barrasso-100%

1. Sam Brownback- 100%
1. Saxby Chambliss-100%
1. Tom Coburn-100%
1. John Cornyn-100%
1. Mike Crapo-100%
1. Jim DeMint-100%
1. Orrin Hatch-100%
1. John McCain-100%
1. James Risch-100%
1. Jeff Sessions-100%
1. John Thune-100%


I'm sure everyone would like to know how the likes of John McCain made it to both lists along with Jim DeMint.  Well, for one thing, the ACU only scores 25 votes and although the National Journal scores 100 votes, they have not published their descriptions.  More importantly, these reports prove two things; the effectiveness of grassroots conservatives and the inherent flaws of legislative scorecards.

Gallup: Obama Under 50% among 'Adults' in 38 States

Americans Begin to Foreclose on their Sub-Prime Investment in Obama.  Only Republicans can Bail him out.

Gallup has collected the data from their daily tracking polls throughout 2010 and contrasted the results to the same information from 2009.  Not surprisingly, their findings show that Obama has suffered a decline in every state since 2009.  His unpopularity is now ubiquitous.  Overall, Obama's national approval rating has dropped 11% from 58% to 47%.  Furthermore, the polling data collected from nearly 180,000 interviews shows that Obama is viewed favorably by less than 50% of respondents in 38 states.  He is above 50% approval in just 12 states, and is viewed unfavorably by the majority of respondents in 16 states.

Here are some more highlights from the surveys:

• Obama enjoys his highest level of approval in Hawaii (65.9%) and lowest level of approval in Wyoming (27.6%).
• The President's approval in his home state of Illinois is at an underwhelming 53.4%.
• Obama's steepest decline from 2009 was in Vermont (shocking) and Arizona (not shocking at all).
• Obama is under 50% in states that are worth 363 electoral votes, while over 50% in states that are worth just 175 electoral votes.
•  There are a whopping 13 Democrat Senate seats up for reelection in 2012 that are in states where Obama is under water.  Only one Republican, Scott Brown, represents a state where Obama is above 50%.  Hmmm, 47+13=?

But, here is the kicker.  The polling sample represents interviews with adults living in the U.S.

Haley Barbour and the Regressive Economics of Farm Subsidies

Farm subsidies are the most popular form of corporate cronyism among many Republicans.  Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this regressive form of 'progressive' market intervention garners enthusiastic support from Republican presidential contenders, especially preceding the Iowa Caucuses.  Haley Barbour is the latest potential presidential candidate to prostrate on the altar of the farm lobby and support the $20 billion fleecing of the taxpayer.  Even with the exit of John Thune from the presidential sweepstakes, the farm lobby still boasts many champions of taxpayer handouts among the 2012 hopefuls.

Yesterday, in an interview with the Daily Caller, Barbour offered the following counterintuitive economic justification of government intervention in the food market.  Here are some of his greatest hits:

“What we want to have in the United States is abundant food at a responsibly low price. To do that, we have to have an appropriately large supply of agricultural products. When sales volumes are good, prices are reasonable, there shouldn’t be any farm subsidies. But for natural reasons, nature, or what other countries are doing in terms of how they’re handling their markets, sometimes it is appropriate to have farm subsidies.”

“What you want is to have policies that lead to ample supply and prices that yield good prices for the person at the grocery store but profits for the farmers.”

Let's expound upon Barbour's economic theory.  Barbour opines that government subsidies, most of which go to wealthy farmers, are often indispensable because they increase food supply and lower prices at the grocery store during rough times.  Well, why is food inflation dramatically rising, even as farmers continue to receive record levels of subsidies?  Indeed every American (at least those who are not on food stamps) is suffering from the lack of "good prices" at the grocery store.

It's Official: MD is the Most Democrat State

Gallup just released their latest polling data on party strength in each of the fifty states.  They polled the respondents based on their party identification, not political ideology.  As it turns out, the most Democrat state (excluding DC, of course) is not Vermont, New York, or Massachusetts.  It is... Maryland!  That's right.  Maryland is the state with the largest Democrat party advantage, at 22% over the GOP.  Here is a list of the top ten Democrat and GOP states:

Most Dem States        
1. D.C.
2. Maryland
3. Massachusetts
4. Vermont
5. Hawaii
6. Rhode Island
7. New York
8. Delaware
9. Connecticut
10. California

Most Republican States


1. Wyoming
2. Utah
3. Idaho
4. Alaska
5. Kansas
6. Montana
7. Nebraska
8. South Dakota
9. New Hampshire
10. Alabama


Here is Gallup's contextual perspective of those at the top of the list:

Join Conservative Counter-Protest Tomorrow in Annapolis

Tomorrow, the taxpayer bloodsuckers, a.k.a. the unions, are planning to disperse their minions around the country to protest in state capitols against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.  AFSCME, the organization that steals taxpayer funded money to promote themselves and the Democrats, are planning to rally in Annapolis at 12 noon.

The Maryland Conservative Action Network is organizing a counter-rally at 11:30 AM in Lawyer's Mall.  Potomac Tea Party Report has all of the details.  I know that all you conservatives actually work for a living and will not be paid to go like the union astroturfers.  But if you're available, come with your friends, family, and signs to stand in solidarity with Governor Walker and the taxpayers.  This is not just about Wisconsin, it is about the leeches on society who have attenuated the political and democratic institutions of every state.

Let's remind these bottom feeders:  Stop Leeching, Start Teaching!

GOP Credulously Chooses Incremental Conservatism to Combat Perennial Socialism

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967

Last November, Republicans were granted an unparalleled political mandate for the specific purpose of taking dead aim at the socialist and regulatory state.  Yet, as the dust settles from their much acclaimed budget bill last week, it appears that only dust was pruned from the Federal government monstrosity.  This was not the brave defense of freedom which Reagan dramatically predicted would be necessary to combat the truculence of tyrannical government.

Over the past few days, anywhere from 40-100 GOP House members voted to defeat nearly two dozen amendments that would have vitiated useless programs and agencies from a variety of government departments that shouldn’t exist in the first place.  The most egregious defection came Friday afternoon, when 92 Republicans helped defeat an amendment sponsored by the RSC that would have cut an additional $22 billion in non-defense discretionary spending.  Evidently, $61 billion is all they can extirpate from the $3.7 trillion dollar beast. 

President Reagan’s premonition was not of a precipitous violent takeover, rather of a steady, yet enduring acquiescence to tyranny from within the existing political structure.  He sagaciously observed the inherent staying power of institutional tyranny and the tenuous fragile nature of freedom.  Reagan feared that even in a democracy, or more poignantly, specifically in a democracy, a tyrannical government could successfully manipulate the system to entice the masses into abjuring their liberties for their own sake and for the ‘well-being of their fellow citizens’.  His prescience was well conceived.

Republicans Continue to Oppose Cost Cutting Amendments

Yesterday, we showed a list of cost cutting amendments that several dozen GOP members opposed and helped Democrats defeat.  Here are some more:

Amendment No. 410—Rep. Price (R-GA):  The amendment would eliminate funding for the “National Labor Relations Board, Salaries and Expenses,” and would transfer $233,400,000 to the Spending Reduction Account.  Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee.  Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.

The amendment failed 176-250 with the help of 60 Republicans.  This would have been an easy $200 million in savings.  I can't fathom any Republican opposing this amendment.

• Amendment No. 457—Rep. Flake (R-FL):  The amendment would reduce funding for the “Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children and Families Services Programs,” by $100,000,000, bringing the appropriation from $7,796,499,000 to $7,696,499,000.  The amendment would transfer $100,000,000 to the Spending Reduction Account.  Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee.  Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.

124 Republicans, more than half the caucus, helped defeat this.  I can't understand why.

Leg Update: 8 Conservatives Oppose FAA Porkulous Bill

Here is a list of the 8 Conservative Heroes who voted against the FAA re-authorization bill (S.223).

Crapo
Risch
Paul
Lee
DeMint
Johnson
Vitter
Toomey

Leg. Update: Some Republicans Helped Defeat Anti Spending Amendments

While the House Republicans have shown more austere leadership than the Senate, they are far from infallible.  Ultimately, every Republican will likely support the final version of the CR (Continuing Resolution for FY2011 budget), however, a number of them are silently helping Democrats defeat some additional spending cuts through the amendment process throughout the week.  Unfortunately, it is hard to focus the public's attention on a rapid fire legislative session with 583 amendments, and is therefore too arduous to bear pressure upon the dissenters.

Let's remember that Republicans control the House by 242-193.  With the vacancy of one Republican, it takes 24 GOP defections to support the Democrats on a given roll call vote.  Here are some much needed, non-defense, budget cutting amendments that were struck down by virtue of GOP collaboration:

• Amendment No. 260—Rep. Latta (R-OH):  The amendment would reduce the funding for the “Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Construction of Research Facilities,” by $10 million, bringing the appropriation from $58 million to $48 million.  The amendment would transfer the $10 million to the Spending Reduction Account.  Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee.  Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.

 The Amendment failed 184-247 with the help of some 82 Republicans.  This was a modest cut from a program that is questionable to begin with.

Weekly RINO Roundup

 Here is the latest roundup from RINOLand.

- Lindsey Grahamnesty is teaming up with Chuck Schumer for a new round of Amnesty.

- Scott Brown joins Democrats in proposing S. 248- to grant states the right to apply for waivers from portions of Obama Care.   Sound good?  Well, the reason why Democrats support this is because it will obviate the lawsuits against Obama Care by denying the states standing in court to contest this law.

- Dick Lugar tells Tea Party to "get real" over the START Treaty.  Hey Dick, maybe you ought to sit in the next session of the Russian Duma and actually listen to their interpretation of the preamble of the treaty.  Indeed it does affect our missile defense capabilities.  And it was all orchestrated at the expense of our British allies.  Your the one who needs to get real, Lugar.  Maybe when you are tossed from the Senate next year and spend some time with your Indiana constituents, you will be exposed to the reality that you have rejected during your entire career.

-Mark Kirk says he is opened to raising the debt limit.  But fear not; he supports big spending cuts.

- John Boehner supports Obama on Egypt in an interview with Meet The Press.  I'm a bit perturbed that I have to add the Speaker to the list this week.  However, I find it very disconcerting that the Republicans have totally caved to Obama on his support for the overthrow of Mubarak.  Whether it was inevitable or not, it was not in our best interests.  The fact that Obama has not been called out on his hypocrisy over Iran and the impending danger in Jordon as a result of his rejection of our Arab "allies" is really disappointing.

- Congressman Steven Loutorette (R-OH) and the Tuesday Rino Group lunch bunch are planning their own budget that will be a “more equitable approach”.  I guess $61 billion in cuts out of $3.7 trillion in spending is to harsh for them.

- Jon Kyl announced that they would not allow for a government shutdown.  Unfortunately, Paul Ryan echoed those sentiments as well.  Aside for the fact that conservatives argue on the merits of their aversion to a government shutdown, why show your cards before the fight begins?  Even if you are ultimately willing to compromise with Democrats in order to preclude a shutdown, why inform them now and lose your leverage?  Classic Senate Republican strategy!

List of 583 Amendments for Continuing Resolution

For those who are following the cumbersome and tedious debate of the amendment process for the CR (HR 1), here is a great resource from the House Republican Conference.  They offer a brief summary of the 583 amendments.

MD Legislature: Support Immigration Enforcement Now

While illegal aliens continue to commit violent crimes in Maryland, the Democrats in the legislature are more concerned with gay marriage, abolishing the death penalty, raising taxes, imposing draconian driving regulations, and expelling corporations from the state.  Earlier this week, an illegal abducted a women in PG County, the most infested jurisdiction in Maryland.  Upon his arrest, the local police discovered that he was deported two years ago and somehow found his way back in the country. [With only 15% of the border fully secure, it is no wonder] Here is the scoop from the Washington Post:

Haley Barbour, 2012, and the Need for a Focus on Illegal Immigration

Haley Barbour has been under fire for his stance on immigration after Time Magazine published a Justice Department filing showing that Barbour lobbied for amnesty.  The filings show that Barbour was part of a lobbying team that was commissioned by the Mexican embassy to lobby for a pathway to citizenship for illegals in 2001. 

Here are some of the details about the amnesty provisions that he was seeking.

At the time, Mexico was seeking an extension of a provision that allowed undocumented immigrants living in the United States to receive legal visas or green cards without returning to their country of origin, provided they pay an additional fine. In practice, the provision generally helped out undocumented family members of legal immigrants or undocumented immigrants who were eligible for visas based upon certain job skills. Without the provision in place, undocumented immigrants who received legal papers had to return to their country of origin, for three or 10 years, before returning to the U.S. The Congressional Research Service estimated that an extension would put benefit about 300,000 undocumented immigrants.

At first, I was hesitant to excogitate any further on this issue because it appeared to be yet another hatchet job on Haley Barbour from the liberal media.  Any conservative must always be circumspect of any liberal exposé about a conservative deviating from conservatism.  After all, they certainly have no penchant for our views.

20 Blue Dog Frauds Vote Against Budget Cuts

The remaining 26 members of the Blue Dog Coalition proudly describe themselves as fiscal conservatives in order to retain their seats.  Well, any member of this two faced caucus that cannot support the GOP Leadership's diminutive $61 billion in cuts is a complete fraud.

Incidentally, only 8 Democrats, and just 5 of the 25 Blue Dogs (Giffords is absent, of course) voted for the resolution to debate H.R. 1- the FY 2011 CR.  Even big mouth Heath Schuler, who fashions himself as a conservative democrat leader, opposed the bill.  Here is a list of the 20 Pelosi Puppies who need to be called on the carpet in 2012, when they attempt to promulgate fiscal conservatism:

1. Joe Baca (CA-43)
2. John Barrow (GA-12), Co-Chair for Policy
3. Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
4. Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
5. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
6. Ben Chandler (KY-6)
7. Jim Cooper (TN-5)
8. Jim Costa (CA-20)
9. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
10. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
11. Jane Harman (CA-36)
12. Tim Holden (PA-17)
13. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
14. Collin Peterson (MN-7)
15. Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
16. Adam Schiff (CA-29)
17. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
18. David Scott (GA-13)
19. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Co-Chair for Administration
20. Mike Thompson (CA-1)

John Cornyn Over Lamar Alexander for Senate Whip

Jon Kyl's sudden retirement announcement has set off a domino effect on the ambitions of several Senate Republicans.  When Senator Kyl retires in 2012, he will be vacating the position of Senate (Majority, most likely) Whip, in addition to his Arizona Senate seat.  Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (RINO, TN), the 3rd ranking member in the GOP leadership, has announced that he will seek the Whip position.  Senator John Cornyn, the Chairman of the NRSC, will challenge Alexander for that key leadership role.  Also, if Alexander vacates his current position as Conference chair, there will be a race to succeed him.

For most of the past few months, we have focused on the House and its committee and leadership structure.  As jarring as the flaws of the Republican leadership in the House are, the Senate is much worse.  It is therefore imperative that we begin pressuring Republicans to make the right leadership choices in 2012.  This will be especially cogent as the GOP is likely to gain control over the Senate. 


Being that the Whip is charged with rounding up the necessary votes for our side, it is vital that the new Whip vote the right way in the first place.  Ideally, we would want somebody in the mold of Jim DeMint or Jeff Sessions.  However, if it becomes a choice between Lamar Alexander and John Cornyn, as it appears to be, the decision is simple.  Although John Cornyn is far from perfect, Lamar Alexander is a RINO who has no business representing such a conservative state to begin with, much less serve in leadership.  Let's compare their voting records.

Red Meat Conservative is Now On Twitter

You can now follow our latest opinion pieces and legislative updates on Twitter @ RMConservative.  Yay!  We are finally in the 21st century!

Mike Pence and Jim DeMint Propose Real Tax Reform

Once again, it is Mike Pence and Jim DeMint leading the way.  Today, they introduced The Tax Relief Certainty Act, legislation that would make the Bush tax cuts permanent.  Here are the main provisions of the bill:

• Make permanent the 2001 and 2003 individual income tax relief for all hard-working Americans- preserving the 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% income tax brackets, rather than allowing President Obama and Democrats to increase the top tax bracket to 39.6% and increase taxes on the lowest earning Americans in the bottom 10% bracket.
• Permanently repeal the immoral and unfair death tax, which increases from 35% to 55% on Jan. 1, 2013. Permanent repeal of the death tax would increase GDP by $118.8 billion and lead to $23.3 billion per year in new federal revenue;
• Prevent the tax increase on capital gains and dividends income for all Americans, rather than allowing the Democrats to increase the rates to 20% from the current 15%; and
• Permanently patch the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

While there are many priorities for the Republican run House, this bill should receive an up or down vote in the near future.

Hill Poll: 53% Support Private Retirement Accounts

According to a new poll commissioned by The Hill, likely voters are in favor of private accounts by 53%-36%.  But, you wouldn't realize it from the title and narrative of the accompanying article in the Hill.  The title of the article is, "Voters troubled over future of Social Security".  They proceed to discuss how most people are concerned about Social Security solvency, but are split 40-48% on whether to raise the retirement age.  It's not until the end of the article that they mention the fact that the Public Opionion Research poll actually inquired about private retirement accounts.  Here is how they ensconced the majority support for privatization in their results:

Voters were also split over whether to allow people to invest the Social Security taxes they pay into personal retirement accounts, an idea that was a linchpin of then-President George W. Bush’s plan to reform the program.

Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe diverting payroll taxes to personal accounts should not be permitted at all, while 37 percent backed being able to invest either 25 percent or 50 percent. Sixteen percent supported the ability to invest three-fourths or all of one’s Social Security taxes.

Notice how they say that voters are split on the issue instead of decisively stating that a majority support private accounts.  They begin by saying that 36% oppose privatization, while 37% back investment of up to 50%.  However, when you add the additional 16% who support a majority privatization, there is a clear majority who support some sort of privatization.  The Hill declines to tally the numbers and lead off with the headline, "Majority Support Privatization".

Keep in mind that most political consultants believed that this issue is a profound liability to the party.  Most Republicans only call for a small percentage of privatization, and yet, a clear majority support up to 50% privatization.  I hope the Republican strategists are able to read between the lines, even if the media tries to obscure the truth about public sentiment for private property and ownership of one's own retirement.

The reality is that young voters cannot be forced into a confiscatory system which continues to raise the age at which they can receive their money- without offering a way to opt out.  I don't mind raising the retirement age for those who want to continue in the system, but there must be a private option. 

Gabrielle Giffords as the Democrat Political Human Shield in Arizona

In light of Jon Kyl's surprise retirement announcement last week, conservatives are presented with a unique opportunity to elect an unabashed conservative from the deep red state of Arizona.  The Republicans have super majorities in both houses of the legislature and control every statewide elected office.  As Arizona becomes more conservative, there is a plethora of solid candidates, which if elected, would serve as an improvement over Jon Kyl.  Once the Democrats destroyed Arizona's borders and opposed SB 1070, they were banished from electoral politics across the state.  Presumably, there would be no viable chance for the Democrats to turn over this seat.  But, the Democrats have a trick up their sleeve; run Gabrielle Giffords.

Ever since the tragic shooting in Tucson, the Democrats have employed every insidious tool at their disposal to score much needed political points from the tragedy.  Based upon Obama's poll numbers, it appears that they have succeeded to some degree.  Now, they are plotting to run Giffords for the Senate seat even before she recovers.  They figure that Republicans will not have the effrontery to oppose her.

Let's be clear.  Our hearts go out to Congresswomen Giffords and her family as we wish her the most complete and speedy recovery possible.  However, that does not mean that we should place emotions ahead of national interests by surrendering a Senate seat to her.

Lt. Col. Allen West Delivers a Rousing Closer at CPAC

Watch the whole speech here.  He gave a much needed defense of the imperitive to keep the three legged conservative stool in tact.  He touches on social and foreign policy conservatism, issues that have been largely neglected by other conservatives.

The Stalwart Fiscal Conservative Who is Socially Liberal? Non-Existent

As our annual CPAC gathering kicks off today with the sponsorship of the gay Republican GoProud organization, it is important to understand something about socially liberal "conservatives".  They don't exist. Period. (O.K. there is Jeff Flake on DADT, but he is still 100% pro life).

American conservatism is comprised of three indissoluble principles; social values, national defense, and classic economic liberalism.  A movement that includes those who categorically reject one of those ethos is not a big tent.  It is a circus.  That is because those who reject social values or national defense will indubitably reject fiscal conservatism as well.  How many self proclaimed social liberal/fiscal conservative Republicans are indeed stalwart, intrepid, and truculent in their defense of the free market and liberty?  Very few, indeed, and certainly not anyone who is associated with GoProud.

As Erick Erickson observes at Red State,GoProud has worked to undermine conservatives throughout their existence, even if that meant teaming up with the SEIU.  If these clowns were in the trenches fighting our battles for limited government and a robust America-first foreign policy, we would be more inclined to accept this group.  However, GoProud, along with every other self proclaimed conservative socially liberal group, has been missing in action as it relates to the issues that are important to authentic conservatives.  That is because conservatism without the social values is like a body without a soul.  It is lifeless.  Thus, they expend their efforts assiduously pushing their hard left social agenda, with no regard for any fiscal or national security issue.

Conversely, it is the inimitable social conservatives like Jim DeMint and Michelle Bachmann who are inexorable in their defense of national security and free market economics.

This is not the time to begin reaching out to fair-weather gay conservatives whose motives are dubious at best.  Social conservatism is under assault on every front; from the repeal of DADT and the integration of women in combat, to the proliferation of gay marriage throughout the states.  In my home state of Maryland, even the former Republican Senate leader is joining with Democrats to make the Old Line State the 6th state that recognizes gay marriage.

We must work indefatigably now, more than ever, to reassert ourselves over social issues and not cede the battleground to the left.  Are we prepared to eschew the core values that we seek to promote because of contrived "generational changes"?

Let there be no ambiguity concerning the motives of socially liberal "conservatives".  If they are willing to abjure some conservative values due to generational shifts, they will easily surrender the rest of the policy battlefield to the whims of the left.

Jon Huntsman's Presidential Bid is Dead on Arrival

As former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman ponders a presidential run following his resignation as ambassador to China, it is important to understand who he is. Here are some of his greatest hits:

Stimulus: "It’s easy to criticize the bill and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to take the money. It’s pretty simple.
I guess in hindsight we can all say that there were some fundamental flaws with it. It probably wasn’t large enough and, number two, there probably wasn’t enough stimulus effect. For example, a payroll tax exemption or maybe even a cut in the corporate tax…for small and medium-sized businesses for three years, for example.
We will take the money ... The size of about a trillion dollars was floated by Mark Zandi, who’s a very respected economist. I tend to believe what he is saying about the size of the package, which didn’t necessarily hit the mark in terms of size." (Interview with Politico, 2/24/09)

Gays: "I’ve always been in favor of greater equality. My first year in office I ran a…reciprocal beneficiary rights piece of legislation. It failed, but my first year in office I wanted to see if we could do more in the name of individual rights. And I’ve always thought that we were a little bit behind in terms of equality for people born under the same constitution." (Interview with Politico, 2/24/09)

Environment: "We’ve drifted a little bit from intellectual honesty in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, for example, where they would use rigorous science to back up many of their policies, and in this case many of their environmental policies. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. We declared the war on cancer.
A lot of intellectual rigor went into the policies of those days, and we’ve drifted a little bit from taking seriously the importance of science to buttress much of what we’re doing today." (Interview with Politico, 2/24/09)

A pro stimulus, gay marriage, open borders, no growth environmentalist, Obama's point man on capitulation to China for President?  You decide.

Maryland Democrats Continue their War on Jobs

Last month, we reported on the Baltimore City bottle tax that has prompted Pepsi to cease their soda production and eliminate 70 jobs.  Now, Democrats in the state legislature are proposing a bill that would increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour by 2013.  This is another teachable moment for liberal economics.  Amidst record unemployment, particularly among teens and part time minimum wage workers, Maryland Democrats are trying to encumber the creators of those jobs.  This bill will induce long term unemployment in many low wage industries.  Then again, most of those jobs are being filled by illegal aliens in Maryland anyway.

We need to continue to be vigilant during the closing weeks of the legislative session.  Democrats will employ every tool in their arsenal to attenuate our state and local economy.  They plan to introduce a 10-cent hike in gas taxes, an increase an vehicle registration fees, and a higher liquor tax.  Maryland conservatives really need to mobilize, or be prepared to leave this socialist land of fruits and nuts. 

NC-7: Conservative War Hero Ilario Pantano to Run Again

Lt. Ilario Pantano

Among the several war heroes that were elected to the 112th congress, Ilario Pantano was one of the few who came up short.  Lieutenant Pantano was one of the Marines who were egregiously slandered and accused of killing civilians in Haditha, Iraq.  In 2010, he challenged blue dog fraud, Mike McIntyre for his NC-7 congressional seat, but came up surprisingly short.  This Wilmington based congressional district is conservative leaning and is ripe for picking in 2012.  It is heartening to here that Pantano is planning to give it another try.  Here is a quote from an email that Pantano circulated to his supporters:

"Does it seem that the Democratic leadership is ill-prepared for the security or foreign policy challenges of the day? Would you have retreated from Iraq in 2007 like Barack Obama and Mike McIntyre wanted to? Allow me the opportunity to protect you and your families from the wolves at the door. Our borders must be secured, and our enemies must be made sure of our seriousness of purpose. You know that after fighting two wars as a U.S. Marine, I have the scars to prove I mean business." 

We need more war heroes in congress who will focus on American-centered foreign policy and our crisis along the southern border.  Over the next year, we will follow this congressional race closely.

Hey Barack, Resign Now, and Now Means Yesterday

While our nation languishes amidst record food and energy prices, unprecedented underemployment (including those excluded from the workforce) and economic stagnation, crippling regulations, and an administration in contempt of two court decisions, the media would rather distract us with the Islamist uprising in Egypt.  It is imperative that we keep up the pressure on Obama and the Democrats by denying them the opportunity to preclude our attention from more relevant and ominous domestic problems.  On the other hand, there is one salient question that we should excogitate from Obama's handling of the Egyptian insurgency.  If Obama is willing to listen to the protesters of a foreign country due to their grievances from high food and energy prices and an unresponsive government, shouldn't he accede to the similar demands of his own citizens and resign immediately?

As a direct result of Obama's assiduous depredation of the private sector, there are a record number of people who are unemployed or underemployed.  For those who are lacking sufficient income, their most vital needs include food, energy, and health care are among  Yet, this President has used every tool at his disposal (including illegal ones) to ensure that the cost of production or delivery of each vital sector of our economy has burgeoned exponentially.

Through this President's continued support of ethanol mandates, subsidies, and tariffs, the price of essential food commodities has risen sharply, as corn is the antecedent of the food chain.  Almost 40% of corn grown in this country is now used for an ineffective and potentially environmentally degrading fuel.  In addition, the President has done everything in his power to mandate and subsidize the production and usage of under-performing and deleterious sources of energy.  This, along with his slavish devotion to the Fed's policy of quantitative easing (QE2), has artificially and gratuitously spiked the cost of food and energy commodities.

Happy 100th Birthday Mr. President

President Ronald Reagan, that is!

Conservatives in the Senate Demand More Spending Cuts

Ever since the November electoral triumph, we were eagerly anticipating the budget cuts the would be implemented by House Republicans.  They promised $100 billion in cuts for FY 2011, and although that is a paltry sum in relation to our deficit, it seemed like a prudent start.  Unfortunately, they announced last week that there would only be $32 billion in cuts for the remainder of the fiscal year.  This is simply unacceptable.  The federal deficit stands at $14.1 trillion, while our annual budget is slated to top $1.6 trillion.  In fact, our monthly deficits have appreciated to over $100 billion.  Yet, the Republicans cannot even commit to a comparable deduction for a full year!

It is heartening to see that Conservative members of the Senate sent House Republicans a letter imploring them to implement the full $100 billion in cuts this year.  Here is a list of the 12 members who signed the letter:

Ron Johnson of Wisconsin
Mike Lee of Utah
Rand Paul of Kentucky
Marco Rubio of Florida 
Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania
Sen. Demint of South Carolina
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
John Ensign of Nevada
Mike Enzi of Wyoming
Mike Johanns of Nebraska 
David Vitter of Louisiana

It's good to see that we are reaping the benefits from the freshmen who we worked so hard to elect.  Although, it is a bit disappointing that Robert Portman, Kelly Ayotte, and Jim Moran are not on the list.  Either way, we must keep up the pressure throughout the next month as we come to a crossroads with the Continuing Resolution and the debt limit deadline.

Weekly RINO Roundup

 Recently, I began a weekly roundup of RINO news so we can be vigilant of what we are up against within our own party.  Here is just a sample of some of this week's headlines.


Lisa Murkowski Blasts GOP on Obama Care Repeal- (And this is what we get from Alaska?  I seriously would rather have had the Democrat win than put up with her for another six years.)

Dick Lugar Pushes for "Clean Energy Standard"- (which will destroy jobs, raise prices for vital goods and services on the poor, and slow economic growth)

Lisa Murkowski proposes inter-party bi-partisan lunches to sing kumbaya and extend the SOTU night dating to other venues.

Bill Shuster (R-PA) and John Mica (R-FL) support Obama's runaway rail project. ( When Republican were in the minority they took pride in the fact that every member of the conference opposed the stimulus.  Now, it appears that in the majority, two of the top members of the House Transportation Committee will be supporting Stimulus II.)

Lindsey Graham opposes Balanced Budget Amendment as a bottom line concession for raising the debt limit. (In other words, he only supports bi-partisan compromises, a.k.a. ones that completely sell out to the Dems.)

John McCain calls for Mubarak to step down. ( Well, who exactly should step up?  This is just another example of Republicans circling the wagons around Obama in his effort to duplicate the 79' Iranian Islamist revolution.  Does he have the temerity to call for Obama's resignation in light of his subversion of democracy by being in contempt of court over the health care and oil drilling regulations?)

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Democrat Support for Repeal of 1099 Provision is Self Indictment

Mitch McConnell plans to offer his health care repeal amendment (S.A. 13) to the FAA authorization bill later this evening.  Every Democrat, including the bald faced liars like Joe Manchin, plan to support a budget point of order to scuttle this amendment.  However, in order to buttress red state Democrats from electoral reprisal,  Debbie Stabenow plans to offer an alternative amendment (S.A. 9) that would only repeal the onerous 1099 filing provision.  Even Chuck Schumer says that most Democrats support this amendment.

Here is a question that needs to be asked by Republicans on the floor of the Senate.  How can you so categorically reject something that you wholeheartedly supported just a year ago?  What has changed now?  It's not like they could claim that circumstances have shown this mandate to be a burden because it hasn't even taken effect yet.  Isn't this a self indictment that they knowingly vote for bills that even according to their ideology would be detrimental to their constituents?  Yet, we are supposed to believe that the rest of the bill was voted on in good faith.  What other nefarious pieces of legislation do they knowingly support for political reasons?

Maybe we ought to take to the streets to demand that they repeal health care.  Hey, if protesters in Egypt can get Obama to support their cause, why can't we?  Or, is he more amenable to the Muslim Brotherhood than the Tea Party?

The Left's War on Food for Poor Continues

Last week, we reported on the record number of Americans enrolled in the food stamp program.  As we observe the efforts of the left to drive up the cost of food, there is no wonder why so many people are having trouble feeding their families.  Their policies mandating the use of corn as fuel, as well as the inflationary aspects of the Fed's recent QE2 policies, have kept the cost of food high for a long time.  Now, Obama's EPA is working on a proposal to increase the percentage of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15%.  What about its effect on food prices?  Let them use food stamps, says Obama's government.

It's ironic that the government plans to augment ethanol mandates even as poor and developing countries are facing skyrocketing food prices.  There is no doubt that ethanol is one of the culprits behind the economic upheaval that led to the political turmoil in Egypt.  Egypt has to import most of their wheat, and with grain-based commodities rising as a result of increased ethanol production, Egyptians simply cannot afford a loaf of bread.  Almost 40% of corn produced in the U.S. is used for this substandard fuel, yet it is still not enough of a poverty enhancer for the left.  Yes, the very same left that purports to care about the impoverished and the third world.

In addition to its disastrous effects on the food supply, this decision could turn out to be dangerous for motorists.  Higher bio-fuel blends have already been tested and have shown a propensity to melt the gas pumps and storage tanks!  Furthermore, even the EPA has come out with a long report detailing the negative environmental effects that ethanol production has on the water and soil.  So, we have a situation in which mandates, tariffs, and tax credits enrich the government/corporate complex, while driving up the cost of fuel and food on the poor and actually harming the environment.  Who are the ones to care for the poor and the environment again?

Meanwhile, potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich gave a speech defending ethanol in...Iowa! (The WSJ has a great write-up on Newt's corn boondoggle here.) He can join Senator John Thune as a presidential candidate who is willing to peddle corporate cronyism in order to win Iowa.

Mubarak is not a Great Ally, But What's the Alternative?

There are some apologists for Mubarak who contend that he is a great ally of the U.S. and a strategic partner for Israel. Other wizards of smart like John Kerry and the Bush foreign policy crowd feel that we should actively side with the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Mubarak. There are some good columns out today explaining why they are both wrong. The bottom line is that Mubarak is not such a strong ally and doesn't deserve $1.5 billion in aid; however, the alternative is much, much worse. To that end, it would be Carteresque to support the "democratic" protesters. 

- Here is Max Boot's Op-ed in the WSJ detailing Mubarak's efforts to undermine Israel and turn a blind eye to the Muslim Brotherhood. Nonetheless, it is clear that the vacuum of his departure would be filled with real nefarious characters.

- Caroline Glick has a great piece in today's Jerusalem Post explaining the coalition between the anti-colonialist left and the Bush democracy peddlers in their pursuit to overthrow Mubarak. They are both misguided in their lack of insight into the Muslim world.

- Bret Stephens of the WSJ explains why he thinks that Mubarak his playing his cards prudently and that the revolution will eventually fizzle.

It is disturbing to see the GOP circle the wagons around the administration and John Kerry by supporting regime change.  It is also disconcerting to see fellow Massachusetts politician Mitt Romney call for Mubarak to resign.  Would these politicians support the protesters in Jordon to overthrow King Abdullah?  Unlike Mubarak, he is a true ally.  Worse yet, the Jordanian people are even more radical than the Egyptians (70% of them are Palestinian).  Don't they understand the consequenses of their actions?

We cannot afford another Iranian revolution paradigm in which we oust a dictator in favor of an Islamist state.  Then again, when we have someone like Dick Lugar leading the Republican foreign policy in the Senate, would you expect anything different?

Mitch McConnell Appoints Mediocre Chairmen to Most Committees

Here is a list of the new Republican Ranking Members of the 16 standing Committees in the Senate.

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry  
Pat Roberts

Appropriations 
 Thad Cochran
Armed Services 
John McCain
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Richard Shelby
Budget
Chuck Grassley
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Energy and Natural Resources
Lisa Murkowski
Environment and Public Works
James Inhofe
Finance
Chuck Grassley
Foreign Relations
Richard Lugar
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Michael Enzi
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Susan Collins
Judiciary
Jeff Sessions
Rules and Administration
Mitch McConnell
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Olympia Snowe
Veterans' Affairs 
 Richard Burr

If you thought that some of the choices for House committee chairmen were dismal, most of the Senate picks are scandalous.  The biggest rinos like Snowe, Collins, McCain, Hutchison, and Lugar are ranking members of standing committees.  And yes, Lisa Murkowski is the ranking member of  the Energy Committee!  Way to go Mitch McConnell.  On top of that, we have the biggest porker, Thad Cochran as head of Approps.  And Mr. gays in the military, Richard Burr, as head of Veterans Affairs.  The only good picks were Inhofe and Sessions.  At this rate, it will take a decade for the conservative members to overpower the rinos with seniority.