With Conservatives Like These...

By Burt Prelutsky ~  

Santorum, Gingrich and Perry, all condemned Mitt Romney's Bain Financial for putting people out of work. If anyone should be sidelined, it's Santorum, Gingrich and Perry.

For one thing, as every conservative who isn't running behind in the primaries knows, venture capitalists put their money where their mouths are. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, as the old adage goes. When it comes to picking winners, Bain has a far better record than the Obama administration. After all, Bain was gambling on turning around the fortunes of companies that were close to death or assisting in the birth of companies that would otherwise have been aborted. Obama, on the other hand, handed out billions of our tax dollars for no other reason than that company owners had contributed heavily to his presidential campaigns.

As Romney has admitted, there were times when Bain had no choice but to shut down companies and let the employees go, but in every case those employees kept drawing salaries for a far longer time than they would have done without Bain's infusion of cash. Clearly, those factory workers confused themselves with public sector union members. Those are the folks, let us never forget, who keep getting hired and having their salaries and pensions increased in spite of a failing economy. That's the difference between Washington, D.C. and the real world.

Another irony of the campaigns that Santorum, Perry and Gingrich, are running is that each of them promises to shut down entire departments of the federal government if they're elected president. Just how will they manage to keep that promise without handing out thousands of pink slips? While it's true that the intended victims are nothing more than Washington bureaucrats, they are still more or less human beings with children to feed and mortgages to pay.

Some people defend Gingrich's attacks on Romney, insisting that Romney has it coming because of the ads that Romney's supporters ran in Iowa attacking Mr. Gingrich. The obvious difference is that while Romney's attacks could certainly be described as vicious, they also happened to be true. In fact, they could easily have been even more hurtful.

For instance, Gingrich was a serial adulterer. And while he has insisted he is a changed man and that he regrets his sins, the same holds true for every other rascal who has ever been found out. On one occasion, he even explained his adultery by stating "Partially, I was driven by how passionate I felt about this country that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate." It's not every day, thank God, that America is basically cast as The Other Woman. Even Bill Clinton, who couldn't quite define sex, but certainly knew it when he saw it, didn't rationalize his boorish behavior as excessive patriotism.

Not only did Gingrich dump his first wife and their two kids, but, adding injury to insult, he refused to pay alimony or child support, thus forcing the local Baptist church to pass the hat. He eventually repaid the debt in full, though, by converting to Catholicism.

It's true that Gingrich was the first Speaker who was ever censured and fined by his congressional colleagues. And although it was for financial shenanigans, it did not, for some reason, involve the multi-million dollar book deal he had cut with Rupert Murdoch. The deal, it so happens, had far less to do with Gingrich's writing ability than with the fact that mogul giant Murdoch had a vested interest in befriending, otherwise known as bribing, the Speaker, who at the time chaired the committee that oversaw the granting of radio and TV licenses.

Lest we ever forget, Gingrich volunteered to sit on that dumb couch with Nancy Pelosi, and help her perpetuate Al Gore's hoax of global warming. He has since said that agreeing to make that TV spot was the single dumbest thing he ever did. But I think he was just being modest.

Gingrich pocketed $1.6 million of our tax dollars, thanks to the generosity of Freddie Mac, for allegedly giving them advice he claims they ignored for five years. I wonder if that gig is still available. It's a job I was born to have. After all, I'm constantly giving people advice they ignore.

Gingrich derided Paul Ryan's fiscal plan as "right-wing social engineering" and then, for good measure, insisted that when Romney said he would enjoy firing his health insurance provider if they failed to satisfy his needs, he really meant that he took pleasure in firing people who worked for him.

Now, in desperation, after finishing near the bottom in Iowa and New Hampshire, Gingrich attacks Romney for profiting from being a free market capitalist.

The good news for Newt is that once he finally drops out of the GOP race, he can sign on with David Axelrod and start getting paid to help re-elect Barack Obama.

In conclusion, a free piece of advice for Callista: Be on the alert if Newt claims he's working late at the office. By now, I think we all know -- and you, better than most -- how patriotic this guy can get.

Attack the Deficit: The Fierce Urgency of Now

By Ken Blackwell

Appearing Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY.) told host Christiane Amanpour he would push for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This is an idea whose time has come. In 1994, Republicans campaigned -- and won -- on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the Contract with America). Back then, the deficit was just $203 billion. Today, the national deficit is at $1.4 trillion (that's roughly $3,500 for each American, and some $14,000 for each family of four in deficit spending just this year alone).

Most states require their elected officials to balance their budget each year, but no such requirement impedes the reckless spending of the United States federal government. A constitutional amendment would bar the federal government from spending more money than it brings in each year -- and require a supermajority in order to raise taxes. This is not a radical idea, but the consequences of failing to enact such a measure cannot be overstated.

Fortunately, as evidenced by the Tea Party movement, there appears to finally be the political will required to get this done. Newly elected Republicans simply must realize they weren't elected to merely "trim" spending or "slow down" the rate of government growth, but rather, to cut, de-authorize and balance the budget. (If they fail to grasp this fact, it will be a short and depressing two years).

It is also worth noting that the conservative movement is united behind this cause.

That Senator-Elect Paul was the one to reignite this debate after the GOP's historic victory on Tuesday is not terribly surprising -- he campaigned on this. And though he represents the libertarian wing of the conservative movement (his father ran for president as a Libertarian), his vocal support is indicative of the broad-based support for this amendment.

The financial crisis has galvanized the disparate elements of the conservative movement, just as the threat of Communism united the "three legs" of the conservative movement during the Reagan years (like Communism, the deficit has become an existential threat to our freedom).

As a Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council (FRC), I've seen first hand that social conservatives view the economic crisis -- and, more specifically, a balanced budget -- as a moral issue. Similarly, national security conservatives realize it's a security issue (America's debt is being lent by foreign interests, with China being the largest single holder). This is an issue that transcends the normal dividing lines, and unites us.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a solid full-spectrum conservative who is just as at home at a Club for Growth Meeting as he is at a Christian Coalition dinner, and others, are expected to lead the charge on a balanced budget amendment. The additional Tea Party conservatives who were elected on Tuesday will aid them. But they will need reinforcements.

That's why I have agreed to serve as chairman for a new group, 'Balanced Budget Amendment Now.'

Our organization will launch an aggressive campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment. This will include building an infrastructure needed to enlist a minimum of 5,000 supporters in each Congressional district to urge their Members of Congress to vote for an amendment.

Our goal is to accomplish a vote on a balanced budget amendment by October 1, 2011. (Senator-Elect Mike Lee (R-UT) has graciously agreed to draft the balanced budget amendment language for us -- and to enlist the support of his colleagues).

There are many issues vital to our future, but I can think of none more worthy than this effort.

In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the "fierce urgency of now." I would urge all Americans to consider the urgency of passing a balanced budget amendment.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

Tea Partiers Won’t Go When Fun Ends

By Ed Feulner and Sen. Jim DeMint

In only 21 months, the tea party has exploded from a handful of scattered, spontaneous rallies into a full-fledged national movement capable of throwing out incumbents. Challenging entrenched Washington habits, it is a force both parties must reckon with.

Skeptics and opponents, however, continue to ask two basic questions. First, does the tea party have any real philosophical depth, a historical pedigree? Second, will its force dissipate after the elections?

In short, critics accept that the tea party has a present — but they question whether it has a past and a future.

Yes and yes. Yes, the tea party has a pedigree as old as our nation, and yes, we think it is likely to continue to play a significant role in politics after Nov. 2. People in both parties who hope to wish it away and continue business as usual had better think twice.

Americans have been disappointed by leaders in both parties who campaigned to right past wrongs and then, after getting to Washington, cared more about power than promises. Tea party supporters care more about principle than party labels or politics.

Tea party members voice the kinds of concerns that even some of President Barack Obama’s former supporters are beginning to raise. As one Obama voter asked the president at a recent town hall, “Is the American dream dead for me?”

These are the questions Americans are asking nationwide — in their kitchens, church halls and ballparks. These are the concerns expressed at tea party rallies everywhere.

The tea party seeks answers to such questions not in the dictates of Washington today but in our country’s founding principles. There, it finds a prescription for constitutional, limited government based on God-given rights — not a Utopian blueprint for bureaucratic-managed change.

The tea party, in other words, is that inner voice that speaks to us when things go wrong — the conscience of the nation at a crucial point in our history.

What has gone wrong is clear. The “stimulus” package has failed to get this country back on its feet. The latest unemployment figures show that we still have anemic growth and nearly 10 percent unemployment. As Americans suffered, Washington wasted its time on a gargantuan, unmanageable and unaffordable health care package. No wonder many Americans feel frustrated.

But underneath the frustration, the tea party has roots that are deeper and aim higher. Deeper because it is within the best tradition of popular movements in our history — from the Great Awakening that gave rise to the American Revolution to the conservative revival that helped elect Ronald Reagan. Higher because it aims to recover our moral compass, bequeathed by our Founders and preserved ever since.

The tea party also symbolizes Americans’ indomitable desire for a better life. It reminds us that we’re a country of free people who understand that liberty is fragile and must be vigilantly defended.

Some past grass-roots movements have succeeded, and others have failed. Success comes because the energy of the moment is translated into a lasting, governing philosophy consistent with the settled opinions of the American people.

On this score, prospects look good. The tea party isn’t about to go away after the November elections. Its powerful message of limited government is likely to remain a sharp thorn in the side of those in both parties who want to continue politics as usual.

Take Obama’s health care package, which tea partiers have labeled “Obamacare.” Obama and Democrats rammed this through Congress, against the wishes of a majority of the American people.

But the repealing legislation should not itself contain some new massive health care plan. Even if the legislation offers good policy, the tea party is here to remind Republicans that pushing large, unexamined bills through Congress is wrong. We need to repeal Obamacare immediately, then openly debate and pass conservative-drawn, sensible and broadly supported health care reform.

It’s no surprise that pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen found that more than “half of the electorate now say they favor the tea party movement, around 35 percent say they support the movement, 20 [percent] to 25 percent self-identify as members of the movement and 2 [percent] to 7 percent say they are activists.”

This means that all those protesters with their Constitutions at tea party rallies nationwide represent millions of fellow Americans. The answers they seek won’t be found in the thousands of pages of new legislation coming out of Washington.

They are in those documents that first defined this nation and provide the most just framework for a free people to work hard, play by the rules and succeed.

Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation. Sen. Jim DeMint is a Republican from South Carolina.

Read more informative articles at The Patriot Post

‘Dogs Don’t Bark at Parked Cars!’

By Ken Blackwell

That’s some of the wisdom my Dad taught me. I thought of that saying when I read the attacks on Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. There’s a concerted effort to marginalize those who think marriage is important. In doing so, the left wants to shut out millions of Americans at the grassroots. But Mr. Perkins never runs from a fight. He’s out in front, leading. And all the dogs are barking at him.

Recently, Mr. Perkins was attacked as a big government backer. Apparently, if you try to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman, that is supposed to make you an advocate of big government.

Perkins has been fighting for tax cuts and less spending for twenty years. He wants the federal government to stop interfering with the family, stop intruding into small businesses, and stop usurping state and local authority. How does that make him an advocate for big Government?

Some critics think that when you stand up for marriage, that makes you an ally of big government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The wedding march began through the states in Hawaii. The Aloha State was America’s first majority non-white, majority non-Christian state, and Hawaii voters strongly backed a referendum that prevented the state’s Supreme Court from overturning marriage.

Conservative leaders have teamed up with the people against liberal powers in state after state. All too often, the top dogs of both parties opposed these people’s initiatives, or else hung back.

These state and local groups have rack up popular victories for marriage in 31 states. Wherever the marriage issue appears on the ballot, the people say it loud, say it proud: Marriage is between one man and one woman.

There are no marriage questions on the state ballots this year. Liberal journos are trying to say the movement has lost steam. What? Is that why liberals are afraid to let the issue come to a vote in Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York?

Judges of the Iowa Supreme Court are hanging onto their hats and their seats, facing voter wrath because they decided to overturn marriage – and the people’s voice be silenced.

Thirty-eight million Americans have voted to protect marriage. Marriage is more popular than any other issue on the conservative agenda. Marriage wins in liberal states, like Hawaii and Wisconsin, in conservative states like Kansas and Utah, and in middle-of-the-road states like Virginia and Ohio.

Marriage is no “wedge” issue. Some jounalists like to call it that, as if it’s not important. But Marriage is a bridge issue. Marriage wins among blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and whites.

Marriage appeals to non-college educated as well as to blue collar workers. It’s a way of bringing those elusive Reagan Democrats back into the fold.

In California this year, we may see a Republican win the state house and another go to the Senate. But it’s been more than twenty years since Republicans carried the Golden State for President. While John McCain was going down to a crushing defeat in California in 2008, Proposition 8, the Marriage Protection Amendment, was cruising to victory.

We have heard a lot about compassionate conservatism. And we’ve heard accusations that conservatives are “downright mean.” Well, defending marriage is the most compassionate thing conservatives can do.

Even some liberals recognize this. Bill Galston once worked for Bill Clinton. He says if a young couple will just finish high school, avoid having children out of wedlock, and marry, the chances are only 4% they will ever live in poverty.

Big government feeds on the breakdown of marriage. Our prisons are filling up with fatherless young men. What Bill Bennett wisely called the Broken Hearth fuels demands for more money for extra helpers in schools, for food stamps, for expanded medical coverage – all these needs are exacerbated by the breakdown of marriage.

Today, tragically, nearly 40% of our children are born out-of-wedlock. And big government consumes nearly 40% of our Gross Domestic Product.

I don’t believe the 40/40 link is imaginary?

If you want smaller government, lower taxes, and a return to constitutional principles, the fastest way to do that is to defend marriage, empower the family, and show Americans  real compassion.

Read more informative articles at The Patriot Post

Breitbart Fires-Up Tea Party 90210 - 2 Videos

Inspiring speech from Andrew Breitbart and other conservative Journalists and Columnists at the Beverly Hills TEA Party.

Breitbart Fires Up Beverly Hills Tea Party Part 1

Breitbart Fires Up Beverly Hills Tea Party Part 2

Neighbor: Christine O'Donnell is a Witch

(DOVER, Del.) – by Erica Bazoombas

Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell has thus far weathered charges that she has dabbled in the occult, but a former neighbor says she has evidence proving O’Donnell is in fact a witch.

Mrs. Gladys Kravitz recalled that one Saturday night in 2004 she asked O’Donnell to pick up a bottle of Sambuca at the liquor store, and that the perky, prudish politico made the trip by flying on a broom.

Kravitz

Kravitz produced an old VHS tape that she claims shows the aerial errand, but said she was too drunk at the time to focus the camera properly. “That bitch is a witch,” the disquisitive dipsomaniac said, and then passed out.

O’Donnell campaign spokesman Darrin Stevens told SPN that a personal pleasure device being sold in adult novelty shops as “Christine’s Magic Wand” has nothing to do with the diminuive Delawarian. “It’s just a coincidence,” he said.

Stevens

The Knox County Answer

By Roy Exum

When Tim Burchett became the Mayor of Knox County, Tenn., on September 1, he immediately instructed the county's purchasing department to put a "stop-payment order" on three handsome severance packages that had just been doled out by his predecessor.

In a story that shouldn't be ignored by any city in this angry nation of ours right now, the new county mayor also said he would soon sell a nice Chevrolet Tahoe that accompanies his office and, instead, will drive his "old Jeep that has about 175,000 miles on it."

Last week, as Mike Ragsdale was cleaning out his office in Knoxville, the word got out that several top people would not be retained by Burchett, the new Mayor. Rather than await the political executioner, communications director Susanne Dupes, director of public works Bruce Wuethrich, and director of library services Larry Frank promptly resigned.

The "hook" came a day or two later when former Mayor Ragsdale, who lost the seat due of term limits, promptly doled out almost $78,000 to the three in severance pay. Are you with me here? Think about this -- since the three weren't actually fired, the outgoing Mayor handed out packages that, when you add accrued vacation time and health insurance, will cost Knox County about $112,000. How does that sit with you?

Obviously the County Commission is pretty well steamed but, what's worse, a loud and heated public outcry has ensued. The county commissioners have started plans to prohibit severances packages in the future but, according to county law, they can't stop a mayor who desires to pay it.

Burchett's chief of staff (who'll also drive his own vehicle instead of one provided by the county) said there may be some legal issues with the severance packages. Dean Rice announced no money would be paid out until Knox County Law Director Joe Jarret verifies that the packages were legal.

Burchett, a former state senator as well as a past member of the Tennessee House, was quoted in the Knoxville News-Sentinel as saying, "I, along with my senior staff and director, will do like employees do around the country.

"We will log our mileage and file reimbursement for justified business travel using the standard federal reimbursement rate -- no take-home car, no allowance -- just straight reimbursement for miles driven to work," the new county mayor explained.

Burchett is expected to replace about 90 percent of the Ragsdale staff and will eliminate three "director level positions." Further, his staff will institute "almost 50 percent change in senior level directors." Get this: Burchett has also issued orders, according to the Knoxville newspaper, for every county department under his direction to suspend all travel that requires hotel and airfare costs. When and if necessary, travel must be approved by Burnett himself.

Rice, the county mayor’s chief, further outlined sweeping changes. According to a News-Sentinel story, “he said the mayor's office, which operates on a $1.35 million budget, will have about a 90 percent turnover rate, mostly through previous attrition that started about a month ago. He said some of the positions won't be filled and others, particularly in general administrative work, will be consolidated.”

In a 10-minute speech after he was sworn in, Burchett told an enthusiastic audience, "I cannot promise you I will never make a mistake. But I can promise you I will do my very best," the new mayor said. "I will be honest and I will never forget that you are my bosses and that this is our community and our home."
Are you getting the picture? Better yet, are you getting the emotion, the mood, the stance? It’s just like Knox County law director Joe Jaret stage-whispered to a Knoxville reporter during the new mayor’s speech, “Welcome to a new era in Knox County government.”

The people will be heard. They are the ones newly-seated Knox County Mayor Tim Burchett is duly charged to serve. And, what’s more, he’s the first to realize it. Again, grasp the whole. My goodness, the repercussions are enormous.

“There is no magic bullet ... and there is no single step that will put us on a perfect financial path, but I am confident that if we remain focused on the principles that brought us here, you will stand with us and help make our county better,” Burchett said.

Isn’t it obvious? A different day has come to politics, to Tennessee, and to you and me. Trust me, what is unfolding in Knoxville will probably be repeated all across America if what I am hearing through my stethoscope is true.

In Chattanooga we have just recalled a Mayor for the first time in history. Others will follow in the heated process. But if you aren’t paying attention, look no farther than Knoxville because when new County Mayor Tim Burchett says the people are his “bosses,” he just may have the all the turmoil finally figured out.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post Opinion

Depressed Over Left-Dominated Politics? Let Dr. Bob Cheer You Up!

By Robert Weissberg

By nature I’m disinclined to offer psychological counseling but times do change, so let me offer some guidance to those depressed by today’s politics. Here’s the story. I regularly encounter dozens of clear-thinking, conservatively minded folk who are convinced that the sky is falling--Obama is about to impose Socialism, entitlement-driven national bankruptcy is months away, radical Muslims are about to conquer Europe and on and on. And I assume that for each face-to-face encounter, thousands more share these disheartening views. Make no mistake, this alarm is reasonable, horrific events are genuine and we certainly should fight back, but an objective assessment suggests that today’s often Left-dominated politics is not as catastrophic as believed.

 

Here’s why: malaise sufferers grossly exaggerate the Left’s impact on our personal lives. The Left’s manic politicking, even their occasional media-heralded victories, is not the end of our worlds. Good, right-thinking people have Houdini-like skills in avoiding the consequences of Lefty machinations, but unfortunately for our mental health we under-estimate our triumphs. Indeed, our often silent victories only drive our enemies to greater and usually futile activism which in turn, often brings even greater doom and gloom.

 

The road to recovery begins by recognizing differences in the personal importance of politics. For those on the Left plus radical Muslims, politics is paramount, the first go-to option; by contrast, for conservatives politicking is almost always subordinated to more personal concerns—family, earning a living ,church, hobbies, volunteering in a charity, socializing with friends, and otherwise avoiding the turmoil of civic engagement. This pattern is definitional since embracing state-centered solutions makes one a Leftie while Righties favor personal responsibility.  

 

Consider how this plays out in education. How can a parent react when junior is being fed nonsense at the local public school? Conservatives might relocate to a community with better schools, hire a tutor, check out an after-school “cram academy,” investigate possible web-based instruction, browbeat junior, offer lessons over the dinner table, try home schooling, visit the school’s principal and complain or just instruct one’s offspring on how to make the best of a bad situation. Those on the Left, by contrast, apply political pressure: hold boisterous rallies, file lawsuits, vote for candidates who promise bigger education budgets, keep junior home to protest dismal test scores and otherwise demand that government rescue them. And if these tactics fail, just keep repeating as if more noise will suffice. The different menus reflect ingrained ideological habits, not careful cost/benefit assessments of alternatives. Mothers picketing the school to protest “unfair” discipline might be better off personally making sure junior obeys the rules but marching just seems more “natural.” 

 

Illustrations abound. In health care conservatives endorse healthier habits and regular check-ups; Lefties demand “free” government health care as if “free” would promote better eating habits. If crime soars, conservatives flee to gated communities or buy guns; Lefties demand government eliminate crime by ameliorating root causes; for conservatives reducing foreign oil consumption means buying a fuel efficient but technologically pedestrian $17,00 Chevy Cruz while Lefties demand billions in government subsidies for a $41,000 Chevy Volts, an identical car except for engines though the Cruz is a bit roomier. Conservatives outraged over sky-rocketing taxes adjust their portfolios to tax free bonds, shift funds to overseas tax havens or otherwise take very private steps to minimize the newly inflicted tax bite. Personalized involvement even applies in foreign affairs via church volunteer missions (critical in many developing nations) or investing in stock funds targeting specific countries or regions e.g., for Africa, see here.  

 

Clearly, the singular element that separates these two ideological tendencies is their public quality. Lefties love the public arena, making a ruckus, marching and issuing demands, creating committees to save gay whales, decorating cars with bumper stickers and otherwise gratifying their exhibitionist urge. Needless to say, the mass media quickly gobbles this up. Great for action-addicted viewers. No New York City TV station will ignore the Rev. Al Sharpton parading noisy school children holding hand-written signs demanding that Mayor Bloomberg make them educated? Who wants to “waste” a mobile TV crew in some obscure Queens, NY neighborhood where young Koreans quietly sit in a storefront cram academy to boost SAT scores?     

 

This is not to say that conservatives are political shut-ins. They do have their public side as the Tea Party illustrates but this is hardly their normal modus operandi. One might even argue that the very idea of conservatives making a public commotion is attention-getting since it is out-of-character. Savvy conservatives also know that the public quickly tires of strident demonstrations so effectiveness requires judicious use. Accomplishment outshines yet one more opportunity to get one’s picture on the 6:00PM News.

 

Back to the therapy. It is not easy maintaining one’s sunny disposition when confronted with “the other side” seemingly monopolizing publicity while “our side” is neglected. We also have a masochistic appetite for sky-is-falling bad news via the web. This imbalance certainly has all the outward signs of imminent defeat. And it only makes matters worse when I explain that “our side” often steadfastly avoids publicity or at least speaking frankly. Who wants to admit to using off-shore banking or running an all-cash business to avoid Obama’s massive tax increases? In fact, many of the private tactics favored by conservatives are judged “bad” by the Left-leaning mass media. What parent, white or black, will confess to white flight when schools become dominated by anti-intellectual lower-class blacks? In other words, we seem apathetic while the other side in on a rampage.  

 

So here’s my therapeutic advice. Don’t calibrate political battles by who receives the most publicity. The correct measure is accomplishment, not publicity, and here the outcomes are more upbeat. Let the Lefties hold their parades to demand that Washington make them healthy, wealthy and wise. My bet is that twenty years from now most of these demonstrators, despite subsidized medical treatment, will still be as sickly as before while their children are still waiting for Washington bureaucrats to put knowledge into their under-utilized brains. Meanwhile, those depressed over this activism will be healthy, wealthy and wise thanks to personal ingenuity. Not perfect but hardly a disaster.

 

Let Dr. Bob conclude with some sound political advice. I am not suggesting that we abandon politics to the Left or lapse into dangerous denial. Oscar Wilde once said that socialism will never work since it took too many evenings and he was right. We cannot match the Left’s time-consuming political obsessions so we must choose our public battles carefully, especially when we move beyond voting and electioneering. Now for the Great Wisdom: decentralization is the fact of political life permitting us to thrive despite the Left’s statist mania. Sustaining political firewalls is critical though day-to-day issue-based politics often pushes this aside. One more time: differences in governance between North Dakota and California, Newark, NJ versus Minneapolis, MN is what permits conservatives to thrive while avoiding time-consuming, often futile Lefty style politics. Remember, it is not easy to escape horrific education if Washington totally dictates education policy. Ditto for escaping confiscatory taxes—we need places to hide.

 

In sum, the transitory issues of the day are important but we should not neglect the value of localism. It is our ability to escape Washington’s power, not out-mobilize the Lefties that permits our survival.   

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Robert Weissberg is emeritus professor of political science, University of Illinois-Urbana and currently an adjunct instructor at New York University Department of Politics (graduate). He has written many books, the most recent being “Bad Students, Not Bad Schools: How both the Right and the Left have American education wrong.” Besides writing for professional journals, he has also written for magazines like the Weekly Standard and currently contributes to various blogs.

In Honor Of William F Buckley

The Brief - Mark Alexander

THE FOUNDATION

William F. Buckley Jr. (1925-2008)

"Eloquence has been defined to be the art of persuasion. If it included persuasion by convincing, [he] was the most eloquent man I ever heard." -Patrick Henry

PUBLISHER'S NOTE

In honor of the life and work of William F. Buckley Jr., today's Patriot Brief will be in part dedicated to this giant of conservatism and mentor to our key staff. He was one of two individuals who helped take The Patriot Post from concept to reality. He provided promotion for our publication during our first year of operation, a year in which we expected to gain 5,000 readers, but which, with Mr. Buckley's help and advice, resulted in more than 25,000 subscribers. Those subscribers were the foundation for what is now the most widely subscribed Internet-based publication of any political stripe.

At age 29, Buckley launched National Review with this founding statement: "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." Buckley edited National Review for 35 years, writing more than 800 articles and editorials. He also published 55 books and 5,600 opinion columns, gave some 70 speeches a year and taped more than 1,400 "Firing Line" TV shows. Whether or not one agrees with all of his ideas, his impact on the conservative movement can hardly be overstated.

INSIGHT

"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and Liberals at bay. And the nation free." -William F. Buckley Jr.

CULTURE

"Buckley was a one-man refutation of Hollywood's idea of a conservative. He was rising in the 1950s and early ‘60s, and Hollywood's idea of a conservative was still Mr. Potter, the nasty old man of ‘It's a Wonderful Life,' who would make a world of grubby Pottersvilles if he could, who cared only about money and the joy of bullying idealists. Bill Buckley's persona, as the first famous conservative of the modern media age, said no to all that. Conservatives are brilliant, capacious, full of delight at the world and full of mischief, too. That's what he was. He upended old clichés... I share here a fear. It is not that the conservative movement is ending, that Bill's death is the period on a long chapter... Conservatism will endure if it is rooted in truth, and in the truths of life. It is. It is rather that with the loss of Bill Buckley we are, as a nation, losing not only a great man...[W]e are losing his kind-people who were deeply, broadly educated in great universities when they taught deeply and broadly, who held deep views of life and the world and art and all the things that make life more delicious and more meaningful. We have work to do as a culture in bringing up future generations that are so well rounded, so full and so inspiring. Bill Buckley lived a great American life. His heroism was very American-the individualist at work in the world, the defender of great creeds and great beliefs going forth with spirit, style and joy. May we not lose his kind. For now, ‘Good night, sweet prince, and flights of angels take thee to thy rest'." -Peggy Noonan

THE GIPPER

"You didn't just part the Red Sea-you rolled it back, dried it up and left exposed, for all the world to see, the naked desert that is statism. And then, as if that weren't enough, you gave the world something different, something in its weariness it desperately needed, the sound of laughter and the sight of the rich, green uplands of freedom." -President Ronald Reagan to William F. Buckley Jr., on the occasion of National Review's 30th anniversary in 1985

"I want to say just a word or two about... Bill Buckley. And unlike Bill, I'll try to keep my words to single syllables, or at the worst, only two. You know, I've often thought when I've been faced with memorandums from deep in the bowels of the bureaucracy what I wouldn't give to have Bill as an interpreter...I think you know that National Review is my favorite magazine... NR isn't a favorite only because it's fought the good fight so long and so well, although that would be reason enough. It's my favorite because it's splendidly written, brilliantly edited, and a pleasure to read. In fact, I honestly believe even if I were to suffer from mental illness or convert to liberalism for some other reason-NR would still be my favorite magazine because of its wit and its charm and intellectual quality of its contents... Let me just close by saying a heartfelt thank you to National Review for all you've done for the values we share." -Ronald Reagan

OPINION IN BRIEF

"Today's America has quite a different political climate from the one into which William Frank Buckley was born November 24, 1925, mainly because he made the difference. It was an America in which the conservative philosophy could scarcely be called a philosophy; it was more like a relic under glass, its skeletal remains rolled out now and then for an occasional autopsy by Walter Lippmann or a funeral mass under the direction of George Santayana. Any distinction between conservative thought and right-wing nuttism, the holy and profane, had long ago blurred into inconsequentiality... It's not that Bill Buckley was present at the creation of the conservative revival; he pretty much created it, beginning at Yale... If you seek his monument today, just look around. Conservatism is now the dominant American political philosophy, and liberalism the series of irritable mental gestures. But nothing disorganizes an army or cause like victory. Conservatism's intellectual dominance now shows in its smug self-satisfaction, its various cracks and fault lines, its slow subsidence from fighting idea to just reflex, its progression from courage to hubris. And there is no new Buckley in sight, someone who could both mobilize and re-invigorate the old true ideas, even while entertaining us all. But the sea change in American ideas that he presided over is unmistakable... Something tells me we have only begun to miss William F. Buckley Jr." -Paul Greenberg

RE: THE LEFT

"As everyone knows, Bill Buckley almost single-handedly created the modern conservative movement in America. Before Buckley, conservatives were scorned as ‘the stupid party' in John Stuart Mill's memorable formulation. Lionel Trilling argued in the late 1940s that conservatives didn't have ideas so much as ‘irritable mental gestures.' What could they say of Bill Buckley, a polymath whose wit could be withering, whose prose was pellucid, and whose energy was seemingly inexhaustible? Bill's talents were so galvanic that they energized an entire movement, first among those who joined him at National Review-James Burnham, Priscilla Buckley (Bill's sister and the magazine's managing editor), Frank Meyer, Wilmoore Kendall and Whittaker Chambers-and then in concentric circles to include, I think it safe to assert, every important conservative thinker today. All owe Bill a huge intellectual debt, and many benefited from his generosity personally... Now that we see his life in full, we have even more reason to marvel and to honor him for what he was: a great man-a once-in-a-century figure." -Mona Charen

FOR THE RECORD

"Whenever Bill Buckley was profiled in the media, he was usually pinned firmly to words such as ‘impish' and ‘gadfly.' It is easy to understand why. He was a wit-and a reckless wit at that. Asked what he would first do if elected mayor of New York in 1965, he replied: ‘Demand a recount.' Bores cling to the consoling thought that such a sharp wit must also be frivolous and ineffectual, but Bill was one of the most effectual men of our time... First... he established the National Review. By reconciling brilliant but quarrelsome and more senior talents, he shaped a new philosophy for conservatives wandering disconsolately in New Deal America. Second, he used the magazine to reconcile the quarrelsome factions of conservatism-economic libertarians, moral traditionalists, foreign policy hawks-around this philosophy. Third, he used his own celebrity and ‘Firing Line' to give confidence to conservatives nationwide by taking on eminent liberals in debate and dispatching them with better arguments and better jokes. When conservatives saw Bill jab the air with the point of his pencil or devastate a guest with some witty epigram, they would feel, perhaps for the first time: ‘They can never win.' And as long as Bill was alive, they never could... He was a great man and a figure of great historical significance." -John O'Sullivan

THE LAST WORD

"In 1999, Buckley was interviewed for ‘Nightline' by Ted Koppel. ‘Mr. Buckley, we have 10 seconds left,' Koppel said at the end. ‘Could you sum up in 10 seconds?' Buckley replied, simply: ‘No.' In the days ahead, no one will find it easy to sum up Bill Buckley's extraordinary legacy. His output was so prodigious and his range so immense that he routinely made the rest of us ‘feel like hopeless underachievers,' as I wrote in a column four years ago. Today Buckley's astonishing, history-changing output comes to an end. His life and his life's work will resonate for many years to come." -Jeff Jacoby

Veritas vos Liberabit-Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families-especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

Read more excellent articles here > The Patriot Post.US

Tagged: arguments, broadly educated, charm, conservatism, Conservative, entertaining, foreign policy hawks, Frank Meyer, Freedom, generosity, individualist, inspiring, intellectual, James Burnham, jokes, laughter, Liberals, libertarians, mentor, moral traditionalists, National Review, New Deal America, obedient to God, old clichés, philosophy, Priscilla Buckley, prodigious, statism, truth, Whittaker Chambers, William F Buckley, Wilmoore Kendall, witty epigram.