According to the New York Times, a congressional panel fears that the next terrorist attack on the United States will involve the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. “In a report to be released this week, the Congressionally mandated panel found that with countries like Iran and North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons programs, and with the risk of poorly secured biological pathogens growing, unconventional threats are fast outpacing the defenses arrayed to confront them.” The article continued:

“America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” the bipartisan panel concluded.

“Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan,” the report states, citing the country’s terrorist haven along the border with Afghanistan and its tense relations with nuclear rival India.

“Pakistan is an ally, but there is a grave danger it could also be an unwitting source of a terrorist attack on the United States — possibly with weapons of mass destruction,” the
report said.

Kathleen Parker’s recent article in Jewish World Review does a good job assessing the average American’s understanding of civics, and she was equally credible tying this lack of understanding in to our recent presidential elections. She does overlook one or two things, however. The first is that American education today is precisely where socialist educators wanted it to be from the beginning of their efforts ninety years ago. We cannot expect the American people to choose wisely (from a conservative point of view), when liberal educators have been busily dumbing down our children for more than three generations. I agree American voters did not choose wisely in the past election, but they do have a right under our Constitution to throw off the manacles of freedom in exchange “free” government programs. Our forefathers didn’t trust popular wisdom, and this explains why they created a republic, rather than a democracy.

Last week Victor Hanson wrote a typically exceptional essay, during which he reminded us, “Failure is not an option.” I had to laugh. Failure is most certainly an option. It has always been an option . . . just not one that we older Americans selected for our Nation, our families, or future generations. Failure is always possible, and perhaps even likely in the most difficult endeavors. But we should note the difference between the failure of men who tried to do well, but fell short, and those who failed because they were lazy, inept, or corrupt. Republicans failed when they promised us smaller government, when they reneged on their contract with America. One cannot achieve smaller government while maintaining massive spending, and I think spending less is the key to conservative, smaller government.

The other day, I watched a YouTube video with Mary Katherine Ham participating in a Heritage Foundation forum. The entire focus of the discussion surrounded the question of how to attract younger voters to the conservative camp. They discussed video presentations and ‘chic’ gadgets, and massive text messaging ala Barack Obama. I suppose that’s our direction these days. But I wonder how much substance one can possibly put in 140 characters of text messaging? Not much; but then, how much substance can younger people retain for more than thirty seconds? As I listened carefully to the discussion, it suddenly dawned on me these people were discussing almost everyone in the United States below my age bracket. The “new generation” consists of people content to know, rather than to understand . . . they would rather amuse themselves with video games than read a book.

The new conservative leaders are people like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindel, and Mark Sanford . . . and while they may recall Ronald Reagan for his contributions, they speak of Reaganism as something that occurred in the “olden days,” somewhere around time when Davy Crockett “kilt his self a bar when he was only three.” I cannot help but wonder if Ham’s post-election discussion would have pursued a different track had John McCain not demonstrated how irrelevant or “out of touch” older people are.

I wish the new generation luck, of course. The new conservative leaders will be dealing directly with people who are the product of liberal education, who do not know the fundamentals of American government, and true to form, don’t really care. Liberals, of course, understand it is easy to lead the ignorant . . . and this is why I believe so much effort has gone into dumbing down the American people. Conspiracy theories always raise eyebrows, but I can find no other explanation why extraordinarily expensive school systems are only able to produce woefully uninformed people who lack the capacity of critical thinking. Well, it did seem to work well enough for socialists in Europe; we Americans just happen to be the last great society to trade government oppression for human dignity and liberty.

After the new generation of conservative political leader finds out how to send text messages, wrap themselves in attractive packaging, and learn how to speak to vast crowds in small sound bites, I hope someone will do something important for the American education system, if it isn’t too late. Since only thirty-four percent of the American electorate is conservative, the failure of our new political leaders to woo moderates toward traditional ideology can only mean one thing: the end of conservatism.

Cross-post: Conservative Convictions

Like the deserters who plagued General Washington’s Continental Army, we may never resolve our problem with politicians until we can shoot one of two of them. That concept, as attractive as it might seem to a few, is hardly practical and ignores political reality. American people elect politicians, so that if we are unhappy with their performance in the Congress or state legislatures, there is no one to blame than ourselves. The truth is that in spite of campaign rhetoric, most of these elected officials are pursuing their own agenda, they relish the power and prestige of their offices, and they realize that it is much more difficult to get elected than it is to be reelected. They understand that they only work for us on a, "kinda, sorta" basis.

While I blame voters for shoddy politicians, fairness requires that I also acknowledge the difficulty of maintaining interest in congressional activity when we hardly ever see an acceptable result. It is true that the information we need is “out there,” but how many of us have the time or inclination to research the Congressional Record — most of which is written in legalese — to find out how our representative voted? How many of us are inclined to write a letter to our Representative expressing concern, or to offer a viable suggestion? The answer to both questions is, “not many.” So we should not be surprised that elected officials will pursue their own agenda no matter what we think, and even in spite of our taking the time to write letters or make telephone calls. That was the intention of "representative democracy," after all.

Elected officials, particularly those in the House of Representatives, are supposed to represent our interests at the national level. They don’t. I might even suggest that with few exceptions, they cannot do that. Party politics does not employ “majority and minority whips” for nothing. A House maverick will not gain assignments to “choice committees,” and this means that ultimately, he or she will not have much to write home about. A “team player” will therefore focus more on making the party leadership happy than they will the folks back home . . . but of course, if the party succeeds, then so too will the individual representative. At least, that’s how it seems to work.

I believe Americans give too much attention to the White House, and not enough are paying attention to what happens in the House of Representatives. As it happens, our founding fathers did intend for the House of Representatives to be our primary link to national politics. Sadly, the power of the people only exists on one day every two years, and only then for a period of twelve hours. Once we cast our vote, our job is over for another two years. Overall, it isn’t very much power, is it? Maybe if “we the people” began to assert more power over our Representatives, we’d actually gain more power.

So far, in the past 48-hours, we heard president-elect Barack Obama vow his commitment to all Americans and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gloat about the overwhelming numbers of Democrats ready to assume power in the next sixty days. How Democrats wield their new political power will be at least interesting, emphasizing the word “power” of course, over that of say . . . governance. All of our nation’s resources are in the hands of those seated in the People’s House; the newly won increased-majority of Democrats is enough to convince Ms. Pelosi that that body has achieved a national mandate to implement its vision for America. She’s probably right about that.

Make no mistake; national sovereignty no longer rests within the grasp of the American people. Our one chance (every two years) of exercising imperium occurred and expired on November 4th. Whether the American people exercised that power wisely is another question, and yes, time will tell. We will soon learn whether the “new direction” is where Americans really wanted to go, and in another four years we can once again ask the tired question, “Are we better off now than we were in 2008?”

For his part, Barack Obama did exercise tremendous imperium over the American people. As political scientist Ian MacMillan explained, “Power is the capacity to restructure actual situations, and influence is the capacity to control and modify the perceptions of others.” If we believe that Mr. Obama implemented the Saul Alinsky rulebook, then we can possibly argue that he did a fair job “restructuring actual situations” as it applies to the so-called financial markets crisis; it is certainly true that Mr. Obama successfully modified the perceptions of voters about who he is, and what he represents.

And yet I wonder if most Americans do not comprehend their true power lies in a modestly sized document we call the Constitution of the United States; it is the one document (outside case law) that limits the power of government, and it occurs to me that limiting power is in fact the greatest power of all. The problem is that the Supreme Court decides matters of constitutionality, and until someone or an organization sues the federal government alleging unconstitutional behavior, Congress and presidents are free to run roughshod over the rights of the people.

Of course, we have all witnessed examples of such lawsuits in the past eight years involving such questions as the right and manner of interrogating prisoners, the emphasis being on the rights of prisoners, rather than the right of the people to remain secure in their homes. It would seem to me that if the Congress or administration truly believed in upholding the Constitution, this country would not have to contend with such issues as twenty-million illegal aliens.

According to the policies of Bill Clinton, terrorism was a law enforcement matter. This explains why we lost good people in the first attack on the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, two embassies, and a ship of war, the second attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and passengers on Flight 93. How Barack Obama and the Congress intend to pursue “the war on terror” will be interesting to most of us, but it could also be deadly to some of us. We should wonder about the direction Democrats would now take us in such matters; I suspect we all know the answer.

In matters of society, a new direction is likely to take us further into government control of our so-called free enterprise system. I use the term “so-called” because government has asserted itself in this area for the past eighty years. Hardly anyone alive today can recall what it was like to live in the pre-Great Depression era. What we know from history, however, is that greedy people caused the stock market crash, government didn’t do anything about it, the phenomena expanded to worldwide proportions, and only a world war brought us out of it. No, not the economic policies of Franklin Roosevelt — he actually made matters worse; many today argue that Herbert Hoover actually had the right idea. But since government regulation of financial markets hasn’t worked very well since 1977, Congress now wants to re-regulate the industry and intend to use hundreds of billions of dollars of our money to do it. Based on the election results, we have to assume that it is okay with most people that government will give mortgage defaulters “a second chance” at our expense. It is, after all, the humane course — much akin to redistributing income.

Increased spending means one, or all of three things: increased debt, increased taxes, or both. As Congress and the new Obama administration begin to deal with such matters, we should perhaps note Congress does not have the constitutional authority to meddle in free market activities, but also that no one has ever sued the federal government for this transgression. We should also wonder if the Congress has the right to impose national health care — particularly if it entails involuntary participation; we might wonder if the costs outweigh the result. It is certainly true that government has a rather poor track-record providing “services” to the American people; we need look no further than education as our case in point.

Our founding fathers saw government as an evil force, but a necessary one. It is why they gave us the Constitution; it protects us from government excess. The tragedy is that most Americans do not know this, or forgot, or don’t even care. Any of these three possibilities should lead my reader to conclude that the genesis of Neo-imperium is our ignorance and our apathy. Under these conditions, what direction do we honestly think our government will take us?

When Barack Obama stood behind the podium in Wisconsin, he said, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream,’ just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself,’ just words. Just speeches?”

"It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems, but what is also true is if we cannot inspire the country to believe again then it doesn’t matter how many policies and plans we have . . . that is why we just won eight elections straight, because the American people want to believe in change again. Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

“And the Warren court interpreted it generally the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties; it says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”

“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that . . . it became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

The real enemy of the United States of America and its people isn’t Al-Qaeda, or Iran, or any number of socialist-radical terrorists now cleverly disguised as common run-of-the-mill college professors at Chicago University. No, they are not. The real enemy of the American people is dirty rotten rich people. You know whom I mean; those worthless slugs who make millions and millions of dollars by taking advantage of poor unsuspecting American workers. Scurrilous people who steal from their corporations, and in some cases, whose greed causes them to do horrendous things to innocent little children — such as selling defective and potentially harmful goods to their parents knowing full-well their parents are too stupid to read warning labels. I write of no-good slugs who rather than running our greatest corporations, ought to be put in jail until their flesh rots from their bones. They’ve destroyed our economy, damn their eyes!

Well, at least that is what Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi and a host of other communists want you to believe. Mr. Frank has as much promised to squeeze these miserable rich bastards until our economic problems disappear. This is probably why our economy won’t recover any time soon. The problem isn’t our corporate structure; it is our socialist Congress. Many of us know this . . . but few are able to convince average Americans of the facts. Most Americans do not understand the economy, do not care how it works, and cannot bother with intelligent analysis. They are products of the American education system; they are the design and product of socialist educators.

Let us begin with this acknowledgement. There are some crooks in the corporate world. There are crooks everywhere. There are dishonest politicians, crooked cops, and there are even some cheating taxpayers. But if we think that most corporate executives are dishonest, then we are being dishonest with ourselves. There are people like Ken Lay, but there are also good, up-standing men like Bill Gates who is perhaps one of the most philanthropic men in the world today. And while we may rightly condemn Ken Lay for his dishonesty, socialists in Congress are far, far worse. Their dishonesty includes the spoken and written word, their intent, and their deeds. Yet, we elect them repeatedly.

What do our major corporations do for us? The list is long, but I’ll start with the obvious: they hire Americans, pay them a decent wage, provide benefits, and in time, may also offer pensions. In many cases, they provide the training and certification for workers to advance financially. Were it not for automotive plants, there would be no demand for corollary industries: glass, rubber, wiring, batteries, radios, upholstery, and tools. The advent of cars and trucks created a demand for motels, trailers, traffic lights, highway signs, and improved roads and expressways — each of which employ tens of millions of workers. Corporations are the engines of our economy; without them, people could not afford to purchase goods and services that create jobs for other people.

But politicians have a different view of corporations. They are cash cows for politicians who seek to increase spending on socialist programs — some of which actually benefit Americans; many do not. Barack Obama, for example, tells voters that he wants to do something about the cost of living in America. He wants to increase corporate taxes, and reduce income taxes; he wants to “give something back” to the American worker. Let’s analyze that for a moment.

Increases to cost of living depend on several variables. While corporations strive to maintain a certain level of profitability because corporate health demands it, companies pass every single dime of increased cost along to consumers. We may wonder why cars cost so much these days, as compared to forty years ago. How much have wages increased in the same period? How much have utility costs increased? How much have local, county, state, and federal taxes increased? If the cost of rubber increases, so too does the cost of every single rubber product. How many rubber parts are there on the average automobile? If an automotive union successfully negotiates a new labor contract for higher wages, so too does everyone in an affiliated union. Corporations do not drive up living costs as much as the gluttony of workers and taxing agencies.

While Congress regards corporations as a primary source of revenue, as consumer costs continue to escalate, at what point will consumers stop buying manufactured goods? In 1982, the Microsoft operating system cost less than fifty-dollars; today the improved version is three times that. When Microsoft Office first hit the market, it cost fewer than one-hundred dollars; today it cost over nine-hundred. What happens when consumers decide the cost is too high? Will Microsoft drop their prices, or will they begin laying-off workers? Because if this or any other company cannot maintain its profitability, it will simply fold . . . and the well-paid workers will become eligible for the welfare programs socialist politicians love to provide. Yes, even if that means driving more companies out of business.

Examine the plight of White Trucking Company, a profitable manufacturer of quality automobiles and trucks from 1900 to 1981. They also produced bicycles, sewing machines, lathes, and roller skates. After World War II, White manufactured Freightliner trucks for its parent company, while at the same time producing its own brands: White, Autocar, and Western Star trucks. It employed hundreds of unionized workers in Ohio, all of whom demanded ever-higher wages and benefits. In the late 1970s, White could no longer afford to pay its workers the salaries they demanded, so workers walked off the job. In disgust, White closed its plant and sold its assets to Volvo and General Motors. Employees, who were making a good wage suddenly found themselves working as burger jockeys for minimum wages. When this once profitable company folded, it caused a significant economic depression in Ohio.

The way to make things fair is not to punish the rich by making them poorer. The way to make things fair is to make the poor richer.

“One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of ‘working families.’”
“It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

 

“For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

“Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Once upon a time, we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.” [Note: my grandparents would call it an outright lie—Ed.]

 

“The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.”