Why RINOism is killing America

The Mayor of New York City, Mike Bloomberg, is a Republican, as is the Governator of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Mayor has proposed a plan for NYC that would impose a new tax, in the form of a “congestion fee”, of $8/day on cars and $21/day on trucks that enter the downtown area. The funds from that tax would be directed toward mass transit projects. You can read the full story Here.

Meanwhile, in California, Sacramento Democrats are proposing a new law that would mandate state-provided universal health care coverage. The Governator opposes this proposal. It’s the basis of the Governator’s opposition that is important: he’s demanding that his own proposal for government-mandated health care insurance – funded by employers or individual subscribers – be enacted, a plan that would use the tax code to penalize anyone not covered by health insurance. Read the full story Here.

The Mayor’s plan is a classic example of using governmental power to implement social engineering in the form of the liberal idea of compulsory dependence on mass transit. The Governator’s proposal is also dependant on the application of the power of the tax to deprive people of choice in the matter of how to protect themselves and their families.

The Mayor’s a rabid gun controller; the Governator’s a big proponent of anti-global-warming mandates.

These are textbook liberal methods and ideas, yet both these men were elected into office as Republicans. How can this be happening?

It’s because of the paradigm shift in the Republican Party away from principle and toward political expediency. Both men hold power in liberal bastions, and the argument is made that in order to win elections concessions – compromises – in principle and on issues must be accepted in order for the GOP to succeed.

But if at the same time the GOP is transformed from a party that actually stands for something identifiable into another thing that is simply a modified version of the Democrat Party, what exactly is the point? What is being gained?

This is precisely the question that is now being debated among the ranks of conservatives and Republicans at this unique point in history. There is no incumbent running for President. The GOP has been soundly rebuked during the last election. The putative frontrunners, Giuliani and McCain, really hold no conservative credentials. Though time may, in reality, consign them to irrelevancy as other potential candidates – possibly Fred Thompson or Tom Tancredo – rise to prominence, I think this debate at this time is constructive as well as instructive.

The GOP is truly the only extant political party of substance with a realistic presence in the national arena that can represent traditional values. But as I’ve written before, if the party leaders become convinced that they can maintain power without committing themselves to upholding those values, then the easy way is to “compromise” the values beyond any point of recognition.

The net result will be that more Mayors and Governators will be elected to office, at ever-higher levels as evidenced by the candidacies of Giuliani and McCain, until current conservative doctrine is simply a thing of the past.

The whole country will turn into NYC and California.

 

“… the right of the People to keep and bear arms,

shall not be infringed”

Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The tragic shooting rampage this week at Virginia Tech (VT) led to the immediate – and expected – call by the Left for more stringent gun controls. On various columns on this web site, the debate has been fast, furious, and sometimes emotional; no surprise as it is an emotional issue.

Sometimes, I can’t help but envision the anti-gunners as a group of vultures sitting on the telephone wires, just waiting for someone to die so they can just swoop down onto the still-warm carcass.

To me, this debate clearly illustrates the difference in mindset between Left and Right. The Left views government as the solution to all problems; the Right views government as the problem.

As Reagan joked, the most feared sentence is: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”.

Anti-gunners hold, as always, that just a bit more regulation would prevent this kind of occurrence. Of course, as gun rights in other countries – most notably Australia and the UK – have been whittled away, we can see the fallacy of this position. In both countries, as gun ownership has evaporated an inverse increase in crime rates – particularly violent crimes – has been evidenced on a dramatic scale. Bad guys may be bad, but they’re not necessarily foolish. They know their intended victims are now unarmed, so they have become ever bolder. As crime rates increase, the gun laws become ever more draconian in response, until in the UK BB guns have been banned and now they’re even going after knives, including kitchen utensils. Just when you think the absurdity has reached its peak, you are proven wrong once again. Further, in the UK people who defend themselves against criminal attack are prosecuted and imprisoned, a truly bizarre twist to escalating Leftist hysteria.

Whenever discussing the issue, anti-gunners are also always careful to leave Switzerland and Israel out of the discussion. In both countries, firearms ownership is pervasive, and both enjoy very low crime rates. In Switzerland, ownership is mandatory, and every home has at least one firearm and plenty of ammo, in most cases a fully-automatic assault rifle. In Israel, not only is ownership common, so is the carrying of guns in public. To good effect, I might add, as several bomb-carrying terrorists have been blown out of their socks before they could detonate their devices. One must wonder if that would have been the outcome at VT if at least some of those students or faculty had been armed.

Liberals also seem to hold that the police will or can provide some type of protection. This is absolutely untrue. The job of the police is to respond after the fact, and arrest offenders. How can they possibly act proactively in a free society? Divine someone’s intent, then arrest them as a prophylactic measure? Further, where would all these police come from? They’d have to be everywhere at the same time. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in South v. Maryland that police had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are willing to accept responsibility for their own actions, and want the government to simply get out of the way as much as possible. It’s a necessary evil. Speaking for myself, I share the view of the Founding Fathers that I don’t think government per se can be trusted as far as you can throw it, and private gun ownership is the ultimate guarantee that it remains “of, by and for the People” to paraphrase Lincoln.

No other Amendment or Right means anything if the people who enjoy those rights don’t have the means to guarantee their retention. The final arbiter is the People, with their privately owned firearms. WE have more guns than the government.

Further, let’s not forget what the Revolutionary War was all about. King George and Great Britain were the lawful government of the colonies, until we revolted. Also, don’t forget what government action triggered “the shot heard ‘round the world”: an attempt by the legally constituted government of the time to confiscate citizens’ privately owned firearms. In other words, it was about gun control!

The Founders were justifiably leery about the unchecked power of government, as indeed we should be today. Our government requires the consent of the governed; our guns guarantee it isn’t coerced or pre-empted.

________________________________________________________


Update of 20 April 2007

Surpisingly good news on this Fox News poll: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267085,00.html

And a surprising editorial in today's LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wilson20apr20,0,4514008.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

 

The seeds of destruction are sown from within

There’s a significant philosophical debate heating up this election cycle between Republican Regulars and conservatives, and here at Townhall I find myself at the point of the conservative spear. The putative current frontrunners are Giuliani and McCain, and we’re told by the Regulars that regardless of how we feel, should either end up as the Republican nominee we should, if necessary, hold our noses and give them the nod.

I, on the other hand, have huge problems with that idea, even assuming I could find a gas mask strong enough.

A historical perspective: when I first came to California over 35 years ago, it was a pretty normal state politically. Alioto was Mayor of San Francisco, as I recall, and he was considered well out of the mainstream as a liberal. That, obviously, gradually changed over time.

Twenty-odd years ago, I was a Young Republican, but after a few years quit in disgust over the schism within the party, as the “moderate” wing totally marginalized the conservative wing so they could shamelessly pander for votes. Conservative principles were outright disavowed by the California party. As time went on the state became ever more Leftist, to the point that the “mainstream” of the state Republican party would be considered Democrat/Left in many other states. Now we have a Governator who ran Right, but governs Left, a la Clinton. California has become a political and regulatory freak show.

Unfortunately, I see the same thing now happening at the national level. We’re told that in the case of Giuliani he’d be great fighting the War on Terror, and that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster. A rerun of last year’s campaign, with the bogeyman of “President Clinton” replacing “Speaker Pelosi”. Didn’t work last year, and won’t this time either, and as Einstein observed, insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

More importantly, the War on Terror – a serious issue to be sure – isn’t the ONLY issue on the table. Let’s be realistic: can the terrorists destroy this country? No. The Twin Towers, as horrific as that was, didn’t cripple this country for even a day, and that was a HUGE and unique success for the terrs. Even if the worst happens, a nuclear detonation in a major city (which I addressed in my essay “City of Glass”) this country will survive.

However, we can certainly destroy ourselves from within. When the two parties become virtually indistinguishable, as has happened here in California, the country will be in serious if not mortal danger. We are well on our way now nationally.

History abounds with examples: Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, right up to the modern era with the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. In all cases, great societies that rotted from within, which made them susceptible to either collapse or destruction at the hands of much weaker forces.

The current Republican frontrunner, Giuliani, is pro-abortion (including taxpayer funding), pro-open borders, pro-gun control, and appointed extremely liberal municipal judges as the Mayor of NYC, though now we’re supposed to believe his claim of being a “constructionist” who will appoint constructionist judges. How can we believe such claims with the evidence of his history at hand? And more importantly how do his positions on the other issues, all traditionally Democrat positions, all of a sudden become acceptable to ANY Republican? This is absolutely beyond me. Further, just to be clear, I consider McCain easily as bad as Giuliani.

I am constantly scolded and told I’m wrong to look for someone who’s 100% right on all the issues. I’ve never said that, interestingly enough, because I know that the only person in the world with whom I agree 100% is me. However, I’m also not willing to settle for someone who’s only right on 20% of the issues. This whole argument is simply an intellectually vacuous straw man to distract attention from the critic’s own lack of principle and fiber.

Once the Rep party gets the idea they can win elections without supporting the core values it purportedly represents, it won't even bother paying lip service to them anymore. So say goodbye to your guns, goodbye to secure borders, goodbye judicial restraint, goodbye to any attempt at fiscal restraint, and a big HELLO to higher taxes and runaway big nanny government.

Is “win at all costs” the only goal, regardless of the price one pays? And what have you really won if you’ve given up the soul of your party and your principles to do it?

Do you want this whole country to be…….. California?

 
The Townhall blogosphere remains in a state of limbo for the third day as the terrorists controlling the site refuse to grant access to the "comments" feature of the member blogs.

No word has yet been received as to the fate of the techies who normally control the operational aspects of the popular "conservative" website. At this point, they are being considered as being captives, but their status may be upgraded shortly to Missing in Action.

The first signs of trouble became apparent earlier in the week when the "email it", or forwarding, function of many of the blogs became inoperative. However, responding emails purportedly from the IT team of the site were still being received by enquiring bloggers until three days ago, at which time the "comments" capability became inoperative and further emails addressed to the IT team went unanswered.

For those concerned about the fates of their loved ones in the Townhall IT department, or who want to pass on words of encouragement or inquiry, the email address is as follows:

info@townhall.com

Those who do so are urged not to use inflammatory language, because at this point -- until the identities and demands of the hostage-takers are known -- no action should be taken that may further endanger the hostages or the marginal remaining functionality of the site.

In light of the almost-perpetual presidential campaign mode we now seem to find ourselves in, I thought it might be interesting to contemplate the Electoral College system of Presidential selection. As I cite numerical examples, I’ll use California as the example from which I draw, for simplicity and clarity.

I can hear you now: “Ohmigod, the Electoral College! Yawn. Wonder whassup with Anna Nicole?” CLICK!

Well, not so fast, bucko. This is actually interesting, and I’m going to hopefully pique your thought processes with some potential scenarios.

We’re all familiar with the election night vigil of seeing into whose column a state, with its attendant electoral votes, will fall. Of the required 270, California’s the predictable elephant in the room with its 55 invariably going to the Democrats. Does it have to be this way, though?

The Constitution requires each state to provide Electoral delegates equal to the number of its Congressional Delegation (2 Senators and its appropriate number of House members), the method to be determined by the individual state’s legislature. California (as well as most other states) has determined that whichever party gets the majority of presidential votes in the state will get all the delegates. But that is NOT a Constitutional requirement. The net result is that as a California conservative (and no, it’s not an oxymoron) in a Blue state, I am for all intents and purposes disenfranchised in the national Presidential ballot. My vote is merely symbolic, at best, in the raw number tally nationwide.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Of the 55 members of California’s Congressional Delegation, both senators are Democrats, as well as 34 of the House members. But guess what? Nineteen of the House members are Republican. Now, if we can have elections in which Republican districts can have Republican House members, why can’t they also have Republican Electoral delegates?

Hmmmmm…….?

I’ll tell you my best guess: neither national party wants it to happen, because they’d lose their “safe states”, and have to work harder for OUR votes.

Republicans could no longer write off California and New York, nor could Democrats ignore Florida and Texas. They’d actually have to start spending time and campaign dollars in those states, and actually pay attention to what their constituents want. Can’t have that! Further, since this would motivate other previously disenfranchised voters to actually start showing up at the polls, the outcomes would become a lot more unpredictable.

In other words, we’d have a REAL election. And we certainly can’t have that!

Here’s the real kicker. Both parties are continually squawking about low voter turnouts. I think I’ve outlined the reasons why that happens. But will either step up and endorse the one thing that I think would guarantee higher turnouts, i.e. proportional Electoral representation? I don’t think I’ll hold my breath.

But I told you I’d pique your interest, and you made it to the end. Not as bad as you thought, was it?



By the way, here's a county-by-county map of the voting results in the 2004 election, with Blue for Kerry and Red for Bush. Food for thought.