So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.

—Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The two major forms of Republicanism each have a doctrine that is tied to actual documents. Religious social conservatives have The Bible, while fiscal and Constitutional conservatives have the Constitution. It is safe to say that the vast majority of Republicans have their political tenants supplied by one, if not both, of these documents. This type of textual anchor is a positive philosophically and morally but in a strictly political sense can be a liability. The resulting positives are what tend to be deep, time-tested convictions, stability, certainty and, when used, an effective measuring stick for candidates in primaries. However, in our current event driven and largely politically uninformed society the negative is that this rigidness makes it nearly impossible to adapt positions to individual situations and use current events for maximum political gain.

This is a problem that the modern day liberal Democrat will not have anytime soon. They indeed stand in the starkest of contrast. Having left the Constitution behind decades ago, they move forward with no defined doctrine. No set of black and white documents that create, inform, or guide their ideology (and don’t even try to give me the party platform). This creates a situation in which changing party leadership sets an evolving standard as to what defines a Democrat. This not only allows them to easily tailor their political message to what they perceive to be popular at the moment, but grants them the option of playing the role of “lifeguard” and coming to the citizenry’s rescue with politically crafted legislation.

This, in tandem with the current perception that this is indeed the role of government, is extremely effective but thankfully also comes with disadvantages. First, the [...]

When Senator Levin says “Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market” what do we think he might have meant? Knowing some of the political philosophy of the esteemed senator from Michigan, it is obvious that his inference was that Goldman was acting in a fashion that was either illegal or immoral. How could any American institution bet against motherhood, apple pie or the American dream of universal home ownership? And certainly the notion of ”making a lot of money” is of dubious quality on its face. The Senator is literally screaming “These people are the enemy of the state, and they need to be leashed, or chained, or imprisoned, or tortured…all for the good of the system of the people.”

It is always amusing when a single statement contains such a large number of fallacies. Let us count the ways.

First, Goldman was acting in their role as an investment broker. Everything they do is essentially either a bet for or against something…or the facilitating of someone else doing the same thing. More technically, they are simply acting as brokers, and not as agents. Agents represent a buyer or seller. Brokers facilitate the transaction. This is the “market mechanism” and it is what guides the whole system of the effective allocation of resources. It is fundamental to our material progress. As significantly, if people [...]

In the February 16^th, 2010 Wall Street Journal, Gerald F. Seib wrote an article called Senate Woes Flag Wider Disease. The premise of the article is that the center of the political continuum has been eroded and that the bridge historically connecting the left and the right is being dismantled. He goes on to indicate that the result is a Senate without an ability to accomplish anything. The Framers, along with many who have followed, have long-since understood the power of the majority in a democracy. Accordingly, they have inserted safeguards against the potential “tyranny of the majority” that are now coming into clear view. Mr. Seib also points to the rapidly expanding use, over the last twenty years, of filibusters and cloture votes used to end those filibusters. In the end, the article concludes, “The broader political system, more than the filibuster, is the problem.”

The notion of the “broader political system” is an interesting focal point for the current situation. And while I am not certain what Mr. Seib intended by his use of the words, I am certain that the problem we have is much greater than a purely political problem. To cast blame on the system is to address a second-order cause, as opposed to any level of fundamental or first-order cause. The issues we face today are simply a proxy for the broader existential and self-identification issues we face as a nation. We face an array of ontological problems that have been emerging over several decades, but are now, for the first time, exhibited for everyone to see. The fundamental issue we face today is one of determining whether we as a nation are going to be governed by the use of power, or whether we will continue to be governed via “authority.” The distinction is becoming essentially clearer with every passing day. And the distinction could not be more significant.

Our nation was built on [...]

We are going to try and keep it simple on this one.

The bill stinks.

Put aside the fact that it expands Medicare.

Put aside the fact that it establishes coverage mandates (you will be forced to buy health insurance somehow).

Put aside the fact that it is a colossal power grab for an industry that has been well managed by the states for a long time.

Put aside the fact that it will increase taxes.

Put aside the fact that it will dramatically increase the cost of insurance for everyone (and they sold this to us originally as being needed to stop the soaring cost of insurance!).

Put aside the fact that it will wreak havoc on the tax code, balloon the size of the IRS and increase the size of corporate tax management teams (which will increase consumer costs in all industries).

Put aside the fact that this bill is overloaded with earmarks… in a bill that was intended to bring equality in health care.

Put aside all of those issues and focus on the one true deception that will be broadcast throughout the weekend and coming weeks: that the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the bill will have a reducing impact the deficit.

The lie here is that although the Federal deficit will [...]

The President of The United States, the Leader of The Free World, The Hope and Change for our nation, sounds tonight like a hero to some, a potential suitor to others, and a charlatan to the rest.

President Barack Obama’s speech (video/text) was somewhat predictable. And yet, the core principles are honorable and should be agreeable to all parties:

1. Provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance
2. Provide insurance to those who don’t
3. Slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government

These words are verbatim from the President. And I agree with them.

Unfortunately, the President began falling flat with the very next paragraph when he stated:

“…if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”

This is a promise that Obama simply cannot keep. Why? The first principle of security and stability will require changes in the business model of insurance companies. This will quickly lead to changes in premium costs and the structure of policies. What any of us with insurance currently has will simply have to change, and to the financial disadvantage of the majority.

Frankly, I’m not worried about how [...]

Many of you went the distance and participated in Town Hall events during the Congressional August Break. We are very anxious to hear about your experiences and feedback that you have about the events, Congressmen’s positions, etc. Obviously, Health Care Reform has been the predominate topic, but there have been some discussions on other crucial topics such as Cap and Trade, Economic Stimulus, Forclosures, etc. We want to hear from you on any of these topics!

You can leave a comment on this blog post by clicking here, or by sending us an email at feedback@theconservativereader.com. Your thoughts, experiences, positions, or general opinions would be great! We will put together a montage of these comments in the next week.

Not something you have to pay for (well, maybe), but legislative bills. Kim Lehman wrote a piece at Caffeinated Thoughts (Shane took a few days of well-deserved vacation). She provides some key valuable insights into how to understand a bill’s content. Well worth the time!

Kind of scary to think that more constituents are reading these bills than the Congressmen and Senators themselves.

We’ll add a link to this in TCR Tools as well.

Reading Assignment:

HR 2454: Cap and Trade

There is a continuing theme in Congress and many of our State Legislatures that what’s good for goose, is only good for the goose.

Take a gander. Yes, you read that right. Congressmen can fly around in private jets, and can even buy brand-spanking new ones. Even though they criticize those in the business world who do the same (remember the CEOs of the Big Three Auto companies?). The best part is, Congress does it with money that they forcibly take from us (I am loathe to call it “theft”, although the temptation to do so has grown in the past six months). Businesses do it with money they earn. Earn.

I think I will start a new category: Congressional Exemptions.

You see, Congress is of the opinion that they are, ahem, not always obliged to conform to the same set of laws or ideals that the rest of us are.

Truly.

And this is due in no small part to the Constitution of the United States. Yes that very document that we hold so dear as the last vestige of solace to those that would decry a tyrannical government.

Article I, Section 6 (The Legislative Branch – Compensation): …”They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during [...]

Tom Harkin, Senator from Iowa, proclaimed Wednesday that Congress can proceed and pass Health Care Reform without the help of Republicans, or rather, despite Republican opposition.

While a more detailed examination of the bill that passed its first major hurdle in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will be forthcoming here, it seems to be worth the time to examine Harkin’s statement as it strikes as a bellweather for our nation’s future.

This is more than a review of the strictly partisan victory Democrats have achieved in Congress, with the 60 votes needed in the Senate to defeat most Republican efforts at stopping or at least slowing actions by Democrats that might normally be nuanced with even the threat of filibuster. It is about even more than the arrogance of those who hold sway in the Federal Legislature, Administration and perhaps in the next few years, the Judiciary.

It’s about why a bi-partisan effort is sometimes, perhaps often, critical for real success.

Understanding this concept is essential to good government. Failing to understand it is what leads to the chaos we currently think of as government.

Neither of the major parties has [...]

As goes Energy, so goes the country.

“The worse, the better,” Vladimir Lenin is said to have observed. What Lenin meant was that the worse social conditions became in Russia, the more likely he and the Bolsheviks could foment a communist revolution. President Barrack Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel recently updated Lenin’s maxim, saying, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste.”Last Friday, the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives took those maxims to heart when they pushed through their 1,200-page American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act by a vote 219 to 212. The bill is supposed to address the twin crises of economic recession and climate change by creating millions of new “green” jobs. Instead of an old-fashioned Soviet-style five-year plan, ACES can be thought of as 50-year plan to radically transform how Americans produce and use energy.

…Well, look, Ron Bailey, this entire administration seems to me to emulate the tactics of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, in all things, not just energy… and in my view we’ve not seen nearly the worst of it yet. (A Depressing thought as we come to July 4th, isn’t it?)

So why should Energy be any different? Energy, after all, is the key to our country and it’s prosperity. Which of course was why I raised such holy hell when the first thing Obama did upon being sworn in was to reverse President Bush’s sign off on offshore drilling. That action is the major reason oil prices have better than doubled in the last 6 months.

The question that Ron asks, though, seems to me pertinent:

Will Americans tolerate such sweeping interventions into their lives and workplaces?

…

The 1994 mid-term election became a referendum on [...]