Corie Whalen

Originally published at USDailyReview.com

My Twitter friend @keder posted something last week that struck me:

“Washington is not suffering from a ‘revenue problem.’ This year, Washington will collect $400 billion more than it spent in the year 2000.”

I replied and thanked him for tweeting that figure, because it reminded me of how utterly contradictory liberals can be when it comes to taxation and spending. Many on the left were apoplectic when President Obama decided to extend the Bush tax cuts last December. The liberal blogosphere was rife with claims that the tax cuts of the 2000′s were responsible for the “Great Recession” – completely ignoring, of course, other more realistic factors like a problematic monetary policy that encourages economic bubbles and dangerous levels of deficit spending. Oh, and they also conveniently forgot about the fact that during 2005, the period right after the Bush tax cuts, federal revenues were at record highs.

Nonetheless, a typical line used to denounce tax cuts and President Bush (who, for the record, I think was a terrible President, despite my Republican affiliation), is that under Clinton, things were so great! Even ignoring the fact that we were on the expansion side of both a dot com and real estate bubble, if we’re to accept the premise that the Bush tax cuts hurt the economy and that Clinton was the second coming of Jesus, to return to the promised land of the 90′s, we’d have to make a radical change at this juncture: Reinstate Clinton era federal spending. The left loves to fear monger about what would happen if we returned to pre-2008 spending (as suggested by conservatives like Paul Ryan), as if prior to 2008 we lived in the dark ages. Yet at the same time, the Clinton era was perfect? Try to make sense of that, because I can’t.

Ultimately, given the extent of our national debt today, with or without an extension of the Bush tax cuts, we’d still be in an unsustainable situation. It’s been proven mathematically time and again that even if we taxed every millionaire and billionaire 100%, it wouldn’t even make a dent in the problem.

The Wall Street Journal does the math for us:

“Imagine that instead of proposing to raise the top income tax rate well north of 40%, the President decided to go all the way to 100%. Let’s stipulate that this is a thought experiment, because Democrats don’t need any more ideas. But it’s still a useful experiment because it exposes the fiscal futility of raising rates on the top 2%, or even the top 5% or 10%, of taxpayers to close the deficit. The mathematical reality is that in the absence of entitlement reform on the Paul Ryan model, Washington will need to soak the middle class—because that’s where the big money is …..

….. Assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record ….

….. Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95% …..

….. Let’s perform the same exercise in 2005, a boom year and among the best ever for federal revenue. (Ahem, 2005 comes after the Bush tax cuts that Mr. Obama holds responsible for all the world’s problems) …..

….. In 2005 the top 5% earned over $145,000. If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly. The rich, in short, aren’t nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama’s entitlement state ambitions—even before his health-care plan kicks in.”

Given these figures, it’s beyond obvious that screaming about the evils of the Bush tax cuts and “the rich” are strawmen the left use to engage in class warfare demagoguery; facts and figures be damned.

Personally, in my libertarian leaning fantasy world, I’d love to slash over half of all federal spending – but my realistic side is quite content with the notion of rolling back our commitments to the glory days of the 90′s that liberals hypocrtically tout. Here’s a compromise for you: Want to return to 1998 tax rates? Fine with me; if we go back to 1998 spending. In 1998, the federal budget was 1.7 trillion. Today, we spend 3.8 trillion – and borrow 43 cents of every dollar with no plan to pay it back. Given the circumstances, most conservatives I know would be thrilled to make a concession like the one mentioned above; especially if we’re able to get some tax code and entitlement reform in there; but that’s a discussion for another day.

We all know that the left would flat our reject such a compromise. Just imagine their reaction to the proposition of actually cutting 2.1 trillion in real (not projected) expenditures – that figure being the difference between 2011 and 1998 spending levels. We’ve heard fear mongering about dead grandmothers and starving poor people for much, much less. Given their head-in-the-sand approach to the mere mention of spending cuts, liberals really need to do a better job of addressing the disconnect between their worship of Clinton and a misguided, demagogic distaste for the Bush tax cuts – a measure that, as I stated before, actually led to higher federal revenues.

You can’t logically make an argument about the supposed danger of tax cuts without considering related revenue and spending levels. However liberals, always looking for ways to stir up class warfare sentiments during campaign season, manage to do just that – consistently. Then again, these are the same brilliant minds in charge of trying to ‘fix’ our current economic woes – and this whole 9.1% unemployment with a $14,696,963,569,782.73 national debt debacle isn’t doing much to showcase liberal ‘logic’ either.

Originally published at USDailyReview.com

Thursday, September 15th, on the heels of a several months long dispute between the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Boeing, the House passed a bill that aims to limit the NLRB’s overreaching authority. The NLRB has charged Boeing with “anti-union” sentiments for building a new plant in South Carolina as opposed to Washington state, and has attempted to stop the company’s relocation.

According to Fox News:

“The measure, approved on a 238 to 186 vote, would ban the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to shut down plants or relocate work, even if a company violates labor laws.”

While the bill passed the House, the measure is expected to be banned from the floor by Majority Leader Reid in the Democrat controlled Senate. As a result, conservatives like Paul, Lee, and DeMint, who have been very active on this issue, won’t have a chance to make an impact via their vote. However, their very public persistence on the matter is certainly appreciated by those who believe job creators shouldn’t be intimidated by federally backed Big Labor bosses – who seem to care more about their own power than the well being of average workers.

Additionally, it turns out that the public agrees with Republicans on this matter. According to a September 15th Rasmussen survey:

“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll finds that 64% think Boeing has the right to open the plant in South Carolina while just 21% disagree. When respondents are told that the NLRB believes that opening the plant is an act of retaliation against the union, the numbers barely move. Only 17% think the agency has the right to prevent Boeing from opening the new facility while 64% disagree.”

Clearly, average Americans know in their guts that it’s wrong for the government to be this dictatorial toward job creators. It’s also obvious that 64%, a very solid majority of everyday Americans, aren’t “anti-worker” – despite the rhetorically convenient claims of out of touch, far-left members of Congress.

From an editorial perspective, I truly find this debacle amazing. It speaks to the disconnect between jobs rhetoric and reality inherent in this administration’s worldview. While the President’s NLRB threatens a private company for opening a plant in a Right to Work state, he touts a “jobs bill” that contains nothing more than exactly what his failed stimulus comprised of. Talk about putting us on a fast track toward killing even more jobs.

As The Wall Street Journal noted Thursday, the Obama jobs plan is nothing but a blue state bailout in disguise – a typical redistribution of wealth to failed entities at the expense of the productive.

“These vast contributions to the coffers of state and local governments, though pitched as a jobs bill, are in reality the latest in a series of bailouts for debt-ridden state and local governments. They are of special benefit to states in the blue regions of the country where the president’s most fervent supporters reside.”

None of this is surprising. Between bailouts of  failure disguised as a “jobs plan” and the bullying of Boeing, we have a clear glimpse into the thuggish mentality of the President and his cohorts. Bribe your irresponsible friends with deficit spending, and punish businesses that actually create wealth if they do so without lining the coffers of your campaign contributors – all while pretending to be “pro-worker”. All of this authoritarianism spells disaster for the middle class, and relates directly to why unemployment is bordering on 10% nationwide (without even considering underemployment and those who have stopped looking).

When government officials have the power to pick and choose winners in the marketplace and act as if job creators (who can, and often do move overseas) are slaves to their whims, it’s a red flag indicative of the fact that freedom is eroding. Sadly, this corporatist behavior has been bipartisan (see the infamous TARP bailout of 2008). However, the level of outright intimidation has worsened with this administration. I’m glad Congress is doing its best to take a stand, and hope to see Republicans who actually oppose corporatist behavior elected in 2012. This kind of thuggish maneuvering is appalling, and the vast majority of Americans know it. Let’s put a stop to it at the ballot box.

Originally published at the US Daily Review

To be blunt, the employment numbers released by the Labor Department today are absolutely dismal.

As the Washington Post reported:

“The Labor Department on Friday reported zero net job creation in August, far worse than the 68,000 net jobs analysts had expected to be added. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.1 percent. The July job growth number was revised downward, as well, to only 85,000 jobs added that month — not the 117,000 estimated.”

Of course, these monthly numbers are ‘unexpected’ to the chattering class disciples of Keynesian theory who, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, believe that government looting private citizens and spending money we don’t have will create sustainable employment.

The scenario is dreadful. Anxious people are looking for a scapegoat. Enter the desperate Left-Elite, taking disgusting political advantage of the fact that being under and/or unemployed breeds resentment. So, who to blame other than themselves, they contemplate. Why, ‘the rich’, of course! You know, that nebulous collection of evil sub-humans who take advantage of the middle class by employing us. They’re the perfect target!

This is the path the Left-Elite goes down, of course, because it’s easier to spew poisonous class warfare rhetoric than to admit failures and change course in such a way that would involve diminishing some of their own power over the citizenry. Despite the fact that it’s been mathematically proven time and again that if we taxed every ‘rich’ individual at 100% it wouldn’t even make a dent in our national debt, the political elite continue to bite the hand that feeds.

Take, for example, this thought experiment from The Wall Street Journal in response to President Obama’s speech in April that he gave in lieu of submitting a palatable budget. (At the time of this writing, it has been 856 days since Democrats passed a budget because the President’s proposal was rejected in the Senate unanimously).

Per WSJ:

“Assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.”

Of course, beyond the fact that taxing all of these nefarious  “millionaires and billionaires” isn’t a sustainable solution to our systemic overspending problem, the President’s ‘plan’, doesn’t take into account the collateral damage. Maybe the reason I’m so incensed by all of this is the personal angle. While there was no net job creation in August per the aforementioned report, my full time job was created last month, in Texas mind you, by none other than a few ‘horrible’, ‘selfish’, ‘uncaring’ rich guys. And guess what? They’re a brilliant, well-meaning, incredible group of individuals whose success I find inspiring. They’ve created an opportunity for me to further my career in a meaningful way; a scenario that wouldn’t exist if more of their earnings were confiscated by a greedy government that just can’t seem to get enough (and continues to spend significantly more than it takes in).

The achievements of people diligent enough to acquire the kind of wealth these ‘awful’ rich individuals have should be held up as models – not torn down for political agendas that prey on jealousy and insecurity. Unsurprisingly, that same rhetoric serves to enhance dependency on government and thus the power of elite, often rich, hypocritical politicians. That correlation should be suspect and revealed at every opportunity.

Ultimately, the absolutely wretched job numbers for August reinforce something that those of us paying attention already know: class warfare policy exists in direct opposition to job creation. If we keep demonizing success, bailing out failure, and creating a culture of dependency, anticipate the economy “unexpectedly” faltering even further.

I’m pleased to announce that I’ve accepted a new full time position! I’m the Political Director for the Alliance for Self-Governance (ASG) based in Houston. ASG is a new, nationally focused organization, and given its objective, my prior liberty oriented political work fits perfectly. A brief note about ASG and our goals:

“The Alliance for Self-Governance (ASG) is not just another lobbying group. None of our leaders are professional politicians, and we don’t seek to advance any partisan political agenda. We accept no funding from the Republican or Democratic parties.

Our objective is to reverse the accumulation of power in Washington, D.C. and to restore that power to the people, where it rightfully belongs. The way to maintain “good and safe government,” Thomas Jefferson said, “is not to trust it to one, but to divide it among the many.”

I’m excited about the prospects of working to devolve power away from the political class and back to the people. If you aren’t familiar with an innovate way to do so, the concept of interstate compacts, I suggest you learn more about them and their infinitely positive potential. For a fantastic perspective on the matter, check out this great piece by Ted Cruz and Mario Loyola from the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The health care compact, the first of many that will be no doubt be on the table in the future, passed in Texas this past legislative session, and it also has already seen success in Georgia, Oklahoma and Missouri.

While interstate compacts are part of the agenda ASG is looking to support, our big project moving into 2012 is The Campaign for Primary Accountability. As many of my fellow activists have learned and more need to be made aware of, the most effective way to force positive change in government is to challenge incumbents in primaries. Part of the reason the system is broken is that politicians simply aren’t held accountable, and incumbents in both parties are rarely challenged. This reinforces their focus on beltway lobbyists and further centralizing government rather than working for the people.

A note about The Campaign for Primary Accountability:

“In November 2010, the approval rating for Congress was at 17% (it is now at 9%). That same month, no less than 86% of congressional incumbents were re-elected. How is it possible that politicians who are viewed so unfavorably continue to return to office?

Here’s how: The overwhelming majority of districts are one-party districts, meaning either the Republican or Democratic party enjoys an overwhelming advantage in registered voters. Fully 77% of House districts have not changed party hands since 2002. Most incumbents face no primary challenge. In 2010, 62% of incumbent members of the U.S. House of Representatives had no primary opposition.

The outcome of the November general elections is really determined during the primary elections – and by only the 10% of the American electorate that votes in primaries. In 2010, 396 incumbents ran for re-election. Only four were defeated by primary challengers; 63% ran unopposed. Because incumbents are so easily re-elected, they are not held accountable for their actions.”

This needs to change, and ASG wants to work with activists across the spectrum to make sure that politicians, regardless of ideology, feel the pressure. DC politicians need to know that We the People are watching and will take the action necessary via primary campaigns to restore our nation’s prosperity and elect accountable statesmen.

From my perspective, one of the greatest primary success stories was Senator Mike Lee’s challenge to 18-year incumbent Bob Bennett in Utah last year. Lee, who has turned out to be a great Senator in my opinion, beat Bennett in a three way primary. However, the great thing about this project is that it’s bipartisan. While I personally prefer electing liberty Republicans, ASG has people from all sides of the aisle on staff, and will be building field teams accordingly. I’d love to see liberals organize to take down unaccountable incumbents who ignore their philosophy just as much as I’d like to rid of establishment Republicans. After all, we’re all in this together.

That’s precisely why I’m excited that we’ll be actively working to challenge long-term, unaccountable Congressmen from both parties. The reality is that many districts inevitably go either R or D, and to affect change, turning engaged voters out in primaries is key. I hope you’ll sign up at the bottom of the page to stay in the loop at Alliance4SelfGovernance.org.

We’ll need motivated volunteers ready to take back our government from the political class that exists to serve itself rather than us. I hope you’ll join me and countless others as the self-governance movement gets off the ground. I truly believe that the reason we have the government we do at this juncture is because the American people fell asleep at the wheel. But lately, many have awakened. According to Rasmussen, only 15% of Americans think we’re on the right track. That’s staggering, and I truly believe that the Campaign for Primary Accountability and interstate compacts can make a positive difference for this nation. I know I’m excited about the prospects – and you should be too!

Originally published at RLC.org

Liberty Republicans, given our belief that wealth creating market based initiatives are superior to those subsidized by taxpayers via government, are often accused of opposing green energy and other so called pro-environment schemes. Many on the left seem to believe that if you’re for the pro-growth policy of letting investors and entrepreneurs hash it out in the private sector without government interference, it in turn means you must have no regard for the environment.

As a libertarian who is very much pro-environment and extremely interested in alternative energy and ecological stewardship, I of course reject that premise. I’d contend that part of the problem with our energy and environmental policies are the fact that as government gets bigger, elected officials don’t hesitate to jump into bed with giant corporations, in turn, yielding a firestorm of status quo protection behind closed doors. Yet in the meantime, to coddle various constituencies, while the aforementioned cronyism disguised as capitalism distorts the market, politicians offer shallow “green” initiatives subsidized by redistributing our money, all while suppressing legitimate alternatives that could potentially compete in the market.

For example, the 2006 documentary, Who Killed The Electric Car?, points out the fact that the oil industry, through its lobbying group Western States Petroleum Association, financed campaigns to suppress the EV1 car in the marketplace, and worked closely with the federal government to see that its needs were met. If an electric car cannot compete in the market on its own, or without the aid of a legislative mandate (as in California), then it should fail. But if legitimate greener alternatives are being suppressed by corporatism, that’s highly problematic. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining that more intervention from the federal government of the United States, the world’s most powerful monopoly, will solve the problem of giant corporate interests, who are friends to DC politicians, suppressing market competition.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at RLC.org

We’re in danger when the conservative instinct to defend law and order …  defies law and order.

Conservatives often talk about the Constitution and the importance of defending our founding charter. After all, without a strong rule of law, we could never have the kind of society worthy of conservative standards to begin with. One of the reasons many cite for voting Republican in a presidential race, even if they dislike the candidate, is that they believe at the very least, the Republican will nominate palatable Supreme Court Justices who interpret the Constitution conservatively, in effect defending the aforementioned centrally important rule of law. At times however, it seems that some people are confused about the context of the ‘conservative’ label. A conservative (IE: originalist) reading of the Constitution is not the same as a conservative (IE: political) interpretation.

The latter is judicial activism. It in no way differs from the “discovery” of rights that created the precedents necessary for Roe v. Wade to exist – and we all know one of the foremost conservative arguments against that case is based on the fact that it stands on rather shaky constitutional grounds; a defense rooted in a pro rule of law argument. But, it appears that for some (in particular the many pro-life Congressmen and Senators who favor the PATRIOT Act), it’s only convenient to use a constitutionally based argument when it suits your particular issue politically.

So what then, are orginialists who support the Constitution regardless of emotional arguments on issues deemed politically conservative, to make of last week’s PATRIOT Act renewal battle? Ultimately, despite the disappointment, it seems that Republicans with libertarian and constitutionally conservative values are at least making some progress.

Particularly positive is the fact that many freshmen who won on the tea party wave are taking seriously the fact that the PATRIOT Act does violate the Constitution. As Rand Paul, who filibustered the act, eloquently noted on the Senate floor, we cannot preserve the 4th amendment without the 2nd amendment, or the 1st. In fact, we need the entire bill of rights; it cannot protect our freedoms unless it comes together as a whole.

In the Senate, with some shady maneuvering (what else is new?), Harry Reid bypassed Rand Paul’s attempts at a filibuster by tacking the vote to reauthorize the provisions onto the Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011. While only four Republican Senators voted against the act, Heller, Paul and Lee (on the tea party side of the spectrum) and Murkowski (a moderate), we ought to keep in mind that one individual Senator has a great deal of power, and that three new Senators with tea party sympathies making a difference on this issue is a flicker of hope as we emerge from the darkness of the Bush era.

Read the rest of this entry »

(Published at The Daily Caller, but edited heavily. This is the original.)

I’m an advocate of separating church and state, not because I necessarily worry the latter might suppress the former – but to protect the integrity of the church and related institutions in the face of federal encroachment. Unfortunately however, the buzz phrase “separation of church and state” has degenerated into a leftist talking point. This is in large part thanks to groups like the ACLU, and various SCOTUS decisions – especially Everson v. Board of Education, which mandated a ‘wall of separation’ between all church and government relations (despite prior, state level involvement), policed by the federal government.

As a result of this shift in perception toward centralization, in a self-defeating manner, contemporary social conservatives have responded by playing the opposite game. If the left is for fully separating church and state in a top down sense, then we must be for entirely conflating the two in that regard! For example, the Bush campaign’s “compassionate conservatism” that advocated policy initiatives in support of traditional families drew voters in 2000. This centralized method of dealing with social issues was apparently acceptable, no matter how much it sabotaged the ultimate goal and bastardized conservative philosophy.

Conservatives always lose when we allow the left to define the parameters of political discourse; yet we consistently permit this; often in lieu of crafting our own narratives. This has been an ongoing theme for some time, and has led to the fact that compromise always means finding a way to let the left make government a little bigger, because, well, at least it will be a bit smaller that way than if they got all of what they wanted! Alas, the left gets there incrementally as the right tacitly endorses the same methods that drive us toward inevitable implosion.

Post-Reagan, the right seems to have forgotten that constitutionally inspired small government and social conservatism are not only perfectly compatible, but naturally aligned in a philosophical sense. At its core, social conservatism values the self-determination of families; of churches; of communities. Government didn’t create those entities; why would it be fit to preserve them? History demonstrates that centralization always destroys society’s natural institutions. Authoritarianism is not, nor ever will be conservative in any intellectually honest sense.

The reason that growing up, despite having conservative instincts, I identified as a social liberal, was because I came of age in an era where social conservatism and utilizing government force to push morality were conflated. Only very recently, after studying in detail how neoconservatism redefined right-wing foreign policy, did I begin to understand how the fruits of the same philosophy impacted social conservatism by tying it to federal interventionism as well.

Noting all of this, I’ve started to depart from libertarianism in favor of traditional conservatism, because from a moral standpoint, I identify more with the latter philosophy. I’m only a libertarian insofar as I err on the side of being wary of government power and accepting of the fact that centralized force will not change other’s beliefs. Morally, I’m not liberal, or even libertarian. Perhaps in some ways, I’m more ‘tolerant’ than your run-of-the-mill social conservative; but I certainly believe in a number of absolute moral truths, in turn rejecting libertine and nihilistic viewpoints that are commonly found in libertarian circles.

Beginning to accept and understand that true conservatism is in reality, incompatible with centralized, state approved force, I’m comfortable noting where I am in fact a social conservative; despite misuse of the term that has been pervasive during the admittedly short 24 years I’ve been on this earth.

After all, what has government ever done to create, or even encourage an environment of social morality? I’d contend very little in a positive sense. The only thing government has done to social conservatism is tie it to state power in such a way as to remove the inherently grassroots and localized nature of social morality from its political philosophy. Any thoughtful and reflective social conservative who was charmed by the rhetorical promises made by Republicans in the past two decades should be capable of recognizing that at this point.

A true conservative; one who is both fiscally and socially so – or, even one who identifies only as the latter, would benefit from understanding that government can neither preserve nor push morality – it can only centralize the concept; in turn, taking away from the organic establishments that create the traditions worth conserving in the first place.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at RLC.org

In Kentucky’s Republican gubernatorial primary, RLC endorsed insurgent candidate Phil Moffett, despite performing better than expected, wasn’t able to beat his establishment opponent, State Senate President, David Williams. Upon first glance at the results with 70% of precincts reporting and Moffett down by about 7%, I was wondering where the vaunted Kentucky tea party network that propelled Senator Paul into office was. I was actually on the phone with Dave Nalle earlier when I went to my favorite source, Twitter, and did a #KYGov search to find the aforementioned information. Looking at what I unearthed, I said to Dave, “I’m honestly stunned that anyone who voted for Paul wouldn’t also vote for Moffett”. After further researching the dynamics however, it turns out there were various factors at play that made for very different races, despite the candidate’s similar ideology and being the tea party insurgents pitted against the establishment.

In fact, one of the first articles I came across when I googled Phil Moffett, directly answered the question I had rhetorically posed to Dave. “Why Phil Moffett Is Not Rand Paul”, written by Kevin Brennan at The National Journal, provided immense clarification regarding their differences.

The first issue, and one that is always central in any race, was Moffett’s problem with name recognition. Despite marketing himself as Senator Paul’s heir apparent, there’s no doubt that Ron Paul’s network is what initially provided his son with momentum. That, of course, leads into Moffett’s second problem; fundraising – which the elder Paul also aided his son with greatly. Williams ultimately outspent Moffett 10-1, which speaks volumes about Moffett’s lack of traction in the money raising area. Additionally, Moffett wasn’t able to capture Paul’s official endorsement, because Williams was also supported Paul against Grayson in 2010.

Rand Paul’s national network, combined with media fueled fervor over whether the Senate would be turned over to the Republicans, was also undoubtedly an advantage for him that Moffett lacked. Although Moffett’s campaign and allies such as Western Representation PAC tried to pitch the storyline that Moffett’s campaign was a national one because this GOP primary was the only one in 2011 in which the victor would face off with a pro Obama, Democrat incumbent Governor, creating national fervor in an off year over a primary that the media cares little about turned out to be nearly impossible.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally posted at YALiberty.org

Congressman Justin Amash, who I’ve been praising a lot lately, has been doing a fantastic job on his Facebook page of educating people not only about the unconstitutionality of the President authorizing military strikes without congressional approval, but also regarding specific policies being pursued by the Obama administration, and the actual opinions and ties (hint: al-Qaeda) of Libyan rebel leaders. Amash has done a commendable job standing up as an indispensable voice of conservative opposition to the poorly thought out intervention in Libya – and has been influential in the face of both liberal and neoconservative praise of the operation.

Now of course, when it comes to Libya, my tried and true neoconservative friends wholeheartedly support this intervention as much as they did the policies of Bush, Bolton, Rumsfeld, etc; and honestly, I applaud them for their philosophical consistency. Their reaction, wrong as I think it may be, transcends partisanship and derives from strong convictions. Admittedly, I appreciate the intellectual honesty of it.

But, what both, somewhat confusingly, manages to frustrate and encourage me simultaneously is the seemingly partisan reaction to Obama’s Libya policy that’s currently permeating political discourse. While I was reviewing the great information Amash has posted on the matter, I came across a contributor to the conversation who applauded the Congressman for his work on the issue.However, what I found strange yet compelling was that this person went into a diatribe about how what Obama is doing in Libya can be described as nothing short of complete madness; that he’s ruining the country; that no one should have ever voted for such an imbecile; that people were warned about his incompetence during the campaign, etc. That’s all well and good – but it reeks of reactionary partisanship. Let us refresh our memories for a moment. Who was fervently calling for a “No Fly Zone” over Libya weeks before the President took a position on the matter? A certain Senator McCain.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally posted at RLC.org

“In 2005, I wasn’t involved in politics in any substantive way. I had never really thought about running for office. I began looking for organizations that shared the beliefs I had — and that’s when I came across the Republican Liberty Caucus. And, really, it’s what’s started my move toward running for office.” – Justin Amash

Congressman Justin Amash, 30 year old freshman RLC member from Michigan, is undoubtedly a rising conservative star with an extremely bright future. I was already impressed after spending some time with him at this year’s Republican Liberty Caucus national convention, but the longer I follow him, the more I find to like. Rarely am I this taken with a person’s integrity; and next to never is the said individual a politician, let alone a Congressman. But Amash is a glaring exception to that general rule, and I couldn’t be more excited about the precedents he’s setting. When I say that Amash is a model for the next generation, I mean it on many levels.

For starters, Amash is a pioneer when it comes to social media – which fits well with the fact that he’s only 30. At facebook.com/repjustinamash, he posts every single vote he takes with an explanation of his rationale, and links to the roll call. I’m not aware of any other politician doing this, especially so religiously. It demonstrates Amash’s dedication to transparency; another aspect of his character that I find impressive.

Additionally, it’s quite rare for politicians to be accessible the way Amash is. While it’s impossible for him to answer every single question posted on his Facebook page, I’ve noticed that he almost always responds to constituents – and on occasion, others as well. When an issue is so contentious as to merit commentary from large numbers of people, he’ll often post clarifications to his positions, and reiterate his well thought out logic.

What all of this really comes down to is the fact that Amash is highly process oriented. He takes the business of voting, and doing it within a constitutional context seriously; a model his colleagues should learn from. On his aforementioned Facebook page, Amash posted a note, explaining why he sometimes votes “present”:

“I will vote “present” on legislation in three circumstances:

(1) when I could otherwise support the legislation, but the legislation uses improper (e.g., unconstitutional) means to achieve its ends. This situation often arises when legislation is drafted in such a way that the law does not apply equally to persons or entities that are doing the same thing;

(2) when Representatives have not been given a reasonable amount of time to consider the legislation; or

(3) when I have a conflict of interest, such as a personal or financial interest in the legislation—a circumstance that hasn’t happened yet and I don’t anticipate happening.”

This speaks to Amash’s unconventional yet refreshing emphasis on procedure. He utilizes (admittedly rare) “present” votes not as a vehicle to avoid taking a position on controversial issues but to, in fact, do the exact opposite by calling attention to inherent problems with certain pieces of legislation. Amash is the most clear and direct Congressman I’m aware of – people simply aren’t used to his approach, since it’s historically been rare for a Representative to vote “present” for any reason other than to avoid the matter at hand. With Amash, that couldn’t be further from the case – and I hope that those who may have assumed that any of his votes are cop outs will reexamine their views on the matter, and engage with Rep. Amash before lashing out.

Read the rest of this entry »