Corie Whalen

I just rediscovered an incredible John Adams quote that I absolutely love.

Ambition is one of the more ungovernable passions of the human heart. The love of power is insatiable and uncontrollable. There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty

What a gem, huh?

The interesting thing about many of our Founders (Adams especially) was the disconnect often present between their philosophy and actions when in positions of power. Personally, I don’t think that speaks to a weakness in their character, but more so an understanding of their own lot in life; imperfect humans.

Progressive historians, like Philip Davidson and John C. Miller, who want excuses to demonize a philosophy that is antithetical to the pursuit of their agenda, often attack the individuals espousing thoughts they disagree with. I think that’s an intellectually weak and juvenile way of trying to further one’s own ideas. Sadly, it’s also something you see from today’s militantly ideological wings of both the right and the left, and it adds nothing to the political discourse.

A perfect philosophy will always be shared with the world via an imperfect human. That’s why I don’t see men like Adams, Jefferson or Madison (among many others) as hypocrites. On the contrary, I believe they were humble men, inherently aware of their own imperfections via their comprehension of human nature.

That’s why their goal was to limit the breadth of power government could have in our lives in a structural sense; which we see via the philosophy that informs the values set forth in our Constitution. A rule of law, not of men, is the ideal. The extent to which that noble notion can be realized in practice is an entirely different issue, deserving of exploration in its own right.

Philosophy is wonderful; but as we’ve seen, despite the perfection of an idea, its execution is another story entirely. I do think our Founders did the best they could in framing the Constitution (for the most part); but to what extent has it mattered in practice?

It makes me wonder if true limited government is actually possible. Frankly, I think it’s probably not – in a pure sense. But, given the tyranny so omnipresent in world history, I have to hand it to our Founders; the American Experiment has thus far, had a great run.

Jefferson knew that the natural way of things is for government to expand over time, while liberty contracts. It’s why he advocated a new revolution for each generation. Despite the rhetoric, I don’t think Jefferson was calling for a violent uprising. I believe we can reasonably draw that conclusion, because he never sought to overthrow the U.S. government in the 38 years he lived after the Constitution was ratified. He warned, however, that it’s important for the American people to remind our leaders that we can (and will) fight back if necessary.

He said:

What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance?

Despite imperfections in messaging, image and organization, I think the Tea Party movement is representative of that. I just wish entertainers would stop attempting to hijack it for their own glorification – but that’s going to happen anytime a movement gains traction. I kind of consider it collateral damage, worthy of being noted, but ultimately ignored and not catered to.

Despite all obstacles, one thing’s for sure – our Founders knew there was danger from all men; themselves included.

Unhappy with the fact that the Texas GOP decided to alienate the vast majority of voters with extreme anti-gay rhetoric, I contacted the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, and ultimately helped write the following press release.

CONTACT: Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas
(512) 656-8011

AUSTIN, TX – At the state Republican convention earlier this month, Texas Republicans opted to abandon the Republican tradition of respecting the Constitution and protecting individual liberty and privacy rights by adopting a platform which includes planks attacking the civil liberties of certain Texans.
The platform advocates policies which would make it a felony to perform a same-sex marriage in Texas, which would re-criminalize sodomy and which would take away the rights of gay parents in custody cases. These proposals are contrary to the values of most Texans and run counter to the Republican tradition of vigorously defending individual liberty.

The Republican Liberty Caucus strongly opposes the Texas GOP platform’s anti-gay and anti-liberty planks. We call for the state party to take action to address this problem. While it may not be possible to repeal or change the party platform, the state leadership should issue a clear statement that the platform is non-binding and does not represent the core, shared beliefs of Texas Republicans or of our candidates.

In a year in which we are looking forward to extraordinary opportunities for a great slate of Republican candidates in Texas, it would be a terrible mistake to shackle them to a platform which will alienate many potential supporters. This platform will weaken the party at a time when a strong coalition of Republicans and independents is needed to stop the radical agenda of Democrats in both Austin and Washington.

“We need to focus on keeping the government out of our pocketbooks; especially in Texas,” said Texas RLC Chairman, Joey Dauben of Ellis County. “There are far more pressing problems for the GOP in our state to worry about. While I personally disagree with same-sex marriage from a Biblical perspective, marriage is a contract between individuals and God, not with the government. If we want government out of our wallets and our boardrooms, we should also keep government out of our churches and our bedrooms.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus believes that cutting government spending is more important than wasting our limited resources on policies that open Texas to lawsuits and treat some citizens in a different manner than other citizens. Texas RLC members believe divisive social issues should be put on the back burner and instead the focus should be on solving real problems.

We call on the state party to send a clear message to voters that the this platform does not represent the highest ideals of our party, and that as a party we support individual liberty and equal rights for all Texans.

–30—

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas advocates constitutionally limited government, individual liberty and traditional Republican values. It is part of a nationwide organization which shares those goals and has local organizations in almost every state. This year the RLC has endorsed hundreds of candidates nationwide, including Rand Paul (KY), John Dennis (CA), Peter Schiff (CT), Mike Lee (UT), and Nikki Haley (SC).

I’m a very independent thinker, but the label I most closely identify with is libertarian. I get a bit agitated at times, however, with purists who claim that only their position can reasonably be considered ‘libertarian’. I suppose you could say that I believe fundamentalists within any movement are by necessity out of touch with reality, but a specific spark is ignited when dealing with “my own”, so to speak.

Widely discussed this past week, was Rand Paul’s appearance on Rachel Maddow’s show after his defeat of Trey Grayson in the GOP Senate primary in Kentucky. In what in my opinion was an attempt to derail Rand’s discussion on relevant issues by putting the focus on a topic settled half a century ago, the Civil Rights Act, Maddow asked Rand what his thoughts on the mandatory service clause of the CRA were. See for yourself:

Ultimately, Paul states that he saw the need for the legislation overall, amidst stating multiple times how much he abhors discrimination. Frankly, I think it was naïve of him to trust her not to do exactly what she did, which was put words in his mouth at the end of the segment, and create a racial issue out of thin air. Frankly, I’m disgusted by the fact that she got away with it and am disappointed that Paul didn’t cut the conversation off, knowing what would happen. Predictably, and just as Maddow intended, given Paul’s hesitancy to give her a direct yes or no answer (likely because of how insufficient a one word answer would be and how irrelevant the questions were to any modern political discussion), Maddow’s audience utilized this segment to paint Paul as a racist – despite his philosophically consistent, reasonably libertarian response to Maddow’s inquiries, rooted in the defense of an individual’s right to association.

…. But unfortunately, this is where things get hairy.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Republican primary for the race that will replace retiring Senator Jim Bunning is heating up in a major way. The tension between the moderate, if not liberal GOP Establishment and Outside-The-Beltway conservatives is on full display. This is an internal fight familiar to those of us who feel we have a stake in the fate of the GOP – and it’s a battle that’s been brewing intensely since George W. Bush and the Republican Congress under his leadership governed like intellectually dishonest, somewhat muted versions of the Democrats they claimed to oppose. Ever since the GOP was relegated to super-minority status in the 2008 elections, the epic battle for the intellectual heart of the Republican Party has been playing out in an intense manner – through everything from the the grassroots Tea Party movement to the polite but pointedly political battle between Senators like the conservative Jim DeMint and Establishment lackey Mitch McConnell; two men who have come to play a major role recently in this particular race.

Long before official candidacies were declared, I’ve had my eye on the Kentucky Senate race. This is largely because I’m a big fan of Rand Paul, and knew he was considering a run. I had the pleasure of meeting him on multiple occasions in 2007, and Rand was even kind enough to come to Boston to be the keynote speaker for an event I was the principal host of at Faneuil Hall. I’ve always thought that he had the talent, principles and political savvy to take the liberty movement mainstream. Turns out I was right.

Anyone who has been following the Kentucky Senate race has likely taken note of how unconventional the politics of this particular Republican primary have been. It’s no surprise, really. It’s not everyday that the Establishment is challenged by a strong, principled, liberty-minded conservative like Rand Paul; which is what makes this race a case study for those of us interested in the battle for the GOP’s heart. As we’ve seen via endorsements of Rand’s liberal opponent, former Democrat Trey Grayson, the Old Guard of the GOP is threatened; in a big way. Why else would they get involved in a primary race in Kentucky?

Read the rest of this entry »

As I write this, a story is developing about what appears to be a thwarted attempt at setting off a car bomb in the middle of Times Square. Luckily, no one was hurt, and an NYPD bomb squad seems to have successfully diffused whatever device was in the SUV.

…. And all over my twitter feed,  there are people who feel an immediate need, having no facts whatsoever regarding who did this or what their motive was, to blame Obama and his administration for their supposed incompetence when it comes to national security issues.

This type of unfounded, politicized assumption making coming from many on the right is just as unbecoming as what I saw from the left (for example, Fire Dog Lake), regarding the horrible oil rig accident that occurred on April 20th off the Gulf Coast. The unfortunate mishap killed 11 people, and dumped 200,000 gallons of oil into the ocean; and the folks at FDL seem to think it’s perfectly appropriate to use the tragedy as an excuse to throw around anti oil company rhetoric. While it’s quite possible that they have some valid points worth considering about the merits of conservation, why offshore drilling might be a bad thing, or the shady practices of companies like BP, I can’t help but find it cheap, if not insulting, to treat tragedy as a reason to push politics.

The exact same thing can be said of the claims that the right’s foreign policy hawks are making regarding Obama’s national security incompetence. While they might put forth claims worth considering about the President’s weaknesses on the issue, doing so as an immediate reaction to a bomb plot where the motive remains a mystery seems far too blindly ideological; weakening the potential strengths of any argument that could be made in favor of the hawk’s views. (Side-note: I’m also seeing tweets about MSNBC hosts speculating that the bomb plot relates to right-wing home grown terrorism; equally as inappropriate and factually weak as hawkish assumptions that it’s a Muslim jihad).

Why do so many people feel the need to both immediately and irrationally politicize disaster?

Read the rest of this entry »

(Cross-posted at Red Mass Group)

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide you with information about the upcoming “Post Party Summit” activist training at the Fercroft Sheraton in Danvers, May 7th – 8th. The event in our area is one in a series of many being held nationwide. Local talk radio favorites Michael Graham and Todd Feinburg will be joined by conservative commentator and author S.E. Cupp as the summit’s featured speakers. Here’s what the group primarily responsible for these summits, American Majority, has to say:

Government Has Failed You.

We are in a fascinating time. One in which rising deficits, bigger government, and the threat of new taxation when there is clearly no representation threaten to divide and ruin our country. Yet, these injustices have fueled a revival of the new conservative movement. Millions of Americans are engaging in the political process for the first time, brought to protest over the injustices in government at all levels. While protests bring us together in passion, they are not a strategy for meaningful reform. Let us take the next step together.

Now Is Your Time.

The Post-Party Summits represent the beginning of the new American Revolution, one in which we organize for liberty and take back our communities from the political class. Each event is designed to maximize your time and provide you with real-world strategies and tactics that you can apply immediately. We have brought together some of the country’s best in messaging, political organizing, leadership training, new media, etc. to offer each of you the opportunity to move beyond protest to implementing freedom. Now is your time, what will you do with it?”

Read the rest of this entry »

Note: I wrote the majority of this post last night around 2AM on my iPhone while I was in bed. Then, this afternoon I saw the following tweet from Fox News:

“Rallying Cry: Dems using Arizona immigration law to drum up support for federal action”

The concern seemed fairly obvious to me – but appeared to be lost on many conservatives, which I found disappointing.

Anyway, without further adieu – the actual post:

——————————————————————————–

My rather libertarian concerns about Arizona’s recently passed immigration bill potentially creating police state conditions aside, I have some pretty major, and I fear legitimate, concerns about the bill’s national political implications on both the federal amnesty agenda and the conservative 10th amendment movement.

A lot of conservatives are excited about this bill – and on the surface I can understand why; the claim is that finally, the problem of illegal immigration will be curbed in Arizona, because the laws will actually be enforced. (Sidenote: Endless enforcement of bad laws that don’t address the actual issue won’t help a thing. The root of the problem is the language in the 14th amendment that creates the incentive to have “anchor babies”- but that’s an entirely different discussion).

While I agree that illegal immigration is a problem and that laws, insofar as they exist, should be enforced (or changed), I don’t think it’s worth creating a police state that has the potential to result in more lawsuits than meaningful deportations – or arrests; (in which case don’t bother; they should be sent back to their home country, not be allowed to live off US taxpayer’s money). I fear that conservatives; desperate for any perceived “crackdown” on illegals, are willing to support any measure that claims to do so without thinking through the logical (or for that matter, political) implications of the policy.

…. But, like I said, the political implications are what I want to discuss, and I believe they are twofold:
Read the rest of this entry »

Honestly, after thinking it over, I don’t quite feel the sense of loss I thought I would. I’m actually excited about the fact that states are attempting to assert their rights (see Malkin’s article) . The honest truth, as much as my partisan GOP cheerleader friends don’t want to admit it, is that we’ve been on a slippery slope headed toward socialism anyway, and would’ve gotten there fully eventually – and faster than anyone wanted to admit we would have if McCain were President. Truth be told, we’ve needed something this radical to wake us up. I’d rather this pass and engage in an epic battle over state sovereignty and constitutional limits on government than to let the Republic devolve slowly into a totalitarian cesspool – which is the path we were headed down with a GOP that consistently voted to expand entitlements and engage in deficit spending.

At least now we’re engaged in a serious and active battle over what the true role of government is. Furthermore, it looks like the GOP won’t be able to get away with NOT fighting to repeal this. Even Bailout Boehner had more balls on the House floor tonight than I ever expected; and with an engaged electorate to hold his feet to the fire, maybe we can actually fight for a repeal. I won’t hold my breath – but hell, this kind of resistance is more promising than feeling helplessly subjected to the creeping socialism that’s been permeating our nation as a result of lackluster opposition to slow but steady increases in government.

Has this radicalism truly awakened a sleeping giant? Can we reverse the trend?

From the far left “Fire Dog Lake” PAC:

For almost the entirety of the health care debate, the Obama Administration has relied on economist Jonathan Gruber to make the public case for its idea of reform – even the most unpopular parts. But as Firedoglake revealed on Friday, the Obama Administration has failed to disclose that it paid the same economist more than $780,000.

http://action.firedoglake.com/gruber

Take action, my friends. Any enemy of the corrupt is our friend. When it comes to calling out the frauds, we must band together, regardless of ideology. It’s clear that Obama is a tyrant, even to the “progressives” who invested so much faith in him.

Here is what I wrote:

I am actually a libertarian, and disagree with what the majority of Fire Dog Lake espouses. However, when people of good conscience see corruption, regardless of their ideology, they need to come together and put a stop to it. You, President Obama, are clearly corrupt. Frankly, I feel bad for the people who call themselves progressives and put faith in you. You and all of the Democrats are a joke. True liberals and progressives should be just as mad at you as true libertarians and conservatives are at the Republicans. All the members of the DC political class don’t have the interests of the people in mind. It’s a huge joke when Democrats claim to be against insurance companies and big pharma. Give me a break – you are playing right into their hands.

I, like many of my other fellow policy wonks, have been following the procedural aspects of this health care debate for quite some time now. The days following the recent 1 AM cloture vote, however, have been the most intense.

After a great deal of analysis yesterday, and some discussions with Red State’s Erick Erickson – the only person I know who follows all of this more than I do, I’ve decided that our literal last hope is to make sure Bart Stupak’s (D-Michigan) bark is as big as his bite. Now, of course, I’m not necessarily thinking that it WILL be (Ben Nelson showed us that most politicians have their price), but it’s a small ray of hope, and the area we need to focus our attention on.

Anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that I have libertarian sentiments, and think voting based on social issues when it comes to federal policy is a bad idea, because it’s, A: not the federal government’s business and should be dealt with on as local of a level as possible, and B: completely pales in comparison to economic issues in my humble opinion.

However, that always fun debate aside, at this point, from a procedural perspective, the abortion issue happens to be the best possible saving grace for those looking to defeat this piece of tyrannical legislation. Luckily, it’s not a futile aspect of the abortion debate either – the point at issue is whether abortion should be funded by the federal government, which, quite predictably, I happen to be very much against.

So without further adieu, here’s the situation we’re in:

Read the rest of this entry »