RSC Members List
May 25, 2008
As a follow up to JP’s post I felt it important to publish the list of members of the Republican Study Committee. This year conservatives don’t have many reasons to be hopeful but these 102 members deserve our support. They represent our last line of defense against the onslaught of liberalism.
Is your congressman on this list? If so write them and thank them for standing up for conservative principles, if not write your congressman and let him/her know that you are very disappointed that they don’t stand with the majority of Americans in supporting conservative ideals.
|
|
McCain Throws Election With More Anti-Right’s Demands!
May 18, 2008
On more than just shaky ground with all Americans already, Juan McCain has just thrown the election by coming right out and saying that he would sign illegal legislation to end all private sales of firearms at gunshows which is the precursor to ending all private sales. Ask Gore what single issue destroyed any chance he had of winning the presidency and he’ll tell you it was his anti-right’s positions. ( He might refer to it by a disloyal name. )
Senator McCain! The ONLY time criminals are stopped in their tracks is when the law abiding are armed…there is no other effective way nor will there ever be.
Write, Call and Fax McCain to publicly denounce his own ludicrous assumptions or we will be suffering Barack “Ban all semi-autos” Obama.
McCain Courts NRA, Makes Gun Shop Visit by Glen Johnson http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4871443
“… McCain said the only gun controls he favors are limits to keep guns from people with criminal backgrounds or indications of mental problems.
He added that, as president, he would sign a law that prohibited individuals from buying guns at a gun show without going through the same checks as those buying guns at regular stores.”
What McCain thick-headedly and obviously still doesn’t understand even after twenty plus years with the evidence available to him at his beck and call is that the evil and insane buy guns much more cheaply from other criminals or just outright steals them for themselves. It is therefore irrelevant whether they buy them ‘legally’ or not for just the purchase of the firearm for the purpose to use in any criminal act is also and already illegal.
NO ILLEGAL LAW against law abiding citizens will ever stop criminals from getting their hands on guns or any other tool to commit their crimes. This fact in life can not be prodded or otherwise coerced by the despicably frightened and cowering towards making themselves ‘feel’ better.
Therefore, one more illegal law on top of the some 20,000 already on the books is just more infringement on the law abiding making it more difficult or impossible to have in their own defense when they need it. Those who have and would still pass any such illegal legislation is just as guilty of any and all violent crimes committed on the innocent inwhich the innocent would have otherwise provided for their own defense and therein the chance to survive.
The Final Word On Our Inalienable Right of Self Defense and The Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms;
When a law enforcement firearms instructor and his instructors tell you that the most important thing you can do in your entire life is to protect the Second Amendment then you better stop worrying about what anyone else thinks or says and protect it as if your freedom depends on it, because it certainly does….consider yourself so informed.
“[T]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” -Parker V. DC, Senior Justice Silberman
How about a windbag prophets tax?
May 3, 2008
The Democrats are a political party so devoid of ideas that they can’t even come up with new bad proposals and are reduced to simply reinventing their old terrible ideas. A case in point is the so-called windfall tax on oil company profits. Both Dem contenders for the presidency favor a version of this old turkey.
Here’s the Barack Obama flavor:
Obama proposes oil companies be taxed on windfall profits from oil sold at or above 80 dollars a barrel, and the revenue be used to help relieve the burden of rising prices on working people, according to his campaign.
Hillary Clinton has gone past the proposal stage and has actually introduced a windfall tax measure:
Mrs. Clinton introduced legislation in the Senate today proposing [a] gas tax holiday and covering the cost of it through a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies, a campaign spokesman said.
Wait just a sec… Haven’t we been down this rocky road before? In the words of one of major league basesball’s most colorful characters, former Yankee catcher Yogi Berra, “This is like deja vu all over again.” The AP’s Daniel Sorid writes:
…even liberals would have a hard time defending the country’s last experience with a windfall tax, in 1980.
*
What began as a compromise by the Carter administration to lift ceilings on oil prices grew into a bureaucratic nightmare that Congress in 1984 called the “largest and most complex tax ever levied on a U.S. industry.” The law produced nowhere near the revenue it promised, made the country more reliant on foreign oil, and generated reams of red tape, according to a 2006 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
*
The law was put out of its misery in 1988, two-and-a-half years before it would have automatically expired.
*
“It’s a terrible idea today,” said Phil Verleger, who helped design the windfall tax policy as the Treasury Department’s director of domestic energy policy from 1977 to 1979. “The windfall profit tax was a quo for a quid; the quid was price decontrol. There’s no quid right now.”
Well, Mr. Verleger, it was a bad idea then, too. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the 1980s windfall profits tax depressed the domestic production and extraction industry and furthered our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
Let me repeat that for those you on drugs or afflicted with terminal liberalism. Ver. 1.0 of the windfall oil profit tax was a disaster for the nation from which it has never recovered. Domestic oil producers found it unprofitable to produce, and the United States became even more dependent on foreign oil than it had been. It is a major contributing factor to the situation we find ourselves in today: between Iraq and a hard place.
Why, then, in the name of all that makes sense, should this nation go back to doing something that not only did not work the first time, but was a major source of many of the energy woes we are experiencing today? Cynical conservatives are tempted to say that it is because socialists, despite the nearly universal failures of socialism throughout history, just can’t resist trying it again, hoping the results will be different this time.
The real answer is just as cynical. The oil companies are simply too inviting a target for the political left. They are fond of repeating that the oil companies are making billions of dollars of profit. Never mind that Exxon-Mobil’s profit margin of 10.7% pales in copmparison to some other well-know American corporations:
If you’re after really big earners… check out Yahoo (a 45.5 percent profit margin), Citigroup (33.4 percent), Intel (24 percent), and Apple (22.7 percent).
Never mind that Exxon-Mobil paid nearly $3 in taxes for every $1 in income. The company’s first quarter tax bill was $30 Billion.
Never mind that among Exxon-Mobil’s larest stockholders are not just individual fat cat shareholders such as the the Rockerfeller family, but many pension funds and mutual funds as well. Penalizing the big oil companies will simply force them to protect their shareholders by passing along the tax increases to consumers, who always pay the ultimate price for the left’s attacks on capitalism.
Those of us who take the time and trouble to study history do so because it is such an excellent teacher. It was the American-born philosopher George Santayana who is credited with the quote which would seem to explain the Democrats’ myopia on oil company profits:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
But it is another one of his quotes, and from the same source, which puts that first quote in context and best describe’s the Dems’ obsession with meddling in the affairs of the corporations they love to attack:
Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.
These liberal Democats and their two favorite candidates for the leadership of the free world are fanatics. As a conservative, I can think of one tax which I would support - a tax not on windfall profits, but rather one on windbag prophets.
- JP
And anything but the truth….
April 5, 2008
Congressional defeatocrats have made it clear to General Petraeus that they don’t want any good news when he testifies to congress next week. Head Traitor Nancy Pelosi:
"We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution [of the situation in Basra] that looks less violent when it has in fact been dictated by someone [Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada] al-Sadr who can grant or withhold that call for violence or not,"
Translation, Don’t come here and give us the facts on the ground. We only want to here how Bush lied, how many have died, and when you will be ready to declare failure and bring the troops home.
A small amount of fighting in Basra, less than what happens in Washington DC or Philadelphia these days, and democrats think can paint a picture of failure again. The media has been ignoring Iraq for months now. Why, because it has been a success. Success in a republican administration doesn’t sell papers, and doesn’t get ratings. Oh and it doesn’t fit the socialist template of the media so it gets ignored.
For those that wish to read more of this drivel here is the link.
It’s time to send OPEC a message
March 5, 2008
Now for a while I have railed against the loony left in this country because they have made us more dependent on foreign oil and more dependent on foreign refined gasoline. We don’t have the refining capacity in this country to meet the demand we have and our economy is paying for it.
I think that it is time to send a message to OPEC; it is time that we start telling OPEC countries to either increase their output to help us meet our demand and lower the price or we’ll stop importing. I know it sounds like a hollow threat but if we actually followed through with it the move would insure adequate supply for many years to come and here’s how.
We import roughly 5.5 million barrels of oil per day from OPEC countries, 1.4 million barrels from Venezuela. First we stop importing anything from Venezuela, and we tell the remaining OPEC countries that they will be increasing production to make up the difference of what we don’t import from Venezuela. If they refuse then we will cease all oil imports from Algeria, Angola, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, and Qatar. They will view this as a move to break up OPEC, which it is, and refuse. This leaves us importing oil from Iraq and Saudi Arabia, Iraq needs to finance their country’s future so they will not be able to do much except increase their production to as high a level as they can. Saudi Arabia is in the difficult position. They are the largest OPEC exporter to the US, but they will be fighting the remaining OPEC countries who want to make the deal so they can get back into the good graces of the world’s largest oil customer. These are smaller countries and they can’t afford a standoff like this.
The ghost of Ross Perot
December 17, 2007
The year was 1992, I was twenty years old and voting in my first Presidential election. I was a part time listener to Rush and generally conservative. George HW Bush had backed down from his “no new taxes” pledge and I was not as educated about politics as I am today. I saw Bill Clinton for what he is, a liberal socialist that is the embodiment of the term “slick marketing”. However as a young skull full of mush I must admit that I was impressed with the shiny graphs and charts of Ross Perot. And with that I made a mistake that I hold against myself to this day.
I (and too many others) voted for Perot and we got eight years of socialism that brought about recession, reduction in the military, the gutting of our intelligence services that lead to the death and destruction at the hands of terrorists. Like many others who voted like me we knew we had made a mistake in 1992 and so perhaps trying to slow down the socialists in the White House helped vote in conservatives into Congress in 1994. They went to Washington and promptly gave in during the budget battle of 1995 proving that many of the leadership were only interested in getting along and people were disappointed. Consequently Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996.
Why the history lesson / confession you may ask? Something Rush addressed today in regard to Mike Huckabee and his talking in the center. I feel as a reformed Perot voter I can offer a unique perspective on what Rush speaks. Huckabee with his track record on raising taxes and growing government is not in a position to claim any conservative mantle, he’s a likable guy much like Perot. He talks like a Clinton, playing to what his audience wants to hear. Like Perot (and the Democrat Party) Huckabee is good at telling us what is wrong, however he shows no plans on how to fix it. Now the Huckster hasn’t brought out the pretty charts yet but hey it’s only the primaries.
So perhaps in the fifteen years since 1992 those of us that erred in judgement and voted against George HW Bush have learned our lesson. Be careful who you vote against because it can always get worse. By sacrificing our conservative principles we will not be victorious in 2008 and the consequence of nominating people that seek to redefine conservatism, be they Huckabee, Romney, McCain, or Rudy, will insure that conservatism will lose in 2008 and we will be faced with the unthinkable, eight more years of Clinton.
Again I will refer to history. In 2003 voters of California, of which I was one at the time, chose to remove the dishonest Gray Davis from office. That was a forgone conclusion but what was a bigger decision was who would replace him. Many conservatives knew that the state was in serious financial trouble and that it would take a true conservative to fix it. That would come in the form of Tom McClintock, a conservative who wasn’t afraid to tell the voters what was broken and unlike others he had a plan to fix it.
Conservatives were rejected though in favor of another man that would bring slick marketing to a new level. Arnold won and governed from the middle, didn’t make the hard choices, didn’t do enough to battle the liberals in California and today we learn that California is in the exact same financial crisis it was in 2003. It is worth noting that Tom McClintock supports Fred Thompson for President. We have plenty of examples of what happens when we don’t heed the wisdom of conservatism. Hopefully 2008 won’t be added to that list.
Recent Comments