We fight, not because the odds are in our favor, but because we savor freedom

This week, I'm at the State Policy Network Annual Meeting in Oklahoma City, along with a large group of my Texas Public Policy Foundation colleagues. TPPF's Right on Crime initiative sponsored a dinner on Tuesday night, and I thought I'd share some excerpts from the closing remarks delivered by our TPPF President, Brooke Rollins.

Brooke's comments are especially meaningful in light of recent debates and battles we are having in Texas, in Washington, D.C., and in many states around the country.

Neville Chamberlin, 2012 edition

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin is not usually touted as the kind of leader one hopes our politicians would emulate, but since we haven't seen Obama's college transcripts, I can't say with certainty how well he studied history.

Anyway, if you aren't familiar with the details, in late September 1938, Chamberlin returned to London after  the signing of the Munich Agreement, clearing the way for Hitler's Nazi regime to occupy the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. Speaking to the British people about the Agreement, Chamberlin gave what is remembered as one of the most ironic and  naïve  speeches in the last century, announcing that they had secured "peace for our time."

"We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor"

Two hundred and thirty six years ago, a brave group of patriots signed their names to a document that would change the course of human history. 

These fifty-six men publicly declared their commitment to the "self-evident truths" that formed the foundation of our nation and which have continued to serve as a beacon of hope for all people around the world who have ever yearned to be free.

Almost lobbying but not quite?

Newt Gingrich has tossed out a lot of carefully chosen words lately regarding his work with Freddie Mac. First he was a historian, then a consultant, and now he's engaged in a kerfuffle with Mitt Romney about whether or not he was a lobbyist for them.

What were you doing in 1994?

What were you doing in 1994? If you're old enough to vote, you were alive then. I was at Edgewater High School, in the marching band and German Club. (My nerd credentials run deep). One big highlight from that year was finally convincing my parents to let me get contacts instead of glasses.

Yes, 1994 was an interesting year. Between Nancy Kerrigan getting clubbed on the leg by a figure skating rival, Kurt Cobain's suicide, and O.J. Simpson no longer being viewed as just that football player in the Naked Gun movies, it's amazing anyone managed to remember there was an election.

And regarding that 1994 election, here's what some people you may recognize were doing:

Aggressively Stupid: WaPo Attacks on Marco Rubio

Rubio: Proud of his family's history

The Washington Post published a ridiculous hit piece on Marco Rubio yesterday, claiming that "documents show" that Rubio had "embellished the facts" about his family's history, specifically how they came to America from Cuba.

You can pinch your nose and read the article here.

Because Rubio's family emigrated to America from Cuba in 1956, and Fidel Castro did not officially take power until 1959, writer Manuel Roig-Franzia claims that Rubio should not be able to say he is part of the Cuban exile community, and accuses Rubio of exaggerating his family's history for political gain.

I have decided I will not call this article journalistic malpractice, because that would imply that what Roig-Franzia published yesterday was journalism, instead of an egregious attempt at character assassination. Roig-Franzia's belligerent distortions of history makes him a prime candidate to create the next campaign video for Alan Grayson (of "Taliban Dan" fame).

RPOF event honoring WWII veterans

The Republican Party of Florida is sponsoring a great series of non-political events around the state to honor Florida's World War II veterans. The "Greatest Generation Tour" comes to Orlando this month in a free event at the Marks Street Senior Center on August 27th.

The event is open to the public and free to attend, but registration is required (click here). This, and many other don't-miss events, are also listed on the "Events" tab on the top right corner of this website.

Complete event information and a copy of the invitation available after the jump:

Happy Birthday Orlando!

Happy Birthday Orlando!

My hometown is 136 years old today, celebrating its incorporation as a town on July 31, 1875.

(Hat tip to @orlandocemetery, the official Twitter account for the Greenwood Cemetery and an excellent resource for Orlando history.)

Happy Birthday Orlando ! On this day in 1875, we became a city. At 137 years old, I think we look great for our age...Sun Jul 31 11:27:06 via TweetCasterGreenwood Cemetery
orlandocemetery

Why it's unconstitutional for Obama to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally

I have been seeing an unusual (and somewhat alarming) Constitutional issue pop up during the last few months' debt ceiling debate: does the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution authorize the President to raise the debt ceiling without approval from Congress?

This post will be a little more legalese than you are used to reading here, but please bear with me. Obama admitted recently that his attorneys are not convinced that they could win the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment really does grant him the power to raise the debt ceiling, but the idea keeps resurfacing.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner engaged in a common misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in a recent Huffington Post interview, we have multiple examples of the current administration's, shall we say creative, view of the law (most recently with the "Fast and Furious" debacle), and now Obama has admitted he sought legal advice on the issue (which means he's thinking about doing it!), I think it's important to discuss the constitutional law issues with as many people as possible so we are prepared if the White House does try this maneuver.

Let's start with the text of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the section that has been cited as potentially granting authority to the President to raise the debt ceiling. As you can see, there is nothing in the text that mentions the President or any sort of executive power or rights whatsoever:

Nazis are attacking the St. Pete Times!

Oh, those poor journalists at the St. Petersburg Times! They are under attack from Nazis!

Well, of course that is not actually true. But it's understandable why someone might think so, from the panicked headlines the St. Pete Times has been posting lately.

Apparently he's planning the extermination of Florida newspapers

First there was Wednesday's hysterically-titled blog post by Adam Smith, "Has Adam Hasner gone off the deep end?" in which he claims that Adam Hasner is comparing our government to the Third Reich.

Then, today, Daniel Ruth writes an op-ed, "Hasner mining for fear," in which he says that Hasner was attempting to "link the nation's economic woes to the threat Adolf Hitler's Third Reich posed to the world."

OMG! Hitler?

Nazis?!?!?!?!!!

NAZIS!!!!!!!! HITLER!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!

Hold on a second here. What exactly did Hasner write? Would someone who's Jewish really be so careless with a Hitler reference?

What has the St. Pete Times' panties in a bunch is Hasner's July Fourth message. You can read the entire note here on his Facebook page.

Let's look at the key language in the second through fourth paragraphs:

...The very freedom we celebrate this weekend is threatened like few times in our nation’s history.

On July 4, 1941, as Hitler’s Reich spread its influence across Europe, President Roosevelt used a radio address to proclaim the Fourth of July holiday as an example to the world in its fight for freedom.  President Roosevelt said, “several new practices of tyranny have been making such headway that the fundamentals of 1776 are being struck down abroad, and definitely, they are threatened here.”

Nearly five months to the day later, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Despite the challenges, a generation of Americans would answer the call to save America, and the world, from a dark future under the control of brutal empires and savage dictators.

Today, the biggest threat to our liberty is not a foreign government, but our own. The worst practice of tyranny is not from a dictator, but from our debt – a debt which threatens to enslave future generations of Americans to a diminished future, a lower standard of living, and a reduction of our freedoms. We face more restrictions on our liberties from stifling bureaucrats than from threats abroad.

Wait. Go back and look at parts I highlighted with bold print.

Hasner mentions Hitler once, and only once, and in a reference to the challenges that Franklin D. Roosevelt was facing on July 4, 1941. Sooo...let me get this straight...Hasner only mentioned Hitler as part of a reference to the President who fought the war against the Nazis. 

If that's "going off the deep end," then I guess it's also crazy to mention King George III if you're talking about George Washington, or mention that Abraham Lincoln fought to free the slaves, or Ronald Reagan's efforts to end communism. Take note, politicos: the St. Pete Times does not want you to discuss history! Only an extremist would reference American history and past struggles for freedom in a July Fourth message!

Well what about the rest of the message? Does Hasner connect current events to the Nazis?

No, the exact opposite is true. Hasner said the "biggest threat" is not a foreign government, but abuses of power within our own government. And we're not facing a threat from a dictator, but from our crushing debt. In other words, FDR fought Hitler and the Nazis, and Americans today are fighting something entirely different, "not a foreign government," "not a dictator."

Maybe Adam Smith and Daniel Ruth need to go take an SAT prep course and brush up on their reading comprehension. When someone says "we are not fighting X, we are fighting Y," that is not "comparing" X and Y! That is saying that X and Y are different. It's really not that complicated.
 

[Cross-posted at The Minority Report and RedState]

Creative ideas to save some Orlando history

The "round building" today

The City of Orlando recently had a groundbreaking ceremony for the new performing arts center. The new location on the south side of downtown near City Hall, will require the demolition of several older buildings.

One of the buildings to be removed is the former American Federal Savings & Loan Building, also known as "the round building." The building is a few blocks from where my family goes to church, and it definitely has a unique look. When I was little, I thought it looked like an air filter for a car or the carousel slide projector my mother, a high school Latin teacher used in her classroom (Am I dating myself? Proud Child of the 1980s here!). 

The original two stories and its pre-cast concrete facade was instantly a downtown Orlando landmark when completed in 1963, and the upper glass tower section was added a few years later. Scott Maxwell at the Orlando Sentinel wrote an article about the building earlier this week, noting that while the building is a "mishmash of styles" and not quite an "architectural gem," it is a part of Orlando's history.

Scott Maxwell: When round building goes, so does part of O-Town's history - OrlandoSentinel.com

The building as it originally appeared in 1963

Over the past few years, there has been a unique effort to protect some of the round building's history: not to prevent the building from being demolished, but to save the concrete facade and reuse it as an art project somewhere else in the city.

A local design group, the Nils M. Schweizer Fellows, conducted a contest to collect submissions called "Round Building Reuse: 360." You can view the contest winners here.

The group is now trying to raise awareness about the design submissions and raise private funds to make one of the ideas reality. City officials are supportive of the project. Commissioner Robert Stuart saying that he hoped that no one would "make a mistake and put a crane on the building yet" before they had a plan in place to save the concrete facade.

As a lifelong Orlando resident, I am glad to hear that people are working to save this quirky piece of Orlando's history, and look forward to seeing which design ends up being used.

 

A historical perspective on why Obama is wrong about Israel

President Obama made a very controversial statement in a speech last Thursday: that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

To be fair, the President did qualify that statement by mentioning that  "land swaps" would have to be part of the deal, and he seemed to take a somewhat less aggressive stance in his speech to AIPAC yesterday, but still mentioned the 1967 borders as his reference point.

Not an effective foreign
policy strategy.

President Obama is engaging in a dangerous little dance as he attempts to shape world policy while simultaneously pretending the history of that same world didn't happen.

In my opinion, openly suggesting that Israel go back to the 1967 borders is, at best, dangerously naïve, does nothing to advance the goal of obtaining realistic peace for the region, and only emboldens Israel's enemies who would seek to push the borders further and further back until Israel disappeared from the map altogether.

Let's remember why Israel's borders changed in 1967: the Six-Day War.

Israel, at that time not even two decades into its modern existence, was facing increasing aggression from its Arab neighbors. In just six days in early June 1967, the tiny nation successfully defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (along with numerous other allies who were fighting with them). Israel's victory was decisive, shocking the Middle East, and as a result, Israel gained control over an increased territory. Israel officially expanded its borders eastward, and retained control over a larger area that would provide a valuable buffer zone to its residents.

Israel, pre-1967, was less than nine miles wide. To retreat back to the pre-1967 borders would create additional and unnecessary military vulnerabilities, including leaving the entire land area of Israel vulnerable to the Hamas rockets, which have a range of about 10 miles.

Another noteworthy development happened last month, when Fatah, one of the major Palestinian political parties announced it had made an alliance to join with Hamas to form a government.

Hamas is, plain and simple, a terrorist organization. They do not bother to play  semantic games like the Irish Republican Army did with the Sinn Féin political party. Hamas issues their death threats against the people of Israel in their own name, they launch rockets at schoolyards in their own name, they send suicide bombers to shopping centers in their own name. 

There is no room for confusion. This is a black-and-white issue. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has declared war on Israel and is actively engaged in violence and bloodshed as I type this post here today.

In the context of this history, Obama's Thursday speech seemed to oversimplify the situation and he was accused of being out of touch with reality.  One notable critic was   Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had a visit with the President the next day. Netanyahu strongly rebuked Obama, saying that the 1967 lines were "indefensible" and did not take into consideration the situation on the ground.

Here's the video of Netanyahu's meeting with Obama. There's a line he says near the end that is especially chilling:

We don't have a lot of margin for error. And...Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Netanyahu is correct. What Obama is asking is for him to risk the survival of his entire nation, and he's right to take what some are calling a "defiant" tone here.

It is almost unprecedented to expect the victor of a war to return territories won in the conflict, especially when such lands are obtained from an aggressor and viewed as strategically essential territories for future defense.

In the entire history of human civilization on this planet, I'm aware of one country, just one, that was victorious in war and then voluntarily gave up conquered territory: The United States. 

After World War II, America not only agreed to allow Germany and Japan to retain their independence, but also supported a significant portion of their rebuilding through the Marshall Plan and related programs.

Note, however, that we didn't call up Hitler in 1943 and try to "negotiate" peace.  We fought on land, sea, and air until the German military could take no more. We did not stop fighting until Hitler had committed suicide and the Germans had officially and formally surrendered.

We carpet-bombed German cities - including civilian areas. In this modern age where we send attorneys to the front lines and futilely attempt to fight politically correct wars, it can be difficult to appreciate what this really means. Photographs can only capture a small piece:

Berlin, May 1945 - View of Unter den Linden and the Brandenburg Gate

Film gives a fuller perspective. There's a great movie with Jean Arthur,  Marlene Dietrich, and John Lund called A Foreign Affair that takes place in Berlin right after World War II. The opening scenes include several aerial shots taken from airplanes flying over the city, showing a Berlin that had nearly been leveled by Allied bombs.

Here's a clip from the beginning of the movie. Note especially the sections at 1:40 and 3:35.


YouTube | A Foreign Affair 1/12 (!948)

Likewise, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we didn't sit down at a table with Emperor Hirohito and try to draw up a contract for peace. We didn't whine and wish upon a star for them to not bomb us any more. We flew across the Pacific Ocean and bombed them. A lot.

Of course, the circumstances under which we obtained Japan's surrender are well-known. What is less remembered is that, before we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the United States had intensely firebombed sixty-seven Japanese cites for six months. resulting in an estimated 500,000 Japanese deaths (the two nuclear attacks killed less than half that).

Appeasement doesn't work. This does.

We did not back down until the Japanese agreed to unconditionally surrender  on our terms.

After the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, President Truman gave a radio address in which he announced that America had used this weapon for the first time in world history, and vowed that we would "continue to use [the bomb] until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war."  We even had plans to drop another atomic bomb on a Japanese city in August 1945, and then three more per month after that, until they surrendered.

My point is that, regarding this unprecedented and historically unique voluntary grant of territory by a victor after a war, the United States ceded control only after a complete and total defeat and surrender of Germany and Japan's fighting forces, and not a minute before. 

Today, Israel is being asked to negotiate with a Palestinian government that has openly and proudly allied itself with Hamas, which, I repeat again for emphasis, is a terrorist organization.

Israel is being asked to retreat to indefensible borders without any real reassurances that the attacks will cease. Worse, Israel is being asked to make this retreat while the violence is still happening.

Israel is being asked to surrender territory that it rightfully won in war, in the hope that it will appease the bloodthirsty killers who deny Israel even has a right to exist.

Appeasement didn't work when Neville Chamberlin tried it with Adolf Hitler. It won't work with Hamas either. The only way to "appease" Hamas would be for the people of Israel to stand at the border and slit their own throats. That's a brutally graphic metaphor, I know, but we're talking about a group that believes bombing school buses full of children is a valid negotiating tactic. 

I am thankful that the people of Israel have a leader like Netanyahu who is grounded in reality and fully dedicated to the preservation of their nation. It breaks my heart to say that I fear our President does not share his views.

Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.

- Golda Meir

If Palestine were to lay down their guns tomorrow, there would be no war. If Israel were to lay down theirs, there would be no Israel.

- Benjamin Netanyahu

[Cross-posted at RedState, RedCounty, and The Minority Report]

Ronald Reagan's 1981 Christmas Address to the Nation

As we get ready to celebrate Christmas tomorrow, I thought a look back almost twenty years ago would be interesting. Here is President Ronald Reagan's Christmas address to our country at the end of his first year in office, 1981:

YouTube | Ronald Reagan's 1981 Christmas Address to the Nation

"The world is full of peril as well as promise. Too many of its people, even now, live in the shadow of want and tyranny."

In addition to commemorating the holiday season, Reagan also has tough, brave words regarding the brutal oppression of the Polish people by its Soviet-backed communist government. Reagan unequivocally condemns the actions of the Polish government, and offers support to the Solidarity movement which would be the driving force in bringing freedom to Poland.

The world owes Ronald Reagan a debt of gratitude for his courageous role in bringing about the end of the Cold War. As we face today new threats from terrorists, rogue nuclear nations, and an unstable world economy, I don't know if we can wait for another "Reagan" to come along and lead us through the troubles. But I do know that I have great faith in the American people, and the power of prayer, and I believe that we will get through this.

God Bless all of you this Christmas season.

History of the Modern World in Four Minutes

Here's an interesting way to look at history.  The guy who made this video is a British statistics professor, and they took figures from the past two hundred years for life expectancy and annual income for the countries of the world, and then tracked them over time:

 YouTube | BBC | Hans Rosling's The Joy of Stats - 200 Countries, 200 years, 4 minutes

Pete Weldon linked to this video earlier this week, and asked this question:

"Which political system is responsible for the inventiveness and productivity that has led to such dramatic positive changes in worldwide health and wealth?"

Yep.  It's pretty obvious when you watch the history of the entire world that capitalism and democracy send the little dots to the top right quicker...I mean, bring health and prosperity to their people quicker and more consistently.  

Just Say No to Keynesian Economics

During the past few years, you may have overheard references to "Keynesian Economics" in some of the debates about how to improve the economy.  What exactly is "Keynesian Economics," how is it shaping current U.S. economic policy, and, most importantly, is it a good idea?

Well, first of all, "Keynesian economics" refers to John Maynard Keynes, and is a macroeconomic theory named after him.

John Maynard Keynes knows what's good for you

Let me be clear about one thing: Keynesian economics has absolutely nothing to do with Kenya.  There are a surprising number of people who get this confused.  I had some nutcase on Twitter accuse me of being a racist and hating the President because I voiced an opinion about Keynesian policies.  Ummm, no.  (Side note: if you're  going to try and start a fight with someone on the internet, try not to do it about something that is easily disproved by Google.)

Anyway: here is a video taken at the Stewart-Colbert Rally that has some fun with this common misconception:


YouTube | Obama is not a Keynesian, He's an American!
  
Now back to the serious stuff.  Keynesian economics is also not socialism or communism, because it does not advocate actual government takeover and/or ownership of private enterprise.  However, it does advocate a high degree of interference with the private economy.

The Keynesians believe that the private sector creates "inefficiencies" and view the cyclical swings of the economy (booms and busts, inflationary periods, recessions, etc.) as something which ought to be tamed or suppressed.  Keynesians support government control over a powerful central bank, centralized fiscal policy, and other actions and interference by the government with the national economy in an effort to stabilize it.

The stimulus bill is a Keynesian type of policy: the justification for the bill was that the massive spending under the bill would increase consumer spending and thereby "stimulate" the economy.  However, this is a fallacy...or in simpler terms, it's complete and utter crap.

Economic growth (increases in small business profits, personal income, investment income, etc.) leads to an increase in consumer spending, not the other way around.  Think about it in terms of your own life - if you go to the mall and spend all your savings, does that make you richer?  Of course not.  On the flip side, if you get a raise at work or make a profitable investment, wouldn't you possibly be more likely to buy a more expensive car, take a nice vacation, or buy a lovely pair of designer shoes?

Buying these shoes won't make you rich.  However, if you are rich, you might buy these shoes.

Here is a great video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity that explains all this Keynesian stuff in 5 easy minutes (Seriously, watch it.  It's good for you):

YouTube | CFPEcon101 | Keynesian Economics is Wrong: Economic Growth Causes Consumer Spending, Not the Other Way

So, basically, just like you can't get rich by buying a pair of designer shoes, America can't improve the economy simply by having the government spend a humongous pile of money.

And just to make sure we are crystal clear - the reason the  stimulus bill didn't work was not because we didn't spend enough, but because the entire  underlying concept is fundamentally flawed (or, as I so eloquently wrote earlier, "complete and utter crap").

Finally, let's think about what happens if you spend money you don't have: you end up in debt.  Our country is in a big, gigantic, frighteningly deep hole of debt right now, and apparently it seems that none of the Democrats have heard the saying, "If you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!"

"Forget a ladder!  I can tax and spend my way out!" (Image originally on BigHollywood.com)

Keynesian policies have no chance of getting us out of this debt or saving our economy; they can only dig us deeper into trouble.

I did a Google image search for Keynesian economics and found a wonderfully snarky illustration of the problem: a T-shirt that says - in Chinese - "Keynesian economics makes sense to me:"  

Keynesian economics = China owns us.

To further drive the point home, Citizens Against Government Waste put out a devastating ad right before the election, warning of what may come if we don't "stop digging:"

YouTube | CAGWmedia | Chinese Professor

So remember, Keynesian Economics = nothing to do with Kenya, the economic equivalent of trying to escape a hole by digging it deeper, and always a bad idea (unless you're China).

If the Founding Fathers had Twitter...

From the Mashable blog, a very funny comic about what the American Revolution might have looked like on Twitter: 

Mashable | We Hold These Tweets To Be Self-Evident

(click on above link to see the cartoon)

Krauthammer on Israel, and a history lesson

An excellent, viciously logical, very compelling article by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post:

Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews

The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense.  Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence. 

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide.  For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.

Whoa.  Those are heavy, heavy words.  What do you think?  Is Krauthammer a drama queen for bringing up the Holocaust?  Or has the way the international community treats Israel gotten so insane, that the only way to make sense of the situation is to compare it to last century's organized attempt to wipe out the Jewish people?