William F. Buckley 2006 vs. Harry Reid 2007

April 30, 2007

First, Harry Reid’s recent quote on the war being lost last week:

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense — and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows — that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”

Next, here’s what William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote last February:

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven’t proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.

The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren’t on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.

[…]

The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn’t work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.

Buckley is far more articulate, but is the message any different?


The Fuel That Drives Protectionists

April 26, 2007

Micron CEO says he doesn’t have to hire or invest in the U.S. ever again

Is Micron Technology done expanding in Idaho? Depending how you read a recent comment made by Micron’s chairman, president and CEO Steve Appleton in the current edition of Business Week magazine, the answer may be yes.“I don’t have to hire one more person in the U.S. I don’t have to invest one more dollar here — and we’ll be just fine,” Appleton said in the April 23 edition of the business magazine.

Appleton was featured in a story about how more U.S. companies are expanding overseas and no longer spending money on domestic operations.

CEO’s like this give a bad name to free-market principles by blatantly throwing the consumer base and workforce that got them to where they are under the bus.  He’s no better than a liberal that goes to France to badmouth America


Tax what people spend, Not what they earn

April 23, 2007

Soon, it will be official that the $580 million surplus has been appropriated to things such as a 15% increase in annual spending, as well as putting $200 million more into the rainy day fund – now, after the fact, maybe we can discuss the over-taxation of the people of North Dakota that produced that surplus..

The state currently procures $252 million per year via the income tax; 66% of which is paid by the 97% of North Dakotans that make less than $150,000 per year (the remaining 34% of income taxes are paid by that remaining “richest 3%”.)

Many are predicting that the 2009 legislative session will face another large surplus. The discussion must begin now to determine whether the people themselves can spend their hard earned money better than the government. This discussion must not wait until Labor Day 2008. Should a government – By, For, and Of The People – collect endless taxes on The People’s earnings even when those taxes are not currently needed?

This state needs to determine what its priorities are, and fund those. It should not collect taxes and have an entire legislative session determining how to spend the extra money – that is neither conservative nor liberal – it’s just plain immature and greedy.

The legislature’s job is budget, not to figure out ways to spend excess tax dollars. If the legislature chooses not to budget, rather to simply spend what comes in, then The People will have to send a message to their officials that they are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it any more.

How much income is taken from The People for the purported purpose of “economic development?” Simply letting The People simply keep more of the money they earn is the best economic development plan there is.

Perhaps the time has come to tax what people spend, not what they earn. They will have more money to spend, and the economy will develop on its own. Soon, the consumer base to create jobs needed to keep young people in the state will emerge. Government simply has to get out of the way, and let people keep their own earnings.


Newt Gingrich, Saying the Right Things Again

April 19, 2007

 Flashback to what was posted here at FreeRepublicans.com:

I’ve travelled the country. I’ve been to the the big cities. The air sucks. Goto a place like D.C. and its like a blanket over your face. North Dakota’s air is still very clean by those standards.

That said, this state must stop selling its soul and whoring itself out to the energy producers that are pretty much the entire basis for our economy at this point.

We here in North Dakota have gotten to the point where we are dependent on the money that the energy industry has pumped into the economy. This is great, I would never say anything bad about the fact that this industy has been good for the economy and the income levels in this state. But high paying jobs are not enough.

Teddy Roosevelt came to North Dakota for the clean and open air that was not in New York City and was literally killing him in NYC. Luckily there isn’t much pollution out west, but in the Mercer County (where I grew up) and the Bismarck area the air is not nearly what it should be.

I am not a tree hugger. Typically, can’t stand enviromentalist wacko’s who think of everything in terms of ‘enviromentally friendly.’

Rather, this issue should be looked at from the point of view of ‘human friendliness.’

North Dakota is a conservative state, as am I a conservative person. But it has always been my feeling that there isn’t nearly enough conservation within the conservative movement.

This state should make a concerted effort to not only be energy independent and self sustaining, but also a ‘clean’ or ‘green’ state, whichever your political leanings tell you is better.

North Dakota’s economic success should not be at the cost of its clean air and its children’s respiratory health.

Conservatism cannot be genuine without conservation; whether that is fiscal, social, or enviromental.

Here’s what Newt says at RedState:

I believe we are seeing the beginning of a three-way split in American politics. The three groups are: the left wing machine; the “stand pat” Republicans; and the supporters of “American Solutions.” I’ve written about this split before in my weekly newsletter. It applies across many issues but for now, let’s focus on the environment.

The Left Wing Machine. The first group is those on the left who believe that only big government, big litigation, high taxes, and big regulation are appropriate answers for our environmental challenges.

The “Stand Pat” Republicans. The second group is those on the right who have grown so weary of the left using the environment as an emotional tool to push higher taxes and bigger government that they reflexively ignore or deny environmental challenges.

American Solutions. The third group – the group that I believe is the future of the American conservative movement, and indeed the future of American politics – are those who favor a “green conservatism” – an optimistic, positive, science and technology based, entrepreneurial, market-oriented, incentive-led, conservative environmentalism that creates more solutions faster and that will result in more biodiversity with less pollution and a safer planet.

As conservatives, we cannot trap ourselves into being “Stand Pat” Republicans. If the 2006 election taught us anything, it is that “Stand Pat” Republicans are no match for the left wing machine. This is as true for our environmental challenges as any other issue. In the absence of a clearly articulated “green conservatism,” the left wing machine will win.

Aside from the political ramifications, there is also the moral imperative of creating a future in which children in America and, indeed, all over the world, enjoy a much higher standard of living through a more vibrant economy and cleaner environments with greater biodiversity.
Values of Green ConservatismAn American Solutions approach will develop a “green conservatism.”

1. Green conservatism favors clean air and clean water.
2. Green conservatism favors maximum biodiversity as a positive good.
3. Green conservatism favors minimizing carbon loading in the atmosphere as a positive public value.
4. Green conservatism is pro-science, pro-technology, and pro-innovation.
5. Green conservatism believes that green prosperity and green development are integral to the successful future of the human race.
6. Green conservatism believes that economic growth and environmental health are compatible in both the developed and developing world.
7. Green conservatism believes that we can realize more positive environmental outcomes faster by shifting tax code incentives and shifting market behavior than is possible from litigation and regulation.

As a key part of green prosperity and green development, there has to be a green energy strategy which is designed to enable the human race to make the transition from historic fossil fuels which dramatically improved the quality of life over the pre-industrial period to a new clean generation of energy which will: enable us in national security terms to be liberated from dependence on dangerous dictatorships; enable us in economic terms to be effective in worldwide competition; and enable us in environmental terms to provide for a much cleaner and healthier future.

Reliable, affordable energy is indispensable to economic growth around the planet, and economic growth is essential to a healthier environment. In so many ways both here and abroad, we truly achieve “green through growth”.


The Never Ending WSI Scandal: April 2007 Update

April 18, 2007

From the Bismarck Tribune

Felony charges were filed against two employees of the state’s Workforce, Safety and Insurance agency this morning: Sandy Blunt, CEO, and Romi Leingang, manager of the special investigations unit.

Three charges were filed in South Central District Court against Blunt: two counts, one Class B and one Class C felony, of misapplication of entrusted property, and one count of conspiracy to commit disclosure of confidential information.

The first count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, and the last two charges carry penalties of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

The first count was in regard to the use of about WSI Slush Fund Expenditure The second count alleged Blunt improperly awarded bonuses to employees.


The Neo-Prohibitionist Agenda

April 15, 2007

In Iowa, courtesy of Political Forecast:

On Wednesday, the Iowa House passed a statewide keg registration law by a vote of 86-10. The ten members voting against the bill were: Eric Palmer, Chuck Gipp, Jamie Van Fossen, Lance Horbach, Christopher Rants, Ralph Watts, Steve Lukan, Tom Sands, Rick Olson, and Dick Taylor. Of those ten, three were Democrats: Palmer, Olson, and Taylor. Clearly, this isn’t a partisan piece of legislation since it passed so overwhelmingly.

Responsibility is what we should promote and the consequences for doing something wrong, not tracking everyone who buys a keg (which most people do without giving beer to underage minors). And, as EE wrote:

“Instead of making such laws, we should concentrate on changing our society’s relationship with alcohol. After all, we should be a country which learns from it’s … *cough* prohibition *cough*… mistakes.

Our society will not be able to overcome the ‘mystification’ of sex, alcohol and drugs until we stop putting them up on pedestals in front of our children.”

In the slang of a 21st century young person, word.


Resist Rudy McRomney

April 15, 2007

Resist Rudy McRonmey (http://www.rudymcromney.com).