Capitol Curmudgeon

Romney's Trifecta Loss and the Nevada Mormon Connection

2012-02-07T23:47:00.000-08:00

Ned Barnett

Mitt Romney scored big in Nevada, and - especially in light of his trifecta loss in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado - it is perhaps important to look at the Nevada Mormon Connection. In Nevada's caucus, according to exit polls, roughly 70 percent of Romney's voters were Mormons. That was commented on, but largely ignored by the media - which may be gun-shy about mentioning religious affiliation as a factor in voting - instead, the media focused on how Romney dominated the votes of "very conservative" and "Tea Party" Nevadans.

Now here’s something that’s REALLY overlooked - Mormons in Nevada are, by and large, Very Conservative, and a great many of Nevada's Tea Party members are also Mormons. In 2010, I served both the Clark County (Las Vegas) Republican Party and the Nevada Republican Party as Communications Director, and also counted as my client two Nevada-based subsidiaries of the Tea Party Express - and in those roles, I was able to see that a significant portion of the "very conservative" and "Tea Party" Nevadans were also Mormons. There being nothing unusual in being a Mormon in Nevada, this was not kept hidden or swept under the table.

However, the national political media is - as noted - either gun-shy about focusing on the religious preference of voters (especially members of a controversial religion, such as the LDS), or they just didn't make the connection. But the connection is there. The research firms who conducted the exit polls know this, but chose not to share the second-tier correlations between religious affiliation and their status as "very conservative" or "Tea Party." But the information is there for anyone who cares to look into it.

Absent the exit polling data, we can look to the Tea Party revolt of 2010 that forced out "mainstream conservative" Republican Senator Bob Bennett in a hotly-contested primary. He was pushed out by Tea Party/Very Conservative Utah Republicans ... and this being Utah, there was no way that this movement could NOT have been constituted of Mormon Tea Party/Very Conservative voters.

The exit pollers have the background numbers and could easily run the cross-correlations, but since they’re not looking for a “Mormon” story, they didn’t say that X percent of the voters were Mormon, and Y percent of the Mormons were Very Conservative, and Z percent of the Mormons were Tea Partiers - and they also didn't say that these Mormons voted for Romney the way African Americans voted for Obama in 2008.

Nevada's Very Conservative/Tea Party Mormons are not to be confused with Borg drones - they can and do think for themselves, but having lived their lives as a member of a minority religion, when it comes to supporting their own, they tend to vote in a very lock-step fashion.

Which all goes to explain why Romney did so well in the Middle-American Nevada on Saturday, then lost big in three other Middle-American/Flyover states, none of which has an electorally-significant Mormon population. At 6 percent - Romney's loss in Colorado was the closest to a win - and as Fox News pointed out in its late-night coverage of Colorado's caucus, Colorado has a far higher Mormon population - as a percentage of the total electorate - than does Minnesota or Missouri. Which, I believe, is a hidden-but-important factor in understanding why Nevada didn't effectively predict other states with otherwise similar electorates.

Just Who the Hell Favors Leniency for Registered Sex Offenders?

2010-03-01T12:54:00.000-08:00

Ned Barnett (c) 2010

With the tears of a father who's lost a child, I'm watching news of the desperate search in San Diego for yet one more beautiful, intelligent young woman - an honor student with her whole life ahead of her. They say they haven't given up hope - and after the miraculous return of Elizabeth Smart from a multi-year abduction by a completely bizarre sexual predator and his wife , hope remains viable - but the search is also clearly intended to find a body, not a survivor.

Meanwhile, the news keeps showing images of yet one more unassuming-looking 30-year-old previously-convicted sexual predator, who has been linked to the young girl via items of her clothing and, perhaps, DNA.

So I have to wonder - just who the hell favors leniency for registered sexual offenders, and what are those who want them locked up for OUR own good going to do about laws that send these monsters back onto the streets to pray on our children, our loved-ones and our fellow citizens?

An AP article published in late 2006 sums up the problem with sexual predators - recidivism. Author Steve Thomson wrote:

Most crimes have a low recidivism rate, but this is not the case with sex offenders.

Recidivism among sex offenders is quite high, according to the United States Department of Justice. Although not all sex offenders re-offend, they are four times more likely than a criminal convicted of robbery, murder, assault or any other charge. Psychologists believe that recidivism is high among sex offenders because their desire to rape, molest or assault is a psychologically ingrained predilection.

Next to capital murder, there is no more destructive crime than violent rape - and the impact on the young, with their whole lives ahead of them, is especially awful. However, it gets worse - as we've seen in all too many cases recently, the worst kinds of sexual predators seem to evolve from kidnapping and rape to kidnapping, rape and murder. The more sexual crimes they commit, the more violent and destructive they seem to become.

Which brings me to my question. Just who the hell favors leniency for convicted sexual predators? Is there any good, rational reason for not locking these monsters away for life? None that I can think of. It used to be, rape was a capital crime and many rapists were executed - and considering the havoc they create among their victims, I have no problem with that. However, given the court's vacillating approach to capital punishment, I advocate life without parole for all individuals convicted of being sexual predators.

There are some sexually-related crimes that don't qualify the perpetrators as sexual predators, and reason needs to be used in defining which crimes and which criminals qualify. A 17-year-old who has consensual intercourse with his long-time 15-year-old girlfriend has committed statutory rape but he's hardly a (by definition) predatory sexual rapist. A 14-year-old girl who sends naked self-portraits to her 15-year-old boyfriend is not a child pornographer. But a priest who seduces altar boys, or a gang who attacks, rapes and beats nearly to death a young investment banker in Central Park, or a school teacher who seduces her 12-year-old student or a 30-year-old registered sexual predator who "disappears" a bright, beautiful, filled-with-life 17-year-old honors student IS a sexual predator. The key is a crime that is violent, abusive, exploitative and - in most cases - criminal under other statutes than just sex crimes. Kidnapping, assault and battery - those are the kinds of markers.

When it comes to defining what is a sexual predator, common sense as described by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in defining hard-core pornography is useful:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it ..." [U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion, "Jacobellis v. Ohio," 1964]

So I'm wondering - just who the hell favors leniency for registered sexual offenders, and what are those who want them locked up for OUR own good going to do about laws that send these monsters back onto the streets to pray on our children, our loved-ones and our fellow citizens?

The Capitol Curmudgeon

You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com

An Open Letter to the American Conservative Union

2010-02-22T21:23:00.000-08:00

To David A. Keene, Chairman and Dennis E. Whitfield, Executive Vice President
American Conservative Union

From Ned Barnett, Conservative Republican and ACU Member

We cannot have another straw poll like we had at CPAC last weekend; I think I know what happened (and why), and I believe I have a solution - sure to be controversial - but a solution nonetheless.

I joined the ACU after watching Rush Limbaugh's stirring Keynote Speech at the 2009 CPAC meeting; this year, I was able to attend CPAC myself. It was a wonderful experience, a clear and brilliant example of a republic's electorate in action.

One thing that filled me with a sense of pride was the remarkable number of students in attendance at CPAC. When I was a college student the Vietnam war was in full flower, and even in the Deep South, it seemed that college students were more liberal than conservative. There's nothing like the thought of a Draft that would pluck you from your comfortable life and send you to the world's most hellish jungle to die in a war the President had already admitted was something we refused to win.

That attitude didn't deter me from seeking and earning an Annapolis appointment - and, when I failed the eye test, an Air Force commission through ROTC (with the same result). So I am always glad to see conservative college students - I know the pressures they face holding true to their beliefs.

At CPAC, I met and talked with many students, and was honored to shake the hands of West Point cadets, thanking them for their service to our country. As a former college professor and the father of another college professor, I am always grateful to see students who've become politically active and who've embraced a conservative philosophy.

However, as pleased as I was to see so many students there, I believed that they were there to learn from the incredible brain-trust assembled at CPAC. I certainly did not expect them to lecture us. However, that's exactly what they presumed to do - to lecture us, the adults who've spent their lives involved with politics, how we should believe. It was the Children's Crusade - or America's Vietnam anti-war movement - all over again.

I spoke to a number of students, and among them, their sandbagging of the straw poll by their mass votes was a frivolous game, if not a joke. Their support was for a man - one who no scientific poll suggests he's even in the race, let alone the leader - who even they know isn't a viable conservative candidate. He is and always has been a Libertarian (which is not the same thing as a Conservative); he signed on as a Republican because, in our two-party political system, it's almost impossible for a third-party candidate to hope to win. However, that "flag of convenience" party affiliation doesn't make Ron Paul a conservative, or, really, a Republican.

I have nothing against Ron Paul. I work amicably and in close concert in a grass roots Republican Party organization with men and women who call themselves "Paulistas." However, I do not kid myself into thinking that Ron Paul is either a real Republican or a viable Presidential candidate. And I know as surely as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning that Ron Paul is not THE candidate of the membership of the ACU, or of the majority of attendees at CPAC.

We, the members of ACU, were sandbagged by guests - students - we invited in to learn more about politics, and to begin the process of being involved in a lifetime of conservative political activism. Our mistake was in allowing these guests (students were given a significant discount ($25 vs. $175 for adult members, and to me, that doesn't - and shouldn't - make them full voting members).

If we allow students to vote in future straw polls, this will happen again. We will be embarrassed again by another sandbagged vote for a fringe candidate who doesn't represent Conservative and Republican values, this time in the year when Presidential primaries are beginning.

Which is why I recommend this, to you - the leaders of the ACU - to either do away with straw polls entirely (a mistake, in my opinion), or we limit voting to full registered attendees, and not allowing our student guests to vote.

They had their chance, and they blew it.

I don't expect this to be enthusiastically received by those who see any kind of judgment based on age as being discriminatory ... which is NOT the way I encourage you to look at this. Rather, we say to students, "when you're ready to pay your own way, you're ready to be a fully-participating and voting member of ACU - but as long as you're our student guests who pay only 14 percent of what our full members pay, you do not have the right to vote in our straw poll."

Respectfully submitted

Ned Barnett
Conservative and Republican
Las Vegas, Nevada

You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com

First National Primary - Nevada 2010

2010-02-16T03:21:00.001-08:00

By Ned Barnett
The Capitol Curmudgeon

The Nevada primary is leading up to the general election to unseat Harry Reid - and this is the only National election in the U.S. this year. Harry Reid is facing an uphill battle to hang on as Senator and Senate Majority Leader.

No other national official, no other individual in line of succession to the Presidency, is facing a seriously-contested election race. So the importance of this election is all out of proportion to the size of Nevada's population. This means that Nevada will be in a spotlight of surpassing intensity - and every candidate for the Senate (and, because they might be indicators of the outcome, every candidate for any U.S. House seat from Nevada), will be under an electron microscope. Their every utterance since grade school will be examined for consistency with the new grass roots orthodoxy, the new emphasis on constitutional conservatism.

This is good and it's bad, since the national media will try - as they successfully tried with John McCain - to anoint Nevada Republicans' choice for candidate, and to tell Nevada's voters who they really want in Washington. Which means, the media being what they are, that the media's darling for the Republican nominee will be the most pragmatically moderate rather than the most dogmatically Constitutional. All the candidates will be claiming to be conservatives - to determine who's telling the truth, look at those candidates that the out-of-state mainstream media tries hardest to ignore.

This also means that there will be dozens (or more) outside political action groups - each with their own axes to grind - descending on Nevada, pumping money into ad campaigns advocating one candidate or the other ... with no real concern about Nevada. All they care about is their cause; which means the political discourse in Nevada between now and the first Tuesday in November will be fragmented - maybe even fractured.

For candidates who know it's important to stay on messages, this will be a huge challenge. Others, purportedly supporting them, will be using their own messages, and tying those messages around candidates necks like long-dead albatrosses. You've already seen some of this - ads that say, "call Harry Reid and thank him for ____ (fill in your own radical left message)." This will start hitting Republican candidates soon, and they'll wind up having to answer to the media for ads and messages that did not come from their campaigns.

In addition, and even more important, the run up to the election to dethrone Harry Reid will be, in essence, the first Presidential Primary of 2012. Not officially, of course, but the election to replace Ried will be, de facto, the first presidential primary. This will focus even more national media attention on Nevada's elections. It will also focus national money as never before - but with that money will come the media (who always follow the money), who'll be busy telling us poor ignorant back-woods (or back-arroyo) Nevada Republicans who we should support.

All of the serious national presidential candidates-to-be will see this primary and subsequent general election as a beauty pageant. They'll be eagerly showing the national media that they can attract crowds, raise money and motivate volunteers - all the things necessary to win primaries and the Presidential election.

Obama is going to be here later this week (as I write this). Tim Pawlenty will be here shortly. Mitt is certain to drop by, and Sarah will be here on March 27th. Chairman Steele has been almost commuting here ... the writing's on the wall.

This is a great opportunity for Nevada conservatives - especially those who are part of the authentic tea party/grass roots/constitutional conservative movement - to influence national politics. Not only will we be working to replace Harry Reid, we will also be helping to shape the media and voting public's perception - nationwide - of the strengths and weaknesses of the likely (and not so likely) 2012 Republican Presidential candidates. In effect, we may help influence whether or not President Obama is a one-termer like Jimmy Carter or a two-termer like Bill Clinton. It's a heady opportunity, and a heady responsibility - one that no other state shares with us.

Which means that we'll have to decide - do we support a conservative on principle, or do we go with the person the media tells us is most likely to be selected in the primary (because he or she is the most likely to retire Harry Reid in the fall). Which is more important - electability or principle.

For me, I'm tired of the lesser of two evils, and after John McCain, I'm mortally tired of the national media telling us who ought to be our Republican candidate. However, I only have one vote. I'll make mine count - but if you're a grass roots conservative, I ask you to be sure to make yours count, too.

Ned Barnett
ned@barnettmarcom.com

You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com

It's Called Newton's Third Law, Mr. Obama

2009-10-13T23:31:00.000-07:00

This column was originally published in India in 4Ps B&M, one of that nation's most prestigious business and public relations magazines.

Ned Barnett is a Senior Political Media Analyst with experience of running media campaigns for former US Presidential candidates at state level. He writes exclusively for 4Ps B&M on why Obama’s PR campaign is backfiring...

America’s politicians are typically divided between two parties (there are other parties, but they seldom gain representation in Congress, and virtually never achieve real power, even in local or state elections); and typically, politicians “follow the party line.” However, because they are elected individually and are required to live in and come from the district they represent, they tend to oppose their own party when they fear for their own re-election. By pushing the American people so hard that they feel inclined to push back, the Obama administration has motivated hundreds of thousands of Americans to actually pay attention to politics, to get involved and to CARE.

During the Presidential campaign, Obama’s background as a “hardball” community organiser worked remarkably well – however, now that he’s governing, it is backfiring. Why? Because he seems to not be listening to Americans – and when Americans don’t feel that they’re being heard, they speak louder. Please remember, that in the US, the first element of the Bill of Rights allows us Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Petition the Government for the Redress of Grievances. By not listening to people’s free speech and by ignoring their petition to redress grievances, the Obama administration is courting that backlash.

There is a group – once called “the Silent Majority” – of people who tend to not speak out. They often vote, but they don’t protest or demonstrate. They are used to doing things for themselves, and they are much more comfortable “writing a letter” to an elected official, or the local newspaper, than going out in public with their home-made signs. However, because of Obama’s community organising initiatives and his “Change” agenda during the campaign, they have found the courage to step out of their comfort zone and speak out in public. They are not career protesters or life-long political agitators-for-change – this is not their natural milieu, and because of that, they are more emotionally tied up in being heard (and much more prone to real, sustained anger when they’re not listened to).

I am not implying that America is on the verge of a real revolution (of the armed revolt kind), but please remember this from our history if we want to understand this backlash – that it was not the Stamp Act (taxation without representation) that caused the revolution in 1776 – it was the refusal of King George and his Parliament to listen with interest to the American Colonists’ legitimate grievances that led directly to the Revolution that created the American Republic.

There are indeed precedents where Presidents have used the power of organised supporters (union members for instance) to push hard for their programs – the most obvious example is President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the depths of the Great Depression. He was a master at twisting people into activism, and it was effective. However, without the alternative media of today (cable news, Internet), the opposition was unable to push back. His efforts in passing the Communications Act of 1934 (he became President in 1933) reinforced the mandate that broadcasters had to broadcast “in the public interest” which enabled him to monopolise the media as never before to reach people. However, the times were different – especially the technology – so it is hard to compare them directly.

This is especially important in light of the question about how Obama’s media handling is going to change – I don’t think it will. To date, President Obama has seemed to be “tone deaf” – he hasn’t learned from mistakes (he hasn’t even acknowledged his mistakes – he’ll apologise overseas for America’s past actions, but won’t acknowledge his own mistakes). This is, in fact, remarkable. Even Nixon acknowledged mistakes – only Obama among all of America’s Presidents has refused to admit his mistakes.

Clearly, he’s seen his poll numbers fall – he’s seen how his confrontational tactics, especially in the last few weeks, have only ramped up anger and activity of the opposition Yet, he’s only gotten more confrontational. So – unless he has a real “eureka” moment, he’ll continue as is – waiting out his opposition, seeing if they will continue or – like the opposition in Iran and China – fade out after the initial enthusiasm. That may indeed be the right strategy – in democracies, it’s hard to maintain the focus of the “silent majority” who have jobs to go to, bills to pay, families to raise and other life issues that take them away from politics and re-immerse them in what we call “real life.”

Astroturf - and the President's Mistaken Strategy

2009-08-04T09:24:00.000-07:00

By Ned Barnett (c) 2009

"Astroturf" is, in politics, a derisive term for "manufactured grass roots" movements - efforts that seem to be the spontaneous vox populi but which are, in fact, carefully organized and financed by parties behind the scenes. A seemingly-spontaneous ACORN event is a classic example of "Astroturf" - carefully organized, fully financed, and artificial. Oft-maligned "tea parties" and the spontaneous outbursts at Congressional "listening tour" events or "town-hall meetings" are NOT "Astroturf."

There is nothing wrong with an "Astroturf" event. Every Presidential-campaign rally is "Astroturf" - organized, financed, orchestrated and often rehearsed - but still a legitimate form of political campaigning. In this, they are no different from photo ops which seem to the viewers to be spontaneous events, but which are actually stage-managed "opportunities" for candidates (or others) to "buy" press coverage. As a 35-year public relations professional who's often worked on political campaigns and "issues" campaigns, I know how to create Astroturf events (I've done it often enough) - but I've also participated in truly grass-roots events as well. I know the difference.

Something that's often overlooked - "Astroturf" events often reflect real views. Those who attend are free citizens and choose to be there, even if the events are staged. "Astroturf" isn't bad - not automatically bad - from the Left or the Right. However, spontaneous events are always vox populi - the real voice of the people.

Go back to the Vietnam War protests and the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, where most of the current public experience of both Astroturf and truly spontaneous demonstrations of personal views originated. Many of the most effective anti-war and civil rights protests were clearly Astroturf - Martin Luther King's world-changing "I Have A Dream" speech was the culmination of a skillfully organized and well-financed movement. Clearly it was Astroturf - but just as clearly it was honest, and it was effective, and it helped change America for the better, bringing to an end a century of Jim Crow legislated hatred. Ditto for the Vietnam protests - some were spontaneous, but many were well-organized - however, all reflected growing distrust of government and growing dissatisfaction with a war we refused to win.

Fast forward to today. The Tea Parties are spontaneous. The confrontations between anti-tax/anti-healthcare "reform" advocates and Congressmen and Senators on "Listening Tours" are mostly spontaneous. However, even if some of those are professional organized or underwritten (as the Left and the President now claim) represent - as did King's march on Washington - the true voice of the people. Millions of Americans are outraged over the sudden gush of spending and the sudden "land-grab" of supposedly-protected Constitutional Rights. Regardless of who engineers the events, these solid citizens are outraged, fearful and motivated to take back their country. These are NOT the kinds of people who easily protest - many look embarrassed to be speaking out - embarrassed at the vocal excessives of those who are unaware of the impact their enthusiasm has when seen in tight 30-second quick-cut soundbites. Yet they've taken time off from work, they've overcome their embarrassment, and they're giving voice to their passionate feelings.

All they want is to be heard by a government that seems tone-deaf. All they want is to be taken seriously by a government that is running roughshod over their rights and their cherished institutions - liberty, freedom, the Constitution.

The worst thing the government can do is dismiss them as cranks or as pawns of shadowy evil forces of greedy capitalism - they KNOW they're not Astroturfers - they are real Americans standing up for real American values. Yet that is exactly what the government - from President Obama on down - is doing. They are mocking those who are speaking out. They are dismissing the events that represent a spontaneous outpouring of real rage, real fear, real demands that they be heard. Worse, they are accusing free citizens of being mind-numbed robots dancing to the tune of evil, hidden capitalists.

People who are putting their embarrassment on hold, people who are taking time off of work (and giving up their day's pay - or a valuable family vacation day off - are not going to welcome being dismissed. They have put their emotions - their very faith in their country - on the line, and they damned well expect their leaders to pay attention. To listen. To acknowledge that their concerns are valid and real.

It was not the Stamp Act that triggered the American Revolution. It was not the quartering of troops in private homes that triggered the American Revolution. Instead, it was the refusal of King George and his Parliament to listen to the valid concerns of loyal subjects. They mocked and minimized the legitimate complaints of the colonists. And they lost the biggest diadem in the Imperial Crown.

There is a lesson here for Obama - not a threat in the "Revolutionary" sense, but a lesson about what happens to Presidents and Congresses who become tone deaf. Just ask the Democratic Congressional Majority of 1994 what happened in November. Just ask the Democratic President in 1980 what happened in November. Just ask the Republican Congressional Majority of 2006 what happened - and ask all the Republicans what happened in 2008. When the government in a democratic Republic such as the USA stops listening, they stop governing and are replaced with others who - at least for the moment - are making a better show of listening.

Obama - and especially the Congressmen and Senators up for election in 2010 - would do well to listen closely to those Americans who are breaking out of their comfort zones to express their profound frustration with the current direction of America. Not the state of today's economy, but their pump-and-dump stimulous "solution." Not the state of our healthcare delivery system, but their healthcare reform "solution." Not the state of the environment, but their cap-and-trade "solution."

And if they're smart as well as intelligent, they'll show these people some respect - even if they don't feel that respect, even if they actively dislike those who are dumping 21st Century Tea into Washington's Reflecting Pool.

A final note - Obama, who's been the most media-savvy President since Clinton at his best (or Reagan all the time) - completely blew it with the first Tea Bag protests, and that amazes me. Instead of ignoring and belittling them, he should have addressed them in Washington (and via Washington to all the protests). He should have said something like:

"As Americans, our most cherished freedoms include the right to freely assemble, freely speak, and freely petition the government for redress of grievances. You, my fellow Americans, are hear to exercise those freedoms, and to tell me and Congress and members of my Administration what you think of our efforts to date. We may not always agree, but we will always share your devotion to our core American rights.

"I want you to know that I am listening, that I am hearing you, and that my Administration and I will be carefully considering your every word, your every position. We may not, at the end of the day, agree on everything, but you have been heard, and your concerns will inform my future decisions.

"Finally, I want to thank you for taking time out of your busy lives to come here today to ask me and my Administration, to ask your Congress members and Senators, to listen to you, to hear you, and to fairly consider all that you're saying. You are exercising your God-given fundamental rights as Americans, and by doing that, you are making our country stronger and more free. I wish that all Americans shared your vision and commitment. As your President and as a fellow citizen of our great country, I promise to consider your words and your beliefs, to weigh your requests and recommendations against the needs I see for our country, and to do my best to govern while always holding onto the lessons and messages of this day."

If he'd said that - no matter how sincere or insincere - he would have diffused the Tea Party movement and won over many of those who desperately want to go on believing in America. But the arrogance of power - or inexperience - or an inability to bridge the gap between his beliefs and his opponents demands - kept him from reaching out. I believe that Reagan would have seized the moment - I know Franklin Roosevelt would have found a way of capitalizing on this - and I suspect that Bill Clinton would have found a way to co-opt this movement through skilled triangulation.

Obama has none of those leaders' gifts, or insights, or experience. He may grow into it - but he has less time than he might think before it will become all but impossible for the Administration to reach out successfully to diffuse the anger of tens of millions of Americans. And in doing so, he runs the risk of becoming another one-term-wonder such as Jimmy Carter - hardly the President anyone would want to emulate.

Or so it seems to me.

Clunkers for Charity - Another Unexpected Consequence of Government Meddling

2009-08-04T00:28:00.001-07:00

By Ned Barnett
(c) 2009

Over the past decade, donated well-used but still functional automobiles have become a major source of funds for charities. However, the kinds of cars usually donated to those charities have now become the target of a mechanical pogrom - a brutal "Final Solution" for older automobiles. The government's "Cash for Clunkers" program has led to the sale of a lot of allegedly greener autos (though few bother to do the math - if they did, they'd realize that C4C has a bigger carbon footprint than the cars they crush) and the wanton destruction of tens of thousands of workable automobiles. Car dealers are thrilled - new-car owners feel great (and will until they have to start paying car notes again) - unions are doing fist-bumps as they log in more overtime and more benefits, and the ever-meddlign Greenies feel triumphant for being able to take other people's money to put greener cars on the market, distorting the market enough to make otherwise unwanted new cars economically desirable.

What we still laughingly call the "free market" has established that there is not a big US market for ultra-efficient sardine-cans-on-wheels. If the "green" cars were actually popular, the government wouldn't have to offer billions of dollars in tax-funded bribes to lure those who'd been happily driving completely functional but marginally less fuel-efficient cars and pack them into tin-foil death cars. We know the basic cost - a billion dollars last week and probably two to four billion dollars in the next two weeks - but there are other costs nobody is talking about.

First, destroying car engines and shredding perfectly good autos isn't cheap. The equipment to turn working SUVs into slag and scrap burns LOTS of carbon, even as it creates waste - shredded rubber, melted plastic, residual heavy metals from catalytic converters - not to mention the petroleum needed to ship this slag to China were it will be turned into more stuff America used to manufacture for itself - then yet more fossil fuel to ship those products back to us. So much for the marginal savings in carbon emissions.

But there are other, more human costs - and I'm not talking about the taxes you and I are paying so others can get new cars they don't really want at our expense. The human terms costs are paid by charities that have - for the past decade or so - raised increasingly significant percentages of their charitable funding from donated "clunkers" - tax write-offs for the donees and vital revenue sources for cash-strapped charities. Clearly, the government cared more about the supposed - but illusory - environmental benefits of the C4C program than it did for the increasingly essential charitable services.

A more subtle cost of this program. Among all the people who have depended on low-cost, working autos, none have had a greater need than battered women fleeing from abusive relationships who find themselves thrust back into the job market and desperate for a way to get to and from work. Without going into too-personal details, I'm painfully aware of women who have been trying to rebuild their lives, women who depended on reliable low-cost personal transportation. Not everyone lives in communities with functional public transportation - women in those areas have been dependent for decades on low-cost cars that are now being pulled off the market and shredded. With a quarter-million fewer reliable used cars suddenly pulled out of the marketplace, those women will find obtaining cars more costly and harder to do.

Though less in need, young families just starting out have that same need for affordable, low-cost and reliable transportation - and they'll have to make sacrifices or do without, all because liberal environmental elites and auto-union advocates who want more overtime and bigger benefits together pushed through a program that might have looked positive on the surface, but which had hidden - human - costs far in excess of any hypothetical benefits.

Washington - that master of the unintended consequences - has outdone itself in creating a program that is bad for all taxpayers (who are footing the bill) and especially less well-off Americans who are dependent - often critically dependent - on affordable transportation. However, they can rejoice in the knowledge that the Chinese will finally be getting enough low-cost scrap metal.

The Gift of Over-Reaching Greenies

2009-03-03T23:26:00.000-08:00

Is Soft American Toilet Paper Really Worse for “Global Warming” Than Gas Guzzlers?

Ned Barnett

It is characteristic of the Far Left that, when they gain some measure of ascendency – as they have in 2006 and 2008, a gift from RINO Republicans who wouldn’t mend their ways – these Lefties over-reach. Instead of implementing the fairly reasonable elements of their agendas, they insist on having it all. That is their fatal flaw, and why – in the end (if you’ll pardon the pun) – they will destroy their own cause. Now, thankfully, they’ve done it again.

The movement to limit American’s freedom by taking away our toilet paper began, as far as rational Americans know, when Environmental Scientist Sheryl Crow, Ph.D. (who is also a well-known singer and former Lance Armstrong shoulder-candy), writing for the Huffington Post Environmental Journal, put forth the dual recommendations that toilet paper be washed and re-used, and that Americans make do with one square per sitting, “except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 or 3 could be required.”

Dr. Crow was so roundly and publicly laughed at – even by mainstream environmentalists – that she quickly recanted, at least in public, her proposal to save the rain forests by limiting Americans’ freedom to use toilet paper as we see fit, a right clearly enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Surely, if there was ever a power intended to be delegated to the people is the right to use toilet paper as we see fit.

However, following the last election, the environmental extremists are no longer worried about being laughed at, and they have taken a step even bolder than those advocated by the apparently repentant Dr. Crow. Now, extreme environmentalists are calling extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply toilet paper made from “virgin forests” causes more damage to the environment than gas-guzzlers, fast food or McMansions” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/26/toilet-roll-america). Led by Greenpeace, the environmental movement wants to force Americans to used recycled toilet paper, even as they acknowledge that Americans perceive recycled toilet paper as being so low in quality that “it’s like cardboard and impossible to use.”

Others go a step further. Like Dr. Crow, they advocate using the reusable toilet wipe, according to conservative Australian journalist Andrew Bolt.

However, in addition to attacking Americans’ inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness (and what, after all, makes us happier than sufficient quantities of soft, absorbent toilet paper), the Greenies have also made a major factual error, one that anyone who’s driven through the Deep South’s extensive slash-pine forests knows at first hand. Toilet paper – in fact, virtually all of the paper used by Free Americans – comes from farms. The trees are crops, raised to be harvested for paper pulp, then immediately re-planted to prepare for the next harvest in 15 or 20 years. I know this at first hand.

I moved to Georgia at 15 when my father’s business relocated executive operations from Illinois to Georgia; as President, he could have lived anywhere, but he chose to live in Atlanta, a half-day drive or a one-hour flight from the company’s manufacturing plant in rural Jeff Davis County. The company’s chairman and major investor owned 16,000 acres in Jeff Davis County, all of it planted in slash pines and periodically harvested by the pulp companies, which then immediately replanted.

Because of sound forestry management that dictated crop rotation, most of those 16,000 acres looked to be mature pine forests. The local wildlife was undisturbed by the harvesting – which was done in small patches rather than in huge swaths – and the area looked to be a virgin forest. However, that was an illusion – before the its owner decided that it was more profitable to convert his vast holdings to slash-pine forests, the land had been planted in cotton, then in peanuts and other South Georgia crops. Virgin forests in that part of the Deep South had been cut down two centuries before to make room for the agriculture needed to support the area’s residents and the South’s economy.

There is essentially no negative environmental impact to harvesting such crop trees, just as there essentially no negative environmental impact to harvesting other, more seasonable crops such as corn (for ethanol, which does enough damage all by itself). But most people don’t know this, and those who care more for the Virgin Rain Forests and those who fear the myth of “Global Warming” more than they think they value a soft wipe may be tempted to join in this new crusade. However, one roll of brownish one-ply recycled toilet paper will convince all but the most butt-numb

Ned Barnett is a Las Vegas-based political commentator and campaign strategist. During the most recent election, he was frequently featured in American Thinker and on Neil Cavuto’s Fox Business Network program. He’s been quoted by Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, and has given more than 100 media interviews during the past two Presidential elections. He can be reached at ned@barnettmarcom.com.

That Pesky First Amendment – What Religious Freedom Really Means

2009-03-03T23:25:00.000-08:00

By Ned Barnett

This is the first in a series of commentaries on the Bill of Rights, and what those Rights really mean …

Here’s the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – the first of our Bill of Rights. It’s one sentence long, and provides us with six of our core freedoms; some would argue, the six most important freedoms, since they come first.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That doesn’t seem very hard to understand, does it? Allowing for the evolution of language over 220 or so years, it seems pretty clear. However, to really understand it, you have to understand the history of the founding of the United States, and the dark forces that drove loyal Englishmen to rebellion against the Crown, a capital offense then and now.

In England, in 1534, King Henry VIII decided that he wanted to annul the marriage his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and take a new wife, Anne Boleyn. Pope Clement VII refused, and – not to be denied the freedom to marry the alluring Anne Boleyn – Henry broke from the Catholic Church and created the Church of England, with himself as Supreme Head. He further decreed that the new Church of England would be an arm of government, and would be supported by English taxpayers. This is what is meant by “establishment of religion” – the creation of a church denomination by the government, as an arm of the government, with the Chief of State as the religion’s supreme leader, and with the church supported by taxes levied on all citizens, whether they embraced the church’s beliefs of not.

When the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights wrote “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …” they were referring to one key and specific point.

They meant that Congress could not create a national, tax-supported religious denomination that would be part of the government.

However, they did NOT mean that Congress or other governmental agencies could not recognize a religion, let alone that they had to keep religion out of the public square.

In fact, religion had been enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, which said that the Rights of Man came – not from man, but from God – and because they came from God, they were inalienable and no government of men could take them away. This is what was meant by the clause, “ … or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” George Washington recognize this by having himself sworn in using a bible and taking an oath – rather than an affirmation – and by writing and issuing a Presidential prayer for the country. He and his fellow Founding Fathers often called upon God’s blessing in their actions taken in founding the United States of America. They recognized and honored their debt to God, and created laws that drew as their source document the Ten Commandments.

Clearly, the framers of the Constitution – 52 of 55 of whom were members in good standing of what had been the established orthodox churches of the colonies before the revolution – had no intention of keeping God out of the public square, or their new government.

However, a myth has grown up that there is a “separation clause” in the Constitution, one that separates belief in God from a purely secular government. There is no such “separation clause” in the Constitution – only the mandate that Congress should not create a tax-supported religious denomination as part of the overall government of the United States. It is a far cry from forbidding the creation of a formal “Church of the United States” and taxing each citizen to support that religion and having the phrase “In God We Trust” on American currency, or the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall.

This myth becomes untenable when you consider:

• Moses and the Ten Commandments are carved in relief on the eastern pediment to the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington

• The two huge oaken doors that give access to the Supreme Court Building have two tablets with the Roman numerals I through V and VI through X, symbolizing the Ten Commandments, engraved on each lower portion of each door

• There are many other representations of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building as part of the official and permanent decoration of the building – all of which can be seen on the Supreme Court’s own official website

• Since 1789, every session of Congress has begun with a prayer provided by a Chaplain who is an employee of Congress, and whose salary is paid by the taxpayers

In the United States – at least as intended by the Founding Fathers – Americans have two religions freedoms. One protects us individually and collectively from actions like those of King Henry, who created a new state-run religion supported by state-levied taxes. The other permits us individually the free exercise of religion, whatever that religion may be. There is no mention of a non-existent “separation of church and state,” as is so often claimed by the ACLU and by the mass media, and no hint in the actions of the Founding Fathers of an intent to keep religion separated from the public square. Instead, from the First President, George Washington, and the first Congress, in 1789, belief in God has played an intimate role in Government.

It has only been since the advent of an “activist” court dominated by Liberals and their secular ideology, beginning with the Warren Court, that such an idea has grown up. This ignorance and profound reinterpretation of the Founders’ intent flourishes in a society that doesn’t understand its own history and the contents of its own founding documents; that same ignorance cannot be sustained in the bright light of truth.

Whatever your belief – or lack of belief – know and understand your Rights and your Religious Freedom.

Obama's Proto Coup d'Etat

2008-12-07T16:33:00.001-08:00

Based on what he's leaked, what he's said in several press conferences this week, and based on a bit of interpretation of what this all means - not for the economy so much as for his plans to change America - President Elect Obama has tipped his hand on what may be the closest we'll ever come to a presidential coup d'etat.

Here's how I put it together:

Earlier this week, on November 24th, Martha McCallum on Fox News said that Obama had announced that his new stimulus package would not be JUST a financial bail-out. McCallum noted that Obama said he would also use this to put in a “down payment” on all of his planned initiatives (infrastructure, healthcare, etc.) – that he would have money for these new programs in this omnibus bail-out bill – and that he will sign this bill into law as soon as he returns to the White House after his inauguration. I have found partial confirmation of this in the Wall Street Journal on his plans for the infrastructure jump-start, in the AP for his plans for healthcare for the poor, food stamps and infrastructure, and in a Bloomberg story that confirms the intent to sign on January 20.

On his second of three press conferences in the week before Thanksgiving, Obama seemed to underscore McCallum's point, saying: "a smart job of investing in health care modernization" could help in both the short term and the longer term.

Since I’m assuming that McCallum’s comment-in-passing was, in fact, accurate, and that the follow-on comments in the press and by the President Elect, here’s how I read this:

Normally, a major legislative change in Healthcare (as we saw in ’94) would take a year or two to put together – planning sessions, hearings, opposition, trial votes, testimony for and against, etc. Ditto for each of his other major-change initiatives – they would all require heavy-duty committee work, along with plenty of time for advocates and opponents to marshal their resources, make their pitches, and have their day in court (so to speak) before it passed. This process is why HillaryCare failed, and why Bush’s Tax cuts took until 2003 to enact and 2004 to fully implement.

However, by lumping major new-initiative programs’ “down-payments” (sure to be in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars each) into a single bill which has virtually no chance of NOT passing, these programs will be – de facto – authorized. These bills (such as the warmed-over ObamaCare/HillaryCare redux) won’t need further hearings, detailed planning, and there won’t be any chance of lobbying for and against. The entire checks-and-balances process that has guided our law-making (and often protected us from the unbridled "tyranny of the majority") will be thrown out the window. The entire Obama package will be passed, virtually unedited, and beyond recall - all without debate or more than the most perfunctory up-or-down vote. As I said, that's as close to a coup d'etat we're ever likely to see, and this will bring us a true "imperial presidency" - one that Nixon might have salivated over.

By having his entire set of campaign-promise initiatives all written and passed between the first day of the 111^th Congress (January 3, 2009) and the inauguration day (January 20) – a period in which they also have to swear in new members, organize committees, accept the report of the Electoral College and find the men’s room – there will be precious little time to do anything beyond cutting-and-pasting from Obama’s campaign wish list and sitting still long enough to vote it in by acclimation. No dissent will be heard – after all, it’s a crisis, and the Chosen One has spoken on how to solve it (OK, that’s a bit sarcastic). Literally the only way to derail this would be for President Bush to veto it before the inauguration (something I’m sure could easily be avoided by not delivering it to the White House until immediately after Obama takes the oath).

As I said, I’m drawing this conclusion from a smattering of news reports, as well as from Obama's own comments which - Obama being a supreme politician - could mean exactly what I fear, or they could mean something completely different. Check out the sources yourself, put the comments against the sum total of his statements and plans and his shifting priorities. Keep in mind how, since the election, how forceful and focused Obama has been in pushing those elements of his agenda that seem to touch his core, as well as how adroitly he's side-stepped those things he said just to win the election. Then draw your own conclusions.

Obama's Proto-Coup d'Etat

2008-11-27T13:27:00.000-08:00

Based on what he's leaked, what he's said in several press coferences this week, and based on a bit of interpretation of what this all means - not for the economy so much as for his plans to change America - President Elect Obama has tipped his hand on what may be the closest we'll ever come to a presidential coup d'etat.

Here's how I put it together:

Since I’m assuming that McCallum’s comment-in-passing was, in fact, accurate, and that the follow-on comments in the press and by the President Elect,here’s how I read this:

However, by lumping major new-initiative programs’ “down-payments” (sure to be in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars each) into a single bill which has virtually no chance of NOT passing, these programs will be – de facto – authorized. These bills (such as the warmed-over ObamaCare/HillaryCare Redux) won’t need further hearings, detailed planning, and there won’t be any chance of lobbying for and against. The entire checks-and-balances process that has guided our law-making (and often protected us from the unbridled "tyranny of the majority") will be thrown out the window. The entire Obama package will be passed, virtually unedited, and beyond recall - all without debate or more than the most perfuctory up-or-down vote. As I said, that's as close to a coup d'etat we're ever likely to see, and this will bring us a true "imperial presidency" - one that Nixon might have salivated over.

As I said, I’m drawing this conclusion from a snattering of news reports, as well as from Obama's own comments which - Obama being a supreme politician - could mean exactly what I fear, or they could mean something completely different. Check out the sources yourself, put the comments against the sum total of his statements and plans and his shifting priorities. Keep in mind how, since the election, how forceful and focused Obama has been in pushing those elements of his agenda that seem to touch his core, as well as how adroitly he's side-stepped those things he said just to win the election. Then draw your own conclusions.