Conflicted Interests

$521,000
CONFLICTED INTERESTS

Rich Miller– Springfield’s Capitol Fax “journalist”–
rakes in over $521,000 in payments from 70 State Agencies
and other governments-  plus 181 political committees.

Is Miller the most conflicted journalist in the country?

Graphic courtesy of IllinoisMirror.com

Last week, an amazing thing started to unfold in Illinois-accountability. We helped IllinoisMirror.com expose the hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars flowing to Rich Millers Capitol Fax blog.

It’s not a pretty picture for “journalist” Rich Miller…

1.            $256,000 from 70 state agencies including $71,000 from Speaker Michael Madigan’s general assembly. Review database here

2.            $231,173 from 181 political committees including public unions, PAC’s, candidates and elected statewide officials. Click here

3.            Speaking honorariums from the teachers union, IPACE ($2,000) during the last gubernatorial general election cycle (2010).

4.            Tens of thousands in additional money from City of Chicago ($10,000) and Universities and Colleges ($20,000).

Still, that only quantifies 38 of nearly 7,000 Illinois units of government paying big bucks to Rich Miller’s Capitol Fax blog. Miller’s possibly making hundreds of thousands more from taxpayers!

No wonder Rich Miller wrote derisively on the lawsuit For The Good of Illinois vs. State of Illinois, Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka to open the books on state spending!

Stay tuned for a lot more on this story…

The Illinois Constitution says that there must be a “public purpose” to an expenditure of taxpayer monies.  What’s the “public purpose?” There is no justification to purchase “insider access” to political gossip with taxpayer money.

Is Rich Miller the most conflicted “journalist” in the country?

Let us know your thoughts.

ADAM ANDRZEJEWSKI
Founder, OpenTheBooks.com
American Transparency | Chairman

Sorry Senator Kirk, That Train Has Left the Station

Written by Joe Walsh

U.S. Senator Mark Kirk said on the radio late yesterday that he will, in fact, campaign for Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Jim Oberweis. This statement comes as a complete 180 degree turn from his answer a month ago when asked about Oberweis. At that time he said he would not support Oberweiss because he valued his relationship with Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin.

What’s changed in the past thirty days that caused Mark Kirk to take back his previous statement? And let’s be clear: he didn’t change his mind. He has no interest in supporting Oberweis, and he genuinely wants Durbin to get reelected. Astonishing, isn’t it? But true! No, what forced Kirk to come out yesterday and express support for Oberweiss is that virtually every Republicans had turned against Kirk, not just conservatives. Kirk’s team knew he crossed a bridge by siding with Durbin over a fellow Republican. For his own political viability, he had to come out yesterday and say what he did.

As disgusting as Kirk’s change in position was, Durbin’s reaction to what Kirk said yesterday was worse. Durbin said he was surprised because Kirk had told him privately and personally that he would support Durbin. That was the last he’d heard from Kirk on the subject. Yet, as further evidence of how out of touch these beltway politicians are, they cut their own deals and stick together, forgetting the folks back home.

Too little and way too late, Senator Kirk. You clearly don’t understand what you’ve done. When you sided with Durbin over Oberweis a month ago, you spoke from the heart. No Republican will buy your conversion. You left the Republican Party when you sided with Durbin, and all the spinning in the world during these next few months won’t change that. And rightly so, most Republicans get that.


This article was first published at the IllinoisReview.com blog.

Epic Speech on the Floor of the U.S. House

This May Be a Defining Moment for America

We’ve finally gotten to the point where Congress had to pass a law to make sure that the laws they pass are enforced.

In a speech that Representative Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) really shouldn’t have had to make, he explains angrily to the U.S. House what its job is, and to President Barack Obama what his job is. Members were heard to applaud as he reached the crescendo.

Five Democrats joined Republicans in passing a bill that directs Obama to follows the laws – clearing the House by a 233 to 181 vote.

STANTIS: Illinois’ First Robin

Conervatives Oppose Las Vegas GOP Bid

Written by Tod Gillman, DallasNews.com

Some of the heaviest hitters on the religious right are pressuring GOP leaders to cross off Las Vegas as a potential host city for its 2016 convention, warning that putting the next convention in Sin City will harm the party’s image and drive away supporters.

Dallas already pitches itself as a more wholesome alternative to Vegas, and the push-back could bolster the city’s effort.

The leaders sent a letter last week to Republican chairman Reince Priebus, putting him on notice that picking Vegas would generate friction. They call the city a “trap waiting to ensnare. … What could go wrong? The answer is obvious.”

Leaders from the religious right who have joined the effort include Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association; Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum; Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition; Paul Caprio, director of Family-PAC; and James Dobson, president of Family Talk ministry.

“The GOP is supposedly interested in reaching out to conservatives and evangelicals. Maybe that’s just a front, but if they really mean it this is not the way to do it,” Dobson said Tuesday. “Even though Vegas has tried to shore itself up and call itself family-friendly, it’s still a metaphor for decadence. There’s still 64 pages of escort services in the yellow pages. … You can’t have it both ways.”

The Las Vegas host committee’s marketing pitch for the 2016 convention emphasizes the city’s number of hotel rooms (150,000), golf courses (50) and places of worship (531).

Jack St. Martin, executive director of the Las Vegas 2016 host committee, sidestepped the evangelicals’ objections Tuesday. With so much hotel and meeting space, he said, the city “offers the Republican Party and the conservative cause the best opportunity in a generation to house, train, educate, motivate and activate the grass-roots volunteers that make up the foundation of the GOP.”

But the potential for viral video of delegates engaged in Hangover-style hijinks makes some party insiders nervous. When Vegas boosters made their pitch to the RNC on March 21, former Nevada Gov. Bob List acknowledged such concerns.

“We took it head-on,” he said. “Las Vegas is a metropolitan area of over 2 million people. We’re not just all blackjack dealers and pawnshop operators. This is a city with 6,000 members of the chamber of commerce, 20,000 Boy Scouts. We have massive soccer leagues, the fifth-largest school district in America. We’re an all-around city with a fast-growing population of Catholics and Jews and Hispanics. It’s a big metropolitan area.”

On the other hand, one of the bid committee’s promotional videos features Rick Harrison, co-owner of a pawnshop and star of the reality TV show Pawn Stars.

“You’ll love it here,” he says into the camera.

Last week, the RNC cut Phoenix and Columbus, Ohio, from the competition. That left Dallas, Las Vegas, Denver, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Kansas City, Mo.

Dallas and Las Vegas are widely viewed as front-runners. That’s because GOP leaders are putting a huge premium this year on a host city’s ability to raise $50 million or more without much fuss. Also of major importance is having enough hotels within a tight radius so delegates avoid hours of traffic delays.

Both were big issues in Tampa in 2012.

Sizing up the competition last week, Phillip Jones, president and CEO of the Dallas Convention & Visitors Bureau, said Las Vegas may have great hotels. But it also has some baggage.

“That’s their challenge, and they’ll have to figure out how to address it. That’s not a challenge for us at all,” he said. “The Dallas message and the Dallas brand — free-market capitalism, entrepreneurial spirit, optimism, opportunity, low taxes, low regulation — fits very well with the Republicans’ brand.”

In Las Vegas, vice isn’t just incidental. It’s central to the city’s identity, history and economy.

“This is the city of deep, dark secrets. … Are they going to cross the Rubicon?” said Caprio, the Family-PAC director. “Parties have images to American voters as to who’s pro-family and who isn’t. … The base is already somewhat de-energized.”

One of three Texans on the GOP’s national committee, Robin Armstrong — also a member of the Dallas host committee — said the concerns are valid.

“That’s a pretty significant group. … They certainly can have an impact,” he said, adding that up to 65 percent of RNC members are “closely aligned” with the letter’s authors. “It would send a bad message to the conservative base.”

The anti-Vegas faction isn’t trying to tilt the competition toward Dallas or any other contender.

“Any of these other cities are fine,” Caprio said.

As the GOP narrows its options with an eye toward announcing a choice late this summer, concerns about Vegas are mounting. Influential conservative blogger Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, published an open plea Monday. He warned of bad publicity from “good Christian delegates getting drunk, gambling, stuffing dollar bills in strippers’ g-strings, etc.”

But for him, an even bigger concern is that the party would be cozying up to Sheldon Adelson. The billionaire casino mogul donated nearly $100 million to GOP candidates and causes in 2012 and would be a major funder of the host committee. His policy aims are protecting Israel and banning online gambling.

Erickson called it “embarrassing” to open the party to allegations that it picked a convention site “to placate a donor.”

Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition emphasized that her opposition to Las Vegas is no reflection on Adelson.

“Mr. Adelson is a great man,” she said, noting his commitment to Israel and other causes close to the hearts of many Republicans.

She’s bothered by the ready availability of escorts and prostitutes, even if prostitution is illegal in the city.

“It’s all over,” Lafferty said. “I can see all the setups that are going to take place. … There are other places that would be great to hold the convention.”


This article was originally posted at the DallasNews.com website.   Follow Todd J. Gillman on Twitter at @toddgillman.

Analysis of Durbin’s Staff Salaries Show the Senator Engaged in War on Women

The Washington Times revealed on Tuesday that Illinois’ U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D), who is leading the Equal Pay Day push by Senate Democrats to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, pays women on his staff far less than he pays men.

On the Senate floor on Tuesday, Durbin preach the importance of passing legislation aimed at solving the gender pay gap, saying: “How serious is equal pay for equal work to working people across America. I think it’s critical.”

But it was revealed that Durbin doesn’t practice what he preaches. According to an analysis of Senate salary data from fiscal year 2013, the average female salary in Durbin’s office is $11,505 lower than the average male salary. In fact, more than two-thirds of Democratic Senate offices pay men more than women.

In addition, four of the five highest paid staffers on Durbin’s staff are men, according to the analysis. And not a single member of the Senate Democrat leadership has a female chief of staff or communications director, the Washington Times points out.

“A male-dominated comms leadership staff is trying desperately to start a messaging war—claiming Republicans are the ones who oppose women having more opportunity and getting paid more in the workforce?” a female senior leadership aide for a Republican told the Washington Times.

French Parents, American Parents, and Stereotyping

French Parents, American Parents, and Stereotyping

French Parents, American Parents, and Stereotyping
Written By Laurie Higgins

If French parents can do it, American parents can do it. Pull their kids out of school for a day, that is.

French parents living amidst a swamp of secularism had the wisdom and boldness to pull their children out of school for one day in January to protest Leftist efforts to use public schools to normalize gender confusion through the “ABCD of Equality” program established by France’s feminist Minister of Education. America parents should do likewise this Friday on the “Day of Silence,” when the Gay, Lesbian and Straight (re)-Education Network (GLSEN) will be using children and government subsidized schools to normalize gender confusion and homoerotic identity politics.

An unusual coalition of Catholics and Muslims in France who share the true beliefs that biological sex is immutable and matters and that homoerotic activity is always wrong opposed in huge numbers the legalization of same-sex faux-marriage, and now they’re uniting to oppose efforts to introduce non-factual beliefs about gender and homoerotic identity politics in their children’s education.

The promoters of the “ABCD of Equality” program make the tired and transparently fictitious argument that the curriculum is merely trying to erase gender stereotypes and encourage “equality.” Of course, everyone who’s paying attention understands that they’re trying to do what GLSEN is trying to do: eradicate conservative beliefs about gender and sexuality.

There are three important truths that get lost in “progressive” discussions of “stereotyping”:

1.)  Not all patterns, similarities, or expectations constitute  ”stereotyping,” and not all stereotyping is malevolent, oppressive, and destructive.  Humans recognize patterns and classify like things together. That’s how we make sense of the world. And “stereotyping” is used both for instruction and entertainment.

Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady” wouldn’t have been funny or even made sense if we didn’t recognize the character type that actually exists and on whom Carvey’s character was based. In other words, the Church Lady was based on a stereotype.

The much beloved film My Big Fat Greek Wedding wouldn’t have delighted audiences if they didn’t recognize the reality that the film warmly mocks. In other words, My Big Fat Greek Wedding includes stereotypes.

Tyler Perry’s satirical movies about the character Medea depend on a stereotype that reflects a personality type that actually exists.

The humor in the wildly popular sitcoms Parks and Rec and Modern Family emerges from charaters who are stereotypes of people who exist and whom we recognize and, indeed, love. Real persons who share in common particular recognizable traits pre-exist the stereotype.

Will and Grace—the show that those who put their homoerotic desires at the center of their identity loved—wouldn’t have been funny or made sense if stereotyping were banned. The show was rife with stereotyping.

What about the satires of Aristophanes and The Onion? Should those writers have not engaged in “stereotyping”?

2.)  Stereotypes often emerge from and reflect anthropological truths. Human nature exists, and we recognize patterns in human nature.

For example, we recognize that men and women are different. Even homosexuals acknowledge that truth. When homosexual men and women proclaim that they are romantically and erotically attracted only to members of their same sex, they are implicitly acknowledging that men and women are inherently and significantly different and that those differences are not only anatomical.

Stereotypes about men and women emerge from and reflect ontological or existential truths about men and women. Stereotypes about men and women don’t dictate our lives or reflect the totality of any individual person, but they often do reflect true aspects of human nature. Stereotypes about men and women reflect existential truths—both good truths and bad ones. Stereotypes can reflect and reinforce the good architecture of sexually differentiated human life. Stereotypes about men and women were not created out of whole cloth or manufactured from the fertile imaginations of patriarchal oppressors. They emerged from patterns humans observe.

3.)  Historically, societies have believed that the fact of genetically determined sexual differentiation was a good thing and should be cultivated.  Societies recognized what self-proclaimed homosexuals recognize: men and women are different. Cultures developed patterns of behavior and societal roles that reflected, codified, encouraged, and sustained sexual differentiation, which is mostly a good thing.

Of course, humans, being fallen, sinful critters, have often messed up royally. Men and women have deformed their roles and responsibilities and corrupted their natures in myriad destructive ways. Through pride, fear, and selfishness, they have variously abused and abdicated their natures and their roles; and unthinking societies have at times become too restrictive regarding what roles men and women could or should assume.

But errors in how to evaluate and facilitate sexual differentiation should not lead to jettisoning the very notion and good of sexual differentiation. Sometimes encouraging conformity—including conformity to what the Left views as a “stereotype”—can be not merely a harmless thing, but a good thing.

It is good for societies to encourage sexual differentiation through some expectations regarding dress and behavior. It is at minimum benign to paint the nursery walls of a baby girl pink and baby boy blue. It is profoundly harmful for boys to dress and act like girls or vice versa.

Of course, what that looks like will change over time and across cultures. But the Left does not seek to work at ensuring reasonable gender expectations but, rather, to eradicate all gender differences. That is what the “ABCD of Equality” curriculum seeks to do, and that is what GLSEN seeks to do. One of the motives for this ill-begotten effort is that if sexual differentiation is viewed as a meaningless accident of birth, then the “gender” of one’s sexual partner has no moral meaning either.

Parents, please call your middle and high school principals and ask them this question: “Will students be permitted to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence?” If your principal says that students will be permitted to refuse to speak in class, keep your child home.

If parents do nothing in the face of the increasing exploitation of public schools to promote Leftist assumptions about sexuality, or if parents merely complain about the presence of resources and activities that affirm gender confusion and homoerotic identity politics, we will see more of them.

Be courageous, be bold.
Keep your children home from school on the Day of Silence.

The Communist States of America

Written by Matt Barber

A preferred ploy of left-wing change agents is to ridicule critics when they point out the undeniable parallels between the goals of today’s “progressive” movement, to include the Democratic Party in general, and the goals of the early, and very much still alive, communist movement.

If, for instance, one mentions the historical fact that nearly every adult who, at any time, was in any position of influence over a young, soon-to-be-radicalized Barry Soetoro was an avowed communist, to include his own parents, then one is immediately mocked and dismissed as a neo-McCarthyite hack pining for the bygone days of the Red Scare. This is an evasive, ad hominem strategy employed by those who are caught, for lack of a better word, red-handed.

To all this I say, if the jackboot fits, wear it. If it quacks like a commie and goose-steps like a commie, then a commie it is.

There are multiple layers within “progressivism’s” pseudo-utopian, truly dystopian Marxist philosophy. The left’s lust for redistributionist statism is well-known. Less understood, however, is the “progressive” rush toward cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism entails, among other things, that secularist aspect of left-wing statist ideology that seeks, within society, to supplant traditional values, norms and mores with postmodern moral relativism. Cultural Marxists endeavor to scrub America of her Judeo-Christian, constitutional-republican founding principles, and take, instead, a secular-statist Sharpie to our beloved U.S. Constitution.

Historian and U.S. military affairs expert William S. Lind describes cultural Marxism as “a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as ‘multiculturalism.’”

Pastor, attorney and Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively is globally admired by liberty-loving traditionalists. Conversely, he’s universally reviled by cultural Marxists. He drills down a bit deeper: “Cultural Marxism is a variation of the Marxist strategy to build a utopian socialist order on the ashes of Christian civilization, but through subversion of the moral culture, especially the elimination of the natural family, rather than solely through destruction of capitalism.”

True though this may be, the ideological seeds of contemporary cultural Marxism nonetheless sprout from deep within the dead soil of historical communism. It is not economic redistributionism alone through which “progressives” seek to both “fundamentally transform America” and otherwise conquer the world, but, rather, and perhaps primarily, it is also through victory over the pejoratively tagged “social issues” (i.e., the sanctity of marriage, natural human sexuality and morality, ending the abortion holocaust, religious liberty, the Second Amendment and the like).

This is neither speculative nor hyperbolic. Both the historical record and the U.S. Congressional Record bear out this sinister reality. Regrettably, today’s “low-information voters” as Rush Limbaugh calls them – to include the useful idiots within the GOP’s “moderate” and libertarian wings – are simply too lazy, shortsighted or both to learn the facts.

“Surrender on the ‘social issues’!” demands the GOP’s cultural Marxist-enabling kamikazes.

In 1963, U.S. Rep. A.S. Herlong Jr., D-Fla., read into the Congressional Record a list of “Current Communist Goals” as enumerated by Dr. Cleon Skousen in “The Naked Communist,” penned in 1958. I encourage you to read the whole list, but for now let’s focus on those goals that most closely align with the seditious agenda of America’s “progressive” movement. It’s actually most of them. Though Herlong was a Democrat, the list reads like today’s Democratic Party Platform.

How far has fallen the party of the jackass:

  • Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
  • Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist [or, today, Islamic] affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
  • Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist [or Islamic] domination.
  • Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
  • Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
  • Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
  • Do away with all loyalty oaths.
  • Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
  • Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
  • Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
  • Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
  • Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
  • Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. (An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”)
  • Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
  • Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
  • Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
  • Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
  • Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principal of “separation of church and state.”
  • Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
  • Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
  • Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.”
  • Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
  • Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
  • Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
  • Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
  • Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
  • Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
  • Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
  • Internationalize the Panama Canal.
  • Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

If achieving these specific communist goals was the final “progressive” step toward the larger goal of securing communist governance in America, then, tragically, “progressives” have realized that larger goal.

Look around. We are no longer the United States of America. We have become The Communist States of America.

Which means, for those who love liberty, revolution is once again at hand.

They Did it to Ol’ Blood and Guts, They’ll Do it to Us Too

Written by Luke Hamilton

In the late summer of 1944, the Allied armies liberated Northern France and began to push deeper into Europe. No one was more effective in his advance than GeneralGeorge S. Patton and the Third Army. After serving his “time-out” for slapping a couple of soldiers who were taking it easy in a med tent, Patton hit the ground running in France and seemed ready to cut his way through to Berlin, rusty bayonet clenched in his teeth.  Unfortunately, that never happened. On August 31st, Patton and the Third Army ran out of fuel near Metz, France. He had burned through his supply, keeping the German forces on their heels, and replenishment was not coming.

There are a number of theories as to why Patton’s army was left high and dry, languishing without the fuel to continue. The official rationale was that Eisenhower wanted to present a unified, measured front and was wary of any units which might overextend themselves and compromise the front line. It is clear he prioritized Montgomery’s Market Garden operation over Patton’s demands. Providentially for Ike, the Zone of Communications happened to pick that time to move their HQ back to Paris, tucked safely behind the Allied lines, and that required a lot of trucks; trucks which could have been refueling the Third Army.

Unofficially, it’s said that Eisenhower wanted to avoid embarrassing our military allies. Patton was making everyone else look like weak sisters and so the most effective weapon in the Allied arsenal (General Patton’s mind) was deliberately shuttered. He was forced to fight in place and suffered heavy casualties in subsequent engagements near Metz. After blitzing through 60 miles of German-occupied France in 2 weeks during the month of August, the Third Army covered only 40 miles total in the months November and December that same year.

It seems nearly inconceivable that Eisenhower would do such a thing, yet the deliberate crippling of a beneficial advantage is precisely what has been done to free-market capitalism in America and in the economies of her Western allies. No one with any intellectual honesty can deny the effectiveness of Patton or of the free market. Patton won battles and earned the respect of his enemies. Capitalism is the much-maligned champion of freedom around the globe and is directly responsible for the prosperity and privilege we enjoy as a part of Western civilization. There has never been a more effective engine of wealth creation and economic mobility than free-market capitalism. Yet, like Patton, the free market economy is forcibly stalled, chained down by those who should be its staunchest guardians.

In America, this is accomplished in a few ways. Legislative support is diverted to efforts on the periphery, which are usually outside the purview of a federal government. For example, Congress passes Obamacare under the guise of offering a “fundamental human right” to all Americans, oblivious to the fact that bureaucratic edicts increase the price of a commodity and will inflict more economic pain on Americans than relief provided. When government agencies command private businesses to provide services, those businesses pass the expense of compliance onto their customers who are likewise commanded to purchase the now-pricier product. If allowed to operate freely, market forces would increase the quality of product while lowering the price. Those forces are seen every day in products like cellular phones, which have increased in quality and decreased in price over the past 30 years, going from $4,000 for the Motorola Dynatac 8000x in 1973 to $0 for the Motorola Droid X in 2014. In economics, a “rising tide lifts all boats” but the pencil-pushers in Washington prefer (or force) winners and losers by diverting support to pet projects and ideological cronies.

Just as Ike prioritized the pride of our allies over the success of our troops, we seek to assuage the feelings of those who have benefitted from the success of our greatest achievers while denigrating said achievers. Instead of worrying about the pride of our British and French allies, both of whom were saved by the intervention of the U.S. Military, Ike should have thrown full support behind Patton who had the German generals soiling their lederhosen. We spend so much time and effort agonizing over the feelings of the misfortunate in this country instead of throwing our full support behind those who are creating wealth, jobs, and prosperity for all Americans; all of which ultimately benefit the misfortunate. A rising tide will never lift all boats if our nanny-state government continues to erect levees to keep the tide out! Prosperity is not a bad word in a truly capitalist economy. When the prosperous become targets and success is deemed worth punishment, your economy has been infected by corporatists and socialists. Redistribution of wealth is sure to follow.

If legislation and shame don’t effectively smother the flames of capitalist achievement in this country, the Executive Branch seems more than happy to step in. The checks and balance built into our tri-partite system by the Founders are broken. The checks have bounced and the balance has drastically shifted to the Executive branch, leaving an emasculated Legislature and a timorous Judiciary. Time and again, the Obama administration has acted unilaterally, outside the bounds of law, to achieve their will via regulation and selective enforcement of law. As egregious as the offenses of this President have been, he is not alone. His predecessors set the table for this environment. Obama simply ate the food, shredded the table cloth, and is in the process of breaking off the table legs for a bonfire.

Progressives in both parties are determined to restrain the successful among us. If shame and ridicule don’t work, they will simply cut off the fuel via government regulation and legislation. As our Founding Fathers knew, it is only by forcibly restraining the power a centralized government can wield that the soil of liberty can remain fertile.


This article was originally published at the ClashDaily.com blog.

Homosexual Writer Andrew Sullivan Supports Religious Liberty

Homosexual Writer Andrew Sullivan Supports Religious Liberty

Posted by Laurie Higgins

Who’d a thunk it? Well-known homosexual writer and activist Andrew Sullivan responded to the Arizona debacle in a surprising blog post in which he makes two critical points rarely heard from the Left: First, he acknowledges that there is a difference between sincere religious belief and bigoted hatred. Second, he argues that compelling people to do something that violates their religious beliefs suppresses liberty and turns homosexuals into the intolerant bigots they routinely condemn.

Here is an excerpt from that post:

As for the case for allowing fundamentalists to discriminate against anyone associated with what they regard as sin, I’m much more sympathetic. I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me.

Yes, they may simply be homophobic, rather than attached to a coherent religious worldview. But so what? There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. If we decide that our only response to discrimination is a lawsuit, we gays are ratcheting up a culture war we would do better to leave alone. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots, if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. As a gay Christian, I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.


Click HERE to support the work of Illinois Family Action PAC.

Modified by Matthew Medlen.com