This is a very simple and very concise response to the Liberal mantra of “Solving Problems.” Or as one of our authors used to call “Using Government Creatively.” Ron Paul is very effective of making the point that “Progressivism” is nothing if not regressive.

Ron Paul on “Central Planning.”

Ron Paul didn’t have a chance from the beginning for one simple reason:  He’s a threat to the “Centralites” who keep their power by making sure everyone is convinced that they can solve ALL problems Federally.

Interesting article on the Iraq situation and the prospects of “timetables.” Mr. Kissinger is, of course, an adviser to John McCain, so his view is the same as mine: that arbitrary timetables based on wishes of the U.S. population back home instead of conditions on the ground plays right into the hands of opposition forces in Iraq.

However, Mr. Kissinger makes another point which I sort of instinctively knew deep down, but simply couldn’t put my finger on until he expressed it. Beyond that I think it even illustrates Iraq as an example we should learn from:

In this manner, prospects for reconciliation among the three parts of the country, Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni, have appeared not through legislation, as congressional resolutions applying the American experience imagined, but by necessity and a measure of military and political equilibrium. Since the need for American forces in dealing with a massive insurrection has diminished, they can increasingly concentrate on helping the Iraqi government resist pressures from neighbors and the occasional flare-up of terrorist attacks from al-Qaeda or Iranian-backed militias. In that environment, the various national and provincial elections foreseen for the next months in Iraq’s constitution can help shape new Iraqi institutions.

This goes way deeper than foreign policy as far as the “Liberal” versus “Conservative” view of things. Most of the process of the left covering their tails about the success of the surge has revolved around the argument that there has not been the “political reconciliation” that was predicted. And in their view, they’re right. The Iraqi government has indeed not completely come together–Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd–and forged the agreements and institutions necessary to secure their country long-term.

But the people of Iraq, the tribes, the communities, and the neighborhoods…have come to some agreements. The long and short of it is: “Progressives” can’t picture anything good happening without a Government agency being responsible for it. This is why “Liberals” can say–with a straight face–that “Conservatives” want the Government telling us what we can and can’t do, while almost in the same breath will describe how the Government should tell us what we can and can’t do. Because if someone is a proponent of an idea, then OBVIOUSLY that means they want the Government to enforce it. How else can you change things if it’s not by Federal edict?

However, I’ve met few conservatives who are pushing for a Christian Caliphate (to use the term loosely); they simply believe the Government should not force us to abandon our own principles on the altar of abiding by “Progressive” ones.

And back to Iraq some are (as this article in the Boston Globe makes clear) obviously unable to believe that anything can happen unless the Federal Government makes it so. Suppression of violence, infrastructure, stability, economics, all of that stuff is irrelevant because Maliki’s had less to do with it than he would like to admit.

Truthfully, we can draw a lesson from this domestically. We as individuals, communities, and States should start thinking about solving our own problems instead of waiting for Washington, DC to do it for us (or, to be fair, an external military presence); this is the solution to: Health Care, energy, transportation, immigration…you name it.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize how attitudes about Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy are intertwined into one major philosophical divide: who is responsible for solving the world’s problems? Individuals or Governments?

I’ve run into a lot of flak from colleagues who treat McCain’s proposal to lift the federal ban on offshore drilling as if it were a suicide pact.  Woe is freakin’ us, bros.  Relax, if your state doesn’t want to drill, like Florida or California, it won’t.  However, if your state does want to drill for oil, like perhaps Virginia, new business and tax revenues comes to both your state and federal gov’t, and you have more high paying jobs in your  state that Americans are willing to do.  If you live in a state that wants to drill, and you don’t, you can call your local congresscritter.  That’s called federalism, and there’s nothing wrong with that.  This is the easiest slam dunk proposal I’ve heard from McCain and I can’t see how it isn’t a winner.  I expect more like this will come out and haters will come out in droves in the media…and in my building.

The only criticism I’ve heard from Obama and the media is that “drilling will only reduce the price of gas by a few pennies.”  Well, #1 how do they know, and #2 wouldn’t citizens rather more of the money you use to put gas in your tank go to Americans rather than Saudi Arabia or Venezuela?  When the best criticism against a policy is, “it isn’t as good as you say it is” then that really isn’t a criticism.  To quote Marcellus Wallace: “That ain’t no kind a answer”.

OK…A little healthy, or unhealthy, mix of entertainment and political theory. Bear with me.

Believe it or not, I’ve put a lot of thought lately (meaning about the last 4 years or so) into how important it is for us to think deeply about why we believe what we believe, and why seeing different perspectives is not only useful, but absolutely necessary to put our own views in their proper context.

With that in mind, let me reiterate what I’ve pointed out in a previous post, and this will likely become a recurring theme of mine:

Maybe the problem is that the “Conservative” three-legged stool should NOT be:

• Free Markets
• Christian Fundamentalism
• Peace through Strength.

But should instead be:

• Limited and Enumerated Government
• Community and Family Values
• National Sovereignty

…Without this perspective Conservatives look like either: 1) warmongers, 2) greedy money-grubbers, or 3) fanatic proselytes. (As opposed to Environmentalist Wackos, Feminazis, and Peaceniks)…

The above was my ranting about the quick narrowing of alternatives on the Republican side of the ticket for the Presidency, however, there are several things that I have observed over the last 6 weeks or so that has crystallized my thinking even further. Those events were these:

A trip to Richmond to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Capitol where the most striking moment of the day (for me anyway) was reading this inscription on the statue of Robert E Lee, planted six steps into the chambers where he actually stood to say these words:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:

Profoundly impressed with the solemnity of the occasion, for which I must say I was not prepared, I accept the position assigned me by your partiality. I would have preferred had your choice fallen upon an abler man. Trusting in Almighty God, an approving conscience, and the aid of my fellow-citizens, I devote myself to the service of my native State, in whose behalf alone will I ever again draw my sword.

Now, I had heard that quote before, but seeing it on his statue right there in the Chambers put a huge lump in my throat. I stood speechless for a moment and tried to understand what he must have gone through. I sincerely hope I never REALLY have to understand it. If any reading this has not read a thorough history of Robert E Lee, then we will have a hard time having a conversation about what it truly means to be an American. He is in my mind one of our great Patriots. If you think that’s just crazy, well…too bad.

Another “event” was catching (sporadically) back episodes of Jericho on HD and the new season on CBS. Never has a fictional show made me think more about the role of my Federal Government. If you haven’t watched this show…please do so. Regardless of your political perspective, it’s an excellent warning about how dangerous it is for us to place so much authority and responsibility on bureaucrats hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

Add to the above (in random order): The SCOTUS taking on the DC gun ban; Newt Gingrich’s speech at CPAC; a local project I worked on titled–”Ensuring a Sense of Community in Loudoun County” (long story); of course, the unlikely successes and lack thereof, of Governor Huckabee; and lastly a few chapters into “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg…

…And I have come to the conclusion that what is really missing from the “Conservative movement,” the “Reagan Coalition,” or perhaps a NEW collective, starts with fundamental belief in the following:

• Having strong self-reliant communities where simple (dare I say “traditional”) values of that community are encouraged and supported by neighbors instead of enforced by the Government.
• A simple and direct foreign (and border) policy, which certainly respects the sovereignty of other countries, but first and foremost places our OWN sovereignty, safety, and indeed prosperity on the TOP of the priority list (as we would expect other countries to put THEIR rights and THEIR welfares on top of THEIR priority list).
• A health, education, and welfare system with a “bottom-up” approach instead of a “top-down” approach, where States, local communities, and families have ALL of the authority and all of the responsibility over the health, education, and welfare of their citizens and families. The Federal Government’s role in these areas would be limited to that of promoting “best practices” among the Republic, and would instead focus its attention on that which is in its purview, including the task of making sure that fundamental Constitutional rights of individual citizens are not infringed upon.

Am I simply in a dream world, or do these sound like universally Constitutional and classically liberal values? If not, what am I missing? Are these concepts outdated? Impossible in a “modern world”?  If they are appropriate–why is it that these values have been completely lost on the leadership of both major political parties?

And lastly? What can be done about this disconnect?

Congratulations to Bob Odom, for taking time out of his busy schedule to do his job. As politics trend further toward federalism, states will have to take more initiative to keep their citizens safe.

Last week, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce announced it had ordered a halt to the sale of Chinese catfish in Mississippi grocery stores after tests found ciprofloxacin and enrofloxacin, members of the fluoroquinolones family of antibiotics, which are banned for use in the United States.

The Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries conducted similar tests and last month placed a stop-sale order on all catfish imported from China. Commissioner Ron Sparks said 14 of 20 Chinese catfish samples had tested positive for fluoroquinolones.

Last week, U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, an Arkansas Democrat, said that he has asked the FDA to ban imported Chinese fish being sold as catfish until an investigation is complete.

Catfish Farmers of America, a trade group based in Jackson, Mississippi, says fluoroquinolones “can cause serious side effects including nerve, muscle and heart problems, as well as allergic reactions.” Resistance to fluoroquinolones also can develop rapidly, causing possibly life-threatening consequences for some consumers, the catfish trade group said.

Anyone till craving Chinese crawfish?

Oh, yeah, and an epidemic in south China is causing pigs to bleed through their bodies…

Hong Kong television broadcasts and newspapers were full of lurid accounts today of pigs staggering around with blood pouring from their bodies in Gaoyao and neighboring Yunfu, both in Guangdong Province. The Apple Daily newspaper said that as many as 80 percent of the pigs in the area had died, that panicky farmers were selling ailing animals at deep discounts and that pig carcasses were floating in a river.

The reports in Hong Kong said the disease began killing pigs after the Chinese New Year celebrations in February, and is now spreading. But state-controlled news outlets in China have reported almost nothing about the pig deaths, and very little about the wheat gluten problem.

An interesting article on the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on the Bush Administration’s ruling on carbon dioxide emissions. Apparently John Paul Stephens, et. al., believes the EPA is not doing enough.

He said a refusal to regulate could be based only on science and “reasoned justification,” adding that while the statute left the central determination to the “judgment” of the agency’s administrator, “the use of the word ‘judgment’ is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text.”

In other words, ‘judgement” is not a roving license to use your own judgement, so the court’s judgement must intervene.

Regardless of your take on the issue itself, the interesting thing in this article is the resurgence of “Federalism” that this decision represents. John Paul Stephens, long an opponent of many of the states’ rights decisions over the Rehnquist years, uses this resurgence as a weapon:

This new twist on the court’s standing doctrine may have been an essential tactic in winning the vote of Kennedy, a leader in the court’s federalism revolution of recent years. Stevens, a dissenter from the court’s states’-rights rulings and a master of court strategy, in effect managed to use federalism as a sword rather than a shield.

This illustrates clearly how the most powerful man on the Supreme Court is now undoubtedly Anthony Kennedy. He used to share the “Moderate” and tie-breaker role with Sandra Day O’Connor. Now he is THE guy.

International Herald Tribune