Rand Paul and the GOP's Appeal to the Young

I had serious doubts about Rand Paul becoming my Junior Senator, his father being a howl-at-the-moon lunatic and all.  That said, I've been very pleasantly surprised.  He's smart, articulate and seemingly unafraid to tackle big problems and discuss big issues.

The GOP simply must appeal more to young people.  Ronald Reagan was the oldest man to ever be elected President and if he can do it, a contemporary, younger Republicans can.  I submit that young people, for the most part, are a lot smarter than they look and, down deep, they're also a lot more conservative than they'd lead you to believe or even believe themselves to be.

This piece by Rand Paul is a good start:

One of the things I love about speaking with college students is the no-nonsense approach so many take. Your generation can detect falseness and hypocrisy from miles away. You want leaders who will not feed you a line of nonsense or sell you short.
Unfortunately, a lot of nonsense is peddled in Washington. I know—I work there and see it happen daily. 

Think about the issues you con­front as you look to make your way in the world: a difficult job market paired with debt, in a country where economic security seems like a thing of the past

Now think about how Washington has responded to these issues. Gov­ernment spending keeps accelerat­ing. The United States now spends almost a quarter of its gross domestic product (GDP) in Washington, and nearly half of that spending is borrowed. In fact, the federal government borrows $30,000 every second. 

How, exactly, is that contributing to eco­nomic security—for you, for your parents, or for any other Americans? 

Entitlement spending and inter­est on the debt will consume all tax revenue in the near future. It is not a question of if a debt crisis will occur in America. It is only a question of when. There is no question that this crisis will hit your generation hardest. 

Of course, as important as Social Security, jobs, and the economy are, they are hardly our only con­cerns. The federal government now attempts to micromanage Ameri­can life at practically every level. 

The government tells you what kind of lightbulbs you can buy, what kind of toilet can be in your home, how much water can come out of your showerhead. Privacy is seemingly an antiquated notion, with govern­ment snoops able to access third-party records, such as phone records, e-mails, financial records, and pretty much any other personal information they want, without a judge’s warrant. 

These are not simply policy prob­lems; they reflect an abandonment ofprinciples. America has drifted away from the constitutional principles of limited government, separation of powers, and individual liberty. 

The path forward lies in reclaiming the ideas at the heart of America’s Founding: respect for the Constitu­tion and respect for the individual. 

“As Government Expands, Liberty Contracts” 

To paraphrase President Ron­ald Reagan, big government is the problem, not the solution.
Unfortunately, when one warns of big government, he or she risks being  called an “anarchist” or even a “ter­rorist” by political opponents. That kind of name-calling does nothing to advance the political discourse, nor does it address the fundamental problems our nation is facing. Such partisan bickering is just one of the many things about Washington that turn off so many young people. 

But conservatives can’t simply blame the partisanship of the oppo­sition for the failure to tame the government Leviathan. We need to do a better job of communicating why big government is the problem—why it is bad for the economy, freedom, and a restrained, yet strong, foreign policy. 

Unless we can make this case, we’ll always be at a disadvantage in a debate with liberals who want the government to take on an even greater role in American life. That’s because liberal promises seem tangible: the government will launch yet another expensive new spending program to help Ameri­cans—by paying for food, day care, preschool, health care, you name it. 

Politicians who promote these spending programs don’t acknowledge
the unavoidable fact that their initiatives will send America fur­ther into debt or force the govern­ment to raise taxes, or both. 

But conservative solutions are tan­gible too. We’re not just saying no to more government. Our proposals will lead the way to more prosperity, more stable families, political decisions made at the local level, a dollar that holds up in a global marketplace, an education system that puts students and parents first, a vibrant culture supported by reli­gious institutions, and opportunities for young people like you to grow and lead Amer­ica into a renewed age of freedom. 

In his farewell speech in 1989, Presi­dent Reagan said, “As government expands, liberty contracts.” He was absolutely right. As government grows, liberty becomes marginalized. The collective takes precedence over the individual—but the great and abiding lesson of American history is that the indi­vidual is mightier than any collective.
What our country needs is the kind of system that made America so pros­perous, with a limited government that largely does not interfere with individuals and their pursuit of happi­ness but allows people to be rewarded for their hard work and creativity. 

Our political opponents and the media like to portray conserva­tives as unconcerned about the poor, senior citizens, and minorities. Nothing could be further from the truth. But we need to do a better job of communicating the promise of conservatism, not simply the failures of liberalism. We advocate not for special privileges for “the rich” but rather for a flourishing economy that lifts everyone up, creating millions of jobs and lessening the burden of taxes and government regulation. 

We need to shout to anyone who will listen, “More freedom and less government means more jobs, more wealth, and a better life for every­one.” Despite the trillions of tax­payer dollars spent on bailouts and “stimulus” plans over the past sev­eral years, the economy hasn’t fully recovered from the Great Recession. 

One in six Americans lives in poverty, more than at any other time in the past several decades. This is unacceptable. 

For conservatism to grow, we must stand on principle. We must stand for something so powerful and so popular that it brings together people from the left and the right and the middle. We don’t need to dilute what we believe. We need to convince everyone that with the Constitu­tion as our guide, our principles and our policies will provide the greatest good for the most people. 

We know these principles and these policies work because our country has tried them before. We don’t need to look too far back into history to see that. Ronald Reagan entered office as the country was in the grips of a brutal recession. He cut taxes and reduced regulations, and the Federal Reserve stopped printing money like mad. Soon the economy took off, creating millions of jobs. 

Decentralization of power is the best policy. Government is more efficient, more just, and more personal when it is smaller and more local. By decentralizing government, we strengthen communities, allowing people to depend on and care for one another, rather than on some distant, incompetent bureaucracy masquer­ading as defender of the common good. This is a message we need to do a better job communicating. 

We also need to remind our fel­low citizens that balanced budgets and limited government doesn’t mean no government. It means $3.1 trillionworth of government—the amount of revenue the federal gov­ernment currently brings in, accord­ing to the Congressional Budget Office. Americans have had to learn to live within their means. Govern­ment should do the same, instead of trying to squeeze even more money out of those who are working. 

The government can do a lot with $3.1 trillion, though you wouldn’t know it from the way a lot of politi­cians (of both parties) talk. Many of them howled about the supposedly draconian “cuts” that went into effect with the budget sequestration in early 2013. But the sequester didn’t cut any from the overall spending; it just slowed the rate of growth. Even with the sequester, government spending will grow by more than $7 trillion over the next decade. 

Only in Washington could an increase of $7 trillion in spend­ing over a decade be called a cut. 

A Foundation in Principles 

To better communicate our mes­sage, we must marshal the facts and have a deep understanding of the principles that informed our Found­ers. Policy battles are important, but if we don’t have a firm grounding in principles, politics becomes sport, with our focus narrowing to follow electoral returns, legislative vote tal­lies, and other short-term measures. 

Without that foundation in prin­ciples, we can easily lose sight of our real goal: securing for ourselves and for future generations the freedom and prosperity that have always marked America’s greatness. 

As students, you have a great opportunity to immerse yourself in America’s history and the principles of liberty. I am a proud Republican, but I am a conservative first. That is to say, my conservatism has always been more philosophical in nature than partisan. I am a Republican because I believe my party is the best outlet for the defense—and advancement—of the principles of liberty. I encourage you to dis­cover those principles yourself and become an advocate for them. 

There is no substitute for studying history. When you look to history, you quickly see that debates about the proper role and scope of government are nothing new. Founders Alexan­der Hamilton and James Madison fought from the beginning about how the federal government would be limited. Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” was unequivocal: the powers of the federal govern­ment are few and defined; the power to tax and spend is restricted by clearly enumerated powers. That is a simple proposition too many Americans forget (or ignore). 

I also encourage you to study what great thinkers have had to say about both individual liberty and personal responsibility. In school I read the great nineteenth-century Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky, whose brilliant narratives illustrate the importance of conscience and faith—the belief that if there were no God, everything would be per­missible. I also began to read a lot of free-market economists from the Austrian School, including Nobel Prize winner F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard. With books like Hayek’s Road to Serfdom—a must-read for any conservative—these thinkers show why government intervention never works but in fact prolongs and wors­ens the problems it is intended to fix. 

The Challenge 

A debt crisis looms in this country, and Washington politicians are speeding us toward the precipice. 

America needs a new generation of leaders to defend the Constitu­tion, defend individual liberty—including our first liberty, religious freedom—and defend the freedom and prosperity that have made our country the beacon of the world.
In the past, leaders like Ronald Reagan have effectively communi­cated the message of liberty, showing the importance of smaller govern­ment that respects freedom yet is strong enough to protect America. 

Who will become the next generation of leaders? 

I urge you to step up to the challenge—to preserve the American dream for your­self and future generations.

Combination Motorcycle / Segway - Too Cool!

Lyndon Johnson: Democrat Icon / Civil Rights Pioneer

via  http://weaselzippers.us

You Just Can't Make Sense to a Hipster in an Animal Hat

The Democrats sell a Gerber, pre-chewed, worldview that’s so rudimental, it could be fully explained on a single sheet of paper comprised of crayon drawings. One need only get behind one of the cars of the “true believer” hipster in an animal hat, who documents his belief system and details his dogma with bumper-stickers.

Bumper stickers like "END WAR" next to a fading "Obama/Biden "08" next to a "I Pee GREEN" or some such environmental nonsense.

Trying to explain the complexities of the world to one of these people garners a response similar to the one you’d get from a graphic description of the human reproductive process to a four year-old girl- “Eeeww gross! You’re a bad man!” as she runs out of the room to report you to the authorities. They simply cannot have their bumper-sticker philosophies challenged because they know their bright, primary colored, Democrat-built Neverland would never be the same.

The Democrats have promoted this, and last night’s SOTU was crawling with it. The sneering self-righteousness on display from the President is his way of re-enforcing his minions’ satisfaction with citizenship in the philosophical Neverland the party has built for them, where war can be ended simply by not fighting, the disparity between rich and poor ban be ended simply by redistributing the money, and all of our energy needs can be eliminated by the wind and the sun without disrupting the lives of Bambi and Thumper with the evil Keystone pipeline.

Approach them with caution, though, because they pee "GREEN".

It's Time to Get Over Our Reefer Madness

Marijuana legalization certainly isn't one of the great issues of our day, but it's going to be an increasingly discussed topic in the coming months, and years, and I wanted to formally tee off our own debate.

Since Colorado's recent legalization of Marijuana, the media has been rife with ridicule and cautionary tales as to the dangers of unleashing this "dangerous drug" onto the streets in legal form.  We oldsters are told that this newfangled weed is not the weed of yore, but a newfangled strain heretofore unknown to our oldfangled experiences, so everything we know is wrong.

Perhaps an updated version of the 1937 propaganda film, "Reefer Madness" would be in order for those who feel our civilization is jeopardized by joints or targeted for destruction by doobies.

I say "bull".  Certainly, over the decades, the cultivation of marijuana has benefitted from science and technology, but claiming it's stronger these days as an argument against legalization is like claiming the fact that vodka is stronger than wine is an argument against alcohol in general.  To me, stronger marijuana means you smoke less, you inhale less carcinogens, so smoking is far healthier than it once was.

So let's put that foolish argument aside and get right to the crux of the matter- is it destructive?  I guess it could be, if you sat around the house 24/7 getting high, but I suspect you'd be far healthier than if you sat around the house drinking vodka.  Is it a "gateway drug"?  I don't believe it, inherently, is.  The fact is, illegal drug dealers are a diversified group and they often not only sell pot, they sell cocaine, or heroin or crack, or meth, and even if they don't, dealing with people in the black market exposes one to these other drugs, and drug dealers would prefer you not stop at a bag of weed now and then.  It's best not to spend time with these people at all.  Is it addictive?  Physically, no.  Psychologically, perhaps, but that depends on the person.  Some people can't stop eating HoHos and potato chips- they're on display daily at Wal-Mart, wheeling their large asses around in electric carts obtaining more HoHos and potato chips.  Sure, it stimulates specific pleasure centers but so does alcohol and a number of other substances and if we're going to go about prohibiting the stimulation of pleasure centers, well, we're going to have a long, messy conversation.

Don't even start with "the children" argument, I don't want them smoking pot any more than I want them drinking liquor and right now, it's probably a lot easier for them to get pot than it is liquor because liquor is legal and regulated.

I came up in the late 60s/early 70s, so let's just say I've had some real-world experience in this area.  I can honestly say that just about all of my old friends have partaken and some still do on occasion.  These are well adjusted people with families, nice careers and nice houses and I can honestly say that NONE, NOT A SINGLE ONE "went on to harder drugs", as the saying goes. I'm 60 so, as you can imagine, some of these people are friggin' grandfathers at this point and they're not drooling crackheads.

Conversely, I've had two friends drink themselves to death.  My cousin had half a lung removed because of cigarettes.

No doubt, your individual experience may vary.  You might know people who have thoroughly wrecked their lives, at least that's what I'm told.  I would submit that, without pot, they would have found another way to wreck their life.  I had one person tell me, on the internet, that they knew "scores" of people who had their lives wrecked by pot- a bald-faced lie in my estimation, but it's typical of the arguments afoot these days.

No, this isn't the fulcrum in the security of our liberty, but it's a small indicator that we either are, or are not responsible enough for true liberty, with all of its attendant responsibilities.

That's all I have, let me turn it over to a personal hero of mine, the late, great William F. Buckley, from a column written in 2004 on this very subject, expressed far better than I could ever hope to.

THE MARIJUANA DEBATE.

Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great. The laws aren't exactly indefensible, because practically nothing is, and the thunderers who tell us to stay the course can always find one man or woman who, having taken marijuana, moved on to severe mental disorder. But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating. General rules based on individual victims are unwise. And although there is a perfectly respectable case against using marijuana, the penalties imposed on those who reject that case, or who give way to weakness of resolution, are very difficult to defend. If all our laws were paradigmatic, imagine what we would do to anyone caught lighting a cigarette, or drinking a beer. Or — exulting in life in the paradigm — committing adultery. Send them all to Guantanamo?  

Legal practices should be informed by realities. These are enlightening, in the matter of marijuana. There are approximately 700,000 marijuana-related arrests made very year. Most of these — 87 percent — involve nothing more than mere possession of small amounts of marijuana. This exercise in scrupulosity costs us $10-15 billion per year in direct expenditures alone. Most transgressors caught using marijuana aren't packed away to jail, but some are, and in Alabama, if you are convicted three times of marijuana possession, they'll lock you up for 15 years to life. Professor Ethan Nadelmann, of the Drug Policy Alliance, writing in National Review, estimates at 100,000 the number of Americans currently behind bars for one or another marijuana offense.  

What we face is the politician's fear of endorsing any change in existing marijuana laws. You can imagine what a call for reform in those laws would do to an upward mobile political figure. Gary Johnson, governor of New Mexico, came out in favor of legalization — and went on to private life. George Shultz, former secretary of state, long ago called for legalization, but he was not running for office, and at his age, and with his distinctions, he is immune to slurred charges of indifference to the fate of children and humankind. But Kurt Schmoke, mayor of Baltimore, did it, and survived a reelection challenge.  

But the stodgy inertia most politicians feel is up against a creeping reality. It is that marijuana for medical relief is a movement which is attracting voters who are pretty assertive on the subject. Every state ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana has been approved, often by wide margins. Of course we have here collisions of federal and state authority. Federal authority technically supervenes state laws, but federal authority in the matter is being challenged on grounds of medical self-government. It simply isn't so that there are substitutes equally efficacious. Richard Brookhiser, the widely respected author and editor, has written on the subject for The New York Observer. He had a bout of cancer and found relief from chemotherapy only in marijuana — which he consumed, and discarded after the affliction was gone.  

The court has told federal enforcers that they are not to impose their way between doctors and their patients, and one bill sitting about in Congress would even deny the use of federal funds for prosecuting medical marijuana use. Critics of reform do make a pretty plausible case when they say that whatever is said about using marijuana only for medical relief masks what the advocates are really after, which is legal marijuana for whoever wants it.  

That would be different from the situation today. Today we have illegal marijuana for whoever wants it. An estimated 100 million Americans have smoked marijuana at least once, the great majority, abandoning its use after a few highs. But to stop using it does not close off its availability. A Boston commentator observed years ago that it is easier for an 18-year old to get marijuana in Cambridge than to get beer. Vendors who sell beer to minors can forfeit their valuable licenses. It requires less effort for the college student to find marijuana than for a sailor to find a brothel. Still, there is the danger of arrest (as 700,000 people a year will tell you), of possible imprisonment, of blemish on one's record. The obverse of this is increased cynicism about the law.  

We're not going to find someone running for president who advocates reform of those laws. What is required is a genuine republican groundswell. It is happening, but ever so gradually. Two of every five Americans, according to a 2003 Zogby poll cited by Dr. Nadelmann, believe "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and make it illegal only for children." 

Such reforms would hugely increase the use of the drug? Why? It is de facto legal in the Netherlands, and the percentage of users there is the same as here. The Dutch do odd things, but here they teach us a lesson.

Something Tells Me This Was No "Accident"

Ranchers, farmers fear eco-terrorists after EPA releases private info 

The Environmental Protection Agency has told farmers and ranchers it is sorry for handing private information about them over to environmental groups, but agriculture advocates who fear attacks from eco-terrorists say it's like closing the barn door after the horses escaped. 

In response to Freedom of Information Requests, the federal agency released information on up to 100,000 agriculture industry workers, including their home address and phone numbers, GPS coordinates and even personal medical histories. The agency later acknowledged much of the information should never have been provided, and even asked the recipients to give it back. 

“If someone is setting out to create mischief at these locations, basically the government gave them a road map,” Mace Thornton, spokesman for the American Farm Bureau Federation, which is participating in a joint lawsuit against the EPA, told FoxNews.com. “It is very clearly an unjustified intrusion into citizens’ private lives by the government. And it is a betrayal of trust.” 

The EPA said it collected all the erroneous disclosures, released in July of 2012,  and sent out new documents with sensitive personal information redacted, an EPA spokeswoman told FoxNews.com.

First, One has to wonder how the EPA would put itself in the position to make such a "mistake" in the first place if it wasn't joined at the hip to these "Environmental Groups".

Secondly, screw ups, serious ones, are quite the routine occurrence with every level of this administration, yet no one seems to get so much as a reprimand, much less a public rebuke.

Thirdly, who the hell other than an Obama toady would trust these people with their medical history?