Reuters has the latest polls from Iowa.  The main contest is between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney who are within the margin error at about 30% each.  John McCain held a small but lead, but he was in the range of the other three candidates.  The most interesting development is that Giuliani has plummeted down to Ron Paul and Fred Thompson's level at 8%! 

 

Hillary is still showing a slight lead over Obama, and Edwards is hanging in there.   

Ed Rollins, Huckabee's campaign chairman and one-time Reagan political director, has announced the end of the Reagan coalition.  In this quote of the day,  he is admitting what I have suspected since Bush was elected (and have known for a fact since this primary season opened to a Giuliani lead):  The Republican party we have come to know is over.

 

"It's gone. The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition — social conservatives, defense conservatives, antitax conservatives — it doesn’t mean a whole lot to people anymore,"

 

And for the first time, I find myself agreeing with someone at the Huckabee camp.   

 

The division today in the Republican party is quite deep, and the only real unifying theme is a distrust of the Democrats - even while we disagree on why the Democrats are a bad choice! 

 

As a libertarian/anti-tax conservative, I don't have much excitement for the trillion dollar army or the social conservative's agenda.  If the hawks wanted to be moderate on fundamental issues like pre-emptive war, torture, and occupying more than a hundred nations world-wide, I could support a strong defense.  If the social conservatives wanted a stronger 10th amendment to push their social experiments, I could support that.  Giuliani's "Nuke 'em all" platform doesn't strike me as such a compromise, and neither does Huckabee's pro-life liberalism.

 

Matt Lewis at Townhall argues that Romney has shown himself as the compromise candidate, but the only way Romney achieves that is by taking a different position every few years - eventually backing something that everyone likes.  What some see as flexibility, I only see a fast-talking, self-serving politician with no particular beliefs aside from how to acquire power & wealth.  I'm more inclined to the view at Publius Endures:  The aims of each faction have become so contrary that claiming to hold all the views simultaneously is an admission of hypocrisy.

 

I won't even pretend that Ron Paul is that compromise candidate.  I'll just say that he never would have made it this far if the other branches of the Republican party weren't being so stubborn and dogmatic as he is.

A similar fracturing pattern is emerging in the Democratic party, but it is still early and hard to say when it will come into play.  I hate to make predictions, but I think it would be easy for any non-Clinton Democrat to win the coming general election. 

The war is at all time lows in popularity, and Bush's kind of conservatism is polling at about 30%.  If the religious and nationalist conservatives demand this continually increasing say in domestic and foreign policy, they're practically guaranteeing a loss in the next election.

The only thing that can hope to save the Republican party then, is having another Wilsonian internationalist/statist incrementalist to run against like Hillary or Obama (I know he likes to pose as something else, but his funding & advisers lead my conclusion).

Who gets left out?  Well, a large portion of both parties who right at this moment consider the greatest political issues to be related to:

1) Government corruption,
2) Unsustainable foreign policy,
3) Encroachment against civil liberties,
4) Declining economic competitiveness and the rise of government-backed monopolies and oligopolies

Neither party has a legitimate claim that they will address those issues to the satisfaction of the voting population.  Today's concerns don't match typical party lines.  You have 'moderate' and 'blue dog' Democrats helping Republicans pass telecomm immunity and you have Republican and Democratic activists who are enraged about it. 

This "middle" we're told to believe, is actually an outlying EXTREME in American politics that favors:  heavy corporate subsidy, ultra-nationalist foreign policy (Including tariffs, sanctions, and heavily-regulated trade mis-named as free-trade)

216 years ago, the Bill of Rights was ratified by the Virginia legislature and became part of the law of the land.  The rights to free speech and gun ownership are constantly invoked in our political debate so I would like to call attention to some of the less appreciated rights signed into law on this day in 1791.  If the document could be summed up in a few words, its purpose is to limit the federal government and give the citizens a framework for understanding the constitution.

Fourth Amendment:  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

I think this is simple and straightforward:  No searches and seizures without a warrant that establishes probable cause - and the accuser must be under oath and therefor liable to perjury if found to be intentionally deceptive. Apparently Bush and Reid are not so convinced as they are currently working on a "Bi-partisan" effort to grant retro-active immunity to the telecommunications companies that have been illegally spying on U.S. citizens.  The good news is that some Americans still take this right seriously, even if our elected civil servants don't.

Ninth Amendment:   The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Just because we didn't list a right, doesn't mean you don't have it.  Rights are not from the government - all rights are "natural" or "inalienable," meaning that they are a simple function of being a human with free will.  This is where the concept of "human rights" devires from, but its also deeply rooted in a religious/spiritual sense of human value and dignity and being ultimately responsible to whatever higher power you answer to.  The common theme in the early Enlightenment literature is there's something in existance that's bigger and more powerful than any government.

Tenth Amendment:   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.

 

Unfortunately, this one is almost meaningless today.  Believe it or not, some people actually made a good argument for voting against the bill of rights:  Why ban the government from activities like regulating speech or weapons if it was never given the power to do those things in the first place?  The anti-federalists worried that a Bill of Rights like we have today would be an implication that the federal government was allowed to do anything it wasn't explicitly forbidden from.  The 10th amendment is there to remind us that the three branches of government have detailed and literally defined functions - and if you want more than that, you need to go to the state or local level.

Many people today will argue that the "General Welfare Clause" allows the government to do, well, anything.  This wasn't the intention, because otherwise we could have ended the constitution right there.  Article 1, Section 8 not only authorizes the congress to provide for the general welfare, but it also lists what the general welfare is in neat little bullet-points.

Today, let us look at our Bill of Rights with pride and civic responsibility.  We must swear to ourselves and our neighbor that we will uphold every ideal in this contract, not just the ones that fit our personal agenda.  If gun control is rampant, you will have free-speech "zones."  As more weapons make the list, as more citizens are included, so will more forms and media of expression.  So long as the federal government is allowed and encouraged to overstep its bounds as outlined in the 10th amendment in order to provide funding for education, or medicine, or whatever the emotional issue is today, then you can be sure that there will be a growing infrastructure to track your communications and other private information.  

While I'm constantly looking for ways to redesign my site, one thing I need to keep in mind is the accessibility of content.  Some stories might be breaking news that are sort an interesting but temporary distraction, but some things are rooted in long-standing institutional paradigms and don't necessary change from day to day.  Some older stories then, might still be as topical today as they were then.  Until I figure out how to get older stories linked closer to the front page, I'm going to include some links to themed articles that can are still relevant.  

Today let's look at my first few attempts at capturing proof of media bias.  No, this isn't limited to FOX News - that would be too easy.

Sean Hannity of Fox News doesn't like Ron Paul - Seriously, did we need anymore proof?  I had no idea this article would catch so much attention on Digg.  I guess that in news like comedy, timing is everything.  Personally, I don't think this is much of a story.  This is one of those examples of a temporary controversy that provides an entertaining distraction.

CNN (a.k.a.) Clinton News Network uses Planted Questions - Again, conservatives have been complaining about CNN longer than FOX News has even been around.  Is this really a story, or a "duh" moment caught on tape? (CNN would of course, go on to scrub the plant and his questions from any rebroadcast)

Here's the real story:   NBC / General Electric is the Left-wing of the Military Industrial Complex  - GE goes beyond "conflict of interest" and simply focuses its business model on government subsidy and media coverage.  Is it a coincidence that "America's News Leader" is also the #1 recipient of federal tax dollars in the form of contracts?  Is it a coincidence that its CEOs donate heavily to individuals who go on to become the leadership in both parties?  That these leaders would then come up with "bipartisan" methods to spend more tax money?  If it is a coincidence, they need to hire some real CEOs who would make sure it never coincidentally fell apart.

This one is important because its not so blatant.  NBC has been in the propaganda business longer than any of these light-weight cable networks, and as such, they're better at priming their message to the day's events and public mood in order to create the semblence of objective news.  The thing is, while it doesn't bluntly favor one party or the other, it always advances the parent company's interest.  If the government could spend money on it, they probably should spend money on it.

The federal reserve announced it was cutting interest rates again today - the third consecutive rate cut in the last few sessions.  Wall Street had been awaiting, expecting, and almost demanding a rate cut - and to show the investors' gratitude, they started selling the minute it was announced. 

Although the rate cut should somewhat help individuals looking to acquire credit, the sense on the Street is that its "too little, too late."  Many investors were hoping for a half-point cut, and a lot are still waiting for a government-sponsored mortgage bailout plan.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out when Wall Street became a socialist institution whose profits are wholly reliant on government and monetary policy.

 

 

If being against the North American Union makes you a conspiracy theorist,
Does being for it make your a conspirator?

 

The thing is, even talking about it may land a bad label on you and the media has done little to expand knowledge of this topic.  In fact, the media strategy has been to denounce any mention of this as an election-year conspiracy theory.  Opinions range from: the end of U.S. sovereignty; to a completely bureacratic attempt to increase trade & security; to the inevitability of globalist one-world government.

In the live post-debate analysis, one of the commentators just accused CNN of selecting a question and giving air-time to another Hillary Clinton operative.  The conservative analyst charges that the retired gay Brigadier General Keith Kerr is a member of one of Mrs. Clinton's steering committees.

 

Obviously, there will be more on this coming up.  Has it become so easy to accuse CNN and Clinton of fraud that such a claim could be made so off-handedly and so soon after the debate?  

 

I've been looking for something to back this up and here it is!  This blog is claiming he is a member of Clinton's LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee Members!

 

Keith Kerr is a well-known Democratic activist with connections to the Clintons and open support for her campaign.  Is it any coincidence that his question was picked and he was given speaking time that rivaled Tancredo's?

 

In this case, I have no problem with the message CNN was trying to convey, but haven't they learned to be a little careful about these things yet?

 

Anderson Cooper confirmed this before ending the debate coverage, but claimed CNN had no idea.  Well, this General was also an active supporter of John Kerry the last time he was on CNN.  There's more good documentation on this at Free Republic .

Fred on the Attack

Fred Thompson's 30 second video spot shows Romney blatantly supporting his pro-choice position and Huckabee arguing for an income tax surcharge.  When Anderson Cooper asked Fred "What's up with that [video]?"  Fred gets a great crowd response when he smiles innocently and responds "I wanted to give my buddies here some extra air-time.  I don't know what's up with it, those are their words!"