One Liberal's View of America

According to the Poynter Institute’s website, Kenneth Irby “is an integral figure in visual journalism education, known for his insightful knowledge of photographic storytelling, innovative management ideas, and steadfast ethical thinking. He founded Poynter's photojournalism program in 1995. He teaches in seminars and consults in areas of photojournalism, leadership, ethics, and diversity.”

This morning, Mr. Irby was asked on NPR’s “The Takeaway” whether media images from Haiti are too graphic. His response, “The bigger problem I think is not the principles of the journalist, it’s the ignorance of the American people. The American people have been protected, sheltered, and privileged, and don’t want to see the kinds of realities that are happening outside of our borders and to take a responsibility that we have, as Americans, to help those that are in need.” (http://www.thetakeaway.org/2010/jan/26/are-photographs-haiti-too-graphic/)

I submit that Mr. Irby’s offensive comments are typical of what liberals think of America. Liberalism is a philosophy that government must play an intimate role in all our economic decisions, from picking a doctor to buying a house. This philosophy cannot be justified except on the grounds that we are too ignorant and too irresponsible to make those decisions by ourselves. By its very nature, liberalism is insulting to all but the small elite elevated to government to guide us through the shopping mall.

This view of our great country is not only insulting, it is contrary to fact. According to the most recent census, in 1998, the last year for which statistics were available, Americans spent $28.8 billion dollars on books. And in 2010, three days before Mr. Irby’s interview, Americans watched the “Hope for Haiti Telethon” and pledged $61 million for Haitian earthquake victims. Clearly we are neither ignorant, nor unwilling to help those in need.

Quite the Civics Lesson: Scott Brown Rally

Check out these pix from Friday's Scott Brown rally in the North End with Rudy Giuliani. A friend of mine asked me to post them. She is homeschooling two daughters, ages 10 and 11, who she took to the event. Here's what she said about it:

"This was the girls' first rally supporting a political candidate, and it made quite the impression on them. We've been studying the American Revolution, so the symbolism of standing before Paul Revere's statue was not lost on them.

"Both girls were able to shake both Scott Brown's hand and his daughter, Ariana's. (I think Miss Brown made an even bigger impression on them than did her father!)

"It was quite the day for their civics curriculum. After the rally, one of the girls requested we tour the Paul Revere House, which we did, despite it being a short Friday with guests due and the schedule already in disarray due to the spur-of-the-moment rally attendance. (We only heard of it at 5 of 9am on that morning, over the radio. The rally started at 10:15.)"

Vote for Freedom Tomorrow

I just want to add my voice, one last time, to those urging you to go to the polls tomorrow, Tuesday, January 19, and vote for Scott Brown, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.

You all know the importance of this election. During the past year, the Federal Government has threatened our freedom with attempts to take control of banking, of the automobile industry, of medicine. The Republicans in the U.S. Senate need one more vote to shut down the takeover, starting with Obamacare. We in Massachusetts have the opportunity to give them that vote by electing Scott Brown. Barney Frank got it right when he said “If Scott Brown wins, it’ll kill the health bill.”

This was supposed to be a safe seat for the Democrats. Massachusetts is, in John Keller’s phrase, the bluest state. According to the Gallup poll, the percentage of Bay State residents who are “Democrat” or “Lean Democrat” is higher than any other state in the Union. The voters sent the country’s most famous liberal, Ted Kennedy, to the Senate nine times. Shortly after the December 8 primary, Democrat Massachusetts Congressman Mike Capuano said, “There is no way in hell we’re going to elect a Republican to Ted Kennedy’s seat.” Over the Christmas holiday, while we were wringing our hands about the lack of national attention to this race, the Democrat candidate Martha Coakley, confident of victory, took a six-day vacation.

That was three weeks ago. It’s hard to believe how much has changed in that short time. Today, on the eve of the election, it looks like there’s a way in hell after all. Because, as Scott told us, “It’s not Ted Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.” And we the people want something better.

No doubt you’ve seen the Massachusetts Miracle video, comparing this race to the Battles of Concord and Lexington. In 2010, like in 1775, Massachusetts patriots stood up for their liberty. In 2010, like in 1775, the world is watching what is happening here. In 1775 Massachusetts fired the “shot heard round the world”. In 2010, excited supporters at Brown for U.S. Senate rallies are talking about the “Scott heard round the world”.

Once again Massachusetts is leading the way in the fight for freedom. The Democrats in Congress have got to be getting nervous. If it is this difficult for them to hold on to one safe Senate seat, they must be wondering what is going to happen in November when 36 Senators and 435 Representatives are up for election. I expect we will see a very chastened Democrat party when Congress reconvenes this month. Our enthusiastic support for Scott Brown even made Obama take time out from his busy schedule of expropriating banks and hospitals in order to travel to the Bay State and pull Martha’s butt out of the fire. Win or lose tomorrow, we already changed Washington.

But let’s win tomorrow. Scott may be leading in the public opinion surveys, but they’re still very close. If you haven’t already submitted an absentee ballot, please go to the voting booth and pull the lever or fill in the circle for Scott Brown. And please, remind your friends and neighbors to do the same.

P.S. It seems I’m the proud owner of a moderately cool domain name, www.nexusofpower.com. Any suggestions on what to do with it after the election is over?

Letter from a Libertarian

The Massachusetts Special Election for U.S. Senate poses a dilemma for many Libertarians. Joseph L. Kennedy, the Libertarian candidate, is running a decent and honest campaign. If you’ve watched the debates, you’ve seen him speak out forcefully about the need to make government smaller. The Republican, Scott Brown, accepts the Libertarian position on some issues (Obamacare, taxes, gun rights, and financial regulation). But on others (same sex marriage, decriminalization of marijuana, and medical quarantine), his Big Government views have caused two prominent Massachusetts Libertarians to call him “a fake ally” who is “more dangerous than an open enemy”. Clearly, Joe Kennedy is the better candidate on issues of freedom vs. state control.

Unfortunately, according to the January 12 Rasmussen poll, only 3% of likely voters support Mr. Kennedy, while Sen. Brown is in a statistical dead heat with the “open enemy” Democrat Martha Coakley. Under those circumstances, a vote for Joe Kennedy really is, as Howie Carr says, a vote for Martha Coakley.

What’s a minarchist to do?

One of my friends, who asked to remain anonymous, has supported the Libertarian Party for as long as I’ve known him (and I’ve known him a quarter of a century!). The following is his answer to that question. This is an e-mail that he’s been circulating among his associates:

Subject: Support a Republican?

Hi, all.

You know that I am usually not one to support a Republican. But the special election for US Senate in Massachusetts next week is different. I think that the result will actually make a big difference in policy for the next year, and recent polls say that the race is too close to call. So this is a rare opportunity when individual efforts could actually make a big difference.

You probably know the issue I'm talking about, which is presented nicely here: http://nexusofpower.com/about.htm. In summary, with Democrats in control of the presidency, the House, and 60 votes in the Senate, the normal checks and balances are gone. There have been unprecedented increases in government spending and control of the economy in the last year (financial industry, auto industry, health care). Energy is next. If Republican Scott Brown wins this election the Republicans will get their 41st seat, allowing them to block legislation by filibuster, restoring some balance. I certainly don't agree with everything that Scott Brown has done in the state legislature, or that Republicans have done in congress, but by and large for the last year the Republicans have worked to limit the damage, and one more vote will allow them to do so much more successfully.

Scott Brown was at 47% in the most recent poll, so there is a real possibility he can win. His opponent has far more funds, so contributions make a difference.

I have contributed to Scott Brown's campaign (by credit card to make sure the money is received in time). I urge each of you to do the same. Donations can be made here: https://www.icontribute.us/scottbrown

Thanks.

Banning Catholics from the ER

A few days ago, I posted a list of questions that Democrat Senate candidate Martha Coakley didn’t get asked during her debate with Republican Scott Brown. One of them was: “You criticize Scott Brown for ‘legislation that would allow hospital employees to deny emergency care to rape victims if it was their choice.’ Do you believe that doctors and nurses should be forced by law to provide contraception and perform abortions if they have moral objections to those treatments?”

Yesterday, Martha provided the answer during an interview with Ken Pittman on WBSM 1420 radio. She also provided a fascinating new theory of Constitutional Rights.





Ms. Coakley’s statements are so outrageous that your first reaction may be they were taken out of context. Here then is the entire segment in context:

Pittman: Would you pass a health care bill that had conscientious objector towards certain procedures including abortion?

Coakley: I don’t believe that would be included in the health care bill. I don’t understand exactly what the question is. I would not pass a bill as Scott Brown filed an amendment to say that if people believe that they don’t want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe vs. Wade that they can individually decide not to follow the law. The answer to that question is no. And let’s be clear that Scott Brown filed an amendment to a bill in Massachusetts that would say that hospital and emergency room personnel could deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in who had been raped.

Pittman: Right, and if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin, you don't want to do that.

Coakley: No but we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Coakley: The law says that people are allowed to have that. And so then if you, you can have religious freedom, you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.

Pittman: Wow. So if you have a religious conviction stay out of the emergency room.

Coakley: Well no, I’m not…you’re the one who brought the question up. I don’t believe that the law allows for that and I know that we accommodate all kinds of differences all the time. I think Roe vs. Wade has made it clear that women have a right to choose, and in Massachusetts, particularly if someone has been the victim of a rape, an assault and she goes to an emergency room to get contraception, someone else should say “Oh, no, I don’t believe in it so I’m going to affect your Constitutional rights?”

Since starting Nexus of Power, I’ve argued that the Brown/Coakley election is about freedom. If there was ever any doubt about that, Ms. Coakley’s comments should remove it. Her answer is yes, doctors and nurses should be forced by law to provide contraception and perform abortions even if they have moral objections to those treatments. Her argument is based on the curious notion that if a law gives one person the freedom to choose something - an abortion in the case of Roe v. Wade - then the law also requires other people to provide it, regardless of their personal convictions, and with no freedom to choose at all. A country that requires citizens to perform services that they consider sinful, and where citizens are barred from certain professions because of their religion, is not a free country. But that is the country Martha Coakley says she will build if we elect her to the Senate on January 19.

(For more on this subject, see my 2007 comments about a similar argument from Rudolph Giuliani)

An aside: Ms. Coakley also claimed that this is a matter of separation of church and state. Since most U.S. hospitals are not run by the government, it is difficult to see what that has to do with anything. Perhaps Ms. Coakley is looking ahead to the day when Obamacare puts the Feds in charge of the emergency room.

Thank You, Martha

It’s all over the news. Martha Coakley has gone negative. The Democrat Senate candidate’s new ad “Who Is Scott Brown, Really?” concludes, “We can’t afford a Republican like Scott Brown”. “Republican” seems to be the operative word – in the radio version of the ad, it is repeated 6 times, each time with more contempt than the last. Apparently she believes that the 48% of the voters who support her opponent don’t know that he is a Republican. Once she educates them as to this deplorable fact, they will no doubt switch their allegiance to her in droves.

What does it mean, anyway, to be a Republican?

It means belonging to the party of Abraham Lincoln. Honest Abe led America through its bloodiest war so that, as he said at Gettysburg, “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” Believing that “if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong,” he signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 freeing the slaves in large parts of the Union.

It means belonging to the party of Dwight Eisenhower. As Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Ike led the Armies of Freedom in eradicating Fascism from most of that continent. As President, he ordered the 101st Airborne Division to protect nine black students from those who would use violence to keep them out of a formerly all-white school. The soldiers faced down the mob and escorted the six girls and three boys safely into Little Rock Central High.

It means belonging to the party of Ronald Reagan. The Gipper was elected President at the conclusion of a decade that saw a hundred million people lose their freedom to proxies of Soviet Russia. Ignoring the ridicule of the left-wing wine and cheese set, Reagan stood up to the Russians, bringing about the collapse of the Evil Empire and the end of the Cold War. He told us to be eternally vigilant: “Freedom is always just one generation away from extinction,” he said. “We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free.”

At this point, you may be thinking, “Sure, the GOP ended slavery, segregation, and Communism. But what have they done recently?”

It’s true, in the last decade, the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan lost its way. As their most recent standard-bearer, John McCain, said, “We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people.” And because of that, the party also lost the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

But, oh, what a comeback!

Just as Reagan warned us, freedom is now on the verge of extinction. The Democrats are planning to take away our freedom to make our own health care choices; instead the bureaucrats at the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research will tell us what’s best for us. They’re planning to take away our freedom to make agreements with our employers about how much we will earn; instead the Compensation Czar will tell us how much we can have. They’re planning to take away our freedom to choose how we spend what we earn; instead the Internal Revenue Service will confiscate it from us with massive new taxes (Don’t believe me? Check out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012802939.html, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476565985708427.html, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html )

In this environment, being a Republican means belonging to the party of the 40 Senators who are standing up to the Democrats and blocking their plans to bring government into every area of our lives. Although they don’t even have enough seats to sustain a filibuster, they’ve slowed the Federal takeover of health care by at least half a year, forcing the Dems to put other plans such as Cap and Tax on the back burner.

So thank you, Martha, for informing the public that Scott Brown is a Republican. You pay him a great compliment, and I’m sure he is grateful.

The Old Jarhead: I'm Tired

Today one of my colleagues sent me this blog by Marine Vet and Former Mass. State Senator Robert A. Hall. Although it was written back in February, it really captures what's driving support for Scott Brown: those of us who take responsibility for our own lives are tired of being told we also have to take responsibility for those who don't:

"I’ll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.

"I’m tired of being told that I have to “spread the wealth around” to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it." (more...)

Some Questions for Martha Coakley

In their final debate last night, Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown challenged his Democrat opponent Martha Coakley with some tough questions (my personal favorite - “If it’s not 2.1 trillion, what’s the actual number that you want to raise people’s taxes?” Martha’s answer: “It isn’t a number.”). Here are some questions that Scott did not ask. I’d be interested in Martha’s answers:

You are concerned that “we now spend 2.6 trillion dollars a years on health care in this country”. Obamacare will add $200 billion a year. If the problem is that costs are too high, why do you think the solution is to spend more?

You are pleased that “the Congressional Budget Office says that within ten years that health care plan will be deficit neutral.” What does “deficit neutral” mean? Is that another way of saying you’ll raise our taxes to pay the added costs?

You criticize Scott Brown for “legislation that would allow hospital employees to deny emergency care to rape victims if it was their choice.” Do you believe that doctors and nurses should be forced by law to provide contraception and perform abortions if they have moral objections to those treatments?

You say, “I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan…I think we should plan an exit strategy”. When the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, the Soviet Union interpreted the exit as a sign of weakness, and was encouraged to launch Marxist takeovers in Ethiopia (1974), South Vietnam (1975), Cambodia (1975), Laos (1975), Angola (1975), Benin (1975), Mozambique (1975), Afghanistan (1978), Nicaragua (1979), and Grenada (1979). 100 million people lost their freedom and at least 5 million lost their lives in the subjugation of those countries. When the U.S. pulled out of Lebanon in 1983, Osama Bin Laden interpreted the exit as a sign of weakness, and was encouraged to launch the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 3,000 people lost their lives in those tragedies. Do you think that pulling out of Afghanistan would invite similar consequences? If not, why do you think Afghanistan will be different?

You support civilian trials for accused terrorists. If the Federal Court in New York acquits Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the mastermind of the Sept 11 attacks, should he be released?

You say, “if the goal was, and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists…They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.” If the terrorists are gone from Afghanistan, who was responsible for the Dec 30 suicide bombing that killed seven Americans at Forward Operating Camp Chapman near the Afghan city of Khost?

I’m just asking.

Boston Herald reports "Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform"

This is over the top. The Boston Herald reports that according to his office, Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin is planning to slow roll certification of the Special Senate election. In the event that Republican Scott Brown is victorious, this maneuver would prevent him from taking office in time for a health care vote. It shows the lengths the Democrats will go in order to hold on to power, to the point of delaying implementation of an election result. We need to get them out of office fast. Vote for Scott Brown on Jan 19 and contact Gov. Patrick (http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us) and Sec. Galvin (cis@sec.state.mas.us) to urge speedy certifiction of this election, regardless of the outcome.

Scott Brown Wants You...to Volunteer

A new poll is out about the January 19 Massachusetts Special Election for U.S. Senate. The results underscore the important role that volunteers will play in determining the outcome.

The Rasmussen poll is a mixed bag for GOP candidate Scott Brown. They show him trailing Democrat Martha Coakley among likely voters 50% to 41%. But here’s the good news for the Republican:

- Brown is closing the gap. Before the November primary, he trailed Coakley 58% to 27%. Now the gap is down to single digits.
- Massachusetts voters aren’t slaves to political parties. The majority of the electorate are independents, and they decide who wins. Among independent voters, Brown leads Coakley 65% to 21%.
- Among those who are “absolutely certain” they will vote, Coakley leads Brown by only 2% - well within the sampling error. “It is clear from the data,” says the report, that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic.”
- Coakley is hard to like. 22% of likely voters have a “very unfavorable” opinion of her, compared to 5% for Brown.

The report also observes, “Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote”. That’s where you come in.

The candidate who wins this election will likely be the one whose organization is more effective at getting out the vote. The Brown campaign needs workers to man the phone banks and spread the message about the importance of going to the polls on the 19th. Please volunteer to help with this important effort. To find out how, go to http://brownbrigade.ning.com/

The Republicans in the U.S. Senate need just one more vote to shut down the Democrats’ takeover of banking, manufacturing, and health care. We in Massachusetts have the opportunity to give them that vote by electing Scott Brown on January 19. But to make that happen, we all need to do our parts.

Martha Coakley: Champion of Low Taxes?

“I haven't voted for a tax increase while in elective office.” – Scott Brown, interview with Jim Braude, 10 Dec 2009

“[H]is record in the State Legislature does not match his rhetoric on the campaign trail, as he voted to increase costs for Massachusetts families and businesses by implementing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional fees. He also voted for what an anti-tax advocacy group called a ‘gas tax increase.’” – Martha Coakley Press Release, 30 Dec 2009

Martha Coakley, the Democrat running for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat, supports the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan for $2.1 trillion in new federal taxes over 5 years. Nevertheless, she is trying to pose as the candidate of low taxes. LMAO.

In a statement titled “Rhetoric vs. Reality”, she disputes her Republican opponent Scott Brown’s claim that he never voted for a tax increase during his years on Beacon Hill. As evidence for Sen. Brown’s alleged deception, Ms. Coakley cited his vote for the House version of the 2004 Massachusetts state budget. Although the budget did not contain new taxes, it did contain fee hikes, along with a provision that eliminated an environmental cleanup fund funded by the state gasoline tax.

The press release is a case study in the politician’s art of saying something untrue without actually saying it. Furthermore it’s a smokescreen for Ms. Coakley’s own sorry position on taxes.

The Coakley statement quotes the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation saying that the fee increases were “linked” to tax increases. It quotes unnamed “anti-tax activists” saying that the gas tax measure had “the effect” of converting a user fee to a tax. But it never actually says that Sen. Brown voted to raise taxes – which he didn’t do. If Ms. Coakley has to resort to these weasel words to make her case, the Brown record on taxes must be pretty darn good.

Nor does the press release ever actually say that Martha Coakley, if she got to Washington, would be better than Scott Brown at protecting wages from federal confiscation. She leaves it up to the reader to fill in the blanks. But it is instructive to compare Brown’s user’s fees with Coakley’s bona fide tax increases. The 2004 budget had fee hikes of as much as $700 million per year. To put that number in perspective, when this budget was passed personal income for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was $259 billion. So on average, Bay State residents paid $27 in fee hikes for every $10,000 in income that they earned. As I mentioned, if Martha Coakley goes to Washington in 2010, she will support $2.1 trillion dollars in new taxes over five years, or an average of $420 billion per year. U.S. personal income for 2010 will be approximately $12.1 trillion so on average, Americans will pay $350 in new taxes for every $10,000 in income.

Final score: Brown $27, Coakley $350.

You work hard for your paycheck. Clearly, of the two candidates, Scott Brown is the one who will take less of it away.