Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Kagan versus free speech
The little that is known about the president SCOTUS nominee is disturbing

WASHINGTON, DC—Confirmation hearings began yesterday for Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court Nomination by President Obama. Conservatives and libertarians have much to worry about, but this selection is a stark reminder, like health care reform and civilian criminal trials for enemy combatants, that elections have consequences. Once Ms. Kagan is confirmed—which I fully expect to happen at this early juncture—she will be seated on the nation’s highest court for at least two, perhaps three decades.

Little is actually known about Ms. Kagan—and that was purposeful by Mr. Obama—he nominated someone without a paper trail and with no record as a jurist. What we do know about Kagan is that she is a liberal and by all indications, views the United States Constitution as a, “charter of negative liberties”, just like Obama.

And we know that Kagan’s involvement in Citizens United v. FEC as a solicitor general was one of hostility to the First Amendment, arguing that certain political speech could be proscribed. When pressed about her position and extending it to books or pamphlets, she said, "FEC has never applied this statute to a book." But specifically stated that pamphlets could be censored; I might remind Ms. Kagan that Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was also a pamphlet.


-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Oil spill commission comprised of advocates
The White House panel is made-up of technocrat policy wonks

WASHINGTON, DC—President Obama’s blue ribbon commission looking into the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are mostly environmental and clean/green energy advocates with no engineering or technical background—some of which blog on a regular basis about the need to end drilling altogether or at least ban deepwater drilling.

One panel member, environmental activist and president of the far left Natural Resources Defense Council, Frances Beinecke; who on May 27th wrote on her blog, "We can blame BP for the disaster and we should. We can blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster and we should. But in the end, we also must place the blame where it originated: America's addiction to oil." And earlier in May on the 20th, she wrote, "Even as questions persist, there is one thing I know for certain: the Gulf oil spill isn't just an accident. It's the result of a failed energy policy."

In fact only one of the seven panelists has a background in engineering—Cherry A. Murray, who is the dean of Harvard's engineering and applied sciences school—but his knowledge lies in physics and optics, not environmental, civil, or mechanical engineering. The co-chair is Bob Graham, the former democrat governor of Florida and senator who opposed offshore drilling.

In short, Mr. Obama has assembled a panel of anti-exploratory, hostile environmentalists, and green energy theoreticians to look into the safety and viability of deep and shallow water drilling. Even the New York Times is critical of the selection; we wait with baited breath to see their recommendations.

-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Who is Alvin Greene?
The mysterious talking-points reader is causing quite a stir

SOUTH CAROLINA—In a stunning democrat primary win, penniless senatorial candidate Alvin Greene bested the favorite Vic Rawl, putting him up against Republican Senator Jim DeMint who is considered to hold a safe seat. The unexpected victory has democrats concerned and Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) has called him a republican plant. Moreover, Clyburn is also calling for an investigation into the primary race.
Greene, who did not campaign—because he did not have or raise any money—has given a few interviews, two of which were with Shepard Smith on FOX News and one with radio talk-show host Mark Levin. Both were phone interviews and it is clear the democrat candidate is reading talking points, as he pauses when asked basic questions and then repeats his answer as if to reassure himself he’s given the correct answer. In the Levin interview, after being asked who his opponent would be in the general election, Greene paused and then stuttered, “Incumbent Senator DeMint” twice, while repeating he believed himself to be the best candidate.

So how does a candidate who’s never ran for or held elected office, has no record, and did not campaign win a senatorial primary? The whole affair is odd at best and we hope that South Carolinian officials are successful in investigating the matter.

-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Are you dumber than a fifth grader? Chances are excellent if you’re a liberal
A new study by Zogby shows liberals can’t answer basic economics questions

FAIRFAX, VA—A study conducted involving 4,835 American adults by Daniel Klein and Zeljka Buturovic asked eight basic economics questions to persons describing themselves as very liberal, liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative and libertarian. The results? Liberals aren’t smarter than a fifth grader when it comes to answering basic economics questions.

The first statement given to the participants was, "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." And they were given five choices with which to answer: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Of the nearly 5,000 answers given, 82.4 percent of those that identified themselves as very conservative answered correctly and even more libertarians, 84.3 percent, also responded correctly, but only 32.4 percent of those who identified themselves as very liberal answered correctly—a full 67.6 percent did not choose the right answer.

According to the study, of the eight statements given to the participants, liberals scored abysmally:

[The] average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

This study demonstrates the glaring disconnect liberals have with reality. As the first statement establishes, liberals are unable to reconcile that when you regulate something more, less of it will be available.

-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

No win in sight
How a political calculation over the oil spill could cost the president

WASHINGTON, DC—In what is now clearly a political calculation gone awry, President Obama is feeling the effects in his poll numbers and his political clout. The fallout his inaction to the BP oil spill will come at a heavy price and may even damage his party more come November. This remains to be seen, but an early handicapping would indeed conclude the president’s party is going to be set back even more because voters will remember the federal government’s response to Katrina—there was one, whereas here, there has not been one.

When asked about the political strategizing that came when the president was informed about the spill, I simply explain the advice he received from Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod was probably, “Stay out of it; you don’t want your fingerprints on this.” That is until the spigot would be capped within a week or so, then, “Mr. President, move in and take credit.” But that didn’t happen and over thirty days later, Obama had to hold a press conference stating the federal government had been in charge since day one but didn’t have the resources for a fix.

Strange how a man, with a statist mentality who pushed health care reform at the cost of losing a democrat majority, who nationalized General Motors, and who seeks to regulate every aspect of Wall Street has to admit that government isn’t the answer. As Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “When you ask a government far away in Washington to handle everything, it will handle nothing well.”

-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick