"...And to All a Good Night"

You've likely noticed that my posts have been intermittent at best lately.  As I explained back in August and September, I've taken a new job and because of the travel it involves, blogging is difficult at times.

But the real truth is that after almost three years the Sage is simply out of gas.

As my family gathers around me for the holiday, I notice that I'm far more concerned about its well-being than I am the country's.  (Is that a conservative instinct or not?)

While I realize it's not yet the end of the year and, contra the Mayan calendar, certainly not the end of the world, it feels nonetheless like a good time to stop.

So, with many thanks to those of you who urged me to begin the blog, as well as encouraged me along the way, I sign off for the last time on this Yuletide Eve with a heartfelt wish for a "Happy Christmas to all..."
   

"There Will Be Blood"

Such were the words Democratic legislator Douglas Geiss boldly declared on the floor of the state house in response to the signing of the new law that would make Michigan the country's 24th Right-to-Work state: “There will be blood. There will be repercussions.”

And while blood did indeed flow, neither Geiss nor any other apologist for the violence and vandalism we reliably associate with the Left suffered any repercussions.  Nor will they.

Remember this when the Great Reckoning finally unfolds.

Explanations

In case you were wondering, the Sage has been on the road without a blogging-compatible computer.

Not that it mattered.

It feels, to me at least, as if all we can do now is wait and see.  The number of conservative-leaning people I have spoken with since the election who are dispirited, or at least resigned, is alarming.  There's no fight in them.  Save, that is, the kind of fight that makes them think they ought to buy guns and ammo, store canned goods and water, etc.

Anxious times.

Jump!, cont.

And here I thought even Charles Krauthammer was going wobbly as we approached the fiscal cliff.  I was wrong.

Instead, he sees exactly what Obama and the Democrats are doing:

Ronald Reagan once fell for a “tax now, cut later” deal that he later deeply regretted. Dems got the tax; he never got the cuts. Obama’s audacious new gambit is not a serious proposal to solve our fiscal problems. It’s a raw partisan maneuver meant to neuter the Republicans by getting them to cave on their signature issue as the hold-the-line party on taxes. 

The objective is to ignite exactly the kind of internecine warfare on taxes now going on among Republicans. And to bury Grover Norquist. 

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Norquistian. I don’t believe the current level of taxation is divinely ordained. Nor do I believe in pledges of any kind. But Norquist is the only guy in town to consistently resist the tax-and-spend Democrats’ stampede for ever higher taxes to fund ever more reckless spending. 

The hunt for Norquist’s scalp is a key part of the larger partisan project to make the Republicans do a George H. W. Bush and renege on their heretofore firm stand on taxes. Bush never recovered.

Bush never recovered and neither will the Republican Party if they sign on to a bad or even ambiguous deal with the Democrats.  If they do, and I don't like saying this at all, conservatives will abandon the party.

But Krauthammer is, I fear, wrong about one thing:

Why are the Republicans playing along? Because it is assumed that Obama has the upper hand. Unless Republicans acquiesce and get the best deal they can right now, tax rates will rise across the board on January 1, and the GOP will be left without any bargaining chips. 

But what about Obama? If we all cliff-dive, he gets to preside over yet another recession. It will wreck his second term. Sure, Republicans will get blamed. But Obama is never running again. He cares about his legacy. You think he wants a second term with a double-dip recession, 9 percent unemployment, and a totally gridlocked Congress? (my italics)

I agree, Obama does care about his legacy, just not in the way you might expect him to.

Remember, Obama wants not to recover or restore the country, he wants instead to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."

To that end, he reasons, a new crisis, just like the last one, shouldn't go to waste and he, for one, won't let it.  A double-dip recession, 9-plus percent unemployment, and a totally gridlocked Congress are all near perfect ingredients in a recipe to nourish the still growing Leviathan.

Please Remember This

How we are taxed is a very important issue.  There are more and less efficient and/or just ways for our government to raise the revenue it needs to perform its functions and pay its debts and, therefore, the current debate is critical.

But of far greater importance is how much we are taxed.  That figure, however it's raised, more than any other signals the size and intrusiveness of our government and ought to concern us much more than the size of the top marginal rate.

Jump!, cont.

If you've paid any attention at all to the debate over what to do to avoid the nation's looming "fiscal cliff", you know that the issue has been framed as essentially one between the House Republicans, who do not want to raise marginal tax rates on anyone, and the White House, the congressional Democrats, the elite liberal media (as well as a growing number of "wobbly"  Republican senators willing to dicker after all), who want to raise them on the wealthiest Americans.

There remains, to this point anyway, little to no word at all about cutting spending.  And, if history is any guide, no matter what the final deal, no spending will be cut, now or ever.

So, how about gambling on this deal instead?  A deal for the GOP and for the Democrats as well, a deal to which both parties have already agreed? 

The Republicans should grab the Democrats tightly ("Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.") and simply step off the cliff.

The Republicans will enjoy the boast of, true to their pledge, not having voted to raise taxes.

For Democrats marginal rates will indeed climb.  True, for everyone not just the rich, but in their heart of hearts, that is what they want anyway.  For liberals, nothing is ultimately yours.  Rather, as they see it, in a more efficient and just society, all wealth belongs finally to the government, to be redistributed by it as necessary.    

But also, and this is key, real spending will be cut as well.

Think of it, for the first time since the New Deal at least, real spending will be cut and smaller government will result.  To be sure, it will be cut with a very blunt instrument, but cut nonetheless.

I say jump.

Jump!

As more and more Republicans appear ready to abandon their pledge to the American people (not to Grover Norquist for heaven's sake) by at least considering raising taxes in order to reach some budget agreement with the White House and the congressionbal Democrats, Marc Thiessen offers several reasons why they should not, but should instead call the Democrats' bluff.  If we go over the the fiscal cliff with them he insists, we'll win.

 I find his arguments compelling.  How about you?

Many Thanks

Thankful for so much, it's impossible to itemize...remember even.  Shame on me.

Do consider, today at least, that without the gift of life itself, nothing else is possible.  Then pause and thank your Maker.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

This is Tyranny

Hobby Lobby, the national arts and crafts supplies chain, sued the federal government for relief from that part of Obamacare that required the company to provide morning-after and week-after birth control pills as part of its employee health care plan.  The owner claimed the mandate violated his pro-life religious beliefs and thereby the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment.  U.S, Federal District Judge Joe Heat disagreed, rejecting the request and ruling that:

"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion."

It's not coming ladies and gentlemen, it's already here.

Rush is Right

Since the election, more than a few of the political consultant class have been quite publicly explaining away the Romney loss by blaming it on among other things the disproportionate influence on the Republican Party of right-wing talk radio personalities, especially Rush Limbaugh.  The argument--it's more childishly petulant excuse-making than argument actually--is that Rush has made the party too conservative to win a national election.

Ahem...

...moderate Republicans have succeeded in getting their candidate or a candidate to their liking nominated for the last 20 years.  (Yes, even George W. eschewed direct identification with movement conservatives in 2000.  Remember "compassionate conservatism"?)  Save for the 2004 election when the same W. won their enthusiastic support for unapologetically responding to the national security challenges post 9/11, conservatives in each election have had to swallow hard in order to pull the lever for the party's eventual nominee.  But pull them they did and had it not been for Rush Limbaugh--him more than anyone else I'd argue--many if not most of those same conservatives would have either stayed home on election day, or worse, launched a third party effort that would have been a disaster for both the Republican Party and conservatism.  Ross Perot was just such a disaster in '92 and '96 because many foolishly thought him a conservative alternative to George the First and Bob Dole despite Rush's best efforts to discredit his crazy candidacy.

However many votes the party may attract by moving to the ideological center, it will lose more, many more, by alienating it's to this point still loyal conservative base.

And to think these guys make millions, win or lose. 

Rush is Wrong

The people didn't vote for Santa Clause almost two weeks ago.  Sure, Santa gives stuff away, but he doesn't take from anyone

We Shall Overcome

With the right to unrestricted military service secure, and the one for legal marriage within grasp, the next great challenge for the country's homosexuals is to win the struggle for the right to public nudity.

But when the practice is threatened in even otherwise freedom-loving San Francisco, you know reactionary forces may already have the upper hand.

Meanwhile, professional Republicans, their campaign consultants, and many pundits as well are urging the GOP to ignore the demands of the Tea Party and instead to pursue aggressively some middle way.  The very high stakes are of course the votes of the nation's election-deciding moderates.  The strategy they suggest is for the party to remain in principle opposed to public nudity, but to communicate clearly nonetheless its willingness to compromise on the issue, topless or bottomless, for example, but not both.

Where Sheepskins are Nervous

Fordham's president finds conservative gadfly Ann Coulter beyond the pale and recently convinced (coerced?) the College Republicans to withdraw her invitation to speak at the university.  But Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, famous defender of infanticide and bestiality, apparently passed moral muster and was a most welcome participant and speaker at a panel discussion the college hosted yesterday afternoon.

Shame on Fordham!

Yea, I know, I know.  It's nigh impossible to shame Lefties.

Wait Just One Minute!

It appears that FOX News is going to focus its attention on the alleged alteration of the intelligence talking points that Ambassador Rice used to dissemble on the five Sunday news shows two months ago.  (The non-FOX News doesn't care one way or the other save for the fact that it's a timely and very welcome distraction.)  This is a mistake.

I wasn't there, so I can't know what actually transpired.  But, judging from the reports of the congressmen who were, I know I would have reacted very differently to Petraeus's testimony.

What do I mean?

Had I been there, as soon as I heard the former CIA Chief say to those of us assembled that not only did he know from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack, but that he said as much at the time, I would have raised up out of my chair, and while shaking my fist at him shouted something like:  "The hell you did General!  Not only did you testify to the contrary at the time, but it was widely reported that you did so.  If indeed your initial testimony was otherwise, not only have you not seen fit to correct the record during the intervening two months, but every @#$%& representative of this feckless administration, from the President to the janitor, has used since then that very testimony to hide behind.  Now, while my aid goes to retrieve copies of the transcript from your prior visit with us, I suggest you think a little harder and perhaps remember a little more clearly exactly what it was you said back then.  And remember General, this time you're under oath."

But that probably explains why I'm not now, and probably never will be a congressman.

This Makes it Worse

General Petraeus's testimony, that is.

From what I gather, in today's closed-door hearing before Congress, General Petraeus insisted that he knew almost immediately that it was not an out-of-control response to the video, but instead a terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate that resulted in the murder of our ambassodor and three other Americans.  He said this was so despite numerous reports at the time, and ever since, that his testimony before Congresss two months ago was exactly to the contrary, i.e., that the deaths were the result of the video.

OK, it's easy enough to check the record to see if in fact he did say as much then.  (I doubt it.)

But even if he did, why did he wait two months to correct the record?

This is getting muddier, and darker, with every passing day.

Let's Review

The White House, congressional Democrats, and the elite media collectively are now accusing the Republicans of trying to politicize Benghazi-gate.  Their strategy, I'm sure, is to muddle the story with charges and counter-charges of  politicization so that the public will grow weary, lose focus, and issue a "pox on both your houses" judgment, a verdict that amounts to an acquittal for the guilty party.  Don't fall for it.

Remember that the story began on September 11 with news reports of protests at the US embassy in Cairo, Egypt over the production of an offensive-to-Muslims video.  Embassy personnel quickly issued a disclaimer for the video that sounded to many a bit too much like an apology for America itself.  The "many" included Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, who said as much.

It was only later that evening and early the next morning that reports came in that the Benghazi, Libya consulate had actually been attacked, resulting in the murder of our ambassador and three others as well.  Subsequent reporting made it very clear very quickly that Benghazi was different than Cairo.  But, and this is the rub, the administration insisted nevertheless that it was not different.  Moreover, the administration continued to insist that it was just like Cairo for days and even weeks while the evidence that it was indeed different continued to grow.  Among those who perpetrated and perpetuated this falsehood were Secretary of State Clinton, CIA Chief Petraeus, Press Secretary Carney, UN Ambassador Rice, and the President himself.

Why did they do this?

Before we make important judgments about whether or not the administration adequately defended the consulate before the attack, or reacted appropriately during and after it, we must have the answer to this question.

Be Careful What You Say

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said yesterday that, "There is no fiscal cliff," and argued that the looming crisis is not real at all, but "manufactured" instead.  Presumably, he wants President Obama to hold his ground against the Republican House.

But if there's no cliff and no crisis, then not only is there no reason for the President to negotiate, there's none for the Republicans to do so either.

Until the Sun Goes Down Over Santa Monica Boulevard, cont.

Without comment:  Los Angeles City Council Backs "Meatless Mondays"

The Philly Fix

Look, the President would likely have won reelection anyway, but with reports like those of 59 precincts in Philadelphia voting 100% to 0% for Obama over Romney, not to mention others from Florida and Ohio, we're justified at least to roll our eyes the next time some liberal talking head smugly disputes any evidence of voter fraud.

The media's liberal and Democrats cheat.  Those are facts.

But we can beat'em still.

How to Throw a Party...Overboard

As a general rule, politicos in a democracy should refrain from insulting the voters.  But if insult them they must, they should at least aim their jibes at those who voted against their candidate.  It would seem that some Republican pols are finding this increasingly difficult to do.

Appearing on MSNBC (where else?), Steve Schmidt, the architect of Senator John McCain's loss to Barack Obama in 2008, spoke what has apparently long been on his mind and agreed with the Left, the Democrats, and their aiders and abettor's from the elite liberal media that the GOP is indeed being run by a bullying band of sexists and racists.  By saying so publicly, he insulted the 48% of the electorate who voted for Romney anyway, not to mention the 30% of Latinos and 44% of women so blinded by their own intolerance that they agreed with the Republicans by voting against their own interest.

I suspect Schmidt is not alone among GOP professionals.  But if his very public complaint is followed by similar ones from others like him, then look for more and more conservatives, who are already disenchanted with the Republican brand, to leave it altogether for a third party, or maybe even for the hills.