Did the Texas Light Bulb Two Step Bring Fred Upton to the Dance?

The encouraging headlines this weekend that the Texas Legislature had passed and Governor Rick Perry had signed into law a bill that allows Texans to make and sell within the State of Texas the 100 watt incandescent light bulbs banned throughout the entire country by the federal government, effective January 1, 2012, quickly gave way to a realistic assessment of the actual impact of the bill.

Don’t count on the passage of this bill resulting in the manufacture or sale of a single banned incandescent light bulb anywhere in Texas.

The devil, as they say, is in the details, and here are the devilish details of the law:

It simply authorizes the Attorney General of Texas, upon receiving notice that a resident of Texas intends to manufacture the banned incandescent light bulbs in Texas for sale exclusively in Texas, to request a ruling from a Federal District Court Judge based in Texas on the Constitutionality of the proposed manufacturing plan. Only upon receiving a green light from the Federal District Court Judge will the Attorney General allow the proposed manufacturing project to proceed.

You can read the rest of this article at Broadside Books' "Line of Fire" here.

Many Texas Tea Partiers Aren’t Thrilled With a Rick Perry Presidential Campaign

Since the beginning of the Tea Party movement, I’ve frequently pointed out that much of the energy of the movement emanates from Texas. In many respects, the Lone Star State stands as the last bastion of American individualism. The steadfast commitment of its straight talking, no nonsense, “Don’t Mess With Texas” citizens gives encouragement and inspiration to the rest of us around the country.

For this reason, when my tea party friends in Texas talk to me about anything, I listen with great interest.

Here’s what many of them are telling me about the possibility of their Governor, Rick Perry, running for the Republican Presidential nomination:

Tea partiers in Texas aren’t crying out for Rick Perry to run for President, and they definitely aren’t referring to him as a tea party candidate. Instead, it’s a very savvy and experienced Rick Perry media team that is promoting the “meme” of Perry as a tea party Governor.

You can read the rest of this article at Broadside Books' "Line of Fire" here.

Fred Upton’s Broken Light Bulb Promise Another Example of the Failure of Republican Leadership

Late last year, Republican Congressman Fred Upton, who co-sponsored the infamous ban on the current generation of inexpensive incandescent light bulbs included in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, was desperate to secure conservative support for his bid to become Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the same committee in which he had introduced the despised ban three years earlier. He therefore promised that one of his first acts would be to advance legislation that would repeal the very light bulb ban he had once championed.

Upton’s ploy succeeded, and in January of this year, Speaker of the House John Boehner named Upton to his treasured chairmanship. More than four months later, Upton has not held the promised hearings. Several dozen members of the House, including Joe Barton, Michele Bachmann, and Thad McCotter, have co-sponsored legislation to repeal the ban, so there’s plenty of support for it among true conservatives. And since the ban on the current generation of 100 watt incandescent bulbs is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2012, prompt action is required. There are only six and a half months left!

Journalist Virginia Postrel recently wrote that the Republican leadership in the House has no intention of actually repealing the incandescent light bulb ban, and I’m inclined to agree. It’s a different matter in the Senate, where the Republicans are in the minority. The Senate held hearings back in March, but despite a few rumors to the contrary, there’s no indication that the House, where Congressman Upton controls the path, will hold hearings.

That this ban is an egregious violation of free market capitalism is beyond dispute. I document this case in my new e-book, I, Light Bulb: A Death Row Testimonial, which will be released next month.

Howard Brandston, the internationally recognized lighting expert who wrote another e-book for our series on this topic, The Disastrous Light Bulb Ban, was not invited to testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee when it passed this ridiculous ban back in 2007. In fact, no one who opposed the ban was asked to testify back then. The Senate wisely corrected this error when it invited Mr. Brandston to testify when it held hearings on repealing the ban in March of this year.

You can read the rest of this article at Broadside Books' "Line of Fire" here.

Why Congressman Dan Boren Should Challenge Obama for the 2012 Democratic Presidential Nomination

In the 19th century, the Democrats were the party of limited government, and the Republicans were the party of big government and crony capitalism. As I argue in my new book, Covenant of Liberty, Grover Cleveland, who was in office from 1885-1889 and 1893-1897, was the last President who could accurately be described as a Constitutional Democrat. He was famous for vetoing Republican efforts to give federal funds to special interest groups. He was also a free market proponent, who strongly advocated the reduction of protectionist tariffs supported by the Republicans. Little wonder that Cleveland is one of Congressman Ron Paul’s heroes, so much so that I’m told a photograph of Cleveland hangs in Congressman Paul’s office.

Then came Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the party leadership of the Democrats abandoned the limited government traditions of Jefferson, Madison, and Cleveland.

A few limited government Democrats remained in steadfast opposition. One of them was a Democratic Congressman from Oklahoma, Lyle Boren. First elected in 1936, family tradition claims that he posed this question to some of his fellow Congressmen in 1938:

“The greatest problem in America today is to erase the question in the minds of men, ‘What is the government going to do for me?’ and replace it with the question, ‘What can I do for my country?’ ”

You can read the rest of this article at Broadside Books' "Line of Fire" here.

Fareed Zakaria and the Meaning of American Citizenship

A video clip of Fareed Zakaria, the liberal CNN host, criticizing the Constitution in a recent interview by Charlie Rose has been going viral on the internet the past few days. In Zakaria’s own words:

“Whenever we have a problem we tend to think our Constitution is the best ever created in the history of the world, the people who created it were demi-gods, it never needs to be changed, we have the best political system in the world, the Senate is the marvel of the world. The truth is we have a pretty complicated, antiquated system that has gone pretty dysfunctional, the role of money has been so large, our tax system is a joke; you have a 14,000 page tax code which is basically institutionalized corruption…Why can’t we do best practices? … Are we willing to accept other people know a lot about what’s going on?”

Watching this clip, it struck me that a Voices of the Tea Party e-book on what it means to be an American citizen would be a worthy undertaking, especially in light of the fact that so many talking heads inflicted upon us by the mainstream media have a poor understanding of it.

Putting aside for a moment my irritation at once again being lectured by a talking head from CNN who knows little about America beyond the walls of the Ivy League, New York City, or Washington, D.C. ( Zakaria’s colleague Eliot Spitzer and his former colleague Christiane Amanpour come to mind), let’s examine the merits of his argument, and the authority with which he makes it.

You can read the rest of this article at Broadside Books' "Line of Fire" here.

Madison and Jefferson Defended the Constitution, Hamilton Usurped It

This article is part of my continuing dialogue and debate with author William Hogeland on the Constitution and the Founding Era. You can read the complete article at Broadside Books' "Line of Fire" here.

William,

You’ve previously indicated your surprise that I trace the origins of the modern Tea Party movement’s critique of our federal government’s Constitutional usurpations to the actions of Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton during George Washington’s first term as President. Starting with his successful support of the establishment of a national bank, using the “necessary and proper clause” of the Constitution in ways both Madison and Jefferson deemed to be far beyond that document’s original intent, Hamilton supported policies that suggest many of the arguments he advanced just a few years earlier in The Federalist Papers were more tactical sophistry than sincerely held beliefs.

To me, Madison and Jefferson were the defenders of the Constitution, Hamilton the usurper. In his old age, years after Hamilton’s death, Jefferson said of Hamilton’s financial system that “[it] had two objects, 1st as a puzzle, to exclude popular understanding and inquiry; 2nd, as a machine for the corruption of the legislature . . . men thus enriched by the dexterity of a leader [Hamilton], would follow of course the chief who was leading them to fortune, and become zealous instruments of all his enterprises…”

Boehner's Weakness Enables Geithner's Contempt for Congress

As the absurd theater surrounding the debt limit issue plays out in Washington, Secretary of the Treasury Geithner continues to display his contempt for Congress, while Speaker of the House John Boehner talks tough but fails to use any of his Constitutional powers to compel the Secretary to act responsibly. The Speaker has already frittered away his electoral mandate to cut spending by brokering a deal to “cut” the Fiscal Year 2011 budget by–at best–an insignificant $329 million. Now, when strength of action is called for as the so called debt limit crisis looms, he continues his pattern of tough talk and weak action by failing to push Geithner to produce a fall back plan for the country if Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit.

When confronted with a budget crisis, most families and small businesses develop a contingency “worst case” plan. If income is down, which are the least important expenditures we currently make that we will cut out? Several Republican members of Congress have individually called on Secretary Geithner to produce such a plan for the country in the event the debt limit is not raised, but he has refused to do so. The Secretary’s intransigence is not only fiscally irresponsible, it also shows his contempt for Congress. The Speaker’s failure to formally request such a plan from the Secretary is yet another sign of the Speaker’s weakness and unwillingness to back tough rhetoric up with tough but needed action.

You can read the rest of this article at Broadside Books' "Line of Fire" here.

Romney Chooses Pandering Over Principle With Support for Ethanol Subsidies

Last week, on the heels of rival Tim Pawlenty’s call for an end to ethanol subsidies, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped up and told an audience of Iowa voters that he, in contrast, supported ethanol subsidies.

“I support the subsidy of ethanol. . . I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”
Romney’s rejection of free market principles in favor of this politically expedient pandering is yet another example that illustrates why the tea party will never support him in the primaries. If he wins the Republican nomination, any subsequent backing from the tea party will come with the same kind of nose holding fervor shown by those unenthusiastic conservatives who voted for John McCain in 2008.

You can read the rest of this article at Broadside Books' "Line of Fire" here.

Keith Raffel's New E-Book, Drop by Drop, Is a Great Thriller

I highly recommend Keith Raffel's new e-book thriller, Drop by Drop. You can purchase it at Amazon here. At $2.99, its a great value.

Keith continues to prove he's one of the finest writers of mysteries and thrillers in the country. If you liked his earlier thriller, Dot Dead, you'll love Drop by Drop.

The Constitution is America’s Covenant of Liberty

In my ongoing discussion with author William Hogeland over at Broadside Books' "Line of Fire", he asks “[i]s “covenant” a reference to the incontrovertible fact that the document was written via delegation and ratified via representation?”

I use the term “secular covenant” to describe the binding nature of the Constitution. It represents an agreement between the citizens, the state governments, and the federal government as to how we consent to be governed. The terms of this secular covenant are contained in the words of the Constitution and its subsequent amendments, and their meaning is the plain meaning of those words. The method of changing the terms of the secular covenant is found in the amendment process of the document itself. No other means of changing the terms–either expansive judicial interpretrations or executive usurpations–are authentic.

I elaborate on this theme in greater detail in my upcoming book, which will be released by Broadside Books in spring 2012, Covenant of Liberty: The Ideological Origins of the Tea Party Movement. In the limited space of this blog, here’s the thumbnail sketch of the definitions of different concepts relevant to my argument:

You can read the rest of the article here.

For the Tea Party, the Meaning of the Founding Era is in the Words of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

Author William Hogeland is an honest historian who, despite his apparent left wing proclivities, doesn’t distort the historical record. He also seems to appreciate the unique self-organizing character of the Founding Era civil rebellions that continue to inspire modern Tea Partiers. Where we disagree is in our view of the Constitution. In his guest article published here today in Broadside Books’ “Line of Fire,” Hogeland argues that the Tea Party movement“makes a claim on history that I think distorts, to a damaging degree, realities of the American founding period, and what those realities might mean for us today.”

To the contrary, our claim that the Constitution, as ratified and amended, is a secular covenant by which we are all bound is the strongest, most democratically rooted claim on history that emerges from the American founding period. As I argue in my upcoming book, The Covenant of Liberty, this secular covenant was formed in an intense, elaborate national discussion that took place over four long years from 1787 to 1791. Perhaps the most important outcome of that exhausting but authentically democratic process is that Congress’ powers are limited to those enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

You can read the rest of this article here at Broadside Books' "Line of Fire."

Newt Gingrich is Not a Tea Party Guy

Wednesday, in the least suspenseful press conference of the political season, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich announced that he is running for President. Gingrich’s announcement, which was greeted across the country with a loud yawn, points again to the need for a Voices of the Tea Party e-book that rates the 2012 Presidential contenders, as Jon Friesch and Conrad Larson have suggested in this space previously.

Lacking such a guide currently, I’ll offer my own view of Gingrich’s candidacy from a tea party perspective. Despite his best efforts to associate with the movement for well over two years, Gingrich is not a tea party guy. He deserves credit for volunteering early on to co-sponsor the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party through his group, American Solutions. But from a tea party perspective, it’s been all down hill since then for the former Speaker.

You can read the rest of this article here at Broadside Books' Line of Fire.

What Salon and William Hogeland Ignore About the Tea Party Movement

William Hogeland, a frequent contributor to Salon and the Huffington Post, has written several excellent books on the Revolutionary Period. His 2006 book, The Whiskey Rebellion: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and the Frontier Rebels Who Challenged America’s Newfound Sovereignty, has been a valuable resource which I’ve used while writing my upcoming book on the ideological roots of the Tea Party movement. Mr. Hogeland, therefore, despite his association with blogs of the Left, is someone whose work always attracts my attention.

I was more than disappointed by his recent article in Salon, What Tea Partyers Ignore About the Founders. Regrettably, he appears incapable of applying the kind of historical objectivity he applies to the Revolutionary Era to the modern day Tea Party movement.

You can read the rest of this article at Broadside Books' Line of Fire here.

The Limits of Libertarianism

A friend of mine, a prominent fixture in the conservative movement during the 1960s and beyond, once told me that he attended a convention of the Libertarian Party. “It reminded me,” he said, “of the bar scene in the Star Wars movie.”

That one line captures the essence of the problem of Libertarianism as a political force in modern America. On the one hand, most elements of the Libertarian philosophy–the emphasis on the importance of individual liberty in opposition to the power of the state being the most significant–are entirely consistent with American Constitutionalism, and the three core values of the Tea Party movement. On the other hand, at the extreme, Libertarians can be very inflexible and unbending in their adherence to the sanctity of their principles. This tends to limit their ability to work cooperatively with others.

You can read the rest of this article at Broadside Books here.

The Constitution vs Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as Civil Religion

Most tea partiers view the Constitution as a secular covenant whose terms the citizens and institutions in our republic are bound to honor. As Professor Randy Barnett argued in his 2004 classic, Restoring the Lost Constitution, we observe the meaning of the words in that document, as they were written. We are “originalists” and consider proponents of “a living constitution” to be usurpers of that original intent.

A more modern variation of the “living constitution” school was presented in a 2009 New Republic article by Damon Linker, who argued that “moralistic therapeutic deism,” which he called “theologically insipid,” is perfectly suited to become our new civil religion. In effect, Linker called for this philosophy to replace the Constitutionalism to which the Tea Party movement and the rest of America adheres.

You can read the rest of the article at Broadside Books here.

Donald Trump and the Little Pink House

As one of many tea party activists who find the current crop of 2012 Republican Presidential contenders uninspiring, I’ve followed Donald Trump’s recent statements about a potential Presidential run as a Republican with great interest.

Last week, he spoke before a tea party group in Florida and claimed that he supports tea party values.

But, does he really?

As a developer, Trump is certainly familiar with the legal principle known as eminent domain, a notorious violation of individual liberty, which allows the state to seize the property of a private individual (usually at below market prices) in order to use that property for what the state determines to be a “public purpose.” Though the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment was intended to prevent the possibility that “ private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” the state in 20th and 21st century America often uses its overwhelming power to define “just compensation” quite differently than the owner of the private property being taken.

You can read the rest of this article at Broadside Books here.

What Tim Geithner Should Know About Alexander Hamilton

Dartmouth-educated Tim Geithner, our current Secretary of Treasury, has either forgotten or never learned the lessons from Alexander Hamilton’s first year as our inaugural Secretary of Treasury.

Hamilton is no favorite of the Tea Party movement. Indeed, it can be argued that no figure in the early years of the Republic did more to usurp the Constitution than Hamilton. He was, after all, the man who persuaded the First Congress to pass and Washington to sign the National Bank Bill that both Jefferson and Madison considered unconstitutional. He followed that up with a vainglorious show of force in the Whiskey Rebellion, and, while out of office, vigorously supported the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts. And did I mention his notorious speech at the Constitutional Convention where he argued in favor of a life time appointment for the head of the Executive Branch and the members of the Senate? If ever there was an American champion of centralized federal power, it was Hamilton.

You can read the rest of this column at Broadside Books Voices of the Tea Party blog here.

Former Commander, USS Cole, Embraces the Tea Party, Set to Challenge Angle

Kirk Lippold, who served as the commander of the USS Cole until his retirement, announced today that he intends to run for Congress in Nevada. He will be challenging Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle in the Republican primary. Here’s what he had to say about the Tea Party movement in the Daily Caller today:



“I embrace the Tea Party. I think that the organization, when you really stop and look at it, the tea party and what they stand for is a wonderful organization. I, quite frankly, am an independent proponent of limited government and citizen sovereignty. I’m very supportive of any citizen that takes up the charge to make the government more responsive to the people, and also I believe we need to begin to limit the amount of government intrusion into our lives. And that’s what the Tea Party stands for.”


You can read the rest of this blogpost at Broadside Books "Voices of the Tea Party."

What Wisconsin Democrats Forget: Collective Bargaining Violates the Rights of Teachers Who Don't Want to Join the Union

The 14 Wisconsin Democratic State Senators who have fled the state in order to prevent the State Senate from acting on Governor Walker's proposal to have state workers contribute to their health and retirement benefits the way private sector employees do keep hitting the disingenuine talking point that their actions about protecting individual rights.

The unions, they say, are willing to concede some financial points, but insist on preserving collective bargaining. It's a sacred individual right, they say.

This is Orwellian double-speak, 21st century version.

For decades, collective bargaining, which forces every teacher in the state and every state employee in the state to pay union dues and join the union, has been one of the most egregious violations of individual liberties allowed in American history.

There are many teachers in Wisconsin--and the rest of the country for that matter--whose individual rights to choose whether or not they will join a union have been violated by this union forced law.

Individual rights mean freedom of choice. Teachers, state workers, any worker for that matter, should be free to choose whether or not they will join a union.

If the 14 Wisconsin Democratic State Senators really believed in individual rights, they would support Governor Walker's legislation.

Don't hold your breath, because the truth is, they have long opposed individual rights. Collective bargaining is the ultimate weapon for the enforcement of collective rights. And, collective rights, by definition, can not co-exist with individual rights.

Obama Says Mubarak Should Listen to a Million Egyptian Protesters While He Ignored a Million American Protesters

What's wrong with this picture?

The Obama Administration is advising Egyptian President Mubarak to prepare for a transition from power because, among other things, a million Egyptians are expressing their dissatisfaction in public demonstrations today.

It's worth noting that President Obama isn't following this advice when it comes to his own policies.

On April 15, 2009, more than a million Americans in nine hundred cities protested the irresponsible spending of the Obama Administration's $800 billion "Stimulus" package. Obama ignored these protesters.

Then a majority of Americans around the country protested their opposition to Obamacare, and in March 2010, Obama ignored them by signing this unconstitutional intrusion into the individual liberties of American.

Selective enforcement of his own advice, however, is nothing new for Obama.

Apparently, Egyptian protesters merit attention, while Iranian and American protesters do not.