Palin: Congress, it’s time to stop lining your pockets

Sarah Palin’s recent article came to mind this morning.  I’d been watching more coverage and reading more about the evil, extreme left-wing dictator Kim Jung Il’s belated death (about which I’m very pleased, by the way, and that is not something I say very often).

But it got me thinking about western government and politicians who are in it for themselves, and for their their own enrichment, or gratification, and/or their self-aggrandizement.  Or those who don’t hesitate putting their nation and their countrymen (or segments therein) in “the back of the bus” (to use an infamous President Barack Obama quote which he actually used in a speech, as a part of his increasing class war rhetoric), to advance their big government, “progressive” world view and agenda on America.

Most politicians, even in the west, are to one degree or another, in it for themselves, and/or their progressive political agenda, rather than their nation as a whole.

But I recalled how I really don’t feel that way about Sarah Palin.  I think she actually puts her country first, and I trust her instincts more than most other politicians, on nearly every important matter.  And I can assure you, I don’t say that about many people either.

So I thought I’d go back to one of her latest writings, this one from USA Today about a week ago.  Lo and behold, it’s about politicians lining their pockets.

Congress, it’s time to stop lining your pockets

Thanks to the solid new research and recent revelations in Peter Schweizer‘s book Throw Them All Out and the subsequent coverage on 60 Minutes, we have concrete proof to explain how members of Congress accumulate wealth at a rate astonishingly faster than the rest of Americans and have stock portfolios that outperform even the best hedge-fund managers’. (Full disclosure: Schweizer is employed by my political action committee as a foreign policy adviser.)

From sweetheart land deals to initial public offering (IPO) stock gifts to insider trading with non-public government information, the methods of unethical wealth accumulation for our permanent political class are endless. The reaction from the Beltway establishment to the revelations concerning insider trading among members of Congress was predictable. First they denied it, then they dismissed the problem as much ado about nothing. Some said there was no need for new laws or action because the Securities and Exchange Commission could prosecute members of Congress under existing laws against insider trading.

But under current law, there is no way the SEC will ever go after a powerful congressman or senator. The SEC never has, even though insider trading prohibitions have existed since the 1930s. Here’s why: Congress sets the SEC’s budget, and senators approve the head of the SEC. Congress uses its power of the purse strings to threaten federal agencies that get in their way.

For example, in 2006 the FBI got a search warrant from a federal judge to comb former congressman William Jefferson‘s office. The FBI already had evidence that Jefferson was taking bribes. Congress was furious that the FBI would dare search a fellow member’s office. Members claimed the search was unconstitutional. They even threatened to cut the Justice Department‘s budget in retaliation. All this despite the fact that 86% of Americans supported the FBI raid. …

(Read more)

I’ll post her writings more often. If I forget, please nudge me. I aim to help keep her and her style of politics at the forefront.  Meantime, here’s a couple links to her books.  Buy them or any other books through these links, and BoldColors.net gets an infinitesimally small kickback.  And in this case, yes, it’s OK to line our pockets with kickbacks.  Thanks.

Canadians can buy through our Amazon.ca link:

Newt: Speak Bombastically and Carry a Tiny Stick

Fellow right-wingers: Is our objective to taunt Obama by accusing him of “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior,” of being “authentically dishonest” and a “wonderful con” — and then lose the election — or is it to defeat Obama, repeal ObamaCare, secure the borders, enforce e-verify, reform entitlement programs, reduce the size of government and save the country?

If all you want is to lob rhetorical bombs at Obama and then lose, Newt Gingrich — like recent favorite Donald Trump — is your candidate. But if you want to save the country, Newt’s not your guy.

Gingrich makes plenty of bombastic statements, but these never seem to translate into actual policy changes.

After becoming the first Republican speaker of the House in nearly half a century, for example, Newt promptly proposed orphanages and janitorial jobs for children on welfare.

It was true that welfare had destroyed generations of families shorn of the work ethic and led to soaring illegitimacy rates, child abuse and neglect. Maybe orphanages and child labor would have been better.

But we didn’t get any orphanages. We didn’t get jobs for children in families where no one works.

What we got was the cartoonish image of Republicans as hard-hearted brutes who hated poor kids.

Ronald Reagan​ was also accused of waging a war on the poor. But that was on account of his implementing historic tax cuts that produced not only record revenues for the government, but decades of prosperity for the entire nation.

With Newt, you get all the heat, blowback and acrimony, but you don’t get the policy changes.

To the contrary, his pointless bloviating about orphanages and child janitors harmed the chances for welfare reform, despite the fact that the American people, the Republican Congress and the Democratic president (publicly, at least), supported it.

Indeed, when it came time to make vital changes to welfare policy, such as work requirements and anti-illegitimacy provisions, Gingrich tried to scuttle them. He denounced such provisions — the very heart of welfare reform — as, yes, “social engineering of the right” (e.g., Republican Governors Conference, Williamsburg, Va., Nov. 22, 1994).

The guy who wanted orphanages for children on welfare suddenly called work requirements for adults on welfare right-wing “social engineering.”

Gingrich went on to lose almost every negotiation with Bill Clinton — and that was with solid Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. His repeated capitulation to Clinton led former Vice President Dan Quayle to remark that the Republican “Contract With America” had become the “Contract With Clinton.” (Not to be confused with Newt’s book, “Contract With the Earth.”)

Perfectly good policies are constantly being undermined by Newt’s crazy statements — such as his explanation that women couldn’t be in combat because they get infections, whereas men “are basically little piglets,” who are “biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.”

Hunt giraffes?

With Gingrich we get the worse of all worlds. He talks abrasively — offending moderates and galvanizing liberals — but then carries a teeny, tiny stick.

We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes. Even when Gingrich doesn’t completely back off conservative positions, his nutty rhetoric undermines the ability of Republicans to get anything done.

By the time of the 1996 Republican National Convention​, Gingrich was so widely reviled that the Democrats’ main campaign strategy against all Republican candidates for office was to link them with Gingrich.

Gingrich was forced into a minor speaking role at the convention, which he used to promote … beach volleyball.

That’s right, Republicans were trying to defeat Clinton and Newt was talking about beach volleyball, which is apparently the essence of freedom — as well as evidence of Newt’s cuddly side!

(During the House ethics investigation of Gingrich, he produced notes in which he reminds himself to “allow expression of warm/smiling/softer side.”)

After Gingrich had been speaker for a brief two years, the Republican House voted 395-28 to reprimand him and fine him $300,000 for ethics violations.

(Sen. Bob Dole loaned Gingrich the money in what was called the first instance of an airbag being saved by a person.)

It’s true that Newt has had some good ideas — but also boatloads of bad ones, such as his support for experimentation on human embryos, cap and trade, policies to combat imaginary man-made global warming, an individual health insurance mandate, Dede Scozzafava (Romney supported the tea party candidate), amnesty for illegal aliens, Al Gore​’s bill to establish an “Office of Critical Trends Analysis” to prepare government reports on “alternative futures” (co-sponsored by Gingrich), and thinking he could get away with taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac without anyone noticing.

During the ethics investigation, the committee also found among Newt’s personal papers a sketch of himself as a stick figure at the center of the universe.

On one page, Newt called himself: “definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.”

This is not a small-government conservative talking. It is not a conservative at all.

What will be Stephen Harper’s legacy?

On this 144th anniversary weekend marking Canada Day, or for traditionalists among us, Dominion Day, Prime Minister Stephen Harper with a new majority mandate deservingly earned can take quiet pride in the seat he occupies while surveying the land and people he has been elected to govern.

Harper will likely ask himself, and others surrounding him in office will prompt him, what file on his desk he should pick up and make the signature item of his majority government.

He will be counselled to think big, as former prime minister Brian Mulroney suggested, and invest his political capital into bringing about some transformational change in the manner in which Canadians live.

But it will do Harper well if he resists such counsel.

Instead, he needs to turn up the volume of his inner voice and listen to the political message he once heeded.

Sometimes great beginnings and accomplishments in politics have less to do with bigness or grandeur.

This is especially true for those in public life described as conservatives in the tradition Edmund Burke (1729-97) among others represented.

Harper was once a conservative, or at least considered himself to be, in the mould Burke exemplified.

When change — revolutionary change — was preached by men in politics with the passion of a missionary, and France was engulfed in the passionate madness of the Jacobins’ virtuous terror, Burke held the ground for tradition without conceding or abridging the rights of individuals to be free in expressing their thoughts and practising their religion in a democracy.

Society, Burke wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France, is a contract.

“It is a partnership,” Burke offered, “in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection.”

Then there followed his memorable words, “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

This is in essence conservatism.

It is less of a political ideology than an approach to politics with a respect, if not reverence, for the history of a people and the wisdom passed on from generation to generation.

It was the political creed of the Fathers of Canadian Confederation.

It found expression in the BNA Act of 1867 that powers vested in the federal parliament are to provide for “peace, order, and good government in Canada.”

It is a moot question whether Canada has drifted away from that founding creed.

For conservatives, as government became bigger and more intrusive in the affairs of the people, freedom and tradition of the people who founded Canada and built it have been diminished.

It is not tradition conservatives defend nostalgically. It is diminution of individual freedom with the expansion of government oversight — the pall, for instance, cast over freedom of speech as the “mother” of all freedom — that weakens, even nullifies, the partnership Burke wrote about.

If Harper listens again to his inner voice and acts to defend principles he once so admirably defended, he could rise to true greatness without drums and whistles, and Canada will be served better by his government.