Category Archives: Conservatism

Mum’s The Word About The Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex

Conservatism, Critique, Ethics, Etiquette, Government, Healthcare, Military, Morality, Republicans

Mark Levin the radio Mouth could be heard inveighing against what is surely a sickening specter: “Healthcare lobbying on K Street.” As The Hill divulged:

More than 30 former administration officials, lawmakers and congressional staffers who worked on the healthcare law have set up shop on K Street since 2010.
Major lobbying firms such as Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, The Glover Park Group, Alston & Bird, BGR Group and Akin Gump can all boast an Affordable Care Act insider on their lobbying roster — putting them in a prime position to land coveted clients.
“When [Vice President] Biden leaned over [during the signing of the healthcare law] and said to [President] Obama, ‘This is a big f’n deal,’ ” said Ivan Adler, a headhunter at the McCormick Group, “he was right.”
Veterans of the healthcare push are now lobbying for corporate giants such as Delta Air Lines, UPS, BP America and Coca-Cola, and for healthcare companies including GlaxoSmithKline, UnitedHealth Group and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

This, no doubt, is ANC-style corruption; the stuff of banana republics, carried out with considerable aplomb and within the bounds of what is considered The Law.

You won’t hear conservatives like Mark Levin protesting or even mentioning the tentacles of The Thing that enervates every corner of the American government, economy, foreign policy, you name them: the military-industrial-Congressional complex, where corruption and “influence peddling” are the order of the day.

Over to the formidable Chuck Spinney:

… SPINNEY: Right. Let’s say I’m the program manager for the F-16 in the Pentagon. I get a call from one of my wholly owned subsidiaries over on the Hill on the armed services committee. “We got it funded for you guys, but those guys in the House are gonna screw us.” So you know, “You got to do something.”

So all I have to do is I call up the program manager at the prime contractor, who I know because I work with him on a daily basis. And say, “Hey, we got a problem.

“The House is gonna kill our program. The Senate’s on board. Turn on the pressure.” Well, at that point, I don’t have to do anything in the government. The rest of it takes care of itself because the people whose future it…are at hand are gonna work overtime to solve that.

The contractors then start calling up the subcontractors. They unleash the fax attacks. They unleash the emails. And then of course they start calling the lobbyists, the Gucci shoe crowd on K Street, and say, “Hey, you got to start beating the… beating the pavement in the halls of Congress. We need some newspaper op-eds.” The whole process takes care of itself. One phone call turns it on.

MOYERS: Who gets the money?

SPINNEY: The contractors get it. The Congressmen get it, you know through… they get the power because they keep getting voted back in office. They may also get some Congressional contributions. But I think the bigger benefit is the power, the stability of their job.

And remember the people in the Pentagon that are promoting this thing are basically… they’re also creating a situation where they can roll over and get into that sector and make the big bucks. All you have to do is look at the number of retired generals working for defense contractors.

MOYERS: The revolving door?

SPINNEY: Yeah, yeah. The revolving door.

… Over in the Pentagon, we’re not holding people accountable.

I think basically here is you have in Congress the oversight committees for defense, which are essentially the armed services committee. And the defense appropriations subcommittees in both houses are so tied in to the Pentagon and the defense contractor base that essentially oversight has been displaced by what some of us call overlook. They’re basically watching the money flow out the door and encouraging it to go.

And basically it’s in members of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s best interest to keep the money flowing. It’s in the Pentagon’s best interest to keep the money flowing.

MOYERS: Because?

SPINNEY: It’s in the defense contractors’ best interest to keep the money flowing. Because it’s the military industrial Congressional complex and this is their way of life. They live on the money flow.

MOYERS: The military industrial Congressional complex?

SPINNEY: Right. Which I believe was a term that Eisenhower considered using in his speech, but he dropped the reference to Congress.

MORE WITH MOYERS.

Paula Deen, Tell ‘Em All To Go To Hell

Conservatism, English, Etiquette, Free Speech, Political Correctness, Pop-Culture, Race

“Paula Deen, Tell ‘Em All To Go To Hell” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

“…Blaming Old-South culture—as the prototypical knaves of conservatism are doing— is … unlikely to help exculpate Paula Deen in the minds of the morons who judge her for her words, rather than for her deeds. The bad old South macro-narrative is as ineffective in mitigation as is pointing out that Deen misspoke because of a near-death experience. ‘A black man [once] burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head,’ recounted Deen. ‘I didn’t feel real favorable towards him.’

It is for the same reason that the young mother, seen here in a video gone viral being kicked and punched repetitively and mercilessly by a burly black man, should watch her words in the future. The home of the mom was invaded by the man, who delighted in brutalizing her in front of her toddler.

Instead of sticks and stones that break bones, there can be no doubt that the mother from Millburn, N.J., would have settled during that terrifying attack for the kind of cuss words that ‘will never hurt me’—’cracker,’ to quote Trayvon Martin, RIP.

But those who watched the persecution of the mom from Millburn and the tycoon from Georgia took away a different lesson than the one implied by that wise old adage.

Mind your mouth, mom! The hate crime you endured will not mitigate or explain any future slip-of-the-tongue. You may stereotype an elderly, highly successful white woman, based on her tribe’s past wrongdoing; but you dare not attach statistical significance to the misdeeds of a black man, because of his group’s considerable contribution to crime. …”

Read the complete column. “Paula Deen, Tell ‘Em All To Go To Hell” is now on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

• At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

• On my Facebook page.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column

Discuss the column on Facebook.

UPDATED: Where Are Tenth-Amendment Advocates On Senate Amnesty Bill?

Conservatism, Constitution, Federalism, IMMIGRATION, Republicans, States' Rights

In “Democracy And The Immigration Political Steamroller,” I inquired after the Tenth-Amendment Center. Why was it AWOL in the current amnesty fiasco?

To its credit, The Heritage Foundation has not gone along with the open-border crowd, and has made some sharp points about the top-down federal approach that characterizes the Senate’s “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act”:

8. Disregard for Federalism

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly articulates that powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are thereby reserved to the states.[46] The Founders understood that in order to know what is truly necessary and prudent for the protection of citizens’ rights and liberties, one must be in constant interaction with the people. For this reason, the Founders felt that states fostered the best-equipped individuals to represent the interests of public safety on behalf of their own citizens.

States also have a unique familiarity with their communities that enables them to better navigate the difficult issues of detection, detention, and deportation of illegal aliens. Following this same rationale, many legal experts believe that state and local governments retain inherent authority to enforce federal civil law. Opponents to this practice, however, feel the federal government should be the controlling voice when determining immigration policies and border security, with little to no guidance from the states themselves. As was the case with Arizona’s S. B. 1070 immigration law, when the state attempted to implement requirements it felt necessary to determine the immigration status of an individual, the federal government saw the state as an obstacle rather than an ally.[47]

Yet, with fewer than 6,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, failing to use the one million state and local law enforcement personnel to supplement federal personnel makes little sense. State and local law enforcement would, in fact, be a powerful force multiplier for immigration law enforcement. Yet, S. 744 continues to promote a top-down federal approach to addressing immigration while leaving minimum room for real collaboration.[48]

The bill does include a select few instances where some form of collaboration presents itself between the state, local, and federal governments. For example, four of 10 appointed members to the Southern Border Security Commission are to be representatives of the four states along the southern border. One representative is to come from each of the states and be either the governor or someone appointed by the governor.[49] Also, with approval from the Secretary of Defense, a governor may order personnel of the National Guard of his or her own state to perform operations and missions in the southwest border region for the purposes of assisting U.S. Customs and Border Protection.[50] These instances, however, are very limited.
State and local law enforcement would be a powerful force multiplier for immigration law enforcement. Yet, the Senate bill promotes a federal top-down approach to addressing immigration, leaving minimum room for real collaboration.

Otherwise, the bill provides no clear proposal for partnerships between the federal and state or local governments. Indeed, the legislation makes no mention of effective collaborative immigration enforcement programs, such as Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement to “act in the stead of ICE agents by processing illegal aliens for removal.”[51]Instead, it pushes a federal-government-knows-best-and-will-fix-all mentality.

Read Heritage’s 9 other points.

Advocates of the Tenth and states’ rights are clearly AWOL.

UPDATE: Jack Kerwick isn’t. He’s out there wrestling with the illogic of the concepts immigration fetishists deploy to beat you about the head. “Toward an Honest Discussion of Immigration”: Read it!

Join the conversation on my Facebook page.

UPDATE IV: Ann Coulter Is Sally-Come-Lately To Mass Immigration Vexation, But She’s Still Splendid

Ann Coulter, Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Reason

As I’ve written before, Ann Coulter has been late to blossom politically (otherwise she’s very pretty). Having avoided the immigration vexation until recently, Ms. Coulter has realized the need to become a single-issue powerhouse NOW, so as to make up for her past, politically correct driven neglect.

Sean Hannity cowered in the corner, tonight (June 20, 2013), preferring to cleave to a “gaffe President Obama made in Ireland.” Not Ms. Coulter. As Mediaite (?) puts it, “Coulter quickly shifted to immigration reform, ‘the most important issue facing our nation’ right now.'”

“But before the Obama bashing could go much further, Coulter quickly [more like masterfully] pivoted to immigration. She said that a lot of TV hosts are misleading the public on the bill, and slammed Republicans supporting immigration reform for using the same ‘silly’ arguments and ‘lies’ the Democrats are to justify the bill’s passage. Hannity couldn’t fathom why securing the border first is such a controversial idea in the first place.”

Coulter declared that the Democrats only want reform ‘“because it will help them electorally,” and smacked down the “idiot argument” that Hispanics will somehow “hate Republicans more” if this doesn’t pass. …
Coulter concluded that the Republicans cannot take up any bill that even mentions immigration until the Senate is majority-Republican. She sent a direct message to anyone with a Republican representative who backs the reform bill: “Punish them, voters.”

More regaling than the humdrum report above was watching Ms. Coulter point out that Irish doctors and engineers listening to Hussein’s silly speeches are not favored immigration candidates under Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration bill.

It’s easy to forgive Annie-come-lately for years of silence when she invokes her trademark power syllogisms. For example, likening the silly liberal “argumentation” regarding “de facto amnesty” thus:

“We have de facto amnesty for murderers in America as thousands of murderer are not caught. Do we grant them amnesty?”

Splendid.

By the way, there is someone who has been covering “The Immigration Scene” forever.

Click “Immigration “ on the Articles Search, for four pages of columns going back to 1/30/2002. Some of us are consistent and consistently correct.

UPDATED I (June 20): James Huggins (on Facebook): Ms. Coulter is spot on but a decade late. That’s a big and calculated “mistake.” Unless you recognize how PC she’s been—you cannot appreciate how professionally suicidal the folks at VDARE, NumbersUSA, Michelle Malkin, and yours truly have been all along.

UPDATE II (6/22): From Facebook thread, again: I mean, James Huggins—and you should know what I mean by now—that Ann Coulter could have effected change a long time ago. You and I know she’s smart enough to have done what she’s doing now, back WHEN IT COUNTED. She’s jumping into the immigration debate now, when it no longer matters. We’ve passed the tipping point. “The D-Bomb Has Dropped.” Ultimately, the woman does what’s safe. There is nothing dangerous or admirable about that.

UPDATE III: Immigration Reform Bill: Full text. Try making sense of this bit of proposed legislation. It ought to be forbidden to write, much less pass, a bill written in such impenetrable legalese.

UPDATE IV: Jack Kerwick:

Whether border security attracts or alienates voters is of no consequence: a country’s borders must be secured. It is conditional upon nothing other than the relationship that obtains between a citizenry and its government.

Join the conversation on my Facebook page.