Alexander Burns wrote an article about The Club for Growth for politico.com on December 22, 2012. I have supported The Club for Growth in the recent past and want to share my perspective on the reality compared to some of Mr. Burns’s reporting.

The Club for Growth focuses on candidates and policies at the Federal level. Those candidates and policies must promote economic freedom and all that goes with it. Club for Growth philosophy is well documented.

Here are a couple of excerpts from Mr. Burns’ article along with my commentary.

“The conservative outside group amassed a decidedly mixed record in 2012, spending millions to support hardline candidates in primaries and general elections.” – The record was indeed mixed but what does “hardline candidates” mean? Should a candidate be characterized as “hardline” because they promote economic freedom, responsible Federal spending, and limited government? I thought those were core principles of our nation’s founding and success. So, to Mr. Burns a candidate that promotes government control of the means of production and limitless Federal spending must be “mainstream?” Mr. Burns fails to explain what he means but is happy to leave his reader with the “hardline” characterization.

“…the Club is utterly unapologetic for its slash-and-burn approach to intra-party politics.” – The Club for Growth in my experience does not slash and burn anything, and has no reason to react to someone else’s expectation for an apology. The Club is against candidates that do not support its principles and philosophy and it is for candidates who do. That’s it. Mr. Burns again leaves the reader with an unexplained and unsupported characterization.

“…the Club’s leadership called for the defeat of House Speaker John Boehner’s “Plan B” proposal to resolve the fiscal cliff, calling it an unacceptable combination of tax increases and phony spending cuts.” – Well, does Mr. Burns support tax increases and phony spending cuts? Does any American? Mr. Burns also incorrectly connects John Boehner’s “Plan B” proposal with resolution of the fiscal cliff. There was never any possibility “Plan B” would have resolved anything.

“…there’s no organization that provokes more frustration among GOP elites than the Club, and no electoral force with the same potential to wreak havoc on establishment-backed candidates.” – Mr. Burns loses a opportunity to educate his readers here by failing to note that “GOP elites” and “Democrat elites” are the same thing. They both believe in bigger government and in their own prescient policy making righteousness, to the detriment of economic freedom. Both, therefore, are unlikely to be supported by the Club for Growth as a matter of fact, not emotive fervor.

“And while it has helped produce national GOP stars like Cruz and Rubio, the Club has also ushered into office far more marginal members, such as the trio of congressman – Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, David Schweikert of Arizona and Justin Amash of Michigan…” – Perhaps Mr. Burns would do his readers a favor by defining what is meant by the characterization “marginal members.” Does he imply that Cruz, and Rubio are not “marginal” but the others are? What kind of reporting is this? Can’t politico.com find reporters who can write accurately and fully explain themselves?

To his credit, Mr. Burns ends with a quote from the President of the Club for Growth, “Plan B was never going to be the law. It was never going to be the final deal. And we were never smart enough to see how it got you to a good deal,” he said. “We don’t think it’s a good week. We think it’s a bad week. No one’s offering a pro-growth solution to the fiscal cliff issue.”

Click here to find accurate information about the Club for Growth.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

David Skeel addresses a critical aspect of power exercised in Washington in the August 21, 2012 Wall Street Journal.  The opinion piece and related user comments deserve broad readership.

The march toward centralized power in Washington started 100 years ago with the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Obama came to power with the stated purpose to “fundamentally transform” America. We now know that meant further concentration of power in the Presidency and in Washington generally. In practice what Mr. Obama pursues is the Rule of Power, replacing the Rule of Law. Just a few examples:

• Strong arming banks into settlements that abrogate mortgage contracts entered into by private parties.
• Making appointments to the NLRB without the required consent of the Senate. The NLRB then sued Boeing for intending to build airplanes in South Carolina after the company had already invested over a billion dollars in the project.
• Signing into law 5000 pages of health care and bank regulations and mandates that give arbitrary and unchecked power to Federal agencies and the bureaucrats who run them.
• Declaring an Execute Order that the government is not to enforce existing immigration law.
• Signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act making it legal (but obviously unconstitutional) for the military to detain citizens without independent court review and without the guarantee of a trial.

With the example set by Mr. Obama it is no surprise that Federal regulators use their authority to impose their political agendas (e.g., the EPA official whose stated purpose was to “crucify” oil companies).

Adding to all this we have the Supreme Court’s majority argument in support of the health insurance mandate telling us, essentially, that we will have to elect new representation to change the law without regard to the dependency engendered by the law, which secures votes to keep it intact. Does our Constitution provide protection from a tyranny of the majority as contemplated in its design?

Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791 stated:

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition.”

The very purpose and success of the United States is founded in the principles of individual rights and freedom from the presumptions of centralized power. Yet, history demonstrates the lure of centralized power causes those elected by us to destroy the meaning of our Constitutional protections. The rule of power replaces the rule of law.

The path forward requires that we volunteer and encourage others to serve; that we fund, promote, and elect representatives with a commitment to freedom and the courage to use the powers of elected office to protect and promote those freedoms.

Let’s make progress this November. The following candidates need your support:

Ron DeSantis (FL-06)
Kevin Cramer (ND-AL)
Thomas Massie (KY-04)
Keith Rothfus (PA-12)
Tom Cotton (AR-04)
Richard Mourdock (IN-Sen)
Matt Salmon (AZ-05)
Josh Mandel (OH-Sen)
Ted Cruz (TX-Sen)
Steve King (IA-04)
Jeff Flake (AZ-Sen)
Connie Mack (FL-Sen)
Mia Love (UT-04)

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

Democrats and their progressive allies like to promote sound bites and tag lines that caricature their political opponents. One such tag line recently is “the republican war on women.” Well, it turns out there are many Republican women in Congress who are fighting a war for your freedom and that of your children.

The truth is many times more powerful than the caricature.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Obfuscation, bribes, distraction. Now our Divider In Chief is running for re-election as a supporter of same sex marriage.

Hello!

The United States of America is $17,000,000,000,000 in debt and is adding to that total at the rate of $1,000,000,000,000 per year.

Unemployed Americans looking for work total over 12,000,000 of which over 5,000,000 have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. When you add in those no longer looking for work or marginally employed against their desire total unemployment is 14.5% or about 22,000,000 Americans.

And now Mr. Obama wants to divide us over same sex marriage, as well as divide us by gender, incomes, and age.

We need to let the media know we will keep our eye on the ball while Mr. Obama continues to demonstrate complete abdication of leadership.

Regards, Pete Weldon

My wandering and wondering leads me to dead ends, places where political power is exercised for its own sake, unsupported by reality or moral purpose.

We know Mr. Obama’s re-election themes. Divide us by race. Divide us by gender. Divide us by age. Divide us by how much debt we owe. Divide us by income. Divide us by our level of dependence. Demonstrate empathy for those who have something to complain about and promise that the Federal government will give them stuff to assuage their complaints.

All of Mr. Obama’s rhetoric has nothing to do with national leadership and everything to do with political pandering. Everything Mr. Obama believes and has done as President is a dead end; a place where dependency is the norm, where individual effort is defined by work rules, where debt necessarily spirals upward, where inflation becomes a mandated prescription for short term political survival, and where our children’s future holds less promise than we have realized. That Mr. Obama doubles down on this failure in his re-election effort strikes me as illustrative of his character. It doesn’t matter that Mr. Obama is sincere or cynical in promising “fairness” and “equality” above all else. It only matters that the consequence of his policies allow the private economy, and thus the individual, to be consumed by the Federal government.

Mr. Obama’s re-election themes and his policies represent an abdication of leadership and a dead end for our country.

Regards, Pete Weldon