ShareThis Page
Strange notions of ‘right’ debunked |

Strange notions of ‘right’ debunked

Colin McNickle
| Sunday, February 15, 2009 12:00 a.m

Apologians for socialism keep defending the indefensible scattershot federal economic “stimulus” plan as being necessary because we are in “uncharted waters.” But that’s a pretty weak excuse considering the detailed map that history provides us.

The failed lessons of Roosevelt’s New Deal are being ignored. Or as James K. Glassman, president of the World Growth Institute, distills it:

“Stimulus may be precisely the wrong metaphor. Rather than getting jazzed up, we need to be calmed down and to take the time to learn from the Great Depression, a time when government did too much.”

As it is doing now, about to suck massive amounts of investment capital out of the marketplace, conceited so thoroughly into believing that it can command recovery.

What Barack Obama and congressional Dimmycrats have done represents “a policy based on hubris and anxiety,” Mr. Glassman writes in this month’s Commentary magazine, “rather than on history and good sense.”

And that’s no way to run a country.

That White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel felt compelled to say that the administration’s poor track record on high-profile appointments is not “amateur hour” only confirms that it is amateur hour.

Asked Mr. Emanuel, “Let’s be honest: Will the economic recovery or (withdrawn Commerce Secretary-designate) Judd Gregg be a bigger discussion point a week from now?”

Oh, he’s right on that point. Americans will be marveling over the stimulative effects of “tax relief” that, by one calculation, returns to the average worker $8 extra weekly while increasing his weekly liability of the growing debt by $215.38.

This is “Ted Mack & The Original Amateur Hour,” “The Gong Show,” and the worst of “American Idol” all rolled into one.

Conservative icon Richard Viguerie warns in a new white paper that the economic “stimulus” bill “will destroy the independence of America’s nonprofit sector.”

How so?

“In these difficult times, most charities will want some ‘free money,'” he says. “Once they take the bait, the Obama government owns them. If Obama and the congressional Democrats can co-opt or silence the nonprofit sector, they have gone a long way toward making America a one-party country.”

The independence of America’s nonprofits is what separates us from totalitarian countries, Mr. Viguerie warns. Bottom line: “The nonprofit sector must not stand by while the government corrupts the very organizations that people contribute to, volunteer for and depend upon for help in times of need.”

We ignore these wise admonitions at liberty’s peril.

Speaking of this new and troubled Age of Novitiatism, there’s speculation that President Obama will either scuttle outright a Bush administration plan for a critical European-based missile defense against rogue nuclear threats or scuttle it by using it as a bargaining chip in talks with the Russians.

Nothing like promoting danger and projecting weakness at the same time. Whew, talk about a “strategy.” What’s next, building nuclear-tipped rockets for rogue nations — you know, part of the “economic stimulus plan” — and instructing them in the proper and responsible use of such an arsenal?

You might recall the story of U.S. District Court Judge John M. Roll in Tucson, Ariz., allowing 16 illegal aliens to sue Roger Barnett, the owner of the 22,000-acre Cross Rail Ranch in Douglas, Ariz., for alleged civil rights violations.

Mr. Barnett’s “crime”• Detaining these illegals, part of a horde of lawbreakers who’ve repeatedly trespassed on and destroyed his property as they illegally enter the United States. They’re seeking $32 million in damages.

One of those illegals, Gerardo Gonzalez, was deported from the U.S. in 1993 for narcotics possession, reports The Washington Times.

That a judge even allowed this case to go to trial should result in impeachment by the U.S. House and conviction and removal from the bench by the U.S. Senate. It’s atrocious “legal” behavior.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the opportunity next month to affirm that the rule of law isn’t a quaint notion.

On March 2, the high court is scheduled to hear an appeal of a City of Pittsburgh ordinance that forces building owners who’ve contracted with a different company for building services to retain, for at least 180 days, those employed by the prior contracted company.

Which, of course, flies in the face of the constitutional right of contract. It’s akin to hiring a roofer who does a shoddy job, firing that contractor and hiring a new one to do the job properly, but being forced to use the same workers whose shoddiness you wouldn’t tolerate.

It’s the kind of “progressive” public policy for which its promoters should be removed from office for the illegal act that it is.

Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.