Larry Hunter claims he is a “lifelong conservative.” Yet, in his recent New York Daily News article, he also says he is voting for Barack Obama for president. The two simply cannot coexist. One has to be obliterated in favor of the other. And, regardless of the facile reasoning Hunter gives for his apostasy, this article does nothing to support any supposed conservative cause. It does, however, give the media something to crow about.

Larry Hunter begins by assuring us of his conservative credentials. A supply sider from the Reagan White House, Hunter had a 5-year-long stint as chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was a member of Bob Dole’s economic team for the 1996 presidential race and was chief economist for Jack Kemp’s Empower America. All of this does confirm his economic conservatism. But none of it says anything to his ideology otherwise. Still, regardless, we can take at face value his credentials and mark him as generally on the right side of the issues.

Yet, even after telling us his resume, Hunter says, “This November, I’m voting for Barack Obama.” Naturally, he says his “colleagues were shocked.” So should be anyone who thinks conservatism the best direction for this country.

So, why is Larry Hunter voting for Barack Obama? It turns out he isn’t voting “for” Barack Obama, he’s voting against the Republican Party. And that is NOT a legitimate reason to mark the ballot for Obama. Hunter’s “reasons” are ill considered, filled with petulance, and self-defeating to the ideology to which he insists he hews.

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

There is, of course, much room for honest debate on whether the war was justified or not. But that we are fairly in it regardless makes the debate of little interest in the contemporary decision making process. Hunter’s second reason, the “unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights” is simply absurd. There have been no such abridgments. If Hunter means the reputed abridgment of the non existent rights of the terrorists, it is even more absurd. Additionally, when compared to the actions of past presidents in past wars, Bush’s efforts seem wonderfully measured and moderate. But it is his last part that is most absurd, that of the “mortal sins” of bad economic policy. I am no fan of much of Bush’s domestic policies, but to use these failures as an excuse to vote for a party that will institute socialist inspired policies that will make Bush’s policies seem as if it was crafted by Joseph A. Schumpeter or Milton Friedman, well that simply makes no logical sense at all! It makes Larry Hunter appear as if he has taken leave of his senses.

Admittedly, what conservative isn’t mad at the Bush administration? There really are but a handful of things Bush did well — or at least stood on the right side of the issue over — so no conservative has been happy since he took office. So-called “compassionate conservatism” was merely an excuse for big-goverment, no conservative denies that.

Additionally, few conservatives trust McCain to be much better. However, we can at least say that McCain has a lifelong aversion to raising taxes and is a consistent budget hawk. Certainly all a voter can base his vote on is the record, not the rhetoric and campaign promises, and McCain’s economic record places him in the conservative camp. Obama’s, on the other hand, is a socialist’s record. There is nothing whatever conservative or even moderate about Barack Obama’s actual voting record.

For an economist mad at the Bush administration’s economic record and calling that record a “venal and mortal sin” because of its lack of conservative principle to then vote for a man who’s record places him on the socialist side of the line is just plain foolish.

But, what we can easily see is that Larry Hunter seems to hail from the abjectly isolationist, paleo-conservative branch of conservatism because the war appears to be his overriding concern.

But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.

This claim of Iraq being a “bloody boondoggle” is simple-minded rhetoric at best, an outright lie at worst. But to Iran his assumption is, of course, that we must avoid a war with Iran. That is not a given despite Hunter’s squeamishness over the matter. In fact, his base assumption that war with Iran must be avoided places him in the immoral, Chamberlainesque, peace-in-our-times camp and that camp is not “conservative” but merely blind. And even as he reiterates his nonsensical feeling that all our “individual rights” have been violated by Bush, he hasn’t a case to make there but one based on wild-eyed alarmism.

Then we get to Hunter’s specificity on the candidates. First he says where he imagines the candidates stand on the war based on what he’s heard them say.

John McCain would continue the Bush administration’s commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That’s what conservatism used to mean - and it’s what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.

Hunter bases his feeling on Obama’s suitably “conservative” ideas on foreign policy on the man’s rhetoric on the campaign trail and uses that as an excuse to bash McCain. OK, well and good. But, then Hunter immediately follows that with the next paragraph.

Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don’t take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn’t bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn’t mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it’s taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.

This is stunningly facile reasoning. On one hand he fully believes Obama’s unsupportable campaign rhetoric on what his foreign policy will be — unsupportable because he has no track record by which to prove his claims, quite unlike McCain — but then goes on to say he doesn’t believe what Obama says about domestic policy and can, therefore, completely blow off Obama’s rhetoric! Talk about cognitive dissonance. How can a candidate’s word be taken for gospel on one issue but not on any others? Either Obama’s rhetoric can be believed or it cannot, especially in light of his actual voting record.

Then Hunter foolishly launches into off handed praise for Obama’s “centrist advisers” and uses that as an excuse to support his candidacy. But the record is the record and Obama has not ever had a record of voting for any “centrist” positions. Throughout his career, Obama has paid lip service to centrist policy yet never voted for them. When push came to shove, Barack Obama’s voting record has remained as far left as the worst of them.

But, for all his carping about Bush and the Republican’s economic failures, despite his entire life’s service as a conservative economist, Hunter gives us a contradictory line about Obama.

But here’s the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I’m still voting for him.

So, for all his interest in the economy, in the end, Hunter doesn’t care. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Consequently, we see that Hunter’s overarching problem is the foreign policy issue. He feels that Bush has illegitimately “spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.” He thinks that McCain will merely continue Bush’s bad policies and this is enough to make him vote Obama.

If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It’s not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.

In this I have to say that Larry Hunter has no clue what the word “suffered” means. Our economy has not “suffered” too badly from the expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, this country has scarcely “suffered” at all from the war. Obviously, the war has touched only a small portion of our people and few Americans have been much put out by it. Even the battle deaths are miniscule compared to any of our past wars. (And YES, speaking as a father of one of our soldiers, it is heartrending to lose even one soldier)

Larry Hunter reveals himself to be Chicken Little where it concerns our current level of “suffering” and a complete traitor to all other conservative causes on nearly every level in his hyperventilating over the matter.

It goes without saying that one does not urge a nation to conservative principles by voting for the candidate and party that stands foursquare against every single one of those principles. One can legitimately refuse to vote for John McCain, but to actually and purposefully vote for Barack Obama is a direct stab in the heart to supposed conservative principles. One can only presume that Larry Hunter does not really find a principle an insoluble idea but considers it, rather, something that can be dispensed with on a whim.

And to be sure, being anti-War is not a “conservative” principle. It is, in fact, its very own principle, a pacifist’s. Pacifism is not a conservative principle but a utopian’s. It is a foolhardy idea based on a failed assumption about the innate goodness of human kind and it is a decidedly unAmerican ideal. Even as far back as George Washington, a truly American principle is to constantly be ready for war — that being the only true guarantee of peace. And being ready for war also means to be willing to engage in it.

Larry Hunter believes that getting out of war, in any manner at all, should be the nation’s only priority. And he believes with a faith of religious proportions that Barack Obama will fulfill that wish. Larry Hunter’s only problem is that the train he hopes Obama will catch has long since left the station and that any moves to precipitously withdraw from the Mid East now would do far more damage to the world in general and the United States in particular and will pale in comparison to the economic damage the Obama will do to this nation. All following Hunter’s prescription will do is give us a bad economy and even worse foreign policy than we currently have.

Worse, one does not fix a party by voting for its rival. If Larry Hunter imagines the GOP has strayed, voting for its mirror opposite does nothing to help right the only party that would even come close to his proclaimed principles. The axiom of cutting off one’s nose despite one’s face applies here in spades.

Larry Hunter has done damage to every cause he thinks he believes in with this editorial. He has damaged the Republican brand further, damaged the economy should enough people follow his recommendation, and endangered us all on the war on terror. He has also foolishly handed the MSM ammunition that they will turn on every single principle, but one, that he seems to claim to hold dear. And even that one is a dangerous one to pursue for this nation.

Sadly, in every area, Larry Hunter the “lifelong conservative” is dangerously wrong.

(Photo credit: the National Tax-Limitation Committee)

by Jim Kouri, CPP
 
Recently, Mexican military officials claimed they seized five-and-a-half tons of powdered cocaine from a commercial aircraft that landed in Mexico following a a trip from Venezuela. The street value of the drugs was estimated to be upwards of $100 million.

Mexican cops reported that the cocaine was discovered inside over a hundred suitcases marked “private.”  The military officers announced that they made three arrests as a result of the cocaine seizure.

Mexican officials claim that cocaine is increasingly being imported from Venezuela, with the US or Europe being the drugs’ final destination.

In this case the Mexican authorities waited for the plane to land at the airport of Ciudad de Carmen, about 550 miles east of Mexico City, after being tipped off by Interpol. The co-pilot of the aircraft was arrested. The pilot and co-pilot of another plane, which was believed to be ready to take the cocaine on to the next location, were also detained.

A Drug Enforcement Administration report last year indicted that Venezuela has become a key transshipment point for narcotics due to “rampant corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement and a weak judicial system”. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez terminated joint anti-drug operation with United States drug agents from the DEA. The paranoid president accused DEA agents of being spies.

The enormous amount of corruption within the Venezuelan government coupled with its president’s seizure and control of the press has made the country ripe for the transit of illegal drugs and other contraband. No journalist in Venezuela who wants to remain out of prison or worse will report on the corruption, drug trade, crime or any other issue that would embarrass the Chavez government.

A prison riot that occurred in Venezuela highlights the systemic corruption that exists within their criminal justice system:

The riot left 10 inmates dead and one wounded the day after officers seized weapons and illegal drugs from gang members in the prison. Venezuela’s prisons and jails are notoriously overcrowded and undersupervised. Firearms, illegal drugs and knives are often smuggled into prisons and sold to prisoners by guards.

As reported by the Associated Press, violence is common in the country’s 30 prisons, which were built to house 15,000 inmates but house around 20,000. Over 280 inmates died in violence and at least 449 were injured during the first nine months of 2005, according to the Venezuelan Prisons Observatory, a human rights watchdog. For all of 2004, at least 327 inmates were killed and 655 were wounded, the group says.

Meanwhile, at least one metric ton of cocaine per month, and smaller quantities of heroin, are exported to consumers through the country’s principal airport, several foreign counter-drug officials who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of their investigations told The Miami Herald.

One of the officials also estimated that as much as $2 million is paid out monthly in bribes to airport officials, policemen and National Guard personnel who collaborate with the drug runners. One informant told another investigator that airport jobs go to those willing to participate in the scheme.Counter-drug officials also say private airplanes that traffic drugs from Colombia to such nearby destinations as the Caribbean islands regularly pass through Maiquetia, landing there to get a change in identification numbers and perhaps a new paint job.

”The airport has been a problem, is a problem and will be a problem,” one of the officials told The Miami Herald.Venezuela has clearly become a major transshipment point for illegal drugs leaving Colombia.

Estimates vary, but U.S. officials say the country could be a transit point for upward of 200 tons of cocaine per year — half the estimated annual production in Colombia, the world’s leading cocaine producer.Venezuela’s own statistics showed an eight-fold increase in drug seizures since 1999.

Media reports have alleged the existence of drug smuggling cartels led by high-level National Guard officers. For their part, Venezuelan authorities have said the United States has no moral authority to comment on drug trafficking since it is the world’s leading consumer of illegal drugs.

There are some who believe that the corruption goes directly into the office of President Hugo Chavez.

It is significant that the drugs came via Venezuela, because the Colombian army has long alleged that Venezuela’s socialist president, Hugo Chavez, is sympathetic to the Marxist rIebels, according to Venzuelan political analyst Aleksander Boyd.

Boyd says, “Evidence, as is often the case with his ‘revolution,’ indicates that since Chavez’s arrival in power, Venezuela has become the favourite launching pad for Colombia’s drug traffickers. It is argued that 80% of the cocaine produced in neighbouring Colombia and the region enters the international markets via Venezuela, as heretofore unseen quantities have been seized in various countries.

“On the other hand Chavez’s cozy relationship with the FARC is no secret. So much so that the deranged president disrupted ties with Colombia, Venezuela’s second largest commercial partner, over the capture in Caracas of FARC’s leader Rodrigo Granda, who had Venezuelan citizenship, whose wife and step-daughter were welcomed by close associates of Chavez … Rodriguez Chacin, and who was a guest of honor in one of his Bolivarian get-togethers.”
 
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
   

A friend of mine and I were chatting the other day about the upcoming election and who we thought would win. My friend, who is so Republican she makes Ronald Reagan look like Jerry Brown, lamented over the possibility of Barack Obama becoming President, saying simply, “The fix is in.” If you look at the media coverage surrounding the junior Senator from Illinois, you’d probably get the same impression. The media have fawned over Obama like a teenage girl crushing over the Jonas Brothers. If things get any worse on that front, Obama might have to register with the IRS as a tax-exempt church.

This got me to thinking why Obama is so popular. On paper, he’s a bad Affirmative Action hire. In real life, he’s not much better. He can deliver a speech with passion, but when it comes to the ever-so-tricky part of speaking off the cuff, George W. Bush could give him some speaking tips. He seems to be able to appeal to quite a few demographic groups from young to old, working stiff to three-martini lunch CEOs. He even managed to get me considering him as a serious candidate for a time. Could it be that he’s the right man for the job at the right time when we need him?

Not so much.

After my brief dalliance with Obamamania, it occurred to me that he really doesn’t seem to stand for much for very long. Take the flap over his comments regarding whether Iran was a threat. In one speech in front of one group, he said Iran wasn’t a threat to America because it was a little country. I’ve seen enough episodes of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” to know that just because someone is small doesn’t mean they can’t nail you in the groin. Then, in a different speech a few days later in front of a different audience, Obama said Iran definitely was a threat because it was developing nuclear capabilities. Did he have a change of heart thinking about President Imadinnerjacket with his Members Only jacket-wearing hands on “the button”? Not really.

There’s a concept called “tabula rasa” in which it is believed people come into the world with a “clean slate.” From birth, people develop their personalities, their psychological health, what sports teams they like, and so on. The more I think about it, the more I think Barack Obama is the political equivalent of a tabula rasa, but instead of him developing his personality through interaction and experience, he’s developing his personality by what people project upon him.

To college students, he’s the cool professor who lets you hang out in his office and listen to Bob Dylan. (Of course, that might also be considered torture under the Geneva Convention, but that’s another story.) To working class Americans, he’s a guy in the break room that you don’t know that well, but know he’s a good guy. To older Americans, he’s a nice young man who wants what’s best for America. To activists, he’s a warrior fighting for a cause just like they are. To me, he’s a movie screen at the local cineplex showing a double feature of “Gigli.”

The problem with this, however, is that Obama really isn’t a true tabula rasa. He’s a known quantity because he’s been out there giving speeches and writing books that outline his approach to life and governance. No matter how much we want him to be what we believe he is, he’s still who he is: a junior Senator from Illinois with a resume weaker than a balsa wood chair at Rosie O’Donnell’s house. For some, the fact he’s not George W. Bush is all he needs to be, and if you’re one of those folks, more power to you.

But for some of us, like me, we need more than just “He’s not George W. Bush” to vote for the guy. Projecting our perfect candidate characteristics onto Barack Obama will not make him the perfect candidate we wish him to be. It’s a flight of fancy that will end badly, especially if the airline loses our luggage along the way. The media and more than a few Americans fawn over Obama, but that’s not enough to make me pull the lever for him. After all, Americans fawned over the Macarena and we all know how that turned out.

Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. and NewsBull.com. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of CommonConservative.com.

It’s one of the biggest news stories out there right now, one that directly impacts us on so many levels. If we don’t address this issue soon, we will be thrown into a depression that will take years to overcome. I’m speaking, of course, of the racy photos of Miley Cyrus circulating on the Internet.

Oh, and there’s that whole kerfluffle over oil prices.

Watching the news coverage and commentary about oil prices, it’s clear there’s more spinning going on than in Enrico Fermi’s lab, but I’m here to help. Whenever you have a Leftist spouting any of the lines you’re about to read, use the responses or a variation of them to confound and infuriate him or her.

1) We need to nationalize the oil industry. Remember the controversy over the horrible conditions at VA hospitals last year? The people responsible for that are who you’d be putting in control of the oil industry if you nationalize it. And let’s not forget that government isn’t subject to the laws of economics (or the laws of this country, for that matter…). When you have people who have no clue of how economics works with control over a vital resource, it doesn’t end well.

2) Oil profits are too high. This chestnut has been flying around for a while now, but it has no basis in fact. In reality, oil companies make between 6 and 8 cents off every gallon of gas sold, and they take all the risks to produce a gallon of gas. Government, on the other hand, takes several times more in taxation and takes no risk whatsoever. In other words, government makes a profit off oil companies for doing nothing, both in the production of oil, and in general.

3) Oil speculators are driving up the price of oil. Essentially, commodity speculation is betting that a particular commodity will be at a certain price at a certain time. However, that speculation in and of itself doesn’t drive the price up or down. It’s like betting on what the score will be in the Super Bowl. It doesn’t impact what the score is whatsoever, but it’s fun to try to be a commodity Carnac.

4) A windfall profits tax is a good idea. This idea was floated by Barack Obama and with good reason because it is a floater. The entire concept is based on a perception of what constitutes excess profits, and that perception will change from person to person. Also, if you tax profits enough, it will decrease the incentive to make profits, which ultimately drives our economy. And I doubt the good Senator has a plan to make up for the lost revenue from companies closing faster than a Wayans brothers movie.

5) We shouldn’t drill because it would take 10 years for the oil to get to market. I’d be curious to know how this number came into being because I don’t buy it. I believe if we left the oil companies to their own devices and gave them a more ambitious timeline we would see oil hitting the market much more quickly than 10 years. We have enough technology and incentive to make it happen. All we need is for government (and their pals in the environmentalist movement) to get out of the way.

6) We shouldn’t drill because there isn’t enough supply to make an impact. Not so fast. If we want to become energy independent, every barrel of oil we can extract from the ground and use will be a step towards that goal. If you’re dying of thirst, would you refuse a drop of water on your tongue?

7) We shouldn’t drill because oil companies are sitting on oil fields. Yes, the Leftists actually believe this to be true at the same time they believe #6 is true. But just like with #6, a little common sense dispels this. With oil prices being what they are right now, it’s highly unlikely that oil companies would be sitting on anything they could get out of the ground because it would mean more money for them. If oil companies were as greedy as the Leftists think and had as much oil as Leftists claim they do, that oil would be coming out of the ground to ensure they made as much money as possible. That’s called “capitalism,” kids.

We shouldn’t drill in ANWR because drilling would ruin it. You’ve heard the stats on this one, so I won’t rehash them. What you might not have heard is how oil companies have made great strides to reduce the environmental impact where they drill. While environmentalists and Leftist politicians complain about how bad pollution is, the oil companies are actually doing something to ensure they don’t pollute. As it turns out, most of the environmental problems connected to oil companies come from the transport of oil, not the drilling. With that kind of track record of actual accomplishments, we’d be fools not to let oil companies drill in ANWR.

9) Conservation is the key to the oil situation. Under normal circumstances, conserving a limited resource is a smart idea. However, the oil situation isn’t normal because we have so many people working against finding a solution. We have alternatives to oil right under our noses, but the Left has nixed all of them in favor of unproven flights of fancy that may make the problem worse. All we’d be doing by resorting to conservation of the existing oil we have is prolonging the day on which we’d run out of oil, and once that’s gone we have nothing to fall back on, thanks to the Leftists.

10) Biofuels will reduce our dependency on oil. It’s a nice idea in theory, but in practice biofuels have not produced the positive results proponents have touted. It takes more energy to produce biofuels right now than it does to produce a barrel of oil, and there is no significant positive impact to the environment. Given time, this could change, but right now biofuels are not the way to go. Energy independence needs more in the short run than ideas that might work eventually.

Try these responses out at your next social function where someone uses any of the 10 Leftist lines I’ve documented. Please be advised, however, that neither this website nor I bear any responsibility for dry cleaning costs, medical bills, therapy, or the loss of invitations to social functions if you use these retorts. Please use them responsibly.

Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. and NewsBull.com. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of CommonConservative.com.