Right Wing Blog

Are the Elites Finally Admitting that Multiculturalism has Failed?

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:00:00 GMT

Big news last week when German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that Germany's great multicultural experiment had failed, and Germany's future was threatened by Muslims who had not assimilated.

Merkel said that immigrants must assimilate and adapt, learning German and adopting German customs.

Simple and straightforward right? The United States' success and hegemony is due to its embrace of the melting pot concept. Millions upon millions of immigrants from all over the globe have migrated to this country in pursuit of the American Dream and have adapted to our language, customs, and culture, which is why we've enjoyed Pax Americana - peace and prosperity without any internal civil wars.

Yet Europe attempted the opposite approach, and our neighbors across the pond find themselves confronting a massive Muslim population that is isolated and susceptible to extremism. Two of the 9/11 hijackers plotted their attacks in Hamburg, Germany and a German judge sparked outrage in 2007 when she ruled (in the spirit of multiculturalism) against an abused Muslim wife begging for a divorce from her husband by citing the Quran and saying that it takes precedence over German civil law for Muslims in Germany. Muslims from Paris to Prague live in ghettos where they hear from anti-Western, terrorism-supporting Imams and live their days with very little contact with other Europeans. This would explain while "honor killings" are an epidemic in Great Britain - Muslims who integrate and live with the rest of society (not apart from it), would have no use for honor killings, as they would have adapted and evolved beyond such tribal and barbaric practices.

We in the United States have been fortunate, but we have our own liberal elites who eschew assimilation in favor of multiculturalism, where every cultural norm is held up as "equal" to all others and a common patriotism and pride in one's nation is shunned in favor of trying to accomodate and appease all cultures and ethnicities. Canada attempted this with the French and English divide and embracing two languages - now, they are dealing with Islamic Sharia Law, where multicultural elitists attempted to allow the religious-based law to usurp secular Canadian law and then retreated due to the backlash created when Muslim women were sentenced to beatings by their husbands and denied divorces.

So will other elites follow in Merkel's footsteps and honestly acknowledge the harsh reality of their failed experiment? Probably not. As you can already imagine, the left-leaning press in America and Europe has already assailed her and demagogues are already applying the expected labels of "Nazi" and "Fascist" since she has dared question one of their top tenets and dogmas.

But at least the discussion has started.

by Brandon Kenig

Forum and Social Media Director

Republican Pledge - Good, but Good Enough?

Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:51:00 GMT

I've reviewed the R pledge and find it refreshing and far beyond anything presented in the past and well advanced above anything the D's have produced. It's certainly a refreshing step in the right direction, but will it be a REVIVING step? The answer will be determined by who'll be the R party 'bus drivers'; if one of them is going to be Newt Gingrich, then I'm not getting on the bus - I'll find a seat on a conservative bus with a genuinely qualified driver. Why? Do I need to mention more of a reason than the first 'Contract with America' that Newt initiated in 1994? As Dr. Phil would say, how'd that work for ya?

We the People require more detail in such a pledge if we're expected to buy it and get behind it. Tell us exactly what you're going to do if you gain the presidency and control of congress. We want specific commitments, not pledges. We want to hear "We will....", not "We pledge....". Oh, and I found no mention of God or Creator or Divine Providence. I resent such a supercilious pledge that fails to mention He who we owe our greatest allegiance! We CANNOT continue to ignore our Maker.

I have not seen the forming of a Third Party as the best solution, but after seeing the wordy fluff in the R pledge, I think we're in for more of the same. I don't mean that I don't think the R's would do better than before - I just mean once again it won't be enough to address our nation's present crisis any more than they addressed the crisis we faced during their last majority.

I believe the best path for Tea Party groups and similar groups is to unite on a set of principles, a set of demands that shall not be compromised. The principled set of demands should declare INDEPENDENCE from the D and R parties, and should emphatically state a list of grievances expected for specific rectification. The expectation would be that if the Democratic and Republican parties desire the support of Tea Parties and similar groups, they must present candidates that have an emphatically stated platform that aligns with the declared set of principles and that serves up a detailed plan for addressing all stated grievances.

Then I say, if this unified stance does not motivate a pool of legitimately qualified candidates from the D and R parties, then the next and only logical step is the desperate step toward building a Third Party out of the Tea Party Movement and based on the list of grievances and unified declaration. For all of you die hard R's that are worried - don't worry, be happy that for now, I remain a registered R myself, and plan to vote for R's in November, but be assured, I and a whole lot of other people are just about out of patience. So, get in, get it fixed, or prepare to get out Quickly!

Freedom Tree, LLC

Taxes and Human Behavior

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:47:00 GMT

In the latter months of 2008, liberals commented on how the increase in oil prices led to consumers using less gasoline and how the subsequent lower energy prices after the bursting of the oil bubble led to consumers driving more than when gasoline cost four dollars a gallon. A December, 2008 editorial in the New York Times points out that lower gasoline prices make fuel efficient automobiles less desirable for purchase. In this editorial, the Old Gray Lady uses this fact to support a steep gas tax increase to drive up the cost of energy and with it the demand for fuel efficient automobiles and the reduction in the use of oil.

What is most absurd about this proposal in the Times is that liberals constantly debate in favor of increased taxes on everything from income to capital gains. They claim it will generate more revenue for the government coffers without thinking about the consequences from those policies. Increased taxes only add to the burden of running a business. President Johnson signed legislation in 1968 raising taxes as well as the creation of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). These acts were among the first dominoes to fall that led to the 1970s being one of the worse decades in American economic growth. What followed in that decade were a series of price controls, increased regulations, and windfall profit taxes.

The most critical tax is the capital gains tax. Capital gains tax cuts make investing, the backbone of economic growth, more attractive. Lower corporate taxes make starting and growing a business more attractive because businessmen and entrepreneurs know they will be able to keep more of their money. It is no mere coincidence that one of the greatest surge in economic growth in American history, 1980 – 2006, was accompanied by a reduction in tax rates, especially the capital gains tax. Larry Kudlow, in a July, 2010 article posted at NationalReview.com, referred to a study done by two former Treasury economists which states that cutting the capital gains tax rate is the most effective way of growing the economy. Referencing the study by Aldona and Gary Robbins, Mr. Kudlow writes, “For every tax-cut dollar on capital gains, $10.61 of new GDP is created.” In order to know the reason the capital gains tax has the biggest impact on the economy, one must first know what economics and an economy are. In his excellent book Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell states, “Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses.”

If economics is the study of the use of scarce resources, then a growing economy is one in which society uses its resources more effectively. This can be seen in the United States from the 1950s to the 2000s. In this time period, the GDP growth has outpaced energy consumption during a time of overall economic growth. Capital investment is critical to economic growth, because it leads to greater productivity and more wealth for all. For example the invention of farm equipment like the combine resulted in a farmer tending to more land than he otherwise would have. The assembly line, which would not be possible without capital investment, resulted in more automobiles being produced in a given day. In the end, automobiles were more plentiful so everyday people could afford one. Not to mention it makes deliveries of everything from mail to consumer goods easier because one does not have to rely solely on horses or trains; so the assembly line had a domino effect throughout the economy.

With January 2011 nearing, this means the Bush tax cuts will be expiring without action from Congress. Among those tax cuts is the cut in capital gains tax, which is currently 15% and would go up to 20%. President Obama is on record with raising the rate to 28% just for “fairness” even if tax revenues fall. At the end of the day, you can’t help but wonder if the New York Times believes correctly that a higher tax on gasoline will result in less demand of gasoline, then why wouldn’t they also believe that cutting taxes on capital gains and marginal tax rates would result in greater capital gains and higher incomes for Americans.

Mark Scannell

Treasurer - Johnson County (Kansas) Young Republicans

Do We know LEFT from RIGHT?

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:19:00 GMT

Too often we label people and dismiss them based on whether or not they claim to be on the LEFT or the RIGHT. Some times we confuse Liberalism with Leftism, Leftism with "Democratism", and sometimes we confuse modern Republicanism with "Rightism", but what we do that is most dangerous is to confuse Leftism with "Rightism". Like I said, it's confusing.....

To avoid this confusion, we must know one simple rule, LEFT = Big and Intrusive Government, and RIGHT = Small and Limited Government, and the agreeance that our Nation's foundation is based on the belief that We the People have certain inalienable rights endowed to us by The Creator. Without this clear and simple distinction, we cannot sift out those who claim they are Conservatives on the RIGHT, when they are really Big Government spenders on the LEFT (i.e. Bush administration - The Original "TARP Launchers").

Perhaps one may conclude that I'm oversimplifying the distinctions and not drawing narrow enough lines, but how about this one; Neo-Cons are Leftists just as much as Socialists are Leftists. So with that said, I will leave that thought with you to ponder, maybe even expound on, or disagree. The bottom line here is that we must know the LEFT from the RIGHT, because frankly, we have had way too many Leftists masquerading on the RIGHT in the finest of sheep's clothing.

by Steven Reagan Myers
President, FreedomTree, LLC
Founder, T.E.A. Party TIME Network

In the Age of Obama, Dissent is not to be Tolerated

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:27:00 GMT

Recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked for her opinion on the raging controversy over the decision to approve the building of a mosque just mere blocks from the devastation of the 9/11 attacks at Ground Zero. Pelosi responded: “In America you have the right to build a mosque anywhere you want, or to protest it, or to be investigated by the Federal government for protesting it."

Excuse me? Since when does the government have the right to investigate law-abiding citizens peacefully protesting? The 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, i.e. the right to protest. Pelosi's words signal a dangerous attempt to stifle free speech and intimidate those who dare exercise their rights, but sadly, this is par for the course for the modern Democratic Party, which has now filed complaints to open a series of investigations into Americans for Prosperity, a non-profit conservative organization that advocates for low taxes and less spending. The group had the audacity to run radio and TV ads criticizing Democratic candidates around the country and tying them to Obama's policies in Washington, so now they are being targeted and scrutinized at a level unseen by most similar advocacy groups, including liberal groups like MoveOn.org and Moving America Forward, which are lavishly funded by billionaries like George Soros and contain a shadowy network of donors and related affiliate groups.

I recall Hillary Clinton in 2003 shouting, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.

Where is Hillary's outrage now? Apparently, dissent is only patriotic and in-vogue when Republicans are in charge. The hypocrisy and arrogance of Democrats who cried foul and claimed that dissent was discouraged under the Bush administration but are now ready to unleash threats and government investigation onto their critics is stunning.

Thankfully, the backlash is coming this November and no matter how prepared Democrats are, they won't know what hit them.

by Brandon Kenig
Forum and Social Media Director

OBAMA: Principled, Politically Inept, or Sly like a Fox?

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:52:00 GMT

The polling numbers indicate the rock star status of President Obama has almost completely vanished. I have friends----probably many more than I know or I’d like to admit---who actually voted for Obama. Interestingly, I’ve had several of those friends fess up in the past few months. At that time, they both admitted they had voted for Obama and admitted it was an error they wished they hadn’t made. What happens to these former Obama voters in 2012? Well it’s too early to know….unfortunately memories are much too short.

First, some of you will assume this is Pro-Obama. Let me say I am opposed to Obama’s policies and politics. Tax increases and increasing the size of government are not the answer no matter what the economic conditions happen to be. Obama, his administration and the people he has surrounded himself with are true believers in hard left leaning viewpoints. In their mind government and government programs are the answer. The free market, and those of us attempting to create in the private sector, could not possibly provide services in a way that a government program is capable of doing. Obama believes this, and that can’t be described as anything but his political principles.

Look at it this way, President Obama has been on the wrong side of public opinion on Arizona Immigration and healthcare reform (of course, we regular folk just weren’t sophisticated enough to understand the complexities of healthcare). Both of these stances are political errors to most of us, but, given Obama’s politics, not a surprise. Obama’s recent Ground Zero Mosque comments were the final straw for me, however. They left me scratching my head. There are conflicting reports as to whether he was forced to comment on the situation, but it appears he didn’t have a compelling reason to comment. He, his team, or both obviously wanted to make the statement.

All of us appreciate the support of the 1st Amendment. Read the following words, unfortunately entangled with Obama’s support for the Ground Zero Mosque, “This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.” Obama was addressing religious freedom and equality and his words are in fact beautifully elegant. It’s unfortunate these comments will never be appreciated because of the context in which they were stated.

It baffles one to think that intelligent political people, the President included, could make the decision to air their beliefs about the Ground Zero Mosque publicly. You could go on as to the reasons why the Mosque shouldn’t be built near Ground Zero, but very simply, a large majority of the families and friends who lost loved ones are completely against a Mosque being located near the site. Enough said for me, the sensitivities of those affected most should prevail. Surely someone said, “Mr. President, I don’t think we should go here. If nothing else you speaking out about this could hurt a Democrat in an election this Fall.” Obviously, this didn’t occur.

Let’s assess the options. Obama didn’t think about it or no one within his inner circle mentioned how sensitive this subject might be to many Americans---Politically Inept!!! Obama and his team recognized the potential political fallout and didn’t care---wrong, but Incredibly Principled. Perhaps another more politically sinister answer lurks. Let’s face it, the economy may or may not be better by 2012. No question, the Republicans may take back the House and possibly could take back the Senate in the November mid-term elections. As much as we hope the Republicans will sweep, neither of those are guaranteed. So consider this: perhaps the view of the Obama team is that they have a much better chance of winning re-election in 2012 if they can create legislative gridlock because the Republicans control one or more Chambers of the legislature. Additionally, it would be very nice not to have to see himself next to Nancy Pelosi in every Republican presidential ad in 2012.

Perhaps we’ll not know the real answer, but one guarantee is a large majority of the moderate folks who have now disavowed their original support for Obama I mentioned earlier will not remember the Ground Zero Mosque gaffe in 26 months during the media-created Obama the Rock Star 2.0 in 2012.

Posted by: Ross Vogel

Missouri’s 'Proposition C' and the Future of the Obamacare Mandate

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:36:00 GMT

The future of Obamacare is unknown and while complete repeal is unlikely, major reforms to the law seem much more possible now thanks to a vote in the Show-Me state that sent shockwaves throughout Washington and the ruling political class.

Proposition C was a largely symbolic measure reaffirming the right of Missourians to choose their own healthcare or not have healthcare at all, sharply challenging the federal government’s infamous mandate in the new healthcare law that forces all Americans to buy health insurance or face steep criminal penalties.

Missourians not only rejected Obamacare in the August primary vote—they made their feelings heard with landslide margins. Over 71 percent of Missourians voted for Proposition C, expressing their opposition to the healthcare law, versus only 29 percent who support the current law. And a sign of the intensity of the opposition to the new law is the number of people who voted on the ballot question statewide: 942,570 Missourians, 40,000 more than who voted in the expensive and closely-watch Democratic and Republican primaries for the high-profile U.S. Senate race this fall.

Arizona and Oklahoma are already crafting similar measures to give their populations an opportunity to opt-out of the government mandate. And you know the mandate is in trouble when former Democratic presidential candidate and liberal Dr. Howard Dean is blasting the mandate and predicting it will be found unconstitutional.

Never before in the history of our great republic has the federal government mandated that Americans buy a good or service or face criminal penalties in the way of fines or incarceration. Liberals like to compare the health insurance mandate to auto insurance mandates, but this comparison is insufficient because #1: No one is required to own a motor vehicle, and auto insurance can be correctly seen as part of the cost and responsibility for purchasing a car, just as a physician is required to carry liability insurance to practice in their field and an attorney is required to maintain an active law license, and #2: auto insurance is a state mandate—not a federal mandate.

Traditionally, in our federal system of governing, states have been afforded more power to compel citizens to adhere to certain regulations and requirements. Our Constitution does not endow the Federal government with this same authority to compel and coerce. So unlike auto insurance or any state mandate, under the new healthcare law, Americans, by virtue of just being born and alive in this country would be forced to carry health insurance irrespective of any other factors.

Americans still retain some of that rugged individualism passed down from our ancestors, the first colonists and settlers of this country, and we really do not like being told what to do. With approval polls showing over 50 percent of Americans still in opposition to the healthcare mandate and favoring appeal, you can be sure that Americans will soon express their disapproval with their own “mandate” to the federal government—a mandate for change this November, the first step to repeal of the most onerous and heinous provisions of the new healthcare law.

Posted by: Brandon Kenig, Forum and Social Media Director, RIGHTWING.COM

The Myth of Obamacare: Healthcare Reform vs. Insurance Reform

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:42:00 GMT

To hear supporters of the new law and some folks who are just ignorant of the law itself tout the healthcare law as healthcare reform only infuriates those of us who know what it truly is: it may be referred to as health insurance reform (although, reform in a positive sense is not what the law does at all) but the law is certainly not reform of the healthcare industry.

The law’s provisions deal exclusively with health insurance: the mandate to purchase insurance, the requirement that insurance providers cover pre-existing conditions, new regulations mandating that employers provide health insurance or pay a fine—the list goes on. The law, however, does not address the immediate and growing dilemmas with the healthcare industry itself: exponentially-increasing costs for healthcare goods and services; the shortage of qualified doctors and nurses to meet the growing demand of the American population, especially as baby boomers retire; the lack of portability of insurance coverage across state lines; barriers to entry and stifled competition for the emergence of new insurance carriers willing to compete for consumers; the lack of standardization and centralization of medical records; and the roadblocks to implementing new technologies for patient records and for streamlining treatments.

Most believe this watered-down takeover of the health insurance industry is only a first step towards a government-run single payer system. If so, we could learn well from other countries dealing with the consequences of government care.

I recently visited Sydney, Australia earlier this year and had the opportunity to witness a session of the New South Wales Parliament, the state legislative body governing Australia’s largest state and it’s most populous city. The main issue being debated: access to healthcare. Australia has a hybrid public-private healthcare system. Free healthcare is guaranteed for all 20 million Australians through a government-run scheme, but private healthcare facilities are also allowed to operate and Australians can patronize these physicians and facilities at their own expense.

The parliament session was led by Premier (similar to the governor of a U.S. state) Kristina Keneally, of Australia’s leftist, Labor Party, acknowledged that the federal government had not followed through on its promises to the states, and New South Wales was experiencing critical shortages of hospital beds, vaccines, and medical equipment, along with complaints from citizens about long wait times for procedures and appointments. Australia’s right-leaning Liberal Party leaders in the Parliament argued for decentralization of healthcare decision making and allowing individual states and cities to allocate budget dollars for healthcare, with decision-making shifting to doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators rather than bureaucrats in Canberra, Australia’s capital city.

Keneally, alarmed that New South Wales residents may be inclined to support some of these common-sense policies in light of the failure of the leftist, federal leadership on the issue, immediately accused her political opponents of favoring…wait for it…privatization. She also said that New South Wales “would not return to the big business, privatization schemes of the Howard government.” John Howard was the former Prime Minister, a conservative member of the Liberal Party and the favorite bogeyman of Australia’s left since he lost his last election. Sound familiar?

The session quickly turn cantankerous as members of parliament shouted each other down and personally attacked one another over this extremely intense and volatile issue. The barrister had to quiet down the legislators several times for being out of line.

I found it ironic and revealing that these problems with centralized, government-run healthcare, which are happening in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom—are largely ignored by the U.S. media, but incite intense and fierce debate in those countries over whether policy should move towards privatization and local control. The United Kingdom has already taken the first step: under Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, Britain’s National Health Service will be downsized with most authority and decision-making devolved to the level of town councils and similar bodies.

Even in Australia, healthcare was a major issue in their most recent election this past week. Labor lost its majority in the federal parliament, and fared extremely bad in New South Wales, home to Sydney and Australia’s most populous state, a liberal-leaning bellwether for the entire country. Pundits down-under are now predicting that Keneally will lose her premiership in the upcoming state spring elections and that the conservative Liberal Party may gain control of the New South Wales Parliament for the first time in decades.

The irony of ironies is that as Europeans move away from their socialized healthcare schemes to patient-centered healthcare based on choice and access, the United States, long the world’s bastion of individual freedom and liberty, will be moving further away from its own ideals and the trend of European social democracies.

Posted by: Brandon Kenig, Forum and Social Media Director, RIGHTWING.COM

Kenig Takes Lead Role as "Forum and Social Media Director"

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:54:00 GMT

RIGHTWING.COM has named Brandon Kenig as Forum and Social Media Director. In his new role Kenig will spearhead all social media marketing for RIGHTWING.COM and serve as chief forum moderator on the Right Wing Forum. Kenig began working for RIGHTWING.COM in April 2010, giving the company a presence on Facebook and Twitter.

Brandon Kenig graduated from Creighton University in 2008 with his Bachelor’s degree in Marketing and a co-major in Political Science. While still in college, Brandon interned for Sen. Sam Brownback in DC in 2006, served as statewide volunteer coordinator for Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman's successful 2006 election campaign, and has since assisted with several federal and state legislative campaigns. A Kansas City native, Brandon continues to be extremely active in Kansas politics, currently serving as chairman of the Johnson County Young Republicans and an elected Republican precinct committeeman. Brandon also works as an account manager for a software technology firm and writes for his own online political blog, the Kenig Konnection.

Right Wing Website Set To Launch

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:58:00 GMT

After months of planning and re-design the new Right Wing website is set to launch! Thanks to the design assistance of MyModernWeb (Joplin, MO) many new enhancements have been made to the site. In addition to an entirely new visual layout of our online store, visitors will enjoy the ability to easily find information for each product and additional product images showing much greater detail.

Most anticipated is the new "Right Wing Forum." Registered users will enjoy the ability to participate in the much improved forum and share their opinions and comments with world.