Big Labor eyes Supreme Court decision.

Mallory Factor on Fox News

Big Labor eyes Supreme Court decision


Will Big Labor get ObamaCare relief?

Mallory Factor on Fox News

Will Big Labor get ObamaCare relief?

The Keystone Proof

President Obama’s decision to not allow the Keystone Pipeline project to move forward is the final proof that our national energy policy — and our national security — are firmly in the hands of left-wing wackos.


The Keystone Pipeline would have created 20,000 new jobs immediately and many more than that over the history of it’s lifespan. It would have brought substantial oil to the United States from a reliable ally on our northern border, and would have been a significant step toward reducing our energy dependence on the Arab world.

Obama claimed today that he rejected the pipeline because the Republican House’s 60 day deadline for approval didn’t give the president enough time to adequately review the proposal.  Really?  The pipeline has undergone 40 months of hearing and review, and an exhaustive State Department study which deemed it was not a threat to the environment.  The claim that it wasn’t reviewed extensively enough is pure poppycock — the average pipeline application and review process is 20-24 months.  Half the time of the Keystone proposal.

The reality here is that this is pure progressive ideology at work.

The left hates oil.  It hates refineries that process it into gas, and it hates the cars that run on gas.

It doesn’t matter to the left whether or not 20 jobs or 200,000 jobs are linked to a pipeline that brings oil into the United States, or whether it means that gas prices will go up.  Never mind that it is poor people who must use their cars to get to work are the one’s who get hurt the most by high prices at the pump.

The poor, huddled masses are expendable in the cause of environmental purity.

The left wants us in electric cars on a grid powered by solar and wind power.  And killing Keystone is just one more way to force this clean energy utopia upon us.

In the end, the GOP must tell the American people the truth: that the president caved to his progressive base by rejecting a proposal which has already gotten regulatory approval, and which would have immediately put thousands of Americans back to work.  This represents a big opportunity for conservatives to show that despite his rhetoric, Barack Obama is a committed left-wing ideologue.

And Keystone is the proof.




Newt’s Night

I really enjoyed watching Newt last night in the South Carolina debate.  He just killed it.  His back and forth with Juan Williams
on minority (un)employment showed that when Newt is on, he really can nail the left on its abject lack of common sense.  When Williams asked Newt whether suggesting that having poor kids work as janitors is somehow “racially insensitive” and demeaning to minorities, Newt simply said, “no”.  He went on to say:

I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job.

Only on the left is having a job as a janitor worse than no job at all.  Of course, being a lowly janitor is no job for a poor person, right?  After all, it’s much better economically to stay home and collect welfare, food stamps and all sorts of other federal and state programs.

All of which is to state the obvious about leftism — it’s more concerned with equality than with opportunity.  In this view of the world, the person who started in the mail room and grew up to be the CEO of the company is a (literal) impossibility.  Work where? In the mail room? And risk a paper cut? (wait, do they even have mail rooms any more?  Never mind — you get the idea).

On the left, work that isn’t well paid with cradle-to-grave benefits is somehow demeaning and not worth having.  The left misses an essential point that conservatives seem to understand clearly: work is, in itself, an essential element of a healthy life.  Work generates self-esteem, independence and the ability to make independent decisions.  It’s affirming.  Whether it’s being a janitor or a bus driver or a construction worker, earning a pay check is a good thing.

So the crowd last night at the South Carolina debate stood and cheered Newt when he pointed out the shear lunacy of Williams’ question, and responded with a credo that any conservative can support: we affirm the right for any American — of any background or race — to get a job and make something of themselves.  It’s the American dream.

A Shameful Attack on Romney

I am sympathetic to Libertarian views, though I don’t consider myself to be one.  Many of the issues that animate the Paul campaign, for example — fealty to the Constitution, limited government, return to fiscal fundamentals, states rights — all appeal to me greatly.  I believe in the ideals of America as a place where individual liberty is God given, and that the government’s power exists only by virtue of the consent of the people.  It’s a vitally important concept that is being undermined by a steady onslaught of left-wing statism, and it must be preserved at all costs.

And how is that best preserved?  At its core, individual liberty is one of economic self-determination.  It is being able to act as an individual in the marketplace of ideas and commerce.  It is being free to make decisions — for good or for ill — on the basis of one’s God-given abilities.  This is the core of liberty: freedom of choice, freedom of action.  Freedom to fail.

Which is why the spurious attacks on Mitt Romney and his tenure at Bain Capital are so damning in my eyes — and which only serve to reinforce how far much of the GOP has strayed from true conservative ideals.  The notion that Paul, Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman would skewer Romney for his work at Bain — where he created wealth for millions of employees and shareholders alike — is something out of the Nancy Pelosi playbook.  How can anyone who claims he is a conservative be critical of the marketplace working as it is designed?  Because people lost their jobs?  Capitalism is a creatively destructive process.  That’s what gives us progress.  If that were not so, we’d all be typing on IBM Selectric typewriters today and not Apple iPads.

I admit to being a fan of Mitt Romney.  Not because he is the most conservative candidate in the field — he is certainly not.  But because he is someone who has taken real risks in life and seen the fruit of his labors lead to phenomenal success.  Is that not a great role model for the value of democratic free markets?  A self-made success?  What could be better?

Our way of life is under attack — and it is a very basic struggle.  Are we going to continue to be a nation of liberty?  Or will we all become wards of the state like in Europe, where liberty is secondary to the collective good?  How can we choose anyone who will attack free market capitalism as our next leader?

Besides, we already have one of those — his name is Barack Obama and he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

We are all Euros, now

President Barack Obama went to the Pentagon this past week, and laid bare his Euro-like vision for America for all to see.

It goes something like this:

  • First, you assume that you have just fought the “war to end all wars”, so you promptly state that the “tide of war is receding” and you proceed to “turn the page” — presumably to a kinder, gentler chapter.
  • Next, you promptly cut defense budgets and spend what you see is a peace “dividend” (made possible, remember, because you have turned that page as the war tides receded).
  • And what do you spend that dividend on?  More social programs, pork barrel projects for public sector unions and other goodies to keep the people dependent and happy.
  • Except eventually you realize that the money isn’t going to last forever.  And when it runs out, all those fat, happy public employees, unions, and others on the dole begin protesting and rioting in the streets, claiming that they aren’t getting their “fair share”.
  • Suddenly you realize that you no longer have an effective military force, but you do have an army of smelly, dirty people inhabiting your public squares.
  • Finally, you realize that only higher taxes can solve this problem, so you institute a vast new Value Added Tax, designed to tax consumption along every step of the supply chain, but hidden deep in the prices of consumer goods and services.
  • The VAT raises vast new gobs of money, which, in the spirit of good government, is promptly spent on even greater social service benefits, payoffs to preferred groups and patrons of those in power.
  • Alas, even the VAT can’t sate the appetite of the people, who have let their ability to provide for themselves whither away, atrophied at the alter of transfer payments from Big Brother.  Who will take care of these poor wretched souls?

Fear not, say the intellectual elite, those who certainly know better than the rest of us. The IMF, the World Bank and, of course, the Chinese stand ready to help us in our time of need.


Obama: Seizing defeat in Iraq

Barack Obama has never hidden his profound disdain for the U.S. war in Iraq. As an Illinois State Senator, Obama took to the podium to denounce the war as a mistake.  Later, as a U.S. Senator, Obama spoke often about the folly of the war, joining Harry “the war is lost” Reid in unequivocally denouncing the Bush Administration’s 2007 “surge” as a certain failure. In 2008, as the Democratic presidential candidate, Obama said repeatedly that unlike Afghanistan (the “necessary war”), Iraq was a costly “war of choice”. Indeed, in a speech in July, 2008, Obama said the following:

“This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.”

So it is no surprise that since becoming president, Obama has presided over the final removal of all U.S. forces in Iraq, and now is set to watch all of the hard-earned gains there fall apart. Just hours after the last U.S. troops left Iraq for Kuwait, the government of Shiite Prime Minister Maliki launched a very public campaign against his Sunni Vice President for organizing the assassination of Shiites, including government officials. The Iraqi Vice President has now fled Baghdad. At the same time, a number of Sunni-dominated provinces are seeking more autonomy from Baghdad — a process that is likely to intensify in the coming weeks as Shiite and Sunni tension increases. Over the past several weeks, sectarian conflict has resulted in multiple suicide attacks and targeted violence, including a massive bombing in Baghdad on January 5 that left 69 Iraqi Shiites dead.

And now it seems that one of America’s chief nemesis during the bloody pre-surge days, Moqtada al Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric, is now poised to reassert himself as a destabilizing force. The result may very well be a return to the dark days of the insurgency, when Iraq faced disintegration and all out civil war.

This was, of course, all but predictable. A number of current and former U.S. military leaders — including former JCS Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen — warned Obama that leaving Iraq without a sufficient U.S. security presence was exceedingly dangerous. And many Iraqis stressed the same thing: As former Shiite Prime Minister Allawi said this past week, “The Americans have pulled out without completing the job they should have finished. We have warned them that we don’t have a political process which is inclusive of all Iraqis, and we don’t have a full-blown state in Iraq.”

The Iraqis may have warned Obama, but the president made a calculated decision to put politics over policy, and leave anyway. In doing so he has burnished his anti-war credentials with his base, which is still smarting over the fact that Guantanamo remains open. And it reinforces his plan to reduce defense spending by an unprecedented amount, a savings he plans on redistributing to his union benefactors.

In an age where it is hard not to be cynical about politics, Obama has proved to be the Cynic-in-Chief: he has forsaken the 4,000 American lives that were lost in creating the opportunity for a working democracy in Iraq, all in name of reelection. And he has left Iraq in a position of extreme vulnerability — both to internal sectarian strife and to external incursion from Iran and Al Qaeda.

In Iowa, A Tale of Two Speeches

I watched with interest both “victory” speeches last night after the Iowa Caucuses — the first by Rick Santorum and the second by Mitt Romney.  As I write this a total of five votes separate the two, with Santorum in the lead after 98% of the vote counted. Conventional wisdom in primary elections holds that even if Romney eeks out a small numerical victory in the end, Santorum’s unexpected strong showing makes this a victory irregardless of the vote tally.  Coming out of Iowa, the GOP contest looks increasingly like a two-person race.

And if the victory speeches are any indication, I think Romney may be in for a tough fight.  Santorum spoke without notes, from the heart, invoking his faith, his love of family and country, in a very personal way.  His goal was to introduce himself to arguably the largest TV audience he has ever spoken to — something he did exceedingly well.  He talked about his ideas for the country, his desire to return America back to “first principles” — to the notion that the Constitution creates government derived from the God-given consent of the people,  and that the state works for us and not the other way around.   It was compelling, and will clearly appeal to the Libertarian-leaning conservatives who are searching for a Romney alternative, and who know that Ron Paul can’t win.  They very well may have found one tonight. [Read more…]