Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Tag Archives: CPAC

Who is Grover Norquist, Really?

English: at CPAC in .

English: at CPAC in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It was brought to my attention yesterday that I’ve been perhaps too generous in my praise of Grover Norquist. the founder of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and the man responsible for getting huge numbers of Representatives and Senators to sign his Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Indeed I, like many others, have enjoying quoting his most favorite saying: “I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

I also like what ATR stands for: it “opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle.” So if so many credible people over such a long period of time think Norquist is OK, then who am I to argue?

Except that I’ve discovered there’s more to the man than just what is published at Wikipedia, although that’s a good place to start. Wiki states that he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) about which I know more than the average bear, having read several exposes of it and have watched its influence expand over the past 40 years. I agree with those who consider the CFR the center of the Anglo-American establishment that Carroll Quigley has written about, as well as James Perloff.

Wiki also notes that Norquist founded something called the Islamic Free Market Institute where Wiki provides us with this chilling bit of information: 

Keep Reading…

The Not-So-Lame Duck Session

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 12, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Phyllis Schlafly, a long-time activist and freedom fighter, just turned 88 in August, and is just as vigorous and vociferous in her views as ever. One of her concerns is that the lame duck session of the Senate could vote to approve one or more of those vicious UN treaties that haven’t been getting much attention in the mainstream media. Schlafly knows the score, and who’s behind the push:

The globalists have been plotting to use the volatility of this lame-duck session to achieve some of their internationalist goals that they couldn’t get passed during the last four years. In particular, they would like to lock us into treaties that slice out various parts of our national sovereignty, a concept that they have been trying to promote as obsolete.

One of the major pieces of a national sovereignty which the “globalists” consider as obsolete – actually more of an an impediment – is the Second Amendment:

The globalists could make a surprise treaty push for ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (UNATT). This treaty is coming under the radar since gun control advocates know it could never pass the U.S. Senate after debate in broad daylight.

The gun control advocates assume that private ownership of guns is inherently dangerous. They hope they can achieve their goal of prohibiting private ownership by the covert strategy of a treaty with vague language, and, so far, they have been successful in avoiding media attention.

But this isn’t the only treaty that could be presented to

Keep Reading…

Ann Coulter’s True Colors

English: Commentator and author at CPAC in .

English: Commentator and author at CPAC in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For the most part I enjoy reading Ann Coulter’s columns. True, sometimes she is over the top with her vitriol, but most of the time her targets deserve it.

But her column today betrays her. She makes two mistakes immediately – two incorrect assumptions in my view – and comes out with the inevitable wrong conclusion: Romney is our man!

Assumption number one:

The single most important issue in this election is ending the national nightmare of Obamacare.

If Obamacare if not stopped, it will permanently change the political culture of this country. There will be no going back. America will become a less productive, less wealthy nation. What wealth remains will have to be plowed into Obamacare — to the delight only of the tens of thousands of government bureaucrats administering it.

Has she been away? There is credible persuasive evidence that the slide – the push – into socialism began in 1887 when President Cleveland signed into law the Interstate Commerce Act. Others say it began in earnest under

Keep Reading…

Answering the “What-Ifs” of November

Judge Andrew Napolitano – What if November Changes Nothing?

What if they both support the authority of the federal government to spy on Americans without search warrants? What if they both support confining foreigners, uncharged and untried, in Guantanamo Bay? What if they both believe the president can arrest without charge and confine without trial any American he hates or fears?

English: Judge recording an episode of at CPAC...

English: Judge recording an episode of at CPAC in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It has been my contention for a long time that Alabama Governor George Wallace was right when he said in 1968 that “There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties!” In this article at Townhall, Judge Napolitano uses the rhetorical tool to prove it.

What if they both support the authority of the federal government to spy on Americans without search warrants?

Answer: They both will. They both have. The target is Americans’ privacy, all in the name of security.

What if they both support confining foreigners, uncharged and untried, in Guantanamo Bay?

Answer: They both will. They both have. There will be no change, regardless of what happens in November.

What if they both believe the president can arrest without charge and confine without trial any American he hates or fears?

Answer: They both believe that. They are both totalitarians with no regard for Constitutional niceties such as the Fourth Amendment.

What if both major presidential candidates believe they can fight any war, assassinate any foe or assault any country using the military or the CIA, and they need not ask Congress for a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, nor account to Congress or the public as the law requires?

Answer: They both do. How do I know? Look at those advising Romney on foreign policy and compare them to those advising Obama. They are from the same internationalist Council on Foreign Relations! What a surprise!

You get the idea. The Judge has done us a good service by pointing out using his rhetorical questions how little difference there is between these two birds. Or as another wag has said: “the two wings of the same bird of prey.”

Path to Prosperity: Better Than Nothing?

Daniel J. Mitchell: Explaining Ryan’s Budget in the Wall Street Journal

The era of bipartisan big government may have come to an end. Largely thanks to Rep. Paul Ryan and the fiscal blueprint he prepared as chairman of the House Budget Committee earlier this year, the GOP has begun climbing back on the wagon of fiscal sobriety and has shown at least some willingness to restrain the growth of government.

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Some willingness?” This frankly is about the best anyone can say about Ryan’s plan, the Path to Prosperity. My biggest problem is that nowhere does anyone, including Mitchell (who calls himself, unabashedly, “a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute”), refer, at least once, to the Constitutional limitations on government. It’s as if that is now an irrelevant consideration, not even worth talking about.

Put another way, without Constitutional restraints, we’re left foundering in the sea, trying to make do the best we can with what we have: no fixed stars, no guidance, no direction, no signposts. Just bumbling along the best we can.

Here’s what I mean:

The most important headline about the Ryan budget is that it limits the growth rate of federal spending, with outlays increasing by an average of 3.1% annually over the next 10 years. …limiting spending so it grows by 3.1% per year, as Mr. Ryan proposes, quickly leads to less red ink. This is because federal tax revenues are projected by the House Budget Committee to increase 6.6% annually over the next 10 years if the House budget is approved (and this assumes the Bush tax cuts are made permanent).

Ah, that’s the goal: less red ink. Slow down the bus a little bit. But what’s the goal, the end point? How will we know we’ve succeeded? Is actual shrinkage of government even mentioned? Of course not. Mitchell seems to think that the purpose of the economy is to generate revenues for the government!

Even Mitchell admits it:

No, it doesn’t bring the federal government back down to 3 percent of GDP, so it’s not libertarian Nirvana.

But we manage to stay out of fiscal hell, so that counts for something.

But not much.

Did Romney Make a Mistake in Turning Down Trump’s Debate?

Mitt Romney Steve Pearce event 057

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declined Donald Trump’s invitation to participate in his December 27 debate, sponsored by Newsmax Media and ION TV in Des Moines, Iowa, saying “We [already] have two debates in December that I’ve agreed to participate in. The rest of the month will be spent campaigning.”

Trump was gracious in his response, saying: “It would seem logical to me that if I was substantially behind in the polls, especially in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, I would want to participate in this debate. But I understand why Gov. Romney decided not to do it.”

But all Trump’s response did was to raise questions: Was Romney really that busy? Would his campaign benefit by his absence, appearing to be aloof and “above the fray” while his lessers battled between themselves? Did Romney want to put some distance between himself and Trump, as that relationship was appearing to be getting awfully cozy? Would Romney’s absence spell the death knell for the debate now that three of the contenders were planning to be campaigning elsewhere?

Keep Reading…

Senator Orrin Hatch: This Pitchfork’s for You!

Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT

Image by Be the Change, Inc. via Flickr

Last Wednesday Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utahverbally polished his “fiscal conservative” spectacles for the benefit of non-believers in Utah who are threatening to support opposition to his run for re-election to his seventh term in 2012. He told the Senate Finance Committee that if fiscal reforms “fall prey to gimmicks, are waived or otherwise undermined…my sense is that the people will come to this Capitol with pitchforks and torches they will be so upset. And they’d be right to do so.”

Keep Reading…

Donald Trump’s Ideology

Donald Trump

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

When potential Presidential candidate Donald Trump was asked by George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s “Good Morning America”, what he would do, as President, about soaring gasoline prices, he replied:

Look at what’s going on with your gasoline prices. They’re going to go to $5, $6, $7 and we don’t have anybody in Washington that calls OPEC and says, “Fellas, it’s time. It’s over. You’re not going to do it anymore.”

Keep Reading…

Donald Trump the Populist and Pragmatist

Donald Trump & Melania enter the Oscar De LA R...

Image via Wikipedia

The February 22nd Newsweek poll followed by the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showing billionaire Donald Trump eclipsing his nearest Republican rivals and even challenging incumbent President Obama has caused some commentators to look past his rhetoric to see where “The Donald” really stands on major issues. Jonathan Hoenig, writing for SmartMoney.com, says that “Trump’s primary appeal is undoubtedly his business experience.

Given the nation’s festering inflation, exploding deficit and still moribund economy, there’s obvious interest in leaders who promote fiscal conservatism, capitalism and growth. The problem is: Donald Trump isn’t one of them.”

Keep Reading…

Rubio: The First Tea Party Senator?

Photo of Marco Rubio taken on April 14, 2008 i...

Image via Wikipedia

The Republican primary in Florida, which pits Governor Charlie Crist against Marco Rubio, is being watched carefully as a harbinger for the impact the Tea Party may have on the midterm elections. Six months ago Crist was leading all challengers, according to Rasmussen Reports, but now Crist is tied with former state House Speaker Marco Rubio.

On social issues, Crist takes traditional conservative positions including support for gun rights and capital punishment, and opposition to elective abortion and same-sex marriage. He supported John McCain’s candidacy for President in 2008, but got in trouble by supporting Obama’s stimulus bill.

Keep Reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2020 Bob Adelmann