On NBC’s Meet the Press with David Gregory Sunday, Arizona Senator John McCain “guaranteed” that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United will ultimately lead to a scandal involving “foreign money… or the way the money was raised.”  McCain’s guarantee – which will no doubt be proven true by time and the mere fact that dirty politics extend to every branch of the tree of politics – followed a rant where he condemned Super PAC’s and The Supreme Court of the United States for its ruling in Citizens United.

Asked by Gregory what he thinks of the “negative ads” that have been generated by Super PAC’s, McCain said he “condemns them on all sides”; and then went on to say,

“And I condemn the United States Supreme Court for their naivete in their decision of Citizens United - which is an outrage.”

Condemn is kind of a strong word, no?  Dude’s a bleeping hypocrite.  If he was running in this race, he too would have a Super PAC – or two – doing his dirty work from a distance.  Disagree with the ruling, draft legislation to overturn it; but “condemning” the Supreme Court for a “Free Speech” ruling in the field of campaign finance???  Really?  Has anyone ever heard McCain this “outraged” about Roe v. Wade?  Ever heard him “condemn” anyone for that decision?  I must have missed it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Speaker of the House John Boehner sat down with George Stephanopoulos fill-in Jake Tapper Sunday on This Week and was asked to weigh in on a variety of topics ranging from the resignation of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to the GOP field and the Keystone Pipeline.  It would be more than dishonest to say that anything game-changing or even newsworthy came out of the interview, but he is the Speaker of the House, so here you go.   Knock yourself out…

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker says he knows State of the Union Addresses are typically happy-talk-poll-tested statements; but he hopes tonight’s presidential address is not that or simply another “campaign message.”  Instead, Senator Corker hopes the president will “take the opportunity to address the really big issues that our country is facing” because he says the “greatness of our nation is dissipating” as we continue to put off the big decisions until after the next election.

Fair enough.

For what it’s worth, I truly believe that Senator Corker really hopes he’ll see and hear President Obama call for those things this evening.  Truth be told, I have a “really hope” of my own.  I “really hope” the president uses this opportunity to announce that he won’t seek re-election because he wants to spend his last year in office really addressing the “big issues” that threaten our country.  That said, I think we’re both going to be rather disappointed later on this evening.

There’s just no part of me that believes said president A) believes our country’s greatness is dissipating because if he did, he wouldn’t continue contributing to it with his policies; or B) would be willing to use this Address as an opportunity to sincerely discuss the “big issues” threatening our country’s well-being; or C) would ever dream of using this Address as anything but a platform for launching his re-election campaign and firing the first shot of his blame Republicans so no one looks at my record candidacy.

Either way, I applaud Senator Corker for his optimism.  At times I’ve been somewhat critical of the senator from my home state of Tennessee, but I’ve never doubted even for a moment that he sincerely believes the problems in Washington can be corrected with the right people and the right message.  Doing what I do here, it’s easy to grow very cynical of the people and the process.  I can’t help but imagine how maddening it must be on the “inside.”  For that, and for his unwavering commitment to serving as a symbol that “change” in Washington is still within the realm of possibility, I commend the distinguished Senator from Tennessee; but “hope” and “Obama” are just two words I really struggle to string together in a sentence.

Here’s a brief and somewhat paraphrased summary of the rest of his pre-address address.

1) “The tax code has $1.2 trillion dollar in exemptions; credits.  If we could do away with those “tax expenditures, we could lower everybody’s marginal rate.”  - He believes that could be the catalyst that could make the economy “take off.”

2.)  He then says (1) must be combined with “longer term entitlement reform.”  ”I don’t know of anybody here that doesn’t want to see Social Security and Medicare solvent for the long haul, but all of us know reforms have to begin or that’s not going to be the case.”

3.)  Link to overall longer term deficit reduction.

Conclusion:  ”I really do believe that if the president would take the opportunity to address the big issues of our country – not these little window dressing items that sound great but really don’t affect anything – if he would do that, I really do believe our country would be on our way from where we are today where the greatness of our country is dissipating as we put these items off until after the next election.”  I hope for the good of our country, the president will address the big items we need to address.”

If only we had the president he “hopes” we have.

Keep the faith Senator Corker… Someone has to.

In light of the fact that President Obama is set to deliver a State of the Union Address tonight that most believe will focus on continuing the progressive narrative and 2012 re-election slogan that “rich people don’t pay their fair share of taxes”; I thought it was a wonderful moment to share a few words about a book I’ve just finished reading that explores this “have-nots versus haves” mindset from a rather unique perspective.

In A Nation of Moochers: America’s Addiction to Getting Something for Nothing (St. Martin’s Press), author Charles J. Sykes asks the threshold question “Have we reached the tipping point where more Americans depend on the efforts of others than on their own?  Are we becoming a nation of moochers?”

To answer that question, Sykes explores the current political and cultural environment – everything from Wall Street bailouts and entitlement programs to government-run health care and corporate tax exemptions.  The book, while an urgent plea for a return to personal responsibility and self-determination, is anything but a work that completely dismisses the need for “compassion” and a safety net for those less fortunate.  It simply suggests that any effort to address those concerns should be based on “needs” rather than “wants.”  The author aptly states that “some” may very well find themselves in “need” of assistance; but things like government-paid-for electric vehicles are anything but “needs.”

The highlight of the book for me was a very simply stated but absolutely brilliant “Abbreviated History of Mooching.”  Therein, the author describes the devolution of personal property that has resulted and continues to be threatened at the hands of government and those who aim to take from the haves and redistribute to the have-nots.  Using the story of the “farmer” who harvests his crop to feed his family and sells the excess at market – thereby further contributing to society through commerce, the author explains how the strategies of moochers have evolved over time – ever increasing their grip on a share of the farmer’s property.  Detailing the encroachments of the “early moocher”, the “feudal moocher”, and the “modern moocher”, the author charts a sobering path to a day when the “farmer” simply disappears and gives up on his labor; rather than watching the fruit of said labor be taken away and distributed between his neighbors and the government that purports to serve him.

As most of you probably know, I don’t endorse or even review very many books.  There is just so little time and usually by the time I get around to reading them, a review is anything but timely or appropriate.  A Nation of Moochers finds itself in that rare class for a number of reasons but none more influential than the fact that it was written in both an academic and comfortingly conversational tone.  Accordingly, it is a fantastic read for the political scholar in search of a new perspective on the age-old problem of socio-economic leveling; or the causal reader frustrated with the entitlement culture in this country and fed up with working to earn an honest living while “moochers” sit idly by and collect government handouts on their dime – or dollar.

—

About the author:  Charles J. Sykes is a radio talk show host at WTMJ radio in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; a columnist who has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today and the CNI Newspaper chain; and a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.  He is the author of five previous books: A Nation of Victims, Dumbing Down Our Kids, Profscam, The End of Privacy, and 50 Rules Kids Won’t Learn in School.

You can read more about Mr. Sykes here at his blog; or here for info on his radio program..

His two latest posts…

Big Labor’s Revenge Binge

Stop Bankrupting America

—

A Nation of Moochers: America’s Addiction to Getting Something for Nothing can be purchased here… or here…

As a proud Nashville resident, I love seeing my fine city in the news.  I love it even more when the subject matter of the national headline involved is anything not related to country music.  Music City’s not a one-trick-pony after all.  We do other things around here too – like detain US Senators at the airport.  Not exactly what I was getting at…

Was the “detention” unconstitutional?

The White House is standing by the actions taken by the TSA…

A few thoughts here…

Senator Paul – like his father – has been a very outspoken critic of the TSA and other government agencies infringing on the Rights of private citizens.  Because of that, I can’t say I’m all that surprised to hear he found himself in a dust-up like this.  That said, there is the other side of my brain that thinks this little ordeal is more than a little bit convenient given the fact that his father is currently running for the Republican nomination and is certain to receive a question about the incident in tonight’s debate.  What better way to state the case of an over-reaching government and a police state motivated by “terrorist paranoia” than to use the detention of a US senator on his way back to Washington as Exhibits A, B, and C?

–

Image credit : WSMV Nashville

If anyone out there is looking for a contrast between and among candidates in the current Republican field for the Party’s nomination, you need only look to Congressman Ron Paul and former Senator Rick Santorum if you need a shining example.  Frankly, I can’t think of two more different political figures in the Republican Party – let alone the in the current presidential field.  Thursday night, their differences were on full display when the South Carolina debate turned to the topic of Abortion.

Just as a bit of background to the video posted below.  Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum were each given a chance to share their “Right to Life” bona fides.  When King tried to move on without giving Paul a chance to do the same, the audience began booing and shouting for Paul to have the opportunity.  He seized that opportunity to remind the audience that he was the only doctor in the field – also reminding the audience how ridiculous it was for King to casually pass him over.  Somewhere in his spiel, he said something that led Senator Santorum to believe he was being singled out.  The following back-and-forth ensued peaking with Congressman Paul saying “I wasn’t even thinking about you… so you are overly sensitive.”

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum says front-runner Mitt Romney’s role in Massachusetts health care is a problem for the former Governor and the Party as we move to choose a candidate to oppose President Obama in 2012.  His argument?

“The idea that you have created a marketplace… is just like what President Obama is trying to put in place here.   You are arguing for a plan, your defending a plan, that is not top-down.  It is not a free market health care system… It was the basis for Obama Care.  You do not draw a distinction for us that is going to be effective for us just because it was the state level and not the federal level.”

Fair or foul?  I’d venture to guess that most of you probably agree with Senator Santorum – at least in part – here.  Even if you’re a Romney supporter, I’m fairly certain you’ve at some point along the way entertained the thought that the Obama team will do everything in its power to link Romney to the bastardized creation and it probably scared the hell out of you.  I know it’s among my greatest fears when I think ahead to what a Romney v. Obama contest could ultimately look like.

The way I see it.  Romney Care all but takes hammering Obama Care off the table for no less than 50% of potential voters.  I’ll let you guess the half that will still see a distinction between the two.

That said, it seems to me that folks supporting Romney have already factored that shortfall into their calculus for choosing a candidate from the current field.  Much like Newt supporters have weighed and measured the impact of the Former Speaker’s baggage, Romney supporters have clearly made the decision that even with Romney Care, Romney’s still their guy.

Do I think Santorum scored points with this back-and-forth?  Absolutely.  The only problem is that it’s my belief that said points were probably only scored with deeply conservative voters who weren’t going to vote for Romney in the first place.  Santorum’s fight’s with Newt.

I’m not sure if I’ve shared this here before or not; but I was in my first year of Law School in New York City during the Bush v. Kerry presidential contest, and was surrounded by an overwhelming majority of liberals for the first time in my life as a product of Tennessee.  Had it not been for a new friend I “met” shortly after arriving in the Big Apple, I’m not sure I could have made it through that semester without going to jail for punching a liberal – or twelve.  That “friend” was a voice on AM radio – none other than Mark Levin.  While I was always a fan of conservative talk radio, Levin’s program (at the time) had not yet reached Nashville airwaves.  Accordingly, he was a new voice to me and one that resonated unlike any I’d come across in a long history of listening to similar programs.

Levin is a Constitutional scholar and a deeply committed defender of Liberty and Founding Principles.  His take on conservatism is unimpeachable and his delivery in sharing that message is – from where I sit – without equal.  Whether behind a microphone or putting pen to paper, Levin is the preeminent “voice” of conservatism in this generation, period.

But enough of that.  As you can see in this interview, he’s not one for hearing that kind of lofty praise.  He broadcasts from a “bunker” because he’s anything but comfortable in front of a camera.  That said, he ventures out from time-to-time for brief appearances such as this to share his work and to promote the fundamental principles promoted therein.  If you’ve never picked up one of his books, you’ll no doubt be surprised by how effortless he makes the undertaking of reading what could amount to a political treatise.  He covers heady topics with a conversational style that can appeal to anyone from any walk of life.  Whether you’re a casual observer of all things political or a 24/7 political junkie, you are destined to be entertained and educated with every turn of the page.

As to “Ameritopia”, I’ve yet to read the book.  I actually plan to purchase a copy this weekend and read it along with another book I recently received “A Nation of Moochers: America’s Addiction to Getting Something for Nothing” by Charles J Sykes.  I’ll be sure to report back to you on both once I have completed them.

But until then, you can purchase Mr. Levin’s book or Mr. Sykes book here…

And here’s the interview with Hannity…

Senate Majority Leader popped by to see his old pal David Gregory Sunday on Meet the Press and decided to use the opportunity to clear up a few things.  First, the Tea Party is fading and losing influence as the “economy improves.”  That was two – just in case you missed one.  The Tea Party is losing its significance and the economy is getting better.

But wait, it gets better.  Harry Reid also says that Republicans have engaged in what he refers to as “Obstructionism on steroids.”  You see, it’s their fault that this Congress is destined to go down as one of the most incompetent in history.  It has absolutely nothing to do with his leadership of the Senate, of course.

So, yes… those muscle-bound Republicans have obstructed his party’s initiatives and have made their primary objective – making President Obama a one-term president.  Remember that line?  Like anyone could ever forget it.  It’s been and will continue to be the go-to line of Re-Elect Obama aka Blame Republicans for My Suckiness 2012.

Here’s the video with the rest of it.  Watch at your own risk.  I assume no responsibility for the sadness that will no doubt overcome you when you realize this is the man that successfully managed to help outwit Republican leadership to bring us ObamaCare.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

While I’m willing to bet you tuned in for the Broncos-Patriots Game on CBS to see Tim Tebow and Tom Brady going head-to-head, if you’re like me, you probably lost interest somewhere on or around the first quarter and began wondering how bad the beating could be before the final whistle blew.  While my mind drifted off to other things whilst watching said beatdown, I pulled up Google Trends to see how much of the top 20 was dominated by Tebow, Brady, Denver Broncos, NFL, playoffs, etc.  And just as I expected, the list was overrun with Tebow-Mania and topics related to the NFL and the last-minute finish between the 49ers and the Saints… save for one.

An ad by Focus on the Family.

Look for this adorable lil girl right after the lil boy powerfully and poignantly utters the word that brings the entire commercial full-circle… “LIFE!”  Her response was equally game-stopping.

I don’t know Mr. Tebow, but I’m fairly certain he would agree.