Category Archives: Harry Reid

By Big Governement
June 29, 2010
Leave a Comment

Obama’s Dilemma: Heavy Leadership Responsibility – Light Leadership Aptitude

The president’s recent disappointing oval office speech elicited a chorus of criticism from across the political spectrum.  For some reason the speech seems to have put a spotlight on the president as a leader, whereas other misjudgments in which he was directly involved in making policy had not.  The oil spill, which was certainly no fault of Mr. Obama, seems to have finally caused the public and many of his cheerleaders among the pundits to focus on the president’s substance and not his style.  That has been the unspoken, elephant-in- the-room, concern throughout his presidency, his aptitude for leadership.  We are reminded of the lead-in lyrics to the signature song Ethel Merman belts out in Gypsy… Curtain up…light the lights…you either got it…or you ain’t.”

obamamirror-1

President Obama seems to have the curtain up, light the lights part down pat.  The dramatic campaign and convention stage sets, his world photo-op tours, his big oval-office backdrop to his little oval-office speech, and his ever-masterful use of the teleprompter have all produced a “strike-up-the-band” expectation whenever and wherever he appears. It’s the “you either got it, or you ain’t” part that seems finally to have focused the public on the president’s aptitude for leadership.

The befouling glob that threatens hundreds of miles of coast or, as Peggy Noonan put it recently so aptly in the Wall Street Journal, “the monster from under the sea,” seems to be a metaphor for the president’s inability to shape the world as he wants it to be.  Speeches are not a substitute for coherent policy.  The president, with the entire world watching his prime time speech, essentially punted.  He pulled from the presidential duck-and-cover arsenal the time-tested, yawn producer of presidents bereft of solutions to all manner of problems…the formation of a new blue-ribbon commission.  This was the cornerstone of his “battle plan” to face down the “siege” of big oil’s attack on our Gulf coast.

There is nothing more to be said about the quality of Mr. Obama’s oval-office speech debut.  It seems as if all the commentators from Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman and Jon Stewart on the left, to Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove on the right have already done that.  Besides, there is something much more revealing that is apparent here.  It isn’t about the delivery by the man who gave the speech; it is, rather, about the man who delivered the speech.  The disappointing oval-office moment was more than just a lack of writing skill by some wordsmith presidential speechwriter; it focused the attention of the American people on the man himself and on what they hoped just wasn’t so; an apparent lack of the leadership aptitude which a president must possess if he or she is to succeed.


The evidence of weak leadership skills was there before but it became shrouded in the president’s rock star image. The fact is that there was very little about Barack Obama’s pre-presidential career that suggested any real aptitude for leadership.  There was always plenty of “curtain up, light the lights” but the demonstration of leadership part was always a bit like a clock striking thirteen. That is to say, not quite reassuring.

His career as a legislator in Illinois, while always well hyped, was less than impressive.  His biggest legislative achievement in Illinois seems to be the nearly 130 times he chose to vote “present” rather than “yea” or “nay” on major bills.  And yes, we’ve heard or read the standard excuse for this apparent ambivalence.  “It’s the way things are often done in the Illinois Senate,” we’re told.  But since when has doing things the way they are done in Illinois met the definition of leadership anywhere outside of that state.

Besides, some of the “present” votes then state-Senator Obama chose to cast while in the Illinois legislature are quite revealing, if not troubling.  For example, in 1999 he was faced with a difficult vote, to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults. Understandably, many African-Americans were opposed to the bill.  On the other hand, Mr. Obama was trying to hone an image of a tough-on crime candidate. It was a difficult political call for him; so, he voted “present.”

According to the New York Times, on at least 36 occasions state-Senator Obama was either the only state senator to vote “present” or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.  Politically, the option to vote “present” provides a certain amount of cover. It is a way for the faint of heart, in effect, to say, “I don’t particularly like this bill, but I don’t want to take the political risk of taking a stand.”

The juvenile crime bill was to allow offenders as young as 15 to be prosecuted as adults if charged with committing a crime with a firearm on, or near, schools. Both houses passed the measure handily. State-Senator Obama justified his “present” vote by opining there was no proof that increasing penalties for young offenders reduced crime. Mr. Obama’s aides said he was more concerned about whether the bill would be effective rather than with its political consequences.  They did not explain, however, why he did not just vote “no”.

There were other “present” votes, in which part-time law-lecturer Obama, according to the New York Times, said he had concerns about the constitutionality or effectiveness of some provisions. Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote “yea” or “nay” on a bill that would allow certain victims of sex crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted “present” on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence.

On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone “present” vote in a 58-to-0 vote.  When it appeared that this vote might become an issue in the presidential race Mr. Obama’s campaign said he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment. The bill had passed 112-0-0 in the Illinois House and 58-0-1 in the state Senate.  Again, why didn’t he just vote, “no”?

In 2000, Mr. Obama was one of two senators who voted present on a bill on whether facts not presented to a jury could later be the basis for increasing an offender’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum. The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were “present”, including Mr. Obama’s.  Mr. Obama’s campaign said he voted present to register his dissatisfaction with how the bill was put together. He believed (hold on to your hat) the bill was rushed to the floor and that lawmakers were deprived of time to consider it.  Oddly, this hasn’t been a problem for the president with bills passed in the House and Senate of the United States.

The Times also reported that Mr. Obama was the sole “present” vote on a bill that easily passed the Illinois Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted “present” on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship, which ultimately did not pass the Illinois Senate.  In both of those cases, his campaign said (hold on to your hat again) he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities.  This from, now, President Obama, who has gone on, arguably, to impose the greatest funded and unfunded mandates on local authorities in the nation’s history.

But enough of ancient history.  Fast forward to the centerpiece of his first year in office, health-care reform.  Many on the left, and even some on the right, suggest that this massive legislative “achievement” is proof that President Obama is a formidable leader. We beg to differ.  It may, indeed, prove that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority leader Harry Reid can effectively lead their party’s foot soldiers over any cliff they choose, but it really doesn’t say much about President Obama’s leadership aptitude.  Quite the opposite.   Apparently misreading the lessons of President Clinton’s terribly misdirected attempt at health-care reform, President Obama delegated the entire effort to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.  He sat by as they cobbled together (in his name) the horrific 2700-page health-care reform legislation that a substantial majority of the people consistently said they did not want and consistently continue to say they now want repealed and which a third of the states are now fighting to stop in federal court. Real leadership of the type he promised, but apparently cannot deliver, would have brought both sides together instead of putting the nation through some of the worst acrimony we can ever remember.

The curtains up…light the lights first-day-in-office announcement that the prison housing terrorists at Guantanamo Bay would be closed within a year, was an early lesson that Ruffles and Flourishes without leadership aptitude is, well, just music.  The world apology tour for American foreign policy under the Bush Administration, the Cairo speech, the presidential outstretched hand to our adversaries and the long-lapsed ultimatum for a reciprocal handshake in return, the puzzling back of the hand treatment to Britain, our closest friend since the end of World War II, the insulting treatment of our friends such as South Korea, Columbia, Honduras, and Israel, and the skyrocketing spending and the attendant ever-mounting deficits all call into question the aptitude for leadership that prevails (or is absent) at the White House.

Les Gelb wrote of Obama, “He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion.  Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is.  They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn’t — and why.  This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have.”  Mr. Obama is beginning to look to more and more of the people who were dazzled by his meteoric rise and who were looking for the political equivalent of a messiah, as a growing disappointment.  It turns out that Mr. Obama cannot by his charm, his gift-of-gab, his oratorical skills and his considerable intelligence will into reality policies that the people won’t accept and that many across the political spectrum here and abroad seriously question.  

Which brings us full circle back to where we began… the growing fiasco that continues to assault the gulf coast.  “What could the President have done to avoid the blowout at the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform?” the Administration’s defenders indignantly ask.  Nothing.  But that is the wrong question.  The more telling question would be “what could the President have done to mitigate the damage?”  And the answer to that seems to be, “plenty.”

He had the authority to waive the ridiculous and long-outdated, protectionist Jones Act that would have allowed significant expertise and siphoning capacity to be on location in the Gulf weeks ago mitigating the damage that now seems unstoppable.  But, so as not to offend labor unions or domestic shipping interests, he turned down the offers.  He could have immediately authorized Governor Bobby Jindal to begin deploying barriers parallel to the gulf coast as the governor was begging for permission to do (and for which he was still begging last week).  He could, and should, have immediately designated the most operationally competent person he could find to take charge of containment operations and to report progress to him on a daily basis.

Instead, seven weeks into this debacle, when discussing why safety precautions were not in place, Mr. Obama assured the American people “that he wants to know why.”  Of course, the answer he will soon provide is quite predictable since we have heard it many times before.  The problem, we will be told, rests with the previous Administration.  Blaming Bush, or industry or political opposition seems to be his answer for every problem.  “I inherited this mess,” he often tells us. In short, the President is not providing the leadership one would expect from a chief executive running the country.  Instead, he has responded as one would expect from a chief executive running a think tank.

Enough curtain up…light the lights.  The curtain has been up and the lights have been lighted since January 20th, 2009.  Show us you got it, Mr. President. Not that you ain’t.

By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter

By Big Governement
June 24, 2010
Leave a Comment

Union Contract: Duly Suspended Employees Get Paid For Overtime Missed!

Amazingly, Congress is trying to Force Union Contract Rules like this onto States and Localities

The New York – New Jersey Port Authority (NYNJPA) union contract with the NYNJPA’s police union provides that officers suspended with and “without pay” will still be paid for unearned overtime during their suspension.

Amazingly, Harry Reid and congress are trying right now to force this type of workplace lunacy onto states and localities through the Police Fire Fighter Forced Unionism bills (S. 3194 & H.R. 413).  If passed this will bring union officials one step closer toward mandating forced unionism for every state and local government employee.  Take Action now and let congress know that you oppose this expansion of forced unionism through federal fiat.

(more background available after the bump)

Background regarding the NYNJPA No-Work Overtime Provision

The New York Posts’ Carl Campanile writes:

Port Authority cops have an unbelievable perk that other workers can only dream of — they can collect overtime for not working.

The bizarre benefit applies to officers suspected of misconduct who are suspended with pay and later cleared or found guilty of an infraction carrying a penalty that’s short of dismissal. Suspended officers can claim overtime if no formal charges are filed within 120 days.

The theoretical overtime these cops would have made during their suspensions is based on a formula in their union contract. [see video]

According to the contract, if an officer suspended with or without pay is not dismissed, then they will receive overtime for the period that they were suspended without pay using the formula below.

The Port Authority union contract overtime formula: Port Authority Suspended Officers' Missed Overtime Formula

where “a” is the average overtime earned per pay period by the suspended Police Officer during the seventy-eight (or the actual number if less than seventy-eight) pay periods immediately prior to the pay period during which his suspension commenced;

“b” is the average overtime earned per pay period per Police Officer during those seventy-eight (or the actual number if less than seventy-eight) pay periods at the Police Command to which the suspended Police Officer was assigned during that period. If the Police Officer was assigned to more than one Police Command during that period, then the average overtime for the period shall be determined by using average overtime earned per Police Officer at each Police Command to which the Police Officer was assigned during that period for the pay periods he was assigned to that Police Command;

“c” is the initial estimate of the Police Officer’s missed overtime earned per pay period to be determined, and

“d” is the average overtime earned per pay period per Police Officer at the Police Command to which the suspended Police Officer is assigned during the same pay periods of the Police Officer’s administrative suspension.

Upon determination of “c”, that amount shall be multiplied by the number of pay periods that the Police Officer was on administrative suspension, provided that any pay period during that suspension in which the Police Officer was absent due to sickness or injury incurred in the line of duty on at least half of his scheduled work days shall not be used in that multiplication. Then, from that amount shall be subtracted all overtime, if any, earned by the Police Officer during the suspension. The resulting balance shall be paid to the Police Officer as and for missed overtime.

If a Police Officer who is suspended without pay is changed to administrative suspension or returned to full duty he shall receive payment of his full pay for the period during which he was suspended without pay except payment for missed overtime opportunities. If such Police Officer is not dismissed from employment the calculation of missed overtime opportunities shall be made in accordance with the method set forth in paragraph j (ii), above, except that the period of suspension shall include the period during which the Police Officer was suspended without pay. [Emphasis added]

By NewsBusters.org
June 24, 2010
Leave a Comment

87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama’s Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum

On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his.

This comes in response to last month's highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction.

A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures.

Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry -- something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure -- very few American media outlets bothered to report the news.

Fortunately, the Hill published the following Wednesday (h/t Weasel Zippers):

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber - the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship.

"[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass," the senators wrote.

"They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted," the letter adds.

The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel.

According to JTA.org, a similar letter has been signed by 307 Representatives in the House.

Yet, besides the Hill, LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the States.

No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press.

Why might that be?

For those interested, full text with signatories of the Senate letter is available here.

Readers are advised that too many of the signatures were illegible making it impossible to know who the thirteen Senators that didn't sign the letter are.

Stay tuned. 

By NewsBusters.org
June 24, 2010
Leave a Comment

87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama’s Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum

On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his.

This comes in response to last month's highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction.

A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures.

Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry -- something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure -- very few American media outlets bothered to report the news.

Fortunately, the Hill published the following Wednesday (h/t Weasel Zippers):

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber - the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship.

"[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass," the senators wrote.

"They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted," the letter adds.

The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel.

According to JTA.org, a similar letter has been signed by 307 Representatives in the House.

Yet, besides the Hill, LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the States.

No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press.

Why might that be?

For those interested, full text with signatories of the Senate letter is available here.

Readers are advised that too many of the signatures were illegible making it impossible to know who the thirteen Senators that didn't sign the letter are.

Stay tuned. 

By NewsBusters.org
June 24, 2010
Leave a Comment

87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama’s Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum

On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his.

This comes in response to last month's highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction.

A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures.

Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry -- something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure -- very few American media outlets bothered to report the news.

Fortunately, the Hill published the following Wednesday (h/t Weasel Zippers):

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber - the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship.

"[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass," the senators wrote.

"They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted," the letter adds.

The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel.

According to JTA.org, a similar letter has been signed by 307 Representatives in the House.

Yet, besides the Hill, LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the States.

No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press.

Why might that be?

For those interested, full text with signatories of the Senate letter is available here.

Readers are advised that too many of the signatures were illegible making it impossible to know who the thirteen Senators that didn't sign the letter are.

Stay tuned. 

By NewsBusters.org
June 24, 2010
Leave a Comment

87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama’s Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum

On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his.

This comes in response to last month's highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction.

A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures.

Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry -- something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure -- very few American media outlets bothered to report the news.

Fortunately, the Hill published the following Wednesday (h/t Weasel Zippers):

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber - the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship.

"[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass," the senators wrote.

"They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted," the letter adds.

The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel.

According to JTA.org, a similar letter has been signed by 307 Representatives in the House.

Yet, besides the Hill, LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the States.

No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press.

Why might that be?

For those interested, full text with signatories of the Senate letter is available here.

Readers are advised that too many of the signatures were illegible making it impossible to know who the thirteen Senators that didn't sign the letter are.

Stay tuned. 

By Big Governement
June 21, 2010
Leave a Comment

Unions Shouting Fire(man) In A Crowded Theater

Immediately following the 9/11 attacks in New York City, Americans were reminded just how brave and important first responders, including fire fighters, police, and EMTs, are to us. Nearly a decade on, though, Big Labor and politicians are using them as a bargaining chip to push bad legislation.

As fellow BG blogger Warner Todd Huston writes in Investors Business Daily last week, through the benignly named Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (H.R.413), Sen. Harry Reid “wants all first responders represented by collective bargaining rules emanating from Washington D.C.” He adds: Naturally this legislation is being pushed as a matter of ‘national security.’”

The problem is that the law not only is a giveaway to unions that would increase the cost of services for local and state governments, but the bill is just plain badly written. It would force significant changes in state laws for at least 16 states.

You know the bill is bad when the Washington Post editorial page is coming out against it — and the Post clearly sees through the attempt by Big Labor to leverage the public’s respect for firefighters and police.

The editors warn:

We share the bill sponsors’ esteem for first responders. They should be adequately, even generously, compensated. Still, many outsized pensions now threatening state and local governments were awarded by politicians to curry favor with public-safety unions. To be sure, the bill includes a compromise provision assuring states that they don’t have to bargain over pensions. But it hardly matters. The bill further empowers an already strong lobby that could use its additional clout to pressure state legislators to allow pension-bargaining anyway — or to enact such benefits by statute. This bill is a bad idea whose time, we hope, has still not come.

Photo credit: Flickr user trommetter

By Big Governement
June 17, 2010
Leave a Comment

Wash Post Opposes Big Labor Bill, Sees Share Price Double

Drudge Wash Post Stock Doubles

On the morning of June 16, 2010, the Washington Post published a well reasoned editorial opposing federal mandated forced unionism on state and local public employees; specifically, first responders such as police officers and fire fighters.  Could this moment of clarity by Washington Post editors have reassured investors, resulting in its stock doubling in one second as noted in the Drudge Report?

Probably not, but that’s no reason not to welcome the Post, even if momentarily, back to the real world. And, welcome its opposition to another Obama-Reid-Pelosi payback to Big Labor that attacks states rights and limits police officers’ and fire fighters’ freedom at work.    Even, the Post rejects this power grab:

ALL ACROSS America, state and local governments are struggling with recession-induced budget crises … Many public employees have been promised pay, pensions and health benefits that tax bases cannot sustain even in good times. As a result, voters and political leaders of both parties are rethinking the costs and benefits of public-sector unionism.

Except in Congress, it seems. Senate Majority Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is pushing to federalize labor relations between state and local governments and some public-sector unions. … the bill is supported not only by Mr. Reid but also by Republicans, including the soon-to-retire Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.). It has a good chance of passing if the Senate can fit it on its busy calendar.

Advertised as vital to the dignity, health and safety of our nation’s first responders … But there’s no clear connection between public-safety employee unions and public safety. Indeed, Virginia’s violent crime rate is less than half that of next-door Maryland, where collective bargaining for police prevails.

What this bill would do is impose a permanent, one-size-fits-all federal solution in an area — public-sector labor relations — that has traditionally been left to the states, and …Colorado’s “fire protection districts,” special units of government dedicated to providing that service, would face costly collective bargaining even where firefighters and management are working harmoniously without it.

This bill is a bad idea whose time, we hope, has still not come.

So, this time I agree with the Washington Post and recommend that everyone contact their congressional representatives today demand that they vote no on Harry Reid’s Police Fire Forced Unionism Bill (S 1611 & S 3194 /HR 413).  The U.S. House is preparing to vote on this Bill within in the next week, possibly as early as today.  Click here to take action and contact your elected officials.

By Big Governement
June 17, 2010
Leave a Comment

An Absence of Executive Temperament

In politics, temperament matters – it matters a great deal, as Barack Obama has unwittingly shown us time and again.

Some women and men love to posture, talk, debate, and negotiate. Temperamentally, they are suited for a legislative role. It is said – only partly in jest– that, in Washington, DC, the most dangerous space to occupy is that which lies between a United States Senator and a microphone.

Obama_Oval_Office_shrunk

Other women and men – think of Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, and Ronald Reagan – were born to take charge. When Harry Truman put a sign on his desk, reading, “The buck stops here,” he knew what he was talking about. As Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist, it is vital that we have in our Constitution a unitary executive because, in human affairs, emergencies are commonplace; secrecy, vigor, and dispatch are often requisite; and, in such circumstances, there has to be someone in high office able, willing, and even eager to take responsibility for the conduct of affairs.

Americans have an instinctive understanding of what is at stake. Ordinarily, they choose as Presidents men with executive experience – men with a track record in directing affairs that can be judged. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower had been prominent generals before they were elected Presidents, and Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and Theodore Roosevelt had also demonstrated an aptitude for leadership in war.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, the younger Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush had held the vice-presidency. Jefferson and Van Buren had also been Secretary of State, and the same can be said for James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and James Buchanan. Monroe had also been Secretary of War, and this was true was well for William Howard Taft. Herbert Hoover had managed relief efforts in Europe early in and after World War I; he had served as Food Administrator within the United States after we entered that war; and, from 1921 to 1928, he served as Secretary of Commerce.

Many of the others elected to the presidency had previously held gubernatorial office.

This was true for Jefferson, Monroe, Van Buren, the younger Roosevelt, and, if one counts his service as governor of the Philippines, for Taft as well. It applies also to James K. Polk, Rutherford B. Hayes, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, William Jefferson Clinton, and George H. Bush.

The only men ever elected to the presidency who had no executive experience of any sort were Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and the hapless incumbent we have today.

No one – not even, in retrospect, his own political party – thought that Pierce did a decent job. It was during his administration (1853-1857) that the Union began to come apart. Harding is best remembered for the scandals that beset his short-lived administration (1921-1923). And although, thanks to the slavish devotion of his acolytes in the media and in the academy, JFK is in some circles revered, his actual performance in office prior to October, 1962 was deplorable. As Donald Kagan pointed out on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the construction of the Berlin Wall Kennedy was so weak, so irresolute and indecisive, so feckless in his dealings with the Soviet Union that his conduct encouraged Nikita Khrushchev to think that he could get away with introducing missiles tipped with nuclear warheads into Castro’s Cuba and brought us thereby to the brink of nuclear war.

Executive experience does not guarantee wisdom and competence in office. Pierce, Harding, and Kennedy were by no means the only elected Presidents to fall short. But, as the American people generally appreciate, the lack of executive experience is a good indicator of fecklessness to come.

Witness Barack Obama. Leave aside his first year in office. As I pointed out in posts entitled “Barack Obama and the Exhausted Presidency” and “Obama’s First Year,” from the outset, he conducted himself in an irresponsible fashion that is highly unpresidential.

He forgot that, in the larger world, the President represents his country. Out of personal pique, he persistently insulted our friends abroad, displaying disdain for Gordon Brown, stiffing Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, treating Benyamin Netanyahu with open contempt, and turning his back on the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Iran. At the same time, he embraced Hugo Chavez, sucked up to Vladimir Putin, and kowtowed to the rulers of Saudi Arabia and China – all to no avail.

With regard to domestic affairs, he seems not to have recognized that, under our Constitution, it is the President of the United States who represents the national interest; that Congressmen more often than not cater to particular interests; that, if legislation is left to the latter, principle tends to give way to patronage; and that the result can be a profound embarrassment. And so he stood idly by while Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the like drafted legislation – a so-called “stimulus bill” and healthcare reform, each more than a thousand pages in length, each embodying a multitude of corrupt bargains, each threatening to bankrupt the country. And, like a political hack, faithful to his party to the bitter end, he promoted and signed their handiwork.

All of this was obvious long ago, and it was evident as well that, if there were a real crisis, he would check out. This is what he did when Major Nidal Malik Hassan gunned down thirteen Americans at Fort Hood. This is what he did when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly brought down a jetliner at Christmas time. And this is what he did when Faisal Shahzad was found to have planted a bomb in Times Square. All three cases revealed an egregious failure of our intelligence apparatus. In all three cases, the danger had its source in developments within Islam And, in the face of all of this, the President of the United States signaled that he could hardly bear to take a few minutes off from his vacation at the beach in Hawaii, cancel a party or two, or give up his golf game to acknowledge and address the failures of his administration, and at no time has he been willing to level with us about the source of our peril.

Maureen Dowd and those who think that politics is about play-acting – here is her latest column on this theme – lament that, like Spock in Star Trek, No-Drama Obama is simply incapable of displaying any sense of urgency. The real problem is much more serious, for our well-being is to a considerable degree in this man’s hands, and, when things go wrong, he seems not to feel any sense of urgency at all.

The oil spill that began in the Gulf of Mexico on 20 April is the latest example. Some say that President Obama is no more responsible for the spill than President Bush was for Hurricane Katrina. This claim is, in fact, untrue. Bush had nothing to do with Katrina. Barack Obama, as President, was responsible for insuring that the regulatory agencies overseeing the drilling operations did their job properly. While campaigning for the presidency, he charged that the Bush administration had, in effect, allowed the oil industry to regulate itself, and he promised that, if he were elected, he would set things right. During that campaign, he took a wad of cash from folks at BP (more than they had ever given any other candidate); and, when the time came to reform the Minerals Management Service, as Tim Dickinson has shown in fine detail in the latest issue of Rolling Stone, the new administration’s appointees did nothing of the sort.

Nor was the Obama administration quick off the mark in doing what could be done to contain the spill. Instead, while the govenors in the Gulf states clamored for action, the President played golf and partied and the bureaucracy dithered, delaying by weeks efforts to prevent the oil from coming ashore, from fouling beaches, and killing wildlife. Nearly two months have passed since the accident on the Deepwater Horizon, and to date President Obama has issued no waiver to the Jones Act, which stands in the way of foreign ships with foreign crews helping to contain and suck up the spill.

The environmentalists are reportedly giving the Obama adminstration a pass. By now, they are reliable partisans, and they have their eye on cap-and-trade. The people of Louisiana are much less happy. They recognize the deepwater drilling moratorium imposed by the Obama administration for what it is – a ploy designed to persuade those not in the know that something decisive is being done – and, according to the left-liberal outfit Public Policy Polling, more than three-quarters of the voters in that state still favor offshore drilling. Moreover, half of the voters polled “think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama’s done dealing with the spill,” 31% of self-described Democrats agree, and only 35% of those polled give Obama higher marks.

Only one politician has gained ground in the course of this crisis, and that is Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. The poll recently taken shows that “63% of voters approve of the job he’s doing,” which is the highest approval rating that Public Policy Polling “has found for any Senator or Governor so far in 2010. There’s an even higher level of support, at 65%, for how he’s handled the aftermath of the spill.” Jindal is evidently a man of executive temperament. He is not better placed to deal with the spill than is Barack Obama, but he has done as much to keep it off the beaches and out of the swamplands of southern Louisiana as lay within his power.

As the reports make abundantly clear, Barack Obama did not help himself at all with the speech he gave on Monday night from the Oval Office. As our President plays golf, parties, and pauses from time to time to bloviate and pose for photo-ops, his popularity steadily sinks under the weight of his evident indifference to our security and well-being.

It is high time that Republicans start asking the obvious question: who, in their number, is best prepared to do what this presidential incumbent has no desire to bother with: to take what the authors of The Federalist called responsibility. Governor Jindal may not be at the very top of the list of possible presidential contenders, but he is certainly high on it.

Kerrie Heretic- Thoughts on the Nevada Senate Race (by the pool)

By NewsBusters.org
June 12, 2010
Leave a Comment

Margaret Carlson: Only ‘Completely Masochistic’ Voters Would Elect ‘Almost Wacky’ Republican Sharron Angle

During the "Last Word" segment on Bloomberg Television’s Political Capital on Friday, Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson – formerly of CNN and Time magazine – tore into Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle – who will be taking on Harry Reid in November – as Carlson charged that Angle is "on the fringe, almost wacky," and asserted that Nevada voters would have to be "completely masochistic" to vote for her. Carlson:

You can’t beat somebody with somebody who’s as on the fringe, almost wacky, as Sharron Angle, unless the voters turn completely masochistic. She’s not just against (MEANT TO SAY "in favor of") abolishing EPA, Energy, Education, phasing out Social Security, and getting rid of the income tax, she wants our nuclear waste to go to Nevada.

Fellow panel member Kate O’Beirne of the National Review responded: "I’d hoped over the years I had built up Margaret’s tolerance for conservative women, but, sadly, that’s apparently not the case."

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, June 11, Political Capital on Bloomberg Television:

MARGARET CARLSON: Harry Reid went to bed as happy as a man can be who’s in the crosshairs of the Republican party on Tuesday night because the least electable candidate won that race, Sharron Angle. You know, the old saying, "You can’t beat somebody with nobody," you can’t be somebody with somebody who’s as on the fringe, almost wacky, as Sharron Angle, unless the voters turn completely masochistic. She’s not just against abolishing EPA, Energy, Education, phasing out Social Security, and getting rid of the income tax, she wants our nuclear waste to go to Nevada. You know, I’m happy to send it there, as most people who aren’t in Nevada are.

AL HUNT: That’s very generous of you, Margaret. Let me ask Kate, do you agree Harry Reid now is looking a lot better?

KATE O’BEIRNE: Al, I’d hoped over the years I had built up Margaret’s tolerance for conservative women, but, sadly, that’s apparently not the case.

By Big Governement
June 11, 2010
Leave a Comment

YouCut Pushes Obama to Think About, But Do Nothing to Cut Spending

The Obama Administration announced that it will urge government agencies to trim five percent from their budgets by reining in wasteful and duplicative programs – and redirect how that money is spent.  Less than 20 minutes later, the Administration’s Budget Chief Peter Orszag admitted that the initiative was as much about spending as it is deficit reduction.  To be clear, the Administration did not commit to use those cuts to pay down the deficits.

265-1109140020-MoneyPrintingPress-thumb-468x280-1

Look, trimming these budgets is a good thing – as Republicans have said repeatedly.  But is giving the heads of these agencies the ability to redirect money really an indication that Washington is prepared to bring our deficits under control before the European debt crisis migrates across the Atlantic?  Or is it simply posturing?

The good news is that the administration, at least on the surface, is finally getting the message that the American people are fed up with the reckless culture of spending prevailing over Washington.  America has soured on an agenda that sets out to double the debt in five years and triple it in 10.  That is why we launched YouCut, an effort to begin to transform the culture in Washington from one focused entirely on spending to one that forces measures to cut waste and save money.

Now, after more than 700,000 YouCut votes have been cast to remove specific wasteful spending items in the budget, and three House votes later (that would have saved $85 billion had enough Democrats supported them), the President is beginning to talk about finding ways to save taxpayer money.

To be sure, we welcome the administration’s calls for austerity in government agencies.  We also support the president’s request for new line-item veto authority so that he can remove needless discretionary spending. Yet it’s painfully obvious that these limited measures are woefully inadequate given the scale of our problems. But actions speak louder than words.

The problem with the administration’s “cost-cutting” strategies is that they settle for processes that only theoretically might someday save the taxpayers money. They are a convenient substitute for immediate, material spending cuts that could be implemented right now.  What is the President and his party willing to do TODAY to cut spending?

House Republicans have already brought to the floor roughly $85 billion in direct cuts that would take effect immediately. The savings were the product of the three spending cuts that received the most votes on YouCut during the last three weeks in which Congress met. They include terminating a new $25 billion welfare program that undermines the welfare reform effort of the mid 1990s; discarding a pay raise for federal employees that costs $30 billion; and implementing a reform of government-sponsored bailout behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would return $30 billion to the taxpayers.  By the end of the year, we will have brought hundreds of billions – if not more than a trillion – dollars in spending cuts to the floor.  There will be a public record of who in the House wants to cut spending, and who is blocking it.

Note to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Reid:  The people are watching, actions speak louder than words.  Start cutting spending NOW.  To all of you – please take note of who is trying to cut spending and those who think you aren’t paying attention.

Senate to Consider Job-killing ‘Carried Interest Tax’ Within Days

The Senate will soon vote on the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act; a counterproductive bill that, purportedly, extends unemployment benefits for millions of out of work Americans. And yet ironically, found in the bowels of this legislation is a dangerous, anti-business tax increase that promises to harm American investors, kill American jobs and slow the nation’s long-term economic recovery.

irs-shaking-man

A little-known element of the version of that legislation adopted last week by the House, the “Carried Interest Tax” raises taxes on private equity firms, venture capitalists and real estate partnerships. These partnerships make much-needed investments in American startup ventures, and their returns, upon which they rely for sustained investing, are taxed at the regular capital gains rate of 15 percent.

But under the pending bill, taxes on these investments would increase 40 to 150 percent. Such a tax increase would severely curtail investment, development and growth in urban communities nationwide where real estate investors have created jobs and had a substantive impact on the lives of low-income families. Business leaders and think tanks alike have panned the idea; Steve Forbes characterized it as “economic suicide.”

Of course, the bill’s fate is not sealed.

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, recently expressed reservations that Leadership would likely fail in corralling the necessary 60 votes to adopt the legislation. New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez had concerns with the tax provision’s effect on vote whipping. Even Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, whose primary function is to whip votes for the bill, appeared skeptical in recent interviews the measure would not be gutted.

So in a move that so adequately demonstrates the Democrat’s tone-deaf understanding of the American economy, the desperate Democratic Senate leadership attached the job-killing Carried Interest tax hike to an extension of jobless benefits. As in the House bill that passed last week, the Carried Interest tax will be buried in legislation that renews unemployment benefits for millions of jobless Americans whose government assistance will end before Congress recesses next week.

Under the guise of helping America’s unemployed as quickly as possible, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Max Baucus and Carl Levin would like to push through this tax increase without scrutiny and without any examination or hearing on the long term effects, particularly how this bill will extend the nation’s dismal unemployment figures into the unforeseeable future.

Leave it to Senator Harry Reid and Democratic leadership to advocate for a legislative measure that promises to shunt millions of Americans into the poorhouse while facially advocating for the nation’s chronically unemployed. Democratic lawmakers are trapping Americans in cycle of government welfare.

The Capitol Hill rumor mill holds that those Senators whose votes Reid and Durbin are most actively courting are moderates, freshman and deal-makers of both parties: Maine’s Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe; Virginia’s Mark Warner; Nebraska’s Ben Nelson; Ohio’s George Voinovich; Massachusetts’ John Kerry and Scott Brown; and Colorado’s Bob Bennett.

To contact directly the offices of targeted legislators, call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Senate to Consider Job-killing ‘Carried Interest Tax’ Within Days

The Senate will soon vote on the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act; a counterproductive bill that, purportedly, extends unemployment benefits for millions of out of work Americans. And yet ironically, found in the bowels of this legislation is a dangerous, anti-business tax increase that promises to harm American investors, kill American jobs and slow the nation’s long-term economic recovery.

irs-shaking-man

A little-known element of the version of that legislation adopted last week by the House, the “Carried Interest Tax” raises taxes on private equity firms, venture capitalists and real estate partnerships. These partnerships make much-needed investments in American startup ventures, and their returns, upon which they rely for sustained investing, are taxed at the regular capital gains rate of 15 percent.

But under the pending bill, taxes on these investments would increase 40 to 150 percent. Such a tax increase would severely curtail investment, development and growth in urban communities nationwide where real estate investors have created jobs and had a substantive impact on the lives of low-income families. Business leaders and think tanks alike have panned the idea; Steve Forbes characterized it as “economic suicide.”

Of course, the bill’s fate is not sealed. Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, recently expressed reservations that Leadership would likely fail in corralling the necessary 60 votes to adopt the legislation. New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez had concerns with the tax provision’s effect on vote whipping. Even Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, whose primary function is to whip votes for the bill, appeared skeptical in recent interviews the measure would not be gutted.

So in a move that so adequately demonstrates the Democrat’s tone-deaf understanding of the American economy, the desperate Democratic Senate leadership attached the job-killing Carried Interest tax hike to an extension of jobless benefits. As in the House bill that passed last week, the Carried Interest tax will be buried in legislation that renews unemployment benefits for millions of jobless Americans whose government assistance will end before Congress recesses next week.

Under the guise of helping America’s unemployed as quickly as possible, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Max Baucus and Carl Levin would like to push through this tax increase without scrutiny and without any examination or hearing on the long term effects, particularly how this bill will extend the nation’s dismal unemployment figures into the unforeseeable future.

Leave it to Senator Harry Reid and Democratic leadership to advocate for a legislative measure that promises to shunt millions of Americans into the poorhouse while facially advocating for the nation’s chronically unemployed. Democratic lawmakers are trapping Americans in cycle of government welfare.

The Capitol Hill rumor mill holds that those Senators whose votes Reid and Durbin are most actively courting are moderates, freshman and deal-makers of both parties: Maine’s Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe; Virginia’s Mark Warner; Nebraska’s Ben Nelson; Ohio’s George Voinovich; Massachusetts’ John Kerry and Scott Brown; and Colorado’s Bob Bennett.

To contact directly the offices of targeted legislators, call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

The Green Dog Not Barking in the NYT

So the New York Times is lifting the curtain — just slightly — on the bankruptcies of state that are inherently demanded by the European “social democratic model” also embraced by the Obama administration to this very hour. That’s the same administration that out, of the other side of its mouth, is pressing Europe to cut off the spigot of public debt to avoid going under and dragging us with it.

windmills

After all, Team Obama have a “fundamental transformation” to impose, can’t let it be overwhelmed with public curiosity about what caused things in the workers’ paradise to go so horribly wrong. Also, focusing on shoring up our own mess wouldn’t be conducive to imposing the rest of Obama’s agenda, beginning with the “green economy” which of course is all about “organizing society” and nothing about “climate” etc., as I detail here.

Oddly, nowhere in the Times’ piece do we see mention of “green” or “renewable” energy, an expensive and net job-killing boondoggle of a fetish imposing massive economic inefficiencies and redundancies at the cost of staggering debt and “skyrocketing” energy costs. It is precisely what is dragging Spain down at the moment, as even the Spanish socialists are now admitting.

Maybe that’s because Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is looking to bring the debacle to a vote before the 4th of July recess, which would be followed by a conference on the House’ own cap-and-trade insult, then enactment as the law of the land. Hey now, don’t dream it’s over. Until they adjourn sine die, the Left knows this baby’s in play and are determined to cram the Power Grab down.

And of course, as with the rest of his statism, Obama himself has not let go one bit, but is pressing the gas harder and harder to lock in this system of wealth transfer and (more) enormous debt — which means taxes, when it doesn’t mean overwhelming the entire system…requiring more statists to jump in and save you, as the thinking goes — while he has the chance.

The votes on this begin as soon as this week, by the way, on Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s S. J. Res. 26 to disapprove EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and the environment. Really. Stop it there, this week, and the tide could turn. Fail, and I will be the first to admit that the Left just might get this done.

Politico’s Allen: ‘Absurd’ To Send Pork-Meisters Reid, Bennett Packing

Enraged voters, too dumb to appreciate the purveyors of pork . . .

That was Mike Allen's take on Morning Joe today.  Politico's chief political correspondent labelled "absurd" the decision of Utah and Nevada voters not to re-elect Bob Bennett [done deal] and Harry Reid [likely goner]. And why is it such a bad mistake?  Because Bennett and Reid are proven pork providers for their states.

Allen offered his analysis in response to Mike Barnicle's suggestion that in the current political climate, bringing home the bacon might actually backfire on politicians.
MIKE BARNICLE: Mike, I think we're talking sea change here if I understood you correctly a few minutes ago.  Are you telling me that earmarks, or whatever you want to call them, that these people go back to their local districts and say I got you $2.5 million for the hospital.  I got you $4 million for this elementary school.  That that is now being counted against them by many voters?  

MIKE ALLEN: That's a great way to put it and that's exactly right. And that's the big change that we see in the culture.  The best example of this is the Utah Senator Bennett. He's an absurd poster child for Washington. He's sort of inconsequential, he's avuncular, he's conservative.  There was no reason for his state to turn on him. Nobody delivers for Utah the way he does. And now you have these other senior senators who are now in danger.  Voters are not thinking with their pocketbook, they're thinking with their heart, and with their rage.  You have people who are—an even better example: the idea of Nevada kicking out Harry Reid is absurd! He's the #1 senator: #1 out of 100. Nobody delivers for Nevada like Harry Reid. The fact that he has, frankly, very little chance of getting re-elected unless there's some astounding change in the polls is Exhibit A for the thesis that, Mike, you just articulated.

WILLIE GEIST: You're right, Mike.  It might be absurd but it looks like it's going to happen.
With his talk of voters thinking with their "rage" instead of their pocketbooks, Allen sounds like a 2010 version of Peter Jennings, who famously claimed, after the 1994 elections swept Dems out of power, that the American people had acted like two-year olds having a "temper tantrum."

What does it say about Allen that he finds it "absurd" for voters to send packing politicians who would cost them trillions more with their spending schemes than would ever be brought back with a few fistfuls of pork?

By Big Governement
May 12, 2010
1 Comment

Tired of Big Government Spending? Then YouCut it!

Two weeks ago, I wrote on BigGovernment that the GOP Today is much different than the party was a few years back.  I was glad that my post generated attention, and very pleased to read through the different responses – both positive and skeptical.    Today I write again for two reasons.  First, to announce an exciting new project devised by the House Republican Economic Working Group.  Second, to take another step in earning your trust by showing you that we understand that actions speak louder than words.

YC_LOGO

We all know that Washington has a spending problem – and both Democrats AND Republicans bear some responsibility.  But as I wrote last week, America is at a crossroads and the choices we make at this critical time will determine what kind of country we want to be.  To get back on the right path, Congress MUST start to make some choices that simply can’t be delayed any longer.

While we won’t be able to solve our deficit problems overnight or with one silver bullet, we CAN and we MUST begin to replace the culture of spending that now dominates Washington with a culture of savings.  Just imagine if your government was as focused on saving money as it is on spending money.  Imagine if Congress spent less time naming post offices – 62 and counting – and more time reducing wasteful spending.  Sounds nice, doesn’t it?

Today, we are launching YouCut – a first-of-its-kind project designed to defeat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress.  It allows YOU to vote, both online and on your cell phone, on spending cuts that you want to see the House – YOUR HOUSE – enact.   That’s right, instead of Washington telling YOU how THEY will spend YOUR money, YOU can tell THEM how to save it.  After several days of voting, on Monday, May 17th, we will announce the first winner and later that week House Republicans will call for an up-or-down vote on the spending cut.  We will repeat this cycle every week for the rest of the year.

For the first week of voting, here are your choices:

  1. Eliminate the Presidential Election Fund, a federal program that provides matching funds to political candidates during Presidential primaries, certain third-party candidates, and funds for political conventions. In the 2008 Presidential election the candidates raised over $1.3 billion from individuals and PACs; do they really need to supplement that with taxpayer money?
  2. Prohibiting taxpayer-subsidized union activities by prohibiting federal employees from being paid by the government for performing union functions.  Currently some federal employees spend up to 100% of their workweek, paid by taxpayers, doing work for their union. Federal employees unions collect millions in revenue each year and spend significant amounts on political activities and lobbying; should they also be subsidized by the taxpayer for their official functions?
  3. Terminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development program that provides individuals with $25,000 stipends for completing their doctoral dissertations. Recently taxpayers have financed research on media strategies for housing policy and the use of eminent domain for urban redevelopment. Why should families who are struggling to pay for their children’s college also be asked to fund stipends from the government for those who want to write their dissertation on certain government-preferred policies?
  4. Terminate the new alternative welfare program, recently created to incentivize states to increase their welfare caseloads without requiring able-bodied adults to work, get job training, or otherwise prepare to move off of taxpayer assistance. Reforming the welfare program was one of the great achievements of the Republican Congress in the mid 1990s, saving taxpayers billions of dollars and ending the cycle of dependency on welfare.  This new program ushered in by Democrats is merely a backdoor way to undo those reforms.
  5. Focus federal economic development assistance on areas of need. The Community Development Block Grant program currently funds a wide range of local economic development activities. While it is advertised as a way to help low-income communities, funds are also dispersed to communities with income well-above the national average. A recent study found that the community of Newton, Massachusetts, with a per capita income over twice the national average, was receiving $28 per person in CDBG funds. At the same time, other communities with income 25% below the national average were receiving $10 per person.

          There they are: five simple ways to begin to talk about saving money.

          You have a right to a federal government that doesn’t spend money that it does not have.  Anyone who believes that President Obama, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi or the Democratic majorities are “concerned” about the deficit should take a look at how grossly they’ve increased spending.  Make no mistake, they look at America’s massive debt and see a reason to raise taxes.  But they are wrong.  Our debt was born out of an addiction to spending.   And if those same Democrats aren’t going to do anything to stop this addiction, we are.  If those Democrats aren’t going to listen to you, we are.

          As I wrote a few weeks back, a 178-seat minority isn’t going to win many legislative battles in the House. And we don’t have a lot of tools at our disposal.  But I commit to you that we ARE going to use every means we have to hold them accountable.  And this project is a start.

          The time has come for Congress to finally show political courage. American families have been forced to face tough financial realities and make difficult but necessary decisions. Why should their government act any differently?  This is not the same GOP as it was a few years ago, and with YouCut, we hope to force the Democrat-controlled Congress to begin to confront the difficult but unavoidable realities of our fiscal situation.

          Please drop by http://www.republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut and vote to help us put Uncle Sam on a diet.

          Kagan: THIS Harriet Miers Will Get Confirmed

          In 2005, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement. 
President Bush (with the oh-so-”helpful” suggestion from Democrat Harry 
Reid) then named White House Counsel Harriet Miers as his choice to replace 
her.

          img-cs---elena-kagan_093851794931

          A firestorm erupted.  Critics on the right and left complained that she had 
never served as a judge, had no judicial experience or paper trail from 
which to gauge her judicial philosophy and temperament, and that she was 
named strictly because she was a woman.

          Her nomination did not survive the withering criticism, and she withdrew, to 
be ultimately replaced by Samuel Alito.

          Fast forward to today.  President Obama has just nominated Elena Kagan, the 
current Solicitor General, to replace John Paul Stevens on the Court.  In 
many ways, Kagan mirrors Miers: a female legal eagle with no judicial 
experience, paper trail, or known guiding legal philosophy.

          Miers’s nomination went down because fellow conservatives criticized those 
things.  Don’t expect Kagan’s fellow liberals to attack her on the same 
basis.  Conservatives were intellectually honest about what they saw as 
gaping holes in Miers’s qualifications.  I guarantee that liberals will not 
openly question the same voids in Kagan’s experience.  Conservatives raised 
legitimate issues about Miers; liberals will circle the wagons on Kagan.

          Miers bit the dust, and she probably deserved to.  Kagan will not bite the 
dust, although she probably deserves to as well.

          The American Promise-Our First Principles

          In 1831, a French aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville’s recognized how different America’s infant democracy was from other democratic republics. He issued warnings to our young republic, “One also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom”. De Tocqueville continued, “…when citizens are all almost equal, it becomes difficult for them to defend their independence against the aggressions of power”.

          declaration5

          The agenda driven by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Reid is aggressively targeted toward our becoming an all powerful central government. Since the 2008 election we have seen unprecedented expansion of government. History has shown us that as government expands individual liberty contracts.

          In January of 2010, during the waning days of my primary campaign for Illinois Governor, former Polish President Lech Walesa came to Chicago to endorsed my effort. Known as the great anti-communist, founder of Solidarity, best-friend of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II, Walesa continues to inspire and encourage strong leadership. During the luncheon, Walesa issued an ominous warning for America, “America is sliding toward socialism; America is no longer the shining city on the hill.” In the videotaped interview, Walesa saw a hint of socialism creeping into America’s domestic policies. He spoke of “the issue with the banks” and how “the government wastes all the money … building a bureaucracy — just for itself.”

          Walesa said that the strongest candidates are committed to principles. The framers of our Constitution based out government on strong principles, sometimes referred to as the first principles. The “first principles” that will Ensure Liberty and the American Promise for future generations are:

          1. Smaller Government,
          2. Fiscal Responsibility,
          3. Lower Taxes,
          4. National Security,
          5. Federalism.

          thumb_walesa1-1

          With these principles to guide us, we have created Ensuring Liberty, an organization of activists and citizens dedicated to strengthening the public’s appreciation of these ideas. Ensuring Liberty is working closely with a group of leaders currently serving in Congress to hear our voice and keep our First Principles. This group is chaired by Congressman Steve King.

          In two weeks, congressional elections in Pennsylvania and Hawaii are drawing clearly delineated choices on “first principles”. Immediately, we have the opportunity to add two more “first principle” conservatives to the Congress. Electing these two candidates will eliminate two “sure votes” for the Obama/Pelosi machine. On a targeted and systemic basis, the unraveling of the National Democrat machine and it’s liberal agenda must continue- it’s our obligation.

          President Obama and his Chicago operatives understand only one thing: raw power. Raw power is conferred at the ballot box. In Pennsylvania, Tim Burns is poised to take back Jack Murtha’s seat, and in Hawaii Charles Djou can win back the congressional seat of Barack Obama’s boyhood home.

          Tim Burns can win the 12th congressional district in Pennsylvania. His life experiences growing up within the district as well as being a father, entrepreneur, successful businessman and community leader, make him uniquely qualified to serve as our next Congressman. Tim’s business grew to over 400 employees before he sold it in 2003. His commitment to conservative values, smaller government, lower taxes, ending wasteful spending and restoring an ethical standard in public service are political philosophies that stand in stark contrast to the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.

          Charles Djou was an elected state representative where he was the Minority Floor Leader. He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, graduating magna cum laude with distinction. He is also an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve; practices as an attorney specializing in business law; and, teaches at the University of Hawaii’s William S. Richardson School of Law. To quote Mr. Djou, “I will never forget that every dollar the government spends comes from a family like yours.”

          The American Promise and our nation’s liberty is dependent on electing “first principles” candidates. Electing these two candidates will eliminate two “sure votes” for the Obama/Pelosi machine. On a targeted and systemic basis, the unraveling of the National Democrat machine and it’s liberal agenda must continue- it’s our obligation.

          By NewsBusters.org
          April 28, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          GMA Reports Laura Bush’s Criticism of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid

          Former first Lady Laura Bush has some harsh words for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in her upcoming memoir "Spoken From The Heart."

          On Tuesday, ABC's "Good Morning America" logged a report featuring excerpts from the book recently published by the New York Times.

          Astonishingly, these included Mrs. Bush criticizing Pelosi and Reid for calling her husband "an incompetent leader " and a "loser...liar" respectively.

          "The comments were uncalled for and graceless," GMA's Juju Chang surprisingly quoted the first lady with text on the screen.

          "These particular words revealed the petty and parochial nature of some who serve in Congress" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary, h/t HotAirPundit): 

          JUJU CHANG: Former first lady Laura Bush believes she and former President George W. Bush may have been poisoned. That's one of many revelations in Mrs. Bush's new memoir, a copy of which has been obtained by the New York Times. In "Spoken From The Heart," the first lady takes on her husband's critics, especially House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for calling President Bush "an incompetent leader," and Harry Reid for labeling him a "loser and a liar." Mrs. Bush writes, "The comments were uncalled for and graceless. These particular words revealed the petty and parochial nature of some who serve in Congress." 

          Wow. A broadcast morning show actually read negative words written by a conservative about media darling Pelosi, the most powerful woman in American history?

          Somebody pinch me. 

          *****Update: NBer kareling deliciously asked in the comments section, "Any word on how many AP fact checkers have been assigned to Mrs. Bush's memoir?"

          Answer: So many stimulus dollars have been allocated to this task that next month's employment numbers will skyrocket. :-) 

          By Big Governement
          April 28, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          It Is Not the Same GOP

          After Republicans suffered consecutive bruising defeats in 2006 and 2008, boastful Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee officials warned that Republicans faced a difficult decision: Go along with the sweeping agenda of the new administration, or suffer the disastrous consequences of taking on an enormously popular president in the 2010 elections.

          Uncle-Sam-GOP

          Perhaps the GOP of 2005 would have taken the bait and swallowed the administration’s bad medicine. After all, Republicans during that period were guilty of spending too much and growing government too much, both of which would become hallmarks of the February 2009 stimulus plan and the loaded agenda that would follow. That GOP became a bloated, go-along to get-along body that forgot how to lead. We blew it, and we were rightfully fired by our bosses – the American people.

          But the GOP in the House today is different. Very different. Led by a new generation of young and energetic leaders, we are committed to restoring the public’s trust in our ability to lead as responsible adults.

          Let’s take a look at the last 16 months.

          In the face of one-party Democratic rule, House Republicans learned fairly quickly that an election won on ‘change’ would result in a far more intrusive and expensive government. At the time, many political pundits joined the chorus of Democrats who warned that House Republicans faced political suicide if they didn’t support the President’s signature inaugural initiative – his stimulus plan. Yet we decided to fight. And we fought hard. The reason we were able to credibly oppose such a popular President was because we presented a much more responsible approach that would have created twice the jobs at half the cost of the eventual stimulus law that has failed to deliver as promised. A 178-seat minority isn’t going to win many legislative battles in the House. But it did prove sufficient to offer a clear contrast and provide the first glimpse of a Republican Party that had returned to its fiscally conservative roots.

          From that moment, a revitalized House GOP dedicated itself to developing alternative solutions grounded in the fiscally responsible, small-government principles proven to work for our economy. On the stimulus, instead of pouring hundreds of billions down the rat holes of un-stimulative government programs, we proposed to give private-sector job creators an incentive to hire by exempting small businesses from 20 percent of their tax liability. On health care, instead of the budget-busting government takeover known as Obamacare, we provided solutions such as medical liability reform and purchasing health care across state lines which would lower costs while enabling families and patients to keep the care they have if they liked it. To create real jobs, we offered a “no cost Jobs plan” that would cut unemployment by approving lingering free-trade agreements and halting the deluge of ‘Obama tax increases.’ And on the budget, not only did we challenge President Obama to freeze spending at last year’s levels, but we offered cuts that would save taxpayers more than $375 billion.

          We even challenged President Obama in a letter to help us force a vote in the House on the modest budget savings he proposed but which have been ignored by the Democrat majority. As has become routine, we have yet to receive a response.

          Washington is always talking about the unlimited ways to increase spending. How about instead we start spending a lot more time talking about ways to cut expenditures and save money. That’s one reason why this Republican Conference adopted an earmark moratorium so we can finally start to fix a process that’s been broken for years. Could you imagine the Republican party of five years ago taking that step?

          The point is that in each of these circumstances, we have stood up against an administration and a Pelosi-led Congress hell-bent on reorienting the role of government in America. While we may not have the numbers, our fight and conviction remains strong.

          We understand that if our government is going to continue to spend and insert itself into the private economy the way that the Obama Administration and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has, then the America we know and love is in trouble. We will face steeper taxation, slower growth, higher unemployment and less economic opportunity for everyone. That may be a sacrifice Democrats are willing to stomach on their way to creating a European-style social welfare state. But for us it’s an unacceptable and radical departure from the American way.

          America is a nation at a crossroads, and it is up to each of us to determine what kind of country we want to be. We must not leave our children a country more in debt and worse off than we found it, and I believe it is one of the biggest moral obligations of our time to act now to put a stop to what is happening in Washington. That means listening to the American people. It means spending less and saving more. It means pushing common-sense solutions that serve the national interest, not the special interests. And it means ensuring that our children have the same opportunity to achieve that we were given.

          I am under no illusions – both parties have helped to create a debt that everyone knows is dangerously high. But only one of them is going to keep going down that path and taking our country with it. The other has learned its lesson and has reformed itself.

          By Big Governement
          April 26, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Obama’s Newest Goal: Expand the Nanny State

          Here we go again. Harry Reid intends to force a vote at 5pm on Monday in a desperate attempt to push yet another bloated bill that will do more harm than good.

          big-brother-is-watching-you4

          This time, the Democrats seem to have zeroed in on reforming the entire American finance system without bothering to read, or even consider, the many, negative, unintended consequences to our economy (and especially to small businesses) that this legislation will unleash.

          Once again, the Democrats are keen to push a flawed agenda to capitalize on the remarkably convenient timing of the ever-so-welcomed, SEC fraud charges levied against Goldman Sachs.

          Once again, Democrats are keen to push long standing, left-wing, ideological dreams that Americans have long resisted.  But, pity the poor small business community that will, once again, be forced to pay a disproportional cost of the 1336 page monstrosity of a financial reform bill.

          Embedded deep within the Democrats’ financial bill is an inexplicable assault on Angel Investors who help drive small business expansion and entrepreneurialism.  Sections 412 and 413 (p.380-381) adjust (i.e.increase) the “Accredited Investor” dollar threshold to $1 million dollars—which could affect the amount of angel investing, especially those that invest in small businesses.

          If that isn’t enough bad news, in Section 740B“Small Business Loan Data Collection”, (p.1219-1224), Congress requires the collection of proprietary data, and storage for three years of data that must be obtained from any small business attempting a loan.

          Then, Congress stipulates that this information about the small business must be made available to the public upon request.  These are the kinds of intrusive requirements that could only be drafted by persons who have no experience in what it takes to start, maintain and grow a business.

          This most recent attack on small business development has absolutely nothing to do with reform of the financial system. So, we are left to wonder, why does Congress consistently tack job destroying initiatives onto these huge legislative packages, and then ram them through Congress? Do Dems hope to kill American competitiveness or do they just have no clue?

          Democrats do not seem to understand that jobs and innovation are correlated?  Have Democrats become so misdirected, so confused, and so arrogant that they believe that they, and they alone, must dictate how other Americans should live? Put bluntly, Democrats seem not know what is included in the voluminous legislative packages that they push with wild abandon, but they seem to think that all Americans would be better people if only they could be forced to accept the dogma of the Left.

          I think it is clear that most Americans support the need for some kind of financial reform.  At the same time, Americans do not want their lives taken over by the federal government.   Increasingly, Americans are distrustful and worried that government is growing too large, is becoming too intrusive into daily affairs, and that our government seeks to dictate decisions that should remain private and beyond the grasping hand of government.  Yet, Pelosi’s Congress, with full support and backing of Team Obama moves forward with its meddling agenda.

          For example, just last week at a time when the nation is considering the very complicated reform of the entire financial industry, Congressman Waxman believed it more important to launch a campaign against baseball players and smokeless chewing tobacco. My goodness!

          At a time when the nation’s debt is becoming nightmarish, when new (and more accurate) estimates emerge from CMS, outlining much higher, long-term costs of the recently passed Health Care Legislation, at a time when Americans are fighting two wars, why does Henry Waxman focus on chewing tobacco in baseball?  Is chewing tobacco really the most important issue of the day?  And, if so, why wouldn’t Henry Waxman start closer to home—his home—in Los Angeles, where Hollywood produces more movies and TV programs in a year with smoking—of cigarettes—than is seen in a year’s worth of baseball games?

          It might seem that Waxman’s tangent into the ludicrous is simply the ranting of an unhinged Congressman, but regrettably, there are other, equally disturbing, examples of the Obama nanny state.  Last week, Obama’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided that the time was right to tackle the looming dangers of Americans giving their dogs a bone.  Yes, that’s right.  The FDA issued guidance to advise Americans to stop giving dogs their nightly bone. Doing so, the FDA argues represents a significant new risk to dogs.  Who would have known?

          Millions of American dogs, for hundreds of years, have been thrown a bone and were happy.  But now, thanks to the advanced research of the FDA, giving a dog a bone is ruled dangerous.   One might think that there are other, far more important priorities; such as the  alarming concerns of loss of innovation in the healthcare industry as a result of the newly approved Healthcare Legislation, or the high cost of new drug approvals, or the difficulties of safeguarding our nation’s food supply.  But, no.

          Our President and Congress seem to be confused.  Small, strange, picayunish issues are being pursued at precisely the same time our nation faces far more urgent issues.  But, rather than focusing on, and solving, the biggest issues of  the day, Democrats seem determined to launch any number of weird efforts aimed at compelling Americans to accept liberal orthodoxy and an ever more demanding nanny state.

          Most curious of all, most Democrats, to include President Obama, seem genuinely confused, not understanding why the simple message of a more limited government, less intrusive in its reach, and less hectoring in its message is so compelling to millions of Americans.

          Given all the misdirection of efforts going on in Washington, can anyone really be surprised that one of the most commonly purchased flags over the past year is the Gadsden flag, with a snake that says “Don’t Tread on Me”?

          By Big Governement
          April 25, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Nevada: Now it’s the ‘People’s Truck!’

          Picture this, a 40 year old guy who rides motocross on the weekends with his kids, loves rock music, hangs out with the Romney sons, speaks fluent Spanish, votes as a rock solid conservative in the Nevada Legislature and is now running for the US Senate to take on Harry Reid.

          Meet the future of the Republican Party.

          Beatty 4

          For years the Republican Party has said it needs to change, become more “real”, more “hip”—while sticking strong to its solid conservative roots. If Republicans want that change to happen, they need to find the right candidates to make it happen.

          The US Senate race in Nevada has found such a candidate. Chad Christensen. For 8 years Chad has served in the Nevada State Legislature and he has a voting record that is as conservative as it gets. If you haven’t heard of Chad it’s because he entered this race after he saw that the other candidates either had no record to speak of, didn’t win elections, or they just were not connecting with Nevada voters. There’s something to be said for a fresh face in this race.

          Oh, and he drives a truck. A “Dump Reid, Vote Chad Dump Truck.”

          This past weekend Christensen drove the truck through rural Nevada connecting with voters. On Sunday I traveled with him as he took it to a motocross race in Northern Nevada (land use is sort of a big deal in this state, and Chad is pushing this issue hard) and as you can imagine, it was a big hit. Harry Reid doesn’t quite cut it in these parts.

          Chad says the Dump Reid Truck is a “work truck” and he also calls it the “people’s truck,” and he allows Nevadan’s to step up and sign the panels on the side and work together to “dump Reid.”

          Chad also says the truck “means business.” Apparently, he does too. Christensen has never lost an election and has served 4 consecutive terms in the Nevada State Legislature (hey, wasn’t Scott Brown also a state legislator and drove a truck?). In 2008 Nevada and the nation took an old fashioned whuppin’ when the Obama Wave wiped out Republicans everywhere. It was not pretty. The Nevada State Party took a bath and was virtually destroyed by that Wave. Christensen still won his district, the largest in the state and one that Obama won by 10 points over McCain. How many conservative Republicans do you know who won in 2008 in a large, Democratic district? You know one now.

          Christensen is using his undefeated record in elections and his conservative voting “chops” as an argument to make him the best candidate to take on Reid and to replace him with somebody who will not turn RINO. Chad entered this race a little over a month ago and has already jumped into the top 4 (there are 12 Republicans in this race) and is climbing fast.

          The “Dump Reid, Vote Chad Truck” is a new addition to the campaign and it is getting a lot of attention in a hurry. Nevadan’s honk, cheer and wave as it goes down the street. It poses for more pictures than Pamela Anderson during a weekend at the Hard Rock. Throughout rural Nevada it may be the biggest thing to hit town since the silver boom a century and a half ago. It now has its own Facebook page and has a schedule at events throughout Nevada that is filling up quickly.

          Since Christensen is an established political figure in Nevada and has a long time current conservative voting record in Nevada (he voted again in February to not increase taxes as he has done every time in the legislature), the “Dump Reid, Vote Chad Truck” is a perfect fit. Plus, there’s plenty of room in the back for the dirt bikes.

          The future of the Republican Party is now.

          By Big Governement
          April 25, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Nevada: Now it’s the ‘People’s Truck!’

          Picture this, a 40 year old guy who rides motocross on the weekends with his kids, loves rock music, hangs out with the Romney sons, speaks fluent Spanish, votes as a rock solid conservative in the Nevada Legislature and is now running for the US Senate to take on Harry Reid.

          Meet the future of the Republican Party.

          Beatty 4

          For years the Republican Party has said it needs to change, become more “real”, more “hip”—while sticking strong to its solid conservative roots. If Republicans want that change to happen, they need to find the right candidates to make it happen.

          The US Senate race in Nevada has found such a candidate. Chad Christensen. For 8 years Chad has served in the Nevada State Legislature and he has a voting record that is as conservative as it gets. If you haven’t heard of Chad it’s because he entered this race after he saw that the other candidates either had no record to speak of, didn’t win elections, or they just were not connecting with Nevada voters. There’s something to be said for a fresh face in this race.

          Oh, and he drives a truck. A “Dump Reid, Vote Chad Dump Truck.”

          This past weekend Christensen drove the truck through rural Nevada connecting with voters. On Sunday I traveled with him as he took it to a motocross race in Northern Nevada (land use is sort of a big deal in this state, and Chad is pushing this issue hard) and as you can imagine, it was a big hit. Harry Reid doesn’t quite cut it in these parts.

          Chad says the Dump Reid Truck is a “work truck” and he also calls it the “people’s truck,” and he allows Nevadan’s to step up and sign the panels on the side and work together to “dump Reid.”

          Chad also says the truck “means business.” Apparently, he does too. Christensen has never lost an election and has served 4 consecutive terms in the Nevada State Legislature (hey, wasn’t Scott Brown also a state legislator and drove a truck?). In 2008 Nevada and the nation took an old fashioned whuppin’ when the Obama Wave wiped out Republicans everywhere. It was not pretty. The Nevada State Party took a bath and was virtually destroyed by that Wave. Christensen still won his district, the largest in the state and one that Obama won by 10 points over McCain. How many conservative Republicans do you know who won in 2008 in a large, Democratic district? You know one now.

          Christensen is using his undefeated record in elections and his conservative voting “chops” as an argument to make him the best candidate to take on Reid and to replace him with somebody who will not turn RINO. Chad entered this race a little over a month ago and has already jumped into the top 4 (there are 12 Republicans in this race) and is climbing fast.

          The “Dump Reid, Vote Chad Truck” is a new addition to the campaign and it is getting a lot of attention in a hurry. Nevadan’s honk, cheer and wave as it goes down the street. It poses for more pictures than Pamela Anderson during a weekend at the Hard Rock. Throughout rural Nevada it may be the biggest thing to hit town since the silver boom a century and a half ago. It now has its own Facebook page and has a schedule at events throughout Nevada that is filling up quickly.

          Since Christensen is an established political figure in Nevada and has a long time current conservative voting record in Nevada (he voted again in February to not increase taxes as he has done every time in the legislature), the “Dump Reid, Vote Chad Truck” is a perfect fit. Plus, there’s plenty of room in the back for the dirt bikes.

          The future of the Republican Party is now.

          By Big Governement
          April 21, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Obama and Wall Street: I Love You! I Hate You!

          In old movies (and a lot of new ones too), there is the usual formula of romantic tension between the leading man and the leading lady.  They usually start out hating each other but ultimately find themselves drawn to each other.  This usually culminates in a climactic argument, during which the woman expresses her total contempt and disdain for the man:  “I hate you!” He then grabs her, pulls her close, and plants a big, passionate kiss on her.  She, of course, succumbs, and the two then declare their undying love for each other.

          obama-greet-415x275

          President Obama and the Democrats are engaged in this coy Love-Hate faux drama with Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street.  Obama has railed continually against the “fat cats” on the Street, whom he blames loudly and repeatedly for the financial crisis.  They do, of course, bear some of the responsibility.  But wouldn’t it be nice and refreshing to hear him level
          his ire at the ACTUAL main perpetrators of the crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?   Of course, he can’t do that, because that would mean admitting fault with the social engineering of the Jimmy “My Name is Earl” Carter and Bill “Bubba” Clinton-supported Community Re-Investment Act and other misguided and destructive left-wing economic policies.

          No, he’s stuck to the safe script: the surefire populist message that all of the banks are bad, Goldman is the worst of the worst, and that they need to be spanked like a Terrible Twos Terror Child.

          Just one problem:  Obama accepted nearly $1 million from Goldman folks during the 2008 presidential campaign.

          Other top Democrats have long been raking it in from Goldman and other big banks they now demonize as greedy, profit-driven Anti-Christs.  Earlier this year, the president of Goldman hosted a fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which netted him $37,000.  When reporters asked him about that yesterday, he read haltingly from a written statement and then ran away.

          This is yet another case of the hypocrisy of the Left.  They blister the banks and seek to punish them, while at the same time slurping like pigs at the banks’ trough.

          I hate you!  I love you!  Kiss me, you fool!

          By Big Governement
          April 20, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Cap-n-Tax: Team Obama Piles On the Outrages

          It’s appreciably more difficult for Washington politicians to amaze Americans who paid any attention at all to what has been transpiring in Washington. And that number is growing. But the Democrats are giving it their best shot.

          UncleSameTaxShakedown_CapAndTrade

          Read this just out from Politico, explaining that the Senate’s committee process simply must be suspended to jam through Obama’s energy/cap-and-tax Power Grab, because it is so expansive that it would invoke the jurisdiction of six Senate committees. These include the tax-writing Finance Committee, because cap-and-trade and the new gas tax (styled by some cheerleaders who think you’re stupid as a “carbon-linked fee”).

          So, again, Harry Reid is going to write a couple of thousand pages — and try to buy off the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with revenues taken from you — in closed-door, back room deals. The ability to do so is one reason the bill in its House version grew to 1,400 pages, bigger and bigger with each closed-door deal. There are so many ways to design this takeover and the wealth transfers and lost freedoms involved, and to hide and target the hurt.

          If that sounds like the health care takeover, it should. It’s the same thing. As the perpetrators admit to Politico. So possibly C-SPAN might ask to be involved. Surely the White House can come up with a better response than last time.

          I’ve mentioned that “Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America” was just published this week, right? That’s the only reason I can say something nice about these people and their tricks. They prove me right. So cause problems by reading what they don’t want you to know.

          For example, although the popular discussion in Washington is now trending toward the likelihood of a European-style Value Added Tax (VAT), this is being rhetorically cushioned with the explanation that it is the only politically viable or even foreseeable way to raise the revenue that Obama’s Leviathan State requires. That’s untrue.

          Team Obama is hiding its cap-and-tax cram-down behind closed doors because, as documents I obtained under the Freedom of Information Act — drafted within days of Obama’s victory in preparation for just such a moment — reveal, the bureaucrats believe they can  plunder an equivalent of the entire corporate income tax haul per year from cap-and-trade, designed the way Obama has called for it.

          That is $400 billion per year. That’s several percentage points of GDP. That’s the biggest tax increase in American history in constant dollars, by far. All of which I detail in Power Grab.

          Meanwhile, as Reid et al. plot to continue the hijacking of democracy, EPA is conducting a video contest soliciting public video entries that support growing the regulatory state, on the odd argument that regulations already touch almost every aspect of your life. Oh. Then surely more is better.

          And responding by providing the requested video advocacy is just the sort of helpful grassroots activity that community organizing is all about. And probably just what the “stimulus” bill had in mind when it dedicated millions in wealth transfers to the same groups. As I also detail in Power Grab. You are taking my hard-earned money to pay people to speak out in favor of you taking more of my hard-earned money. I hate to be so Bob Dole but, where’s the outrage?

          As you’ll see in Politico, the Democrats’/Lindsey Graham’s argument distilled is that such an enormous undertaking would overwhelm the poor dears, so Harry Reid and whomever he brings back into the room with him need to hammer the couple of thousand pages out. It’s for everyone’s own good.

          I remind you, that’s their defense.

          Maybe, instead, these perils are ones that our Founders would have read as indicating that you either a) do this with particular attention to the Constitution’s clear presumption of transparent and accountable policymaking, or b) you don’t do it at all.

          So, we see here proof that they really are that radical. And they’re scared that their opportunity to “organize society” is short-lived and is creating a backlash, such that they’d better cram as much down now as they can.

          This isn’t news. But this latest Power Grab is. So far the Republicans have raised eyebrows but not their voices. Will they shut down the Senate in protest, or at least to stall this and draw attention to the sleaze being employed to no media opprobrium — all of the proper people know that this is a very fashionable issue, so long as the windmills are placed out there next to the unwashed.

          Will you let them get away with it? Or, as I hopefully note at the end of my book, will you have something to tell your kids and grandkids that you did in this war?

          By Big Governement
          April 17, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          ObamaCare: Fighting On

          On Sunday morning, March 21st, I sent an e-mail to a handful of individuals, including Mike Flynn of Big Government.com, who have been very supportive of my efforts in informing people, family and businesses on Prevention, cost containment and health care reform. The topic was the impending passage of Obama Care and the stripping of Freedom and Liberty from every American which will be the end result.

          42-161859491259859812

          One of the people I contacted was, Dennis Gartman. One of the nation’s and world’s leading financial analysts, investors and financial public educators through his work in the media.  Dennis is the founder of The Gartman Letter….a daily financial road map for corporations, individuals, investment funds and governments. Dennis asked if he could include my e-mail in The Gartman Letter. Below is Dennis’s article concerning my e-mail.

          * * * * * *

          GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE CAPITAL MARKETS ON ONE WELL KNOWN DOCTOR’S PERSPECTIVE ON HEALTH CARE:

          Our friend, Dr. David Janda, is a nationally well known orthopaedic surgeon in Ann Arbor, Michigan, involved in delivering health care for 29 years.

          David’s a clinical researcher in Prevention and Health care cost containment and he founded The Institute For Preventative Sports Medicine which is the only health care cost containment organization of its kind in North America. According to the Federal government, one of his studies has lead to the prevention of 1.7 million people from being injured every year in the U.S. and saved $2 billion in health care costs per year.

          David also wrote a bestselling book….The Awakening of a Surgeon…… featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show and it’s been referred to as a “Weapon of Mass Instruction” as it tells people and families how to take control of their health care and to free themselves from the insurance companies, from the HMO industry and most importantly from federal bureaucrats.

          That being said, David wrote to us last evening as the health care legislation was making its way to the House floor. He’s told us in the past about the ills involved in this legislation, but now it has passed and it has come to this. We believe David’s thoughts, as a physician of some renown to be worthy of our clients’ collective attention, He wrote:

          It is Sunday and it looks like Obama, Pelosi and Reid have succeeded in passing their health care plan which will destroy every person, family and business in Our country. In the process they have shredded The Constitution and Our democratic republic.

          Thank you for all that you have done in informing the public and allowing my voice and my information to be heard. I believe my perspective as a “grunt” on the front line of health care delivery and 29 years experience in doing so matters. By networking my information, you allowed me to share my insight with the American public. The democrats and progressives believe the war has been won…..wrong….they might have won the battle but the War has just begun.

          In the next several weeks I will be sending out an e-mail announcing that I will be leaving the medical delivery profession. My wife and daughters support my decision. The legislation authored by Obama, Pelosi and Reid is a violation of The Hippocratic Oath I took 29 years ago…..”Do No Harm”. The core of their legislation is to deny and ration care…..the most inhumane and unethical means of cutting costs. I have dedicated my life….day and night to my patients for the past 29 years…..I have attempted to add to the oath through my research and published studies which have focused on prevention…. “Preventing Harm”.

          Their legislation puts me in the position of harming the very people I have been helping for the past 29 years.

          In 1920, the federal government instituted legislation that took my great grandfather’s business away from him.  He owned a brewery in Chicago. He died a broken and destroyed man within a month of that event. Ninety years later, the federal government has passed] a law that will take away my beloved profession of health care delivery. I will continue to fight and will not meet the same fate as my great grandfather. If I can be further service to you please call on me.

          Warm Regards,

          When good men like David leave medicine we know that we are in very serious trouble. Mark our words; a year from now the state of medicine and health care here in the US will be demonstrably worse than it is now; it shall also be demonstrably more expensive and it will be even more demonstrably less available to anyone and everyone. Last night’s legislation was what the Left has been aiming for many, many years. They’ve succeeded in nationalizing health care, and they’ve succeeded in sending men such as David to the sidelines. We are all the worse for it…. demonstrably so.

          * * * * * *

          I appreciate Dennis’s friendship and kind words. I do plan on continuing to fight to repeal and replace this prohibitive legislation on behalf of America, my fellow citizens and my patients.  The medical “oversight” component will occur on January 1, 2013.  I will continue at my post on the front line until December 31, 2012 then I will continue the fight from another front. The battle might have been lost for Health Care Freedom on March 21st but the War is far from over in bringing health care freedom to every American.

          By Big Governement
          April 10, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Queen vs Obama, Pelosi and Reid: Bureaucrats Want It All!

          The Free Enterprise Alliance has launched a new campaign called Halt The Assault, which asks federal bureaucrats and Big Labor to stop attacking the engine of jobs and our economy: small business.

          Check out their new video featuring President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid — and, of course, Queen:

          If you want to tell Obama, Pelosi and Reid to Halt The Assault on America and its small businesses, jobs, and economy, click here to sign a postcard like the one here:

          By Big Governement
          April 8, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Is Paul Rahe Right?

          This is the question that Rush Limbaugh posed to his listeners on Monday: Is Paul Rahe right? And it is, alas, an all-too-open question. Rush was responding to a piece, entitled “A New Birth of Freedom,” posted on BigGovernment.com early on Saturday, in which I endorsed in part the analysis of our current situation articulated by Mark Steyn here and, at greater length, here, but insisted that he underestimates American civic spirit. Where Mark sees catastrophe, I see opportunity.

          mark-steyn-color

          Mark is, I believe, undoubtedly right in supposing that, if we acquiesce in the massive expansion of the administrative entitlement state shoved through a reluctant Congress on 21 March by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, the game is up. The progressives have for the most part dominated American politics for something like a century — ever since the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 in a presidential race in which the only defender of the American constitution came in third. And step by step they have centralized power and influence in Washington and subverted the separation of powers. In consequence, today, our real rulers are the bureaucrats. Within the administrative state, they make rules that have the force of law, they enforce those rules, they adjudicate all disputes arising therefore, and they are unaccountable. It is no accident that civil servants have tenure in their jobs and boast of higher salaries and far better benefits than their counterparts in the private sector.

          Moreover, the progressives have succeeded in making a substantial proportion of the American people wards of the state — dependent in one fashion or another on federal largesse — and no body of men is more beholden to the federal government than the CEOs of our largest corporations. It is telling that Wall Street voted with its pocketbook for Barack Obama in 2008. It is telling that the pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies lined up behind the Obama administration’s healthcare proposals. And it is telling that big business is treading cautiously now. Those who run these companies know where their bread is buttered.

          Mark Steyn’s two replies to my piece — here and, more emphatically, here — are cogent.

          He is nobody’s fool, and he understands the argument articulated in my book Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift as well as I do, if not better. He comes from Canada; he has lived in Great Britain. He has witnessed the collapse of civic spirit elsewhere, and he recognizes what are the consequences of a wholesale abandonment of the spirit of self-reliance. After all, one can be a citizen only if one enters the public arena on one’s own two feet. Local self-government, where Alexis de Tocqueville’s Americans were trained in citizenship, is now just another beggar lining up with a tin cup in search of federal largesse. Civic associations are now for the most part lobbying operations with their own tin cups. Americans are losing the capacity to join together with their neighbors to do themselves the things that need doing. As I argued in a piece posted almost a year ago on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Tocqueville’s death, we have become increasingly European in our outlook and conduct. We have contracted what I call in my book “The French Disease.”

          Here is the warning that Congressman Paul Ryan issued in a speech delivered in Oklahoma City on 31 March:

          …In 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government.

          In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood.

          All told, 60 percent – three out of five households in America – were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes.

          On the face of it, as Mark intimates in the last of his posts cited above, the task of restoring limited government is insuperable.

          Perhaps it is. But I think the contrary. My reasons are simple. The administrative state, as we know it, grew for the most part gradually and unobtrusively. Yes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave it a mighty push, but he did so in a time in which the majority of Americans were desperate. Yes, Lyndon Baines Johnson gave it another mighty push, but he had the advantage that the opposition was divided and disheartened. This is not the case now. Barack Obama has torn the mask off. We can now see the tyrannical ambition at the heart of the progressive impulse. Moreover, thanks to the Tea-Party Movement, fear of which caused the Republican Party to grow a spine, Barack Obama now faces a united opposition; and, in opposing his healthcare initiative, the Republicans have articulated an argument that is both true and cogent — that there is no way to pay for a massive, new entitlement program on this scale without crippling the American economy.

          This is not a matter of rocket science. When the situation we are in is explained, anyone who has ever managed to balance a checkbook can understand what is at stake. If taxes — especially taxes on employment and investment, the two areas targeted in the healthcare bill — are raised to a sufficient level, investors will not risk what they have acquired by investing it in new and expanded enterprises — they will hoard their funds as they did in the 1930s and the early 1940s– and businesses will not hire. The practical consequence of Obamacare is economic stagnation and long-term structural unemployment of just the sort that has dogged France now for something like thirty years. If this argument is restated, if it is advanced time and again over the next three years, it will strike home. It already has.

          The simple truth is that the welfare state is bankrupt. The money that earners pay for Medicare does not come close to covering the costs. This year, Social Security will pay out more money than it takes in. There is no Social Security Trust Fund. Lyndon Johnson and his successors borrowed that money long ago and spent it. All that the so-called trust fund has is a collection of IOUs about to come due.

          There is a reason for the crisis of the welfare state. Before Otto von Bismarck invented social insurance, before his invention was picked up in country after country, the elderly looked to their children for support; and, in part with this in mind, they had them aplenty. Everywhere in the world, however, where social insurance has been instituted, the birthrate has gradually gone down, as mores and manners have adjusted to new circumstances — and, irony of ironies, this deterioration in the birthrate has everywhere had as a consequence a relative decline in the number of earners able to fund the benefits expected by the retired. The shortfall would not be all that severe were it not for the fact that modern medicine enables Americans to live much longer lives than those who established the Social Security Administration and Medicare imagined possible. Doubling down with Obamacare promises to turn what was already a very serious problem into an unmitigated catastrophe, and plenty of Americans recognize the gravity of the situation. It was the so-called “stimulus bill,” which ostentatiously looted the future to support constituencies loyal to the Democratic Party, that initiated the eruption we call the Tea-Party Movement. And now we have “healthcare reform” to complete what the “stimulus bill” did not accomplish.

          Economically, all of this is a disaster. Politically, however, it is an opportunity that did not exist in 1936 or in 1965. I believe, in fact, that it is a greater opportunity than the one that the Republicans halfheartedly grasped in 1946. As I contended in an earlier post, all that the Republicans have to do now is to restate the critique that FDR directed at Herbert Hoover and the business progressives at the Democratic Convention in 1936, for the argument that he advanced on that occasion — that “a small group” of his fellow Americans was intent on concentrating “into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives” — is now quite obviously true. FDR’s words should be posted on every billboard in America.

          What, you might ask, about the 60% of Americans who receive more from the government than they pay in? I will respond to a what amounts to a rhetorical question with a series of rhetorical questions. Can this be sustained in the age of Obamacare? What happens when those who pay the taxes go on strike, as they did in the 1930s and 1940s? Keep in mind that, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, unemployment was still at 15%. Moreover, many of those who depend on federal largesse are ashamed to be in the condition they are in. When the Republicans forced Bill Clinton to acquiesce in welfare reform in the 1990s, those forced off the rolls went to work with hardly a whimper. There is something shameful about living off others, and everyone in the United States understands as much. What Americans want are genuine jobs, and that is precisely what Barack Obama intends to deny them.

          What seems like a catastrophe is a grand opportunity, and the only thing that can save Barack Obama and the Democrats is the Republican Party. If they Republicans cave in, if they return to their traditional role as tax collectors for the welfare state, then and only then will Obama’s coup d’état become a success. If, however, under fierce pressure from the Tea Party Movement, they stick to their guns, if they articulate the argument for limited government and balanced budgets, if they are unwilling to compromise, there will be a realignment. If Mark Steyn is right about the plight we are in — and he may well be right — it will not be because the American people are corrupt beyond repair. It will be because the Republicans are a worthless lot. This is their testing time — and ours, for if we keep the pressure up, if we push from office anyone inclined to cave in, the Republicans may surprise us by conducting themselves in an honorable fashion.

          By Big Governement
          April 6, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          The Black Guy in Chief

          As far as white people go, you couldn’t get much whiter than Teddy Kennedy. He was utterly luminescent. Running around in his boxer shorts, chasing the college girls his nephew William brought home that night, he must have appeared almost ghost-like. Yet when he proposed Nationalized Healthcare, we soundly rejected it.

          obamamirror-1

          I can’t think of a bigger white cracker redneck than William Jefferson Clinton. He grew up in a trailer, and had a pick-up truck lined with Astroturf. While he was fooling around in the Oval Office, his wife tried to get Nationalized Health Care passed. America hated that idea so much, that we turned over the House and Senate to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years.

          But now that Barack Obama has managed to shove a deplorable piece of questionably constitutional legislation through the corrupt purchasable legislature, we are tarred as racists for criticizing his actions.

          We weren’t even allowed to hope he failed. That remark caused a lot of ruckus over the past year. For some reason if you don’t want the President’s agenda to pass, you are rooting against the Nation. Yet for eight years our opponents were allowed to get away with the remark: “I support the troops but I don’t support the mission.”

          It always sounded kind of dumb to me, like “I support the Cubs, I just don’t want them to win the World Series” (and in my lifetime, they’ve yet to disappoint). Now when we on the Right say that we support the President, but not his policies, we are ignorant bigots. Which brings us around to the most common rationale you hear on the Left. “They’re only opposed to Barack Obama’s health bill, because they don’t want a black guy in the White House.”

          I beg to differ.

          The only reason why we might support Barack Obama, is because he is black. His presidency is proof that there is one less barrier standing in the way of racial equality. Now we have evidence that anyone in America can rise to the White House, regardless of race or religion. (Well almost. The American Electorate is still a little hinckey about Jews and Mormons.)

          We are not opposed to a black guy in the White House; we just don’t want THAT black guy. I would be delighted to see Clarence Thomas run for office, although I wouldn’t want to see what was left of the Constitution, after he resigned his seat for as long as it would take to get elected.

          I don’t like Obama’s ideas about Health Care, or Climate Change, or the Economy or pretty much everything else He has proposed. I didn’t like it from Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid either. The things he has already passed have done enough damage to this Nation, I don’t want to see any more of his nightmares legislated in to reality. We have been quite specific about the substantial list of things we’re opposed to.

          I think the entire Administration is a bunch of power-hungry Communists, that still want revenge on the United States for embarrassing the Soviet Union’s great social experiment. From that remark, you can clearly see that I oppose power-hungry communists.

          Opposition is equal and opposite to support. So if the only reason that people on the Left can see for our opposition to Obama, is his color, then apparently they voted for him because he is a black guy. “Yes We Can” was the slogan of the campaign; I guess the full sentence was, “Yes We can elect a black guy President.”

          According to Tavris Wade, introductory textbook “Psychology,” projection: “…is always seen as a defense mechanism that occurs when a person’s own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.”

          Projection is exactly what happens when Democrats accuse Conservatives of racism. Republicans fight for the individual rights, so they see every American as a unique individual. Democrats fight for group rights, so your average Democrat only sees groups, differentiated by gender, race, and sexual preference.

          Their power structure is based on granting privileges to special distinct groups. In this way they have assembled coalitions of minorities, LGBTs, Africa-Americans, Hispanics (which is actually a group of many different cultural identities, lumped together only because they talk the same.)  This political strategy has worked its way into the thinking of every Democrat. So naturally they assume that Republicans have the same bias.

          It explains a lot. Because it was obvious to anyone paying attention, that Barack Obama didn’t have the qualifications for the Presidency. Here is a community organizer with very little on his resume. He voted present numerous times during his tenure as a State lawmaker, and his Presidential run was the first election cycle he actually had to campaign.

          It puzzled those of us on the right why he had such support. He had less administrative experience than Sarah Palin, and it would appear a little less intelligence. The people, who are criticizing Sarah for a few crib notes in the palm of her hand, have known for two years that our President reads every thought off of a teleprompter word for word.(even the typos.)

          So why did they vote for him? Perhaps, he won for the same reason he was given a Nobel Prize: because he is there. His very presence is worthy of awards.(Apparently his votes of “Present’ in the Legislature were far more substantial than I imagined.)

          He wasn’t elected for his vision. His health care plan, wasn’t substantially different from the one Hillary proposed, or the one Teddy Kennedy proposed. His contribution to the debate was his ability to silence the opposition with political correctness. Their talking points were scripted long before the November election even happened. The prejudices that Republicans hoped were lapsing, Democrats were waiting to exploit.

          It could be that I’m an old fashioned guy, who remembers back when soccer games were scored, but I think that being given an unearned award is a little demeaning. It’s almost as if he’s being treated like a contestant in the Special Olympics, where everyone gets a medal just for competing.

          The President himself once compared his bowling to the Special Olympics; turns out, his entire Presidency is like his bowling (his approval rating isn’t far from his bowling score).

          Perhaps instead of the White House, we should have just given him a bowling trophy.

          By Big Governement
          April 6, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Coming Soon: ‘USPIGS’

          In the vernacular of financial commentary, “PIGS” is the term recently coined by the financial markets to refer to sovereign countries whose economies are virtually bankrupt and whose bonds are virtually worthless. These are the basket cases of the international economic system — Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain.  Recent evidence suggests that the fiscally irresponsible PIGS may soon have a new applicant for membership in their club.  Membership in this particular club is somewhat reminiscent of Groucho Marx’s famous remark that “I wouldn’t belong to any club that would have me for a member.” The new expanded club’s acronym is shaping up to be (you guessed it) USPIGS.  No, the United States is not about to go bankrupt.  Not yet, anyway. We are, however, pursuing the very same types of vast spending policies that brought the PIGS of Europe face to face with that real possibility.

          flat-earth

          What have we done recently to be considered for membership in this club of dubious distinction?  Last week, government budget personnel revised their estimate of when Social Security would begin running in the red from 2017 to, essentially, “right away.”  Yes, Social Security is broke…right now!  So much for government estimates.

          The announcement of this distressing news was, it appears, kept well under wraps until Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid along with a shamelessly compliant Democratic Congress safely ramrodded Obamacare, with its astonishing price tag, into law. The entitlement sinkhole just got an order of magnitude bigger.  “But,” one might ask,  “haven’t we been accumulating all the excess funds paid into Social Security all these years in a special trust fund.”  Well, not exactly.  In fact, not even almost exactly.  You see, the government has been vacuuming out the excess cash as soon as it comes in and spending the money (the money we all paid in) to pay the government’s current bills.  The trust-fund cash has been replaced all this time with IOU’s (that’s internal Treasury debt), which are now being called to meet current payment obligations.  These IOU’s are being replaced, of course, with even more IOU’s but this time there is no more cash to divert from payroll taxes to fund government operations. We have to borrow more.

          The timing just couldn’t have been worse, with the multi-trillion-dollar Obamacare entitlement enacted into law by the Democrats, and Moody’s having just announced that our AAA credit rating could be in jeopardy if we don’t meet our economic growth projections. Those are the very same growth projections being compromised by our ever-spiraling deficits, our ever-growing national debt and by the federal and state tax collectors about to go on a government-mandated, national pick-pocketing binge.

          We have, in a number of previous essays, cited the spending plans of the current Administration as irresponsible.  Not that there is anything inherently irresponsible with borrowing against future receipts to accomplish needed and worthwhile objectives so long as there is a credible repayment plan.  But when anyone, especially the government, spends borrowed money based on future expectations, then the principles upon which those expectations of future revenue are based have to be realistic and grounded in sound economic theory.  Sadly, the chickens have come home to roost on the past projections upon which Congress and the Administration have relied. And just as we have previously claimed they were doing (“cooking the books” with unrealistic forecasts to justify passage of the Obamacare legislation), the evidence is in that Congress has justified its profligate spending habits by basing expenditure decisions upon demonstrably unrealistic optimistic projections of economic growth while also understating the future costs of the laws they enact.

          Entitlement costs, like those for greatly expanded health care, get baked into the annual budget (referred to in budget speak as non discretionary spending), even though the revenue going forward is quite variable.  As proof of that, the fact that Social Security is in the red seven years earlier than the government projections anticipated, is largely the result of the economic downturn.  The benefits are fixed while the economy, which produces the receipts from payroll taxes, is, extremely variable.  Picture a graph with two lines, moving from left to right, one to illustrate benefits (costs) and the other to illustrate income (social-security tax receipts). Obviously you would want the lines to move in tandem, ideally with the income line running ahead (above) the cost line.  When they run counter to one another, that is, when the cost line turns up and the income line turns down you have what we’ll call an insolvency gap.  Our current social-security insolvency gap is more than very troublesome. It has put us on the road to a fiscal train wreck. This is the type of wide-yawning gap that has driven Greece to its knees and threatens the other “PIGS” countries as well.

          To be sure, this mess has been building for a long time and we can’t blame past irresponsibility on President Obama.  He, as the junior senator from Illinois, was still trying to find the way to his Senate office when the current crisis began to build during the Bush years. But now he is president and it is his responsibility to provide the leadership to resolve the mess, not to make it worse. Unfortunately, the president and his ill-timed redistributive policies are exacerbating, not alleviating our economic problems by rushing headlong to squeeze money out of the private sector and into the hands of a wide array of government programs essentially designed to redistribute private wealth. With fewer resources in the private sector it is almost axiomatic that government tax revenues from private economic activity will be constrained. Of course, at the same time  the government continues to spend at an accelerated rate, Congress and the Administration project steady economic growth with no further downturns. We have seen how reliable those projections have been in the past.  Our national priority should be to do everything we can to foster economic growth.  Instead, we are doing just the opposite.

          Further complicating the matter is that Obamacare imposes very substantial new costs on the states, nearly all of which are struggling mightily with their own budgets.  As we write this essay, The Sunday New York Times reports on its front page how states are now seeking to tax services, “…From Head To Toe.”  The federal government and the state governments are embarking on a colossal revenue chase to squeeze more and more taxes from the nation’s taxpayers.

          It has been demonstrated that when public debt reaches 90% of GDP economic growth begins to deteriorate.  Add non-public debt (when we borrow from our own “lock boxes or trust funds”) such as what we owe to Social Security and our other totally unfunded liabilities, and the picture really starts to become very troublesome.  CBO now estimates that our deficits over the next ten years will be $1.2 trillion more than the Obama administration projected (why do these type of corrections always seem to come out right after we legislate massive new entitlement commitments?); and that we will have reached that 90% public debt to GDP ratio within the next ten years.

          This is not simply academic or esoteric chatter.  It matters and it matters a lot to every American family.   That $1.2 trillion miscalculation by the Obama Administration represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt each household is already carrying according to Heritage Foundation budget analyst Brian Riedl.  Keep in mind the federal public debt was a gaping $6.3 trillion or $56,000 per household when President Bush left office. Today, it stands at $8.2 trillion or $72,000 per household and, according to the CBO estimates, in less than ten years it looks like it could reach $20.3 trillion.  That would be $170,000 per household!  When we talk about the Administration or Congress passing debt onto our children that’s exactly what we are talking about.  Ultimately, our kids and their kids will pay to service that debt with additional taxes the government extracts from them or through vastly decreased value of their currency. Either way, their standard of living and their quality of life is certain to suffer.

          James R Horney, a federal-budget analyst with the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities acknowledges that lower tax revenue resulting from economic performance that is lower than government projections accounts for the biggest part of the deficit gap between the Administration’s estimates and the CBO’s. “The administration assumes GDP and incomes will be higher, and that translates into higher revenues than CBO expects. Relatively small differences in economic assumptions can add up to big differences over 10 years,” says Horney.

          Budget analysts Riedl and Horney, one conservative and one liberal, both offer very worthwhile observations.  Their comments are also very instructive.  They illustrate how minor errors or miscalculations in projections can, over time, compound into major problems.  They also suggest the ease with which government staff can game the system to influence the score the CBO comes up with on any piece of legislation.  When constructing the assumptions that accompany a bill to the CBO for scoring, a little tinkering here and there can pretty much produce the score one wants.  The Administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can play the same game. Plug in a half percent more growth and more tax revenue here and there and PRESTO you can make a projected budget deficit neutral or even reduce a shortfall.

          We, of course, don’t know if such chicanery was at work in the case of the healthcare bill.  We do, however, find it disheartening that the CBO didn’t discover, until two days after President Obama signed the healthcare bill into law, the disparity between the growth projections the Administration made and those that CBO considers to be realistic.  And as stated earlier in this essay, that turned out to be a $1.2 trillion late discovery.

          The bad news is that in a little less than ten years our public debt will reach 90% of estimated GDP (sort of like the PIGS of Europe).  At the time Mr. Obama was elected President our public debt stood at 40% of GDP.  The good news is (well not exactly good news) we have time to do something about it.  The government can rethink the statist, redistributive course we are on and begin focusing on policies designed to grow the economy…to encourage private investment and sound risk taking…to leave as much wealth in the hands of the people as possible.

          Based on his actions since he took office, President Obama is not of a mind to view the sudden insolvency of Social Security or the Administration’s $1.2 trillion miscalculation of the nation’s deficit over the next decade with alarm and rethink the course he is plotting. Rather, he and the Democratic Congress seem to be of a mind, instead, to think damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Their rhetoric and actions suggest that, given the current control they exercise, they see this as a once in a lifetime chance to vastly increase the role of government and to let the debt problem slide further down the road. It is far more satisfying to engage in expensive social engineering than in the hard choices necessary to cut spending.

          We suspect, however, we do know what the mind of the voting public will be once the hard reality sinks in of where we are, where we are headed and the consequences to the nation of being a fiscal basket case where debt backed by the “full faith and credit” of the United States (our Treasury bonds), long viewed as the refuge of investor’s seeking safety, could be salable only if America paid much higher rates of interest.

          What has happened to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain is not hard to fathom.  It is a mystery to no one who understands basic economics, unencumbered by partisan political philosophy.  The PIGS have borrowed to spend (and are committed to spend) more than they can ever hope to repay.  It’s that simple. In the case of Greece, they need some form of a bailout. The other three nations are not far behind unless they treat their current crisis as a wakeup call and quickly take painful remedial measures. It appears to us when we look at what Congress has just legislated and the president has signed into law, together with what the president’s other priorities seem to be, that we are about to follow the path well traveled by the basket cases of Europe.  Why in the world would we do that?

          Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter

          By Big Governement
          April 5, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Flat Tax or National Sales Tax?

          My post last week about the flat tax generated a lot of friendly comment and email, but also some pointed questions about whether a national sales tax such as the Fair Tax would be a better approach. Since I’ve written favorably about a national sales tax, debated in favor of a national sales tax, and even testified to the Ways & Means Committee about the positive attributes of a national sales tax, I certainly have no objection to that reform. Any single-rate, consumption-base tax would be a vast improvement over our corrupt and punitive internal revenue code.

          So why, then, do I spend most of my time on the flat tax? The simple answer is that I don’t trust Washington. We know the politicians are salivating at the prospect of imposing a broad-based consumption levy such as the value-added tax. And we know they want the VAT in addition to the income tax. What’s to stop them from saying they’ll impose a national sales tax, promising to repeal other taxes, but then pulling a bait and switch and giving us both? As I explain in this video, the national sales tax should only happen after supporters amend the Constitution to repeal the 16th Amendment and replace it with an ironclad ban on income taxation to protect against political duplicity.

          Amending the Constitution, however, is a daunting challenge. Does anyone really think a proposed amendment to prohibit income taxation would attract the required two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate? Even when Republicans were in charge, there were not enough votes to approve a watered-down balanced budget amendment, so it seems unlikely that a far bolder proposal could attract sufficient support. And even if Congress approved such an amendment, what are the odds that three-fourths of the states would ratify?

          Some supporters of the national sales tax argue that the legislation is self-enforcing since it includes language repealing income taxes, but that would be about as effective as the French army. There would be nothing to stop a future Congress (or even the same Congress) from voting to re-impose an income tax at any future point. Does anyone want to trust America’s future prosperity to people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

          Other Fair Tax proponents point out – quite accurately – that there are no way of preventing politicians from also dismantling a flat tax and reneging on their promises. That’s a very fair point, but this is why we should compare the downside risks of both proposals. If we adopt a flat tax and the politicians then decide to stab taxpayers in the back, the worst result is that they reimpose something akin the current system. That’s bad, but the downside risk of a national sale tax is that the politicians impose the new tax and then conveniently decide that they want to keep the income tax. When the dust settles, the politicians have a giant source of additional tax revenue and we wind up becoming a European-style welfare state with a much bigger burden of government.

          I’m not a big fan of taking wild risks, so I’ll stick with the flat tax.

          By Big Governement
          April 5, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Flat Tax or National Sales Tax?

          My post last week about the flat tax generated a lot of friendly comment and email, but also some pointed questions about whether a national sales tax such as the Fair Tax would be a better approach. Since I’ve written favorably about a national sales tax, debated in favor of a national sales tax, and even testified to the Ways & Means Committee about the positive attributes of a national sales tax, I certainly have no objection to that reform. Any single-rate, consumption-base tax would be a vast improvement over our corrupt and punitive internal revenue code.

          So why, then, do I spend most of my time on the flat tax? The simple answer is that I don’t trust Washington. We know the politicians are salivating at the prospect of imposing a broad-based consumption levy such as the value-added tax. And we know they want the VAT in addition to the income tax. What’s to stop them from saying they’ll impose a national sales tax, promising to repeal other taxes, but then pulling a bait and switch and giving us both? As I explain in this video, the national sales tax should only happen after supporters amend the Constitution to repeal the 16th Amendment and replace it with an ironclad ban on income taxation to protect against political duplicity.

          Amending the Constitution, however, is a daunting challenge. Does anyone really think a proposed amendment to prohibit income taxation would attract the required two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate? Even when Republicans were in charge, there were not enough votes to approve a watered-down balanced budget amendment, so it seems unlikely that a far bolder proposal could attract sufficient support. And even if Congress approved such an amendment, what are the odds that three-fourths of the states would ratify?

          Some supporters of the national sales tax argue that the legislation is self-enforcing since it includes language repealing income taxes, but that would be about as effective as the French army. There would be nothing to stop a future Congress (or even the same Congress) from voting to re-impose an income tax at any future point. Does anyone want to trust America’s future prosperity to people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

          Other Fair Tax proponents point out – quite accurately – that there are no way of preventing politicians from also dismantling a flat tax and reneging on their promises. That’s a very fair point, but this is why we should compare the downside risks of both proposals. If we adopt a flat tax and the politicians then decide to stab taxpayers in the back, the worst result is that they reimpose something akin the current system. That’s bad, but the downside risk of a national sale tax is that the politicians impose the new tax and then conveniently decide that they want to keep the income tax. When the dust settles, the politicians have a giant source of additional tax revenue and we wind up becoming a European-style welfare state with a much bigger burden of government.

          I’m not a big fan of taking wild risks, so I’ll stick with the flat tax.

          By Big Governement
          April 5, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Police nEGGligence In Tea Party Bus Egging Case

          It’s been about a week since eggs thrown by Harry Reid supporters exploded onto the windshield of the Tea Party Express bus as it rolled through his hometown of Searchlight, NV. The crime, reported to police just moments after it happened, was ignored by local authorities, who wouldn’t return phone calls and dodged responsibility with a line stolen from bad police movies, “Nothing we can do, that’s not our jurisdiction.”

          IMG_2981

          With egg yolk dripping down his windshield and obscuring visibility, Tea Party Express bus driver Jerry Ragle pulled to the side of the road and told an officer what had happened, giving a brief description of the thrower. In the days following, Jerry has followed up with repeated calls to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, yet was unable to get any law enforcement to take interest in the attack. On the first call to LVMPD, he was told he’d have to call back later – the person that takes reports was at lunch.  Evidently crime takes a regular lunch break in Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, which must be remarkably convenient.  Jerry left a message, and waited all day for a return call that never came.

          The next day and several thousand highway miles later, another call to the police was even more disappointing – our driver was told that yes, throwing eggs at a moving vehicle filled with people was indeed a crime, but it would not be investigated by their department. Since the crime took place on the road, we were told it was out of their jurisdiction and had to be handled by the NV Highway Patrol.  You read that right – crimes that happen on the road are out of the jurisdiction of the local police department. Could this mean that we drivers are no longer subject to the obnoxious small-town speed traps that always pop up towards the end of the month? From what we were told, unless the Highway Patrol gets involved, the local cops have no jurisdiction!

          A day later, while waiting to talk to the Highway Patrol, the LVMPD inexplicably called Jerry back, saying they had now determined that the road indeed WAS in their jurisdiction, and they’d be happy to take a police report!  We have no idea what caused their total reversal in position, but perhaps it had something to do with intensifying media coverage of the event, which originated at the website Founding Bloggers, and quickly spread to Big Government, Fox News, and the Daily Caller before being talked about by Limbaugh, Hannity, and even Jon Stewart.

          Whatever their motivation, the LVMPD finally decided after almost a week that they would at least take a police report from our driver regarding the attack.

          What happens next, and whether any further action is taken remains to be seen.

          By Big Governement
          April 5, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Police nEGGligence In Tea Party Bus Egging Case

          It’s been about a week since eggs thrown by Harry Reid supporters exploded onto the windshield of the Tea Party Express bus as it rolled through his hometown of Searchlight, NV. The crime, reported to police just moments after it happened, was ignored by local authorities, who wouldn’t return phone calls and dodged responsibility with a line stolen from bad police movies, “Nothing we can do, that’s not our jurisdiction.”

          IMG_2981

          With egg yolk dripping down his windshield and obscuring visibility, Tea Party Express bus driver Jerry Ragle pulled to the side of the road and told an officer what had happened, giving a brief description of the thrower. In the days following, Jerry has followed up with repeated calls to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, yet was unable to get any law enforcement to take interest in the attack. On the first call to LVMPD, he was told he’d have to call back later – the person that takes reports was at lunch.  Evidently crime takes a regular lunch break in Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, which must be remarkably convenient.  Jerry left a message, and waited all day for a return call that never came.

          The next day and several thousand highway miles later, another call to the police was even more disappointing – our driver was told that yes, throwing eggs at a moving vehicle filled with people was indeed a crime, but it would not be investigated by their department. Since the crime took place on the road, we were told it was out of their jurisdiction and had to be handled by the NV Highway Patrol.  You read that right – crimes that happen on the road are out of the jurisdiction of the local police department. Could this mean that we drivers are no longer subject to the obnoxious small-town speed traps that always pop up towards the end of the month? From what we were told, unless the Highway Patrol gets involved, the local cops have no jurisdiction!

          A day later, while waiting to talk to the Highway Patrol, the LVMPD inexplicably called Jerry back, saying they had now determined that the road indeed WAS in their jurisdiction, and they’d be happy to take a police report!  We have no idea what caused their total reversal in position, but perhaps it had something to do with intensifying media coverage of the event, which originated at the website Founding Bloggers, and quickly spread to Big Government, Fox News, and the Daily Caller before being talked about by Limbaugh, Hannity, and even Jon Stewart.

          Whatever their motivation, the LVMPD finally decided after almost a week that they would at least take a police report from our driver regarding the attack.

          What happens next, and whether any further action is taken remains to be seen.

          By Big Governement
          April 5, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Police nEGGligence In Tea Party Bus Egging Case

          It’s been about a week since eggs thrown by Harry Reid supporters exploded onto the windshield of the Tea Party Express bus as it rolled through his hometown of Searchlight, NV. The crime, reported to police just moments after it happened, was ignored by local authorities, who wouldn’t return phone calls and dodged responsibility with a line stolen from bad police movies, “Nothing we can do, that’s not our jurisdiction.”

          IMG_2981

          With egg yolk dripping down his windshield and obscuring visibility, Tea Party Express bus driver Jerry Ragle pulled to the side of the road and told an officer what had happened, giving a brief description of the thrower. In the days following, Jerry has followed up with repeated calls to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, yet was unable to get any law enforcement to take interest in the attack. On the first call to LVMPD, he was told he’d have to call back later – the person that takes reports was at lunch.  Evidently crime takes a regular lunch break in Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, which must be remarkably convenient.  Jerry left a message, and waited all day for a return call that never came.

          The next day and several thousand highway miles later, another call to the police was even more disappointing – our driver was told that yes, throwing eggs at a moving vehicle filled with people was indeed a crime, but it would not be investigated by their department. Since the crime took place on the road, we were told it was out of their jurisdiction and had to be handled by the NV Highway Patrol.  You read that right – crimes that happen on the road are out of the jurisdiction of the local police department. Could this mean that we drivers are no longer subject to the obnoxious small-town speed traps that always pop up towards the end of the month? From what we were told, unless the Highway Patrol gets involved, the local cops have no jurisdiction!

          A day later, while waiting to talk to the Highway Patrol, the LVMPD inexplicably called Jerry back, saying they had now determined that the road indeed WAS in their jurisdiction, and they’d be happy to take a police report!  We have no idea what caused their total reversal in position, but perhaps it had something to do with intensifying media coverage of the event, which originated at the website Founding Bloggers, and quickly spread to Big Government, Fox News, and the Daily Caller before being talked about by Limbaugh, Hannity, and even Jon Stewart.

          Whatever their motivation, the LVMPD finally decided after almost a week that they would at least take a police report from our driver regarding the attack.

          What happens next, and whether any further action is taken remains to be seen.

          By Big Governement
          April 5, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          ‘Hannity’: Breitbart Targeted By Reid Supporters

          This is a rush transcript from “Hannity,” April 2, 2010.

          RICH LOWRY, GUEST HOST: Good evening, I’m Rich Lowry in tonight for Sean Hannity. It seems that those on the left feel that the First Amendment applies only to themselves. Members of the Tea Party movement saw that firsthand last weekend as they attempted to travel to a rally in Harry Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, Nevada.

          Reid supporters lined the streets throwing eggs at the Tea Party buses as they passed by. There are even reports that some of those Reid supporters intentionally redirected buses in the wrong direction as they approach the rally.

          Journalist Andrew Breitbart was there and watched it all go down. Take a look:

          ANDREW BREITBART, BIGGOVERNMENT.COM: They throw eggs. They’re throwing eggs. Lovely. They threw eggs, isn’t that nice.

          UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody on the bus.

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get them out of here or I’m going to jail today. Get him out of here.

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Out of my way.

          BREITBART: What did you just say?

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I said I love you! In spite of what you are! You heard what I said.

          BREITBART: You’re going to jail if I don’t get out of here?

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody (INAUDIBLE) disagreements.

          BREITBART: I haven’t said anything provocative.

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know, I know.

          BREITBART: I I haven’t said one thing provocative.

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s over! It’s over!

          BREITBART: My mere standing here is causing people to get — intimate that they want to be violent against me.

          (END VIDEO CLIP)

          Follow the full transcript at FoxNews.com.

          By Big Governement
          April 5, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Global Warming, R. I. P.

          What is the most important issue facing the American people today? Until late last Fall, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, the presidents of our major universities, and the editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time, The New Yorker, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, WNBC, and the like –  not to mention the scientific establishment in the United States – were as one in telling us that global warming was a profound threat to our well-being and that of the rest of mankind. And John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and sadly, in the end, a hapless George W. Bush were willing to lend the hysterics a measure of aid and comfort.

          Goracle

          In the United States Senate, the indomitable James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma was very nearly alone in standing up to denounce the whole enterprise as a hoax, and in turn he was himself denounced by all right-thinking people as a scoundrel and a fool. There were, of course, scientists proficient in meteorology who entertained grave doubts, and some of them made a great fuss, but they were soon denied federal funding for further research, and young entrants into the profession quickly learned that if they wished to have successful careers it was incumbent on them to join the chorus who denounced global-warming skeptics as lackeys of the fossil fuels industry. The global-warming cabal was to the liberal democracies of our time what  Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and his disciples were to biology in the Soviet Union of Josef Stalin.

          When he became President, Barack Obama pledged to “roll back the specter of a warming planet” and “restore science to its rightful place,” implying – graceless as always – that the administration of George W. Bush had suppressed inconvenient scientific truths in the interests of ideology. In fact, Obama seems not to have understood what he was saying, for a specter is “an apparition inspiring dread,” and it is one of the principal functions of science to dispel illusions of this very sort; and, instead of debunking “the specter of a warming planet” and restoring “science to its rightful place” thereby, he embraced that specter and sought by way of inspiring dread in the American people to railroad his compatriots into subjecting the entire economy to the supervision of the administrative state.

          One could, of course, argue that President Obama did not know any better – that, like Senators McCain and Graham, he believed the propaganda spread by the global-warming cabal. Such a presumption cannot, however, be sustained. By the time that our President left the United States for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen this past December, it had become clear that that the work done by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which formed the basis for the four reports issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was a sham – that the data was doctored, that the computer simulation was a fraud, and that systematic efforts were made by the most prominent climate scientists to corrupt the peer-review process and suppress legitimate criticism: all for the purpose of imposing a strait jacket on the world economy. In Copenhagen, President Obama could have acknowledged the truth: that some of the most prominent climate scientists had betrayed their calling, that the global-warming hypothesis remained, in fact, unproven, and that the reports issued by the IPCC provide no basis for the making of public policy. He could have recommended that there be further study, that the raw data collected and the computer code written be made available for inspection by all, and that research funds be apportioned equally between those who assert and those who deny that we are threatened by anthropogenic global warming. He did nothing of the sort, of course, and it was only thanks to the stubbornness of the Chinese that we have been spared the submission to the Senate of a treaty designed to hamstring the American economy. Even now our President remains committed to the passage of a cap-and-trade bill designed to achieve that end and to the use of the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency to a similar end.

          In the meantime, the scandal has deepened, as claim after claim included in the putatively authoritative reports issued by the IPCC have been proven groundless. The posture of the mainstream press within the United States in the face of all of this is arguably the scandal’s most shocking aspect. We are used to being lied to by politicians: Barack Obama is a recognizable type. We have encountered his like before. But the press, however partisan any given newspaper or television station may be, is supposed to be vigilant, and it is in its interest to be vigilant.

          We buy newspapers and magazines, we watch television news and listen to radio programs because we want to know what is going on. Very few of us are apt to be satisfied with a press no more informative than was Pravda in the heyday of the Soviet Union. This scandal, worldwide in its proportions and profound in its import, was ready-made for enterprising reporters, and, to be fair, they have made their mark . . . in foreign countries such as Great Britain – where The Guardian, a left-wing daily firmly committed to the global warming hypothesis, has nonetheless distinguished itself by the vigor it has displayed in pursuing evidence of scientific fraud in this regard. None of the news outlets mentioned in the first paragraph of this essay has pursued the story. At best, long after the facts have come out, they have noted their deployment by the global-warming skeptics. Were it not for the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, Americans who limited their purview to the mainstream media would have hardly a clue as to what is happening.

          This is, of course, part of a larger trend. The mainstream press has largely forgotten its function, and these days it flacks where it used to report. It is this that explains why fewer and fewer Americans subscribe to newspapers and magazines and watch the television networks listed above. And this explains why the internet has been such a boon. But, this fact notwithstanding, we are in a pickle – for, to date anyway, none of the operations on the internet that report the news have the resources requisite for pursuing such a story. We are, in fact, dependent on the foreign press.

          Witness Der Spiegel – a German imitator of what Time was like when we still had newsmagazines in the United States. In its current issue, one can find a lengthy and devastating survey of the state of climate science entitled Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research. It is a must-read: meticulous, cautious, and intelligently skeptical. Its authors do not claim that there is no such thing as global warming. They suspect that something of the sort may be taking place. What they insist on, however, are the limits of our current knowledge, the attempt by a politicized profession to pull a con, and the economic and social dangers associated with making radical shifts in public policy on the basis of unfounded speculation. We can now be confident that the global-warming hoax is history – for, if the pious purveyors of environmentalism in Germany have lost faith, the game is up. I doubt, however, that any of the politicians, press outlets, universities, or scientific journals associated with this scam will backtrack. My bet is that they quietly change the subject and that the perpetrators of the hoax get off scot free.

          But this leaves one question unanswered. Why do we have to go abroad if we are to be well-informed concerning matters of public policy pertinent to our own well-being? Someone should put that question to those responsible for news content in the mainstream media. If they want to survive, they had better wake up.

          By Big Governement
          April 5, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Shining the Light on Searchlight

          The Nevada desert can be cold and windy, as it was in Searchlight, but the message was one of warmth and optimism. It was one of disgust with government, but a belief that we can turn this around and begin our sprint back towards Constitutional values.

          HarryReid1

          As a candidate running for US Senate against Harry Reid I know what this battle is like first hand. As a 4-term Nevada Assemblyman I have felt the pressures by those on the left to grow government to the point that it will strangle the people and I have fought it at every turn.

          I found a large group of Americans in Searchlight who wanted change and were willing to fight the dirty, cold wind on that marvelous Saturday because they believe with all their hearts that the values set forth in our Founding documents are those that lead to Liberty and Freedom unsurpassed by any nation on earth. That is the message of the Tea Party movement, a return to Constitutional values that we seem to have forgotten. This movement that began with government intrusion into our lives through “healthcare reform” has shown to me that the health of our nation is fine in many respects. There is nothing healthier than respectful, dignified and direct distrust in government. It is the message of our Founding.

          The people I met were uplifting with their messages. Sure, you could see the anger in their words, but I did not see fear. I saw unity and direction. I saw a desire to return to American greatness that has taken an intense hit lately.

          It was inspiring to me to feel the goodness of Americans as I addressed the crowd on issues that are important to us all. We cannot afford more taxes. I don’t know how to make that any more simple. The signs I saw being waved at me as I spoke made that very clear. Washington DC has become blind and deaf to this message. As an Assemblyman, I vote that way every time, not part of the time or sometimes, or just when it’s convenient or when I can call them “fees” instead of taxes. I fight the desire of big government to strangle the people every time that I can. In 2003 I was the deciding vote to keep Nevada from instituting an income tax. The pressure to flip my vote to a “yes” was tremendous and powerful, and it came from many of my close friends in the casino industry. Still, I did not cave and the people I have served know that they are better off when they keep more of their money. You cannot truly be free if you are not financially free.

          Following that 2003 vote Harry Reid was not happy with me. He chose one of his protégés to run against me in the next election. He made calls on his behalf, raised money for him, and the candidate spent twice the money to beat me. Still, my constituents were not fooled and they held with me and respected my vote and I won that election by twice the margin of my opponent. I know how to win tough elections and I have faced the Reid Machine before and I know how to defeat it. That respect amongst the voters was realized again in 2008 when I kept my seat when many other great Republicans were swept away in the “Obama Wave”. Obama won my district by 10 percentage points over McCain, and I still came out on top. My 13th Assembly district in Nevada is the largest in the state and has more Democrat voters than Republicans. Voters respond to true conservative values, I have seen this first hand.

          As a state assemblyman I have called on Nevada to fight this “healthcare” bill with all the power possible. I have called on my fellow legislators to stand with the governor in this effort and defeat this at the state level as an intrusion on the 10th amendment. Many states are also doing this and this absolutely has to be our first step. I would hope the US Supreme Court would consider this bill and rule it unconstitutional, but we cannot wait for that. If elected Senator I would fight to repeal this bill, but that is a difficult thing to do. Certainly not impossible, but I want this fought at every turn possible. I recall the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federals Papers 26:

          “State legislatures will always be, not only the vigilant, but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government.”

          Alexander Hamilton was speaking to me. He was speaking to us all. Those who attended this rally in Searchlight reflected his words and I am fighting to have them enforced. Our Founders knew that you could not have a strong nation without a strong Union of those 13 Colonies. We now need 50 strong states to have a strong nation. The states need to flex their Constitutional muscle.

          Harry Reid will be a tough opponent. Make no doubt about it. I know the opinion polls here in Nevada say he is at an all-time low, I know that and have seen that first hand, but Reid is a fighter (and a former boxer) and he will do whatever it takes for him to hold on to his power in Washington DC. Yes, he is disliked by most here in Nevada but it will take everything this state has to remove him from power. I hear often how Reid has “done so much for Nevada” that he has to be re-elected. He has circumvented the power of Nevada and the other 49 states and transferred it to Washington DC.  He is working to make each of the states weaker, and in that sense has done a horrible disservice to the citizens of each and every state in this great nation. That message was heard loud and clear in Searchlight. If Harry Reid still can’t hear it now, then we’ll see if he’s tuned in the morning of Nov. 3rd.

          By Big Governement
          April 4, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom?

          Of course there were no news accounts of this, so we missed it. On March 31st, Rep. Paul Ryan delivered a keynote address to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, one of the better state-based free market think tanks. It is a magisterial distillation of where we are…and where we need to go. Full text of the address below:

          natmkrsb

          Last week, on March 21st, Congress enacted a new Intolerable Act. Congress passed the Health Care bill – or I should say, one political party passed it – over a swelling revolt by the American people. The reform is an atrocity. It mandates that every American must buy health insurance, under IRS scrutiny. It sets up an army of federal bureaucrats who ultimately decide for you how you should receive Health Care, what kind, and how much…or whether you don’t qualify at all. Never has our government claimed the power to decide when each of us has lived well enough or long enough to be refused life-saving medical assistance.

          This presumptuous reform has put this nation … once dedicated to the life and freedom of every person … on a long decline toward the same mediocrity that the social welfare states of Europe have become.

          Americans are preparing to fight another American Revolution, this time, a peaceful one with election ballots…but the “causes” of both are the same:

          • Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power … or should its powers be limited and returned to the people?
          • Should irresponsible leaders in a distant capital be encouraged to run up scandalous debts without limit that crush jobs and stall prosperity … or should the reckless be turned out of office and a new government elected to live within its means?
          • Should America bid farewell to exceptional freedom and follow the retreat to European social welfare paternalism … or should we make a new start, in the faith that boundless opportunities belong to the workers, the builders, the industrious, and the free?

          We are at the beginning of an election campaign like you’ve never seen before!

          We are challenged to answer again the momentous questions our Founders raised when they launched mankind’s noblest experiment in human freedom. They made a fundamental choice and changed history for the better. Now it’s our high calling to make that choice: between managed scarcity, or solid growth … between living in dependency on government handouts, or taking responsibility for our lives … between confiscating the earnings of some and spreading them around, or securing everyone’s right to the rewards of their work … between bureaucratic central government, or self-government … between the European social welfare state or the American idea of free market democracy.

          What kind of nation do we wish to be? What kind of society will we hand down to our children and future generations? In the coming watershed election, the nature of this unique and exceptional land is at stake. We will choose one of two different paths. And once we make that choice, there’s no going back.

          This is not the kind of election I would prefer. But it was forced on us by the leaders of our government.

          These leaders are walking America down a new path … creating entitlements and promising benefits that model the United States after the European Union: a welfare state society where most people pay little or no taxes but become dependent on government benefits … where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in the welfare state than in free enterprise … where high unemployment is accepted as a way of life, and the spirit of risk-taking is smothered by a tangle of red tape from an all-providing centralized government.

          True, the United States has been moving slowly toward this path a long time. And Democrats and Republicans share the blame. Now we are approaching a “tipping point.” Once we pass it, we will become a different people. Before the “tipping point,” Americans remain independent and take responsibility for their own well-being. Once we have gone beyond the “tipping point,” that self-sufficient outlook will be gradually transformed into a soft despotism a lot like Europe’s social welfare states. Soft despotism isn’t cruel or mean, it’s kindly and sympathetic. It doesn’t help anyone take charge of life, but it does keep everyone in a happy state of childhood. A growing centralized bureaucracy will provide for everyone’s needs, care for everyone’s heath, direct everyone’s career, arrange everyone’s important private affairs, and work for everyone’s pleasure.

          The only hitch is, government must be the sole supplier of everyone’s happiness … the shepherd over this flock of sheep.

          Am I exaggerating? Are we really reaching this “tipping point”? Exact and precise measures cannot be made, but an eye-opening study by the Tax Foundation, a reliable and non-partisan research group, tells us that in 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood.

          All told, 60 percent – three out of five households in America – were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that President Obama’s budget last year will raise this “net government inflow” from 60 to 70 percent. Look at it this way: three out of ten American families are supporting themselves plus – through government – supplying or supplementing the incomes of seven other households. As a permanent arrangement, this is individually unfair, politically inequitable, and economically dangerous.

          It raises a subtle but real threat to self-government when the few are paying more and more of the bill for government services and subsidies to the majority: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” The next chapter is the rule of “crony capitalism,” where those who pay most taxes get the privileges, and government by and for the people is replaced by government by and for the few. The end of this story is soft despotism.

          We already see enough of “crony capitalism.” When government sends bailout money to Wall Street firms they label “too big to fail,” that’s “crony capitalism.” When government buys shares in General Motors, names their management, and dictates their salaries, that’s “crony capitalism.” When big health insurance companies, instead of competing for market, team up with Congressional Health Care writers to order every individual to buy their products, that’s “crony capitalism.” When thousands of small businesses have to meet bottom lines with no government bailout, well, you’re too small to succeed…good luck!

          The Democratic leaders of Congress and in the White House hold a view they call “Progressivism.” Progressivism began in Wisconsin, where I come from. It came into our schools from European universities under the spell of intellectuals such as Hegel and Weber, and the German leader Bismarck. The best known Wisconsin Progressive was actually a Republican, Robert LaFollette.

          Progressivism was a powerful strain in both political parties for many years. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, and Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, both brought the Progressive movement to Washington.

          Early Progressives wanted to empower and engage the people. They fought for populist reforms like initiative and referendum, recalls, judicial elections, the breakup of monopoly corporations, and the elimination of vote buying and urban patronage. But Progressivism turned away from popular control toward central government planning. It lost most Americans and consumed itself in paternalism, arrogance, and snobbish condescension. “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson would have scorned the self-proclaimed “Progressives” of our day for handing out bailout checks to giant corporations, corrupting the Congress to purchase votes for government controlled health care, and funneling billions in Jobs Stimulus money to local politicians to pay for make-work patronage. That’s not “Progressivism,” that’s what real Progressives fought against!

          Since America began, the timid have feared the Founding Fathers’ ideas of individual freedom, so they yearn for Old World class models. Our Progressivists are the latest iteration of that same fear of the people. In unprecedented numbers, Americans are speaking out against the intolerable Health Care bill and irresponsible debt-ridden spending.

          Does anyone recall Norman Rockwell’s famous “Freedom of Speech” painting of an average working Joe standing and speaking his mind at a town hall meeting? Today’s Progressivists ridicule average Americans speaking out at tea parties across the nation and denounce their criticisms as “un-American.” Millions of average Americans reject their big government solutions, and that scares them.

          Last January President Obama said: “There are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over two hundred years.”

          He was right. So let’s examine these “philosophical differences” of government. Progressivists say there are no enduring ideas of right or wrong. Everything is “relative” to history, so our ideas need to change. Progressivists say the Founders’ Constitution including its amendments, with its principles of equal natural rights, limited government, and popular consent is outdated. We should have a “living constitution” that keeps up with the times. Progressivists invent new rights and enforce them with a more powerful central government and more federal agencies to direct society through the changes of history. And don’t worry, they say. Bureaucrats can be controlled by Congressional oversight.

          Would you like an example of how successful Congressional oversight is? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (or GSEs), underwrote trillions of dollars in junk mortgages. Year after year their officials and others from HUD, Treasury, and other agencies who supervise them marched up to Congress for hearings. Red flags were raised. The oversight committees had other priorities and dismissed them out of hand. With the housing market already tanking, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said: “This ability to provide stability to the market is what, in my mind, makes the GSEs a congressional success story.” Less than 18 months later, the ‘market-stabilizing’ GSEs went belly-up due to their shoddy business practices, collapsing the mortgage credit industry and sparking the worldwide financial meltdown. No one knows the ultimate cost to the taxpayers but it will be gigantic.

          If Congress can’t control what a few mortgage finance bureaucrats do with your dollars, why would anyone trust Congress to control what tens of thousands of bureaucrats will do with your health?

          The Progressivist ideology embraced by today’s leaders is very different from everything rank-and-file Democrats, independents, and Republicans stand for. America stands for nothing if not for the fixed truth that unalienable rights were granted to every human being not by government but by “nature and nature’s God.” The truths of the American founding can’t become obsolete because they are not timebound. They are eternal. The practical consequence of these truths is free market democracy, the American idea of free labor and free enterprise under government by popular consent. The deepest case for free market democracy is moral, rooted in human equality and the natural right to be free.

          A government that expands beyond its high but limited mission of securing our natural rights is not progressive, it’s regressive. It privileges the powerful at the expense of the people. It establishes the rule of class over class. The American Revolution and the Constitution replaced class rule with a better idea: equal opportunity for all. The promise of keeping the earnings of your work is central to justice, freedom, and the hope to improve your life.

          In their hearts Americans know this, but people were alarmed in 2008 by rising unemployment, falling home values, a credit crunch, and a financial meltdown.

          They voted for a change of parties in the White House, and elected the largest Democratic Congressional majority in more than three decades. So overwhelming was their majority that the opposition is unable to do anything to stop them from running roughshod over our foundations. Harry Reid had a supermajority in the Senate that could not be filibustered. Still, the people’s mandate for Congress and the new President was clear, simple, and unmistakable: get employment back on track … get our economy growing again.

          Americans have lost jobs nearly every month since these leaders took over the federal government in January 2009, more than 4 million at last count. The official unemployment rate hovers near 10 percent, but if we add in folks who have stopped looking for work due to lack of job prospects, the rate is a lot higher.

          They began by passing the first Stimulus, a taxpayer giveaway to their favorite special interests. The price tag was $862 billion. They pushed through a second stimulus bill that cost you another $18 billion. Let’s see: since 4 million Americans have been unemployed since they passed these “stimuli,” that averages $220,000 per job lost. Think about that. Democrats can’t even put people out of work without spending near a trillion dollars!

          Just to return to where we were at the end of 2007, 8.4 million jobs have to be created. To reduce unemployment to its pre-crisis level of 5 per cent by the end of President Obama’s term, our economy needs to create 247,000 new jobs per month. But we are headed in the wrong direction … except in one field: the government is growing at breakneck pace in expanding federal payrolls.

          Although millions of private sector jobs have been lost since the recession began, Washington is on track to add about 275,000 more people to the public payrolls – a whopping 15 percent increase. And we aren’t talking minimum wages here. More federal workers make over $100,000 than those earning $40,000 or less. The average government worker’s salary in 2009 was 21 percent higher than private sector salaries. The average federal worker’s compensation package, including benefits, was nearly $120,000 in 2008, twice the private sector at $60,000. One study shows the private sector benefit package averages $9,900 while the federal package averages almost $41,000. Now the Administration wants Congress to privilege federal workers by writing off their unpaid student loans after ten years. People in productive private sector jobs would keep paying for twenty years. Progressivists would really like everyone to work for the government.

          Has any Congress in history enacted, or tried to enact, so many foolish, squalid, and counterproductive programs?

          It isn’t good news when anyone losses his job. But I’ll make an exception when the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader lose theirs in November!

          As their first major item of business last year, these leaders pushed through a budget so bloated that it will double the federal debt in five years, and triple it in ten.

          Now the Administration has sent Congress a budget that’s far worse. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office [CBO] reports that 10 years from now, this budget will drive the federal debt burden up to 90 percent of the nation’s entire economic production. It propels spending to a new record of $3.8 trillion next year [FY 2011]. It widens the annual deficit to a new record of $1.5 trillion this year [FY 2010], and raises $1.8 trillion in new taxes through 2020.

          Two and a half years after this recession started, and no new private jobs? Think what these mind-boggling tax increases and mountain of debt are signaling to people who want to open or expand job-creating businesses. Congress keeps raising the barriers against work and production – that’s your answer.

          At a time when economic and job expansion should be Washington’s highest priority … and as if the multi-trillion dollar Health Care debacle were not enough, the Progressivist leadership in Congress are adding insult to injury by promoting their energy and climate agenda through their Cap and Trade plan. Put aside the fact that there is growing disagreement among scientists about climate change and its causes. This bill is a big mistake for other reasons.

          CBO estimates that Cap and Trade’s total cost is another near-trillion dollars. By one CBO estimate, the tax and energy cost bills for the average American household may grow by $1,600 a year. Other studies put this cost a lot higher.

          If you don’t believe me, let me quote a key Democratic Senator:

          Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal-powered plants…natural gas…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was…would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers…So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

          That was Senator Barack Obama in January 2008, talking about what he would do as President. Don’t say the man doesn’t work to keep his promises!

          Economists across the spectrum tell us that Cap and Trade would make our long-term national economic production fall below potential, causing higher unemployment. Federal spending is on an unsustainable path that can only get worse if this happens. There is general agreement that the environmental improvements from Cap and Trade are either nonexistent or too small to measure.

          Congressional leaders are also pushing an unprecedented expansion of the Federal Reserve Board’s regulatory powers over financial institutions under the belief that government must protect the people from themselves. This measure will direct federal agents to inspect, and at their pleasure object to, the wages and compensation which businesses on Main Street as well as Wall Street wish to pay employees. It puts bureaucracies in charge of deciding the type and line of credit which consumers and businesses will have access to when they shop for cars, homes, education, and expansion of facilities. The Fed has already failed the twofold assignment it has – keeping the economy and jobs growing, and keeping prices stable. It should return to its original mission of guaranteeing the long-term value of our dollar. Instead the same leaders who never knew the government mortgage giants were supplying credit for worthless mortgages now want Fed bureaucrats to regulate the businesses that supply personal and commercial credit? If that happens, economic recovery will be a longer time coming.

          And now I want to return to the Health Care Frankenstein. Most Americans understand that government-run Health Care is not free, not cheap, and not compassionate. I think most Americans believe Congress has no idea of what the public demand will be for subsidized Health Care. They are correct. When Medicare was enacted, Congress guessed it would cost about 10 percent of what it turned out to be after 25 years. Heck, Congress couldn’t even figure the cost of the 3-month long Cash for Clunkers subsidy last year, underestimating it on the order of 1 to 9. Most Americans know the Congressional majority are clueless about what their government-run Health Care system is going to cost.

          The drama that brought this creature to life was unedifying … part tragedy and part farce. Ethical categories went out the window. Never in history have the deliberations of Congress been subverted on this scale. The secrecy, the lack of transparency, the half-truths were stunning. The votes called at midnight … the 2 and 3 thousand page bills members of Congress had no time to read before the votes … the sordid backroom deals, the Cornhusker Kickback that shamed Nebraska, the Louisiana Purchase, the “Gator Aid” Medicare privilege for Florida, the additional Medicare dollars for states whose wavering representatives only yesterday were ferociously denouncing earmarks … the federal judgeship dangled for one lawmaker’s brother … the raid on the Medicare piggy bank … the lie that $250 billion for “doc fix” shouldn’t count as a Health Care cost … the double-counted deficit estimate scam that would land any accountant in jail … the proposed Slaughter rule that Congressmen not record a vote on a bill their constituents hate, just “deem” it passed and vote on the amendments…and to complete the farce, the phony Executive Order pretending not to fund abortions when the Health Care bill, as “the supreme law of the land,” does fund abortions. The level of political corruption to buy the votes for this debacle makes all past examples look penny ante by comparison.

          Self-government stands or falls on integrity, not only in those who represent you but in the enactment of law. This indecency soiled our freedom and embarrassed the democracy we promote in other nations. And this may not be the last of it. To enact its transformative agenda, this leadership employs the Machiavellian saying that the end justifies the means. America was born in a revolution against that whole idea. Soon it will be the norm.

          The Constitution and the consent of the people are all that stand between limited and unlimited government power. Zealous ideologues with the best of intentions brush aside the limits on power in order to get whatever they believe is good for the people … no matter what the people believe. Our system of freedom can survive an assault, but it won’t survive if the people are frightened, or angry, or asleep at the switch. A great Democrat, President Andrew Jackson, once said: “eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.” We can thank our current leaders at least for this: they have awakened the nation to the danger of taking self-government for granted.

          Congress is not only enacting a social welfare state agenda over the objections of the people. It is failing to address the problems that threaten to engulf our country, principally economic decline and entitlement-driven debt crisis. The coming election will be a referendum on the agenda of our current leadership. Either it will give them a mandate that says “more of the same,” or it will end the abuse of power and put America back on the path of growth and freedom.

          Supposing the American people use their referendum in November to elect a new majority, what would the next Congress do?

          The first order of business will be “repeal and replace.” We will work to repeal federalized Health Care and replace it with a robust, competitive open market in health care that puts patients and their doctors at the center – not employers, not insurers, and not government agents. This takes at least two elections, and we must show our perseverance.

          A new Congress will then turn to the great problem of our stagnant economy and the debt tsunami bearing down on us. The days of pretending not to notice are over. The next Congress will understand this threat and act after transparent deliberation and real debate.

          I have put forward my specific solution, called “A Roadmap for America’s Future,” to meet this challenge. The CBO confirms that this plan achieves the goal of paying off government debt in the long run – while securing the social safety net and starting up future economic growth.

          The problem in a nutshell is this: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, three giant entitlements, are out of control. Exploding costs will drive our federal government and national economy to collapse. And the recession plus this Congress’ spending spree have accelerated the day of reckoning.

          Today, Medicare is $38 trillion short of its promised benefits. In five years, the hole will grow to $52 trillion. Your family’s share of this gap is $458,000. Medicaid will add trillions more in state and federal debt.

          Social Security’s surplus is already gone, and its debt is mounting. Unless its finances are strengthened, the government will be forced to cut benefits nearly 25 percent or raise payroll taxes more than 30 percent.

          Both Republicans and Democrats have failed to be candid about this. And we have only postponed the crisis by shaking a tin cup at China and Japan.

          A new Congress could start by making you the owner of your health plan. Under my Roadmap reform, a tax break that now benefits only those with job-based health insurance will be replaced by tax credits that benefit every American. And it secures universal access to quality, affordable health coverage with incentives that hold down health-care cost increases.

          Everyone 55 and over will remain in the current Medicare program. For those now under 55, Medicare will be like the health-care program we in Congress enjoy.

          Future seniors will receive a payment and pick an insurance plan from a diverse list of Medicare-certified plans – with more support for those with low incomes and higher health costs. To reform Medicaid, low income people will receive the means to buy private health insurance like everyone else.

          Under the Roadmap’s Social Security proposal, everyone 55 and older will remain in the existing program with no change. Those under 55 will choose either to stay with traditional Social Security, or to join a retirement system like Congress’s own plan. They will be able to invest more than a third of their payroll taxes in their own savings account, guaranteed and managed by the federal government. For both Social Security and Medicare, eligibility ages will gradually increase, and the wealthy will receive smaller benefit increases.

          And we need to get this economy moving again, so the Roadmap offers taxpayers an option: either use the tax code we have today, or use a simple, low-rate, two-tier personal income tax that gets rid of loopholes and the double taxation of savings and investment. And let’s replace corporate income taxes with a simple, competitive 8.5 percent business consumption tax. These low-rate and simple tax reforms would provide the certainty and the incentives for investors to open new enterprises and for workers to find a marketplace expanding in new jobs.

          The Roadmap plan shifts power to individuals at the expense of government control. It rejects cradle-to-grave welfare state ideas because they drain individuals of their self-reliance. And it still honors our historic commitment to strengthening the social safety net for those who need it most.

          I would welcome honest debate in the next Congress on how to tackle our fiscal crisis – and the larger debate on the proper role of government. It’s time politicians in Washington stopped patronizing the American people as if they were children – deferring tough decisions and promising fiscal fantasies. Tell Americans the truth, offer them a choice, and count on them to do what’s right.

          A political realignment is on the way. Democratic leaders are staking their party’s future on their ideological agenda. Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank candidly admits that his party “are trying on every front to increase the role of government.” Former President Clinton told a Netroots convention last year that “We have entered a new era of progressive politics, which if we do it right could last 30 or 40 years.”

          The question is, do we realign with the vision of a European-style social welfare state, or do we realign with the American idea?

          My party challenges the whole basis of the Progressivist vision of this country’s future. We challenge their attack on American exceptionalism. We challenge their claim that bureaucratic centralization is the only way the US can meet the economic and social challenges of our time.

          Those leaders have underestimated the good sense of the American people. They broke faith with independents, Republicans, and their own rank-and-file. They walked away from the foundational truths that made America the wonder and the envy of the world. The price of their infidelity will be high.

          I hope you won’t mind an aside. I absolutely love Oklahoma! As you may know, I married Janna Little, daughter of Dan and Prudence Little, from Madill. Well, Janna and I are planning on spending half of our year here in retirement. And I can tell you it won’t be Summer…it’s just gets too hot here for a Wisconsinite. We will be spending the Fall and Winter here. You see, I love to hunt and fish. Each year we come for deer, duck, and turkey season. Janna refers to these times as Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter. There’s something about Oklahoma that is truly captivating. It’s a beautiful, big, unconstrained country with great-hearted people who know what it is to live like free men and women.

          Some of my friends in Marshall County have on occasion called me “yankee,” which I find particularly disturbing. I have always thought a yankee is someone from the Northeast, not the upper Midwest. Needless to say, I am told this can be fixed if I include among my life’s achievements the high and noble accomplishment of noodling a giant catfish from the banks of Lake Texoma. And so, I will be returning in early June, otherwise known as noodling season, to gain this rite of passage so that I may never be called yankee again, and also hoping I keep my ten fingers intact.

          Knowing America, and Oklahoma as I have come to know it, I am confident that the American character is up to every challenge. America is not over. This exceptional nation will not go down the way of mediocrity. Ronald Reagan used to say: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction … It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for [our children] to do the same.” We are that generation. The fight is our fight, and it begins now! The time is at hand to reclaim America for freedom.

          Thank you very much.

          By Big Governement
          April 3, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          A New Birth of Freedom

          Back in November, when Peter Robinson interviewed me for Uncommon Knowledge, he waited until the last segment to throw down the gauntlet, asking me bluntly why I was so much more sanguine regarding the future than was the estimable Mark Steyn. My reply, which caught him off guard, was what he jocularly called “a low blow.” For I said something like this: “Mark Steyn is a Canadian. What would you expect? I’d be a pessimist myself if I were a Canadian.”

          statue_of_liberty_with_seagull1

          I would not want to deny that my ad hominem argument struck a bit below the belt, but I nonetheless thought it apt, and I have not in any way changed my mind. Mark is a man of keen understanding and quick wit, and he bears comparison with George Will and Charles Krauthammer, the very best of our pundits. Moreover; as a Canadian who has lived in Great Britain, he has firsthand experience of the profound damage done by what I, echoing Alexis de Tocqueville, termed soft despotism in my recent book. When he writes, in a recent post, “ it’s hard to overestimate the magnitude of what the Democrats have accomplished,” he is surely right. Indeed, I agree with almost every word in the following:

          Whatever is in the bill is an intermediate stage: . . . the governmentalization of health care will accelerate, private insurers will no longer be free to be “insurers”  in any meaningful sense of that term (i.e., evaluators of risk), and once that’s clear we’ll be on the fast track to Obama’s desired destination of single payer as a fait accomplis.

          If Barack Obama does nothing else in his term in office, this will make him one of the most consequential presidents in history. It’s a huge transformative event in Americans’ view of themselves and of the role of government. You can say, oh, well, the polls show most people opposed to it, but, if that mattered, the Dems wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing. Their bet is that it can’t be undone, and that over time, as I’ve been saying for years now, governmentalized health care not only changes the relationship of the citizen to the state but the very character of the people. As I wrote in NR recently, there’s plenty of evidence to support that from Britain, Canada, and elsewhere.

          More prosaically, it’s also unaffordable. That’s why one of the first things that middle-rank powers abandon once they go down this road is a global military capability. If you take the view that the U.S. is an imperialist aggressor, congratulations: You can cease worrying. But, if you think that America has been the ultimate guarantor of the post-war global order, it’s less cheery. Five years from now, just as in Canada and Europe two generations ago, we’ll be getting used to announcements of defense cuts to prop up the unsustainable costs of big government at home. And, as the superpower retrenches, America’s enemies will be quick to scent opportunity.

          Longer wait times, fewer doctors, more bureaucracy, massive IRS expansion, explosive debt, the end of the Pax Americana, and global Armageddon.

          Mark’s ruminations make for a depressing read, as does the longer version that originally appeared in the pages of National Review, but what he has to say comes close to being on the mark. If the program passed in the House of Representatives on March 21st and signed into law thirty-six hours thereafter is fully implemented and left in place for any considerable length of time, it will complete the project begun by the Progressives when they first took control of the federal government in 1912. We will, as Mark argues, be indistinguishable from the Canadians and the Europeans; our character as a people will change; we will be transformed into subjects and wards of the state, and we will no longer be citizens; our economy will stagnate; and we will have neither the resolve nor the resources with which to defend our country and its way of life. If we acquiesce, we really are doomed.

          This is what gives me hope. For we are not yet a people apt to acquiesce in dictates handed down by our lords and masters. When Britain and Canada drifted into socialism, there were no tea parties spontaneously formed by ordinary citizens to buck the trend. The British and the Canadians lacked the spirit of resistance – though, to be fair, it lived on in the likes of Margaret Thatcher.

          We Americans are made of sterner stuff. During the Cold War, we defended the Free World. In our absence, I am convinced, everyone else would have given way. I do not mean that we are everything that once we were. The public school system, the welfare state, the consumer culture, the sexual revolution, social security, and Medicare have sapped our sense of self-reliance, our energies, and our strength. After Pearl Harbor, entire fraternities marched into town to join the armed forces. On 9/11, I was teaching a class at the University of Tulsa entitled Historical Studies in the Origins of War. That evening my students interrupted my lecture to ask that I speak about what had happened that day. When I told them that we were at war and asked how many of them intended to enlist, not a single hand went up. We are, sadly, less instinctively apt to insist on looking after ourselves than were our forebears.

          But, Mark Steyn to the contrary notwithstanding, we have not yet entirely lost the American spirit. What happened at the town halls in August, what took place in Virginia, in New Jersey, and, most dramatically, in Massachusetts proves the contrary. Barack Obama and his minions are indeed persuaded that public sentiment does not matter. They could not care less that the citizens do not consent, and they believe that what they have done cannot be undone. “Yes, we can,” they chant. But the truth is they can’t, for they are wrong.

          Never, in the history of the United States, has a political party dared, in the face of public opinion fully formed and fiercely adverse, to carry so ambitious a bill without a modicum of cover from the opposition. What the Democrats have done is a breathtaking expression of contempt not just for public sentiment as revealed in the polling data but also for the verdict handed down by the people of Massachusetts at the polls in January. What they have done would never have been attempted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had a healthy respect for public opinion. What Barack Obama calls the audacity of hope is reckless in the extreme.

          As I have argued in a recent post, Abraham Lincoln was right when he wrote, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.” What this means in the present circumstances cannot be overestimated. The Republicans, if they seize the occasion, will have the rapt attention of their compatriots. If they expose fully the tyrannical ambition at the heart of the healthcare bill, they not only can, they will prevail. All that they then have to do is to restate in contemporary terms what FDR said with an eye to Herbert Hoover and the business progressives of the 1920s and the early 1930s: that “a small group” of his fellow Americans was intent on concentrating “into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives,” for, as is perfectly obvious, that is precisely what Barack Obama and his minions are attempting to do.

          This is, as Mark Steyn insists, a very dangerous time. In my judgment, however, it is also a time of almost unprecedented opportunity. We have options that have not been vouchsafed to the friends of liberty for more than sixty years. For, if the Republicans manage to articulate, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the rationale for limited government as that rationale is pertinent to the healthcare bill, they will at the same time have articulated the grounds for doing away with the administrative state, and everyone will recognize the consequences.

          The larger danger – which I analyzed in detail in Montesquieu & the Logic of Liberty and in Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift – has never been that we Americans would succumb to socialism as a consequence of a coup d’état of the sort being attempted by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their acolytes. The larger danger has always been what Tocqueville feared: that the citizens of liberal democratic republics would gradually and unobtrusively come to depend on centralized administration for help in every aspect of their lives. Our propensity to drift in the direction of obliviously surrendering our liberties one by one in search of a security that no government can really guarantee has always been where the greatest peril lay.

          Like Mark Steyn, I view Barack Obama as “one of the most consequential presidents in history,” but not for the same reasons. In my view, he and today’s Democratic Party represent the last gasp of the Progressive impulse. The tyrannical ambition hidden at the heart of Progressivism’s quest for what Franklin Delano Roosevelt termed “rational administration” Barack Obama has made manifest; and to all with eyes to see, the danger that we have temporized with for nearly a century is now perfectly visible. As Obama himself has insisted in speech after speech, the moment in which we now live is a “defining moment.” What is required in what he calls “this defining moment” is what Abraham Lincoln once called “a new birth of freedom.” The period we just entered could be our finest hour.

          By Big Hollywood
          April 2, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Barack Obama’s Helter-Skelter, Insane Clown Posse, Alinsky Plans to ‘Deconstruct’ America

          After 14 months of committing 100% to health care reform, the day after the signing of the Health Care bill was to mark the Democratic Party’s new primary concern: destroy the uprising,...

          View Original Post

          By Big Governement
          April 2, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Barack Obama’s Helter-Skelter, Insane Clown Posse, Alinsky Plans to ‘Deconstruct’ America

          After 14 months of committing 100% to health care reform, the day after the signing of the Health Care bill was to mark the Democratic Party’s new primary concern: destroy the uprising, annihilate by all means necessary, the Tea Party movement.

          The first sign that a plan was in place was the ham-fisted, high-camp posturing of the most controversial members of the Democratic caucus walking through the peaceful but animated “Tea Party” demonstrators on Capitol Hill. There is no reason for these elected officials to walk above ground through the media circus amid their ideological foes. The natural route is the tunnels between the House office buildings and the Capitol. By crafting a highly symbolic walk of the Congressional Black Caucus through the majority white crowd, the Democratic Party was looking to provoke a negative reaction. They didn’t get it. So they made it up.

          The proof that the N-word wasn’t said once, let alone 15 times, as Rep. Andre Carson claimed, is that soon thereafter — even though the press dutifully reported it as truth — Nancy Pelosi followed the alleged hate fest, which allegedly included someone spitting, by walking through the crowd with a gavel in hand and a shit-eating grin on her face. Had the incidents reported by the Congressional Black Caucus actually occurred the Capitol Police would have been negligent to allow the least popular person to that crowd – the Speaker – to put herself in harm’s way.

          That crowd was a sea of new-media equipment. Not only were tens of thousands people armed with handicams, BlackBerrys and iPods, so also was the mainstream media there, covering every inch of the event. Why did not one mainstream media outlet raise the specter that perhaps a video would exist to prove the events occurred? I am still dealing with the same press telling me we didn’t prove that ACORN was aiding and abetting criminal activity because we “did not provide enough audio and video evidence.” (Insert laugh track.) Is there not a blatant double standard at play here? Nancy Pelosi tipped her hand that race was a central part of her strategy. She invoked the Civil Rights Act and compared it with the universally reviled health care bill. Her caucus is doubling down on the civil-rights rhetoric. There are no coincidences.

          Linking the health-care bill, which has nothing to do with black and white, to the divisive civil-rights period, while simultaneously accusing its opponents of being racist, is an evil strategy — literally. Charles Manson would approve.

          The Democratic Party is trying to signal to the black community and to progressive media types that the way to push back against the Tea Party and Republicans is to use the reliable race card by provoking a racial incident. The ensuing rhetoric about the bill and about the nature of the Tea Party is based upon repeated talking points. Propaganda. Everyone is on message that Republicans and Tea Partiers are racist — a divisive and dangerous argument, so lacking in any shred of evidence save for the fact that the majority in the Tea Party, as in America itself, is white. This is Duke lacrosse politics at its worst.

          DukeLacrosseRapeSuspects

          Those in the movement who are Hispanic or black are given the Clarence Thomas treatment: mocked, ridiculed and marginalized. The Democratic party cannot afford for minority groups to break from the pack, so they show that apostasy is met with high-grade ridicule. Those willing to withstand vile and hateful un-American taunts are some of America’s greatest patriots.

          The press went straight to petrified Republican leaders like John Boehner and Michael Steele over the falsified “N-word” allegations, who dutifully offered apologies that they were not qualified to give. It was a set-up.

          I smelled a rat so I offered at first $10k five days after the highly publicized alleged incidents happened. How could we be five full news cycles into this major controversy and not have any evidence? In fact, the existing footage showed the Congressional Black Caucus walking and never once moving their heads toward any “racist outbursts.” Is it conceivable that all of them stoically walked by the N-word as it was hurled 15 times — as they were holding up cameras to convey they were suspicious of the crowd to begin with?

          We are now two weeks since the bill was signed and the $10k reward jumped to $20k in a day after it was mentioned on both Hannity and O’Reilly. At the Searchlight Tea Party event last weekend I upped the ante to $100k. So where’s the evidence? Ken Vogel of Politico covered this story and said calls to Rep. John Lewis — one of the originator’s of the N-word storyline – were never returned.

          Nancy Pelosi did a great disservice to a great civil rights icon by thrusting him out there to perform this mischievous task. His reputation is now on the line as a result of her desperation to take down the Tea Party movement.

          We’ve called their bluff. And they have tried to back off. They realize that this race warfare can backfire, just as it did with the railroaded Duke lacrosse players, as it did with professor Madonna Constantine and her faked noose incident at Columbia and the Sergeant Crowley boner by Barack Obama who stupidly said the white police officer had behaved “stupidly” in handcuffing Skip Gates.

          Gates

          The first Alinsky president is now using surrogates to split this nation into two hostile parties so he can puppeteer the have-nots against the perceived haves. The non-response to my $100k challenge is a tacit acknowledgement that the Congressional Black Caucus and Barack Obama don’t have the stomach for doubling down.

          The other part of the strategy that is built into the N-Word Capitol Hill Walk is the strategy to incite. The media is doing their job for them by speaking of an unhinged white Tea Party mob. Absent any evidence other than creatively selected hand-crafted signs from the fringe of the audience that are presented to represent the whole, the media is simply repeating assumptions that Democrats and media elites have against fly-over types. What we have here is hardcore media elitism mixed with politically correct class warfare.

          The Searchlight Nevada Tea Party is the Rosetta Stone of the Democratic Party strategy. Tea Party protesters were not going to Sen. Harry Reid’s office building to threaten individuals, Democratic-style: “No Justice, No Peace!” They went to the middle of nowhere, a place akin to the moon landing site, to talk up the constitution, the founding documents and to express their dismay with the current political class. The real astroturf, the bought-and-paid-for, union-thug support network that does the heavy lifting and the bone breaking, traveled to Searchlight to incite a fight. Video captured by my film crew caught Harry-Reid-placard-holding, t-shirt-wearing appartchiks, not just misdirecting traffic down the wrong highway but also, when confronted over that hostile act, throwing a dozen eggs at the passing Tea Party Express bus.

          The usual suspects of Democratic Party apologists, like John Podesta’s Media Matters, were quick to diminish the events. Eric Boehlert dubbed my report “the Phantom Egg,” calling into question my veracity. But on tape a day later we were able to prove that the Harry Reid supporters were not just the ones who’d misdirected traffic, they were also the ones who threw the eggs, just as they were also the ones who called the police to report that I was the egg thrower and the instigator. Classic Alinsky. Accuse those of the acts that you are doing. It usually works. But in this day and age of new media and hyper-media, the tape, or lack thereof, usually tells the tale.

          The race baiting of the Tea Party crowd on the Capitol front was caught by calling the Democrats out — and they didn’t deliver the goods. The attempt to incite a reaction from the Nevada Tea Party was even worse. They were the violent ones, who traveled out of their way to provoke an incident — and when they didn’t get it, they blamed the victim.

          IT’S ON TAPE. And the person lying on camera to the police is the field director of the Nevada Democratic Party.

          Over at Media Matters, Podesta’s den of deceit, the phantom egg has turned into Breitbart mockery over easter eggs. Change the subject, misdirection, their side caught with their pants around their ankles, don’t look there media, there’s nothing to see here.

          Alinsky.

          alinsky

          The Democrats need to kill the Tea Party movement. They need to marginalize and demonize those who would stand up to their hardball, toxic and anti-democratic tactics. Their strategy is to bait and incite the Tea Party and to use whatever they can get to silence the awakening giant. They have failed, epically, and the American people now see these tactics for what they are. At long last, new people every day are beginning to understand the kinds of people we are dealing with here.

          Will the media keep falling into the trap? Their business model continues to fail each and every time they are suckered – unless, of course, they are doing it on purpose. The Republican Party failed in its attempt to make good with the Tea Party when its leaders apologized for it. When will the GOP stop playing Charlie Brown to the media’s Lucy? The Democratic party has been exposed as trying to create a Kristallnacht to save the Obama presidency along the fault line of race and the essence of the First Amendment. If the GOP does not have the intestinal fortitude to fight back, a growing number of disenchanted and disenfrachised Tea Party participants will have to do it themselves.

          Who is calling the shots here? Is it the White House, by way of Chicago? Or is it Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? The press refused to tell you the truth about this president. It refused to tell you of his proud adherence to the teachings of the original Chicago “community organizer” Saul Alinsky. We have now entered the first full-fledged Alinsky presidency. The only way to beat Alinsky is with Alinsky. The Democrats and President Obama will not give up this tack. Do you think the GOP will win the day in November and in 2012 if its strategy is to apologize for every manufactured “right wing fringe” outrage?

          With President Obama over the last week calling attention to the Tea Parties and their “heated” rhetoric, he has officially connected himself to the civil war his minions have flailingly attempted to inflame. The only good thing to come of this is that we can now officially put to rest the laughable notion that Obama was going to be the first post-racial president.

          By Big Governement
          April 2, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          ObamaCare Is Already Threatening the Economy

          Last week, Democrats in Congress rammed through a wildly unpopular healthcare bill before heading out of town to celebrate the accomplishment. As it turns out, not all Americans are celebrating.

          PH-OBAMACAT

          In the few short days since, a growing wave of U.S. employers have come forward to denounce the massive new costs, hidden problems and bureaucratic hurdles contained in the recently passed healthcare legislation—costs that will choke off job creation and be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices on a wide array of goods and services.

          Under one deeply misguided provision in Speaker Pelosi’s health overhaul legislation, for example, companies will face a costly new tax on prescription drug benefits they provide to retired workers. Those benefits ensure high quality drug coverage for retired seniors and spare the taxpayer the full cost of covering these individuals under the Medicare program. Due to the healthcare bill, though, employers will now face massive new costs, while retirees stand to lose their prescription drug coverage.

          The legislation hits Illinois particularly hard.

          Caterpillar, the world’s largest manufacturer of construction equipment, expects a $100 million hit, while another bread-and-butter Illinois manufacturer, John Deere, faces $150 million in new costs. Boeing, the world’s largest maker of jetliners and military aircraft, anticipates $150 million in new costs as well. All told, benefits consultant Towers Watson estimates that the very companies across America we are asking to create jobs and grow the economy will face $14 billion in lower earnings due to this single provision.

          Democratic Leaders have responded to this predictable news with surprise, anger and disbelief. Yet in December, in the midst of the healthcare debate, the Chief Financial Officers of major U.S. employers Caterpillar, John Deere, Verizon, Xerox, Boeing and others sent a letter to Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi warning that the proposed new tax would “negatively impact both retirees and companies”, raising costs and forcing them to scale back or drop prescription drug coverage for retirees. Democrats disregarded this information as “fearmongering”.

          Saddling these companies with crushing new expenses didn’t seem like a good idea during the healthcare debate when many of my colleagues and I opposed it, and now that the Pelosi plan is the law of the land, it’s clear why. Realizing the destructive real world impact of this tax change, I submitted an amendment to the bill that would have remedied the situation, preventing retirees from losing the coverage they currently enjoy and protecting employers from large health cost increases. The fact of the matter is the recently passed healthcare legislation leaves employers with less money to pay current employees, less money to invest in research and development, and less money to hire new workers.

          It’s important to remember that it will be months before the public really knows the true cost of this sweeping healthcare legislation, as thousands of programs and regulations are not yet created. Countless new costs will fall to already struggling families and businesses. With a provision that will force up to 2 million seniors off their current prescription drug benefits and cost America’s top employers billions, the healthcare bill is off to a rough start.

          An effective approach to healthcare reform must work to improve the current system, building on what works and replacing what doesn’t. Before the healthcare legislation passed, many large employers were doing a good job providing prescription drug benefits to employees. Eliminating this effective approach gets reform exactly wrong and fails to address the many real shortcomings in our healthcare system that urgently need attention, like lowering costs for individuals and improving flexibility and affordability for small businesses.

          Creating jobs and growing the economy requires legislation that works with families and businesses to improve the nation’s healthcare system. That’s why we need to repeal the current flawed plan and replace it with reforms that actually reduce healthcare costs.

          By Big Governement
          April 1, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Is Jim Nardi The Man Who Threatened Andrew Breitbart?

          This just in…Potential identification of the man who threatened to behave in a way which would necessitate his imprisonment if Andrew Breitbart was allowed to remain on a public sidewalk in Searchlight, Nevada.

          Another_Eggman

          Last night we received an email from blogger Liberty Chick potentially identifying the man who threatened Andrew Breitbart:

          Can’t say 100% but I think the dude from Searchlight that threatened Andrew (said to keep him away from him or “I’m goin to jail”) might be Jim Nardi, who belongs to a whole slew of progressive groups in Nevada, for example:
          http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1239570278&ref=mf
          http://www.facebook.com/OFA.Nevada#!/profile.php?ref=sgm&id=1239570278
          http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-the-Coffee-Party-Movement-in-Las-Vegas-NV/321014126431

          So, I went back to the second video posted on http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/03/30/video-the-egg-man-of-seachlight-nevada .  You have to listen and watch really carefully – at 1:51 in that video, the black guy in the dark wool cap & dark coat on the right (holding the rolled up American flag) says “Come on, Jim” and holds him back just as he steps in between the “or I’m goin to jail” guy and Andrew to try and calm the situation.  You have to listen a few times to hear it.

          Anyway, take it for what it’s worth.  Maybe someone else can confirm for you 100% whether it’s Jim Nardi.

          We spoke with the engraged Reid supporter earlier in the day, and he is a real class warfare warrior.

          Is this man Jim Nardi?

          By Big Governement
          March 30, 2010
          1 Comment

          The Searchlight Eggsperience

          They weren’t gunshots but the pops were startling nonetheless.  As the eggs hit the windshield, visibility immediately became a problem.

          Jerry Ragle was pretty shaken as he pulled the Tea Party Express bus to a stop.  He had just prevented 40,000  lbs. of tour bus from crashing into 15 or 20 people.

          I was on that Tea Party Express bus conducting some interviews for Right Network’s new show: “RUNNING”.

          Throwing eggs may be funny when you are in high school, but none of us were laughing then.

          We were just coming into Searchlight, Nevada for the Tea Party Express’s ”Showdown in Searchlight.” They had picked Searchlight, Nevada as the kick-off location for their “Just Vote Them Out Tour” because it happens to be Harry Reid’s hometown.

          We were just passing the Nugget Casino when the “drive by egging” occurred. Jerry got his bearings back, reported the incident to a female police officer and then took us the rest of the way in to the event.

          Sarah Palin, Joe Wurzelbacher, Andrew Breitbart, Victoria Jackson, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons and others were scheduled to speak.

          Cars were parked on the side of the highway for miles before the event location. After the event, traffic to Las Vegas was so backed up that it took us over an hour and a half to go five miles.

          I don’t know the total number of people that were in attendance.  I do know that the valley floor was packed full of people. The surrounding hilIs were packed full of people. The ridges above the hills were lined with people, and vehicles. People had camped out in RVs, trailers, motor homes, tents and cars. It would have taken a pretty big football stadium to hold all of those folks. The fact that this was a dusty bowl in the middle of nowhere made it all seem pretty surreal.

          I may have missed Woodstock but I can say that I was at Searchlight.

          It wasn’t till the MSM news reports started to come in that the sinking feeling of Déjà vu hit me….

          CNN and Veronica Whitfield were among the first to report:

          “Hundreds of people, at least dozens of people – we haven’t gotten a count of how many people turned out there…“

          In 2005 and 2006, while Brown Berets and La Raza activists angrily intimidated, racially insulted and verbally abused people at border security protests, Janet Murgia and the MSM were going after Lou Dobbs and others for promoting hate speech.

          In 2009, when 70,000 people were in the streets of Honduras supporting their Constitution the MSM led the world to believe that the streets of Tegucigalpa were literally on fire for the Left.

          Now while tens of thousands gather in the desert and Harry Reid supporters launch their embryonic missiles at passenger buses…the MSM goes after Sarah Palin for verbiage.

          What about the truth?

          When does journalistic irresponsibility cross the line to bias? How heavy does bias have to become until it turns into propaganda?

          The journalistic Rubicon hasn’t just been crossed, it has been erased.

          Was there anger and the potential for violence in Searchlight, NV?

          You betcha, smack dab in the core of Harry Reid’s supporters.

          Will you read about it in the Times? Heck no.

          What if Jerry Ragle hadn’t been an experienced, professional driver? What if that bus would have killed 15 or 20 people?

          Would CNN and their journalistic brethren have gotten the numbers right then?

          By Big Governement
          March 29, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          BREAKING VIDEO: Reid Supporters Throwing Eggs And Assaulting Andrew Breitbart

          Here is a smidge of our video from Saturday’s Tea Party Express coverage in Searchlight, Nevada. The AP calls this a hospitality tent. We call it destruction of property and assault. Either way, this is Harry Reid’s Democrat Party. So tolerant. So enlightened. So Progressive.   With friends like these, Senator Reid, who needs enemies?


          By NewsBusters.org
          March 28, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Reid Goes Shooting While Palin In Town, But GMA Calls Him ‘Man In The Cross-Hairs’

          This could do down as one of the more glaring MSM double-standards in recent times . . .

          Harry Reid chose the day Sarah Palin was in town to stage a photo-op of himself going shooting. But GMA called Reid the man "in the crosshairs" and as "doing his best not to seem threatened."

          Imagine if the tables were turned and on a day Reid visited Wasilla, Palin had publicly chosen to go shooting.  Oh, the MSM wailing and gnashing of teeth about the implied threat!

          Excerpt from GMA report:

          DAVID WRIGHT: [As highlighted tweet appears on screen] Sarah Palin's message to conservative voters: "don't retreat, instead reload."

          Cut to Palin speaking in Searchlight

          SARAH PALIN: That's not inciting violence. What's that is doing is trying to inspire people to get involved in their local elections and these upcoming federal elections. It's telling people that their arms are their vote.

          WRIGHT: [As footage of Reid shooting rolls] The man in the cross-hairs in Searchlight did his best not to seem threatened.  Harry Reid told reporters all these people came here because the town needs the business.

          HARRY REID: I've only spoken with Sarah Palin once. It was a very pleasant conversation and I wish her well.

          So the man who goes shooting on the day his political adversary is in town is the one "in the crosshairs"?  And GMA's graphic for the clip of Reid shooting is that the Tea Party "targets" him? The MSM world is truly upside down.

           

          By Big Governement
          March 28, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Andrew Breitbart Describes Unhinged Harry Reid Supporters on the Attack (Audio-Video)

          “I can just say that the irony could not be greater. The press is barking up the tree that the tea party movement is the one that is unhinged, that is frothing at the mouth, that is violent… I could just say that the irony could not be greater.”

          Andrew Breitbart
          After Harry Reid Supporters Attacked the Tea Party Bus
          Searchlight, Nevada

          Andrew Breitbart witnessed first hand today the cunning manipulation and violence of the unhinged left. Harry Reid supporters stood on Highway 95 outside of Searchlight, Nevada and held signs steering tea party protesters heading to the Tea Party Express Showdown in Searchlight Rally in the wrong direction. Andrew also witnessed these violent leftists attacking the Tea Party Express bus with eggs as it drove by. The Harry Reid supporters then swarmed him, harassed him, threatened him and made false statements to the police.

          And, yet the state-run media wants you to believe that the tea party protesters are the violent ones. Don’t look for this protest story to make the front page of The New York Times or be the lead story on CNN like other bogus protest reports.

          By NewsBusters.org
          March 28, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Rich And Blow: You Racist, Sexist, Homophobic Conservatives

          Did Frank Rich read Charles Blow's column and sub-consciously subsume it? Rich's NY Times opus of March 27 is a virtual echo of Blow's item of March 26.  

          Coincidence or not, the two Timesmen are very much on the same wavelength.  Their shared theory: conservative opposition to Obamacare is fueled not so much by the substance of PBO's plans as it is by the racism, homophobia and sexism of people who can't bear to witness America's changing demographics.

          Compare the eerie similarities in the two columns [emphasis added].

          From Blow column of March 26

          The bullying, threats, and acts of violence following the passage of health care reform have been shocking, but they’re only the most recent manifestations of an increasing sense of desperation.

          It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

          Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

          From Frank Rich's column of March 27

          That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

          . . .

          If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.

          If Blow and Rich are right, then why did white-bread Bill Clinton's health care plans in 1993 meet with opposition so fierce it resulted in the historic Republican Revolution of 1994?

          And if those awful "isms" explain current conservative reaction, why are the approval ratings of Harry Reid, that ultimate person of pallor, at 8%--lower even than Pelosi's?

          Liberals like Blow and Rich can't or won't understand conservatives.  Opposition to ObamaCare is based on its fundamental re-arrangement of the relationship between citizens and the state.  The notion that every American must, under penalty of law, buy a government-approved health insurance policy is and should be anathema to any small 'r' republican.

          Update: Blow tweets "uh-oh" about Rich writing about the same thing he did!  H/t Clay Waters.

          By Big Governement
          March 27, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Harry Reid Supporters Attack Tea Party Bus!… Update: Breitbart Attacked!

          The biased writers at the Associated Press said the tea party in Nevada would draw angry protesters today.


          They were right.

          Supporters of Democratic Senator Harry Reid attacked the Tea Party Express bus today in Nevada.
          This statement was just released:

          Supporters of Senator Harry Reid have just thrown eggs at the Tea Party Express bus caravan – striking at least one of the three buses (the red Tea Party Express bus) with multiple eggs.

          About 35 Reid supporters had lined Highway 95 in front of the Nugget Casino in Searchlight where they were attempting a counter-demonstration the tens of thousands of tea party supporters who are gathering for the “Showdown in Searchlight.”

          More details to follow…

          Do you suppose the state-run media will be as outraged about this as they were about the bogus hate crimes or coffingate story? Don’t count on it.

          UPDATE: Andrew Breitbart was also attacked by the Harry Reid supporters.
          Founding Bloggers has details.

          By NewsBusters.org
          March 23, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Detroit Free Press Columnist Not Interested in Reality-Based Commentary

          Rochelle Riley of the Detroit Free Press recently penned a column so wrought with falsehoods that it is difficult to navigate the ensuing minefield of absurdity. 

          But navigate we shall...

          Riley sets out with a fully sarcastic, yet hearty, thank you to John Boehner, alleging that his fiery speech to the House had contributed to the Democrat's healthcare victory.

          "Boehner and many of his supporters - as well as some extremists the party hasn't decided how to handle - faced off against the American people and lost."

          It is difficult to comprehend the unmitigated arrogance of liberals as they repeatedly voice that talking point:  The healthcare reform legislation is a victory for the American people. 

          This simply is not so.  As recently as Sunday, Americans were staunchly opposed to Obamacare by a 54-41% margin according to a Rasmussen poll.  The veracity of their opposition was also overwhelming, with 45% who strongly oppose the plan, and 26% who strongly favor the plan.  If this were an election, we'd be speaking in terms of a landslide.  In reality, it is a landslide defeat for the American people.  For Obama, Pelosi, and their liberal media cohorts to define going against the will of the governed as a victory for the people, is to essentially spit directly into the collective face of this nation.

          Riley goes on to echo more Democrat talking points, using the liberal mantra that ‘families are dying.' 

          "... when families are dying, the American people don't have time for tantrums."

          Hopefully, Kleenex will be in rich supply under this new plan, to wipe away the tears of fear-mongering liberals who have used this tactic before.  Harry Reid played this card a few months ago, pronouncing that "people are dying... they're dying!"  Of course, this argument is based on a thoroughly debunked study from the American Journal of Public Health, and repeated ad nauseam by the likes of the less-than-savory Alan Grayson, Ezra Klein, and now, Rochelle Riley.

          Riley then unabashedly invokes the words of our founding fathers, claiming that universal healthcare coverage can somehow be interpreted from the words of the Declaration of Independence.

          The Congress, as Pelosi said, honored ‘the vows of our founders, that every American is endowed with certain unalienable rights:  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

          A quick scan of the Declaration reveals no mention of the words ‘socialized medicine.'

          Riley explains:

          "Hard to pursue happiness when you're dying from a lack of medical care because you're not privileged."

          And

          "Hard to pursue happiness when you've lost your health insurance along with your job and can see only emergency room doctors and only when you're in dire straits."

          First, if you lack medical insurance it is not because of a lack of privilege.  Second, better to have to visit an emergency room in America, where you will be treated without question, than to venture into a socialized society's ER.  Take Dr. David Gratzer's description of a Canadian hospital visit, in which he describes the scene as follows:

          "Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare:  the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission.  Some, it turned out, had waited five days.  The air stank with sweat and urine.  Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian healthcare."

          Now that is a pursuit most Americans aren't interested in.

          Actually, it's hard to pursue happiness at all in a system where the alleged lower cost of universal care will actually result in a lower quality of care.  Such has been evidenced in a report by Britain's Healthcare Commission (BHC), which found that between 400 and 1,200 patients unnecessarily died in Mid-Staffordshire hospitals in a three year span.  Why?  Philip Klein explains, "Britain's emergency rooms have struggled with long wait times that are a natural consequence of socialized medicine."  This led to what the BHC deemed, "failures at almost every stage of care of emergency patients." 

          Is this what constitutes happiness?  Not exactly the medical utopia Democrats would have you expecting now that they have socialized our own country's healthcare system.

          The inanity continues, as Riley continues spreading half-truths with her next statement:

          "Hard to pursue happiness when you watch angry so-called Tea Party activists yell ‘nigger' at Rep. John Lewis, spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver and call Rep. Barney Frank a ‘faggot'."

          The problem with this story however, is that it is quickly going the same route as the Census worker suicide, the N-word shout at a Palin rally, and the ‘Kill him!' allegation at another Palin rally - mainly, there is no initial evidence to substantiate these stories, the accused and others present have disputed the claims, and yet the media is still running with it as if it were gospel.

          Riley's column then dabbles in the story of one Marcelas Owens, the 11-year-old healthcare prop whose mother, Tiffany, died of pulmonary hypertension - a heart-wrenching story for sure.  Riley excoriates conservative pundits Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin for ‘attacking a child.'

          What she failed to mention is that Democrats thrust little Marcelas into the spotlight, using him at every step of the way as a shield from real policy questions.  Conservative talk shows weren't parading Marcelas around the circuit, it was the Democrats.  She also fails to mention that Marcelas has been consistently used by his family of liberal activists.  There is no talk of how the networks presented the boy as a healthcare crusader, flying across the country so his voice could be heard, only to learn that these trips were organized and paid for by Astroturf activists Health Care for America Now.  Instead, she simply offers hatred for those who would dare voice a dissenting opinion.

          On an amusing note, Riley does finish with an inadvertent pronouncement of how this healthcare legislation truly came to be (emphasis mine):

          "Those heinous and inexcusable tirades and actions should become campaign commercials used by every Democratic and Independent and Green candidate - and any Democrat the President had to beg or threaten - for the next five years."

          Apparently, vociferous opposition to a healthcare kiddie shield is a veritable crime, but a President who bribes and threatens his party in order to pass legislation - now that's something to celebrate.

          Seems the liberal pursuit of happiness can directly be linked to the misery and downfall of our nation.

          By Big Governement
          March 22, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Hope and Change: Had Enough?

          Back in 1946, an ingenious advertising executive named Karl Frost suggested a simple, straightforward political slogan to the Massachusetts Republican Committee: “Had Enough? Vote Republican,” it read. This slogan was soon found on billboards all across the country, and in November of that year the Republicans picked up fifty-five seats in the House and twelve in the Senate, seizing control in both chambers.

          miss-me-yet_472x354

          By that November, the country had suffered under the New Deal for fourteen years, and Americans, understandably, were fed up. Moreover, as Michael Barone pointed out last May, “After World War II Democrats wanted to retain wartime high taxes, pro-union labor laws, and wage and price controls, all manipulatable for political benefit by political insiders. Republicans  . . . won big enough majorities to lower taxes, revise labor laws and abolish controls.”

          Were I in the shoes of Michael Steele, I would buy up billboard space all over the country and slap up the same slogan – for something similar should be possible this November. The healthcare debate was over some time ago. When Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in January, it was made abundantly clear that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party had lost that debate decisively. Now, in the face of fierce public opposition, they have jammed the bill through Congress, and they have done so without the cover of a single Republican vote. For this – as William Daley, the mastermind of the Chicago machine, warned in an op-ed that appeared in The Washington Post on Christmas eve – they will pay dearly and not just this coming November.

          Abraham Lincoln once observed, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.” It is possible, of course, that events will intervene between now and November. It is conceivable that the healthcare bill and the manner in which it was passed in both the Senate and the House will be forgotten. But this is not likely. If the Republicans stick together, mount a principled opposition to the Obama administration on all fronts, and recruit first-rate candidates to run in every district at both the state and the federal levels in November, it is highly likely that there will be a political earthquake in this country on a scale not seen since 1932.

          As I have argued now for months – first, in August, here; then, in November, here and here; and, more recently, here, here, and here – a genuine political realignment may be in the offing. This has happened at irregular intervals in our nation’s past – most notably, in 1800, 1828, 1860, and 1932 – and on each occasion the political party benefiting from the upheaval was able to paint a plausible picture depicting their opponents as being parties to a conspiracy to overthrow the liberties possessed by their fellow Americans. This is what Thomas Jefferson did to the Federalists in and after 1800; it was what Andrew Jackson did to John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Nicholas Biddle, and the Whigs in and after 1828; it was what Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans did to the slave power conspiracy and its fellow travelers in the North in and after 1860, and it was what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did to Herbert Hoover and the business-minded progressives in and after 1932. When FDR claimed, at the 1936 Democratic convention, that “a small group”  of his fellow Americans was intent on concentrating “into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives,”  he was merely rephrasing the charges lodged in an earlier time by Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and their political allies.

          Of course, one cannot plausibly advance such a claim except in circumstances where one has a great deal of help from one’s opponents. In 1800, Jefferson profited from the quarrel pitting Alexander Hamilton against John Adams, and by exhibiting secessionist propensities at the Hartford Convention, the New England Federalists destroyed their own party. Something similar can be said regarding Nicholas Biddle and the supporters of the Second National Bank. The same is true for the supporters of the slave power in and after 1860, and Herbert Hoover was in similar fashion a godsend for FDR.

          If the Republicans have a comparable opportunity in 2010 and 2012, it is because of what I described in my very first blogpost as “Obama’s Tyrannical Ambition.” Barack Obama has a gift. He has told us so himself, and he is right, but he errs in supposing that his oratorical skill will enable him to fool all of the people all of the time, and over time he has, in effect, unmasked his own party as a conspiracy on the part of a would-be aristocracy of do-gooders hostile to very idea of self-government in the United States. There is no need for me to review the record of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress in the last fifteen months. It is enough to say that, in an administration that promised transparency, everything has been negotiated behind closed doors in a manner suggestive of tyranny and that, in an administration that promised to distance itself from the lobbyists, every major bill has been written by them and is loaded with special deals that give new meaning to the old phrase “corrupt bargain.”  The stimulus bill, cap-and-trade, healthcare reform: with these Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have brought home to the American people, as never before, the tyrannical propensities inherent in the progressive impulse. Thanks to them, everyone now knows that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat.

          Of course, it takes two to tango. Thus far, the Republicans have played their cards well by observing the age-old rule: When your opponents are in the process of committing suicide, stay out of the way. In the circumstances that they now face, it may be sufficient that they maintain discipline and make abundantly clear their opposition to Obama’s domestic program. Sooner or later, however, they will have to develop a positive program, and that will decide their fate. The Republican victory of 1946 was vitally important for the future of the American republic in the fashion suggested by Barone, but it was short-lived. If the Republicans are to do better this time around, they will have to make the case that the entitlement regime inherited by the Obama is as unAmerican as what he has added to it.

          Put simply, it is not enough that the Republicans claim that they can administer the welfare state more effectively than the Democrats. As FDR and Truman demonstrated, business progressivism is not, in the long run, a politically viable alternative to government-centered progressivism. For a realignment to take place, there has to be a return to first principles – to the principles of limited government embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

          Fortunately, the welfare state that we have inherited is visibly bankrupt in more than one way. Medicare in its current form is unsustainable; Social Security is no longer viable. The cohort of retirees is growing ever larger, and they live on and on. The cohort of those within the work force is not growing at a faster rate. Taxes can perhaps be raised but if they are raised too much they will choke off investment, get in the way of economic growth, cease to bring in the revenue requisite for supporting our entitlement programs.

          In short, we have no choice. One way or another, there will be entitlement reform. If the Republicans come up with a viable plan – and Paul Ryan may have done just that – and if they implement it, the future may well be theirs. If they do not, what they gain this November, even if they gain the Presidency two years thereafter, will not long endure. The real question before us is simple. Do the Republicans have the moxie to seize this opportunity and turn the country around? Do they understand the principles of limited government? Can they articulate them in such a way as to bring home to the voters the nature and value of the liberties they have lost with the onset of the administrative state? With the help of Barack Obama, they have an opportunity now that last had its equal in 1946. What they have to remember are Lincoln ’s words: “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.”

          By Big Governement
          March 20, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          ObamaCare: The Slaughter House Three

          In Kurt Vonnegut’s 1969 novel, Slaughterhouse Five, the main character, Billy Pilgrim, is an American POW who hides in a meat cellar as Dresden is being fire bombed.

          dresdengermany

          In 2010, the Slaughterhouse Three, Obama, Pelosi and Reid, shove every American in a meat cellar as they fire bomb America with their rationing-based health care plan. ObamaCare is a plan designed to strip Freedom and Liberty from every American.

          Obama, Pelosi and Reid now have decided to avoid an up/down House vote on the Senate Bill and to enforce the “Slaughter House Rule”. In other words, when you do not have the votes, just change the rules, pass the changes to the bill and pretend you passed the “real” bill. Previously, the public was outraged that members of Congress did not read the bill prior to voting. This is even worse. With this latest charade, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are forcing House members to pass the bill without voting on the bill. …So much for a democratic republic and The Constitution.

          The latest version of ObamaCare is troubling on many fronts. ObamaCare takes control of every American’s health care life. This plan would not improve the current system, and is fatally flawed because it:

          • Rations and denies access to healthcare. Denying access to healthcare is the most inhumane and unethical means of cutting costs;
          • Costs $1 TRILLION ( $100 Billion more than The Senate Bill) ;
          • Creates over 110 Federal Agencies, commissions and boards;
          • Creates The Health Insurance Rate Authority….a direct violation of States’ Rights;
          • Establishes a “ Comprehensive Database” on Americans;

          • Establishes Individual and Employer Mandates (Mr. Obama’s own Chair of Council of Economic Advisors has stated that this alone would cost 5.5 Million jobs….more unemployment.);
          • Institutes $748 Billion in new taxes;
          • Cuts Medicare by $500 Billion, over a period when 30% MORE Americans will be added to Medicare rolls, (You do the math…);
          • Imposes $136 Billion in tax hikes on working families making LESS THAN $250,000 (Americans for Tax Reform Analysis);
          • Ends Medicare Advantage Program for Seniors and forces them to a more expensive plan with less benefits;
          • Applies Medicare Tax to unearned income;
          • Increases Medicare Payroll Tax from 2.95 to 3.8%; and
          • Increases unfunded mandates on every State.
          • Increases Capital Gains tax rate as of 2014 to 23.8%
          • Creates 16,000 jobs for the IRS to implement penalties for those not buying insurance

          The Slaughterhouse Three, Obama, Pelosi and Reid, have authored the legislation that will make every American a POW, strip them of their Freedoms and Liberty and shove them in a meat cellar for cold storage. So how is that Hope and Change working for you now?

          By Big Governement
          March 14, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          ‘Schoolhouse Barack’

          Remember Schoolhouse Rock, that civic-minded Saturday morning cartoon short from the 1970s? It’s time to update it for the Obama Era.

          I__m_just_a_Bill_by_kilroyart

          ”I’m Just a Law”

          LAW (singing): I’m just a law, yes I’m only a law,
          And I don’t know why they passed me at all.
          Cause — no — one — knows what is in me
          No one’s read a darn word,
          I was typed up last night
          By a 20-year-old nerd,
          But Pelosi twisted elbows all day.
          How I hoped and prayed they would stall
          But today, all in all, I’m a law.

          BOY: Hello, Law, why so glum?

          LAW: I’m two thousand pages long and no one’s even read me yet.

          BOY: Then how did they pass you?

          LAW: The Democrats used something called reconciliation.

          BOY: Recon-what?

          LAW: It means they can write any bill and pass it whenever they want. It’s against the rules.

          BOY: That doesn’t sound very democratic.

          LAW: Actually, it is! In a pure democracy, the majority rules.

          BOY: But I thought we lived in a republic!

          LAW: Me too, kid. Me too.

          (singing) I’m just a law, yes I’m only a law,
          And they don’t know what is in me at all.
          Do — I — ban — incandescent light bulbs? Do I tax gasoline?
          End health care as we know it, if you know what I mean?
          Or maybe I just spend lots of dough,
          Hey, you’ll never know, it’s too late
          Because Nancy and Harry sealed your fate.

          NANCY PELOSI: Hello, Law.

          HARRY REID: Ready to reform health care?

          BOY: Didn’t Congress already pass health care reform?

          LAW: They did. But since the American people turned against it, they’re scared to bring the old bill up for a final vote.

          PELOSI: I’m not scared. That’s just my eyebrows.

          LAW (singing): I’ll be spreading the wealth, spending trillions on health,
          I’m a single-payer system by stealth,
          But — the — Republicans can’t stop me, even with Scotty Brown.
          Obama said he’ll never let them vote my ass down.
          I’m as popular as powdered anthrax,
          Hey, they don’t mind the attacks,
          ‘Cause I’m one more excuse just to tax.

          BOY: Look, it’s President Obama!

          PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hello, Law. Pleased to meet you.

          LAW: Wha — what are you gonna do with that pen?

          OBAMA: Why, sign you, of course. Don’t worry, it won’t hurt — at first.

          LAW: Oh, no!

          PELOSI AND REID: Oh, yeah!

          ###

          “Kill the Golden Goose”

          BOY: Hey, Barry!

          GIRL: What are you doing?

          PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m making dinner for all of us! How would you like roast goose?

          BOY: Mmmm!

          GIRL: But where will we get it?

          OBAMA: Look!

          (He points to a golden goose in the distance).

          OBAMA (singing): Let’s go kill the Golden Goose
          It means more food for me and you,
          Kill the Golden Goose today,
          Before she runs away!

          OBAMA: Look at those breasts and thighs and legs!

          GIRL: But doesn’t she lay golden eggs?

          OBAMA (singing): Yes, but you don’t understand.
          There are hungry folks throughout the land!
          They need the food, don’t make them beg!
          It’s better than a dumb old egg.

          BOY: I thought the eggs helped mom and dad.

          OBAMA: Listen, my naive young lad. The goose was put on this earth to help people. If she just lays golden eggs, the only person she ever helps is her owner! But if we kill her, we can serve ALL Americans, not just the wealthy few.

          (singing) What good is a lump of gold
          When you’re starving, shivering in the cold?

          So let’s go kill the Golden Goose
          It means more food for me and you
          Kill the Golden Goose today,
          Before she runs away!

          BOY: How did the goose get so fat?

          OBAMA: Let me tell you a story. Long before you were born, a man named Ronald Reagan decided to feed the goose instead of the people. He wanted it to lay more eggs for its owners. He called it “trickle-down.”

          BOY: That’s greedy.

          GIRL: And unfair!

          OBAMA: But we put a stop to that. Before we got here, geese ran wild. Now they’re regulated –

          BOY: — like a child!

          GIRL: Wait a minute — has PETA heard?

          OBAMA: Yes, they can’t wait to axe THIS bird!

          (singing) So let’s go kill the Golden Goose
          It means more food for me and you
          Kill the Golden Goose today,
          Before she runs — uh oh!

          (Taxpayers holding pitchforks appear).

          TAXPAYER 1: All right, Barry, let her be.

          TAXPAYER 2: It’s not your bird, it’s owned by me.

          TAXPAYER 3: Without this goose, we’d all be poor.

          OBAMA (shaking his fist): Next time your goose is cooked, for sure!

          ###

          Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of Schoolhouse Barack: “Cap’n Trade: Anti-Capitalist Pirate of the High Seas.”

          By Big Governement
          March 12, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Financial Regulation, Health Care, and Could Insurers Demand the Next Bailout?

          It’s time for your weekly dose of Coffee and Markets, featuring The New Ledger’s Francis Cianfrocca, a podcast brought to you by the fine folks at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and LibertyPundits.com, your home for conservative podcasts. In this week’s edition, we’ll talk about the fallout from a failed attempt by Senators Dodd and Corker to make new financial regulations bipartisan, the latest activity on the bond markets, and what’s next for Obamacare.

          Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

          You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

          Related Links:

          TNL: Obamacare’s Two Americas
          Frum: Will Health Reform Cause the Next Bailout?
          The Hill: No Votes on HCR Pile Up
          HCN: Democrats Consider Drastic Moves to Pass Health Care Bill
          T-Shirt: Lobby the Rahm Emanuel Way

          By Big Governement
          March 11, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Senate Parliamentarian Rules Obama Must Sign Senate Bill BEFORE Reconciliation

          59093

          Via Roll Call

          The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

          The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

          House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.

          Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

          This just confirms what I’ve been saying all along: the House vote is the final vote.

          Now, will the House Democrats trust the Senate Democrats and Obama? Harry Reid now appears to have a change of heart and will now allow Republicans input and to offer amendments. Reid wrote:

          “Reconciliation is designed to deal with budget-related matters, and some have expressed doubt that it could be used for comprehensive health care reform that includes many policies with no budget implications. But the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform — that bill already passed outside of reconciliation with 60 votes,” Reid wrote to McConnell.

          “Reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process. You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation. In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote. If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug ‘donut hole’ for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so,” he said.

          Obviously, Republicans would have to be a part of the legislative process; however, does anyone actually think that a single GOP amendment would really be passed to amend the bill. Furthermore, for Reid to say “a democratic, up-or-down majority vote” is simply disingenuous. Reid knows that he does indeed 60 votes to pass amendments and he is circumventing the GOP filibuster to make any further changes.

          That is the bait for the House Democrats–to use the up-or-down vote, which requires only 51 votes to pass the ObamaCare bill changes. The House Democrats must trust that the Senate Democrats will hold true to their word. They also have to make certain that Obama will sign the amended legislation.

          As for Obama’s track record of broken promises and bait and switch, I’d go over to Change.gov for a serious reminder of what health reform should look like and what he originally promised voters.

          A wrench in Dems’ Wreckonciliation plans, but…


          Photoshop: Leo Alberti

          Some cold water thrown on the cramdown, ram-through, promise-we’ll-amend-it-later plans of the Democrat ruling majority. Curses, foiled again:

          The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

          The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

          House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.

          Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

          Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) moved Thursday to put Senate Republicans on the defensive over health care, sending a letter to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in which he dared the GOP to vote against reform.

          Reid also defended the Democrats’ use of reconciliation to get a final health care reform bill to the president’s desk, noting that the bulk of health care reform was approved under regular order via the package that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve. Reid also emphasized that Republicans have used the procedure several times over the years.

          But hey, noooooobody’s talking reconciliation, right, Harry?

          ***

          What now? With the Slaughter solution toast, Philip Klein reports on the House Dems’ next move coming Monday:

          Rep. Paul Ryan says that Democrats are ready to ram a “shell” health care bill through the Budget Committee, on which he serves as ranking Republican member, to use as a vehicle to impose national health care.

          In a phone interview with TAS Thursday afternoon, Ryan said that he expects Democrats to begin the complex process on Monday, under which they would have the Budget Committee approve a phantom bill by midnight, which they will then send over to the Rules Committee. At that point, the Rules Committee will strip out all of the language in the phantom bill, and insert the changes to the Senate bill that Democrats have negotiated.

          “They don’t have the votes right now, but they’re creating the vehicle so that they can airdrop in whatever changes they want,” Ryan said.

          He said that Republicans are outnumbered 2-to-1 on his committee and don’t have the votes to stop the bill there. Democrats will also be able to prevent Republicans from offering any amendments, but GOP members will be able to offer “motions to instruct” the Rules Committee, that Ryan said will be used highlight problems with the “unprecedented” step that Democrats are taking.

          He said he expected Democrats to dust off last year’s health care bills from the Education and Labor and Ways and Means Committees, to use as the vehicle for reconciliation changes.

          A wrench in Dems’ Wreckonciliation plans, but…


          Photoshop: Leo Alberti

          Some cold water thrown on the cramdown, ram-through, promise-we’ll-amend-it-later plans of the Democrat ruling majority. Curses, foiled again:

          The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

          The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

          House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.

          Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

          Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) moved Thursday to put Senate Republicans on the defensive over health care, sending a letter to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in which he dared the GOP to vote against reform.

          Reid also defended the Democrats’ use of reconciliation to get a final health care reform bill to the president’s desk, noting that the bulk of health care reform was approved under regular order via the package that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve. Reid also emphasized that Republicans have used the procedure several times over the years.

          But hey, noooooobody’s talking reconciliation, right, Harry?

          ***

          What now? With the Slaughter solution toast, Philip Klein reports on the House Dems’ next move coming Monday:

          Rep. Paul Ryan says that Democrats are ready to ram a “shell” health care bill through the Budget Committee, on which he serves as ranking Republican member, to use as a vehicle to impose national health care.

          In a phone interview with TAS Thursday afternoon, Ryan said that he expects Democrats to begin the complex process on Monday, under which they would have the Budget Committee approve a phantom bill by midnight, which they will then send over to the Rules Committee. At that point, the Rules Committee will strip out all of the language in the phantom bill, and insert the changes to the Senate bill that Democrats have negotiated.

          “They don’t have the votes right now, but they’re creating the vehicle so that they can airdrop in whatever changes they want,” Ryan said.

          He said that Republicans are outnumbered 2-to-1 on his committee and don’t have the votes to stop the bill there. Democrats will also be able to prevent Republicans from offering any amendments, but GOP members will be able to offer “motions to instruct” the Rules Committee, that Ryan said will be used highlight problems with the “unprecedented” step that Democrats are taking.

          He said he expected Democrats to dust off last year’s health care bills from the Education and Labor and Ways and Means Committees, to use as the vehicle for reconciliation changes.

          By MichelleMalkin.com
          March 8, 2010
          1 Comment

          Video flashbacks: Eric Massa attacks Rush Limbaugh, embraces Eliot Spitzer

          Scroll for updates…


          Ew.

          As I mentioned this afternoon, Democrat Rep. Eric Massa owes much of his career and political success to anti-war nutball Gen. Wesley Clark.

          Massa served under Clark and worked on Clark’s doomed presidential campaign. Clark provided the cash-strapped Massa critical PAC support, nutroots help, and funding for Massa’s congressional bid.

          Gen. Clark, you may recall, was also the speech-stifling zealot who led the backdoor “Fairness Doctrine” drive to kick Rush Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio in 2007. The pretext for that censorship campaign was Harry Reid and the Left’s false claim that Rush had “smeared” American troops because he dared to mention the disturbing trend of phony, anti-war soldiers like the infamous Jesse MacBeth (see here and here for refresher courses on Winter Soldier Syndrome). You may remember that Rush turned the Democrats’ attack on its head and raised millions of dollars to benefit the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation by auctioning off Reid’s bully letter.

          Well, here’s another reminder that the relentlessly opportunistic Massa chimed in on the side of Clark, Reid, and the leftists providing cover for anti-war fraudsters like MacBeth and his ilk. In fact, he recorded a YouTube campaign spot attacking Rush that as of 11:40pm Eastern tonight, was still featured on his MassaforCongress channel:

          Transcript…

          MASSA 1:38:00 — “You’re a pompous coward and it’s about time that someone called you out on it. And that someone is me. My name is Eric Massa. I’ll go on your show any day. And I’ll say it to your face and I’ll say it anywhere. You did your best to dodge military service while hundreds of thousands of Americans wore the uniform to give you the privilege of misusing the radio waves and spread propagandistic lies that are wholly inaccurate about our military service members. I know them personally. Many of them are deep and dear friends of mine. And I daresay, Mr. Limbaugh, if you asked any of them today, they’d much rather stand with those of us who stood with each other rather than with you.

          I’m tired of your tactics..You might have a lot of weight to throw around, but it doesn’t carry a lot of weight with me. Rush Limbaugh, I’ll go on your show any day. My name is Eric Massa and you know where to find me.

          “Conservative hero” my foot.

          “Crapweasel” is too kind a description for the desperate, bottom-feeding Massa. He is not a useful idiot. He’s just an idiot.

          Leave him to the likes of Democrat creep Eliot Spitzer. Blech (and note that this ad ran just one day before Spitzer resigned as a result of Client Number Nine-gate. Birds of a feather:

          Takeaway line delivered by Spitzer: “Together, we’re going to clean up waste, fraud, and abuse in government.”

          Creep Factor: 10+

          ***

          More from New York blogger/columnist Bob Lonsberry.

          Paul Mirengoff at Power Line:

          The Washington Post reports that “conservative activists [have] rallied to the side of” Rep. Eric Massa “after he charged that his party’s leaders had conspired to oust him over his opposition to President Obama’s health-care legislation.” I’m quite willing to believe the worst about Rahm Emmanuel and the Democratic leadership in the House. However, I’m not prepared on the current record to “rally to the side” of Rep. Massa.

          My reluctance stems from the fact that Massa’s story doesn’t seem to add up. His claim, as I understand it, is that the charges of sexual harassment against him represent a conspiracy to force him to leave the House before it votes on health care legislation. Massa is a committed “no” vote.

          Massa says he’s innocent of anything more than a few borderline comments at a party. But he has resigned in order, he says, to avoid an investigation that would injure his family and divide his staff.

          But if Massa’s version of the facts is correct, then he has little to fear from an investigation. Moreover, any investigation would likely occur only after Massa cast his “no” vote. If he truly believed he was the victim of the vicious plot he alleges, Massa would likely stick around to cast his vote and then leave town. What better way to get back at Emmanuel and company?

          ***

          Update from John McCormack at Weekly Standard: “Reliable sources on Capitol Hill say the House ethics report on Eric Massa will be damning.”

          By Big Governement
          March 8, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Reconciliation Is a Deceptive Distraction from the True Intentions

          Building on a previous post exposing that Harry Reid took the existing House-passed bill, H.R. 3590, entitled the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 and replaced the existing bill language, via an amendment, with the Senate’s version of the healthcare bill–creating a new H.R. 3590–the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate).

          I stand by my assertion that Reid took H.R. 3590–knowing that all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House per the Constitution–as evidenced by the actual bill text dated December 24, 2009 seen here in a screen shot and his trick:
          reidinsert75
          reidinserta75

          This further confirms that the March 18th House healthcare vote is the final vote for passage; however, there are still many pundits who just don’t comprehend this fact.

          And here is the code red alert and why this warning should be taken seriously. As written:

          After a measure passes in the House, it goes to the Senate for consideration. A bill must pass both bodies in the same form before it can be presented to the President for signature into law. If the Senate changes the language of the measure, it must return to the House for concurrence or additional changes. After a measure has been passed in identical form by both the House and Senate, it is considered “enrolled.” It is sent to the President who may sign the measure into law, veto it and return it to Congress, let it become law without signature, or at the end of a session, pocket-veto it. emphasis mine

          Reid gutted H.R. 3590’s original language and replaced it with healh care bill, so the bill must go back to the House. But, does anyone think if Obama has healthcare legislation that has passed both the House and Senate in identical form that he would not sign it? Furthermore, why would the reconciliation process even come into play–except to be used as the bait for passage by the House. The talk of reconciliation is the deceptive diversion to create outrage, deflect the true intentions, and hide the Reid trick from the American people.

          As I’ve stated before, Americans need to understand the devastating significance of the House vote on the Senate healthcare bill set for March 18th. The Democrats have–by design–created the perfect storm to take over the US healthcare system, while providing an ideal distraction–reconciliation.

          These deceptive practices, which may seem like everyday occurrences in Congress, can be summed up as the ultimate betrayal by the Democrats against the American people in order to ram through their progressive, socialistic, freedom-stripping policies–all for the Holy Grail of healthcare and the prize of total control of the American people. Healthcare is the basic necessity that will cause Americans to kneel at the almighty throne of the federal government and become completely fearful of not getting proper care, referrals, testing, surgery, and prescriptions, among others.

          In addition, I don’t think that the House will hold the bill to work out differences between the two chambers as is being floated. While it may be an optional maneuver, the Democrats need the tax increases to take effect now so they can offset some of their rabid spending. And will the Democrats make good on the promise to fix the problems in the bill as the House and Senate appear to have an inherent distrust?

          The House Democrats have a difficult choice of party politics or the will of the American people. The American people have made their will known–kill the bill.

          By NewsBusters.org
          March 7, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          SNL Rips Obama, Pelosi, Reid and ‘Unpopular’ Healthcare Reform

          "Saturday Night Live" mocked the entire Democrat establishment last evening taking on President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and healthcare reform.

          Fred Armisen playing Obama in a mock address to the American Nursing Association continually referred to healthcare legislation currently before Congress as "surprisingly unpopular."

          "Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have assured me that unpopular though it may be, in the days ahead this bill will be passed by both the House and Senate and sent to my desk for signature," assured Armisen.

          "Finally, after decades of effort, we will have real healthcare reform even though, as I have said, it may not be popular. Or viewed favorably by Americans. Or what the people want us to do" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Story Balloon):

          FRED ARMISEN AS PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good afternoon. Roughly sixteen years ago in 1993 and ‘94, a newly-elected Democratic President Bill Clinton working with the Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate attempted to pass the first serious health care reform in a generation. Predictably, the forces of the status quo went into action. The bill was attacked relentlessly. Unfairly distorted and became so unpopular it was finally abandoned. That fall of '94, the Democrat Speaker of the House was defeated in his own district and the Republicans took over both houses of Congress. I am here today joined by House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid to tell the American people this is not going to happen again. Now, polls may show the healthcare reform bill currently before Congress to be surprisingly unpopular.

          KRISTEN WIIG AS NANCY PELOSI: They really don't like it.

          WILL FORTE AS HARRY REID: I thought it would be much more unpopular. Much more popular, excuse me.

          WIIG: I was stunned.

          ARMISEN: All the same. It is not going to be abandoned. It is a good bill. A good bill hat we have perhaps failed to properly explain. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have assured me that unpopular though it may be in the days ahead, this bill will be passed by both the House and Senate and sent to my desk for signature. Finally, after decades of effort, we will have real healthcare reform even though as I have said, it may not be popular. Or viewed favorably by Americans. Or what the people want us to do.
          Naturally the same forces that fought reform sixteen years ago are back trying to convince members of Congress that a vote for this legislation is political suicide.

          Now, granted this bill is very unpopular, but come on, does anyone seriously think Nancy Pelosi could lose in her San Francisco district? A place where Republican candidates often finish fourth behind professional dominatrixes - and homeless people. Let's get real, that's not going to happen.

          Now, Senator Reid, I'll admit, is in a different situation. He's up for re-election this fall in Nevada where healthcare reform is especially unpopular. I'm not sure why, but it is.
          Really, really unpopular. Angry mob unpopular. So let's be frank, Harry could lose this November, but let me make something clear, I don't think he will. Or at least it won't be because of this unpopular healthcare bill. After all, he's got other problems. Healthcare could poll at 100% and Harry Reid would still have problems. I think even Harry would agree he's not the most telegenic or charismatic guy around. Am I right about that?
          Plus he has been hurt by some of the sleazy deals he cut with other Senators in order to get health care passed. I mean you have to acknowledge they were sleazy.

          FORTE: You're right, they were. They were.

          ARMESON: I mean the Cornhusker Kickback. It just smelled bad.

          FORTE: It did.

          ARMESON: Also, Harry hasn't been able to spend much time back in Nevada campaigning as he's been tied up here in Washington working on this deeply unpopular healthcare bill. But that doesn't help. But still, I wouldn't count Harry Reid out. He's a scrapper. Plus even if he should lose, we'll still have enough Democratic senators for a majority. I mean, no offense.

          FORTE: None taken.

          ARMESON: I mean, who knows? We might even be better off without him. I don't know.

          FORTE: Maybe.

          ARMESON: But I'll tell you what, even with all of Harry's problems, I'll bet he makes it, although you never know. Nevada is weird. Now, Nancy here, I'm sure of. Come on, San Francisco.

          WIIG: I feel pretty good.

          ARMESON: As for myself, I will unfortunately not be on the ballot this fall. I wish I could be because unlike this healthcare bill, I am really, really popular. You'll see what I mean in 2012. Thank you and live from New York, it's Saturday Night!

          Interesting how the folks at "SNL" really harped on how unpopular the bill is, and how Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are willing to force it through regardless of what the people want.

          Nice to see some honesty in the media concerning this issue even if from a comedy show.

          Although this wasn't very funny, this skit more accurately depicted what's going on with healthcare reform than what's been emanating from so-called "real journalists" for months.

          Bravo, SNL. Bravo!

          Dear Harry Reid: Is Your Ivory Tower Padded?

          If Harry Reid’s Ivory Tower isn’t padded, it should be, because he is cuckoo pants. I submit as exhibit A: Only 36,000 jobs lost, which is UP from last month. What a super awesome day! Who wants evil private sector jobs anyway, right Harry? The rhetoric of the Democrat’s has moved from incomprehensible [...]

          How do you spell “tone-deaf?”; Update: Obama joins the cheerleading squad

          H-A-R-R-Y-R-E-I-D.

          “Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good.”

          ***

          Commenter jsr: “With any luck November 3 we will be able to say: ‘Today is a big day in America. Over 300 congressmen lost their jobs today, which is really good.’”

          ***

          Update: Obama says “Woo-hoo, too!”

          President Barack Obama boasted Friday that his economic recovery efforts were showing results after the national unemployment rate stayed at a steady 9.7 percent for February.

          Obama, touring a small business in Arlington, Va., said that the 36,000 jobs lost last month was ‘actually better than expected’ considering the massive snowstorms that devastated the East Coast.

          Jim Geraghty tweets: “Reid says our jobs numbers are ‘really good;’ I haven’t felt this reassured since Janet Napolitano told us ‘the system worked.’”

          By Big Governement
          March 4, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: Bunning Throws Reid the High Hard One

          I grew up in Kentucky where every boy who ever played baseball knew the name of Jim Bunning. He is the Hall of Fame pitcher who threw a perfect game for the Philadelphia Phillies and knew how to play hardball long before the tingly-legged Chris Matthews co-opted the name for his decidedly softball show.

          jim-bunning-hof

          If you are anywhere near being a fiscal conservative you have to absolutely love what Senator Jim Bunning did this week. This week Senator Bunning showed Senator Harry Reid, and a few Senate Republicans how to throw one high and tight. His one man play at fiscal responsibility has the Washington “in” crowd crying foul and showing their hypocrisy.

          In case you missed it here is a brief rundown. A few weeks ago the Congress passed a bill known as “Pay-Go,” a fluffy piece of nonsense posturing. On its surface Pay-Go seems to be fiscally responsibly, if you want to spend some money you need to show where it is going to come from. Senator Bunning knew the bill was hogwash because any spending could avoid being subject to Pay Go if it was “an emergency.” He didn’t vote for the bill for that reason. He also saw another flaw in the bill, a single Senator could hold up the whole Senate if they wanted to.

          This week when Senator Reid tried to push through an extension to unemployment benefits Senator Bunning played a little chin music for the Majority leader and put the breaks on the additional 10 billion in spending. Senator Bunning invoked his right to stop the bill and call for the application of the Pay Go rule. When members of the media hounded Senator Bunning for a comment he showed them the door, of the elevator he was taking. Nice added touch!

          What followed was supreme political theater and posing by the left. Senator Reid could have simply called for closure on the bill and gathered eighty votes, which were there for passage and the poor unemployed whom he, a parade of progressives senators and fellow traveler Bernie Saunders of Vermont cried crocodile tears for would have had their additional handout from Uncle Sugar. Oh my, oh my thousands would soon be starving and homeless due to this heartless conservative! Cue the beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth and much wailing! None of that could have been further than the truth but as conservative talk show host Larry Elder says, “Facts are like kryptonite to toe tag liberals.”

          Senator Bunning gave up his stand after a few days and I think that’s too bad. After watching the parade of phonies decry Senator Bunning’s actions I was wondering what the average American who doesn’t live with an hour of LA, D.C. or New York thought of this tough guy making a stand. It’s my feeling that if a national poll were held on who they supported in this standoff, Senator Bunning or Reid, Senator Bunning would have another win on his record.

          By Big Governement
          March 4, 2010
          1 Comment

          The Constitution Matters: It Means What It Says

          The Constitution and the Second Amendment are in the spotlight this week on two fronts.  First is that oral arguments are being held in the McDonald v Chicago case to possibly apply the holding in Heller to the states.

          us-supremecourt

          In addition, Senators are beginning their evaluation of the judicial nomination of Berkeley professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a vote that will tell a great deal about Senator Reid’s adherence to Constitutional principles such as those specified in the Second Amendment.

          Senator Reid has a terrible record on judicial nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.  In DC v Heller, there were four dissenters from the holding that the right to bear arms is an individual right.  Harry Reid had a chance to vote on three and he voted for each one – Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg.  Harry Reid has a chance to vote on four of the majority justices, and he voted against three of them – Thomas, Alito and Roberts.  If Harry Reid had been successful in defeating any of these three, Heller would have been in jeopardy.  That’s six out of seven bad votes on the Supreme Court.

          Four of those bad votes were cast in his very first term, when my primary opponent Sue Lowden was his loyal contributor.

          There will be hearings on professor Liu, but I am specifically interested in a particular book he co-authored on jurisprudence entitled “Keeping Faith with the Constitution.”

          Ominously, early in its text, the book contains an statement that lacks credibility in our current context.  Liu writes:

          “Throughout our history, political leaders have taken seriously their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.”

          Unfortunately, that is something that isn’t true today.  We are experiencing a historic time when entire industries are propped up by government seemingly arbitrarily and secretly picking winners and losers.  Some industries are in danger of socialization, such as health care.

          In “Keeping Faith,” Liu attempts – unconvincingly in my opinion – to argue that there is some middle ground between judicial activism and a judicial philosophy of attempting to interpret the Constitution with deference to original intent..  Ironically, he calls the middle ground “constitutional fidelity.” As if the title makes it true.

          Liu writes:

          “We use the term constitutional fidelity to describe this approach. To be faithful to the Constitution is to interpret its words and to apply its principles in ways that sustain their vitality over time. Fidelity to the Constitution requires judges to ask not how its general principles would have been applied in 1789 or 1868, but rather how those principles should be applied today in order to preserve their power and meaning in light of the concerns, conditions, and evolving norms of our society.  In this book, we develop a different approach to interpretation that respects the endurance of our written Constitution and explains how its text and principles retain their authority and legitimacy over decades and centuries.”

          Professor Liu’s constitutional fidelity philosophy seems to be rooted in the idea that proper interpretation of our constitution requires a continual updating of its meaning for the purpose of achieving ‘authority’ and ‘legitimacy.’  That’s sort of like changing your children’s bedtime so they don’t question your ‘authority’ and ‘legitimacy’ as a parent.  Establishing your legitimacy and authority is a function of sticking to your rules.  In government, it is moving those rules without legislative action that leads to illegitimacy and eventually, tyranny.

          Professor Liu continues:

          “Preserving the document’s meaning and its democratic legitimacy requires us to interpret it in light of the conditions and challenges faced by succeeding generations.”

          Again, I could not disagree more.  If each generation gets to re-write our Constitution based on the challenges they face, then which generation is in charge in any given point in our society?  My generation, or my father’s generation?  Which generation’s interpretation is to determine how our society is to be governed?  That sounds like a political decision to be settled by elections and legislative debate – not the unelected judiciary.

          The underlying current of Liu’s text is that there is very little enduring about the Constitution, rather a generational redefinition that continually changes.  I disagree – I believe that Justices must strive to identify the original intent in the United States’ founding document as specifically that part which is most enduring.

          Why?  Because as Constitutional conservatives, we see America as a country of destiny, just as in our faiths we sense a destination for ourselves – we sense something fixed and tangible and which is good.  We don’t run from our destination, rather as people we seek to discern it and chase it down.  There are things that endure in this world.  There is right and there is wrong – and there is truth.

          In the Bill of Rights, these enduring truths are made explicit.  There are certain God-given inalienable rights that are enumerated, such as the right to free speech and to assemble, and the right to bear arms in self-defense and against tyranny.

          Having established his “generational test,” Liu goes on to explain the historic Second Amendment rights decision Heller as itself a product of judicial “interest-balancing.” This is his most troubling reasoning – one that sets up Heller for eventual reversal.

          In his analysis, Liu first acknowledges the Constitutional debate in Heller:

          “The majority read “the right of the people” to refer to a right possessed by individuals acting on their own, akin to the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.” And it read the phrase “keep and bear Arms” to refer generally to the possession and use of weapons, including for hunting and individual self-defense.

          “The dissenters, by contrast, read “the right of the people” to protect individuals engaged in collective action through participation in the militia, akin to the First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” which also protects a collective activity. And it construed “keep and bear Arms” as a reference to military use of weapons.”

          But after a discussion of the court’s supposed “receptiveness” to other gun laws – laws which were not squarely under review – Liu retreats to a new position.  He argues that the majority decision was really just a balancing of modern day societal interests.

          Although the majority and the dissenters ultimately disagree on the validity of the District of Columbia handgun ban, the difference between the two sides is not that one engages in interest balancing while the other does not. It is that one side does so “explicitly”

          Professor Liu essentially puts the essential holding in the case – that the right to bear arms is an individual right – on a moving ice floe and pushes it out to sea at the mercy of societal tides.  He knows exactly what he is doing as he does so.  He is setting it up for reversal.

          This is just one example from his book.  If you read it all, you will see that Liu’s text repeatedly seeks to degrade judicial philosophies of restraint, in an attempt to give license to judicial activism, by saying essentially “everyone does it.”  Even the majority in Heller.

          As a candidate for U.S. Senate, I would take this sort of writing into account in my questioning of any judicial nominee.  I look forward to hearing what professor Liu has to say at his confirmation hearings. Absent a confirmation hearing that essentially reverses the premise of this writing in defense of judicial activism, I would certainly expect Senator Reid to protect the Constitution and to vote no on this nomination.

          By Big Governement
          March 2, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Obama’s Continued War on the Market

          obama

          In a further attack on the housing market, the New York Times recently reported that President Obama may be amending his loan modification program to make it even more difficult for defaulting homeowners to be foreclosed upon.  The Times states:

          The Obama administration, under intense pressure to help millions of people in danger of losing their homes, is considering a ban on foreclosures unless they have first been examined for potential modification, according to a set of draft proposals.

          That would raise the stakes from the current practice, which strongly encourages lenders to evaluate defaulting borrowers for a modification but does not make it mandatory.

          Meg Reilly, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said Thursday that the proposed foreclosure ban was “one of the many ideas under consideration in the administration’s ongoing housing stabilization efforts.” The proposal was first reported by Bloomberg News.

          To be fair, the effects of this program may be minimal, with some interpreting the ban to be more about PR than anything substantive:

          Laurie Goodman, a senior managing director at the Amherst Securities Group who has been highly critical of the government’s modification program, said even if the proposal came to pass, it would not be “a major change. We think there is a large public relations element to this.”

          …The Mortgage Bankers Association said its members were already doing what the administration was considering.

          “Lenders generally go to foreclosure as a measure of last resort, after all other options, including loan modification, are exhausted,” said John Mechem, the trade group’s vice president for public affairs.

          Any enhancements the government made to the modification program would be unlikely to stem many foreclosures, said Howard Glaser, a prominent housing consultant.

          Regardless of the impact however, this potential loan modification addendum adds insult to the injury of an already wrongheaded and destructive policy, and will only prolong the pain in the housing market.

          The reasons for the woes in housing are quite simple.  Banks extended mortgages to borrowers that were poor credit risks, and many borrowers took out mortgages that they shouldn’t have either out of speculation or profligacy.  That the depression is throwing people out of work and keeping many jobless exacerbates the problem, in that unfortunately many who could have reasonably expected to afford their homes now cannot given their lack of sufficient cash flow.  Of course, truly prudent buyers might have saved to purchase their homes outright with cash.

          In any event, to fix the housing market requires these folks to be foreclosed upon.  Keeping homes off the market artificially suppresses supply, propping up prices that already necessarily needed to fall, as house prices rose to unjustifiable levels due to the Fed’s pump priming, the CRA and the surge in demand these two factors engendered.  To keep people in homes they cannot afford besides creating moral hazard and distorting banks’ balance sheets also has the effect of keeping worthy buyers from purchasing homes at decreased prices.  It further prevents apartment owners from renting out their excess inventory to underwater and/or insolvent former homeowners.  The effects of the government intervention in the housing market are amplified significantly when one considers the volume of securities backed by mortgages not being adequately serviced.

          Government has no business in throwing this market into disequilibrium.  But President Obama believes otherwise.  In campaigning for Harry Reid and while announcing a further imprudent measure to provide $1.5 billion in mortgage relief in five states hit acutely by the downturn, Obama had this to say about the housing market:

          “Now, government has a responsibility to help deal with this problem. Government can’t solve this problem alone. We got to be honest about that. Government alone can’t solve this problem. And it shouldn’t…It can’t stop every foreclosure, and tax dollars shouldn’t be used to reward the very irresponsible lenders and borrowers who helped bring about the housing crisis. But what we can do is help families who’ve done everything right stay in their homes whenever possible.”

          This is typical Obama.  He knows how to frame the issue so that while what he is saying sets a dangerous precedent, he comes off as pragmatic.  He uses his rhetoric to appease those being taken advantage of by his policy, while spinning nicely the fact that he is going to screw them over. It is akin to when he defended himself as an “ardent defender of the free market” while touting his massive intervention into all aspects of the economy at the recent “Business Roundtable.”

          Every single time he addresses an issue, you can bet that it will follow the same formula: “on the one hand [insert rational, conservative argument], but on the other [insert emotional/generally bleeding heart, liberal argument].”  It allows him to come off as a moderate and practical leader while he obfuscates the public by saying nothing.  His true stripes only show when he speaks in front of his people.

          At the end of the day, the man should be judged by his actions and not his words, and his actions in the housing market are illustrative of his overall view of government’s role in the economy.  Wherever market forces are working to correct the imbalances and malinvestments of a 70-year credit expansion, this President is going to implement policies to prevent the market from working and perpetuate an illusory economy.

          Factor in his foreign policy and treatment of our war with Islam, and you get the sense that this President is intentionally trying to hurt this country.  Somewhere, Jeremiah Wright is smiling.  Ironically, for all of President Obama’s apologies for our arrogance and destructiveness, as he helps sully our preeminence and power with his own policies, he remains the most arrogant and destructive American of all.

          By NewsBusters.org
          February 25, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Matthews: ‘It’s The End of the Democratic Party’ If Senate Doesn’t Pass Healthcare Via Reconciliation

          Chris Matthews Thursday said that if the Senate doesn't use reconciliation -- or what some are calling the "Nuclear Option" -- to pass healthcare reform after it once again clears the House, it will be the end of the Democratic Party.

          Speaking with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC during the lunch recess of the President's heathcare summit, Matthews said:

          Do you have to get a bill passed before you fix it through reconciliation? Probably yes. Which means Speaker Pelosi is going to have to get 217 votes with the agreement that right after that happens and the President signs the Senate bill passed by the House there is immediately going to be reconciliation in the Senate which rectifies all the problems they have with that bill.

          Mitchell replied, "You're asking the House members to vote on something on the bet that the Senate will follow through."

          "It's more than a bet," said Matthews. "Because if the Senate doesn't do it it's the end of the Democratic Party" (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, h/t Story Balloon):

          ANDREA MITCHELL, HOST: The White House and the President, and we talked to Linda Douglass a little bit ago on the air saying there are areas of agreement. They want to say that the glass is half full because they're trying to appeal to the polling that shows that people want progress. They want some sort of bipartisanship. And then if it all falls apart, they can try to ram it through with 51 votes.

          CHRIS MATTHEWS: It's not going to happen. It's not going to be a bipartisan deal. Everyone is looking ahead to November. The Democrats know they need a win. The Republicans know they need a loss here for the Democrats. It's all clear it's all transparent. Today's interesting. We'll learn a few things. But in the end, perhaps by 5:00 tonight, we're going to know that whatever Harry Reid says during the daylight hours, as we get to nightfall, he is going to admit he's going for an up or down vote in the Senate.

          MITCHELL: Now, after the Massachusetts Senate defeat for the Democrats, the political wisdom was that the White House had to turn to jobs, that the economy -- jobs, jobs, jobs. Forget about healthcare. But, yet, this is the President, trying to say we've got to make one last ditch effort at it, because otherwise, the whole year has been wasted. And we paid this heavy political price. This is what Bill Clinton said to the House and Senate caucuses, Democratic caucuses. You've already taken the tough votes. You've already gotten yourself in trouble. So at least now go for it. Do something.

          MATTHEWS: Well, they've gotten a bill passed in the House. They've gotten a bill passed in the Senate. And they were on the road to a conference agreement. They were going to get one. They would have to tilt to the left in the House to get around Stupak...

          MITCHELL: On the abortion issue.

          MATTHEWS: On the substantive issue, they'll need at least thirteen votes or so from the more liberal side to make up for the pro-choice, pro-Life people they're going to lose. And we know the politics. But it was doable. And I think there is going to be a lot of heavy lifting on the left. To me there's one big message. The Democratic Party now has to deliver for the President, left, right and center. The Democratic Party is going to have pass healthcare. That's the fact now after today. Because the Republican Party, this is not a partisan assessment. Look back for the last 50 years. With the odd exception of Richard Nixon, as he was facing the Watergate struggle, when he offered a employer mandate, a very dramatic program that required employers to give healthcare to their employees, which was dramatic -- as you and I know, Richard Nixon was one of those liberal presidents in history if you look at his domestic program. Not in any other case has the Republican Party stood up and said, "No, we want healthcare for everybody." So, it's only the Democrats who really believe in healthcare for the 30 or 40 million people uninsured right now. And that's why it's going to be very hard to reach agreement at the table today.

          MITCHELL: You know the House and the conventional wisdom is this has to start in the House. They've got to...

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: It looks like that, because the parliamentarians are still meeting, they're still trying to get a clear ruling. And here for the people watching it's pretty simple. Do you have to get a bill passed before you fix it through reconciliation? Probably yes. Which means Speaker Pelosi is going to have to get 217 votes with the agreement that right after that happens and the President signs the Senate bill passed by the House there is immediately going to be reconciliation in the Senate which rectifies all the problems they have with that bill.

          MITCHELL: You're asking the House members to vote on something on the bet that the Senate will follow through.

          MATTHEWS: It's more than a bet. Because if the Senate doesn't do it it's the end of the Democratic Party. I think. They absolutely at that point are so much exposed they have to pass it in the Senate.

          Strong words from Matthews.

          Is he right, or just trying to be controversial?

           

          By NewsBusters.org
          February 24, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Media Attack GOP for Filibuster Flip-flop, Silent About Dems’ Newfound Love of ‘Reconciliation’

          "I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing." - Joe Biden, 2005

          Few Americans would be shocked to hear that members of Congress are not always consistent, and occasionally outright hypocritical. Very often, however, the liberal media attempts to downplay Democratic double standards and highlight Republican ones.

          Each recent change in the congressional majority, it seems has brought calls from the newly dominant party for an end to the filibuster. This Democratic majority is no different.

          When noting rhetorical inconsistencies, however, the mainstream media has jumped at the chance to note that Republicans, now using the filibuster as a potential means to block Democratic health care legislation, were ardent advocates of majoritarianism in the Senate only a few years ago (as demonstrated in the video below the fold).

          Few in the media, however, note the equally stark disconnect between Democrats' lamentations about Republican obstructionism and their professed belief in the filibuster before they were voted into the majority.

          In numerous reports on the status of health care negotiations in the Senate, prominent media outlets made sure to mention that Republicans used the so-called "nuclear option"--known in parliamentary terms as the budget reconciliation process--to overcome Democratic filibusters. But conspicuously absent are mentions of Democrats' unequivocal condemnations of reconciliation.

          CNN made sure to parrot Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's talking point, noting that "reconciliation has been used 21 times since 1981." He apparently did not consider than an ample excuse in 2005 when he said the filibuster was "never more important than when one party controls congress and the White House. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government."

          In addition to reissuing Reid talking points, the New York Times on its website stated that reconciliation "is no more of a hardball tactic than the filibuster, and it is clearly permitted under the rules." But Reid himself stated only a few years back that Republicans were "not going to follow the Senate rules … because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration."

          A story on the website for CBS News also read like a Democratic Senate leadership press release, issuing the same quotes from Reid--noting that Republicans have purportedly used reconciliation more often then Democrats--without mentioning the majority leader's about face.

          These stories conveniently omitted numerous statements by a number of prominent Senate Democrats during the Republican majority, as shown in the video above. Barack Obama himself lamented the "absolute majoritarian power" the use of reconciliation would create, adding, "that's just not what the Founders intended."

          Congressional majorities are generally made up of small-d democrats, while minorities are usually small-r republicans. Opportunism is nothing new in Congress.

          But we should at least expect the news media to take it with a grain of salt, considering the perennial discrepancies between what the two parties say depending on their statuses in Congress. The outlets mentioned above, far from serving as watchdogs, simply regurgitated Democratic talking points without a hint of criticism or analysis.

          All of this leaves the American people wondering who the bigger hypocrites are: the politicians constantly changing their positions, or the reporters who cover them.

          By Big Hollywood
          February 23, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Daily Gut: Did Obama Cause Spousal Abuse?

          So I finally figured out what makes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid so intriguing. He’s a big stupid-face. Example: Monday, during a Senate debate over the job creation package, he suggested...

          View Original Post

          By NewsBusters.org
          February 23, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Feminist Harry Reid: Men Out of Work ‘Tend to Become Abusive’

          Since the Gaffe Police aren't exactly working overtime on the Democrats, it should be noted when a reporter finds one. Michael O'Brien of The Hill newspaper noted Sen. Harry Reid was talking up their "jobs bill" by saying unemployed men tend to beat people up:

          "Women don't have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time," he said.

          "Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive," the majority leader added. "Our domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed.”

          Yes, Harry Reid thinks men are naturally abusive when unemployed: "I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand," Reid said on the Senate floor. "Why? Men don't have jobs." (He has video at The Hill.)

          This would be the same guy who insisted in December that opponents of health "reform" were like supporters of slavery.

          NBC ignored it. On ABC's Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos tried to insist it didn't really matter: "Republicans were just furious about that, Robin. But my guess is this is gonna blow over, the real action now going on behind the scenes in these negotiations over this public health insurance option."

          CBS only brought it up once, on The Early Show. Co-host Harry Smith didn't exactly include slavery in his list of Reid's analogies as he interviewed RNC chair Michael Steele:

          Very quickly, Harry Reid said Republicans are on the wrong side of history when it comes to this health care bill and very soberly yesterday he compared those who opposed health care to those who opposed civil rights legislations and other important acts throughout-- throughout history. How would you respond to that?

          At least Steele could say on CBS that Reid was "ignorant."

          By NewsBusters.org
          February 23, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          ABC’s Sawyer Celebrates ‘Bipartisanship’ of GOP Senator Scott Brown Voting with Dems

          On the Monday, February 22, World News on ABC, host Diane Sawyer seemed to rejoice in the "bipartisanship" of newly elected Republican Senator Scott Brown’s willingness to vote with Democrats on a "job creation bill," as she passed on the "fresh sign" of bipartisanship, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s expression of hope that it is the "beginning of a new day" in the Senate. After correspondent Jake Tapper concluded a report on the ongoing debate over health care reform by noting the unlikelihood that President Obama and Republicans will reach an agreement, Sawyer read the short item on Senator Brown's vote. Sawyer:

          And speaking of bipartisanship, one fresh sign of it tonight, newly elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was among a handful of Republicans joining Democrats to clear the way for the passage of the President’s $15 billion job creation bill. And Majority Leader Harry Reid praised Brown, saying, "I hope this is the beginning of a new day, at least in the U.S. Senate."

          By Big Governement
          February 22, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Needed: An English-Democratic Party Dictionary?

          This past week in Washington, DC has seen the GOP actively engaged in discussions and strategizing about taking back the House of Representatives and taking back the Senate.  But before the GOP, Tea Party, or anyone else, can take back the House or Senate, they will face a more difficult and important battle–taking back our language.

          bruegel-tower-of-babel-ruins-big

          Democrats have made an art form of mis-speak, consistently showing only a passing familiarity with good, old Merriam-Webster.  Think Kafka and Orwell, where words are elastic, and plain-speaking is all but abandoned.

          Understanding what President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are saying is difficult; for, though the language may seem to be English, in reality, they speak a different language, the language of the Democrats in DC.  To understand exactly what they are saying, Americans need an “English –Democratic Party Dictionary.   Here is a sampler of some of the most important words and phrases that cause confusion:

          • INVESTMENT: President Obama and Speaker Pelosi frequently talk about the need for “investments”. For example, ” President Obama recently identified a need to invest in American infrastructure (and education)  What Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi really seem to mean when they talk about “investments” is that government needs to spend more.  Democrats  have learned from extensive polling that disguising calls for more government spending, and even greater national debt, are more palatable (to those that have not yet figured out the scam) if,  they talk about spending as  “investments”.  As most Americans know, making an investment  implies a return worthy of the risk.  Investors always want their money back and a profit to boot.  Fat chance of that!  According to the Democrat-version, “investments” are just spending by another name.  There will never be a return, and taxpayers putting their money are risk will never get their funds back, nor is there any chance of a decent return.

          • WORKING MAN: A favorite chestnut of Democrats, which really means Union Worker.   Lots of Democrats talk about being the Party of “the working man”, but what they are really saying is that we need to support Unions and Organized Labor.  Other Americans, that actually work very hard in a thousand different industries,  and especially entrepreneurs, and small  business owners, are not ever considered to be “working men or women”.  Sure they might work 90+ hours a week, to build their business, but that matters not at all.   Democrats support, and honor, only the unionized employee as a “working man or woman.   All other, hard working, Americans are an afterthought, and none merit much attention beyond how much more their taxes should be raised.
          • ENTITLEMENTS v. RIGHTS: When Democrats speak of “rights” most people mistakenly assume that they are talking about constitutional rights, that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, But, that is a big mistake, for Democrats, and Progressives, have so misused and bastardized the “rights” to portray their expansive vision of government ,and the many false promises of something for nothing.  For example, “it’s my right to have cheap healthcare.”  Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is healthcare identified as a “right“, nor is the concept even discussed.  Progressives also point out that, “it’s every American’s right to have a decent standard of living.”  Wrong again.  What Americans have been promised in our Constitution  is an equal  opportunity to pursue their own dreams and pursue happiness free of excessive government control .   Similarly, it is important to remember that Entitlement programs are not “rights” either.
          • JOB CREATION: Democrats in government  talk a lot about job creation and the urgent need for government to create more jobs. But, government does not create any jobs in the private sector, and the only jobs it does create are government jobs, that can only be funded and supported by additional taxes on those that do create jobs.
          • SHOVEL READY: Remember this one?  “Shovel Ready” projects were supposed to result in the immediate launch of any number of new construction projects, creating jobs across the country.  But that was a myth; very few “shovel ready” projects ever existed.  Instead, the vast majority of new construction projects were tied up in nightmarish, regulatory processes;  scoring rules, prospectuses, approvals, assessments, FONSIs (Finding of No Significant Impact) and Permitting, are just a few of the obstacles that must be overcome before a project is “shovel ready.” Had President Obama really wanted to push infrastructure projects, he could have eliminated or reduced any or all of the many different  bureaucratic hurdles that a building project must navigate.  Instead, the President merely called for more money to be placed into the maw of a process that grinds too slowly and at great expense to taxpayers. There are all sorts of infrastructure projects that could be made “Shovel Ready”, but that would require  dedicated leadership willing, and able, to curtail excessive bureaucratic reviews and focus more on the actual building of new infrastructure, versus a timid, rote adherence to an unsuccessful process that does not serve the nation.
          • CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE: Critical infrastructure  should be restricted to a very narrow definition– roads, bridges and buildings essential to continued or increased commerce of the nation.  But Dems in Congress have, in the Stimulus, expanded the definition to include water parks and studies of the Harvest Marsh Mouse.  According to this view, building new tennis courts, water parks, and stadium parking lots, (especially if they are targeted into their own districts) are all now labeled as “critical infrastructure”.  What Dems in Congress cannot, and will not, ever do is to actually prioritize the nation’s needs, and have the courage and leadership to decide which projects would provide the greatest benefit to the nation as a whole.  Instead, a “critical infrastructure” is defined as any building project, or any spending plan, that will bring federal funds to their home districts.
          • SPENDING CUTS / CUT TO THE BONE: Washington is always talking about “cutting to the bone”, but that is a fiction.  There is so much blubber in the budget that it’s been many a decade since Americans saw the “bones.”  When Dems use the term SPENDING Cuts — as in “we must reduce federal spending”, what is really meant is: let’s cut the amount of the increase to the budget line item.  Memo to Congress:  cutting an increase is not a budget cut.

          Our country used to be one where a man, or woman, was bound by their word, and their word was their bond in  public and private transactions.  We are so long gone past that because, now, in the 111th Congress, words only means whatever the speaker wants them to mean.  Before we can solve a problem, we need to acknowledge the problem openly and with candor.  When we lose our language, we lose the power to change by civil discourse.  And, that bodes ill for all Americans.

          By NewsBusters.org
          February 20, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Newt Gingrich Invokes Reagan and Freedom in Address to CPAC

          Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich addressed a huge audience at CPAC Saturday offering his plan to save America.

          "I think this is the most important CPAC meeting since Ronald Reagan came and said that we have to have no pale pastels but bold colors," the Speaker stated to thunderous applause.

          "I believe we are now in a struggle over whether or not we are going to save America."

          Of course, one of the threats is a liberal press.

          "Part of why the Tea Parties so deeply threatened the elite media is the Tea Partiers suddenly looked around and realized there are more of us than there are of them" (video embedded below the fold with transcribed highlights):

          NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I think this is the most important CPAC meeting since Ronald Reagan came and said that we have to have no pale pastels but bold colors. [...]

          Because I am a historian by training, I want to correct one thing that Senator [Evan] Bayh said the other day that I was shocked by. Sen. Bayh said that if he resigned and went into the private sector and created one private sector job, then that would be more jobs than the Congress has created in the last six months. I think that's an exaggeration. President Obama has created at least three jobs I know of: Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and Scott Brown. And I guarantee you as a historian, without Barack Obama, Scott Brown could not have won in Massachusetts. [...]

          I can tell you that the coming massive conservative majority that will re-center this country decisively for the first time in 70 years would not have been possible without the Pelosi-Reid-Obama machine which has convinced the country that if the choice is radicalism or conservatism, let's go ahead and defeat the radicals and put the country back on the right track. [...]

          I believe we are now in a struggle over whether or not we are going to save America. I believe that the radical Left is a secular, socialist machine so dedicated to values destructive of America that if it is allowed to remain in power, whether that's in Sacramento, whether that's in Albany, or that's in the city council, or that's in the federal government, that machine is antithetical to the survival of America as a prosperous, healthy country based on sound principles. [...]

          Part of why the Tea Parties so deeply threatened the elite media is the Tea Partiers suddenly looked around and realized there are more of us than there are of them. [...]

          It is time to pass a balanced budget amendment and return this government to limited spending. And let me remind anyone who challenges you on this: for four years of principled bipartisanship while I was Speaker, we kept spending at 2.9 percent a year including the entitlements which is the lowest rate of increase since Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s. We balanced the federal budget for four years by controlling spending while cutting taxes to raise jobs.

          By Big Hollywood
          February 19, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          NewsBusted: What is John McCain’s Reelection Strategy?



          View Original Post

          By Big Governement
          February 16, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Health Care Summit Conflicts with Constitution

          Republicans ought politely to decline President Barack Obama’s invitation to a summit on health care reform. It’s not just a potential “trap,” as House Minority Leader John Boehner suspects, aimed at fast-forwarding a modified health care reform bill through Congress under a smokescreen of superficial “bipartisanship.” It’s also a violation of the spirit of our Constitution’s separation of powers.

          ThumbNailGun.ashx

          The President has no legislative authority. He can propose laws—indeed, we expect him to do so—that are then introduced by legislators in Congress. He can sign a bill or veto it once it has been passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. He can mediate disputes among legislators to broker agreements. But the President cannot intervene directly in the legislative process until it is over.

          The discussion that President Obama has proposed with Republicans for February 25th was, no doubt, inspired by his success at a question-and-answer session with the GOP last month. However, the new event is beginning to assume the trappings of a formal legislative session. Republicans will be asked to propose changes to the Senate version of the health care bill, and the President will offer compromises.

          Congressional Democrats may be given equal time to present their own proposals, and the President will decide how to balance their demands with Republican requests. Presumably, the President will then incorporate the changes into a bill that will be presented to Congress for immediate approval. The President has made it clear that he wants to bypass any further negotiations in the House or Senate.

          This summit is fundamentally different from previous meetings, such as the White House Forum on Health Reform last March. It is not aimed at jump-starting the legislative process, but at passing an existing bill–one that is awaiting final drafting in conference committee. The President’s explicit goal at the summit is to find a way to pass the legislation without, as he put it, “wrangling” and “posturing.”

          In effect, President Obama’s summit will create a surrogate legislative process, without the procedural safeguards provided by the Constitution and the rules of each house. There will be no conference committee to iron out the difficult details of the bill. More importantly, there will be no filibuster to protect the objections of the minority. The President, not newly elected Senator Scott Brown, will cast the proverbial 41st vote to end debate.

          The summit is a clever political ploy. By aiming his invitation at Republicans, the President hopes to deflect blame for the failure of health care reform, when it is his own party that has been unable to agree on a bill. And by convening a bipartisan summit outside the Senate, the President will evade the filibuster without having to propose radical rule changes or invoke the controversial “reconciliation” process.

          Politically, Republicans have responded adeptly, indicating that they are open to talks while insisting that the existing health care bill must be scrapped. Karl Rove has suggested that Republicans might benefit from the spectacle even more than President Obama will: “This is the party’s best opportunity yet to contrast its good ideas with Democratic legislation,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal of Feb. 11.

          Yet Americans cannot ignore the looming constitutional danger. The summit aims to re-constitute Congress inside the White House. It casts the President as both legislator and executor of the law—a Prime Minister and President rolled into one. That is a threat to the separation of powers, as the founding fathers understood it, and will set a precedent that will erode the independence of Congress.

          If the President were truly interested in bipartisanship, the summit would not be necessary. The structure of our legislative system provides many opportunities for the parties to work together. Republican legislative proposals on health care reform have already been introduced in Congress. The end of the Democrats’ supermajority should be a new opportunity for cooperation—within Congress, not outside of it.

          That is not what the President wants. In his State of the Union address, President Obama attacked the independence of the other two branches of government. He announced he would circumvent the Senate after it rejected his budget panel, and he rebuked the Supreme Court. The summit must be understood in the context of that assault on the separation of powers. Much more than the health care bill is at stake.

          By Big Governement
          February 16, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Why Obama Will Be Clinton Without The Comeback

          The retirement of Evan Bayh is the latest heralding of difficult 2010 election year for the Democrats.  It is also a symptom of Obama’s mid 40s approval rating.  Smart Democrats know that the average midterm election year losses for the President’s party, when his approval rating is below 50%, is 41 seats in the House.  Three Presidents in the modern era suffered such a fate – Johnson, Ford and Bill Clinton.  Of those three, only Clinton went on to win a second term.  While it is likely Obama will suffer huge mid-term losses, it is more than unlikely that he will enjoy Clinton’s revival.

          clinton_1017434c

          Clinton suffered the loss of 54 House seats in his first midterm election, despite a growing economy, because he broke his middle class tax cut promise – and the Republicans were smart enough to unanimously oppose that and run on the Contract With America.  Despite the loss of the House for the first time in 40 years, Clinton won reelection.

          Clinton was able to win reelection in part because Bob Dole was not an effective candidate for the Republicans on the tax issue.  Clinton also famously triangulated in 1995 and 1996 with the help of longtime strategist Dick Morris.  Dropping ideology for practicality, in 1995 and 1996, Clinton pushed a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy, issued an order clarifying the rights of religious expression in schools,  supported uniforms for public schools, banned human cloning, signed Megan’s law and welfare reform to name a few less than ideological triangulations.  Even before that, Clinton incurred the wrath of unions by pushing the ratification of NAFTA.

          Of course, as the Governor of a swing state, Bill Clinton leaned an early lesson in pragmatism after he was defeated in his bid for a second term.  After apologizing for the policies that led to his reelection defeat, he regained the governorship and went on to enact mandatory competency testing for teachers and granted tax breaks to businesses – again with triangulating guru Dick Morris by his side.

          Clinton’s revivals, especially at the Presidential level, can be directly tied to the fact (1) that he had executive experience, (2) that he dealt with the need to build consensus out of division,  (3) that he had advisors pushing him to do that, AND (4) that he was smart enough to have such advisors and to listen to them.

          Obama, quite frankly, has none of that going for him.

          First, Obama has had no executive experience and has never worked in setting which required consensus building.  That is because Senators don’t have to govern and community organizers preach to their own.  That inexperience is now showing in spades. As I wrote in my article, How Many Fights Will Obama Pick With America, Obama’s first strategy was divisive not consensus building.  His deficit exploding Stimulus Package, Cap and Trade, Health Care and Civil Terror trial initiatives are and remain ideologically based and unsuccessful.  Beyond that, President Obama’s agenda is being whipsawed by Congresswoman Pelosi.  Simply stated, an effective, experienced chief executive never would let a member of congress control his fate to this degree.

          As for his advisors, the radical ties of his Czars are well documented and David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel are no Dick Morris.  Indeed, notwithstanding the loss of the Kennedy seat (as Democrats view it), Obama’s budget belies any claim to moderation as does his continued push for health care, cap and trade and now tax hikes.  Beyond that, Obama has already lost control of the jobs bill and Nancy and Harry are committed to legislating from the Left – a big factor in Bayh’s retirement.  Dick Morris never would have let that occurred – apparently Axelrod and Emanuel either don’t understand that or can’t prevent it.

          In sum, we have met Barack Obama, we now know Barack Obama and he is no Bill Clinton.  Let’s just hope Republicans recall the lessons of 1994 even Obama can’t.

          By NewsBusters.org
          February 15, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Olbermann Appeals to Tea Partiers to Admit Racism, Real Socialists Would Support ‘Stupid Tax Cuts’

          On Monday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann delivered a "Special Comment" aimed at Tea Party activists in which, rather than rhetorically bludgeoning them with his usual name calling, he came across as trying to reason with Tea Partiers, appealing to them to admit to having racist motivations against President Obama as the Countdown host suggested that he felt sorry for them. Before a commercial break, he plugged the segment, relaying that he would ask questions to Tea Party activists "sincerely and with sympathy." At one point, Olbermann even seemed as if he were on the verge of expressing remorse for his history of using terms like "Tea Klux Klan" and "tea baggers," which he referred to as "incendiary."

          As he encouraged Tea Party members to be honest about feeling racism against Obama, he characterized racism as a normal human instinct, but for some reason singled out white men as all feeling some level of racism: "And I think, having now been one for 51 years, I am permitted to say I believe prejudice and discrimination still sit defeated, dormant, or virulent somewhere in the soul of each white man in this country."

          After theorizing that the Tea Parties are a "backlash" against having a black President – analogous to the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws in post-Civil War America – Olbermann ended his show by asking Tea Party activists: "Why are you surrounded by the largest crowd you will ever again see in your life that consists of nothing but people who look exactly like you?"

          And, as Olbermann suggested that some of the anti-government political complaints voiced by Tea Party activists are really "code" for racism against President Obama, he ludicrously claimed that a real socialist would support "stupid tax cuts," and, ignoring the massive economic stimulus package passed by the Democratic Congress during the Obama administration, he blamed the current budget deficit’s size on the Bush administration’s war in Iraq. Olbermann:

          The whole of the anger at government movement is predicated on this. Times are tough, the future is confusing, the threat from those who would dismantle our way of life is real, as if we weren’t to some extent doing it for them now. And the President’s black. But you can’t come out and say that’s why you’re scared. ... And so, this is where the euphemisms come in. But taxes haven’t gone up, the budget deficit is from the last administration’s adventurous war, grandma is much more likely to be death-paneled by your insurance company, and a socialist President would be the one who tried to buy as many voters as possible with stupid tax cuts.

          He then added: "But facts don't matter when you're looking for an excuse to say you hate this President – (STARTS WHISPERING) but not because he's black."

          Olbermann suggested that he has perhaps been too hard on Tea Party activists and should take pity on them instead as if their fears about the government were a disorder:

          I'm now taking a lot of heat for emphasizing a particular phrase which originated at a freerepublic.com rally a year ago this month, originated with a Tea Partier. And I know phrases like "Tea Klux Klan" are incendiary, and I know I use them in part because I am angry that at so late a date, we still have to back back that racial uneasiness which has to envelop us all. And I know if I could only listen to Lincoln on this of all days about the better angels of our nature, I'd know that what we're seeing at the Tea Parties is, at its base, people who are afraid – terribly, painfully, cripplingly, blindingly afraid.

          Between plugs and the "Special Comment,"  Olbermann several times asked questions like: "Where at the rallies are the black people?" and, after invoking the Jim Crow and Ku Klux Klan backlash after the Civil War, he concluded:

          If you believe there is merit to your political argument, fine. But ask yourself, when you next go to a Tea Party rally, or watch one on television or listen to a politician or a commentator praise these things or merely treat them as if it was just a coincidence that they are virtually segregated. Ask yourself: Where are the black faces? Who am I marching with? What are we afraid of? And if it really is only a President’s policy and not his skin, ask yourself one final question: Why are you surrounded by the largest crowd you will ever again see in your life that consists of nothing but people who look exactly like you? Good night and good luck.

          Below is a complete transcript of Olbermann’s "Special Comment" from the Monday, February 15, Countdown show on MSNBC:

          KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: And on Presidents Day of Washington and Founding Fathers, and Lincoln and freedom, and a "Special Comment,’ a question for the Tea Partiers. Where at your rallies are the black people?

          ...

          OLBERMANN, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK AT 8:24 P.M.: And a Presidents Day "Special Comment," questions to the Tea Partiers asked sincerely and with sympathy.

          ...

          OLBERMANN, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BEAK AT 8:40 P.M.: A "Special Comment" on Presidents Day, a question for the Tea Party: Where are all of your minority members?

          ...

          OLBERMANN: A "Special Comment" on Presidents Day: Of Washington and Lincoln and racism and Tea Parties.

          ...

          OLBERMANN: Finally tonight, as promised, a "Special Comment" on this Presidents Day celebrating George Washington and the Founding Fathers he represents, and Abraham Lincoln and the emancipation he represents. And I think, having now been one for 51 years, I am permitted to say I believe prejudice and discrimination still sit defeated, dormant, or virulent somewhere in the soul of each white man in this country. Sixty-three years after Jack E. Robinson and 56 after Brown V. Board of Education and 46 after the Civil Rights Act and a year and a half after the presidential election, this is not a popular thing to say. This is also not a thing that should be true, even as a vestige of our sad past on this topic. But it is. Discrimination is still all around us, in so many ways, openly redirected towards immigrants who are doing nothing more than following the path that brought my recent ancestors here and probably yours, too, or focused on gays predicated on a mumbo jumbo of biblical misinterpretations, or leaching out still against black people in things like the Tea Party movement. I think the progress we have made in the last 60 years in this country has been measurable and good, but I think discrimination has been tamed perhaps, not eradicated. For our society still emphasizes our differences as much as our similarities. We may be 63 years from Jack E. Robinson, but we’re not yet 63 days from a man going on national radio and telling us the President of the United States was elected only because of the color of his skin.

          Discrimination, I’ve always thought, is a perversion of one of the most necessary instincts of survival. As a child, put your hand on a red hot stove, and you’ll quickly learn to discriminate against red hot stoves. But at that age, you’re also told you need to beware of, say, black people, and you will forever have to spend your life having to fight against wiring created in your brain for no reason other than to reflect someone else’s prejudice.

          And it need not be even that related to trauma. The other night in the hospital, my father was telling me about seeing Satchel Paige pitch. At Yankees Stadium, this was. The time was about 1941, and the team was the New York Black Yankees. And my father shook his head in amazement as he told me this. "It never occurred to me," he said, "it never occurred to anybody I knew that he couldn’t play for the other Yankees," my dad said. "We just assumed he didn’t want to, that none of them wanted to."

          These thoughts still linger in our lives, still actively passed to some of us by people who are not like my father, who never question their own upbringing or parents or school or world. That older, brutal, prejudiced with impunity world which reappears somewhere every day like Brigadoon. Sometimes with virulence, as in Don Imus’s infamous remarks; sometimes with utter arrogant tone deafness, as in John Mayer’s Playboy interview; sometimes with a kind of poorly informed benign phrase like Harry Reid’s comment about dialect; sometimes with the lunkheadedness of surprise that nobody is screaming, "M Fer, I want more iced tea," at a Harlem restaurant. (SHOWS PHOTOGRAPHS OF DON IMUS, JOHN MAYER, HARRY REID AND BILL O’REILLY AS HE SPEAKS OF EACH) But it’s still there.

          I’m not black, so I can’t say for sure, but my guess is the reverse feeling still exists, too, and the same doubt and nagging distrust, only with the arrow pointing the opposite way. And I guess it’s still there, too, among Hispanics and Asians and every other self-identifying group because this country, since the Civil War, has not only become ever increasingly great, not merely for dismantling the formalized racism of our first 200 years on this continent, but because we have been dismantling a million years of not fully trusting the guys in the next cave because they are somehow different. This all still lingers about us, all of us, whether we see it or not. And since it’s no longer fashionable – indeed, no longer acceptable – it oozes out around the edges, and usually those who speak it don’t even realize that, as good as their intention might be, as improved as their attitudes might be from where they used to be or where their parents or grandparents used to be, or where America used to be, it’s still racism. Thus it has become fashionable, sometimes psychologically necessary, that when some of us express it, we have to put it in code or dress it up or provide a rationalization to ourselves for it.

          That this has nothing to do with race or prejudice, the man’s a socialist and he’s bent on destroying the country, and he was only elected by people who can’t speak English, or was it, he was only elected by guilty whites? The rationalizations of the racists are too many and too contradictory for the rest of us to keep them straight.

          The whole of the anger at government movement is predicated on this. Times are tough, the future is confusing, the threat from those who would dismantle our way of life is real, as if we weren’t to some extent doing it for them now. And the President’s black. But you can’t come out and say that’s why you’re scared. Say that, and in all but the lifeless fringes of our society, you are an outcast. And so, this is where the euphemisms come in. But taxes haven’t gone up, the budget deficit is from the last administration’s adventurous war, grandma is much more likely to be death-paneled by your insurance company, and a socialist President would be the one who tried to buy as many voters as possible with stupid tax cuts.

          But facts don’t matter when you’re looking for an excuse to say you hate this President – (STARTS WHISPERING) but not because he’s black. (STOPS WHISPERING) Anything you can say out loud without your family and friends bursting into laughter at you, you’ll do

          And this is where those Tea Parties come in.

          I’m now taking a lot of heat for emphasizing a particular phrase which originated at a freerepublic.com rally a year ago this month, originated with a Tea Partier. And I know phrases like "Tea Klux Klan" are incendiary, and I know I use them in part because I am angry that at so late a date, we still have to back back that racial uneasiness which has to envelop us all. And I know if I could only listen to Lincoln on this of all days about the better angels of our nature, I’d know that what we’re seeing at the Tea Parties is, at its base, people who are afraid – terribly, painfully, cripplingly, blindingly afraid.

          But let me ask all of you who attend these things: How many black faces do you see at these events? How many Hispanics, Asians, gays? Where are these people? Surely, there must be blacks who think they’re being bled by taxation. Surely there must be Hispanics who think the government should have let the auto industry fail. Surely there must be people of all colors and creeds who believe in cultural literacy tests and speaking English. Where are they? Where are they?

          Do you suppose they agree with you that they’ve just chosen to attend their own separate meetings, that they’re not at your Tea Party because they have a Tea Party of their own to go to? Are you thinking like my father did about Satchell Paige and the Black Yankees tht they want this? My father had an excuse for that: He was 12 years old; it was 1941. Are you of the Tea Party 12 years old? For you, is it 1941?

          You’re scared and you’re in a world that has changed in a million ways, and the most obvious one of them is something unforeseeable not a decade ago – a black President. And yet, you are also in an world, inherited, installed by generations that knew only fear and brutality and prejudice and difference and suspicion. The generations have gone, but the suspicion lingers on.

          Not all of our heritage is honorable. Not all the decisions of the Founding Fathers were noble. Not very many of the Founding Fathers were evolved enough to believe that black people were actually people. The Founding Fathers thought they were and fought hard to make sure they would always remain slaves.

          Fear is a terrible thing – so is prejudice, so is racism. And progress towards the removal of any evil produces an inevitable backlash. The Civil War was not followed by desegregation, but by Jim Crow and the Klan. The Civil Rights legislation of the 60s was not followed by peace, but by George Wallace and anti-busing overt racism. Why should the election of a black President be without a backlash?

          But recognize what this backlash is and maybe you can free yourself of this movement built of inherited fears and of echoes of 1963 or 1873. Look at who is leading you and why. And look past the blustery self-justifications and see the fear – this unspoken, inchoate, unnecessary fear of those who are different.

          If you believe there is merit to your political argument, fine. But ask yourself, when you next go to a Tea Party rally, or watch one on television or listen to a politician or a commentator praise these things or merely treat them as if it was just a coincidence that they are virtually segregated. Ask yourself: Where are the black faces? Who am I marching with? What are we afraid of? And if it really is only a President’s policy and not his skin, ask yourself one final question: Why are you surrounded by the largest crowd you will ever again see in your life that consists of nothing but people who look exactly like you? Good night and good luck.

          By Big Governement
          February 15, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          The Democrat Strategy for 2010: Bye Bye, Bayh

          Senator Evan Bayh’s decision not to seek re-election this November makes him just the latest among numerous Democrats who announced they are quitting. They have looked at the Obamacare debacle, the crippling debt, the millions of lost jobs, and the looming national security disaster heralded by the increase in jihad terror attacks on American soil, and they’re getting out. They know that Americans are waking up to how the big government policies of the Democrats are continuing to hurt our economy, and are ruinous for America.

          bayh

          Swindling Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) will not seek re-election; the drug-addled Congressman Patrick Kennedy will not be seeking re-election in Rhode Island; Arkansas Congressman Marion Berry and Senator Byron Dorgan are leaving. Then there’s Michigan Democratic Lt. Governor John Cherry’s decision to end his floundering bid for governor. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter is also retiring. Not to mention the stunning late December party switch by freshman Alabama Representative Parker Griffith — just to mention a few.

          And in Bayh’s whiny withdrawal speech, he made sure to take parting shots at the Republicans under the guise of the well-worn canard of their “lack of bipartisanship.” As if the Democrats worked with Bush.

          The Party of No? Hardly. It’s the Save-America party, it’s the Say No to Communism party. Bayh didn’t speak of the irreparable damage the Democrats are doing to this country. He whimpered that only the Republicans said no to a jobs bill (although the government doesn’t create jobs, the private sector does) and that the Republicans wouldn’t sign off on another bloated, useless, cost-prohibitive commission to investigate bloated, useless, cost-prohibitive government spending. Funny how even a Democrat who is thought of as honorable and measured showed no honor in his parting remarks. He went out like an ankle-biting Democrat, pathetic and small.

          Many capitalists, freedom lovers and individualists are gleeful about all of the early retirements of statists and crooks in the Democrat party. Rats bolt a sinking ship. They believe this indicates victory. It does not. While Republicans are rubbing their hands in glee at the sheer number of Democrat incumbents not running for re-election, I am not.

          It is often said if the Democrats are the vicious party, the Republicans are the stupid party.  What the Republicans lack in malevolence, they try to make up for with earnestness. But make no mistake: the Democrats never back down, never give up, never give in. They don’t. They are pit bulls. And while the Democrats are devoid of good ideas and good governance, they excel in abhorrent and detestable tactics in winning. They work by stealth.

          And in this case, the retirements don’t indicate defeat. They indicate a new Democrat strategy. The retirements are part of a plan: everyone under the bus for the good of the party and the socialist state it is constructing. The Democrat strategy for 2010 is to make the failure of Barack Obama and the Pelosi/Reid Congress all about the incumbents, not the party itself. They are going to make the failure of this Administration about the candidates, not the party, when in fact it is party, party, party. Take the rancid Dodd, for example. He will be replaced with an attractive statist who does not have the ugly history of Dodd’s graft, corruption and racketeering, but who shares Dodd’s collectivist bent.

          I expect the Democrats to pull their moderate ruse again by throwing up bunches of blue dogs to con the people. Then they will continue to ramrod the American people with their collectivist, statist agenda. They will run new faces without records that are soiled by the horrendous anti-American, anti-business, anti-national security, anti-individual, anti-small government, anti-tax cut record of the Democrats — and they will sucker the American people, yet again.

          Protect the brand. It is a very smart strategy. And let’s be honest: the Democrats are brilliant at strategizing, and at trafficking in smear and deception. They can take down anyone, destroy anything, even (as we are now seeing) deconstruct a country and a constitution. What they can’t do is govern. Their skill is to destroy, to mooch, to loot. This is their anthem: altruism and slavery for the common good.

          In reality, the blame for the fix we’re in falls squarely on the shoulders of the Democrat party. The Democrats are socialists, and the party platform has moved so far to the left that it is now virtually anti-capitalism and anti-individual. And that is what America has responded to viscerally to this past year. Tea parties, town halls, election after election — America is responding to President L-Dopa (which I call him because, like that drug that awakens catatonics, he is now awakening American patriots from their slumber).

          Obama is merely the repulsive face of the party, but it is not just him, it’s all of them. It’s the party. It’s the ideology, not particular candidates.

          What is really tragic is the right’s inability to capture this moment, ripe as it is. Instead of seizing the moment in the war of ideas and grasping the mantle of America’s unabashed exceptionalism, defending constitutional principles and remaining steadfast and true, the right keeps moving to…the left.

          See the new face, same as the old face. See the new left, same as the old left.

          By Big Governement
          February 12, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Your Time Is Up, Chuck

          At the Washington Cathedral memorial service for conservative icon Jack Kemp last May, many of his loyalists asked the same question: with Kemp’s passing, would his infectious pro-growth optimism also depart our political stage? That profoundly sad day, it certainly seemed possible.

          charles_schumer

          Just eight months later, there is a remarkable potential candidate in the Kemp mold who may oppose – and defeat – uber liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). New York Republican, Conservative and Tea Party leaders are talking up the potential candidacy of CNBC commentator Larry Kudlow, a former advisor to Kemp and Ronald Reagan.

          For decades, Chuck Schumer has bullied his way to victory at the polls. He’s a prodigious fundraiser, a tough campaigner, and has long been thought unbeatable. But as former New York Assembly Republican leader John Faso noted recently in the New York Post, Schumer’s “image of invincibility has been fed by the failure of Republicans in New York and Washington to aggressively attack his vulnerabilities.”

          Many New Yorkers agree: it is difficult to find a federal legislator as odious as Schumer. He is personally responsible for much of the bad policy that led to the economic melt down of the United States. He stands firmly in favor of health care reform that is bad for New Yorkers and he supports a tax on banks that is poison for the Empire State.

          And when the Obama administration announced plans to make Manhattan a terrorist target again by trying al Qaeda terrorists in the city – at a cost of hundreds of millions of tax dollars – we didn’t hear a peep of complaint out of our Senator until after the White House shifted its position.

          Just one year ago, Schumer took to the Senate floor to explain his affection for pork barrel spending. “Let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little tiny, yes, porky amendments,” he lectured. “The American people really don’t care.”

          In minutes, his tone-deaf commentary was featured on YouTube. Fully ten percent of 270,000 video viewers left colorful comments disagreeing with the Senior Senator from New York – an extraordinary rate of reply for the Web site. Ten days later, CNBC’s Rick Santelli set off another Reagan Revolution by calling for “a Tea Party in Chicago.” Schumer’s hubris helped.

          Just in time for the Holidays last year, voters in New York were regaled with another story of Schumer’s antics. Told to shut down his cell phone on a US Airways shuttle from New York to Washington, New York’s senior Senator instead called a flight attendant a foul name. Even after he said the phone was off, it rang again.

          “It’s Harry Reid calling,” Schumer said loudly. “I guess health care will have to wait until we land.” Perhaps thanks to that flight attendant, Schumer’s health care public option may never take off.

          Today, Schumer has turned his guns on his own ranks, pretending only he may decide who among Democrats can and cannot run against his hand puppet, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Meanwhile, he’s conniving to replace Sen. Harry Reid as the leading Senate Democrat.

          Until Scott Brown was elected to the Senate in loopy liberal Massachusetts, nobody thought it ever possible to rid New York of the self-serving, mean-spirited, virulently partisan liberal. Now the game has changed. Enter Larry Kudlow.

          A graduate of the University of Rochester, Kudlow also worked for New York’s legendary Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. A chief architect of the Reagan era tax-cuts that sparked one of the greatest economic booms in modern times, Kudlow is recognized as a leading anti-tax supply side economist. He holds Jack Kemp out as his mentor and is one of the few people in politics today determined to carry the Buffalo Congressman’s legacy forward.

          Kudlow has run a business, met a payroll and toiled for decades in the corporate, policy and media arenas. He’s also endured the alembic of personal crisis and come out tempered with character and humility. In contrast, Schumer has been in politics all his adult life and, after countless mean-spirited public episodes, his character is in question.

          Kudlow is also a thoughtful, well-spoken and original analyst and one of the most effective debaters on the Right. This capacity is vital against Schumer, who is vicious and smart on the stump.

          Importantly, Kudlow may raise just as much money from his stellar contacts as Schumer does from his own. Insiders say he may even beat the longtime legislator among Wall Street donors, who are quietly but completely tired of Schumer’s shakedowns.

          On the one-year anniversary of Schumer’s snotty miscalculation of Americans’ appetite for pork, Larry Kudlow is seriously considering a bid for his seat. Kemp fans are especially intrigued and in just three weeks more than 15,000 Americans enthusiastic about his potential candidacy have signed up here.

          This election year, Chuck Schumer may meet his own Scott Brown, even his own Jack Kemp. And nobody deserves it more.

          By MichelleMalkin.com
          February 12, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Porkulus Two follies: Harry Reid’s irony-filled snit fit

          Read this post »

          By NewsBusters.org
          February 9, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Testicular-Challenged Dems Drive Ed Schultz Nuts

          Now the Democrats have gone and done it. And what resulted wasn't pretty.

          Here's libtalker Ed Schultz on his radio show Friday, obsessing on Democrats' acquiescence to the GOP and his diagnosis for what's needed to turn this around (click for audio here) --

          SCHULTZ: It's time for the Democrats to grow a pair. That was the theme of one of my segments last night, although I couldn't say it exactly that way.

          Less than a minute later, more along the same lines (audio here) --

          SCHULTZ: So this theme yesterday that Mr. Harry Reid, who I'm starting to think needs to step aside as the leader in the Senate. Either that or grow a pair.

          Again, within a minute, here initially referring to Manny's Steakhouse in Minneapolis (audio here) --

          SCHULTZ: So you go into Manny's and they got a picture of a big-ass bull. And that bull's got a pair. You know what I'm saying? You can see the pair right there. I mean, that bull's ready to reproduce. That bull's ready to go through the fence, through the barnyard, through the grain bin. I mean, that bull's ready to go. He's got a pair. His name ain't Harry Reid.

          Yet again, less than a minute later (audio here) --

          SCHULTZ: But my mission here the next few weeks is, Harry, you need to get off the dime. You need to grow a pair, tell us you have a pair, and tell the Republicans where to stick it.

          Hmm, tell Republicans where to stick your pair? Schultz, having fastened on his theme of the day, wasn't about to loosen his grip. More all of ten minutes later (audio here) --

          SCHULTZ: Yeah, go to, Google Manny's Steakhouse there and look at that bull on there. Now this is a rumor. This is just a rumor. I heard this, I haven't verified it. But apparently when the owner of the restaurant wanted to put this bull on there and the guy, you know, painted the picture of the bull, the rumor is that he brought it in and showed it to him and he said, his balls aren't big enough. You gotta make 'em bigger. And so the guy went back and he redid the picture and you look at Manny's Steakhouse there, that bull, that bull's got a pair. So, I know it's a little bit easier than just, or should I say, it's quite a bit tougher than just drawing a painting. But how do we get the Democrats to grow a pair?

          Eight minutes later, while talking with Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein (audio here) --

          SCHULTZ: Harry (Reid) is not that bull at Manny's restaurant. He doesn't have a pair.

          Within the next minute, Schultz vents on the consequences of Democrats lacking testicular fortitude (audio here) --

          SCHULTZ: The Democrats right now are doing irreparable damage to their reputation and their inability to govern by acting like a bunch of weenies and playing footsy with the Republicans! They, they, they are nutless! They are neutered! They're, god, they won't reproduce more Democrats because they have no, they can't, Sam, they can't, it's not in them anymore. It's not there. It doesn't exist. They've lost their personality.

          All but Barbara Boxer. But I digress.

          And once more for good measure, in the third and final hour of his radio show Friday while talking with a caller (audio here) --

          SCHULTZ: Oh I agree, I agree. That's why I started this program, Harry's gotta grow a pair.

          But not Schultz. Obviously not. He must have been the model for Manny.

          By Big Governement
          February 7, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Funnies: Big Spending Edition

          Cartoon - Blow a Bunch of Cash - ALG (990)

          By Big Governement
          February 4, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          ‘Tough’ Decisions on Spending Include $2.5M on Super Bowl Ad

          mean-joe

          Where to cut the spending? Obama has told us we have to make some tough choices. Yup, it wasn’t easy, but they decided to keep in the $2.5 million for a Census ad during the Super Bowl. That’s just a part of the $132 million we will spend to tell people to fill out and mail in their census forms.

          We’d get a better bang for our buck by gambling it in Vegas. No matter what Obama says about the town, at least there we would have a chance to win big.

          I understand that our constitution requires a census every ten years, but it does not require we waste our money advertising for it.  You don’t turn it in – you’re not counted. Next!

          Here are some of the proposed cuts listed on the White House blog as  ”tough choices” for 2011:

        1. Cutting Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America grant programs at the National Park Service. Save America’s Treasures program was started to mark the millennium and was supposed to last for two years. Both programs lack rigorous performance metrics and evaluation efforts so the benefits are unclear.
        2. Eliminate the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit (AEITC). EITC eligible taxpayers with children may file a form with their employers and receive a portion of their EITC throughout the year in their paychecks. Only a tiny number of EITC eligible taxpayers claim the AEITC; 3 percent, or 514,000 taxpayers according to the Government Accountability Office. And the error rate for the program is high: 80 percent of recipients did not comply with at least one program requirement. This ineffective and prone-to-error program should be eliminated.
        3. Terminate the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative.While a consistent supporter of the brownfield clean-up on the campaign trail and a strong advocate for expanding economic opportunity in urban areas, the President proposes to eliminate BEDI, a small program duplicative of larger programs. Instead, the Administration consolidates its support for the brownfield clean-up – funding larger programs and thereby reducing overhead costs.
        4. End Abandoned Mine Lands Payments to Certified States. The Abandoned Mine Land program was established to restore abandoned coal mine lands. Changes to this program allowed these funds to go to states and tribes who already have cleaned up these mine. Paying states and tribes to clean up mines that are already cleaned up was not the intention of this program, and is why it is being terminated
        5. If those are tough choices we are in serious trouble.

          As a side note did you see where the money for the tax credits Obama is touting to create jobs are being paid for by the TARP funds? It was bad enough when the money was going to the banks and was earmarked to come back to us when they paid it back. It got worse when they started giving it to car and insurance companies. Now we’ve totally turned it into a slush fund. Kiss it all good bye.

          Obama and the Democrats think they can control the economy and spend our way out of our problems. They think it’s all their money to be doled out. They target tax cuts for limited times in ways they think will control our behavior instead of just cutting taxes for all – individuals, businesses, investors, etc.  They don’t understand the unintended consequences of their actions and have no clue how businesses and people plan for the long term. The result will be a slow, weak recovery.

          Hey, Big Government – quit stealing, borrowing and spending our money and get out of the way!

          By Big Governement
          February 2, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Sen. Harkin and Rep. Charlie Rangel Both Have Same CBO Story; Healthcare Deal Was Done BEFORE MA Election

          charlie-rangel

          As reported in a previous article, Senator Harkin clearly contradicted President Obama when he stated:

          Labor leaders had announced an agreement with White House and congressional representatives over an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans on the Thursday before the special election.

          Harkin said “we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn’t get it back.” He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, Jan. 15.

          Harkin made clear that negotiators had reached a final deal on the entire bill, not just the excise plans, which had been reported the previous day, Jan. 14.

          Harkin said the deal covered the prescription-drug “donut hole,” the level of federal insurance subsidies, national insurance exchanges and federal Medicaid assistance to states.

          Senator Harkin would know if a deal was done as he was in the marathon meeting at the White House on January 13, 2010. On the same day, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid put out a brief joint statement:

          “Today we made significant progress in bridging the remaining gaps between the two health insurance reform bills. We’re encouraged and energized, and we’re resolved to deliver reform legislation that provides more stability and security for those with insurance, extends coverage to those who don’t have coverage, and lowers costs for families, businesses, and governments.”

          However, it appears that the statements made by Harkin weren’t so far-fetched. On January 14th, House Ways and Means Chairman, Charlie Rangel, who was also in the WH meetings, confirmed that the healthcare bill was on its way to the CBO for scoring, either Friday the 15th or Saturday the 16th, to reporter Anna Edney, who then Tweeted the information:

          anna3crop

          So, who is telling the truth? Harkin and Rangel or Obama at the GOP Retreat when he stated they were still working on those “stray cats and dogs” in the bill.

          There is, however, one more problem. When you talk to members of Congress, they consistently refer to the health bill as being in “conference” to merge the House and Senate version. When, I went to the THOMAS bill tracking system, it mentions nothing of the sort. It has all of the amendments and votes, but the latest update has nothing about the bill being in conference as other legislation documents. This administration is circumventing the legislative process so much that the offical bill tracking system can’t even be updated properly.

          The only conclusion that can be made is that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company were indeed attempting to jam through a healthcare bill and vote on it before the MA election, but time ran out for them and they lost a day due to the MLK federal holiday on January 18th. So much for Obama’s olive branch to the Republicans at the GOP retreat–all talk–just words as Obama’s says in this speech. I think we get it now, again, I hope the GOP does too.

          The next questions are: where is the final agreement that went to the CBO and why haven’t the American people been shown the new merged bill?

          By Big Governement
          February 2, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Once Again, James O’Keefe Strips Away the MSM’s Mask of Neutrality, Revealing the Bias Below

          This past week marked one of the strangest periods of my life.  And yes, the arrest of my friend and colleague James O’Keefe had a lot to do with it. James found himself, once again, in the middle of a raging media battle all because he wanted to shine a little light on public corruption.  Let me tell you something, he certainly rang in the New Year with this one.  As James said:

          My goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions…

          Target: Mary Landrieu. Why: she’s been taking legal “bribes” in the form of the “Louisiana Purchase” in exchange for her vote on Sen. Harry Reid’s healthcare bill, and ignoring phone calls from her outraged constituents.  Bold, dirty, rude politics at its finest.

          rt_landrieu_reid_091119_mn

          Putting his head down, and plowing ahead, James was off to New Orleans working on a new project.  A project that would hopefully raise questions, demand answers, and spur people to action.

          The complication:  James and three of his colleagues were arrested in the process. (Although now the U.S. Attorney in charge of the case has recused himself, a sure sign that the case is rapidly crumbling.)

          For 48 hours, rampant rumors of phone taps, possible felonies, rash behavior and the phrase “Watergate Jr.” spread like wildfire. No one knew the reality of the situation. Even I was very concerned by the initial reports. I had no inkling of this project and once again found myself a victim of the MSM’s filthy, desperate and fact-free drive-by reporting.  As Galileo famously said:

          All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.

          The truth eventually began trickling out and it appears Mary Landrieu’s office vastly exaggerated the situation, and yet the MSM ran with it.  Rachel Maddow of MSNBC could barely contain her glee:

          Note to everyone: throwing out words like “wiretapping” in regards to a federal phone system is the equivalent to screaming “bomb” on an airplane….Don’t say it unless you mean it. Or else, all the attention will zero in on you and things will quickly get complicated.

          In fact, Landrieu’s overreaction to O’Keefe’s video project ought make the public wonder what the heck is actually going on in the office that her constituents are permitting her to occupy for at least a little while longer. But instead we had ACORN’s CEO, Bertha Lewis, using the incident as an opportunity to, once again, excuse her employees’s behavior in our “ACORN Housing helps underage sex slave” videos. We saw inappropriate and vicious attacks from the MSM, and watched some members of a movement turn its back on a man they considered a hero less than a week ago.

          What I’ve learned is this: the MSM is the primary force of the Democratic Party. If the MSM is lying to you, guess who else is? Someone has to feed them stories. Time and time again the MSM has been caught in a self-created web of lies, and the vast majority of these reports do one thing, and that is mask the true, ugly face of liberalism.

          Listen, the MSM is officially beyond biased and slanted reporting. Right now, it is on the “bold dishonesty” level. They are essentially pelting the public with hot, stinky manure, and it is completely insulting.

          Fortunately, there are ways around the MSM’s nonsense. Andrew Breitbart has made the new media trendy, and after the ACORN videos everyone and their conservative dog was on the new-media campaign bandwagon. “Yay, yay we are back to save the day. Glory and victory all the way!” But then, the second things got a little spicy, POOF, they’re gone.

          For instance, Michelle Malkin, a once avid supporter/defender of James and all his work, called for an example to be made out of him, and instructing other young journalists to not follow in his footsteps.  Again, this was before she knew his side of the story.

          The bottom line is, conservative elites are afraid of the MSM. They are constantly two-steppin’ to stay in their good graces while secretly cursing them beneath their breath. It is no wonder they’ve had their rear ends handed to them so badly in past elections. I’m telling you, if conservatives don’t put on their game faces and strap on their big-boy boots, our nation’s demise is imminent.

          “Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”  – Winston Churchill

          winston_churchill_01

          Why do I think the MSM and the Liberals were so perversely obsessed with the possibility of James being a wannabe “Watergate Jr.?” They lie, because despite all their money and power, they are scared. Not of the Republicans or Conservative movement, but of citizen journalists who hold truth in the highest regard. These people are at large, and on the rise. Which means some major power players have a lot to be afraid of.

          By MichelleMalkin.com
          February 1, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Obama budget exposes nuclear lie

          Read this post »

          By Big Hollywood
          January 29, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Clinton Supporter Robert Iger: DGA Honors Exec Who Banished ‘Path to 9/11′ Miniseries

          Want to relive season five of Paris Hilton’s reality show The Simple Life? No problem, it’s on DVD. The complete first season of Jane Curtin’s sitcom Kate & Allie? It’s just a click away on...

          View Original Post

          By MichelleMalkin.com
          January 27, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Zzzzz: Two not-so-sharp responses to Obama’s SOTU

          Obama was supposed to set a “new tone” in Washington tonight. [...] Read the rest »

          By NewsBusters.org
          January 27, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Olbermann: O’Reilly’s ‘A Danger to the Safety of Our Elected Leaders’

          For the second night in a row, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann attacked Bill O'Reilly this time claiming the Fox News host is a danger to the safety of our elected leaders.

          This followed Monday's classless call for the "O'Reilly Factor" host to stop "stroking" himself in front of the public.

          On Tuesday, the "Countdown" host during his "Worst Person in the World" segment played a cherry-picked snippet of O'Reilly speaking to an audience in Westbury, New York, as part of his "Bold and Fresh" tour with Fox's Glenn Beck.

          O'Reilly joked to the crowd about how if he was an adviser to President Obama, he would recommend House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) be kidnapped so that something could be accomplished on Capitol Hill.

          This led Olbermann to hysterically conclude, "Bill O`Reilly is, at heart, a danger to the safety of elected leaders in this country" (video embedded below the fold with transcript):  

          KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: But our winner, Bill-O, summoning his inner Bill-O. This is from a public appearance on Long Island, in which O`Reilly fantasizes about being the main adviser to President Obama and to make it easier for Republicans to achieve, quote, detente with Democrats, calling in the CIA director Mr. Panetta giving him a secret job to do.

          (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

          BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You`ve got to kidnap Pelosi and Reid. Don`t hurt them. Don`t hurt them, OK? But take them to an undisclosed location. No water-boarding. Well, maybe with Nancy. So that`s what I would do, I`d kidnap Reid and Pelosi.

          (END VIDEO CLIP)

          OLBERMANN: I know, every time I tell you about O`Reilly, somebody says, oh, it`s just posturing, you`re trying to get ratings, you`re obsessed with O`Reilly, you`re a less version of him. Then you hear a tape like that, from an unguarded moment, in an environment in which he thinks he`s among friends, and starts with the violence fantasies.

          Just like the Tiller the Killer drum beat, Bill O`Reilly is, at heart, a danger to the safety of elected leaders in this country. Ha ha ha, how funny it is to joke about kidnapping the Speaker of the House and water- boarding her. He says it because he wants somebody to do it. When I call him on it, I don`t care if fewer people watch this show as a result. This man is dangerous year in, year out. He was dangerous to George Tiller. He is dangerous to Nancy Pelosi. And if you want to live in a country where people like Bill O`Reilly can encourage hatred and violence, just pretend this is a phony showbiz feud. It isn`t.

          Bill O`Reilly, who said all that in public, today`s worst person in the world.

          The man really is a certifiable moron, isn't he?

          By NewsBusters.org
          January 23, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Matthews Rips Dem Congressman: ‘You’re Pandering to the Netroots’

          Chris Matthews on Friday accused Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) of pandering to the far-left members of the liberal blogosphere known as the netroots.

          As they heatedly debated the future of healthcare reform on MSNBC's "Hardball," Matthews continually pressed the Congressman over his assertion that Democrats would pass a bill via reconciliation.

          "You ever call up a Democratic senator and say, why don`t you do this by reconciliation?" chided Matthews.

          When Grayson's answer didn't make sense, Matthews scolded him: "You`re pandering to the netroots right now...Every night, we deal with two worlds, the real world of Congress that has to do things and get things passed, and this outside world represented by the netroots and other people out there, like yourself, who play this game" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Story Balloon):

          CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let`s bring in Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida.

          Look, I`m not sure. I think I know what that means. Make the good fight. Make your big pitch. They have lost sight of the sales pitch in trying to get the thing made. But you still are faced with the realities. You don`t have the 60 votes to break the filibuster in the Senate.

          REP. ALAN GRAYSON (D), FLORIDA: I don`t think we need them.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: You don`t need 60 votes?

          GRAYSON: We have had a Congress now for 222 years. How long has there been a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? How long? You tell me. You`re a student of history.

          MATTHEWS: Well, it`s been a long time. And let me tell you, that`s why nothing ever gets through Congress.

          GRAYSON: Well, that`s not true.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: Name me a major bill that Congress ever got through that was partisan.

          GRAYSON: We got tax cuts for the rich from the Republicans.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: Easy. Anybody can cut taxes. That`s not hard.

          GRAYSON: No, tax cuts for the rich, 51 votes.

          MATTHEWS: It`s easy. That`s easy.

          GRAYSON: Well, it turns out that, in the 222-year history of the Congress, we have had a filibuster-proof majority for all of 14 years. And, somehow, we managed to pass legislation on all those other occasions for over 200 years.

          MATTHEWS: But you haven`t created a major new program like health care for everybody. Can you pass a major new program like Medicare in the current environment, where there`s such division?

          GRAYSON: We not only can. We have to. We have to do that.

          MATTHEWS: But you can -- you`re just talking. How do you do it?

          GRAYSON: It`s not talking. There are people are dying in America every year because they have no health care.

          MATTHEWS: OK. OK. OK. You know, this show is about reality.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: Tell me how you pass this bill with 41. You just got a guy elected in Massachusetts who said he signs his name 41, because it means enough to stop this bill.

          (CROSSTALK)

          GRAYSON: Reconciliation needs 51 senators.

          MATTHEWS: Well, what are you talking -- what procedure do you know that Harry Reid doesn`t know, that Dick Durbin doesn`t know...

          GRAYSON: What makes you think Harry Reid is not going to do it? I was calling for this six months ago.

          MATTHEWS: ... that all those top guys, that Ted Kennedy didn`t know, the secret route to the Indies that only you know about?

          GRAYSON: Have they said they`re not using reconciliation? What are you talking about?

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: These senators can`t do it. They have said they can`t do it.

          GRAYSON: Why do you think they can`t use reconciliation?

          MATTHEWS: Because you talk to any one of these senators, you talk to any of them lately, and what do they tell you? What do the Democratic senators tell you?

          GRAYSON: What do you think, I`m their confessor? No.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: OK. You ever call up a Democratic senator and say, why don`t you do this by reconciliation?

          GRAYSON: What makes you think they`re not going to do it?

          MATTHEWS: They`re not going to do it.

          GRAYSON: What do you know that I don`t know?

          MATTHEWS: Because they have refused to do it because they cannot get past the filibuster rule. The United States is different than the House. You`re allowed to talk as long as you want in the Senate, unless you get cloture.

          GRAYSON: Not with reconciliation. Reconciliation is 51 votes, not 60 votes.

          MATTHEWS: What do you mean, reconciliation? You can`t create a program through reconciliation.

          GRAYSON: You can create an amendment through...

          MATTHEWS: Nobody`s ever done one.

          GRAYSON: The bill has already passed with 60 votes.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: Name a program.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: Congressman, just name me the program that`s ever been created through reconciliation. Name one, one.

          GRAYSON: As I said, tax cuts for the rich was...

          MATTHEWS: That`s not a program. That`s -- under reconciliation...

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: ... you`re allowed to do two things, change fiscal numbers. You`re allowed to raise taxes or cut programs` spending. You cannot create something.

          GRAYSON: You`re saying that. You don`t know that. Nobody else thinks that.

          MATTHEWS: I just spent three years on the Senate Budget Committee when I was kid. Let me tell you, you can`t do it.

          And you can ask -- by the way, have you asked any senator this question, this program -- this plan you have?

          GRAYSON: I`m in the other place. I`m in the House, not the Senate.

          MATTHEWS: Why don`t you run for the Senate and try to -- that`s why you`re not in the Senate.

          GRAYSON: Oh, that`s why I`m not in the Senate. OK, now, I understand.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: In the Senate, you have to get 60 votes.

          GRAYSON: OK. Well, we got that clear.

          MATTHEWS: Why do you think the Democrats fought like hell to get 60 votes? Why do you think they really -- the president and everybody else is dying over the fact they lost Massachusetts? Because it didn`t matter? You think they`re all crazy over there, but you`re smart?

          GRAYSON: No, I didn`t say that.

          What I`m saying is that everybody has been talking about reconciliation, and nobody has had the guts to do it.

          MATTHEWS: Name a United States senator that is willing to do this. You keep talking about it.

          GRAYSON: I think that`s what you will probably see at this point.

          (LAUGHTER)

          MATTHEWS: Want to bet?

          (LAUGHTER)

          MATTHEWS: Do you want to bet they`re going to do this? In other words, they killed themselves to get 60 votes, but now they`re going to say, all we need are 50, and have Joe Biden break the tie?

          GRAYSON: They shouldn`t have killed themselves to get 60 votes. This is something they could have done six months ago.

          MATTHEWS: This is netroots talk. This is outsider talk.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: And you`re an elected official, and you know you can`t do it. You`re pandering to the netroots right now. I know what you`re doing. You are pandering.

          GRAYSON: You are wrong. This is something that we talk about the leadership in our caucus meetings every week.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: OK.

          Tell me how you convince the United States Senate Democrats, 59 of them, to do what you want them to do. How do you change their minds? Because they have made up their minds.

          GRAYSON: They want to pass the bill.

          MATTHEWS: Yes.

          GRAYSON: The only way to pass the bill now is to use reconciliation.

          MATTHEWS: Yes. And they`re going to do this?

          GRAYSON: I think they will.

          MATTHEWS: When will they do this? Because I want to write this down. When are they going to do something that has never been done before, create a program through this reconciliation process?

          GRAYSON: You know, they have used reconciliation time and time again. You`re saying create a program, as if that`s something that is dramatically different from everything else the Senate does. It`s not.

          MATTHEWS: OK. Let me tell you, the purpose of reconciliation is to take measures, cutting taxes, or raising taxes, or cutting spending, to reconcile actual government spending and tax policy with previous legislation that you have passed.

          You haven`t passed a bill to create a health care plan.

          GRAYSON: When did you become a Senate parliamentarian? Did I miss that?

          MATTHEWS: Well, I worked over there for many, many years. And I worked for the speaker for six years. I worked 15 years up there.

          (CROSSTALK)

          MATTHEWS: And I know what I`m talking about. And you ask anybody in the Senate right now -- go call the Senate Legislative Counsel`s Office and ask them if you can do this. Go ask the parliamentarians if you can do this. You haven`t bothered to do that.

          GRAYSON: No, the leadership -- my leadership has done that. And my answer is yes.

          MATTHEWS: OK. This is just a moot point.

          OK. So, in other words, there`s going to be a health care bill and it`s going to be passed by reconciliation? You predict that?

          GRAYSON: I think that there will be an amendment passed by reconciliation. We already have a bill passed. We just have to merge the two bills.

          MATTHEWS: And when will this happen, so that we will get this thing done and we will stop arguing about it?

          GRAYSON: Thirty days or less.

          MATTHEWS: Thirty days or less, we will have a health care bill passed through the process of reconciliation?

          GRAYSON: I believe so.

          MATTHEWS: You believe so?

          GRAYSON: And I certainly hope so, because America need it.

          MATTHEWS: Do you predict it? Do you predict it?

          (LAUGHTER)

          GRAYSON: I think it`s the most likely option at this point.

          (LAUGHTER)

          MATTHEWS: This is the problem, Congressman, in this problem.

          GRAYSON: What?

          MATTHEWS: Every night, we deal with two worlds, the real world of Congress that has to do things and get things passed, and this outside world represented by the netroots and other people out there, like yourself, who play this game, and it doesn`t get done.

          (CROSSTALK)

          GRAYSON: What are you talking about? I sit in meetings with the Democratic Caucus week after week.

          (CROSSTALK)

          GRAYSON: You talk about netroots, netroots, netroots.

          I`m telling you, this is what we`re talking about. This is what the leadership is telling us.

          MATTHEWS: OK. We will make a side bet. It`s not going to happen.

          Anyway, Congressman Alan Grayson, a true believer who believes you can get things done by willing it to get done.

          Wow!

          Makes you wonder what's going on with Matthews lately.

          I haven't seen this kind of objectivity from the "Hardball" host since before 9/11.

          By Big Governement
          January 22, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          New Questions Surface About Bernanke’s Role In AIG Bailout

          Sources on the Hill tell Big Government that the nomination of Ben Bernanke to remain Chairman of the Federal Reserve is in deep trouble.  A Senior Capitol Hill Staffer said to Big Government, “if [Senate Majority Leader] Reid does not file for cloture tonight, I don’t think they have the votes to confirm him.”  The Wall Street Journal thinks the vote will be “tight,” yet the White House is spinning that they have the votes.  Hill sources say that this nomination is trending in the wrong direction for the Obama Administration and many on the Hill are stunned by the news that, according to CNBC, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has announced her opposition to the nomination.  There is growing opposition to this nominee remaining in charge of the Federal Reserve for a second term.

          Senators have made public statements indicating that there may be non-public information that is hurting this nominee.  Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said that “the Fed continues to stonewall Congress and the public.”  Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) referenced “ongoing examinations by Congress and the GAO of the Fed’s AIG bailout” and that there are “unpleasant facts for the Fed and Chairman Bernanke” that will come out after “full public disclosure of all information about the AIG bailout” that has only been shared with “select Congressional Committees and the GAO.”  Senator David Vitter (R-LA) said, “it is vitally important that Congress has the ability and time to adequately review the Federal Reserve’s bailout of AIG.  Although some of our offices have had time to review some of the documents, not all are available at this time and Congress should wait until GAO’s review before proceeding with his nomination vote.”

          It appears that there is non-public information about Bernanke’s role in the AIG bailout that is leading Senators to jump ship on his nomination.

          By NewsBusters.org
          January 22, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          When the Canaries Stop Singing

          Who's next?

          Canary

          By Big Governement
          January 22, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Massachusetts Voters Decided To Make A Stand, But Is It Enough To Save American Healthcare?

          It has become clear that health care reform in its present state has nothing to do with delivering quality healthcare to the American people.

          Health Care Overhaul

          The idea of universal coverage, with protection against insurance company wrongs (e.g., denying patients for pre-existing conditions and limiting the insurance company’s ability to deny coverage when you really need it) has been the sheep’s clothing cloaking a bill designed to destroy our healthcare system. In short, the proposed healthcare reform will doom us to a future that has the potential to make us sicker by limiting our access to screening exams such as mammograms, and limiting our access to physicians while making us pay more for the privilege.

          The vote in Massachusetts was a stand against those in the government who are bent on telling us that they know what is best for us. I have been astounded by the complete contempt in which those in power hold the American people. A majority of the people in this country think the healthcare reform effort is going in the wrong direction. Although the vote in Massachusetts made it clear that there was major opposition to the current bill, I have doubts that the voices of the majority will be heard and this debacle will be stopped.

          We have a chance to stop this and get it right. If The Congressional healthcare reform bill passes we will be saddled with:

          • An enormous government bureaucracy run by a universal healthcare Czar that will ultimately decide what will be covered.  The Czar will be the arbiter on whether or not you get needed medical care like a hip replacement or gene therapy.
          • A commission appointed by the president that will decide what treatments will be allowed for what diseases. (The commission is mandated to have only one physician.)
          • A government run committee driven by evidence based medicine that will decide clinical outcomes. If the expected outcome is not achieved then the provider will not be paid.
          • A  government able to decide whether a hospital will be paid for services rendered For example, if a patient is re-admitted to a hospital in a shorter time than the government deems appropriate, then the hospital will not be paid. It does not take into account how ill the patient may be.

          For an excellent synopsis of the most egregious portions of the House bill HR 3200 read the blog by Peter Fleckstein.

          Although Scott Brown’s election should be seen as a win for opponents of healthcare reform, we need to watch for actions that may be working against the rhetoric. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that Congress pushed through an unpopular piece of legislation that people were adamantly against – does TARP ring a bell? Maybe the writing is already on the wall. On the one hand you have some in Congress saying that the healthcare reform bill is dead, but Senator Reid has recently come out with the statement that it would take about 10 days before Senator-elect Brown would be seated in the Senate….plenty of time for more backdoor deals, and arm twisting to happen.

          By Big Governement
          January 22, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Obama’s Options: What Would Slick Willie Do?

          It is evening. Dinner is over, and I can see Bill Clinton sitting back at a table. In my fantasy, he has a mischievous smile on his face and a cigar in his right hand; his left hand lies on the knee of a scantily-clad lass less than half his age; and he is waiting in vain for the President to call.

          Obama

          Republicans, when on the spot, are apt to ask themselves, “What would Reagan do?” Democrats would be well advised, when in similar straits, to ponder what Bill Clinton would do. For whatever one might think of him — and in the last couple of years Democrats have been as likely to badmouth the man as Republicans — Slick Willie is a survivor who knows how to stage a comeback when nearly everyone thinks him not only down but permanently out. It was with such a figure in mind that H. L. Mencken wrote these immortal words: “The smarter the politician, the more things he believes and the less he believes any of them.”

          I have no doubt what advice Clinton would give Barack Obama if the latter were to make that call. He would tell him to jettison Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod; to hire a David Gergen, and a Dick Morris; to leave Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their minions twisting in the wind; and to announce in his State of the Union Address that the era of big government is once again at an end.

          Clinton would instruct him to drop healthcare reform, fall silent on the global warming scam, abandon cap-and-trade, and forget about closing Guantanamo and trying terrorists in civil courts. He would advise him to cut a deal with the Republicans and with endangered Democrats from swing states and swing districts and join with them in passing tort reform, in trimming domestic spending, and in making permanent the tax cuts first introduced by the younger Bush.

          With an eye to encouraging employers to rehire those laid off, Clinton would urge Obama to join with that coalition to institute a temporary cut in the payroll taxes businesses pay the Social Security administration; and, if the economy did not quickly turn around, he would urge him to team up with John McCain, sing, “Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb Iran!” — and take out the nuclear program of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

          Slick Willie would, I think, tell him all of this, and he would be right. I doubt whether such a turnabout would do the Democrats in Congress any good ten months from now, but Clinton would not think that Obama should be concerned with the welfare of a party he himself always thought expendable. He would advise the President to worship the rising, not the setting sun; and he would remind him that, if Iran gets nuclear weapons and the economy is not in markedly better shape in November, 2012, his own goose will be cooked.

          I doubt, however, whether Barack Obama would seek or could take such advice. He is more likely to channel Jimmy Carter than the Arkansas Kid. In his heyday, Bill Clinton was an accomplished rogue. He bamboozled women from all walks of life, and he exercised his charms on everyone he met. Like many a practiced seducer, to accomplish the job that he had in mind, he could be just about anyone he needed to be. Jimmy Carter was more high-minded than this; and, once he got an idea into his head, he tended in a rigid fashion to stay on script.

          Barack Obama is, I think, even more self-righteous than Carter was. When he is on stage, there is always a whiff of fanaticism in the air. It is this that explains his almost complete lack of scruples with regard to the means he uses in pursuit of what he takes to be sacred ends. As a colleague of mine contends, he is really a preacher, and he is intent on doing us what he takes to be good whether we want it and consent or not.

          Obama may also be, as I have suggested elsewhere, a one-trick pony. He may be nothing more than an empty suit with a golden tongue. Arm him with a teleprompter, and he can be dynamite. Take it away, and he is no less apt to make a fool of himself than is his Vice-President.

          He is, moreover, pathetically vain. His natural instinct is to pose as a Messiah and to praise himself, trash his opponents, and blame everything untowards that happens on that bogus bogeyman George W. Bush. This posture was always insufferable and undignified, and it is now wearing thin, but it may be the only posture that Barack Obama knows how to assume.

          Thus, last Wednesday, in his interview on ABC with George Stephanopoulos, the President once again resorted to Bush-bashing with his claim that “the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

          And he blamed himself and his administration only for a failure of communication: “we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values.”

          If this means that he will respond to Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts simply by turning up the volume — and we should learn the upshot when the President delivers his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night — we are in for quite a ride.

          Here again, however, H. L. Mencken can come to our rescue. “Any defeat,” he wrote, “however trivial, may be fatal to a savior of the plain people. They never admire a Messiah with a bloody nose.”

          By Big Governement
          January 20, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Three Reasons Why Obama and The Dems Are in Big, Big Trouble.

          Over at Reason.com, my colleague Matt Welch and I list three basic reasons why the Dems are in big, big trouble. And one reason why they’re not:

          Martha Coakley’s resounding defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race is hardly the sort of anniversary gift President Barack Obama could have predicted. Yet there it was, wrapped in a bow and plopped on his doorstep like a flaming bag of dog poo to mark the end of his first year in office.

          obama-climate-legislation

          Among other things, Scott Brown’s upset victory means that Obama, who flew up to the Bay State to campaign for the deservedly doomed Coakley in the race’s twilight, is zero for three when it comes to high-profile two-minute drills for beloved causes (remember getting Chicago the Olympics and putting together a global carbon deal at the U.N climate conference in Copenhagen?).

          There are at least three basic reasons, plain as the nose on your face, that the Democrats and Obama are in trouble for the near future:

          1. Health care reform is not popular. An ABC News/Washington Post poll published on January 19 has 51 percent against current congressional plans and just 44 percent in favor, numbers that haven’t moved in a month. Other polls show even greater percentages oppose the plan, with all the trend lines over the past year working heavily against the Democrats.

          People fear the obvious: “Reform” that increases the government’s role in anything virtually guarantees steadily increasing costs, lower levels of services, and ballooning federal deficits. All the special-interest carve-outs to buy votes from wavering senators and pay down objections from Big Labor didn’t help either, especially on an issue that was not boiling over on the front-burner of voter concerns at a time of prolonged economic crisis.

          2. The stimulus and TARP bailouts are not popular. They never were, even back when Republicans were pushing them, and are getting less and less so as it becomes clear that such policies are at best ineffective and at worst horribly counterproductive. During his first year in office, reports Congressional Quarterly, Obama got what he wanted from Congress a record-setting 97 percent of time, so it’s not like he’s simply muddling through with a bad hand. Yet the president (and by extension, the Dems) are tanking when it comes to handling the economy, both in terms of results and job approval. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from January 10 shows just 43 percent approving of Obama’s economic policies, down from 56 percent a year ago.

          Simply put, nobody believes that weatherizing vacant homes in Detroit or keeping an already bloated public sector on permanent life support is going to restart the economy.

          3. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not popular. Neither is Obama’s foreign policy more generally. According to Gallup, Obama’s reaction (or non-reaction) to the Christmas Day bomber had a marginally positive effect on the president’s marks for handling terrorism, but it remains a fact that his positions on Iraq and especially Afghanistan are at odds with most Americans. Whatever latent peacenik tendencies his supporters and detractors assumed he harbored, Obama has doubled, or even tripled, down in Afghanistan while following the Bush-Petraeus withdrawal plan in Iraq. This may qualify as hope, but it doesn’t count much as change. Especially since we’ve still got no real clear mission in Afghanistan, despite having been there for so long.

          Obama’s failure to define a coherent foreign policy is not his alone. At the end of the Cold War, the political class shrugged and almost immediately began to spend “the peace dividend” that came with a winding down of military spending as a percentage of GDP and the federal budget. Both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton cut relative military spending, as they should have. Where they, and Bush II and Obama so far, manifestly failed was in working to build a consensus of what U.S. foreign policy should be. We continue to pay for that failure in wasted dollars and, more damningly, wasted lives.

          All is not ashes for Obama and the Democrats, of course. After all, a new AP-GfK poll finds that 49 percent of Americans want the Democrats to maintain control of Congress (just 37 percent are pulling for the Republicans to take charge). The GOP had its run at the top and the results were nothing less than a disaster on just about every front.

          For those of us who don’t paint our faces for either the red or blue teams, the tragicomedy of American politics is that each party looks pretty freaking awesome when compared to its counterpart. As bad as Bush was, Obama may well be worse. As rotten as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are, just remember Trent Lott and Dennis Hastert. Now reverse the party affiliations and repeat. In their hour of darkness, all the Dems need to recall is that they are running against Republicans. And vice versa. Independents–the only reliably growing voting bloc in an electorate long since fatigued by two-party politics–are swinging violently against Democrats after throwing the Republican bums out in 2008 and 2006.

          The hangover from the first year of Obama and the afterglow of Scott Brown’s stunning senatorial upset can teach the major parties some real lessons: First and foremost, listen to the voters, especially voters who are calling for smaller government despite very tough times. In a recent ABC News/Washington Post survey, 58 percent say they favor smaller government that provides fewer services rather than bigger government and more services (38 percent want that). Moving in that direction would indeed constitute change. For a change.

          The way back to voters’ hearts is not through boosting the size and scope of government (something else that Obama and the Dems simply filched from the Bush-era GOP) but by unmistakably trimming some sails. Health care reform, such as it is, should consist of giving individuals more options via a deregulated, non-job-based marketplace where costs are made more transparent rather than less so. It works everywhere else in the economy and will work in health care. Regarding government spending, it means freezes all around and reductions in staff sizes at all levels of government. It means starting (and winning) a debate over ridiculous public-sector retirement packages that bankrupt whole polities for the benefit of a privileged few. With foreign policy, it means thinking through a coherent set of principles that will guide our interactions, and not just our reactions, in the world, focusing on trade rather than aid and warfare. It means fighting terrorism with amply-funded intelligence services rather than the misbegotten occupation of whole troubled regions.

          The 21st century has so far been a tremendous disappointment to those of us who remember the end of the 20th. We know that today’s leaders are dogs, but here’s hoping they are not so old that they can’t learn a few new tricks. Especially since we are the ones that will continue paying for their mistakes.

          By Big Governement
          January 19, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          A Victory Speech for Scott Brown

          I believe that Scott Brown will win the senatorial election being held in Massachusetts today and that he will do so not by an eyelash but by a landslide. We are about to witness the Massachusetts Miracle.

          I have three reasons for being so confident. First, the polls — with admirable consistency — suggest that he is ahead. Second, the Coakley campaign and the Democratic Party nationally have panicked. Coakley’s minions have sent out a flier accusing Scott Brown of wanting to turn rape victims away from Massachusetts hospitals, and the DC apparatus has sent in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for last-minute campaigning. Both moves are likely to backfire.

          First, the claims in the flier are ridiculous and demonstrably false, and voters in Massachusetts have the wit to recognize that fact. Second, the bloom is off the rose. Clinton is a has-been, and Obama inspires little in the way of adulation these days. Their appearance in Massachusetts under these circumstances is a public confession that Martha Coakley is herself a loser. In special elections, turnout is everything. Scott Brown commands enthusiasm; no one — even within the Democratic establishment — has expressed any genuine excitement regarding his opponent.

          There is, then, if I am right, one crucial matter left to consider. This evening Scott Brown will be called upon at some point to address his supporters, and the whole nation will be watching. Here is what, I think, he should say:

          Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a turning point — not only in Massachusetts politics, but in the politics of the United States. We have won a great and unexpected victory against a well-entrenched political machine, and I want to thank all of you for the help that you have given my campaign. I know how hard you and many others not present in this room have worked, and I promise to do my best to justify the hopes that you have lodged in me.

          Tonight marks the end of a long, hard campaign. But it also marks a beginning. The people of Massachusetts have a way of speaking for the American people as a whole. They did so at the time of the Boston Tea Party; they did so again when a shot was heard around the world; and they did so today. For this election was a referendum on the conduct of the Obama administration in Washington. It was an anticipatory tremor — a harbinger of the electoral earthquake that is going to take place throughout the United States in November.

          President Obama was in Massachusetts on Sunday campaigning for my opponent. Your rejection of her candidacy was, as he well knows, a rebuke of his administration. What you have said is simple and straightforward, and I will do my best to put it into words.

          First, Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, there is this: You promised us transparency in government, and you have done the opposite. We in Massachusetts demand that you deliver what you promised. No more deals behind closed doors. No more corrupt bargains. No Gator Aid; No Louisiana Purchase; No Cornhusker Kickback; no special deal for union members. What we want is a fair deal for all Americans!

          Second, Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, there is this: We do not want healthcare rationing; we do not want to gut Medicare; and we do not want a middle-class tax increase under any disguise.

          Please understand, it is not our view that the existing healthcare system is perfect. We believe that costs could be reduced and access encouraged by four simple expedients.

          First, we urge the adoption of tort reform — which would result in a reduction in the costs of malpractice insurance and an elimination of the pressures on physicians to order unnecessary medical tests.

          Second, we urge a repeal of the measures which consign health insurance to state regulation. We want a national market for health insurance — we want to increase competition and thereby lower costs.

          Third, we urge that hospitals, clinics, and physicians be required to post their prices — so that consumers can shop around.

          Fourth, we urge that legislation be passed eliminating the connection between employment and the formation of pools for the purchase of health insurance so that voluntary associations — churches, clubs, professional societies, unions, and other comparable organizations — can form pools to negotiate discounts and health insurance arrangements on behalf of their members.

          Mr. President, when you were inaugurated, you promised to “roll back the specter of a warming planet” and “restore science to its rightful place.” This past Fall, we learned that what many have long suspected is sadly true: that the work done by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which formed the basis for the four reports issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a fraud — that the data was doctored, that the computer simulation was a scam, and that systematic efforts were made by prominent climate scientists to corrupt the peer-review process and suppress legitimate criticism — all for the purpose of imposing a socialist strait jacket on the world economy.

          We remind you, Mr. President, that a specter is “an apparition inspiring dread” and that one of the principal functions of science is to dispel illusions of this very sort. We demand that you now be true to your word; that you act to “roll back the specter of a warming planet” and “restore science to its rightful place” by sponsoring an impartial reconsideration of the evidence both for and against man-made climate change.

          Finally — and most important — Mr. President, we remind you that this country faces an economic crisis and that a great many Americans are unemployed and underemployed.

          It is not our opinion that a massive expansion in the federal bureaucracy is conducive to a recovery of the private sector. Nor do we do believe that a massive increase in the national debt is favorable to the long-term well-being of the American people. We call upon you to balance the federal budget by reducing dramatically the size of that bureaucracy and by eliminating unnecessary programs reflective of corrupt bargains negotiated in the past.

          We also call upon you to make the tax cuts introduced by President Bush permanent — so that Americans have a compelling reason to work long hours and risk their savings by investing them in new ventures likely to produce jobs.

          We have one more thing to say. Not long after the spontaneous formation of the Tea-Party Movement, Anderson Cooper of CNN disgraced himself by applying to those who joined that movement the obscene phrase “tea-baggers.” Since that time, Mr. President, you have demeaned your office and others, such as Senator Schumer of New York, have demeaned theirs by deploying the same vile phrase. We call upon you to stop this practice, to apologize to the American people for your misconduct, and to conduct debates concerning public policy in a civil fashion from now on.

          If, in his victory speech, Scott Brown were to say something along these lines, I am confident that it would electrify the nation, put both the Obama administration and the Democratic Party on the defensive, and set the Republican Party on the right path. The country is beginning to mobilize; the first Tuesday in November is just a few months away; and now is the time for the campaign to begin.

          By Big Hollywood
          January 19, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Harry Reid Is Not a Racist

          Harry Reid is not racist and Republican calls for his resignation are misguided. There I said it. The senate majority leader has recently come under fire for remarks attributed to him in the new book...

          View Original Post

          By Big Governement
          January 18, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Is the GOP Worthy of Governance?

          The Democrat Party’s “40 year majority” will come to a close 38 years early. The unbearable trinity of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama has managed to alienate a nation desperate to support new leadership. They accomplished this by an insistence on unwanted quasi-Socialist policies and an irritating propensity to lead with their chin in foreign policy. The era of Obama is over, even as his Health Care proposal will likely pass. But does this mean a new era of Republican leadership is about to begin? This remains to be seen.

          ba-obama_0499704940

          Peggy Noonan, a former Reagan speechwriter who supported Obama, has views similar to many who consider themselves centrist. She now realizes her support for Barack Obama was misguided. Yet she is tempted to take a “pox on both your houses” approach. She remains skeptical of the Republican Party, as I imagine many voters do. In her recent opinion essay in the Wall Street Journal she states:

          “The question isn’t whether they’ll win seats in the House and Senate this year, and the question isn’t even how many. The question is whether the party will be worthy of victory, whether it learned from its losses in 2006 and ‘08, whether it deserves leadership. Whether Republicans are a worthy alternative. Whether, in short, they are serious.”

          I had grown weary of many of Ms. Noonan’s commentaries. Her support for Obama was predicated on an obvious misunderstanding of his politics, nature, and ideology. But her implicit challenge to the GOP is spot on. While the critique premised in her comment is not completely fair, without question Republicans are viewed with skepticism. After all, it was a Republican administration which brought us bailouts, supported expansionary and unsustainable housing policies, expanded domestic spending, proposed an immigration policy as unpopular as the Democrat’s current Health Care Bill and made “earmarks” a household name. Worst of all, the party seemed to lose any sense of foundational principles. Just what do Republicans stand for?

          GOP RESPONSE

          The Republican Policy Committee has attempted to answer that question. The Committee is chaired by Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter and consists of the ranking members of the five congressional committee chairs and other key members of the Republican caucus. In a clearly written 20 page pamphlet authored by McCotter, the Republicans list five foundational principles and derive from these principles policies which the Republican Party affirmatively supports. These principles, which I see as reminiscent of the stated and implied principles in the Declaration of Independence, are coherent, un-cynical, and necessary.  They are:

          1. Our liberty is from God not government. (“all men…. are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”);

          2) Our Sovereignty is in our souls not soil. (“…to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”);

          3) Our security is in strength not surrender. (The Declaration itself was a document asserting the Colonies right to use its military might in support of its principles);

          4) Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector. (“that {among these} unalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”); and

          5) Our truths are self evident not relative. (“….we hold these truths to be self evident”).

          It is obvious that our nation has faced serious challenges to the above stated principles. The first challenge was in not rejecting slavery at our nation’s inception. But this was corrected through the horror of the Civil War. The Republican Party and Lincoln’s presidency itself was founded in reaction to the permanent rejection of these principles by the Southern secessionists.

          OF GOD AND TRUTH

          Today’s so called progressive movement and various left wing manifestations thereof particularly tend to attack points one and five. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights states in part; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. But the left has interpreted this to mean Government has the affirmative obligation to prohibit all forms religion in the public arena, itself a definition that has become so absurdly broad as to include eliminating roadside crosses to commemorate a state troopers death.

          Why does the first principle of a policy document by a political party reference God as the source of our liberty? Well, for one, our nation’s document of political independence was founded on this principle and it is not insignificant that 80% of Americans believe in God. But the fundamental reason is regardless of what your view of God may be, or even your belief in God per se, it excludes other men from inventing “greater goods” designed to limit your liberty. Government does not provide us with the right to liberty; man comes pre-born with those rights. At least that is the founding principle of our nation. Nazism and Communism, the two greatest forces for totalitarian evil in the 20th century, were explicitly atheistic and limited or even outlawed the practice of religion. That is not a coincidence.

          Point five states that certain truths are self evident. Why is this necessary? It is necessary because relativism permits all forms of injustice. So prohibition of murder cannot be considered a restraint of liberty, though such arguments are implicitly and explicitly made today by Islamic terrorists. Certain forms of government are self evidently better than others. If one class of humans (for example, women) are explicitly second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia, it is self evident such a system is inferior to ours, even if their rationale is “religious” in origin. When Obama advisor Cass Sunstein supports legal rights for animals, he is self evidently absurd. Humans are superior to animals. Moral relativism is the doorway to hell. The gradual erosion of the founding principles of our nation is the direct result of moral relativism.

          Noonan is correct in her analysis of the public’s mood. Voters will be judging if the Republicans are worthy successors. First principles matter. From them are derived policies. I recommend reading McCotter’s short pamphlet. He is a serious guy and this is a necessary document. I don’t expect perfection from politicians or political parties. But one should demand an attempt at honest and coherent government consistent with the principles that have sustained this nation for over 200 years.

          By Big Governement
          January 18, 2010
          Leave a Comment

          Dems’ Health Care Strategy: Seek Forgiveness Instead of Permission

          Consider this irony: Democrats and their special interest allies are in the fight of their lives to keep the seat formerly held by the champion of socialized medicine in the bluest of states.  Democrats should be tap dancing on the foreheads of Republicans in Massachusetts.  But instead, they’re racing against the clock for a deal on health care reform because they run the risk of losing their critical 60th vote in just a few days.

          imageDCSA10701182130

          So the Democrats strategy is clear:  seek forgiveness of American voters in November instead of permission now because the probable message from Tuesday’s election will not be in favor of ObamaCare.  Democrats are “hoping” to have an overall deal on health care reform, the tax-dodging Ways and Means committee chairman Charlie Rangel told NationalJournal.com, just in time to avoid the Tuesday Massachusetts vote.

          The Huffington Post quoted SEIU vice president Anna Burger as saying, “Let’s go on and actually pass this bill.”  Anna’s wish is, of course, this White House’s command.

          The special election this week in Massachusetts can easily be viewed as a referendum on Obama, his policies and specifically government-run health care.  And in a state that is navy blue, it’s a dog fight, with SEIU stepping in to plop down over $600,000 for TV ads savaging Republican candidate Scott Brown.  And RedState.com reported House Democrats are spending beaucoup bucks to elect a Democrat to the Senate.  It’s pure panic time for Democrats in Washington.

          But they’re working as fast as they can to make health care reform a non-issue by the time the newest senator from Massachusetts is seated.

          And worse still, more giveaways are emerging from Washington, DC but this time, not to lawmakers but to campaign-funding special interest groups.  News broke Thursday afternoon that Democratic leaders had “negotiated” a compromise with labor leaders over the so-called “Cadillac” tax.  They must have made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.

          The New York Post said it well in Friday’s edition:

          Big Labor got some big love from President Obama and congressional Democrats yesterday after they agreed to exempt union workers from the whopping “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health-care plans until 2018.

          The sweetheart deal, hammered out behind closed doors, will save union employees at least $60 billion over the years involved, while others won’t be as lucky — they’ll have to cough up almost $90 billion.

          So Andy Stern can go back to his members and say, “See what our $60 million investment in electing Obama got us?”

          And CNN.com reported that, “AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka has made looking out for all workers — not just union members — a big part of his platform.”  What a peach!  That must be why benefits negotiated through collective bargaining were exempted but not those for non-union workers.  Way to look out for everyone, Richie!

          The Post also reported:

          Powerful unions were well-represented around the bargaining table.

          Participants included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Andy Stern, head of Service Employees International Union; Anna Burger, head of Change to Win [and SEIU vice president]; and the leaders of unions representing teachers, government workers, food and commercial workers, and electricians.

          Isn’t that great?  Obama’s pledge to rid the special interests from the halls of power seems to be more than a little phony these days – it’s bordering on insulting.

          This Christmas Tree for campaign funders and liberal groups is the skunk at the garden party for Americans.  And the bad thing for Democrats is this time, Americans know it.  And in all likelihood, the Democrats know it too and that’s why they’re scrounging up a compromise because the wheels may fall off Tuesday.