Wooden Dentures I

Friday Digest

2010-03-06T18:50:00.001-05:00

The Foundation

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics

Page I of IV

When Reconciliation Doesn't Mean Getting Along

The Tel-O-Prompter of the United States

Reconciliation is still the buzzword on Capitol Hill as Democrat "leaders" Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi try to figure out how to ram ObamaCare down our throats. Not that they see it that way; as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer put it, "That's not ramming something through with a majority. It is doing what democracy calls for." Well, this isn't a democracy, it's a republic: and the Founders set it up that way for a reason.

Accompanied by his teleprompter, Barack Obama began a renewed push for a vote on the health care bill by Easter when he met a group of people wearing lab coats in the Rose Garden on Wednesday (and he accused Rep. Eric Cantor of using a "prop" by bringing the 2,400-page bill itself to last week's health care summit). Obama claimed that "new and improved" legislation "incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans." As we said Tuesday, however, the problem isn't whether the bill is "bipartisan." A few Republican ideas sprinkled in won't fix it. The problem, at its core, is that a plan for Congress to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy is unconstitutional.

In the face of all evidence, the teleprompter continued, "I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America." Huh? Giving government bureaucrats control over health care in America is precisely what Obama is proposing to do.

For all the talk about reconciliation in the Senate, the House vote may be the more important one. The Associated Press reports, "The House passed health overhaul legislation by a narrow 220-215 vote in November, but since then several Democrats have defected or left the House. To avoid a filibuster in the Senate that Democrats can't defeat, Obama is now pushing the House to approve the Senate's version of the bill, along with a package of changes to fix elements of the Senate bill that House Democrats don't like, including a special Medicaid deal for Nebraska and a tax on high-value insurance plans that is opposed by organized labor."

If Pelosi is able to strong-arm the Senate bill through the House with a bare majority, Senate reconciliation becomes moot. With three vacancies, Democrats need just 217 votes for passage, and there are a handful of Democrats who voted "no" in November who now say they're undecided. On the other hand, 12 pro-life Democrats, led by Bart Stupak of Michigan, say they're prepared to switch sides and scuttle ObamaCare if sufficient protections against abortion funding aren't put in place. The Senate bill doesn't meet their benchmark.

Never underestimate this president's lack of shame, though -- or his penchant for Chicago-style politics. For example, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) voted against ObamaCare in November, but he is now "undecided." So on Wednesday, Obama nominated Jim's brother Scott to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Offering jobs for playing the White House way is nothing new, and Scott Matheson is, to be fair, a well-credentialed nominee. However, even the appearance of selling judgeships for health care votes would give pause to a more honorable president.

As for leftist sentiment, perhaps MSNBC host Ed Schultz best summed it up this week, saying, "[S]mall government has never gotten anybody any health care."

"The Republicans have a choice," Schultz declared. "Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. ... We have people in need and they need to be helped."

Memo to Ed: If government would get out of the way, those people might be able to help themselves, as our Founders intended. Democrats aren't about to let that happen because it really isn't about helping those in need.

Video of the Week

Barack Obama didn't always think ramming through health care "reform" with reconciliation was a good idea. In fact, he once preached against it. See the video

This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently explained what "bipartisanship" means, along with claiming Democrat camaraderie with the Tea Party:

The health care bill "can be bipartisan even though the votes might not be bipartisan. Because [Republicans] have made their imprint on this," she said.

Meanwhile, she also claimed that Democrats "share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interests in Washington." Good luck with that outreach, Nan.

News From the Swamp: Rangel's Time Is Up

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) temporarily stepped down as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee this week after being admonished in an ethics report for accepting corporation-financed trips to the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008. Rangel laid down the gavel only after Republicans threatened to force a formal vote calling for his removal. It wasn't the first time GOP House members have tried to get him to step aside for his numerous ethical lapses, but it was the first time that such a move had gained Democrat support.

After the report's release late last week, Rangel initially refused to step down, claiming he had no knowledge that the trips were out of line. That's a stretch. Nancy Pelosi noted in an interview that Rangel's actions weren't "something that jeopardized our country in any way." Apparently she doesn't think that ethically challenged and possibly illegal behavior by elected public officials is a harmful thing, at least not when Democrats do it. She had become Speaker in large part for her call to end the "culture of corruption" in Republican-controlled Washington. When it comes to extending that promise to her own party, her "principles" are checked at the door.

Rangel still believes that he will return to the chairmanship of Ways and Means, but his troubles are not over. He still faces ethics inquiries into unpaid taxes on vacation property, fundraising efforts, and his use of rent-stabilized apartments in his Harlem district for government purposes.

Bunning's Rise and Fall

If Democrats pass a bill but then refuse to be bound by its conditions, was it ever really passed? Apparently, only one senator had the fortitude to say "yes." Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) drew national media attention and bipartisan attacks from his colleagues this week by daring to call Democrats on their bluff of passing a pay-as-you-go (pay-go) policy -- allegedly requiring that new discretionary spending be offset by spending cuts or tax increases -- and then summarily ignoring it.

At issue was the 30-day extension of unemployment and health benefits -- measures which will add $10 billion to the nearly $1.6 trillion federal deficit. For days, Bunning held up a vote on the measure, noting that Democrats need to live up to their pay-go promise. He even offered a solution (which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected) of using $10 billion of the $500-plus billion in unspent stimu-less funds to offset the measure.

Against the backdrop of our astronomical deficit, $10 billion is, sad to say, a drop in the bucket. But it's not the first drop. Unfortunately, a deal reached Tuesday night convinced Bunning to let the $10 billion bill come to a vote, and it passed 78-19. Yet the process illustrates that -- surprise! -- Democrats don't care a whit what they say about controlling spending. Until they're held accountable, their votes will be as meaningless and empty as their promises.

Click Here

Willa's Shortbread Sampler

Our latest addition in the select Willa's line of products is the 16 oz. Willa's Shortbread Sampler. This tin full of treats offers 5 delicious flavors: classic, pecan, spice, coconut & chocolate. Once again, Patriot staff can personally recommend each and every flavor as a delight to the taste buds. Made in The Patriot Shop's home state of Tennessee! All sales proceeds at PatriotShop.US support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.

New & Notable Legislation

On Thursday, the House passed a $35 billion "jobs" bill by a 217-201 vote. It combined the Senate's $15 billion bill (passed last week) with $20 billion in federal highway programs, and Democrats reluctantly amended the measure to conform to pay-as-you-go budget rules. The U.S. economy shed another 36,000 jobs in February with headline unemployment holding steady at 9.7 percent. But no worries -- federal government payroll increased by 7,000 jobs.

Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) have proposed a constitutional amendment that would limit spending by the federal government. "With our nation facing a fiscal crisis, it is time to fundamentally change the way Washington spends the taxpayers' money," Pence said. The amendment would limit spending to one-fifth of U.S. economic output -- the post-World War II average -- unless two-thirds of each chamber of Congress determines otherwise, or waive the provision under a declaration of war.

Speaking of money, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) introduced legislation that would place Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill in honor of the Gipper's 100th birthday next year. His image would replace that of President Ulysses S. Grant, the Union army's general-in-chief whose administration was one of the most corrupt in our nation's history. Naturally, many Democrats are opposed. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) cried, "There is no way. There's absolutely no way. Our currency ought to be something that unites us." We suppose Sherman has a point. Grant did "unify" the nation -- by leading a marauding army through several of its states. He's right up there with Gen. William T. Sherman in stirring feelings of "unity" down here in the South. Reagan, on the other hand, won two presidential elections by landslide, taking 44 and 49 states, respectively. He also rescued our economy and restored our nation's dignity after the Carter years, and he led our nation to victory in the Cold War, freeing hundreds of millions of people from communist oppression without firing a single shot. Now that's unity.

Friday Digest

2010-02-26T19:44:00.001-05:00

The Foundation

"[T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution." --Alexander Hamilton

Page I of IV

Government & Politics

ObamaCare in the Emergency Room

There are no two ways about it -- the health care summit that took place Thursday in Washington was a sham and a farce. But it's a fitting chapter for the bill being debated.

Barack Obama invited various congressmen to join him for a "discussion" about his latest health care takeover plot, which looks an awful lot like last year's Senate proposal, only more expensive. Obama released his "new" plan Monday to great fanfare, though there was precious little new about it.

About one new feature, the Associated Press editorialized, the proposal "would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriated consumers" via a seven-member panel of all-knowing insurance premium gurus. Funny thing is that all 50 states already require insurance companies to justify premium increases. Obama's proposal amounts to little more than federal price controls. Yet with his best Wizard of Oz impression (pay no attention to the stuff behind the curtain), Obama asserted, "Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, I am an ardent believer in the free market." Sure -- if you say so.

CNN actually came closer to the mark: "If enacted, the president's sweeping compromise plan would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago." The key words are "biggest expansion."

Another part of Obama's proposal is the supposed elimination of the "Cornhusker Kickback," the $100 million in Medicaid relief for Nebraska that bought Sen. Ben Nelson's vote. When reading the fine print, however, we see that the kickback has simply been extended to every state by transferring all new Medicaid spending through 2017 directly to the federal ledger.

Obama is trying mightily to win over "obstructionist" Republicans -- or so his media minions tell us. More likely, however, it's the 38 House Democrats who voted against ObamaCare in November that are his target. Since the House passed its trillion-dollar version by a not-so-comfortable majority of five votes (220-215), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has lost three votes with the retirements of Reps. Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), and the death of Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA). Also, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), the lone Republican in either chamber to vote for the bill, says he will not support it again, and pro-life Democrats -- whose leader, Michigan's Bart Stupak, wasn't invited to Thursday's photo-op -- continue to vow opposition if abortion funding is included. Pelosi conceded Wednesday that she doesn't yet have the votes for passage. That's, of course, if you believe anything she says.

The administration pushed the idea of using the reconciliation process to ram the bill through the Senate if Republicans don't heel. Reconciliation, which is a procedure contrived in 1974 to circumvent filibustering on budget bills, would allow Senate Democrats to pass ObamaCare with only 51 votes. Doing so would greatly enhance Republicans' election prospects in November, though enough Democrats may calculate the price is worth paying.

The White House isn't without Plan B. If the complete takeover fails, Democrats will just grab smaller pieces of the pie. The alternative would be to extend insurance coverage to about 15 million Americans by requiring insurance providers to allow people to remain on their parents' plans until age 26, and by expanding Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Most Democrats do behave like children, so these proposals certainly make sense to them.)

Perhaps the tone and purpose of the summit can be encapsulated by an exchange between Obama and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the number-two House Republican: The president chastised Cantor for using "props" that "prevent us from having a conversation." The prop? Cantor was sitting behind a copy of the current 2,400-page Senate bill. Heaven forbid Republicans bring the actual bill to a summit about the bill. Next time, though, Eric, bring the Constitution.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"[Republicans] should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before." --Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Video of the Week

In 2005, when Republicans were considering the "nuclear option" to stop Democrats' filibuster of dozens of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, Democrats lined up at every microphone in sight to denounce the idea, claiming it was a "naked power grab," a "constitutional crisis" and "how democracy ends." Times sure have changed. Watch the video.

The BIG Lie

"It's about jobs. In its life, [the health bill] will create four million jobs -- 400,000 jobs almost immediately." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

We're still waiting for all those jobs promised by the stimulus bill.

New & Notable Legislation

The Senate passed a $15 billion "jobs" bill Wednesday by a 70-28 vote. Thirteen Republicans, including newly minted Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, joined Democrats in voting for passage. The centerpiece is a payroll tax cut for businesses that hire new employees, but it's unlikely that short-term tax relief will have a real effect on unemployment. The bill now goes to the House for consideration, though leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus have announced their opposition to the bill, which they called inadequate and just a "tax bill," not a jobs bill. No word yet from the Congressional White Caucus.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA), S. 3002, which would empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate dietary supplements such as vitamins. The FDA could arbitrarily reclassify supplements as drugs or pull them off the shelves altogether. Find that one in the Constitution. With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) plans to introduce legislation to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prohibits homosexuals from disclosing their pathology while serving in the military. The White House supports his bill, but no timeline for its implementation has been established. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) introduced a more aggressive bill in the House that calls for repeal in 2010. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have indicated support for repealing the law but stated that the Pentagon would need at least a year to study implementation. General James Conway, head of the U.S. Marine Corps, dissented. "My best military advice ... would be to keep the law such as it is." Conway added that the only question that mattered is this: "Do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve?"

House Democrats expressed their displeasure with the slow pace of their Senate counterparts by producing a list of 290 House-passed bills that are stalled in the upper chamber. The various pieces of that legislation range from routine naming of buildings to more significant legislation like health care, Wall Street reform and climate change. Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were both quick to blame Republicans, but Reid's Democrats had held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until earlier this month. The Democrats have few if any friends across the aisle, but their worst enemies seem to be located within their own caucus. All in all, these 290 stalled bills are the best news to come out of the Swamp all week.

Hope 'n' Change: That Demo Culture of Corruption

The White House is being accused of offering juicy government jobs to two Democrats in exchange for their withdrawal from potential primary battles in this year's election cycle. The charges, which come from the Democrats themselves, are quite serious and carry punishments including jail time, assuming anyone would prosecute.

Village Academic Curriculum: Federal Standards Are No Prize, Either

Even with the establishment of additional federal standards for education in the No Child Left Behind legislation signed by President George W. Bush back in 2002, states were granted flexibility in how they enacted these mandates, as the Bush administration left at least that modicum of local control intact. But the Obama Department of Education wants to wipe that pretense away and require states to adopt "college- and career-ready standards" in order to qualify for part of $14 billion in Title I funding.

One fig leaf covering this power grab is that all but two states (Texas and Alaska) are collaborating -- with the encouragement of the White House -- on setting up standards which would be acceptable to the federal government. It's clear, however, that local control of education is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

Recently, Barack Obama offered himself as a prize to the student who best describes "why your school is special and why it should be a model for other schools around the country, working to boost attendance and increase the number of graduates prepared for college or a career." The winning school would be the lucky recipient of a presidential visit, with the narcissist-in-chief stopping by to read a commencement address off his teleprompter.

Friday Digest

2010-02-20T17:35:00.001-05:00

The Foundation

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Page I of IV

Government & Politics

See Nothing, Hear Nothing, Report Nothing

Glacier? What glacier?

"Avoid the term 'global warming,'" advises New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. "I prefer the term 'global weirding,' because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes."

Friedman, who proves that anyone can be a climatologist, goes on to explain that with global warming, "The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous. The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington -- while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought -- is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever."

No matter what happens, blame global warming.

But as Friedman and other dogmatists peddle their propaganda, the case for man-made global warming is collapsing like a weak roof in a Beltway blizzard. In fact, we might call it "man made-up" climate change.

Phil Jones, the former director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and a central figure in the ClimateGate scandal, now admits that for the past 15 years, there has been no "statistically significant" warming. Furthermore, he says the warming trend that began in 1975 is not unlike two previous periods since 1850, and the Medieval Warm Period could have been a global phenomenon similar to the latter three. Yet Jones, who said he has had trouble "keeping track" of information supporting the infamous hockey stick graph, is still a believer in man-made global warming and he calls the last 15 years a blip in a long-term trend.

Meanwhile, John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a former lead author on the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is also questioning his faith. "The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," he said. Christy's doubts, like those of other researchers, stem from problems with thousands of weather stations used to collect temperature data. Urbanization and changes in land use, equipment relocation and other factors have compromised the data. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming," he said, "but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

These are truly stunning admissions, coming as they do from "the consensus," and cast grave doubt on what we have long been told is "settled science." For their part, U.S. media outlets have reported exhaustively on these developments... scratch that. No, they haven't. As Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters notes, "Despite the seriousness of these revelations, much as what happened when the ClimateGate scandal first broke, with the exception of Fox News -- and a lone report by CNN -- America's media have almost totally boycotted this amazing story."

Similar revelations regarding data manipulation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have surfaced with little or no fanfare.

Many of these same media outlets, however, found plenty of time to cover the "news" that Tiger Woods has broken his silence, or the fact that Hollywood director Kevin Smith was kicked off a plane for being too fat. As of Tuesday, CNN had reported it 14 times. Light on substance and, er, heavy on fragrance.

This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

"[I]t is inappropriate to look at any particular short period of time to discern the long-term trend." --NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, when asked whether she agreed with Phil Jones' assertion that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995

File this one under "Keen Sense of the Obvious." Using short-term observations to make long-term predictions is exactly what the "global warming consensus" crew has been doing for the last 15 years.

Casualties of the Changing Climate

As the case for man-made global warming goes up in smoke, there were more defections from the movement this week. United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer announced his unexpected resignation, effective July 1. True, he took quite a bit of heat for the abject failure of the Copenhagen summit in December, but he probably just wants to spend more time with his family.

Also, The Wall Street Journal reports, "Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases. The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions."

Businesses aren't the only ones running away from cap-n-tax regulations. Arizona announced that it, too, will suspend its participation in the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, which aims to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012. The initiative is spearheaded by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer says she won't bind her state with any emission-control plan that would raise costs for businesses and consumers.

As Terence Corcoran of Canada's National Post notes, "It's hard to tell right now which part of global warming policy is in the fastest free fall -- the economics, the politics or the science."

Hope 'n' Change: Lawyers Still Have Outsized Influence

Battle lines are being drawn for the upcoming health care summit that Barack Obama is orchestrating to save his signature legislative agenda item. The vocal and powerful trial lawyer lobby has made clear that they don't want tort reform on the table when Obama and the Democrats meet with key Republicans on Feb. 25. The American Association for Justice and other trial lawyer groups practically own the Democrat Party, and their power has been felt twice in recent years when the livelihood of these ambulance chasers has been threatened. They killed medical liability reform under George W. Bush, and they have thus far kept meaningful tort reform out of pending legislation.

Obama has signaled a willingness to discuss malpractice reform, though he remains against caps on lawsuits. His supposedly open-minded view on tort reform is light on details, however, and that makes Republicans skeptical about how much he is willing to give on the issue. DNC Chair Howard Dean spoke an inconvenient truth when he said that Democrats "did not want to take on the trial lawyers." If Obama's past performance is any guide, the trial lawyers will be able to keep him right where they want him -- their hip pocket.

From the Left: Bayh, Bayh Evan

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) shocked Washington this week by announcing that he would not seek re-election in 2010. His announcement seemed particularly unsettling for Democrats because, of all the high-profile Democrats that have stepped aside in recent weeks, Bayh was probably the one most likely to be re-elected. He was polling ahead of recent Republican entrant and frontrunner, former Sen. Dan Coats, and he has a $13 million war chest.

Lest you think that this was for the good of Hoosiers, two-term Bayh strategically announced his retirement less than 24 hours before the Indiana filing deadline for nominating petitions, thus affording potential Democrat substitutes no time to obtain the thousands of signatures required to be placed on the primary ballot. Now, the state Democrat Party has until June 30 to pick who challenges the Republican in November. Instead of allowing Democrat voters to pick their own candidate on the issues important to them, party leaders in smoke-filled back rooms will sift through potential names and find the one that best measures up to polls, focus groups and the May Republican primary winner.

Bayh, a former secretary of state and governor of Indiana, was also on Obama's short list for VP. The media has labeled him a moderate, but with an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 20, it's hard to see where his political moderation actually came into play. Bayh has no immediate career plans, stating that he may go into business, teach, or do charity work. He did make a point of saying, "I do not love Congress," a negative sentiment echoed by many congressional retirees this term. They often cite the bitter partisanship that has evolved in Washington for which they really have no one to blame but themselves.

The rapid and continued centralization of power in Washington in recent years has done much to drive the partisanship that now cripples the political process. The more power Congress takes, the harder they fight to keep it, and the less willing they are to compromise or back down. Bayh's message was lost on his Demo colleagues, though. They were too worried about what will happen to all that money in his war chest.

New & Notable Legislation

"The ink is barely dry on the pay-as-you-go law, and Democrats are seeking to bypass it to enact parts of their job-creation agenda," reports The Hill. We're shocked -- shocked! Democrats are working to classify unemployment insurance and COBRA health benefits as emergency spending that isn't subject to the "paygo" rules. Paygo, which Obama signed into law on Feb. 12, requires that some new spending (the exemption list is long) be offset by spending cuts elsewhere or tax increases.

After devising a $787 billion "stimulus" plan that didn't curb unemployment and -- according to a New York Times/CBS poll -- didn't convince the public that it "created or saved" jobs, it goes without saying that Democrats are keen on lowering expectations on the new $154 billion "jobs" bill which passed the House. The Senate has a smaller measure which spends "only" $15 billion.

The House bill promises job creation through such measures as providing aid to the states, extending unemployment benefits, and infrastructure improvements. Yet the original stimulus included many of these same programs and bailouts, leading to the logical question: Why try something again when it didn't work the first time? Well, that's why this is called a jobs bill, not a stimulus. Clearly, congressional Democrats hope the jobs this bill saves will be their own in November.

Count on Government Waste

If you thought spending upwards of $2.5 million on advertising during the Super Bowl to promote the upcoming census was a waste of money, that's just the tip of the iceberg. An audit of last fall's address canvassing portion of the census, in which workers fixed the GPS coordinates of households in preparation for this spring's count, found that it cost almost 25 percent more than the original estimate of $356 million. The extra $88 million in expenses found during the audit are an obvious concern since the bulk of the work is yet to be done. Among the excuses given were workers who were paid for the training but quit before the work actually began and others who fudged their mileage reimbursements to pad their paychecks.

The census is mandated by the Constitution to determine proportional representation through an accurate count of the populace, but in more recent times states have pushed hard for the largest possible compliance rate in order to ensure they receive "their share" from the federal trough. Consequently, the census questions become quite a bit more intrusive than "How many people live at this residence?" According to the Census Bureau, the count determines the fate of over $400 billion in federal funding. That's where the real fraud will begin.

Click Here

TEA Party Movement

Find supplies for your local TEA party here from founding documents to stickers, flags and much more!

Conservative Leaders Sign 'Mount Vernon Statement'

Dozens of conservative leaders on Wednesday signed "The Mount Vernon Statement," a declaration that reaffirms first principles and constitutional Rule of Law, much as The Patriot Post has sought to do for the last 14 years, most recently through our Essential Liberty Project.

Read more and tell us what you think here.

Friday Digest

2010-02-12T20:04:00.001-05:00

Page I of IV ->

The Foundation

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison

Government & Politics

A 'Party of No' Could Get 'Yes' Votes in November

A winning message for Republicans

In a Super Bowl pre-game interview, Barack Obama announced that he wants to have a televised meeting with both Republicans and Democrats to discuss ideas about crafting health care legislation. Imagine that -- an open debate with both parties equally represented, hashing out plans and crafting a bill using the best ideas brought to the table. In 2008, Candidate Obama told us that was how health care reform would come to pass in his new bipartisan and transparent Washington. The reality has been far different, though entirely predictable to those who recognized him for what he is: a socialist.

Legislation was crafted not to reform health care, but to put it solely under government control. Deals were made behind closed doors, and yet, even with bulletproof majorities in both chambers, the Democrat Congress has not passed a health care bill.

Now Obama is pretending to play the role of peacemaker, but he views bipartisanship as Republicans submitting to his will. Indeed, he won't agree to scrap the existing legislation and start from scratch, even though the public has made its distaste for the bills quite clear.

House Minority Leader John Boehner has made dropping the current legislation a prerequisite for Republicans to come to the table. It is, after all, a waste of time to debate a bill that's essentially dead. Republicans want to cut costs while Democrats want a health insurance entitlement for all. Both sides want to prevent insurance companies from rejecting ill customers, but Democrats, beholden to trial lawyers, reject the common-sense cost-cutting idea of tort reform, among other free-market measures. Unfortunately, neither side is talking about the constitutional role of government.

Even if the meeting happens, both sides are so deeply entrenched that a compromise is rather unlikely. Besides, Obama may be trying to set a political trap of sorts for Republicans by wooing them to the table, offering them a bad deal, then once again accusing them of being "The Party of No," that mantra so often repeated by his accomplices in the Leftmedia.

Such a label wouldn't be bad, however, considering that the alternative means going along with a plan that would raise taxes, remove competition in the insurance industry, drive down the quality of health care in our country, and add hundreds of billions -- if not trillions -- of dollars to the national debt.

In fact, when combined with advocating fiscal responsibility and constitutional Rule of Law, "Just Say No to Socialism" sounds like a winning formula for Republicans come November. Of course, the GOP would have to awaken from its stupor first.

RIP: Rep. Jack Murtha, the Marine Corpse

On Monday, longtime Pennsylvania Democrat Congressman John Murtha died after complications arising from gallbladder surgery. He was 77.

The Leftmedia headlined his obituaries "U.S. Representative Murtha, Supporter of Troops, Dies at Age 77" and "Pa. Dem Murtha remembered as military advocate." Given his actual history, however, this is the sort of revisionism that was heaped upon the citizens of Oceania in George Orwell's "1984": "We've always been at war with Eastasia."

While many lauded the head of the House defense appropriations subcommittee as a "staunch supporter of the military," he's better known in military circles for his blindly partisan criticism of the Long War and his hasty indictment of eight fellow Marines for supposedly "murdering" innocent civilians "in cold blood" in Haditha, Iraq. (All but one of the defendants have been cleared or had charges dropped; the other is awaiting court-martial.) While Murtha may have had legitimate questions about the tactics used to fight the enemy in Iraq, many took offense at his characterization of our military as cold-blooded killers.

The press conveniently forgets this and other transgressions, such as the ABSCAM scandal of the 1980s, in which Murtha escaped indictment by the skin of his teeth, or, more accurately, by the "D" after his name. The Leftmedia focused instead on his early military life and perceived service to his district by securing dozens of earmarks for projects there.

While we praise Murtha's personal service to the Marine Corps (or as the commander in chief would say, "Marine Corpse"), which spanned nearly four decades on active duty and as a reservist, we cannot condone his behavior once he went from serving his country on the field of battle to representing his district and nation in the halls of Congress. Too often did he epitomize the "culture of corruption" that his good friend Nancy Pelosi hypocritically opposed.

History is a harsh judge when men of character falter. A life which was devoted to service fell into one which was merely self-serving, and Marines everywhere must be saddened that one of their own met his Maker without recanting those false accusations against eight of his brothers.

Click Here

NEW! 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle that Changed the World

Discover the 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5,000 years. Softcover, 337 pages. All sales proceeds at PatriotShop.US support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.

New & Notable Legislation

Senate Democrats had hoped to offer President Obama a legislative victory with an $80 billion "jobs bill," otherwise known as "Stimulus II" (or is it III, IV or V?). But Thursday, they dropped the bill in favor of a leaner version without unrelated pork. The centerpiece is still $13 billion to exempt companies from Social Security payroll taxes for previously unemployed new hires in 2010. Other incentives include renewing expired business tax credits, extending unemployment benefits, and suspending a cut in Medicare payments to physicians. The White House is predicting growth of 95,000 jobs per month in 2010, but not even the Associated Press buys that. The AP notes the obvious: "[C]ompanies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break." Besides, after hiding the loss of over 800,000 additional jobs in 2009, who can trust any figures that these elitists produce?

Blue Dog Democrats plan to propose a bill that will cap discretionary spending at specific levels, going further than the president's anemic $250 billion decade-long non-discretionary spending freeze. The sheer size of the Blue Dog coalition -- 54 House Democrats -- means that whatever proposal they come up with will have to be given serious consideration by the majority.

A bill by Rep. Peter King (D-NY) to prevent federal funding for civilian trials of Guantanamo Bay detainees in civilian courts is picking up steam. Sixteen Republican and two Democrat cosponsors have joined King, and he is confident the bill will pass if it is brought to a floor vote. Beyond the House bill, both U.S. senators from New York, the New York City mayor, police commissioner, and the state Senate have voiced opposition to holding the 9/11 terror trials in Manhattan.

Tea Party National Convention

Tea Partiers once again sailed into a sea of controversy last week as more than 600 people from around the country attended the first "National Tea Party Convention" held at the landlocked Gaylord Opryland Hotel & Convention Center in Nashville. The event culminated with more than 1,100 people enjoying a keynote dinner speech by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, which was also broadcast around the country on cable.

You might think that the storm was due to mainstream media's vulgar derision of attendees as "tea baggers" or the tamer "Astroturfers" -- but you would be wrong. Larger issues seemed to erupt concerning sponsor Judson Phillips and his for-profit Tea Party Nation, the location, ticket fees, hotel rates, travel costs, Sarah Palin, her purported speaker's fee, the colors of the tablecloths and napkins, and just about everything else.

While the event may not have represented all Tea Party organizations as the convention title might suggest, it's difficult for us to take seriously the disparagement that ensued over like-minded people exercising their right to assemble peaceably, freely paying the known costs (nothing hidden, except the hotel and gasoline taxes) and enlightening themselves with whatever the conference offered.

Skepticism, especially in politics, is healthy, but contempt is not. This hullabaloo over a sold-out conference of willing participants had all the hallmarks of Leftmedia agitation.

The Tea Party is the mother of all big-tent movements. There is plenty of room, and need, for Tea Partiers of all stripes and in all places -- including those willing to fork over big bucks for a weekend confab. However, to be most effective, we must all remain focused on the fact that the Rule of Law is being usurped by the rule of men, and we must each play our part to work diligently at electing honorable representatives to replace the current hegemony in Washington.

Friday Digest

2010-02-05T14:55:00.001-05:00

Page I ->

The Foundation

"[A] wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics

The Leftist Vision for Government

The Obama deficit will weigh the nation down

As we noted last week, Barack Obama is now paying lip service to fiscal conservatism by calling for a "freeze" on federal spending in the face of huge deficits. Yet the freeze would apply to only a small fraction of spending and save a measly $15 billion -- and not until 2011. With Monday's budget release, in which outlays will reach $3.72 trillion for fiscal 2010 and $3.83 trillion in 2011, this political posturing becomes all the more disingenuous.

While the projected deficit will hit a record $1.56 trillion this year and a cumulative $5.08 trillion over the next five years, spending will reach 25.4 percent of GDP this year, a post-World War II record. The phony freeze simply sets a new floor for government largesse -- a floor that's nearly 30 percent higher than in 2008.

The Wall Street Journal reports, "Despite talk of 'tough choices' in [Monday's] document, the Administration wants $25 billion in new spending for states for Medicaid, $100 billion for yet another jobs 'stimulus,' big boosts in spending for low-income family programs, for health research, heating assistance and education." Additionally, the budget moves Pell Grants out of the "discretionary" spending column and into the permanent entitlement one at a cost of $307 billion over 10 years.

To finance this growth in government, including the assumption that ObamaCare and cap-n-tax become law, the budget includes nearly $2 trillion in tax increases over the next decade. Yet Obama had the gall in his SOTU to declare, "Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes." Characteristically, the budget drops one of these cuts after 2012 -- the $400 payroll tax credit.

When Congress repeals the Bush tax cuts and returns the top rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, Obama's budget will increase taxes by $1 trillion for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples earning $250,000. The 33 percent rate would also rise to 36 percent. Capital gains and dividends would be taxed at 20 percent, up from 15 percent now. Some deductions for higher wage earners would also be reduced. Yet the Obama budget would extend the Bush tax cuts for singles and couples under the $200,000/$250,000 threshold. With this, we suppose, would come a grudging admission that the Bush tax cuts benefited everyone.

Obama's class warfare and targeted tax increases are outrageous, to say the least. Many of those so-called "wealthy" people who he thinks can spare a dime are small business owners and entrepreneurs who will now be unable to hire that additional employee because of higher taxes.

These are just a few examples of the appalling items in the new budget. Our primary objections, however, are rooted not in numbers but in the nation's founding ideals. Most of the present federal budget is extraconstitutional. Provisions for Medicaid, jobs, family programs, health research, heating assistance and education -- all items mentioned above -- are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

For someone like Obama, for whom everything begins and ends with government, the Constitution is little more than parchment under glass. He repeatedly asserts "that Washington is the answer to everything," writes columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan. In his SOTU, she adds, "The people are good but need guidance -- from Washington. The middle class is anxious, and its fears can be soothed -- by Washington. Washington can 'make sure consumers ... have the information they need to make financial decisions.' Washington must 'make investments,' 'create' jobs, increase 'production' and 'efficiency.'"

While he was California Governor, Ronald Reagan said, "This is the issue [at hand]: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."

The budget is further proof that Obama and the Democrats think that they can spend your money and plan your life better than you can. That's the antithesis of liberty.

Hope 'n' Change: Obama Crashes GOP Retreat

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to change the culture in Washington. But this "change" has been little more than trying to force people to support his socialist views, then labeling them as obstructionist when they don't. That plan was on full display as Obama paid a visit to the House GOP conference retreat. He spent a lot of camera time explaining what the Democrats were trying to do with health care, and he hammered Republicans for being "obstructionist."

At the same time, he slyly confessed that he hasn't kept those campaign promises, one of which is that people could keep the health insurance they have after ObamaCare mauls the market. "There's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating," the president said of various White House pets, such as bribing Sens. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu, that made it into the health care bill. Furthermore, the "we" symbolizes the fact that the Democrats completely rejected any input from Republicans in crafting health care legislation -- and they have no one to blame but themselves for the public's rejection of their plan.

Speaking of public backlash, Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts was finally sworn in Thursday, meaning Senate Democrats no longer enjoy a 60-seat super majority in the upper chamber. Losing what the media continue to call "Ted Kennedy's seat" in last month's special election was a severe blow to Democrats and is, we think, a harbinger of things to come in November.

Obama isn't deterred, however. He told Senate Democrats, "All that's changed in the last two weeks is that our party has gone from having the largest Senate majority in a generation to the second largest Senate majority in a generation." Doesn't sound like he's learned anything.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in 34 states have expressed their concern over the potential for federal meddling in health care by filing or proposing amendments to their state constitutions that would reject broad health insurance mandates by Washington. The plan, which is widespread but not necessarily coordinated across state lines, calls for creating a legal barrier that would prevent the federal government from forcing people to purchase health insurance and prevent businesses from being compelled to provide certain coverage standards.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"A little bit of time and quiet could help. Maybe over time, people will have a chance to understand what is in the legislation." --Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), whom the LA Times describes as a "conservative Democrat," but who received a 4 out of 100 rating from the American Conservative Union last year

Memo to Mark: Maybe people already do understand what's in the legislation, and maybe that's precisely why it's dead in the minds of most Americans. Leave it that way.

New & Notable Legislation

The House voted 217-212 Thursday to raise the federal debt limit by $1.9 trillion to a mind-numbing total of $14.3 trillion. Democrats provided every "yes" vote, as they did when the Senate passed the same legislation last week. Lest we think $14.3 trillion is "enough," however, the Treasury announced Wednesday that the nation could hit that level by the end of February. That's right, this month.

Speaking of deficits, Social Security has reached that long predicted moment when it will take in less in taxes than it spends on benefits. Fortune magazine reports, "Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout." Since the 1960s, Social Security has indeed not been a retirement plan, but rather just another spending item. Revenues have been spent, not saved. Now, Congress can't kick the can down the road any longer -- the deficits are here today. Expect another tax increase as the "solution."

Senate Democrats unveiled their latest "jobs agenda" Thursday with a vote to come next week. Another 20,000 jobs were lost in January (though the unemployment rate fell to 9.7 percent) on top of 150,000 in December (revised downward from 85,000), so Democrats feel the need to do something -- anything -- to "create" jobs. Their plan includes tax breaks for small businesses, money for construction projects by state and local governments, health care subsidies and benefits for the unemployed, money for state and local governments to save education jobs, and, last but not least, incentives to weatherize buildings. We were skeptical until we got to that part, but weatherizing should fix everything.

The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration took up initial proposals this week in a possible legislative response to the Supreme Court's decision on campaign finance restrictions. Two weeks ago, the Court struck down portions of McCain-Feingold that unconstitutionally restricted free speech for corporations. Undeterred by a thing so malleable as the Constitution, however, congressional leftists vow to press forward. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) admitted that the Constitution would have to be changed in order to restrict free speech, saying, "I think we need a constitutional amendment to make clear that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals." That's the spirit of 1787.

From the Left: Nice Work, if You Can Get It

Ah, the joys of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's life: air travel and junkets paid for by those peons, the taxpayers. While her status as second in line to presidential succession mandates that her travel be more secure than simply flying coach next to some guy with exploding underwear, documents obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch reveal that San Fran Nan wasn't exactly frugal in her manner of flying. In just two years, she has led 103 congressional delegations to far-flung corners of the nation and world -- about one per week -- racking up a bill of $2.1 million. Members of her family tagged along on 31 of these trips.

It wasn't just the air travel, either. We the People paid for luxury hotel rooms, bar tabs and fine dining at numerous stops on Pelosi's world tour. It wouldn't do for members of Congress and their staff to eat at Denny's and stay at the Holiday Inn, would it? One three-day trip to the Gulf Coast, supposedly to check out Katrina damage, included 22 Democrat members of Congress and associated staffers and cost more than $65,000. The tab at Galatoire's five-star restaurant in New Orleans alone was more than $10,000.

The Pelosi revelations are neither as shocking nor surprising as they may have been a few years ago when she was disingenuously decrying the Republican "culture of corruption," but given the $3.8 trillion Barack Obama wants to blow in the coming fiscal year, our spendthrift "representatives" are at least leading by example.

O'Keefe Case Update

A couple of interesting allegations have surfaced in the federal case against ACORN-buster James O'Keefe and the incident in which he and three other men were accused of unlawful interference with the telephone system at Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu's New Orleans office. Read more here.

Friday Digest

2010-01-30T17:27:00.001-05:00

Page I of IV ->

The Foundation

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics

It's the Deficit, Stupid

"Look how much spending I froze!"

Barack Obama apparently suffers from his own brand of ADD -- Addiction-to-Deficit Disorder -- as demonstrated by his recently unveiled proposal to freeze one tiny portion of government spending at current levels for three years, which by the way wouldn't begin until 2011. He highlighted the proposal again Wednesday night in his State of the Union address.

At first blush, the idea sounds like something conservatives would cheer. In fact, other than Democrats, who isn't for stopping the spending juggernaut? But as a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) quipped, "Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest."

A closer look at this diet reveals that the freeze would apply to a budget that enjoyed a 20 percent increase in 2009, courtesy of the Democrats' largesse. Under the guise of "tacking to the center" in the wake of his trip to the woodshed in the Massachusetts election, the president's proposal would actually lock in a sizable spending increase during those years, as opposed to a real freeze. (No wonder Republicans burst out laughing during the SOTU.)

Furthermore, while the plan claims savings of roughly $250 billion over the next decade, the freeze applies only to non-defense-related discretionary spending, or roughly 17 percent of the total federal budget. Even at that, however, the cap is by no means across the board. Education and job creation initiatives would receive increases, because everyone knows government creates jobs, and education ... well, as long as we keep throwing more money at it, it'll get better, right?

Other items exempted from the proposal are even more revealing. This includes entitlement programs (about two-thirds of the federal budget), virtually all legislation -- past or future -- with the term "stimulus" in it, including the unspent cash from the latest stimulus legislation, and the yet-another-stimulus-package proposal from The Chosen One's SOTU. Health care spending would also get a pass.

Naturally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, Lala-land) rushed to offer up defense spending as a sacrificial lamb to further the cause (so much for the "non-defense-related" caveat). Pelosi's suggestion was immediately lauded by Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il and a host of other despots.

For perspective, we would add that these hypothetical savings pale in comparison to the $1.4 trillion actual deficit in 2009 alone, and that the Congressional Budget Office -- a virtual shill for Democrats, no less -- forecast just this week that the deficit for 2010 likely will be at least as large. All told, in fact, the government will hit its current $12.4 trillion authorized debt ceiling by the end of February.

So given the president's call for fiscal "responsibility," one might assume Democrats would jump on the bandwagon. Not so. Every Senate Democrat -- every Democrat -- voted Thursday to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion. That's $45,000 of debt for every American man, woman and child. But as Obama so succinctly (and ridiculously) put it in the SOTU, "That's how budgeting works."

(On a related note, Democrats needed 60 votes to pass this increase and Sen. Paul Kirk (D-MA) provided one of those votes, despite Senate rules and Massachusetts law saying his term expired last Tuesday. So why did he vote?)

Columnist Charles Krauthammer wryly captured the true significance of the disingenuous spending freeze subterfuge, noting that it's "a $15 billion reduction in a year, 2011, in which the CBO has just announced we are going to have a deficit of $1.35 trillion -- it's a rounding error. ... It's not a hatchet. It's not a scalpel. It's a Q-tip. It's a fraud." As is any claim of fiscal responsibility originating near the Potomac.

This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

"In [the president's] budget, which we passed 100 days after his swearing-in, he had a blueprint for how we go into the future, create jobs, stabilize the economy [and] do so as we reduce the deficit -- [it's] very central to everything we do -- reduce the deficit." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who contributed to nearly quadrupling the deficit in Obama's first year

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

"You know, I was trying to think about who [Barack Obama] was tonight, and it's interesting: He is post-racial by all appearances. You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour." --MSNBC host Chris "thrill up my leg" Matthews, with a slobbering sycophantic (and genuinely racist) analysis of the SOTU

Election Preview: Democrats

Democrats have experienced a nearly unprecedented reversal of fortune lately, and the bad news just keeps on coming. Arkansas Representative Marion Berry became the sixth Democrat to announce his retirement, and his district is expected to go Republican in November. He told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that he urged the White House not to repeat the mistakes of 1994, when congressional Democrats were defeated resoundingly at the polls. He said Obama fired back, "Well, the big difference here and in '94 was, you've got me."

The arrogance necessary to make that kind of comment suggests that Obama has been tapping the keg of his own Kool-Aid. Given the disastrous results of his efforts on behalf of gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey, and on behalf of Ted Kennedy's senatorial heir apparent in deep-blue Massachusetts, he's vastly overestimating his marquee value. His much-vaunted health care plan is all but dead, and now House and Senate Democrat leaders will be lucky to keep more members from retiring early. So maybe the "big difference" Obama was referring to is the loss of even more than 54 seats in the House.

Even Vice President Joe Biden's son Beau has seen the writing on the wall. He announced this week that he would not run for the Senate seat vacated when his father became VP. Beau, who is Delaware's Attorney General, indicated that he's just too busy with a controversial child abuse case to focus on a statewide race. Yeah, right. If the Democrats in Massachusetts can't keep the "Kennedy Senate seat" that they held for half a century, what chance does the vice president's son have in Delaware? Republican candidate Mike Castle, a popular congressman and former governor, raised almost $2 million in campaign cash and has run virtually unopposed while Biden was still making up his mind about whether to run.

Election Preview: Republicans

The political landscape indeed favors Republicans, which also means tight races at the primary level. The contest for Florida's Senate seat has turned into a statistical dead heat between Gov. Charlie Crist and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio. The moderate Crist's comfortable lead has faded away in recent weeks, as he continues to take heat for Florida's economic difficulties. The state has double-digit unemployment and was the hardest hit by the housing collapse. Crist's popularity is dropping and Rubio, a solid conservative, is now closing the gap in the polls and in the cash department. Both candidates are comfortably ahead of Democrat Kendrick Meek.

In Arizona, erstwhile presidential candidate John McCain is facing a challenge for his Senate seat. Former Congressman J.D. Hayworth announced his candidacy, claiming he was motivated to take on McCain because the latter was an "enabler" of Obama's fiscal policies. McCain certainly is not as conservative as he or the Leftmedia fancy. To name but a few examples, he co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance debacle that the Supreme Court partly struck down last week; the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patient's Bill of Rights imposing a new set of onerous mandates on the insurance industry; the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship cap-and-trade bill; and the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty and Open Borders Act legalizing dozens of millions of illegal aliens. And that's not to mention his opposition to the Bush tax cuts; his vicious attacks and vendettas against South Carolina Christians in the 2000 presidential primary, as well as the Swift Boat Veterans and Club for Growth; and his vote (one of six Republicans) against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Of course, Hayworth's voting record in Congress is nothing worth bragging about, either. He voted for the hefty farm and highway spending bills and also had a penchant for earmarks before he was ousted in 2006. Barry Goldwater, call your office.

News From the Swamp: Bernanke Wins Reappointment

Talk about a case of bad timing. The economic outlook is anything but certain and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's term was just about to expire. A growing number of senators were less than thrilled with Bernanke's handling of the economy over the last two years and threatened to deny him confirmation for another term. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that Bernanke "must be held accountable for many of the decisions that contributed to our financial meltdown."

Nonetheless, on Thursday, the Senate voted 70-30 to reappoint Bernanke for a second four-year term. The Senate has never rejected a Fed chairman nominee, though Bernanke received a record-low vote total. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) said, "To vote against confirmation could unnerve investors and exacerbate economic uncertainty in the marketplace, which is exactly what we do not need at this time." He was probably correct, though we also think McCain has a point. It was Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who, along with Democrats in Congress, were largely responsible for steering the economy into a ditch. Yet sacking Bernanke likely would have destabilized the market -- much like Barack Obama's populist posturing about bank punishment did last week.

Furthermore, if it's not Bernanke, then who? There's little chance Obama would have chosen someone satisfactory to succeed him. The one name that surfaced was former Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. In the end, the Senate simply went with the known quantity.

Click Here

Just in! Pants on the Ground sticker

Express your delight over Barack Obama's campaigning "success" in the recent Massachusetts Senate election with our oh-so-current, hot-off-the-press Pants on the Ground sticker! Buy several for your conservative friends to display too! High quality vinyl sticker measures 10" x 2.75".

Also at PatriotPost.US This Week: O'Keefe Arrested

Investigative journalist James O'Keefe, of ACORN video fame, was arrested in Louisiana this week for activities at Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu's office. Read more here.

Friday Digest

2010-01-22T16:57:00.001-05:00

Page I of IV Next Page

The Foundation

"It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics

'The People's Seat'

Hope floats in Boston Harbor

"Here's my assessment of not just the mood in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office." So said Barack Obama when asked about Tuesday's special election to fill the Senate seat held for 46 years by the late Ted Kennedy.

Naturally, to Obama, everything is about him; though, in a sense, Brown's shocking victory was about Obama -- but not in the way he thinks. In fact, we're hoping the president campaigns for more Democrats come fall. Voters have responded to his presence on behalf of fellow Democrats with resounding rejections in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, and now in deepest-blue Massachusetts.

Then again, Obama says, it's Bush's fault. "People are angry and they're frustrated," he explained, "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

So Scott Brown became the first Republican senator elected in Massachusetts since 1972 because voters are still angry with George W. Bush?

In reality, Brown won for several reasons. First, he was a first-rate candidate. His regular-guy persona resonated with voters and he communicated the right message -- that we need less government, not more. He ran explicitly against ObamaCare, saying, "I can stop it." In his victory speech, he said, "People do not want the trillion dollar health care plan that is being forced on the American people, and this bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, it will hurt Medicare, it will destroy jobs and run our nation deeper into debt."

Best of all, in a debate with Democrat opponent Martha Coakley, Brown answered a challenge from moderator David Gergen about taking Ted Kennedy's seat only to derail health care: "Well, with all due respect, it's not the Kennedy seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."

That's when the sea change in the polls began.

Second, Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate. Briefly, for example (and there are many), in a state with a large percentage of Catholic voters, Coakley offered the advice that if you object to abortion and are a devout Catholic, then "you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room." She derided Red Sox hero Curt Schilling as a "Yankee fan" and scoffed at greeting people in the cold at Fenway Park, which is precisely what hungry candidates do in sports-crazy Boston. In addition, a member of her staff was caught on video knocking a conservative reporter to the ground. In short, her arrogance and inanity are out of touch.

Finally, health care became an albatross for Coakley, and the Leftmedia didn't help, continuing to refer to the seat as "Kennedy's seat" in order to play up that debate. Kennedy spent a lifetime fighting for socialized health care, and, when he died, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) even suggested naming the health care bill after him. The irony is that the senator from Massachusetts was supposed to steer socialized medicine to passage; now it looks like the senator from Massachusetts could be the one to sink it. As PBS's Judy Woodruff sobbed, it would be "a tragedy of Greek proportions if Ted Kennedy's successor ... is the one who was responsible for the death of health care."

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

Americans who want to see the current health care bills die owe a debt of gratitude to Republican Mitt Romney. As Massachusetts governor, he signed universal health care into law in 2006 (as a state legislator, we should note, Brown voted for it). The law is similar to the one being debated in Washington in that Massachusetts residents are required to buy health insurance. The program is currently 20 percent more expensive than projected, and premiums are rising at least 7 percent per year. The reason Bay State voters don't want to pay for socialized medicine is that they're already paying for it. They believe that Washington's bill is redundant, and they have serious questions about the affordability and sustainability of their own state's health care plan. That's federalism at its best.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't think so, however. "Massachusetts has health care and so the rest of the country would like to have that too," she defiantly lectured. "So we don't [think] a state that already has health care should determine whether the rest of the country should."

Brown's win Tuesday may well end up being a victory for liberty. Many Democrats (finally) appear cautious about proceeding on health care. Even Pelosi admits she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate version in the House. Some, including Obama, are talking about a much smaller bill.

We won't hold our breath, but those metaphorical crates of tea floating in Boston harbor this week may just be a promising sign.

Quote of the Week

"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." --Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason magazine

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

Sen. John Kerry, in a fundraising appeal for Martha Coakley, continued Democrat ridicule of the Tea Party sentiment bubbling up in Massachusetts. He warned that Scott Brown's "allies in the right wing dream of holding a 'tea party' in Kennedy country."

Uh, John, the original Tea Party was in Boston.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton took the opposite tack, though at least he acknowledged the first Tea Party. "The Revolutionary War was first won here," Clinton told a Boston crowd. "It started with the Boston Tea Party, and the right-wing Republicans have appropriated that on the premise the Tea Party was against government. What they were against was abuse of power."

Try parsing that one in a way that favors Democrats.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"That I do think is a mistake of mine -- I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it." --Barack Obama on his proposed health care takeover

Got that, folks? Even when he's admitting a "mistake of mine," he's throwing the blame onto others. His failures are your fault because you just don't get it. That's called pathological narcissism.

New & Notable Legislation

Senate Democrats want to raise the federal government's debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to a mind-boggling total of $14.3 trillion. The current debt limit was just established by an increase of $290 billion snuck in at the end of December 2009, but will be reached by mid-February. If the ceiling is not raised again, then the government will default on payments to millions of Social Security recipients, defense contractors and other beneficiaries of government disbursements. Just 10 years ago, an increase of this size would have covered government spending for an entire year. Now, they're sweating just getting through February.

The proposal is coupled with a new PAYGO proposal that would offset increased spending with tax hikes and cuts in other areas of the budget. Previous attempts at PAYGO fell by the wayside in recent years, as both Republicans and Democrats have given up on even the appearance of fiscal responsibility -- which is all PAYGO is.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) have indicated they will not support PAYGO or a debt increase unless they are accompanied by a bipartisan commission that would create fiscal reform measures. House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, are against the idea of a commission because it would take power away from their own budget committee leaders. The Obama administration attempted to bridge this logjam by announcing the creation of a similar commission at the executive level that would include Democrats and Republicans appointed by both Congress and the president. Any commission created by Obama, however, wouldn't release any recommendations until after the November elections. How convenient. The dodge around fiscal responsibility continues.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee is considering the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which, in essence, would allow the Obama administration to nationalize the student loan industry. Currently, federally subsidized loans through the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program make up approximately 80 percent of the industry. The government subsidizes or profits from a set interest rate and also guarantees loans for both student and lender. The bill under consideration would drop private lenders entirely and turn student lending over to the government. The proposal originated in Obama's 2010 budget, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would save the government $87 billion over 10 years. Forget the Constitution -- not that the status quo holds to it -- Obama's solution to every problem is nationalization.

Essential Liberty Project -- Conference Presentation

This coming Feb. 4-6, the Constitutional Coalition is presenting their Educational Policy Conference 21, "Lessons Children and Others Must Hear." The Thursday through Saturday event in St. Louis, Missouri, will feature Fox News host Glenn Beck, radio talk-show host Michael Medved, several stalwart conservative senators and representatives, and many principled authorities, including a presentation by our own Essential Liberty Project Executive Director, Jim Cuffia. Visit www.ConstitutionalCoalition.org for conference and registration details.

Hope 'n' Change: Obama Pens Haiti Story

The disaster in Haiti is a perfect example of Americans doing their best to help others in need, and it has once again brought out the finest qualities of the American character. Unfortunately, politics is at play. For example, Newsweek magazine, which years ago gave up its mission as an objective news source to become a propaganda organ of the Left, premiered its reporting on the crisis with a cover story by Barack Obama. His unremarkable piece offered the liberal rag an opportunity to boost its plummeting circulation. The latest Obama issue of the magazine hit the newsstands days before his first year as president comes to a close -- a year in which he has experienced an unprecedented drop in popularity and support.

To add further political twist to a natural disaster, Narcissist in Chief Obama asked Americans to donate for Haitian relief through the White House Web site, not directly to Red Cross. How this is beneficial, we don't know, but maybe he wants to first take the government's typical 30-70 percent cut.

The House unanimously passed a bill that will allow cash contributions to Haitian relief made through March 1 to count against 2009 taxes. Americans didn't need this incentive, though. In the week since the earthquake, we committed over $275 million to relief efforts, with a third of that amount coming from American companies. The $83 million that those evil corporations have contributed in just seven days has received little recognition by the media, however.

Meanwhile, America's attempts to help the wounded and keep order in the fragile nation have come under fire by the French, joined by Cuba and Venezuela. Alain Joyandet, the French minister in charge of humanitarian relief, called upon the UN to curb America's military role in Haiti, claiming that our military personnel resembled an occupying force, and he asked the UN to "clarify" our role. Of course, to the French, every foreign army is an occupying force.

Halls of Justice: SCOTUS Overturns Part of McCain-Feingold

The Supreme Court of the United States overturned two precedents and struck down limits on corporate political spending in a 5-4 ruling this week, with the usual suspects in dissent. The Court found that at least part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain-Feingold, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting corporations from funding political ads leading up to an election.

As The Wall Street Journal reports, "The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated in a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, wanted to promote the film, but the election commission called it an 'electioneering communication' subject to McCain-Feingold restrictions." In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 57-page opinion, "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."

Additionally, of requiring that money be funneled through political action committees -- those now-hated 527s -- Kennedy wrote, "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful."

Barack Obama called the decision a victory for Wall Street, Big Oil and other special interests hated by the Left, and he promised to work with Congress on a "forceful response." That's nothing but hypocrisy coming from the first major-party presidential candidate to reject public funds, opting instead to run solely on money from special interests.

The BIG Joke

"When you think about the First Amendment ... you think it's highly overrated." --White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, joking (or so he says) at the May 9, 2009, White House Correspondents Association Dinner

From the Left: Edwards Admits Paternity After Affair

Former Democrat presidential candidate and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards admitted this week to fathering a child with Rielle Hunter, a former campaign groupie, in an affair that he says ended in 2006. His campaign has been under investigation for illegal use of funds in connection with the affair. Edwards, a former trial lawyer who became John Kerry's running mate in 2004, initially confessed to the affair in August 2008, after the National Enquirer beat the Leftmedia to the story while they were busy slamming John McCain's choice of a running mate. Until now, however, Edwards had avoided acknowledging paternity, while another staffer took the fall. Edwards' wife, who has been battling breast cancer for years, was "relieved" that the truth is out, but family friends say the couple has now separated.

Friday Digest

2009-12-18T16:59:00.001-05:00

The Foundation

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison

Government & Politics

Senate Health Care Bill in Time for Christmas?

Senate Democrats are pitching last-minute holiday deals in an effort to reach a vote on the massive ObamaCare plan before their new Christmas Eve voting deadline. With Congress remaining in session so late, concerned citizens surely must be worried that congressmen won't be able to finish their shopping in time.

Even the public option is on clearance as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) signaled her willingness to see the Senate pass a bill without it. "It isn't just about health care. It's about a healthier America," Pelosi cooed. However, she is well aware that anything goes once the bill is in conference committee, so don't get your hopes up about defeating this monstrosity that easily.

The proposal to expand Medicare to people 55 and over died a quick death after Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced he would not support the measure. Democrats angry with Lieberman's stance accused him of flip-flopping because, back in September, he did support expanding Medicare to people between 55 and 64 who were out of work or unable to obtain coverage. His idea, however, became moot when the Senate decided to offer subsidies to the uninsured to purchase insurance.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) remains a wild card after the Senate shot down his amendment to restrict abortion funding in the bill. Nelson rejected the ensuing compromise. He certainly has other considerations, too, not the least of which is the attitude of his constituents. Nebraska is a solidly red state, and recent polling shows that only 20 percent of its citizens support ObamaCare. Nelson doesn't appear to share the Obama administration's sense of urgency, either. Asked during an interview whether he was concerned about his party's self-imposed deadline, he replied, "Are you talking about this Christmas or next Christmas?"

Of course, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) needs Nelson's support for the final package to avoid a filibuster, but any compromise he crafts to meet Nelson's demands to reduce or eliminate taxpayer-funded abortions risks driving away other liberal votes. There are reports that, in an effort to cow Nelson, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel threatened to axe Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base -- home to U.S. Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, which is charged with command-and-control of the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal and employs more than 10,000 servicemen and federal employees.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says Reid is being so secretive with the bill, that only those called to Reid's office for a chat have even seen the current bill.

Still, many Democrats are willing to swallow the HarryCare pill because they see even watered-down legislation as the giant first step toward their goal of government-run health care. There's also a strong desire among Democrats to give the White House something, anything, to sign, so that Barack Obama can crow about it during his State of the Union address in January. Health care "reform" is, after all, his primary domestic policy initiative.

In a sense, Democrats are in too deep to pull out now. One Democrat strategist likened it to robbing a bank: "They're in the bank, they've got their guns out. They can run outside with no money, or they can stick it out, go through the gunfight, and get away with the money." Despite this Bonnie and Clyde strategy, let's hope and pray this holiday season that at least three or four Democrats (and a handful of RINOs) realize that all of the ensuing murder and mayhem is not really worth it.

On Cross-Examination

ObamaCare is facing more unlikely opponents every day, including former DNC chief Howard Dean, a medical doctor. "You're going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company that is going to take an average of 27 percent of your money," Dean said, "and there is no choice about that. If you don't buy that insurance you are going to get a fine."

And Dean wasn't done. "This bill I think is more likely to make the crisis worse than it is better because it's so expensive," he said. And as a result, he concluded, "[H]onestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill." He even penned an op-ed in The Washington Post expounding on his opposition.

Granted, Dean wants something even more leftist than what the Senate is grinding out, but sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

Barack Obama's teleprompter gave him a rather poor choice of words to describe the government's efforts to hijack health care: "We just had a very productive session about the final stages of health care reform in the Senate. And from the discussions we had, it's clear that we are on the precipice of an achievement that's eluded Congresses and presidents for generations, an achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American."

That's only too true -- we are on the precipice. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines it as "1 : a very steep or overhanging place; 2 : a hazardous situation."

And about that precipice... Obama sat down for an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson Wednesday, in which he warned, "If we don't pass" this gargantuan expansion of the federal government, "the federal government will go bankrupt." Didn't he just tell Republicans to "stop trying to frighten the American people"? But he continued, "This actually provides us the best chance of starting to bend the cost curve on the government expenditures in Medicare and Medicaid." Furthermore, he claimed, "[I]f we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget."

So, spending $1 trillion dollars is going to keep the federal government from going bankrupt? The suspense is killing us -- will someone please nominate this guy for the Nobel Prize in Economics?

The BIG Lie

Where in the Constitution is the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance?

"Well, I just think the Constitution charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people." --Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

And according to Nancy Pelosi's staff, "nobody questions that."

Support Liberty

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?'" --Samuel Adams

We have all enjoyed the fruits of prosperity that our forefathers purchased at great sacrifice, many with their lives. With the current unprecedented assault upon Liberty, each and every one of us is called to make our own great sacrifices, now and throughout 2010. Our posterity deserve no less.

Before the year is out, we must raise $122,994. Help us honor our forefather's sacrifices and restore Liberty for our posterity by making a secure online donation to The Patriot's 2009 Annual Fund. If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form.

Thank you and God bless!

Nate Jackson
Managing Editor

Support the 2009 Patriot Annual Fund

Donate Online Donate by Mail

Copenhagen's Income Redistribution

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is about two things: Control for big government types and the redistribution of your income in a shakedown for poor countries. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton jetted to Denmark to promise the latter this week, tossing the United States' chips on the table to the tune of billions of dollars. "The U.S. is prepared to work with other countries to jointly mobilize $100 billion a year [to give to poor nations] by 2020," she announced. Clinton did not specify the portion to be paid by American taxpayers, but she was obviously taking her cues from the Chicago mob in the White House: The bribe comes only if there is a deal reached at Copenhagen. The result would be that we would not only handicap U.S. producers, but tax them to the benefit of our competitors.

All this comes amid the backdrop of ClimateGate and its patently fraudulent science. Then there's the record cold snap and snowstorm that Copenhagen has endured this week, no doubt attributable to insufficient sacrifices being placed upon the sacred altar of Mother Gaia. Either that, or Al Gore is to blame, since his presence at these global warming confabs always seems to bring record low temperatures.

Also, thousands of UN-accredited visitors were denied admittance and left out in the freezing warmth after flying all the way there, which sure didn't help what was already a carbon footprint larger than any previous climate conference.

Despite Barack Obama's arrival and his angry admonition that "The time for talk is over," Investor's Business Daily notes, "[A] draft climate accord by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, calling for a 50% cut in global emissions by 2050, has been kicked down the road till 2015 or 2016. Gee, maybe it's not the most urgent threat facing humankind after all."

New & Notable Legislation

The Senate passed a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill this week by a vote of 57-35, with three Democrats voting against the bill and three Republicans voting for it. The 1,000-page package includes spending increases for a number of government agencies including the FBI and the Veterans Health Administration. Operating budget funds in the bill amounted to $447 billion, while the balance went toward meeting the growing list of mandatory payments for entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid.

The bill included more than 5,000 earmarks, which the Democrats took pride in because it was 3,000 fewer earmarks than the 2009 omnibus package. Taxpayers for Common Sense noted that 2010 is likely to see $11 billion in disclosed earmarks, which would be $4 billion less than 2009. However, the progress achieved in reducing pork spending may not be as much as it seems. For example, earmarks for the Army Corps of Engineers in 2009 were re-categorized as presidential earmarks, meaning that $2 billion in pork spending is no longer considered congressional in nature. Additionally, there is still no way to control the amount of money that is steered by lawmakers to particular projects or districts. So, the culture of favoritism that drives the wasteful spending in Washington still exists, it is just being made more, uh, "transparent." Yeah, that's the ticket.

The House voted 217-212 to use repaid TARP cash to "stimulate" job creation. The $154 billion package won't go to the Senate floor until next year.

The House passed a $290 billion spending bill this week by 218-214 to keep the government running for another six weeks after it breeched the $12.1 trillion debt ceiling. The House and the Senate initially proposed slipping an amendment to raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion into the $636 billion defense appropriation for 2010, which passed the House this week. The Senate will vote Saturday. The amendment would have allowed the Democrats to avoid dealing with the debt ceiling again until after the 2010 midterm elections. Ordinarily this type of move would have worked since few politicians wanted to see themselves on the wrong side of a defense-spending bill, particularly in time of war. Spending in Washington has gotten so far out of control, though, that a number of Democrats refused to support any raise in the debt limit, no matter what piece of legislation it was married to.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"A good, solid B-plus." That's the grade Barack Obama gives himself after 11 months in office when asked by Oprah Winfrey for her "White House Christmas Special." Talk about grade inflation. Obama hasn't accomplished any of his major policy goals, millions more Americans are unemployed than when he was sworn in, the economy remains shaky, and America's allies openly wonder about our international commitments. If that's B+ material, just imagine what an F looks like.

Click Here

1976 Bicentennial 3-Piece Silver Proof Set

Three piece silver Bicentennial 1776-1976 Proof coin set. Uncirculated, in original U.S. Mint packaging. Includes Essential Liberty booklet signed by Mark Alexander. Limited quantities available -- first come, first serve.

News From the Swamp: Bernanke Passes Senate Committee

"The Senate Banking Committee voted 16-7 to confirm Fed Chairman Bernanke for a second term," reports The Wall Street Journal. The entire Senate will vote in January. It wasn't all smooth sailing for Bernanke. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) said, "I strongly disapprove of some of the past deeds of the Federal Reserve while Ben Bernanke was a member and its chairman, and I lack confidence in what little planning for the future he has articulated. I will be opposing a second term for Dr. Bernanke." Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) likewise opposed a second term, saying, "As chairman Dr. Bernanke failed to recognize and remedy the factors that paved the road to this dark and difficult recession."

Bernanke had received some other good news this week: He was selected as Time Magazine's "Person of the Year." According to Time managing editor Richard Stengel, "The recession was the story of the year. Without Ben Bernanke ... it would have been a lot worse." As we have noted previously, however, without Bernanke, the recession might not have happened at all.

From the Leftjudiciary: Judge: ACORN Can't be Defunded

You would be hard-pressed to find good news coming from ACORN these days -- or any days, for that matter. Once word got out of ACORN's willingness to help with illegal activities, Congress quickly passed a bill defunding the community organizers. But the good news came for ACORN when U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon tossed out the law, ruling that the organization was being punished "in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt." Obviously, ACORN's being caught on tape encouraging illegal acts such as tax evasion and child prostitution, in addition to participating in fraudulent voter registration wasn't enough for the Clinton appointee to rule in the government's favor.

Bill Quigley, legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights (a group "committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change"), which filed the suit on ACORN's behalf, predicted the federal government would not appeal the case, though it is asking Gershon to reconsider. Given the Justice Department's tendency toward lax pursuit of voting law violations, such as the Black Panther voter intimidation case in Philadelphia, we don't see them adamantly defending the will of Congress either. So it looks like your tax dollars will head to ACORN once again.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-12-11T16:40:00.001-05:00

Page I of IV

The Foundation

"No man in his senses can hesitate in choosing to be free, rather than a slave." --Alexander Hamilton

Government & Politics

The Copenhagen Power Grab

As a massive winter storm buried a large swath of the central United States under as much as four feet of snow this week, thousands of bureaucrats and assorted global warming scaremongers gathered in Copenhagen to decide how best to handicap the world's industrial economies in order to solve a phantom problem. And it took only 1,200 limos and 140 private planes to get them there.

These fashionable leftists from around the world gathered for a power grab also undaunted by recent revelations that government and UN scientists were using what Dan Rather might call "fake but accurate" data to support the theory of global warming.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told the conference, "The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC." Predictably for a Leftist, he focused on the whistleblowers, rather than the subject matter of the e-mails.

Meanwhile, Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen stressed the importance of the conference, saying, "For the next two weeks, Copenhagen will be Hopenhagen. By the end, we must be able to deliver back to the world what was granted us here today: hope for a better future." Hopenhagen? More like Hoaxenhagen.

The goal at Copenhagen is to upgrade last decade's Kyoto Protocols and further regulate carbon emissions, particularly for wealthy nations such as the United States, since such gases are allegedly warming the planet. (Water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas, can't be far behind.) On top of that, there are growing calls for population control measures such as China's one-child policy.

Given that climate data has been undeniably fudged or destroyed, however, we're a bit skeptical of the very basis for the conference. As with Kyoto, China and India are skeptical, too, and neither nation is willing to promise cuts that would harm their economies.

In an effort to impress the rest of the world, Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are working on so-called "cap and trade" legislation to effect many of the same regulations Copenhagen hopes to adopt. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) introduced a new cap-n-tax bill Thursday. And the Environmental Protection Agency announced new regulations this week, as well (more on that later).

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg called climate change "the most pressing challenge of our time" and insisted, "We need a strong political agreement in Copenhagen." He then cut to the chase, saying, "Developed countries must provide more funding for climate action in the developing world. We need money both for the short term and the long term, and we need funding both from the public and from the private sector."

Translation: "Give me your wallet, this is a stick up."

Still, it remains to be seen what agreement will be reached or how much it will cost. Even with the "consensus" on the problem, there are 192 nations represented at the conference with several times that many ideas on "solutions." Almost everyone agrees on one thing, though: Someone else should pay for it.

The BIG Lie

"To paraphrase Shakespeare, it's sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven't read all the [CRU] e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus. ... [W]here the scientific consensus is concerned, it's completely unchanged. What we're seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly." --Algore on the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University

Memo to Al: The most recent e-mail was sent Nov. 12 -- just a month ago.

Obama Accepts Peace Prize

Barack Obama jetted from Copenhagen to Oslo Thursday to accept his Nobel Peace Prize. We have duly noted how little Obama has done to deserve the Prize, but, to his credit, he followed suit in his acceptance speech. We would give Obama credit for what seemed like humility -- "Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize ... my accomplishments are slight" -- but then again, the Prize has been given to Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and terrorist Yasser Arafat. Are these the "giants of history" Obama was referring to? Besides, we hope his accomplishments remain slight.

Then there was the small matter of the 38 I's in the speech:

I receive this honor ... I cannot argue ... I am the commander in chief ... I come here ... I do not bring with me ... I make this statement ... I am living testimony ... I face the world as it is ... I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally ... I prohibited torture ... I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed ... I have reaffirmed...

Nothing humble about that.

Obama might get half a cheer for defending U.S. military action, though he could do little else on the heels of his recent ordering of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Still, his words were surprisingly strong -- and no doubt caused a bit of uncomfortable seat shuffling among the Nobel Committee. "There will be times," Obama said, "when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified." He continued, "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qa'ida's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history." He concluded, "The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it." No doubt Obama's words offended the peaceniks in Oslo.

Yet he couldn't resist a little historical revision, citing "Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika." Reagan defeated the Soviet Union, he didn't embrace perestroika, a term Mikhail Gorbachev used in a book of the same title. "The essence of perestroika," Gorbachev wrote, "lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction, both in theory and in practice."

Nothing Reaganesque about that.

Meanwhile, Obama's protocol upset the Norwegians as well -- and not because he bowed to another ruler. In fact, he turned down a lunch invitation with the King of Norway. He also canceled a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel Committee, called off the traditional press conference and didn't visit the Nobel headquarters. White House aides apparently determined that such photo ops would not help the president's plummeting poll numbers. His time in Oslo was so short, political analyst Rich Galen quipped, Obama spent "just a few hours less in Norway than he had spent in the Oval office before being chosen for the award."

Click Here

New! Ronald Reagan pottery mug

It's handmade and fresh from a Minnesota potter's wheel -- a fabulous gift for Reagan fans! Exclusive to PatriotShop.US, we are proud to present our Reagan pottery mug which is hand-thrown and glazed by a family of artisans. This 12 oz. heirloom quality mug, velvet black with a blue glazed top, features an image of Reagan with his signature underneath on the front. Safe for the dishwasher, oven, microwave, freezer, and very, very durable! Each mug stands 4" tall and comes in an attractive gift box. Limited quantities in stock!

News From the Swamp: The Not-So-Public Public Option

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) conceded this week that the public option would be dropped from the Senate health care bill, a.k.a. HarryCare (somewhat akin to the Japanese word for ritual suicide, "harakiri.") The public option decision was made after what supposedly were intense closed-door negotiations between moderate and liberal Democrats to clear a significant hurdle standing in the way of the bill's passage. Not much leeway seems to have been given, though, because what emerged was merely a government-run public option by another name.

Under the new plan, private insurance companies will be "encouraged" by the government to develop "non-profit" national insurance policies that would be negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, the agency that currently oversees insurance policies for federal workers. If at some point these private firms are unable to deliver the type of coverage the government prefers, then a government public option would be invoked. There are no details as to just what exactly the government would deem "acceptable policies," but it is likely that the bar will be kept just high enough to allow the government to step in with its own plan no matter what happens. In reality, it's a Hobson's Choice between the former government-run "public option" and the newer government-run "national health plan."

To add insult to injury, a deluge of new regulations await private insurers, including a preposterous rule that will require them to spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers. By comparison, Medicare and Medicaid don't come close to even half that target.

So, for the feigned indignation of Senate liberals who bemoan the death of the public option, this new plan will give them exactly what they want -- government control over how private insurers develop policies and over how they spend the money they make, if any.

Additionally, Democrats are also proposing to push millions of uninsured onto Medicare rolls, which Republicans accurately describe as forcing more people onto a sinking ship -- the program is already fiscally irredeemable. If this multi-trillion dollar legislative Titanic becomes law, we hope that voters will remember the party who recklessly steered our health care ship into this fiscal iceberg.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

On the topic of health care, Harry Reid offered an interesting comparison on the Senate floor. He likened opponents of the Democrats' proposed takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy to those who defended slavery and opposed women's suffrage.

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over,'" Reid said. "If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'" Slavery is not exactly a favorable issue for Democrats.

But he didn't stop there. "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund notes one of the historical omissions in Reid's claim: "Among those voting to block the civil rights bill was West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who personally filibustered the bill for 14 hours. The next year he also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Byrd still sits in the Senate, and indeed preceded Mr. Reid as his party's majority leader until he stepped down from that role in 1989."

This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

"Is it morally correct [to force taxpayer funding of abortion]? Yes, I believe it is. Abortion is legal, and there are certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that's unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it's a threat to her health. I think she ought to have a policy available to her. ... We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well." --Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Death Valley)

Don't miss more on the abortion issue, including Sen. Ben Nelson's rejected amendment to the health care bill barring federal funding for abortions, as well as Sen. Barbara Boxer's comparison of abortion to a certain blue pill.

New & Notable Legislation

The House voted 221-202 Thursday to pass a 1,088-page, $1.1 trillion domestic spending bill. It gives many domestic programs their third significant boost this year. According to the Associated Press, "The measure provides spending increases averaging about 10 percent to programs under immediate control of Congress. It comes on top of an infusion of cash to domestic agencies in February's economic stimulus bill and a $410 billion measure in March that also bestowed budget increases well above inflation." Next up is raising the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion.

President Obama promised Tuesday that "we're proposing a complete elimination of capital gains taxes on small business investment" for one year. House Democrats must have misheard him, because they voted Wednesday -- without a hearing or committee vote -- to raise those taxes. The rate will more than double from 15 percent to 35 percent by reclassifying such capital gains as ordinary income. As The Wall Street Journal notes, "Private equity fund managers and managers of real-estate and oil-and-gas partnerships would also get socked with this 133% tax-rate increase. Now there's a way to encourage economic growth and new jobs."

Also, addressing another national emergency along the lines of steroid usage in professional baseball, "A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine its national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress has meatier targets to tackle," reports the Associated Press. "The bill, which faces steep odds, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision game as a national championship unless it results from a playoff." The bill was sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who said that the current Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system is unfair and won't change unless made illegal by Congress. On this issue, Barton (American Conservative Union lifetime rating: 94) seems to be missing his copy of the Constitution. Regulating sports does not fall under the enumerated powers given to Congress.

Click Here

Vintage Christmas Apron

Our pretty Vintage Christmas apron is 100% cotton and features a nostalgic bells and holly design.

Judicial Benchmarks: A Tale of Two Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court this term has taken up two cases that are important to religious freedom and property rights, respectively. On Dec. 7, the Court granted a hearing in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, in which the University of California Hastings College of Law denied recognition to the local CLS chapter because it required each prospective member to sign a statement of faith that tracked traditional, orthodox Christian theology and morality. Unless the CLS chapter opened its membership to everyone, including non-Christians and practicing homosexuals, UC would deny access to any benefits and facilities provided to other student organizations.

The district court decision, which was summarily affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, lightly glossed over the obvious and oppressive burden placed on the CLS members by UC's actions. Arguing that the CLS chapter could avoid the restrictions by simply accepting everyone as members, the court completely missed the point: If it accepted everyone as members, the CLS chapter would no longer be a Christian organization. The CLS chapter was unfairly burdened precisely because it is Christian. Or maybe that was the point.

The Court also heard arguments on Dec. 1 in Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Dep't of Environmental Protection. In this case, Florida trucked in sand to "renourish" critically eroded beaches and then promptly took ownership of this "new dry land." Owners of what had previously been waterfront properties now had a strip of state land between themselves and the ocean.

Tossing out well-settled principles of common law in its attempt to "balance" the rights of the property owners and the state, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that this was not an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. In an unusually strident dissent, Justice Charles T. Wells pointed out that Florida expropriated valuable property rights clearly established by Florida law: the right to have their property in contact with the water. While Florida was free to do so, it should pay the owners compensation for the taking.

Both of these cases will be important tests of whether the Court will uphold constitutional religious, association and property rights against government encroachment.

Friends in High Places

Some people work their whole life to achieve a position of prominence, but others take a shorter path, i.e., they sleep their way to the top. That's the perception of Melodee Hayes, who recently withdrew her candidacy for U.S. Attorney in Montana. She is also the girlfriend of Montana Democrat Senator Max Baucus.

Hayes, who was director of Baucus's Montana office when their relationship started in 2008, indeed had some qualifications for the U.S. Attorney post as she had served as a local prosecutor prior to working under the senator. But their deepening relationship (as Baucus was divorcing his wife of 25 years) led to the speculation that he was pushing his girlfriend for the job. He also gave her a $14,000 raise at the time. She withdrew from consideration and took a job at the Justice Department -- partly so she could shack up with Baucus.

Of course, had this been a Republican senator, the story might have competed with other sordid domestic tales for airtime on the network news shows. Since Baucus has a "D" after his name, however, this will blow over quickly and will be a distant memory when he's up for re-election in 2014.

Speaking of Republicans, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford dodged a bullet this week when state lawmakers rejected an impeachment resolution, choosing instead to consider a formal rebuke of the governor. Sanford had traveled to Argentina in June, where he ended an extra-marital affair. He was accused of misusing state resources but repaid the expenses, thus making the charges moot.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-12-04T19:48:00.001-05:00

Page I of IV ->

The Foundation

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington

Government & Politics

The Scandal That Never Happened

If you have watched only network news for the last two weeks, you may not have heard about the flap over climate change data. It's the biggest scandal to rock the scientific world in quite some time.

As we noted Tuesday, servers from the UK's University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) were hacked into and some 62 megabytes of data were subsequently made public. (We're not discounting the inside whistleblower theory yet.) The data include e-mail communications between noted scientists in the field of global warming, including Phil Jones and Keith Briffa of the CRU and Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University. The release is so damning that Jones has temporarily stepped down as CRU director, pending an investigation.

In an effort to play up Mann-made global warming, the communications discuss various ways to manipulate, suppress or even destroy data showing the earth's climate to be cooling. Still, Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), insists, "This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the AR4 findings." AR4 is the latest IPCC report.

On the contrary, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), a leading opponent of anthropogenic warming theories, said, "It appears that, in an attempt to conceal the manipulation of climate data, information disclosure laws may have been violated. I certainly don't condone the manner in which these emails were released; however, now that they are in the public domain, lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called 'consensus' of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world's leading climate scientists." Billions of dollars only scratches the surface of the cost of fighting phantom warming.

Indeed, these revelations should be devastating to the envirofascists' cause. But their accomplices on the nightly news have done their best to ignore the story, focusing instead on a golfer who can't drive straight (roadway, not fairway) and a killer whale that ate a great white shark. (To their credit, newspapers such as The New York Times and Washington Post have devoted numerous stories to the scandal, though the Post laughably editorialized, "None of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change.")

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also downplayed the story, saying, "In the order of several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don't think that any of that is, quite frankly among most people, in dispute." Except, yes, it is.

The importance of the truth can't be overstated, especially in the world of science and particularly with the climate summit at Copenhagen set for next week. To wit, the IPCC study blaming humans for global warming will be the basis for discussions among world leaders on how best to handicap developed industrial economies. The scientists involved in writing that report are the same ones implicated by the scandalous e-mails, leading us to conclude that much of the report -- and therefore the efforts of the world's political leaders -- is based upon lies.

Not that it was ever about the climate, mind you. Political leaders are interested in one thing: power. As Pachauri declared, "Today we have reached the point where consumption and people's desire to consume has grown out of proportion." Their goal is to redistribute our money and limit our consumption.

The scandal has possibly cost Al Gore, the "Profit" of Doom, some cold cash. Gore will be attending the Copenhagen conference and was to offer a handshake and a picture for the bargain price of $1,200. But it appears the Goracle has cancelled the engagement due to "unforeseen changes" in his schedule. If he can't even predict his own schedule, why should we believe his weather forecasts?

This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

"You call it 'Climategate,' I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate.... Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated." --Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

News From the Swamp: ObamaCare Follies Continue

Leftists in the White House and in Congress are so adamant about making ObamaCare a reality that they are parading bad news as good. Consider a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report this week stating that under the Obama plan individual insurance premiums will rise by as much as 13 percent more than they would if there were no plan at all. Family insurance plans would be $2,000 more expensive under ObamaCare than if Congress did nothing. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and their marching band of sycophant "journalists" reported this as evidence that the health care scheme will be a good thing for the American people.

But wait, it gets better. H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physicians Payment Rates Reform Act, which passed the House with only one Republican vote (thank you Michael Burgess, R-TX), amends the rate of pay for physicians serving Medicare patients. The CBO estimates that this bill will cost $210 billion over 10 years. Furthermore, H.R. 3962, the House version of ObamaCare, supposedly reduces the deficit by $109 billion over the same period. So, using simple math, the net 10-year deficit increase for the two bills is at least $89 billion, which apparently is acceptable to Democrats despite their oft-repeated claim that health care legislation would be deficit-neutral. Furthermore, PAYGO, the Democrat plan to supposedly offset increases in spending with corresponding tax increases or cuts in spending elsewhere, conveniently does not apply here because, according to House Democrats, any adjustment to Medicare is a reflection of existing legislation. PAYGO applies only to "new" spending. Recall also that Barack Obama has pledged not to sign a health care bill "if it adds even one dime to our deficit."

The CBO expects the government to subsidize 57 percent of all individual health insurance premiums, covering nearly two-thirds of the total cost. In addition, all individuals and families making up to 400 percent of the poverty level ($87,400) would also be subsidized. Democrats always want us to forget that when they say the government is going to pay for something, it really means that the taxpayers are paying for it. And there won't be enough "rich" people or evil insurance companies to cover the tab.

Video of the Week

Health care hoops

New & Notable Legislation

"The broadest revamp of financial regulation in seven decades cleared a key congressional committee Wednesday and will move next week to debate on the floor of the House of Representatives," McClatchy Newspapers reports. "On a 31-27 party-line vote, the House Financial Services Committee passed the Financial Stability Improvement Act."

Naturally, to deal with financial firms that are considered "too big to fail," the regulatory overhaul calls for a government that's too big to fail -- at crushing liberty, anyway. The bill, crafted by alleged financial genius Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), would create "resolution authority" so that the government could dismantle large firms that are "near collapse" (such as the banks forced by the government into receivership this year.) It was unable to do so with Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) succeeded -- after 25 years of trying -- to pass an amendment requiring an audit of the Federal Reserve. It remains to be seen if that amendment will survive.

Just in time for the holidays, the Associated Press reports, "The House voted Thursday to extend indefinitely a 45 percent inheritance tax on estates larger than $3.5 million, canceling a one-year repeal of the tax set to begin next month." The vote was 225-200 with all Republicans opposed. According to the AP, "Under the House bill, estates smaller than $3.5 million would continue to be exempt from the tax. Married couples, with a little estate planning, could exempt a total of $7 million. That leaves less than 1 percent of all estates subject to the tax." Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) summed up Democrats' view of taxes, saying, "This bill gives our nation's wealthiest families the ability to know exactly what their obligation to the nation that fostered their wealth will be, and it is fair and it is just."

Bernanke's Re-Nomination Hearing

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke faced his Senate re-nomination hearing this week, though it's little more than a formality. Still, Bernanke has his detractors, not the least of which is The Wall Street Journal. The Journal editorialized that "the country needs a new Fed chief."

It isn't necessarily Bernanke's response to the panic of '08 that disqualifies him, but the policies that led to that panic. According to the Journal, the released 2003 Federal Open Market Committee transcripts "show that Mr. Bernanke was the intellectual architect of the decision to keep monetary policy exceptionally easy for far too long as the economy grew rapidly from 2003-2005. He imagined a 'deflation' that never occurred, ignored the asset bubbles in commodities and housing, dismissed concerns about dollar weakness, and in the process stoked the credit mania that led to the financial panic." Yet Bernanke still blames the "global savings glut" instead of acknowledging the Fed's role. In this respect, Bernanke is a good fit for an administration whose primal instinct is to blame others when something goes wrong.

Click Here

New! Cumberland Christmas Yule Log

Fluffy Nougat with Rich Creamy Caramel Covered in Fresh Pecans. This Jumbo Pecan Log is Packaged in a festive box. Made in the great state of Tennessee. Get some of these delicious Yule Logs as neighbor, teacher and co-worker gifts! Great for stocking stuffers too!

Not Just on TV Too Much, But Mount Rushmore?

Polls which become news are nothing new in our 24/7 news cycle, but a recent "60 Minutes"/Vanity Fair poll question may have jumped the shark when it comes to inanity. As part of a poll billed to determine "the pulse of America," respondents were asked to choose which president they would place as the fifth face on Mount Rushmore. In chronological order of holding office, the choices were Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. While Kennedy won and Reagan was second, 16 percent picked Obama -- good for fourth on the list -- leading one of the on-screen personalities to note, "it could be a little premature though, maybe like that Nobel Prize." Ya think?

It's enough for a once-respected morning show and network to devote time to have such a poll featured as "news," but placing Obama in the company of several of his predecessors who actually demonstrated leadership and devotion to country shows why people are turning off network news in droves. Besides, any accurate depiction of Obama would require the carving of teleprompters into adjacent peaks.

Honduras Elections a Success

The struggle for Honduran Rule of Law closed yet another victorious chapter on Monday when the people elected their new president, conservative businessman Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo. On Wednesday, the Honduran Congress voted to deny reinstatement to Manuel Zelaya, whose term was set to end in January.

Former president Manuel Zelaya was removed from office in June after he attempted to call a popular referendum to cancel the elections and extend his term, which is a violation of the Honduran constitution. Upon a search of Zelaya's residence after the ouster, law enforcement discovered computers preloaded with votes in favor of Zelaya. In addition, Zelaya had refused to transfer funds to the electoral council necessary for its preparation ahead of the election -- another violation of Honduran law.

Clearly, Zelaya had expected his power grab to be successful. According to one Honduran official, Zelaya had invited the leaders of the Bolivarian Alternatives for the Americas (ALBA) to visit his country the night of the attempted referendum. ALBA is the socialist brainchild of Hugo Chavez, whose membership also includes Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. Under Zelaya, whose close ties to Chavez are well known, Honduras had joined the organization. The official also revealed that Zelaya had ordered food for 10,000 -- fitting for a celebration of the hijacking of his country, which others in the region, including Chavez, have already done.

Not surprisingly, the Obama administration originally favored the corrupt and constitution-trampling Zelaya and spent months exerting intense economic and diplomatic pressure on Honduras. In fact, the State Department issued a blanket denial of U.S. visas to Hondurans and threatened not to recognize the presidential election. After the elections, however, the State Department issued a statement praising Hondurans for "peacefully exercising their democratic right to select their leaders." The statement should have gone on to say "in the face of despicable bullying from nations around the world, including ours."

Page II

Friday Digest: November 20, 2009

2009-11-20T16:53:00.001-05:00

Page I of IV ->

The Foundation

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." --Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics

Health Care Cost Nightmare

Harry Reid claims his 2,000-page bill will reduce the deficit. He's quite the comedian.

It's an accepted fact that no government program comes in on budget, and this maxim likely won't change with the health care legislation that recently passed the House. Republican analysis of the bill in the Senate Budget Committee reveals that a more realistic price tag for the House version, after the benefit provisions are figured in, comes to $3 trillion over 10 years, not $1 trillion as Democrats claim. The disparity comes from the fact that the taxes and fees meant to pay for the bill occur immediately, while major aspects of "reform" won't be implemented until at least 2013. Thus, the true cost of the plan won't reveal itself until well after the current president has stood for re-election.

Despite Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) assurances that the bill will lower health care costs, another report released this week by the nonpartisan Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services found that the House plan would actually raise costs by $289 billion over 10 years. Furthermore, Medicare would be cut by half a trillion dollars, leading to reduced benefits and services.

On that note, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced the Senate's 2,074-page, $849 billion version of the health care takeover plan. Reid has laid out an ambitious plan to pass HarryCare by Christmas.

The Senate bill clocks in a tad cheaper than the House version in part because many major provisions, such as the public option, would be delayed until 2014 -- one year later than the House bill. Reid also claims the bill will reduce the federal deficit by $650 billion in its second 10 years. A 2,000-page bill will reduce the deficit? That Reid is quite the comedian. Besides, while the Congressional Budget Office says the bill will reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years, CBO cautions that its effect on the deficit over the following decade would be "subject to substantial uncertainty." That's comforting, isn't it?

Notably, the Senate bill includes a 40 percent tax on high-deductible "Cadillac" insurance plans (though, naturally, Congress' Cadillac plan is exempt) as opposed to the House's tax on the "rich." It also includes a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgeries (how will Nancy feel about that?), which apparently helps pay for providing -- surprise -- federal subsidies for abortion.

Reid wants to hold a vote to begin debate as early as this weekend. He has "promised" not to use the procedural tactic of reconciliation, which would allow him to pass the bill with only 51 votes instead of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster -- but experience shows how little we should trust Democrats' promises.

As for that prized debate, Harkin referred to a Republican call to read the full bill on the Senate floor as a political tactic, and he threatens that Democrats will hold a live quorum to keep everyone in the chamber while the reading is taking place -- which sounds awfully like a political tactic to us.

It's interesting that both parties seem to view the public reading of the bill as some sort of parliamentary game. Perhaps if public readings of proposed legislation took place all of the time, we would actually know what Congress is up to. What a novel idea.

Democrat senators who pride themselves as being deficit hawks will have a tough choice to make in the coming days and weeks. Will they support HarryCare, which makes them look like hypocrites when they face the voters next year and in 2012? Or will they do the right thing and stop this runaway entitlement before it shoots out of the gate?

The BIG Lie

Where is the constitutional authority for a federal mandate that individuals must buy health insurance?

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) says that one's easy: "The very first enumerated power gives the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. So it's right on, right on the front end."

For those who don't follow Sen. Merkley's brilliant explication, he refers to the Constitution's Preamble, which, among several other things, says that the Constitution was written to "promote the general Welfare," though the Preamble doesn't list enumerated powers.

Furthermore, James Madison, primary author of the Constitution, vehemently disagreed, writing, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

Thomas Jefferson likewise stated that if Congress could "do anything they please to provide for the general welfare ... [i]t would reduce the whole instrument [the Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please." For the simpletons in Congress, Jefferson concluded, "Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them." Regardless of what Senator Jeff Merkley says.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"We even have blacks voting against the health care bill. You can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man." --race hustler Jesse Jackson, calling out Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus who dared to stray from the Democrat Plantation by voting against PelosiCare

Faith and Family: Shut Up, She Explained

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), like every other Democrat, could use a constitutional education. Oddly enough, though, the part of the Constitution DeGette needs brushing up on is the Left's favorite part: The First Amendment. Leftists have abused it for decades to hammer their agenda into our laws and culture. But they have also intentionally ignored its guarantee of the free exercise of religion. To them, the Constitution is just a scrap of paper written by dead white men. It's old and irrelevant today except for the few phrases that can be used to promote their socialism.

Regarding the health care legislative monstrosity working its way through Congress and the input of religious groups, DeGette said that "religiously-affiliated groups ... should be shut out of the process" because of their opposition to federal funding of abortions. "Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country," she sulked. "I've got to say that I think the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn't have input."

As Family Research Council President Tony Perkins observed, "According to her, if a group of people who are in association with one another because of their Christian faith, they should not have a voice in the crafting of public policy. What she is asserting is that if your ideas and actions are a product of your faith, you're a second class citizen and your voice should not be heard."

New & Notable Legislation

The House passed Medicare "doc fix" by a vote of 243-183 Thursday. The bill would permanently fix the way doctors who provide care for Medicare patients are reimbursed. The projected cost of the fix is $210 billion over 10 years and it doesn't include a way to pay for it, meaning that while Barack Obama has changed his tune and is now decrying the deficit, the House is busy adding to it.

Legacy of the American Revolution

"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. ... A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives." --John Adams

As you know, The Patriot is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization. Nor do we accept any online or e-mail advertising. Our operations and mission are funded by -- and depend entirely upon -- the voluntary financial support of American Patriots like YOU!

At latest accounting, we still must raise $270,831 for the 2009 Annual Fund budget before year's end.

Support the 2009 Patriot Annual Fund

The Patriot Post is distributed without a subscription fee so that countless thousands of our military, collegiate and mission-field readers can receive The Patriot at no charge.

"Thank you so much for the opportunity to support your tireless efforts and outstanding work. The Patriot Post is a refreshing departure from the mainstream media's constant attempt to brainwash me into believing their thinly veiled attempt to socialize the country. It's so comforting to know that when I get back to the U.S. after nearly three years in Iraq as an 'evil contractor,' BO, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the like will be waiting there with their hands out, eager to confiscate more and more of my hard earned dollars (120 hours a week, mortars and rocket attacks not withstanding). I'm disgusted by their antics, but at the same time heartened by your efforts to thwart them. Thanks again." --Warren, Capt. USAF (Ret.), Balad, Iraq

Please, if you have the ability, take a moment to support The Patriot online today by making a contribution -- however large or small. (If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form.)

Every dollar you contribute provides a free subscription for someone serving our nation, or a young person who will fill a family, community and national leadership role in the next generation.

I thank you for the honor and privilege of serving you as editor and publisher of The Patriot Post. On behalf of our staff and National Advisory Committee, thank you and may God bless you and your family.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher

Bowing to a Perceived Legacy

He's at it again. While in Japan as part of his eight-day trip to Asia this week, Barack Obama greeted Emperor Akihito of Japan with a deep bow. While protocol dictates that his (Akihito's, not BO's) subjects bow before the emperor, heads of state are considered equals and need not bow -- in fact, most don't, instead simply shaking hands with Akihito. In February 2007, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney greeted Akihito with a warm handshake. Obama's deep bow signifies great deference to a superior -- a seemingly strange act for a narcissist.

Earlier this year, Obama all but scraped his forehead on the floor before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as well, another mark of the jarring trend in his revamped foreign policy. President George W. Bush's foreign policy was considered by the world's elite and diplomatic striped-pants crowd to be that of an uninformed American cowboy hick, but Bush's successor is certainly making up for any strength the U.S. showed in the last eight years. The story behind the bow is obvious then: Obama is simply continuing his World Apology Tour.

From the Left: Cold Cash Placed on Ice

Friday the 13th was indeed an unlucky day for former Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). It was the day he was sentenced to 13 years in federal prison for his participation in a bribery scheme involving a Nigerian politician -- a scheme which led to additional charges of money laundering and racketeering.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III handed down the sentence, which was less than the 27 years sought by federal prosecutors, after calling the case "the most extensive and pervasive pattern of corruption in the history of Congress" and "a cancer on the body politic." Jefferson was also ordered to repay over $470,000 to the government, but prospects of repayment are slim as the former congressman and his wife recently filed for bankruptcy.

Jefferson has 10 days to appeal; otherwise, he'll be movin' on up to a federal corrections facility to begin his sentence. To borrow from an old lawyer joke, what do you call one corrupt Congressman in jail? A good start.

Click Here

New! Cumberland Christmas Yule Log

Clinton Judge Impeached

A federal district judge who overturned a Louisiana law banning partial-birth abortion is now on trial himself, facing impeachment charges before Congress. G. Thomas Porteous Jr., a Clinton appointee, is accused of seeking money and gifts from attorneys with cases before his court, stretching back to the 1980s when he was a state judge. By 2000, Porteous had run up credit card debts -- mainly cash advances at casinos -- exceeding $150,000. Other allegations against Porteous include declaring bankruptcy under a false name in 2001 and filing false financial disclosure statements.

The obvious question beckons: Was justice for sale? It's unfortunate that Porteous appears to have a gambling problem because his questionable integrity could also have tainted his decisions. Porteous ruled against the partial-birth ban, calling it a "back-door effort" to limit abortion, despite overwhelming front door legislative support for the measure, and used his power on the bench to supplant that of the legislature. The system of government we hold dear depends on integrity in all three branches, and it seems that Louisiana doesn't have the best track record on that front.

Army Corps of Engineers Blamed for Katrina Flooding

Let's make it three-for-three with Louisiana and judges. "A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Army Corps of Engineers' failure to properly maintain a navigation channel led to massive flooding in Hurricane Katrina, a decision that could make the federal government vulnerable to billions of dollars in claims," reports The Washington Post. U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval ruled in favor of six residents who blamed the Army Corps for flooding in the Lower 9th Ward and St. Bernard Parish, and he awarded $720,000 to the plaintiffs. Two residents of eastern New Orleans were not so lucky, as Duval said the Army was not at fault for flooding there. The Post notes the most important factor here: "The ruling should give more than 100,000 other individuals, businesses and government entities a better shot at claiming billions of dollars in damages." Talk about windfall profits.

Friday Digest

2009-09-18T14:15:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 37

Page I of IV ->

THE FOUNDATION

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature." --Alexander Hamilton

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

ACORN: Organizing the community one prostitute at a time

ACORN -- A Tough Nut to Crack

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) bills itself as "the nation's largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people." Its mission is typical leftist activism -- anything from advocating for a higher minimum wage and the type of home loans that precipitated the housing crisis to ballot initiatives and voter registration. We know that ACORN has also submitted fraudulent voter registration forms filled out by "Mickey Mouse" and other fictional characters. But, hey, "get out the vote" knows no bounds. Also, Barack Obama worked alongside ACORN during his own "community organizing" days.

This week, news broke that the Census Bureau, which had planned to partner with ACORN in next year's census, severed all ties with the organization. Then the U.S. House and Senate each voted to deny the group access to further federal housing funds (though who knows what will happen in Conference Committee). Even the Obama White House "distanced" itself from this taxpayer-funded organization.

So why all the fuss? If inquiring minds read only The New York Times, they might be in the same blissfully ignorant boat as ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson, who, when asked about the ACORN scandal, claimed, "I don't even know about it."

The story began when two young conservative activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking advice on obtaining a loan for a home to use as a brothel, evading income tax on the young woman's income and claiming as dependents underage El Salvadoran girls they wanted to employ. In five different ACORN offices (Baltimore, DC, New York, and San Diego and San Bernardino, California), workers bit on the story, hooker, line and sinker, freely giving pointers without so much as batting an eye on how to get illegal loans and evade taxes. The videos are posted on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com. None showed concern for the obvious implication of child abuse.

The Times, however, with the motto "All the News That's Fit to Print," didn't find anything fit to print until days later, and then only with the laughable headline, "Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn." As Charlie Gibson condescended, "[M]aybe this is just one you leave to the cables."

The truly unfortunate thing is that ACORN has received more than $50 million in taxpayer dollars since 1994 and was set to receive $8.5 billion in "stimulus" cash. Most Democrats are feverishly turning off the funding spigot before this scandal drags their own political skeletons out of the closet. For the record, however, seven senators voted to continue funding this criminal enterprise, and, not surprisingly, they're all Democrats: Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Dick Durbin (IL), Roland Burris (IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Bob Casey Jr. (PA), Patrick Leahy (VT) and self-proclaimed socialist independent Bernie Sanders (VT). In addition, 75 (yes, seventy-five) House Democrats voted to continue throwing our money at the group. Space doesn't permit us to list the names of these disgraceful twits, but BigGovernment.com has them for all to see.

One of the ACORN workers did tell O'Keefe, "Honesty is not going to get you the house." Perhaps she meant "House" with a capital "H." In any case, O'Keefe and Giles deserve a medal.

On Cross-Examination

"Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee when I read the Politico headline about Team Obama trying to run away from ACORN: 'W.H. distances from activist group.' Choking. Up. With. Laughter. Barack Obama can no more disown ACORN than he could disown his own shadow. He IS ACORN. And ACORN is him. The 'accountability' that White House flack Robert Gibbs says they take 'extremely seriously' doesn't extend to Team Obama itself -- and the accountability they have evaded for pouring more than $800,000 into an ACORN front group for campaign advance work that was mysteriously re-classified as 'get-out-the-vote' work. As for the ACORN 'advisory committee' that will 'audit' the group's illicit activities, I repeat: Choking. Up. With. Laughter." --columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

"The truth remains that thousands of New Yorkers who are facing foreclosure depend on charitable organizations like Acorn for assistance." --Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

But as Investor's Business Daily argues, "The fact is that this 'charitable organization' helped precipitate the mortgage meltdown that shattered the economy. It was Acorn, under the cover of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), that intimidated banks through mob action into making risky loans in the name of 'fairness' to people who could not afford them. The tactics, taken straight from the pages of Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals,' were used by Acorn as early as 1991, when it took over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA."

Essential Liberty Project

On Thursday, Constitution Day, The Patriot Post announced the first phase of our new "Essential Liberty Project," the most important initiative we have ever undertaken, one motivated by the most critical need of our time. The goal is to support the restoration of constitutional integrity, an objective that has been foremost in The Patriot's mission since our inception in 1996.

To that end, Phase One entails the distribution of millions of Constitution booklets to high school and collegiate students nationwide, as a primer on our nation's founding documents and essential liberty. This compact booklet contains the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, as well as a comprehensive introduction on liberty and Rule of Law by Mark Alexander, recently published in The Patriot as Part One and Part Two. It is an outstanding resource for young Patriots.

We are asking you to facilitate a successful launch of this endeavor in two ways:

First, if you are a parent or grandparent of a high school or college student, please consider providing these Constitution booklets to your student's entire class, grade or school. The booklets are available in bulk here.

Second, if you would rather give a donation for the distribution of Constitution booklets to student groups or classes who do not already have sponsors, you can do so at our Essential Liberty Project support page.

Of course, we encourage distribution of the Constitution booklets to other groups, organizations, clubs, ministries and the like.

Help us restore our Constitution's mandate for Rule of Law by distributing Constitution booklets or by supporting that distribution.

ObamaCare, Baucus Style

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) made public his health care proposal this week, and no one on either side of the aisle or in the White House liked it very much. As Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Baucus took it upon himself to put a package together that he thought stood the best chance of drawing bipartisan support, but, instead, his plan landed with a resounding thud. None of the Republicans and Democrats from the so-called "Gang of Six" who were working with him on the bill showed up for the press conference to announce the bill, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that Baucus's plan did not reflect Barack Obama's vision for health care. This is bad news for Baucus, and it may be bad news for ObamaCare in general -- which, of course, is good news for America.

The plan does not include a public option, but that's about the only good thing that can be said about it. It advocates heavy regulation of insurers, forcing them to accept all comers regardless of pre-existing conditions, and it also establishes "exchanges" where insurers will be required to develop standardized plans for comparison-shopping.

The plan also includes an absolutely brutal tax and fee structure to "pay" for itself. Insurers would be forced to fork over an excise tax of 35 percent for high-value health plans, because liberals won't be able to live with themselves if they allow some Americans to have better health care plans than others, even though it's often a matter of personal choice. (And here we thought liberals believed in "the right to choose.") Arbitrary fees for insurers and makers of drugs and medical devices would also be used to fund the plan. While Congress always seems to forget this, keep in mind that all of these costs will be passed on to you, the consumer.

All Americans would be required to have health insurance or face stiff penalties. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that even after a low-income family receives government subsidies to purchase health insurance, their personal "investment" into a mandatory plan could amount to more than 15 percent of their annual income.

Baucus's plan also takes a swing at business. Companies are not now required by law to offer insurance to their employees, but those with 50 or more employees that don't offer coverage will face a $400 per employee fine. This fine would kick in if any one employee receives subsidies to buy insurance.

Conspicuously absent is tort reform -- the billions of dollars spent by doctors to pay up or settle frivolous lawsuits, the ever-increasing malpractice scam that requires them to buy expensive insurance policies -- all of which raise the costs to the insurers. Could this be a result of all the contributions made by trial lawyers to the Democrats? Surely not!

Criticism of Baucus's plan has come from all sides, and with virtually no support, it may very well die an ignominious death. It will go before the full Senate Finance Committee for dissection and potential rewrites, but there is little reason to believe that it (or any other Democrat proposal) can be made to fit within federal government powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Protesters Come to Washington

A large crowd of Patriots descended on the nation's capital last Saturday to voice their concern and displeasure with Washington's out-of-control spending habits and interference with people's lives. Estimates of the number of participants varied widely, from 70,000 to as many as two million -- but more on that later.

This civil demonstration followed the message and the momentum of the Tea Parties from earlier this year. Placards called attention to a number of issues: chronic government overspending and taxation, nationalization of various industries, the general ineffectiveness of Congress, and the liberal perception that the Tea Party protest movement is a racist mob. Actually viewing the gathering, however, would shed some bright light on that perception. The crowd represented a broad cross section of the country, from senior citizens concerned about ObamaCare's impact on their health care to college students worried about the tremendous debt their generation faces in the coming years, and everyone in between. They were polite to the police officers on street duty, and they left the Mall and streets significantly cleaner than attendees of Barack Obama's January immaculation. Of course, if the larger media outlets aside from Fox News actually bothered to report on the march as opposed to simply offering their own opinions of it, these facts would be known.

There is no official figure of how many people actually attended the march. Liberal pundits stated earlier last week that two million or so protesters were expected. Their high estimate is a slick tactic employed in protest politics -- pin high expectations on opponents, only to mock them when said "expectations" aren't met. However, the low-end number of 70,000 is absurd. There are photos of portions of the crowd that alone contain at least that many people.

Charlie Martin of Pajamas Media pegged the actual size at around 850,000 after performing a series of calculations based upon known facts such as the size of the National Mall, National Park Service definitions of what constitutes a crowd (one person per five square feet), and the number of marchers who passed down Pennsylvania Avenue in a three-hour period. If this number is correct, then it was about the same size of the crowd that attended Obama's inauguration. That event was originally estimated at two million but was later quietly reduced after careful study of satellite photos of the Mall.

New & Notable Legislation

Last month, the Social Security Administration announced that there would be no cost of living adjustment (COLA) in 2010, marking the first time since 1975 that Social Security recipients would receive no annual raise. Yet Medicare payments by seniors are slated to jump 9 percent, at least according to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). She's the sponsor of a House bill to give a one-time payment of $150 to Medicare recipients as a makeup for losing the 2010 COLA. Can anyone say "stimulus" payment?

For the most part, food and energy costs have gone down, leaving the largest source of increased costs to be the government: One tiny case in point is the $7 billion cost to make these one-time payments. Of course, the feds will take back some of that money since Social Security benefits are considered taxable income. Beware of the hand that gives since it can take away as well.

Click Here

New! Air Force Hat

Our sharp 3-D Air Force Wings ball cap features raised white Wings and white accents. U.S. Air Force is stitched on the back of the self-adjusting cap as well as on the bill in front and on the right side.

News From the Swamp: Wilson Rebuked

On Tuesday, the House voted 240-179 -- largely along party lines -- to "disapprove" the behavior of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), who shouted, "You lie!" at President Barack Obama during a particularly galling portion of the Obfuscator-in-Chief's speech to a joint session of Congress last Wednesday. Wilson had already apologized and Obama had accepted, but that wasn't good enough for House Democrats. It is noteworthy that just prior to Wilson's outburst, Obama said that the charge of "panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens" was "a lie, plain and simple." He then called the claim that ObamaCare would cover illegal aliens "false." It was this straw that broke Wilson's back. Oddly enough, immediately after this bit of truth-telling, Wilson's fellow lawmakers began working on health care reform language that would explicitly deny coverage to illegals, while Obama began advocating legalizing illegals so that they can get health care coverage.

In other news, the president has yet to apologize for calling his opponents liars, and the House did not vote to disapprove.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports, "Earlier Tuesday, the House Rules Committee circulated guidelines on how lawmakers may refer to the president or his team. It is acceptable to call a presidential message 'a disgrace to the country,' the memo said, or refer to 'our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.' But a lawmaker may not call the president a 'liar' or 'cowardly.'" All of the above easily apply to the current administration.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"[Congressman Joe Wilson] did not help the cause of, uh, of uh, diversity and, uh, tolerance with his remarks. If I were a betting man I would say that it instigated, uh, more, uh, racist sentiment, feeling that it's okay, you don't have to, you don't have to, uh, bury it now, you can bring it out, talk about it fully. And so, uh, I guess we'll probably have, uh, folks, uh, puttin' on, uh, white hoods and white uniforms again and, uh, riding through the countryside intimidating people. And, um, you know, that, that's the, uh, logical conclusion if, uh, this kind of, um, attitude, uh, uh, is not, uh, rebuked. And uh, uh, Congressman Wilson represents it -- he's the face of it, and, uh, that's why I support the resolution." --Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), exhibiting the same verbal tic as Obama -- indicating that both are either lying or spouting B.S.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-09-11T13:26:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 36

Page I of IV ->

THE FOUNDATION

"The executive branch of this government never has, nor will suffer, while I preside, any improper conduct of its officers to escape with impunity." --George Washington

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Van Jones channels Che Guevara

The Bigger They Czar, the Harder They Fall

Van Jones, White House adviser on Environmental Quality, or according to the prevailing trend of labeling bureaucrats, the "green jobs czar," resigned over the Labor Day holiday. For those who had never heard of Jones before last weekend, his job in the administration was to act as an adviser to the president on making America's commercial and industrial economy more "environmentally friendly." Jones has a public background as an activist and writer for environmental causes and he is a darling among Hollywood and Washington liberal elites. Oh, and he was also a "community organizer." But there was more to Jones's background than was made public when he took the White House job. For example, Jones has two prior arrests on his record for participating in riots, he has numerous admitted associations with communists and other radicals and he was a supporter of the 9/11 "truthers."

Fox News's Glenn Beck broke the story that led to the czar's deposing -- Jones's name appeared on a petition stating that the Bush administration deliberately brought about the 9/11 terrorist attacks to have an excuse to go to war. Jones would only say that he did not review the language of the petition carefully. How complicated must a petition be for a Yale man like Jones not to understand?

The mainstream media, again acting as President Obama's public relations firm, spent little ink or airtime on the story. (In fact, The New York Times reported for duty only after Jones had submitted his resignation.) Beck and others kept up the pressure, though, and interesting tidbits from Jones's past continued surfacing, including information about his arrests in the Rodney King and Seattle World Trade Organization riots and a video of Jones making speeches in which he tossed out epithets about Republicans which we can't reprint.

Jones made some feeble apologies in hopes of sweeping the growing furor under the rug, but eventually the White House realized that they couldn't defend Jones's radicalism and ObamaCare at the same time. Consequently, while the country was off celebrating the holiday weekend, Jones tendered his resignation at midnight on Saturday, claiming all the while that he was the victim of right-wing character assassination. So much for apologies. While this is a skirmish victory in our efforts to restore Constitutional Rule of Law, rest assured that he'll likely be back, albeit in a less visible position.

How is it that someone like Jones could rise to such a level of responsibility in the White House? Unless one is on a tightly grouped public tour, citizens can't even enter the building without a Secret Service background check. Job applicants are required to fill out a 60-page questionnaire that past applicants have described as a most comprehensive review. Someone with Jones's background never would have been cleared by the Secret Service. The only way Jones could have been approved for the job, as American Spectator columnist Jeffrey Lord points out, is if someone high up in the administration overruled the Secret Service -- someone like the lead rabble-rouser himself.

The White House hopes that this business will end with Jones's resignation. But there are at least 30 (some count over 60) additional so-called czars in the White House who also could use a little public scrutiny. There already exist cabinet positions and executive offices for all the tasks that these new apparatchiks manage, but Obama brought them on board as "advisers" to circumvent the checks and balances of presidential appointments. He knew that radical activists like Jones, et al would not pass muster with the Senate, and certainly not with the American public. So, he created a new office to find a place for Jones in his administration.

Unfortunately, Jones isn't the only radical in Obama's crew. Regulation Czar Cass Sunstein advocates changing the organ donor rules to a system whereby people have to opt out of donating their organs rather than opting in. Sunstein believes that the government should manipulate choices to "make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better." And then there's Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, who once floated ideas like forced abortions and compulsory sterilization to help control human population levels. How many other people like Sunstein and Holdren are there in the White House? As they say, "Inquiring minds want to know."

Obama Addresses Joint Session of Congress

Chairman Obama declared in his latest speech to Wednesday's joint session of Congress that the time for debate about the government takeover of health care is over. Not only that, but he's done "wasting time" with opponents' criticisms. "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it," he huffed. "If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution, not this time, not now." Left unexplained is why Obama thinks it is his place to declare the debate over.

Obama claimed his reforms will eliminate massive fraud from public and private health care (which leads us to wonder why the federal government has failed to act against such massive fraud over the last 45 years), will cut large amounts of money from Medicare while forcing physicians to provide additional care to more people amid plummeting reimbursement rates, will eliminate denials due to pre-existing conditions, will cap out-of-pocket expenses, will drive down premium rates, and, finally and most reassuringly, will create rainbows for unicorns -- all for just $900 billion over 10 years. Talk about fantasy.

Of course, Obama also claimed that government will "keep insurance companies honest." Politicians keeping anyone honest? And he wonders why we're skeptical. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) is also skeptical. He yelled, "You lie!" after Obama told Congress that illegal aliens will not be covered by ObamaCare. In its current form, the legislation does say coverage does not apply to illegals, but it also doesn't require citizenship verification. Apparently, it's on the honor system -- and Wilson was right.

Through massive tax hikes on all aspects of our economy and a little accounting jujitsu, the public option supposedly will pay for itself. All that the federal government has to do is quickly learn how to operate as a break-even, self-funded, non-profit insurance company, while preventing insurers from canceling anyone's coverage due to high claims (already illegal under federal HIPAA laws and laws in all 50 states) or fraud. The federal government would also act as a large insurance agent, working hard to match Americans with insurance coverage based on their needs -- as pre-determined by Washington bureaucrats, of course.

Chillingly, the latest Democrat proposal also calls for mandating Americans carry health insurance or face yearly fines up to $3,800, which Obama stated was similar to the fines for driving a car without insurance. Apparently, in the Twilight Zone of Democrat "thinking," making people pay for not having something they don't want or can't afford will encourage them to somehow acquire said thing.

Demanding health care for all Americans is a sweet-sounding sentiment, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Another vacuous Obama speech hasn't solved anything, hasn't brought the country together to sing Kum Ba Ya, and hasn't conjured up enough leprechaun gold to keep the country solvent.

Quote of the Week

"It was disgusting and it was reprehensible and it was predictable. ... The office of the president of the United States was demeaned last night. President Barack Obama gave a grossly inappropriate and ... embarrassing speech, a campaign speech disguised as a big speech to a joint session of Congress. It was grossly inappropriate in content. There were lies, falsehoods, distortions, it was embarrassing in tone. He called his critics liars when his own positions have been proven to be untrue. ... It was dishonest. It demeaned the office of the presidency. ... It was an awful speech. He was petulant; he was childish; he was a community organizer and agitator; he lied; he was divisive; he attacked me; he attacked Sarah Palin; he attacked conservative Republicans in Congress who dare to challenge government-run health care. He continued to attack tens of millions of Americans who spent the summer attending town hall meetings. It was crude. It was disgusting. The most crude and disgusting performance by any president I have seen." --radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh

On Cross-Examination

"Democrats have wanted President Obama to drop some of his cool and fight for their health-care agenda, and last night they weren't disappointed. The President gave away very little on the substance of what Congressional leaders are proposing, even as he offered a rhetorical bow or two to the idea of compromise. The main message of his speech to Congress is that he is doubling down on his health-care bets and counting on the sheer inertia of Democratic and health industry self-interest in Washington to drive a bill into law. The speech was especially notable for its use of one of Mr. Obama's favorite rhetorical devices: Noting in the first instance that his opponents have a good point, and entirely legitimate concerns, only to reject their ideas in toto when it comes to policy. Thus he endorsed the public's concern about the competence of government to manage one-sixth of the economy, only to finish with a soaring oration about the moral necessity of letting government do so." --The Wall Street Journal

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. ... Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true." --Barack Obama, in his speech to Congress, at once warning against "scare tactics" and then proceeding (with enough distance between statements) to employ them

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"[T]here is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care. There's no place in the Constitution that specifically says education. There is no place in the competition, in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution that talks about you ought to have the right to get a telephone, but we have made those choices as a country over the years." --Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) at a town hall meeting when asked by a high school teacher to cite the constitutional basis for a federal takeover of the health care system (yes, he actually repeated himself that many times)

Senator Warner thus demonstrates his inability to uphold his oath of office and to distinguish between the Constitution's guarantee of so-called "negative rights" -- rights that preclude infringements on personal freedoms, such as property rights (e.g., the right to own a telephone) -- and "positive rights," which are a 20th-century liberal fabrication, and are merely government-granted privileges -- like the "right" to health insurance.

Video of the Week

"This is my town hall meeting for you. And you're not going to tell me how to run my congressional office. Now, the reason why I don't allow filming is that usually the films that are done end up on YouTube..." --Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN), displaying his disdain for representative government and, thus, his inability to uphold his oath of office

Click Here

New! U.S. Stick Flags

These hemmed American flags are perfect for hand held uses and decorative purposes such as parades and patriotic holidays. Measures 8" x 12"

New & Notable Legislation

The Senate is considering legislation that will create a new quasi-government agency tasked with persuading foreigners to visit the U.S. To pay for this advertising, the bill aims to charge a $10 fee for every foreigner that does visit America. The European Commission's Ambassador to Washington, John Bruton, weighed in, saying, "Only in 'Alice in Wonderland' could a penalty be seen as promoting the activity on which it is imposed." Democrats just can't help themselves. A penalty for not having health insurance, a tax on employers who don't provide it, and a $10 fee for foreigners to pay for an agency that advertises to them all fit in the same template. Still, "Alice in Wonderland" can never be a part of the American Dream.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-09-11T13:15:00.001-04:00

NATIONAL SECURITY

Page II of IV -> <-

Eighth Anniversary of 9/11

Today we solemnly mark the eighth anniversary of September 11, 2001, when 2,996 innocents, mostly American citizens, lost their lives in the murderous attacks against our country by Islamic fascists. In keeping with the presidential proclamation designating September 11, 2009, as Patriot Day, all flags should be flown at half-staff in memory of those who lost their lives that day. We invite you to join us as we offer our prayers for the families of those lost and for our Armed Forces now serving on the front lines of the war that began that day.

As you remember September 11th, we invite you to visit The Patriot's resource to commemorate the attacks on our countrymen, "Day of Terror: A September 11 Retrospective". Now, as we move forward and continue to engage our jihadi foes on battle fronts around the globe, let us never forget why we fight.

Finally, The Patriot has been asked to provide 2,000 Shields of Strength for Marines at Camp Pendleton. However, our Operation account is depleted. Please support OpSoS today so we can purchase and ship these shields ASAP.

Warfront With Jihadistan: Government Duties 101

As we have highlighted many times previously, the most basic duty of a government is to protect its citizens from enemies. It should come as no surprise, then, that treason-lobby leftists who don't "get" this fundamental tenet are simply kicking it to the curb.

In the first example, the Ninth Circus, er, Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be sued for detaining people as material witnesses during 9/11 investigations. In the suit, Abdullah al-Kidd claimed his rights were violated when he was detained for two weeks in 2003. The good news is that to prevail, al-Kidd must show that Ashcroft was personally involved in crafting or executing an illegal policy, a very high bar. The bad news is al-Kidd will likely arm-twist the government into settling by threatening to compel release at trial of highly classified documents. In sanctioning the case, the Ninth Circuit has thrown the advantage to the enemy and national security under the bus.

In the second case, we get a glimpse into how political interests can affect national security. As we highlighted two weeks ago, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the mastermind behind the 1988 PanAm bombing in Lockerbie, Scotland, was released by the Scottish government, ostensibly because he is terminally ill. Facts have surfaced, however, that strongly suggest that the real reason behind the unrepentant Libyan terrorist's release was to secure lucrative oil and energy industry contracts for the UK-based corporate giant BP. Chief among this evidence are energy industry ties between the brother of the Scottish Justice Secretary who released the bomber and Libya. We also speculate that among primary indicators of concealed motives, data on how many other terminally ill convicted mass murderers have been released on humanitarian grounds under Scottish law would be very enlightening.

Common in these illustrations is a systemic disdain for an indispensable role of government, namely, the protection of its people. While legislators and bureaucrats rush to use the apparatus of the state for every conceivable purpose (universal health care is merely the latest effort in the statists' never-ending siege on freedom), they ignore a bedrock role of government.

As a potentially happy epilogue, an English court this week found three terrorists guilty of conspiring to kill thousands in 2006 by blowing up trans-Atlantic flights using explosive liquids carried aboard in soft drink containers. The subsequent ban on liquids carried aboard airliners continues to this day, thanks in large part to these three. However, since the three have no direct oil ties, they may actually have a chance of serving out their life sentences ... but we won't hold our breath.

Click Here

This just in!

Hot of the presses, our exlusive "To Support and Defend" poster will make a beautiful and inspiring addition to your home or office wall. Measures 16" x 20".

Afghan Election Questions Continue

In Afghanistan, the vote counting continues from last month's presidential election, and it does not appear to be going well. This week, Afghanistan's election commission announced a vote count that gave current President Hamid Karzai about 54 percent of the vote with about 92 percent of the vote counted, which is just enough to claim victory and avoid a runoff. However, other candidates quickly and angrily rejected the tally. According to the commission, the nearest challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, has 28 percent of the vote. Prior to the election, it was expected that Karzai and Abdullah would split the vote and require a runoff. Western and Afghan observers say fraud was rampant, with loyalists to President Karzai (or were they Taliban posing as Karzai supporters?) setting up over 800 fake polling sites where no one voted but where possibly hundreds of thousands of ballots were counted toward Karzai's re-election.

Karzai has been Afghanistan's president since elections were first held after the overthrow of the Taliban by the U.S.-led coalition. He has been a close ally of the U.S., and if the election results stand, it could put the Obama regime in a bind. The U.S. had hoped that this election would help weaken the Taliban by giving the population a greater voice in their government. Instead, Obama now faces the prospect of defending an Afghan government that is needed in the Long War, but that is widely seen as illegitimate in the eyes of the Afghan population. With the Taliban continuing to successfully rebuild their strength, and with U.S. casualties at a wartime high, let's hope the Community Organizer-in Chief is up to the task.

Profiles of Valor: USMC Lt. Col. Kennedy

Kennedy

U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Brian Kennedy flew more than 71 combat missions in his AH-1W Cobra helicopter between the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 20, 2003, and April 14, 2004. Most of the missions were flown at night, at low altitude and in harsh conditions. On March 20, the first full day of the war, he flew along the Safwan Hill border to provide a landing zone for American forces, successfully engaging Iraqi defensive positions and scout vehicles. In the ensuing days, he led a mission over the Al Rumaylah oil fields, which were rigged with air defense artillery and also defended with small arms fire. Kennedy later led a successful assault on Basra, which allowed British troops to secure positions there. He destroyed eight Iraqi artillery positions in those flights -- a significant blow to the Special Republican Guard -- as well as the only remaining ballistic missile system capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction against Allied Forces in Kuwait. Though Kennedy calls himself an "ordinary Marine," he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross with combat "V" for valor for his superb airmanship, courage and leadership.

Page III Back to Page I

Friday Digest

2009-09-11T13:08:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 36

THE FOUNDATION

Page I of IV ->

"The executive branch of this government never has, nor will suffer, while I preside, any improper conduct of its officers to escape with impunity." --George Washington

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Van Jones channels Che Guevara

The Bigger They Czar, the Harder They Fall

Obama Addresses Joint Session of Congress

Quote of the Week

On Cross-Examination

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

Video of the Week

Click Here

New! U.S. Stick Flags

These hemmed American flags are perfect for hand held uses and decorative purposes such as parades and patriotic holidays. Measures 8" x 12"

New & Notable Legislation

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-09-04T20:37:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 35

Page I of IV ->

THE FOUNDATION

"Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom." --John Adams

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Big Brother Will Educate Your Children Now

It's like 1984 all over again

Tuesday, Sept. 8, is the first day of classes in many schools across the Fruited Plain -- and Barack Hussein Obama will use his presidential bully pulpit to interrupt the very start of classroom studies with an unprecedented nationwide speech to students, from pre-school to K-12. Schools technically have the option to show the broadcast from the White House Web site or on C-SPAN, but then again, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in public education is at least 3-to-1, making forced viewing more likely.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wrote in a letter to school principals, "The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens."

The truly troubling part of this episode of "Everybody Loves Barack" is that the Department of Education posted "helpful" lesson plans to be used before, during and after Obama's speech.

One idea included in the initial lesson plan was for students to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." Uproar ensued, however, and that was changed. Now students can "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals." Slightly altered, but students are still encouraged to discuss what "the president wants us to do."

We have a different take for teachers. Back in October, when charged that he was a socialist, Obama explained what he meant by "shared responsibility," saying, "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week [John McCain will] be accusing me of being a secret communist because ... I shared, I, I, I, I shared my, uhh... I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich." Of course, Obama wasn't and isn't proposing to share his sandwich. Instead, he promises to confiscate your sandwich and give it to someone else whom he deems more worthy.

At the same time, Obama said of McCain's opposition to tax hikes, "You know I, I, I don't know when, when, uh, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness." This from the guy who, between 2000 and 2006, gave a whopping two percent of his income for charitable purposes.

So, if teachers break down Obama's real philosophy, they will have plenty of fodder for truthful discussions of his nefarious plots against all things American, without his propaganda drivel. Then again, on "Obama Cult of Personality Day," responsible parents may opt out of this "teachable moment" and just call their kids in sick.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"So much of the debate about President Obama has been politicized in an effort by some to delegitimize his presidency. This is clearly much ado about nothing. We're talking about the president of the United States speaking to school kids. Why wouldn't schools want this to happen? That's why our kids are so dumb today, because they don't want to have basic common sense in the classroom." --CNBC contributor Keith Boykin, trying to de-link the upcoming Obama Big Brother speech to school children from good ol' American horse sense

ObamaCare on Shaky Ground

After giving instructions to America's children, Barack Obama will turn his attention to the children on Capitol Hill -- those occupying seats in Congress. In a prime time address to Congress on Wednesday, Sept. 9, the president will focus on ramming through ObamaCare as soon as possible. Aside from the State of the Union, or the traditional first address by a newly elected president, such speeches before Congress, to date, have been rare. Indeed, the last one was on Sept. 20, 2001, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

According to White House adviser David Axelrod, Obama's speech will be "more prescriptive" on what the administration is looking for in the bill. "Now hang on a second," says Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto. "We know July was a long time ago, but we distinctly remember back then that the administration was demanding that Congress pass ObamaCare before the August recess. And the president is only now getting around to telling us what ObamaCare even is?"

One thing that ObamaCare may not feature overtly is a public option, despite Obama's previous claims that the legislation "must include" such a provision. But, as we warned two weeks ago, this apparent concession is a bid to get the bill through the Senate, only to add it back in the House-Senate reconciliation conference. Democrats are certainly reeling from a scorching August, suffering burns from their constituents at town hall meetings, not from supposed global warming. So the appearance of concessions helps take heat off Democrats in red states. But bear that in mind as debate moves forward and congressmen once again drink the bewitched waters of the Potomac River. After all, with wild-eyed ObamaCare supporters biting off the fingers of opponents, Democrats need to produce results, sooner rather than later. Public option or not, this horrendous legislation will be a foot in the door to single-payer, government-run health care.

Speaking of protests, here are two videos from the week:

"It ain't [America] no more, okay?" -- Fairfax County (VA) School District Police Officer Wesley Cheeks Jr. tells a protester that he can "charge [him] with whatever I want to" because the protester has an anti-ObamaCare sign the officer doesn't like.

U.S. Soldier Demands Apology From Senator Claire McCaskill at Town Hall -- a soldier explains the difference between his keeping of his oath to support and defend, and McCaskill's eagerness to break that oath.

On Cross-Examination

"They're not at the center of the great debate over what the president and his allies call the 'reform' of American health care. Nor are they even at the periphery. But health savings accounts -- remember them? -- are still alive and growing. ... [However,] the reform schemes pushed by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress would almost surely mean the end of HSAs. Even without well-funded government coverage to compete with private insurers, the proposed insurance 'exchange' at the heart of the Democratic plans would require something similar, a top-of-the-line private plan, from its participants. It would have no place for cheap, basic plans that -- like true insurance -- cover just the big costs and require policyholders to pay out-of-pocket for routine care and drugs. And if the exchange doesn't kill HSAs, Congress could do the job by axing the tax-deductibility of HSA contributions. So would this be all that great a loss? With just a sliver of the public occupying the HSA niche, wiping out HSAs wouldn't change the current landscape much. But the future landscape might be much different, and not for the better. Letting HSAs die would preclude real reform -- by which we mean reform that actually cuts costs without rationing by government or corporate bureaucrats." --Investor's Business Daily

Hope 'n' Change: Obama Holds Fiscal Line on Federal Raises

During his seven-plus months in the Oval Office, Barack Obama has requested and signed a number of budget-busting measures. However, he is drawing the line on federal pay increases for 2010 by reducing the increase from a planned 2.4 percent down to 2 percent (don't Democrats usually call that a cut?) -- a whopping 17 percent reduction in the employee raises. In a statement to Congress, Obama revealed he had budgeted only $19.9 billion for pay increases, an amount corresponding to the 2 percent hike. Conversely, raising the federal payroll by the full 2.4 percent would have cost taxpayers $22.6 billion.

Looking at the spending liberals are proposing in new government programs like cap-n-tax and government-run health care, being miserly in this case is enough to make us recall the phrase, "penny wise and pound foolish." It goes without saying though that even a 2 percent raise would look great to private-sector workers who took pay cuts this year, or, at best, saw no increase in their salary. Then there are those whose jobs have disappeared under the Obama regime -- another 216,000 more in August alone (unemployment stands at 9.7 percent, a 26-year high).

Meanwhile, Partnership for Public Service, a think tank, conducted a survey of 35 federal agencies and concluded that the federal government needs to hire at least 270,000 more workers for "mission-critical" jobs in the next three years. No doubt Obama will be glad to oblige.

Gore Invented It ... Will Obama Control It?

A bill pending in the Senate has aroused controversy from civil liberties groups who say the prospect of government control of the Internet in case of a "national emergency" leaves the door open for blatant political shenanigans. S. 773 was heavily revised after its introduction earlier this year but remains vague on what would constitute a "cybersecurity emergency," where private computers could be forcibly disconnected from the Internet by none other than Obama. A second provision allows the federal government to certify "cybersecurity professionals" who would be the only ones allowed to be "provider(s) of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency."

Should S. 773 pass, Obama would "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." Isn't this the same guy who called for his sycophants to report "fishy" health care information to flag@whitehouse.gov, all while spamming the American people? Supporters compare the power this bill gives to the president with that of George W. Bush ordering the grounding of aircraft after 9/11. One major difference: There are travel alternatives to aircraft; we have no viable substitute for the Internet.

New & Notable Legislation

It seems that cap-n-tax isn't quite as popular as some Democrats would have us believe. Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) announced that the legislation will be postponed in the Senate for up to a month. Apparently, they don't have the requisite 60 votes, despite a 60-seat Democrat super-majority plus five or six spineless Republicans. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) admitted last month, "I have to be honest with you. As a whip, I count the votes and I count the days in the week, and I look at this rulebook in the Senate and think this is not an easy lift. I think we can still do it, but it's a question of timing." The House passed the bill by a razor-thin margin in June, and even then only after weeks of browbeating and backroom deals to coerce a few Blue Dogs into toeing the party line. Lo and behold, there is a glimmer of hope after all.

Click Here

New! Tervis Travel Lid

We love these new travel lids for our popular 17 oz. Tervis mugs and think you will too! Lids slide open and closed. Pick the color you like best to match your mug! Red, green, blue and navy lids are top-rack dishwasher safe.

From the Left: Racial 'Justice'

The Justice Department is planning to hire more than 50 new civil rights lawyers whose job will be to target "racism" in America. So much for Barack Obama's post-racial presidency. Indeed, it seems that Eric Holder's contemptible job as Attorney General is to politicize and racialize "justice," both by investigating the good guys at the CIA for protecting America over the last eight years and now by rooting out (read: making up) "racism."

Naturally, to liberals, racism is a one-way street. In February, Holder, who is black, said, "[I]n things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." He continued, "[W]e, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race." Now, thanks to Holder, some folks can look forward to talking more about race -- from within a Justice Department interrogation room.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-08-28T14:57:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 34

Page I of IV ->

THE FOUNDATION

"To say that the United States should be answerable for twenty-five millions of dollars without knowing whether the ways and means can be provided, and without knowing whether those who are to succeed us will think with us on the subject, would be rash and unjustifiable. Sir, in my opinion, it would be hazarding the public faith in a manner contrary to every idea of prudence." --James Madison

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Obama's plan for America: Debt, debt and more debt

So This Is Hope 'n' Change?

In May, when the federal deficit was projected to be $7 trillion over the next decade, President Barack Obama was asked, "At what point do we run out of money?" His reply was actually rather candid: "Well, we are out of money now," he said. Last Friday, the administration adjusted its deficit projection -- upwards, of course. The White House now says the number will reach $9 trillion, including $1.6 trillion this year and $1.5 trillion next year. So much for The One's promise to end the years of "borrow and spend" budgeting.

The Congressional Budget Office simultaneously projected a deficit of $7 trillion over the next decade, a lower number because the CBO considers only current law, not White House proposals. The Wall Street Journal reports that "these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases. CBO predicts that debt held by the public as a share of GDP, which was 40.8% in 2008, will rise to 67.8% in 2019 -- and then keep climbing after that. CBO says this is 'unsustainable,' but even this forecast may be optimistic."

Among the problems with the White House estimate is that it depends, in part, on raising $640 billion through the cap-and-tax bill as well as another $200 billion in international business taxes. Both bills face opposition in the Senate, even from some Democrats. And these new taxes aren't guaranteed to produce more federal revenue. Instead, we can count on cap-and-tax to depress the economy, resulting in less revenue. The White House already expects unemployment to hit 10 percent this year.

The CBO estimate, meanwhile, is based on the ridiculous premise that Congress will hold spending to the rate of inflation. The Journal remarks, "CBO actually has overall spending falling between 2009 and 2012, which is less likely than an asteroid hitting the Earth." The CBO also assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts will expire, even those for lower and middle class families.

Finally, the president's crown jewel, ObamaCare, projected to cost at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years, is entirely omitted from the deficit estimate because Obama pledges that it won't add to the deficit. Next, he'll be trying to sell us some oceanfront property in Arizona.

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

Speaking of Arizona, at a town hall meeting in his home state, sometimes-Republican Sen. John McCain was asked by an audience member, "I would like to know how the president is getting by with all of this money. It's against the Constitution. Doesn't he know we still live under a Constitution?" The transcript follows (hat tip to Rush Limbaugh):

McCain: I'm sure that he does. I'm sure --

Audience: (laughter)

McCain: No, no, I'm serious. I'm sure that he does and I'm sure that he respects the Constitution of the United States.

Audience: (groans)

McCain: No, no, no, no. No, I -- I -- I -- I really do. I -- I am absolutely convinced of it.

Audience Member: No!

McCain: I just believe, my friends, that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy and about the role of government. That's why we have competition for public office and competition amongst parties and competition about different ideas and visions for the future of America. I am convinced the president is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.

Audience: (groans)

McCain: But he's -- wait a minute. Wait a minute. He is sincere in his beliefs. We just -- we just happen to disagree, and he's the president of the United States and let's be respectful.

In a friendlier atmosphere on ABC's "This Week," McCain said, "I look at this as an opportunity right now. ...[W]ouldn't it be a good idea for us Republicans and Democrats to sit down with the president? ... There's so many areas that we are in agreement on."

In a nutshell, that's why McCain lost in November. He just doesn't get it.

'Win One for Teddy'

Predictably, Democrats and their accomplices in the Leftmedia began using the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy to rally the troops for a government takeover of health care. Oddly enough, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh predicted last March that the bill would soon be known as the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill." As National Review's Jonah Goldberg notes, "At the time, the official position of the Democratic Party was outrage and disgust." Now Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), the only senator having occupied office longer than Kennedy, has fulfilled Rush's prediction by proposing the legislation be named after Kennedy. Goldberg observes, "[T]his suggests that either Democrats already had the idea when Limbaugh floated it, which would mean their protests were just so much opportunistic and cynical posturing, or they actually got the idea from Limbaugh himself, which would be too ironic for a Tom Wolfe novel."

Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto adds that Democrats "propose to brush aside the public revolt against ObamaCare, seize control over one-sixth of the economy, and give government life-or-death powers over all Americans -- all so that they can pay tribute to their dead colleague. Haven't they heard of a nonbinding resolution? ... It's hard to imagine anything more outrageously self-indulgent than for [Kennedy's] erstwhile colleagues to pay tribute to him by imposing on everyone an expensive, unpopular and potentially deadly scheme of social control. Could Washington be more out of touch?"

Former vice president Al Gore put in his two cents: "Ted would want nothing more than for his colleagues to continue his life's work and to make real his dream of quality health care for all Americans." That's true. Why else would one of Kennedy's last acts be so blatantly partisan? As we noted last week, Kennedy fought to change Massachusetts law in 2004 so that Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, couldn't appoint a Republican to replace John Kerry should the latter have won the presidential election. Just before his death, however, Kennedy pushed to have the law changed back so Democrat Gov. Deval Patrick could appoint a Democrat. ObamaCare, after all, may depend on that 60th vote. Still, as even The New York Times editorialized, "To change back now would look like an unseemly amount of partisanship."

ObamaCare is Big Brother Legislation

We regularly draw attention to provisions in the health care bill guaranteed to make stomachs turn. This week is no different. "Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and 'other information as is prescribed by' regulation," CBS News reports. "That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for 'affordability credits.'"

But wait, there's more. CBS says, "Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify 'affordability credits.' Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a 'low-income prescription drug subsidy' but has not applied for it."

Such intrusion comes with the territory -- let the federal government provide for such personal things as health care, and one can expect to encounter unfavorable regulations and privacy violations in the name of countering fraud.

But at least some Republicans get it: Here's Rep. Mike Rogers (MI) explaining the false choices before us.

Meanwhile, not that it's news, but the Leftmedia is securely in the pocket of the Democrat Party. While ABC News contributed a prime-time slot to the never-ending Obama campaign in June so that the president could sell his health care plan, it's no surprise that the network has refused to run an ad by the non-partisan League of American Voters. ABC labeled the ad, which aims to highlight the truth about ObamaCare, "partisan." Spokeswoman Susan Sewell said, "The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue." No word on whether she said that with a straight face.

On Cross-Examination

"I'm a Marine Corps vet. And, like you, I did swear an oath to defend my Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. ... Now, I heard you say tonight ... that you're going to let us keep our health insurance. Well, thank you. It's not your right to decide whether or not I keep my current plan or not. That's my decision. ... I've heard recently in the media you and some other people on the national political stage call us 'brown shirts' because we oppose [government health care]. ... A little history lesson: The Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They were leftists. They took over the finance. They took over the car industry. They took over health care in that country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, maybe the first place she should look is the sleeve of her own arm. ... What I want to know is, as a Marine, as a disabled veteran that served this country, I've kept my oath. Do you ever intend to keep yours?" --Marine Corps vet David Hedrick at a town hall meeting in Clark County, Washington, speaking (with resounding applause) to Democrat Rep. Brian Baird

Click Here

Hot off the press! "American Patriot" stickers are back!

Our newly revised American Patriot sticker is made from durable, high quality vinyl and measures 10" x 3".

Cash for Kitchens and Criminals

On top of soaring deficits, Business Week highlights more outlandish federal spending: a "$300 million cash-for-clunkers-type federal program to boost sales of energy-efficient home appliances." Rebates of $50 to $200 will be available this fall for the purchase of such appliances. "These rebates will help families make the transition to more efficient appliances, making purchases that will directly stimulate the economy," claimed Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Still, dishwashers aren't quite as cool as cars...

In other news, "The federal government sent about 3,900 economic stimulus payments of $250 each this spring to people who were in no position to use the money to help stimulate the economy: prison inmates, reports the Associated Press. "The checks were part of the massive economic recovery package approved by Congress and President Barack Obama in February." Prisons returned about 1,700 checks, but 2,200 inmates got to keep the money because they weren't incarcerated in any one of the three months prior to the so-called stimulus being enacted. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) quipped, "Taxpayers already believe the inmates are running the asylum in Washington. Now it appears they are being compensated for their efforts."

From the Left: Rangel's Latest Ethics Lapse

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) recently amended his 2007 financial disclosure report, adding $500,000 in previously unreported assets. Small oversight. Among the additions were a Congressional Federal Credit Union account valued at $250,000, an investment account valued at $250,000, real estate in New Jersey and various corporate stocks. Rangel is already a poster child for ethics lapses, and he currently faces a number of investigations for tax evasion, improper use of his office and violating New York City rent control laws. Although it's unlikely that true justice will be served in such a hyper-partisan atmosphere, Rangel's image has been tarnished as his troubles continue to mount. In addition, he's had to assemble plenty of financial and political resources toward fighting the allegations, thereby reducing his ability to support liberal causes. Shucks!

Republicans have asked him to step down as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while these investigations are taking place, but Rangel has refused. Naturally, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stood by his refusal, although in the past she has called for Republicans in less egregious circumstances to relinquish leadership roles. So much for San Fran Nan's incessant vows to clean up the "culture of corruption." If it weren't for double standards, liberals wouldn't have any.

Knoxville Conviction

On Tuesday, Letalvis Cobbins was convicted of first degree murder in the infamous Knoxville slayings reported by Mark Alexander. He is the first of four defendants to face trial for the double murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Jan. 2007. The following day, he was spared the death penalty and instead sentenced to life without parole -- and Tennessee taxpayers were sentenced to between $70,000 and $100,000 per year to support him. Still, one down, three to go.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-08-21T13:26:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 33

Page I of IV ->

THE FOUNDATION

"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? ... For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." --Patrick Henry

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

The Trojan Horse for single-payer health care

Something Smells Fishy About This Kool-Aid

President Barack Obama appeared to backtrack on a key provision of his attempted health care coup, telling a Colorado town hall audience that "the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it." So the president is giving in on the government-run option, right? Wrong.

While it's a given that some on the Left are going bananas over the announcement, none other than former DNC Chief Howard "The Scream" Dean let the cat out of the bag on the strategy. "[T]he president knows very well that you aren't really going to have health care reform without a public option," Dean told MSNBC's Joe Scarborough. "But he also knows he has to get this out of the Senate." So the president is playing a cynical game of politics with health care? Say it ain't so!

For now, 60 votes in the Senate are necessary to avoid a filibuster, and the public option is making that threshold harder to reach. If the bill were passed without the public option, it could be added back during reconciliation, at which point only 50 votes would be necessary for passage.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs spun the strategy shift by calling it a "boring consistency to our rhetoric." Nothing's changed, according to Gibbs. The facts, as usual, contradict the Democrats. On July 18, Obama said, "[A]ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans -- including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest -- and choose what's best for your family." But according to Gibbs, changing "must include" to "whether we have it or we don't have it" is just "boring consistency."

The proposed alternative to the public option is nonprofit health insurance cooperatives. However, as the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner explains, "Government-run health care is government-run health care no matter what you call it. The health care 'co-op' approach now embraced by the Obama administration will still give the federal government control over one-sixth of the U.S. economy, with a government-appointed board, taxpayer funding, and with bureaucrats setting premiums, benefits and operating rules. Plus," Tanner adds, "it won't be a true co-op, like rural electrical co-ops or your local health-food store -- owned and controlled by its workers and the people who use its services. Under the government plan, the members wouldn't choose its officers -- the president would."

As for the public option, Jacob S. Hacker, the liberal Yale scholar widely attributed with originating the idea, denies that it is a "Trojan Horse" to sneak in single-payer, government-run health insurance behind citizens' backs. It seems, however, that Hacker also suffers from an acute case of "boring consistency." In 2008, Hacker sounded a different note: "Someone once said to me, 'Well, this is a Trojan horse for single payer.' I said, 'Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there! I'm telling you!' We're going to get there [to a government-run system] -- over time, slowly." He continued, "But we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they're going to lose their private insurance."

Sounds like the frog in the boiling water to us.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"Look at it this way: There's Federal Express, there's UPS, and there's DHL. The public option is a stamp; it's e-mail. And because of the e-mail system, and because of the post office, it keeps DHL from charging $100 for an overnight letter, or UPS from charging $100 for an overnight letter." --Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) expounding on Barack Obama's ill-advised comparison of the public option to the Post Office

News From the Swamp: Intimidation Time

"In a move some fear is a reprisal for opposing President Obama's health care plan, Democrats sent 52 letters to health insurers requesting financial records for a House committee's investigation," Fox News reports. "Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., sent a letter warning health insurers that the House Energy and Commerce Committee is 'examining executive compensation and other business practices of the health industry.'" Politico has a list of the 52 companies targeted. Health insurers have until Sept. 4 to provide information on all employees who earned more than $1 million a year between 2003 and 2008, as well as documents about transportation, food, lodging, entertainment, conferences and events held on company property, and even gifts. Waxman's letter gives no indication as to what or why the information is being requested, but the message is clear: Cough up the info or else. "This is using the raw power of the Congress to extort information and humiliate citizens," says former Speaker Newt Gingrich. "It is a chilling example of intimidation." Indeed.

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

The Leftmedia continue to portray town hall protestors as right-wing, gun-toting racist nutjobs, even when the shoe clearly doesn't fit. As we noted last week, some "protestors" are carrying signs with Barack Obama sporting a Hitler mustache and the message "I've changed." Of course, the media dutifully highlights the signs, while ignoring that they are distributed by and bear the Web site name of LaRouche PAC, the political action committee of seven-time Democrat presidential aspirant and committed socialist conspiracy nut Lyndon LaRouche. That doesn't fit the template.

Protestors with guns are also a target. The Leftmedia frets that citizens can carry guns near some of these town halls, including outside one held by the president in Phoenix, Arizona. MSNBC's Contessa Brewer commented, "A man at a pro-health care reform rally ... wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip.... [T]here are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency, and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or onto their legs." What Brewer failed to mention is that the man carrying the rifle was black. In addition, the video shown on MSNBC was carefully cropped to avoid showing that the man was black -- it only showed the man's back and waist, not his face.

Of course, the anti-gun narrative is not new to MSNBC or Contessa Brewer, and neither is the racial double standard mentioned Thursday by Mark Alexander. Truth, unfortunately, is kicked to the curb.

Abortion Will Be Part of ObamaCare

It should come as no surprise that the health care overhaul being designed by congressional Democrats include provisions for federally mandated coverage of abortions by insurance providers. After all, liberals embrace what President Obama has called "reproductive justice," which apparently includes killing unborn children. (The "justice" aspect has us scratching our heads.) Some members of Congress and the president himself on occasion have stated publicly that no such mandate exists, but they are lying.

The word abortion does not appear in the draft legislation, but several provisions would not only force insurance companies to cover abortions, they would override several state laws and would ultimately lead to taxpayer funded abortions. This is what groups like Planned Parenthood have worked for all along, but the secret is out now, thanks in part to some liberal members of Congress who brazenly admit their stance that taxpayers should pay for abortions, regardless of their moral stance on the issue. "Abortion will be covered as a benefit by one or more of the health care plans available to Americans," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), "and I think it should be." Naturally, a broad cross-section of the public is opposed to this idea, but that's never stopped liberals before.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death." --Barack Obama

Hope 'n' Change: White House Spam

Let's say one doesn't agree with a White House policy. What does one do in the Information Age? Write a blog about it or post an opinion on a social network like FaceBook, or send an e-mail to friends, family and associates. By doing so, the writer creates a "paper trail," albeit in the electrons of the Internet. Once a communication is in cyberspace, it usually has infinite shelf life, and, often, the anti-White House posting can be traced back to the author.

To expedite things, a White House functionary asked supporters (a.k.a. "snitches"), ala neighborhood watchers in Communist, fascist or other totalitarian regimes, to report "fishy" speech about ObamaCare to flag@whitehouse.gov. Such reports would contain some identification of the originator of the post, hence the fear of an "enemies list."

Then a funny thing happened. All of a sudden, many Americans (including numerous Patriot readers) began getting unsolicited e-mail from the White House, some with the request that the e-mails be further circulated. Standardized unsolicited e-mail, sent in large quantities, is known as "spam." Thus, the White House became one of the most reviled users of the Internet, a spammer, a Netiquette violator.

Due to public outrage, the informant e-mail address has been shut down, though now informers can use the White House's "reality check" Web site. And the spamming was explained away and blamed on "outside organizations" submitting e-mail addresses to the White House. But the administration has demonstrated how Big Brother can use the Internet for dissident identification and for dissemination of propaganda. Is it, as H.G. Wells might have asked, "the shape of things to come"?

Ted Kennedy Seeks Quick Replacement

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is always a Democrat first. In a rare open demonstration of how this last of the golden Kennedy boys has always worked behind the scenes, he recently requested the Massachusetts legislature to change a law to allow Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, to appoint a temporary replacement for him in the Senate, just in case. Kennedy has brain cancer and has been mostly absent for the last 15 months. "[I]t is vital for this commonwealth," he urged state lawmakers, "to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election." In other words, health care is coming to a vote this fall, and another Democrat senator is needed to ensure 60 votes should Kennedy still be absent; but he wants an "explicit personal commitment" that the appointee would not seek the seat permanently.

Obviously, the change he requested is necessary -- for his purposes. In 2004, however, Kennedy succeeded in changing the law to its current form so that then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, could not appoint a Republican to replace John Kerry, should the latter have won the presidential election. Furthermore, Kennedy himself would likely not be a U.S. Senator under his proposed change. In 1961, when his older brother moved to the White House, Ted was too young to take the seat, so a loyal placeholder kept the seat for him until he could run in 1962. As we said, always a Democrat first. Or maybe it's Kennedy first, Democrat second.

Click Here

Get it while it's HOT! Air Force Branding Iron gift box

Add some searing Air Force fun to your next BBQ with this Air Force Wings branding iron. Perfect for steaks, chicken, burgers, buns, tortillas and more. Made of quality stainless steel, the Air Force Wings branding iron comes in a rugged storage box which displays the brand right on the box. Easily heated with gas/charcoal grill or propane torch. Additional military logo branding irons available at PatriotShop.US.

Robert Novak (1931-2009)

On Tuesday, noted journalist, television host and political commentator Robert Novak died after suffering from a brain tumor diagnosed 13 months ago. Novak's Washington career spanned over a half-century and influenced many a conservative journalist (yes, the species does exist). Perhaps it was this influence, along with his gruff, sometimes pessimistic demeanor, that earned him the moniker "the Prince of Darkness" -- a tag that Novak embraced.

The Leftmedia focused on Novak's last big story, the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a "super-covert" CIA desk jockey. His revelation led to an investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who, although he knew the leaker's identity early on, pressed on and ended the career of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The New York Times called Novak "churlish," "pugnacious" and inexplicably charged that he "could not always document" his scoops -- a practice with which the Times itself is all too familiar. ABC's "Good Morning America" and CBS's "The Early Show" didn't bother mentioning Novak's death at all, even though they had plenty of time to cover Michael Jackson ... again.

More honest journalists, however, have recalled Novak for a vast body of work. It's a political résumé highlighted by his representation of conservatism on a number of televised political forums, including CNN's "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics," and by his longtime collaboration with fellow Washington journalist Rowland Evans Jr. on the Evans-Novak Report, a publication which provided insight on political events and campaigns for over four decades and survived Evans' 2001 death before finally closing up shop after the 2008 election.

The most fitting tributes recall Novak as perhaps the last great "shoe leather" reporter, whose vast wealth of sources -- to him one was either a source or a subject -- gave him the scoop on stories inside the Beltway. Once compiled, the stories were written with outstanding prose that gave readers a clear insight on events and the circumstances surrounding them. In short, Novak exhibited a talent that won't be replaced easily and his passing closes an era in Beltway journalism.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-08-14T14:19:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 32

Page I of IV ->

THE FOUNDATION

"Can you then consent to be the only sufferers by this revolution, and retiring from the field, grow old in poverty, wretchedness and contempt? Can you consent to wade through the vile mire of dependency, and owe the miserable remnant of that life to charity, which has hitherto been spent in honor? If you can -- GO -- and carry with you the jest of Tories and scorn of Whigs -- the ridicule, and what is worse, the pity of the world. Go, starve, and be forgotten!" --George Washington

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

'I'm as Mad as Hell, and I'm Not Gonna Take This Anymore!'

That famous line from the 1976 movie "Network" sums up the sentiment of many Americans as the health care debate continued to roar across the fruited plain. More town hall meetings featured citizens angry over proposed government expansion, leaving many congressmen not knowing quite how to handle the reaction. It's clear that many Americans have simply had enough.

FAIL: ObamaCare supporters pretend to be opponents

That doesn't mean that Democrats were convinced to abandon their nefarious scheme. Instead, when their own constituents dared to question the infinite wisdom of the carriers of Potomac Fever, Democrat regulars put into practice the words of Obama administration lackey Jim Messina: "If [we] get hit, we will punch back twice as hard." In other words, don't worry about winning the debate; just try to discredit the opposition.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her left-hand man, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), started with an op-ed in USA Today declaring, "These [town hall meeting] disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades." This type of "thinking" -- the transfer of one's own emotions or practices onto others -- is called projection. The Left has long since perfected the art of "drowning out" both opposing views and the facts, while blaming Republicans for doing the same thing.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) put out a call to action: "Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at ... several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices." The SEIU has since removed the words "drown out," but the message is clear -- silence the opposition.

Last week, the administration encouraged Americans who support "reform" to rat on those who are spreading "fishy misinformation," while Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) denounced the administration's opponents as shills of the insurance companies. This week, the Left is painting town hall protestors as racists. "I think 45 to 65 percent of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president," said Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. MSNBC's Carlos Watson worried that "the word socialist ... is becoming the new N-word." And Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein called them "political terrorists" who are "poisoning the political well" and "willing to say or do anything to prevent" ObamaCare.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) added, "[T]he last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it. At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble." How convenient, then, that one of his supporters showed up at a meeting with an Obama-as-Hitler sign to "illustrate" the opposition's "hate."

Similar signs were made by LaRouche PAC, an organization run by long-time Socialist Workers Party member and seven-time Democrat presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Rep. David Scott (D-GA) had a swastika painted on his office sign after a heated exchange at a meeting. Talk about "fishy." What are the odds that the swastika wasn't painted by an opponent? Pretty good, given the Left's history of perpetrating similar hoaxes. Not that comparisons with the National Socialists of Germany aren't appropriate -- we made one last week -- and the Left certainly has done its best to invite the unflattering comparison. After all, it was Pelosi herself who first introduced the word "swastika" to the debate.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is so confident in the health care bill that he will conduct town hall meetings only by phone. And Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) had such esteem for her constituents that she talked to someone else on her cell phone while questions were being asked by meeting participants.

In the end, while Sen. Benedict Arlen Specter dismisses protestors as not "representative of America," here in our humble shop, we suspect that this horde of hysterical hypocrites is in fact not representative of America.

OBAMA LIED!!!

"I have not said that I was a 'single-payer' supporter." --President Barack Obama at a town hall meeting this week

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program." --Obama in 2003

OBAMA LIED!!! Part II

"We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. ... AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?" --Barack Obama

Scratch that. AARP Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson issued a statement saying, "While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." --Barack Obama, in a rare moment of truth-telling, arguing that a public option won't force private insurance out of business

So let's see: Government-run health care = the Post Office. And this is supposed to make us feel good about the idea?

The 'Death Panel'

Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, the health care bill, would give financial incentives to doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years. Yet federal law prohibits Medicare from reimbursing for services "the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing," suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. So why the ruckus over the section? Washington Post columnist Charles Lane explains, "Section 1233 ... addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to 'bend the curve' on health-care costs?"

The consultations are not mandatory, but the financial incentive for doctors makes them not entirely voluntary, either. To some extent, Section 1233 also prescribes the content of the consultation. The doctor "shall" discuss such things as "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to," "living wills and durable powers of attorney," and "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families." Asks Lane, "Who belongs on 'a list' of helpful 'resources'? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?"

Commander and Chief: Dr. Medicine Crow -- Obama's new medicine man?

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin warned of a "death panel" and she may be on to something. As Barack Obama himself enlightened, toward the end of life, tough decisions have to be made, and the government can help: "At least we can let doctors know and [the patient] know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhhh, not having the surgery but taking, uh, the painkiller." Somehow, that's not comforting. When Obama says "we," he almost always means "the government." The government telling the doctor and patient that the painkiller is better than the surgery sure sounds like a death panel to us.

Rush Limbaugh relayed the story of an Oregon woman who was denied a lifesaving medication for her cancer by OregonCare. The state did, however, in the same communication, assure her that it would pay to facilitate her death.

Furthermore, Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, wrote, "When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable." Perhaps decided by a panel?

Due to the negative publicity, the Senate Finance Committee announced Thursday that the end-of-life consultation provision will be removed from its version of the bill, but if there is any doubt as to liberals' intention to introduce socialized medicine to America with all of its ugly consequences, Ronald Reagan put those doubts to rest in one particular radio broadcast.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panels' that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've decided that we don't -- it's too expensive to let her live anymore. (Laughter.)" --New York Times transcript, including the crowd's reaction, of Barack Obama yukking it up about the "death panels"

On Cross-Examination

"President Obama is attempting to transmogrify America's entire medical system. It is literally a matter of life and death. If Obama and his supporters find mirth in the thought of 'pulling the plug on grandma,' do you trust them anywhere near your health care?" --Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

News From the Swamp: Deficit Continues to Climb

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that the federal budget deficit reached $1.3 trillion in July after having grown $181 billion last month alone. That puts the deficit on track to hit the projected $1.8 trillion for fiscal year 2009 that ends Sept. 30. Individual and corporate tax receipts are partially to blame, having fallen 17 percent since this point last year, thanks in large part to the recession. Increased government spending has been the heavy hitter, though. The billions of dollars of taxpayer money thrown at banks, the automobile industry, unemployment and the ever-growing Medicare and Medicaid entitlements have added $530 billion to this year's budget, a 21 percent increase over last year. Congress and the White House appear undisturbed by this news, however. Instead of cutting spending, the Democrats want to add a $1 trillion health care plan to our liabilities.

The Treasury Department's answer to handling the debt is not to reduce spending but to raise the national debt ceiling above its current $12.1 trillion. Sure, why not? Secretary Timothy Geithner suggested that Congress should raise the limit "so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain [get this] confident that the United States will always meet its obligations." Geithner, who knows a thing or two about avoiding tax obligations, did not explain just how ignoring government debt limits in order to push more frivolous spending is supposed to instill confidence in the American economy.

Congress Bows to Pressure on Jet Purchase

House leaders thought better of their plan to purchase eight jets for the Air Force at a total of $550 million after encountering opposition from the Pentagon, House Republicans and a bipartisan group of senators. Apparently, they were reminded of their indignation at auto executives' use of much cheaper private jets. The Department of Defense originally requested four planes at a cost of $220 million, but the House Appropriations Committee doubled the order. The provision was buried in the $636 billion Defense appropriations bill that passed the House 400-30. Upon hearing the news of the oversized jet order, the Pentagon publicly stated that it did not need or want that many jets.

Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), John McCain (R-AZ), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Burr (R-NC), Christopher Bond (R-MO) and John Thune (R-SD) all voiced opposition to the proposal and planned to oppose funding. House Democrats eventually caved and the order was reduced to the original request. It looks like Washington can make a good decision when it tries; it just tries far too seldom.

From the Left: Charges Dismissed in Countrywide Probe

After a year-long investigation into Countrywide Financial mortgage company, the Senate Ethics Committee -- surprise! -- cleared two Democrats of using their positions to obtain special deals. Senators Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota allegedly received sweetheart deals and preferential treatment in refinancing their homes through the lender Countrywide. While the complaints were dismissed, the pair were chastised and told that they should have "exercised more vigilance in [their] dealings with Countrywide." Democrats, of course, are never guilty; sometimes they're just "careless" about the appearance of impropriety.

But punishment comes in other ways too. The Senate investigation found that the main benefits to having a "Friend of Angelo" (Mozilo, former Countrywide CEO) loan were "quicker, more efficient loan processing and some discounts" but also noted that these loans were "not the best deals ... available at Countrywide or the market at large."

It appears then that Dodd and Conrad were only exercising typical government oversight on their own personal financial matters. We can thank the "Friends of Harry" program in the Senate for declaring them "innocent."

Click Here

New! Left v. Right Poster

Get our exclusive wall poster, a telling visual representation of Left v. Right or Tyranny v. Liberty -- it speaks for itself. Measures 16" x 20"

Martinez Is Out, So Who's In?

In other Senate news, GOP ranks thinned slightly when Florida Sen. Mel Martinez delivered a surprise resignation last week, bringing an end to his tenure more than a year early. Martinez plans on returning to Florida once his successor is named.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is already running for Martinez's seat in 2010 and leads former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio in fundraising by a large margin. As governor, Crist could appoint himself to the Senate, but it's widely expected that he will bypass the easy route as he would have to leave the governor's chair prior to the expiration of his term, and self-appointment is risky in and of itself. Instead, Crist is expected to appoint a placeholder who would have no interest in staying once the remaining 16 months of Martinez's term expire.

The Florida Senate race is noteworthy as another conservative vs. moderate battle. While Rubio is considered an underdog, Crist upset many conservatives by endorsing John McCain days before the state's January 2008 primary and allowing McCain's foundering campaign to gather steam. So Florida Republicans will be watching this replacement process closely and the placeholder could affect a race in which he or she doesn't even participate.

Listening Tour Going Nowhere

It's hard to believe that just three months ago a group of Republican leaders formed a group called the National Council for a New America. In this effort to "rebrand" the GOP, the shiny new group held their first event among the people at a pizza parlor -- just outside the nation's capital in Arlington, Virginia.

Of course, the people of Arlington deserve a chance for input on national affairs, but the envisioned "listening tour" NCNA spoke about putting on hasn't yet proceeded outside the Beltway. Instead, the group formed by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) has run into a number of snags and questions about whether ethics rules prohibiting Congress members from using their offices for explicitly political purposes apply to the NCNA. The Democrats would never transgress ethics in such a manner.

In the meantime, Americans are speaking loud and clear to their representatives without the assistance of Cantor's group -- or any other political entity for that matter. Seems to us that the NCNA could have saved itself the trouble of having a media event to kick off a "listening tour" and just opened its ears to those places where the people are already saying what they want. Perhaps listening to conservative America is not the glamorous duty the Beltway insiders are accustomed to, but it certainly would do far better for the GOP's hopes of regaining power this century.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-08-07T13:17:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 31

Page I of IV ->

THE FOUNDATION

"In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution." --Alexander Hamilton

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

ObamaCare opponents beware

Calling All Informants

The White House this week took to quoting John Adams in an effort to "debunk" criticism of and opposition to ObamaCare. "Facts are stubborn things," said the administration. After videos resurfaced of Barack Obama saying in 2003, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program," and in 2007, "I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process," damage control became imperative.

Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House's Health Reform Office, came to the rescue with a video of her own, claiming that opponents were simply cherry-picking quotes to create a "very false impression." The trouble is, simply repeating Obama's claims about Americans keeping their insurance plans isn't the same as disproving the critics. Facts are stubborn things, Linda.

Not only is this administration intellectually lazy, it is thuggish. "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care," says the aforementioned post. "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov." Got that? Team Obama wants you to be a snitch; they want you to report even casual conversation with those who oppose ObamaCare directly to the White House itself.

Red State blogger Erick Erickson says that could be illegal. "According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President, shall 'maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.'"

Next, the erstwhile community organizer and his Chicago thugs attacked community organizers around the country for attending town hall meetings hosted by congressmen and expressing their disapproval of Washington's takeover of health care. According to some Democrats, American citizens, when they actively protest the policies of the ruling party and the president, are a "mob" that is out to "hurt our president," not Americans exercising their constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly and petition to the government. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) went so far as to claim that the protesters were "carrying swastikas and symbols like that." Class act, that Speaker of the House.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) strongly implied that ObamaCare opponents are all just pawns of the insurance companies: "I hope my colleagues won't fall for a sucker punch like this. These health insurance companies and people like them are trying to load these town meetings for visual impact on television. They want to show thousands of people screaming 'socialism' and try to overcome the public sentiment, which now favors health care reform." He added, "There are health insurance companies that are ... very profitable and they don't want to see this reform so they are helping to organize these rallies."

To recap then, more than half the population is opposing massive, unconstitutional government intervention in health care only because profit-making health insurers told us to. And Obama supporters are supposed to rat out their friends and family for opposing this unprecedented Socialist power grab. Witness the Democrats' version of America.

Quote of the Week

"'Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.' We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away.... Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should 'do something' about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom." --economist Thomas Sowell

News From the Swamp: ObamaCare Costs More

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 31-28 last Friday to approve health care legislation. The Senate Finance Committee is nearing a "compromise" bill, as well. The only real compromising going on, however, is that of the principles of so-called fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats. A public option insurance plan still dominates the House bill and the estimated cost is still about $1 trillion over 10 years, though we don't believe that low-ball figure for a moment. As The Wall Street Journal notes, "The press corps has noticed the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that the House health bill increases the deficit by $239 billion over the next decade. But government-run health care won't turn into a pumpkin after a decade. The underreported news is the new spending that will continue to increase well beyond the 10-year period that CBO examines, and that this blowout will overwhelm even the House Democrats' huge tax increases, Medicare spending cuts and other 'pay fors.'"

According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, new revenue to pay for health care would grow at 5 percent per year for the decade following 2019, while spending will increase at more than 8 percent per year. Worse, the Journal adds, "[T]he CBO score almost surely understates this deficit chasm because CBO uses static revenue analysis -- assuming that higher taxes won't change behavior. But long experience shows that higher rates rarely yield the revenues that they project. As for the spending, when has a new entitlement ever come in under budget?" Democrats may indeed win approval for their plan by claiming it will be "deficit neutral" through 2019, but that's what we call the BIG lie.

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

"President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring." --Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who admitted that she has "no idea" about a provision in the health care bill that requires her to "develop standards for the measurement of gender." Details, details...

The Truth About Cash-for-Clunkers

The Obama administration has been raving about the success of "Cash for Clunkers" (officially named the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS), and this week Congress dutifully approved $2 billion more for the program. Why the popping of champagne corks? First, the demand for the program was so great that consumers burned through the $1 billion allotted for the rebates in a matter of days. Second, with the amount of flak the administration has taken for its mismanagement of the economy and the health care debate, any perceived victory is welcome. But this is simply not the victory that Obama wants us to believe it is.

Even in the handful of days that the program was active, CARS was plagued by administrative problems -- just like any other government program. The government Web site that dealers were told to use to submit buyers' rebate applications crashed repeatedly due to the high volume of requests. Dealers also had a difficult time registering for the program. Fine-print stipulations about the types of cars and light trucks that could be turned in and which ones could be bought led to customer confusion. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) said, "If this is how the government is going to handle billion-dollar programs affecting all Americans, I ask, whatever will we do if this administration takes control of our health care?"

Meanwhile, the positive impact on the automotive industry and the economy, and indirectly on energy consumption and the environment, is grossly overstated. The upsurge in new vehicle sales that CARS is expected to bring will likely to be short lived -- all it did was condense several months of expected new vehicle sales and old vehicle trade-ins into a shorter period of time. No new wealth is being created; it's just moving from one pocket to another. And destroying thousands of older, cheaper automobiles negatively affects the economy. Having trouble finding an inexpensive used vehicle for your newly driving son or daughter? Thank the CARS program.

Beyond all these issues, Fox News' Glenn Beck reported that the federal government posted an ominous message at the Clunkers Web site stating that while logged into the Department of Transportation CARS system, users' computers would be considered property of the federal government and therefore all materials on the computers could be scanned, recorded, monitored, inspected and disclosed to any element of the government, including law enforcement. After Beck's program aired, the government quickly "clarified" that users who logged into the site had no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy, which sounds essentially like what Beck reported, just in better legalese.

This should be considered an outrage of epic proportions, but the response from watchdog groups has been muted. The ACLU, which challenged every move the Bush administration made during his eight years in office, had this to say: "[I]t is hard to believe that [the Obama administration] would do something like this." Unfortunately it's not hard to believe that the ACLU's selective view of civil liberties would cause them to be asleep at the switch while Socialists run the White House.

Sotomayor Confirmed to Supreme Court

Sonia Sotomayor became the first wise Latina justice on the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday as the Senate confirmed Barack Obama's nominee to replace David Souter by a vote of 68-31. While Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was absent because of illness, nine Republicans voted for Sotomayor -- Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (ME), Richard Lugar (IN), Mel Martinez (FL), Kit Bond (MO), Judd Gregg (NH), George Voinovich (OH), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Lamar Alexander (TN).

There is a key difference between the Republicans who voted for Sotomayor and those who didn't. If this is all about politics as the be-all and end-all, as the Leftists believe, then a Republican vote for Sotomayor is defensible on political grounds -- that "elections have consequences," a president deserves deference to his judge picks, and a vote against Sotomayor may alienate Latino voters who adhere to identity politics. If, however, this is about something larger and greater than politics -- a view of the Constitution that gives political positions their form and meaning -- then a "Nay" vote on Sotomayor, to preserve the Constitution she treats cavalierly, is the only defensible position.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"Those who oppose [Sonia Sotomayor] for fear of her unique life experience do no justice to her or our nation. Their names will be listed in our nation's annals of elected officials one step behind America's historic march forward." --Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), employing the Obama administration's straw-man approach to political discourse

We're still trying to come up with anyone who opposed Sotomayor "for fear of her unique life experience." And Durbin hails from the Party that smeared and filibustered judicial nominee Miguel Estrada in 2001...

New & Notable Legislation

The House voted against removing funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, but Sen. Harry Reid is doing his best to get the Senate to kill the project in his home state. Together with President Obama, Reid is working to withdraw funding, claiming, wrongly, that the project is scientifically unsound. For some reason they believe it's safer to keep used nuclear fuel stored at 104 facilities around the country within 75 miles of 161 million Americans than it would be to bury it 2,000 feet below a mountain in the middle of the desert.

The government moved one step closer toward dictating private sector pay with passage of a House bill to give shareholders and the government more say in establishing executive compensation in public companies. The Senate never picked up previous similar measures, but in an era of growing socialist tendencies, that is little comfort.

In the spirit of keeping America from drifting toward the monarchy that President Obama seems to want, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) sponsored H.R. 3226, the Czar Accountability and Reform Act. This bill would bar the use of appropriated funds to pay expenses or salaries of "members of task forces, councils, or similar offices established by the president and headed by a person appointed inappropriately to such a post without Senate advice and consent." The bill stands little chance of passing, but it demonstrates that people are taking notice of the ongoing executive power grab.

The Justice Department's Black Panther Scandal Continues

The pursuit of justice in the Black Panther voter intimidation case is moving forward on two fronts. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) obtained an opinion from the Congressional Research Service last week that charges against the three Philadelphia men who intimidated and threatened white voters on Election Day 2008 could be re-filed without violating the Constitution's Double Jeopardy clause. Also, the independent U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has called upon the Justice Department to explain its dismissal of the original case against the men.

In May, the Obama Justice Department summarily dismissed charges brought by the Bush Justice Department in January against the New Black Panther Party, its Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz (former lieutenant to Louis Farrakhan), Minister King Samir Shabazz and member Jerry Jackson for intimidating voters and making racial threats and insults at a polling place in Philadelphia. Samir Shabazz was also carrying a nightstick. The Justice Department said it no longer had sufficient evidence to follow through with the case despite the fact that the event was caught on video and that there were several witnesses.

DOJ also says charges against Mr. Jackson were dropped because "he was a resident of the apartment building" where the incident took place. The building was in fact an elderly care facility and Jackson never lived there. But even if he did, would his residency grant him license to shout racial epithets at and otherwise threaten voters? Incredibly, Jackson's credentials as a Democrat Party poll watcher in Philadelphia were restored in May.

Wolf repeatedly called upon Attorney General Eric Holder to explain why the Department acted the way it did. Holder refused to respond. Apparently, he belongs to that "nation of cowards" he spoke of earlier this year; the one that's afraid to "have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."

Jefferson Convicted of Bribery

"Former congressman William J. Jefferson was convicted of corruption charges Wednesday in a case made famous by the $90,000 in bribe money stuffed into his freezer and a legal battle over the raid of his Washington office that reached the highest levels of the U.S. government," reports The Washington Post. "Federal jurors found the Louisiana Democrat guilty of using his congressional office as a criminal enterprise to enrich himself, soliciting and accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to support his business ventures in Africa." The FBI raided Jefferson's freezer in 2005 and found the frozen cash, but he was re-elected anyway in 2006. Finally ousted from Congress in the 2008 election and now convicted, Jefferson faces 150 years in prison. Our republic would be better off if that happened to more of his cohorts on Capitol Hill.

From the Left: Making Up a Docket Instead of a Document

Once again, former CBS News anchor Dan Rather is creating news rather than reporting it. This week, he sued to reinstate two CBS executives, network president Leslie Moonves and former news division president Andrew Heyward, as defendants in a $70 million breach of contract suit he filed against CBS. The pair were named in Rather's original 2007 lawsuit but a New York State Supreme Court judge removed them as defendants last year, stating Rather had no case against them.

Meanwhile, as Rather tried to enrich himself through the legal system, he made a call for his cohorts to be enriched by our government, saying in an address to the Aspen Institute that he "personally encourage(s) the president to establish a commission on public media." Media czar, anyone? Further, he noted the industry had been damaged by "corporate and political influence." A master of seeing the forest despite the trees, that Dan Rather. Now turn the telescope around.

The former CBS Evening News anchor, who was forced out after a scandal just prior to the 2004 presidential election involving forged documents about former President George W. Bush's military service, now produces an hour-long program called "Dan Rather Reports" for the little-watched HDNet. At least that's what we've heard.

'Agents of Change' -- But Deserving?

Each year, the president determines a list of people he deems worthy for the Medal of Freedom, our top civilian honor. This year President Obama listed 16 "agents of change" he found worthy of the honor, a list notable for its diversity.

A name that sticks out, however, is former President of Ireland Mary Robinson. While her time as president of the fair isle wasn't particularly noteworthy, her tenure as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights revealed an astounding anti-Semitism, a blind support of the Palestinian cause, and a most undiplomatic bashing of President Bush over our treatment of enemy combatants. In short, Robinson is a woman who thrived on "irritating" America while deriding our efforts against Islamic terrorism.

So why the high honor for Mary Robinson, one which also will be bestowed on notable thinkers and doers like Stephen Hawking, Sandra Day O'Connor and Jack Kemp? (Then again, Ted Kennedy is also receiving one despite his lack of thinking and doing 40 years ago.) It's yet another signal that America may be turning its back on old friends in the vain hope our enemies may come to like us.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-07-31T13:05:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 30

Page I of IV ->

THE FOUNDATION

"[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." --James Madison

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Red October Looms for ObamaCare

Americans can breathe a sigh of relief, however briefly, because Congress will not pass health care legislation before lawmakers depart for recess on August 7. "This bill, even in the best-case scenario, will not be signed -- we won't even vote on it probably until the end of September or the middle of October," said President Barack Obama.

In a sense, Obama is admitting the unpopularity of the major proposals being bantered about in Congress. "This has been the most difficult test for me so far in public life," he complained, "trying to describe in clear, simple terms how important it is that we reform this system. The case is so clear to me." And the case is equally clear to us that Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress are acting unconstitutionally. Look it up -- health care ain't there. Economist Walter E. Williams points to the Founders' own words on the lack of constitutional authority for such actions, adding, "What we're witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery."

That said, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) asked rhetorically, "Is health care a constitutional right?" He answered, "Well, we believe that people do and we're introducing a constitutional amendment just to make it real clear so that you don't have to infer or assume that that's a given and all that."

What Conyers and other Democrats don't understand is that, as columnist Rich Hrebic explains, "A right is not a guarantee that the government (i.e., other people) will provide you something for free. We have the right to engage in religious expression, but that doesn't mean that the government pays for the construction of the church. We have the right to peacefully assemble, but the government doesn't promise to supply your transportation. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but don't expect the government to provide you with a free firearm and bullets. You have the right to free speech, but the government won't grant you free radio or TV air time. What makes something a right is not whether the government can force somebody else to pay for it."

But back to the proposal. House and Senate negotiators are working to cut the cost of the bill by $100 billion -- cuts that have suddenly allayed the concerns of so-called fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats. The compromise still includes major tax increases and a public option health entitlement, which were supposed to be deal killers for these "principled" Blue Dogs.

The Senate Finance Committee claims that its package now comes with a price tag of $900 billion over 10 years. Such projections are laughable for several reasons: The unpredictability of how many will switch to the "public option," how that plan will affect other plans on the market, and the cost of actual medical care in general. Beyond that, the Congressional Budget Office said that Obama's plan to cut medical costs by shortchanging providers in order to offset the cost of the bill is a hoax. "In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized." No savings. So what's the point, Mr. President?

Democrats have proposed one way to raise money for the bill -- tax payroll. The Wall Street Journal writes that the tax could reach 10 percent. So much for "no tax increases for those making less than $250,000 a year."

Democrats have also proposed yet another creative way to raise money for the bill -- tax soda (known simply as Coke down here in the South). The CBO estimates that a three-cent tax on soda, including Gatorade and other sugary or energy drinks, would generate $24 billion in the next four years, all while fighting obesity. We have been through this before. If Congress taxes something expecting people to stop using that something for their health, the revenue source dries up. Brilliant. We say, "No taxation on carbonation!"

All in all, if the public option is so good, why don't Democrats in Congress want it to be their health plan? Amendments requiring them to be covered by the plan have been defeated in both the House and Senate. One reason for the defeat might be the example of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who, if his case went before a review board, could be denied his current level of cancer treatment. One might say he'd be left to sink or swim.

The BIG Lie

"We spend about $6,000 per person more than any other industrialized nation on earth -- $6,000 more than the people do in Denmark, or France, or Germany, or -- every one of these other countries spend at least 50 percent less than we do, and you know what, they're just as healthy." --Barack Obama

The American Spectator's Philip Klein explains why this is a lie: "Obama is correct that all of those countries spend less per person on health care, but it isn't anywhere near $6,000 less. The widest gap among the countries mentioned, between the U.S. and Denmark, is $3,778 per person. Of course, other systems don't keep costs down with magic wands, but with rationing care to the sick -- something Obama denies he wants to do in the U.S." Indeed, there's no question that our system needs some treatment, but ObamaCare is not the right prescription.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill.' What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" --Rep. John Conyers

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund responds, "Perhaps Mr. Conyers has a point. A bill that seeks to reorder one-seventh of the nation's economy is probably too complex and convoluted for any single human being to fully comprehend and can't possibly capture all the unintended consequences of such sweeping changes. Maybe Mr. Conyers has latched on to the main reason why big government can't work and why less sweeping health care reform is in order."

Rangel Supports Higher Taxes, Just Not Paying Them

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) is one of the drivers of a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge in order to help pay for the Democrats' nationalization of health care. Taking a look back at Rangel's personal tax history, however, it's easy to see why he's so keen on the proposal -- he isn't likely to pay any of it himself. The Wall Street Journal published a refresher course in Rangel's tax history this week, reminding us all of the scams that he's put forth in order to dodge taxes on his now famous Dominican villa.

Rangel failed to report $75,000 in real estate income from the villa, which commands $1,100 per night during the peak season and is rarely -- if ever -- vacant. He has blamed his wife for not keeping the books properly (bet that went over well), and he has blamed the locals for speaking Spanish, but he has never come completely clean about how such a large mistake could be made on his returns year after year. Rangel has promised to rectify the situation but he still has not filed the corrected paperwork. Nor has he paid the overdue taxes. Nor is the IRS knocking on his door.

There have also been issues surrounding rent-controlled apartments that Rangel occupies in Harlem. It turns out that he has played fast and loose with the income-reporting rules so that he can still be eligible for rent-control status, which allows him a steep discount below market value.

We could go on about the other four issues about which the House Ethics Committee is investigating Rangel, but the picture is already clear. He's in deep for years of tax evasion and questionable real estate ventures, but Charles Rangel is still perfectly comfortable telling us that a 5.4 percent tax surcharge is "the moral thing to do."

Speaking of housing corruption, a Countrywide official testified before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the Senate Ethics Committee that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) did in fact know he was the recipient of a sweetheart deal on two mortgages as part of the unofficial "Friends of Angelo" program. Angelo Mozilo, the founder and former CEO of Countrywide, was able to snag fixed rates of 4.25 percent and 4.5 percent on mortgages for the Senate Banking Committee chairman. Suddenly, Dodd's re-election chances just got slimmer.

New & Notable Legislation

House Democrats have been busy patting themselves on the back after approving legislation this week that would purportedly lead to fiscal discipline. The so-called pay-as-you-go plan would require all new spending increases to be offset by either cuts in other spending measures or tax hikes that would keep the deficit from rising. We've seen this movie before. The same scheme was put in place during the Clinton years, and it didn't curtail either Democrat or Republican spending. As we have noted in the past, pay-go rules are riddled with exceptions and loopholes that allow Congress to ignore the cuts that are supposed to offset the increased spending. Also, Democrats have no problem whatsoever with raising taxes to fund new initiatives, making tax hikes their usual escape hatch for pay-go proposals of no consequence. The only way the government is going to reduce the deficit is by -- wait for it -- spending less. No other magic formula or miracle legislation to it.

Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Kay Hagan (D-NC) introduced legislation to impose a federal ban on using a cell phone to send text messages while driving. "This legislation addresses a growing problem on our nation's highways: distracted drivers," Landrieu said. "Studies show that texting while driving increases the chances of a high-speed collision and has been found to be even more dangerous than driving drunk." People who text while driving are indeed, to coin a phrase, acting stupidly, but a federal law is over the top. Fourteen states already ban it, but these senators want to strip highway funds from those who don't.

The Washington Post reports, "The House approved a $636 billion defense spending bill Thursday after voting to strip money for the controversial F-22 fighter. However, it left funding in place for several other military programs that the Obama administration said it does not want. The defense measure, which passed 400 to 30, was the last of 12 appropriations bills for 2010 to clear the House."

Sotomayor Clears Judiciary Committee

In a 13-6 vote that saw only South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham cross party lines, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Judge Sonia Sotomayor for a floor vote to confirm her as the first Hispanic justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Many Republicans have voiced opposition to Sotomayor because they simply do not believe that she will put the law above personal prejudices and ethnic identity. Years of speeches and articles by the judge have indicated an unswerving belief in the politics of racial identity and victimhood. She made a number of excuses for these comments when pressed during her confirmation hearings, but her vague and misleading answers did not sway skeptics. If anything, her performance during the hearings should only make people more worried about what direction she will take on the bench.

Sotomayor is expected to be confirmed by the full Senate, even if largely by party-line vote. The upside is that since she is replacing David Souter, she won't sway the ideological balance of the Court. The downside, of course, is that she will be a Justice on the United States Supreme Court, most likely for a long time.

Click Here

Just arrived -- New "Annoy a Liberal" sticker design

Give other drivers something to think about (and Annoy a Liberal while you're at it) with our new "Work, Succeed, Be Happy" sticker. Made in the USA exclusively for PatriotShop.US from durable, high quality vinyl.

Palin Steps Down

On Sunday, Sarah Palin's term as governor of Alaska came to a self-induced end as she resigned to save herself and the state from being paralyzed by the scurrilous ethics investigations that continue to dog her. As arguably the most popular Republican on the current scene and easily the conservative woman most reviled by liberals and Beltway elites, the question now being raised is what's next for Palin.

Speculation has her writing a book about her part of the 2008 campaign, but her stated plans are to campaign for right-of-center candidates around the country and increase Twitter's popularity as a news source by frequently updating her status there. Palin could also concentrate on how to best spend the funds in SarahPAC, her political action committee that has raised more than $1 million since its formation in February.

In her farewell address the former governor also expressed her differences with the mainstream media, chiding them, "How about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin' things up?" Chances are the media will be doing a lot of "makin' things up" about Palin between now and 2012.

Barack Obama's Birthday

Tuesday, August 4, is the 48th anniversary of President Obama's birth -- at least so says the state of Hawaii. With the continuing speculation surrounding Obama's original birth certificate, the Aloha State steadfastly claims Obama as a native son, while we are treated to repeated exasperated attempts by the administration to address the "10,000 more important issues" our country faces and not those who question Obama's citizenship, citizens derided as "birthers" by the president's spokesman and the media.

That said, The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto argues convincingly that the issue is settled. "Hawaiian birth certificates have changed in form since Obama was born. Back then, the official record was a paper document with the title 'certificate of live birth' (rather than 'certification'), and it included 'more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier's name and title; attendant's name and title, etc.' Hawaii no longer issues those old-style birth certificates," having switched to electronic copies in 2001 to ensure uniformity, according to the Honolulu Star Bulletin. Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo says that Obama's original certificate still exists and she has seen it.

We have long found the questions surrounding the circumstances of Obama's birth worth pursuing, but we also don't have sufficient reason to doubt that the Hawaiian officials who claim to have seen the actual original birth certificate are telling the truth or that the president was born in Hawaii just as he says. But the controversy continues because the public has not seen the certificate. It seems like no difficult matter for the state of Hawaii to allow an exception to state law requiring birth certificates be kept private for past and present residents who are running for elected office. That could end the debate once and for all. Then again, Obama has nothing to lose by letting the hullabaloo continue. It ends up marginalizing the opponents who won't settle for less.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-07-26T15:28:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 29

Page I of IV --->

THE FOUNDATION

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." --Thomas Jefferson

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

President Says 'Stars Are Aligned' for Health Care 'Reform'

Health care is still hogging the center stage as President Barack Obama took his trusted teleprompters on prime-time TV Wednesday to tell the American people, "This isn't about me." We have a hunch that Obama's fourth prime-time press conference was due to his plummeting poll numbers, so, yes, it is about him.

Of his plan, Obama empathized, "Now, I understand that people are feeling uncertain about this, they feel anxious, partly because we've just become so cynical about what government can accomplish." (After all, didn't the Founding Fathers have great faith in what "government can accomplish"? Where oh where did we lose that vision?) "So folks are skeptical," Obama added, "and that is entirely legitimate because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that help them." That's an understatement.

Obama again voiced his support for redistribution of wealth to pay for health care, saying that a surtax on families earning $1 million a year "meets my principle" that the cost of a government takeover is "not being shouldered by families who are already having a tough time." Translation: The cost will not be shouldered by those who benefit from the program, not to mention that Obama gets to decide who is "having a tough time."

We're definitely not in Kansas anymore

Speaking of tough times, the debate isn't going as well for the president as he had hoped. Republicans are fairly unified against the plan, many Democrats are openly skeptical and the Senate is delaying a vote until after the August recess. It remains to be seen if that's just a ploy to show that Congress isn't rubber-stamping the Obama plan.

The president absurdly claimed that nationalizing health care "will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it." Even the Associated Press couldn't swallow that whopper: "In [the] House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool."

Furthermore, according to The Wall Street Journal, "[W]hen Mr. Obama says that 'If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,' he's wrong. Period. What he's not telling the American people is that the government will so dramatically change the rules of the insurance market that employers will find it impossible to maintain their current coverage, and many will drop it altogether." But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain -- Obama "will keep government out of health care decisions."

Perhaps columnist Ann Coulter put it best when she quipped, "All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink."

The BIG Lie

"[H]ealth insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it. ... I am very worried about federal spending." --Barack Obama

Oh, well, in that case...

On Cross-Examination

"The last time the president made grand promises and demanded passage of a bill before it could be reviewed, we ended up with the colossal stimulus failure and unemployment near 10 percent. Now the president wants Americans to trust him again, but he can't back up the utopian promises he's making about a government takeover of health care. He insists his health care plan won't add to our nation's deficit despite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office saying exactly the opposite." --Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"I'm rushed because I get letters every day from people that are being clobbered by health care costs, and they ask, 'Can you help?' ... If you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen. The default position is inertia. ...[T]he stars are aligned and we need to take advantage of that." --Barack ObamaRx on the rush to pass his health care monstrosity by August

Gaffe of the Week

"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." --Barack Obama

News From the Swamp: Deceitful Deficit

In the midst of the push for spending $1.5 trillion to nationalize health care, the Obama administration has delayed releasing its summer budget update. Usually released in mid July, the update was pushed back into August. Ah, transparency. There are numerous problems with the budget, not the least of which the rosy outlook on future years' GDP. "Obama's current forecast anticipates 3.2 percent growth next year, then 4 percent or higher growth from 2011 to 2013," reports the Associated Press. "Private forecasts are less optimistic, especially for next year." Needless to say, downward revisions in growth and revenue projections would mean much higher budget deficits than previously stated. Obama has promised to "cut" the deficit in half over his first term. But dropping from $1.8 trillion to $900 billion is hardly something to celebrate. And why admit the bad news before he has the votes for health care?

New & Notable Legislation

On Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 2920, the so-called "Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act," which was approved on a 265-166 tally. The bill ostensibly will "reestablish a statutory procedure to enforce a rule of budget neutrality on new revenue and direct spending legislation." But this is about even more faked-up posturing for spendthrift Democrats, who can use this bill as camouflage to excuse raising taxes on already hard-pressed middle class families in order to pay for yet more wasteful Washington spending. The bill contains several loopholes, should the Democrats wish to evade its restraints, and it wouldn't apply to the "stimulus," the pork-larded omnibus, or the proposed government takeover of medical treatment.

Walter Cronkite and the Death of Objective Journalism

The passing of legendary anchorman Walter Cronkite last weekend at the age of 92 has brought a wealth of commentary about his six-decade career in journalism and a lot of reflection about the man once referred to as the "most trusted man in America." He reported on some of the most important events of the post-war era -- the assassinations of iconic leaders, the highlights of America's space program and the Vietnam War.

Indeed, it was his comments on the Tet Offensive in 1968 that most glaringly deviated from the calm objective manner that made him a mainstay of American news programming. Having returned from Vietnam, revolted by the carnage after reporting on the battle of Hue, Cronkite boldly told the American public that Vietnam was a "stalemate" that was no longer winnable. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Despite Cronkite's lofty oratory, Tet was an unequivocal failure for North Vietnam. The Americans and the South Vietnamese beat back the multi-pronged invasion on every front and inflicted losses that amounted to almost the entire North Vietnamese invasion force. Yet, the public believed Cronkite. He certainly believed himself. He would say years later that his assessment helped speed the end of the war, even though America's military involvement would continue for five more years, ending only when Congress refused to fund the defense of South Vietnam, eventually allowing it to fall to the Communists in 1975.

Cronkite essentially used his power with the public to inject his own views on the situation, and in turn he altered the course of public opinion, which was not as sour on America's involvement in Vietnam as the rioting college students would have us believe. In his later years at CBS and into his retirement, Cronkite would let slip his true liberal views about America. "We have to find some marvelous middle ground between capitalism and communism," he said in 1996. And like fellow traveler Sen. Harry Reid, Cronkite refused to believe that victory in Iraq was possible, even while it was happening. In 2007, he said, "[V]ictory no longer seems to be a remote possibility."

The real legacy Cronkite leaves behind in American journalism is not likely to be discussed or even admitted to by his acolytes. It is the legacy of a journalist who abandoned his obligation to report the facts and instead injected himself and his opinions into every story. He editorialized the news, and created a sad standard that is now emulated by network news anchors, cable news reporters, and newspapers across the country. The truth is now subjective. As Walter would say, "And that's the way it is." But that's not the way it should be.

Justice: Investigations of Thee, but Not of Me

The Justice Department has summarily dumped charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members related to their acts of voter intimidation on Election Day 2008 in Philadelphia. The Bush Justice Department filed a civil complaint against the three men, one of whom was brandishing a nightstick, while they stood in front of a polling station spouting racist remarks and threatening people who were trying to go inside. Witnesses, including civil rights lawyer Bartle Bull, called it blatant voter intimidation. But Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have allowed the case to disappear. All that came of it was a measure that bars the nightstick wielding Malik Zulu Shabazz, a virulent racist Nation of Islam lieutenant, from being within 100 feet of a polling place for three years -- meaning he can be back, nightstick in hand, for Obama's re-election bid in 2012.

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, has called for an inquiry into the actions of Justice. He sent three letters to AG Holder inquiring as to why the Justice Department dropped the charges, but he has received no reply. Undeterred, Wolf turned his attention to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), requesting that the Judiciary Committee look into the matter.

Conyers was more than eager to investigate the Justice Department during the Bush administration, holding dozens of hearings to get the bottom of the firings of several U.S. attorneys for example. With no political points to be scored this time around, though, Conyers doesn't seem so interested. Similarly, Holder's grandstanding about holding the Justice Department to account apparently applies only when a Republican is in charge.

While Conyers and Holder ignore the matter and hope it goes away, Wolf is looking to get Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine to look into the matter. We doubt anything will come of it.

40 Years That Reshaped America

We occasionally place a tagline in stories referring to Sen. Edward Kennedy reminding the reader, "Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment." Well, 40 years ago last Saturday, on July 18, 1969, Ted Kennedy drove his Oldsmobile, with Mary Jo in the passenger seat, off a bridge at Chappaquiddick Island and neglected trying to help her or even calling for help until the following morning. The accident and subsequent cover-up would have finished the political career of most men, but Kennedy survived both personally and politically.

Perhaps his tragic family legacy saved the youngest Kennedy brother from electoral defeat and enabled him to continue a long Senate career. Nor did it hurt that less than 48 hours later the story of one of mankind's greatest successes to date wiped most mention of one man's personal failing off the newspaper headlines -- the Apollo 11 moon landing on July 20, 1969.

Perhaps one good thing did arise from the death of 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. Eleven years later, we had a presidential election -- one in which Teddy Kennedy figured prominently. A question worth pondering is, had Chappaquiddick not happened, would Jimmy Carter have whipped Ted Kennedy in 1980? With Carter's mishandling of the economy gone as a campaign issue and the Kennedy mystique brought up afresh by the media, could Ronald Reagan have just been another failed presidential aspirant? Instead, we got eight years of Reagan's conservatism. And Kennedy is cashing in on his career in the Senate, selling leather-bound, electronically signed copies of his upcoming autobiography for $1,000 a pop. How it's worth the $8 million advance Kennedy reportedly netted we'll never know.

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-07-26T14:07:00.001-04:00

Subscribe to the Patriot Support the Patriot

Vol. 09 No. 20

Page I of IV ->

THE FOUNDATION

"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." --Alexander Hamilton

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Hope 'n' Change: The Obama Auto Show

The 2010 Obamobile

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president of the United States the power to be commander in chief of the armed forces (subject to declarations of war in Congress), to make treaties with other nations (subject to ratification in the Senate), to grant pardons, to appoint ambassadors, judges and other officers, to recommend measures to Congress. The Constitution also bestows a number of other minor powers based on these major components.

Nowhere in our nation's governing document can one find a presidential power to regulate the minutiae of private business, much less take ownership of those private businesses. Yet that is how Barack Obama is wielding his ever-increasing power, despite taking an oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and ... to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

"President Barack Obama announced plans on Tuesday for a national fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standard that would significantly increase mileage requirements for cars and trucks by 2016," Politico reports. The fuel standards will require that automakers reach an industry average of 35.5 miles per gallon within just seven years. The current average is 25 mpg. The goal is to link the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard to the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse-gas standard. Congress is working on legislation for $25 billion in further loans to the auto industry to pay for the change, which will likely cost upwards of $100 billion.

Of his fiat Obama said it is a "historic agreement to help America break its dependence on oil, reduce harmful pollution and begin the transition to a clean-energy economy." The White House claims it will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil, along with reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 900 million metric tons. History says otherwise, however. The original 1975 CAFE standards resulted in more fuel consumption, not less, because driving became cheaper.

The flip side is that the new regulations will add $1,300 to the cost of a car as reckoned by the same administration that estimated this year's budget deficit: so potential car buyers will almost certainly be hanging on to their older cars a bit longer -- counter to Obama's stated purpose. That $1,300 is also a tax increase, even on the middle class whose taxes Obama has repeatedly promised not to increase.

Finally, the regulations aren't safe. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Sam Kazman explained in 2002, "[T]he evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering. CAFE has this impact on safety because it restricts the production of large cars. Large cars are less fuel efficient than smaller, similarly equipped vehicles, but they are also more crashworthy in practically every type of accident."

The BIG Lie

"[E]ven as the price to build these cars and trucks goes up, the cost of driving these vehicles will go down, as drivers save money at the pump. And this is a point I want to emphasize: If you buy a car, your investment in a more fuel-efficient vehicle as a result of this standard will pay off in just three years. In three years' time you will have paid off the additional investment required. So this is a winning proposition for folks looking to buy a car. ... The fact is, everyone wins." --Barack Obama

Credit Card 'Reform' Clears Congress

Sweeping legislation that will fundamentally change the way credit card issuers do business sailed through the House and Senate and is now on its way to the White House for President Obama's signature. Among the changes set to be in place by February 2010 is a prohibition on charging consumers for paying credit card bills by phone, and an end to sudden interest rate hikes. Consumers will have to be told how long it will take to pay off their balances by making minimum payments, and information on the ins and outs of their agreements must be made in plain and clear language, whatever that means. Additionally, payments above the minimum due must be applied to the highest interest rates first, and credit card issuers must provide at least 45 days before making any major changes to the terms of the card agreement.

The banking industry has some major complaints about the legislation, noting primarily that the new regulations will deal them a financial blow on top of what they are already experiencing with the recession. Furthermore, a higher level of risk will result from these new regulations, making credit harder to obtain. The nation's largest banks involved in the credit card business have warned that they will charge higher interest rates once the new rules take effect, and some users may face cancellation of their cards if they don't use them regularly. Also, bonus reward point programs and frequent user rebates may come to an end as companies struggle to find new ways to remain profitable in the restricted environment.

Nestled deep in the language of the credit card reform bill, however, is a provision that restores the Bush administration policy to allow citizens to carry loaded and concealed firearms in national parks. To the amazement of pretty much everyone, Democrats largely joined Republicans in supporting the measure, much to the chagrin of gun grabbers and environmentalist groups, who apparently believe that the measure will lead to massacres in the forest and cause significant harm to the environment.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes." --Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign

Democrats Hot for Global Warming Legislation

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) won a victory on his 1,000-page cap and trade (read: cap and tax) bill Thursday when it passed his committee on a party line 33-25 vote. The bill ostensibly tackles global warming by creating a system in which industrial producers of greenhouse gas emissions would be required to meet a government-imposed cap on their emissions, but would allow them to purchase credits that cover emissions exceeding the cap.

Initially, Obama wanted the credits to be auctioned off, with the estimated $629 billion in proceeds to go to other government-subsidized programs, of which he has no shortage. Congress thought otherwise, though, and instead will allow the EPA to dole out 85 percent of the credits for free to various energy producers and states. The remaining 15 percent would be auctioned off, with the proceeds going to low- and middle-income families hardest hit by the inevitable rise in electricity costs that will come after the program is in place.

This brings us to why Waxman is in such a hurry to get this bill through the House. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 80 percent of Americans can expect a rise in their energy bills and a reduction in real income because of the cap and trade bill. What amounts to a national energy tax also will cost jobs, as the bill itself admits. Part 2, section 426, states: "An eligible worker, specifically workers who lose their jobs as a result of this measure, may receive a climate change adjustment allowance under this subsection for a period of not longer than 156 weeks." That's three years for those educated in public schools.

Unfortunately, consumers know very little about the cap and trade legislation (and as seen in this video, neither does Waxman. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, only 24 percent of voters know what cap and trade is; 29 percent thought it was related to Wall Street and 17 percent thought it was related to health care reform. Fully 30 percent didn't have a clue what the term even meant. And that fits perfectly into the Democrats' plan.

New & Notable Legislation

The House and Senate passed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act this week, and President Obama signed it, naturally without the five days for public scrutiny that he guaranteed on the campaign trail. The Associated Press says the bill "would expand [individual eligibility for] an existing $300 billion program that encourages lenders to write down an individual's mortgage if the homeowner agrees to pay an insurance premium. The program, set to expire in 2011, would swap out a homeowner's high-interest rate for a 30-year fixed loan backed by the Federal Housing Administration."

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) introduced the No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009, H.R. 2401, which aims to stop "persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System" from buying a gun. As columnist David Codrea put it, "In other words, if your name appears on the same list as the one that delayed Teddy Kennedy's boarding pass, you'll be denied purchasing a gun. And even scarier, you'll be subject to arrest." This is the same Carolyn McCarthy who, regarding many firearms and their components, doesn't even know what she's trying to ban.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Disney World) plans to introduce the Paid Vacation Act, which would make one week of paid vacation a federal mandate for companies with more than 100 employees. An employee would earn the week off after working for one year; three years' work would merit two weeks vacation. Companies with 50 or more employees would have to provide one week after three years of employment. "There's a reason why Disney World is the happiest place on Earth: The people who go there are on vacation," said Grayson. "[T]he best days of my life are and always have been the days I'm on vacation." We're sure his constituents at Disney World appreciate his attempts to drum up business for them.

From the Left: Feds Throw the Book at Hsu

Democrat fundraiser Norman Hsu was convicted Tuesday of violating campaign finance laws by making thousands of dollars of donations through straw donors in order to bypass limits on individual contributions to a candidate. Hsu also pleaded guilty to wire fraud in a Ponzi scheme he used to bilk investors out of more than $20 million. He faces 30 years in prison. Hsu has been most visibly associated with Hillary Clinton's failed campaign for the Democrat presidential nomination last year, but he is also linked to other prominent Democrats -- including the current occupant of the White House. Clinton returned $850,000 to donors linked to Hsu; Obama's Hopefund PAC took in at least $24,000 from him and his associates from 2005 to 2007.

This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

"Norman! It's Hillary. What am I going to do with you Norman? You are working so hard for me, that I, I just don't know what to say anymore. I've never seen anybody who has been more loyal and more effective and really just having greater success supporting someone, uh, than you. Everywhere I go, you're there. If you're not, you're sending people to be part of my events. You know, we're going to win this campaign, Norman, because you single-handedly are going to make that happen. ... Lots of love. Bye-bye." --Hillary Clinton on a March 2007 voicemail to Norman Hsu

News From the Swamp: Utah Gov. Tapped for China Post

Four months after assuming the office of Chief Executive, President Obama finally got around to filling the key post of Ambassador to China by selecting Jon Huntsman Jr., Utah governor. Huntsman, first elected as Utah's governor in 2004, is well versed in Asian affairs and is fluent in Mandarin. He previously served as a deputy trade representative under President George W. Bush from 2001-2004 and was ambassador to Singapore from 1992-1994.

While Huntsman is a fine selection, his nomination continues an Obama trend of naming possible political opponents to inferior positions in his administration. Naming Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is an obvious example, but another was his bid to remake the Senate by tapping Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to be secretary of commerce, a post Gregg eventually declined. Huntsman was on the verge of forming an exploratory committee for 2012. As has long been the case with Obama, he prefers to clear the playing field rather than compete on a level one.

The Least Obvious Cut

Despite a bloated budget that expands government, President Obama vowed to cut or get rid of programs he considers useless or wasteful. But as a favor to his union buddies, one of Obama's real dollar cuts comes at the expense of the Office of Labor-Management Standards -- an agency that became a guardian of workers' rights under the Bush administration and whose investigations during his tenure led to 900 convictions of corrupt union officials.

Obama's budget proposal cuts $4 million in funding for the agency and requires resources to be transferred from the union watchdog to other agencies focusing on employers. Furthermore, the little guy who works in the union shop can no longer find out just how his hard-earned dues are spent -- on AIG-style perks, for example. The Obama Labor Department will not enforce the disclosure requirements put in place under President Bush.

With Big Labor now sitting in the catbird seat at two of the Big Three automakers and with billions in federal funding to fall back on, removing a watchdog agency geared toward policing union scofflaws doesn't seem like it benefits the American taxpayer, nor will it bolster their confidence in the new UAW-led regimes at GM and Chrysler.

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

The Social Security Administration has sent out 52 million stimulus checks, and in its rush to meet the June distribution deadline, some of them ended up going to dead people (a.k.a. Obama voters). As reported by the New York City Fox News affiliate, Antoniette Santopadre of Long Island received a check made out to her father, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He had been a U.S. citizen but had not been in the United States since 1969. It is estimated that some 8,000 to 10,000 checks amounting to millions of dollars in taxpayer money went to dead people because Social Security had no record of their passing. Fair enough, but how do you explain mistakes like Santopadre's father, who was never even part of the Social Security system?

Page II

Friday Digest

2009-07-24T12:44:00.001-04:00

Vol. 09 No. 29

Page I of IV --->

THE FOUNDATION

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." --Thomas Jefferson

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

President Says 'Stars Are Aligned' for Health Care 'Reform'

We're definitely not in Kansas anymore

The BIG Lie

"[H]ealth insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it. ... I am very worried about federal spending." --Barack Obama

Oh, well, in that case...

On Cross-Examination

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

Gaffe of the Week

"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." --Barack Obama

News From the Swamp: Deceitful Deficit

New & Notable Legislation

Walter Cronkite and the Death of Objective Journalism

Justice: Investigations of Thee, but Not of Me

While Conyers and Holder ignore the matter and hope it goes away, Wolf is looking to get Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine to look into the matter. We doubt anything will come of it.

40 Years That Reshaped America

Page II