Wooden Dentures

Digest

2010-07-30T13:03:00.001-04:00

July 30, 2010

The Foundation

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics

Judge Blocks Part of Arizona's Immigration Law

Trash left along the border by illegal aliens

Clinton-appointed District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocked most of Arizona's immigration law this week, ruling that it would "impermissibly burden federal resources." In other words, enforcing federal law is a violation of federal law. The preliminary injunction, she said, would merely preserve the status quo and be less harmful to immigrants than allowing the law to be enforced in full. The next step for Arizona is an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Bolton said that the Justice Department's suit was "likely to succeed on the merits."

Bolton blocked the primary provisions of the law -- including those requiring state law enforcement officials to check immigration status when other legitimate contact occurs, as well as the requirement that foreigners carry their papers at all times (federal law already requires this). On the other hand, 12 provisions, including some on human smuggling and transporting illegals, were left intact. All told, though, her ruling went even further than the DoJ had hoped.

The Department of Homeland Security is bound by federal law to "respond to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status ... for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information." Yet Bolton wrote, "An increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration ... will divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities." Or as National Review put it, "she accepts Justice's implicit argument that it's not the letter of the federal law that matters, but what parts of the law the executive decides to enforce."

National Review concludes:

The bottom line is that Arizona wants to enforce the law against illegal aliens. It wants them to be cognizant of the fact that the state is serious about the law, and therefore to conclude that it's best to leave or not come in the first place. Arizona did not deem these people illegal aliens. The federal government did, in laws passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Arizona thinks those laws mean something. If the Justice Department's suit -- and Judge Bolton's line of argument -- prevails, then we'll know that they don't. The real law of the land will be our current, de facto amnesty, imposed by executive whim.

For the administration, the bottom line isn't the law, but getting voters from the Hispanic bloc. With the help of their Leftmedia minions, they are succeeding. Meanwhile, America's immigration system remains broken and in desperate need of repair -- preferably by those who value and uphold the Rule of Law.

News From the Swamp: Rangel Cuts a Deal (or Not)

Corrupt 20-term Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has yet to admit to a series of serious ethical violations, thereby setting the stage for a rare and highly embarrassing public trial this fall, just before the mid-term elections. Rangel's lawyers appear to be working behind the scenes to arrange a sort of plea bargain, though, and his fellow Democrats are begging him to do so, thereby sparing them the additional electoral hardship that a trial would bring. As if the Demo "brand" weren't already damaged goods.

The House ethics committee, which must approve any deal, charged Rangel with 13 counts of breaking House rules, including granting official favors in exchange for money, taking trips to the Caribbean using corporate funds, failing to report income from rental property in the Dominican Republic and misusing rent-controlled apartments in New York City. "Even though there are serious charges," Rangel said, "I am prepared to prove that the only thing I've ever had in my 50 years of public service is service. That's what I've done. And if I've been overzealous in providing that service, I can't make an excuse for the serious violation but I can have an explanation of my intent." Oh, well then never mind.

For her part, hypocritical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says that her 2006 pledge to "drain the swamp" didn't include getting rid of corrupt Democrats like Rangel, who until recently chaired the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. (Ways and Means, among its other duties, writes the nation's tax laws -- laws which apparently apply to everyone except their author.) "The swamp was described as a criminal syndicate operating out of the Republican leader's office," Pelosi said, referring to former Majority Leader Tom Delay. "This was a terrible place," she added. "We made a tremendous difference, and I take great pride in that." The more things change...

New & Notable Legislation

The DISCLOSE Act died a much deserved death (or at least went on life support) this week when the traditionally unpredictable Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, the "Republican" senators from Maine, maintained their support of the filibuster to prevent the legislation from coming to a vote on the floor. The cloture vote failed 57-41. Democrats crafted this thinly veiled attempt to hamstring fundraising for their Republican opponents in response to a recent Supreme Court decision that restored First Amendment rights by reducing restrictions on contributions for political campaigns by corporations and foundations. In the end, the bill was defeated by common sense. As Collins noted, "It carves out certain favored groups, and that's just not fair. It's also likely unconstitutional." Chief among those favored groups were unions, which would have enjoyed a blanket exemption from the bill, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions they gave to Democrats in the last election cycle.

ObamaCare in its current form doesn't contain a public insurance option, so Democrats introduced legislation this week that would create just such a creature. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has gotten behind the proposal by suggesting that such an option would save $68 billion by 2020 and offer lower premiums. The CBO claims that premiums would be based on Medicare's current rates but wouldn't be subject to future reductions that will be needed to keep Medicare solvent. The CBO stated earlier this year that ObamaCare would save $100 billion over the next 10 years, but after the bill was signed, the CBO and the White House both admitted (surprise!) that health care "reform" would actually be in the red by 2014, if it isn't already. Many in the insurance industry, as well as many hospitals and doctors, believe that the public option will cut Medicare reimbursements for health care providers and lower the general quality of care.

The House approved $33 billion in additional spending for Afghanistan by a vote of 308-114, including 102 Democrats opposed. Those who supported it managed to tack on an additional $26 billion in "emergency" domestic spending, which became part of the whole package.

Energy legislation in the Senate is still alive, but significantly different from the sweeping "reform" plan that had been touted since Obama took office in January 2009. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has changed his focus to a $15 billion bill that offers $5 billion in rebates for energy efficient retrofits to homes, $3.8 billion to push the use of natural gas-operated trucks, and another $400 million to further study electric cars. Maybe the study will make the new Chevy Volt run for more than 40 miles per charge and cost lass than 41 grand. Many Democrats are concerned, however, because they want to see more environmental legislation and more government control over at least the energy producers, if not the entire industrial sector of America.

Click Here

New! Million Obama Dollar bill

It's Obama funny money! Just the thing for paying taxes, making "change", purchasing Obama healthcare and more! We are sure you'll come up with a million uses of your own for this Million Obama dollar bill. The same size as U.S. currency. Set of 2 bills.

Massachusetts vs. the Electoral College

"The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote," reports the Boston Globe. The bill would award all 12 of the Bay State's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote and is part of a larger National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). The goal is to persuade enough states to enact similar legislation to reach 270 electoral votes, ensuring that the winner of the popular vote also wins the Electoral College vote. Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington -- all blue states -- have already approved the legislation. No doubt the main reason for this effort is lingering bitterness over the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore, but won the Electoral College, and thus, the presidency.

However, the law would take effect only when enough states have signed on -- and assuming a future legislature doesn't change the rules again. Indeed, as Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto, in an outstanding analysis of the constitutionality and political feasibility of the law, writes, "Since the NPVIC would be legally unenforceable, only political pressure could be brought to bear to ensure that state legislatures stand by their commitments to it. Would this be enough? Let's put the question in starkly partisan terms: If you're a Republican, do you trust Massachusetts lawmakers to keep their word, and to defy the will of the voters who elected them, if by doing so they would make Sarah Palin president?"

Digest

2010-07-23T12:38:00.001-04:00

July 23, 2010

The Foundation

"Excessive taxation ... will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election." --Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics

Yeah, About Those Tax Rates...

Memo to Democrats: Higher taxes isn't the answer

Barack Obama signed into law the sweeping financial-sector overhaul Wednesday, opening the way for government tentacles to gain an even firmer grip on the economy. Of course, Obama couched the bill with a promise: "The American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes. There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts. Period."

As Democrats feverishly expand the power of government, another issue looms -- the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at midnight on Dec. 31. What a New Year's celebration that will be. If Congress doesn't act, Americans will be saddled with one of the largest tax increases in history.

Don't be fooled by demo-goguery, either. The tax hikes will hit every income level. The top bracket would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent; the 33 bracket will rise to 35; 28 will rise to 31; 25 will rise to 28; and the lowest bracket, 10 percent, will rise to 15 percent -- a 50 percent hike. Capital gains taxes will rise from 15 percent to 20 percent, and the tax on dividends will skyrocket to 39.6 percent, which is a far cry from the current 15 percent rate. The marriage penalty will return, and the child tax credit will be cut in half from $1,000 to $500.

That said, it seems likely that Democrats will act to stop this huge tax increase -- at least for those in the lower brackets, and even if it's only temporary (after all, it's "their" money to give or not, right?). A few Democrats have even partially broken with their party's traditional class warfare platform to argue that tax increases shouldn't hit top-bracket earners either. The highest bracket includes small business owners, and increasing their taxes during a recession isn't exactly a way to encourage them to hire new workers -- or to just stay in business.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who found paying his own taxes somewhat inconvenient, doesn't buy this economic argument. While there is "still some uncertainty about how strong the recovery is going to be," he said, that doesn't mean small business owners and individuals in the top bracket should keep their money. "Business always wants their taxes lower and always wants to live with less regulation," he snorted. Yes, and job-killing Democrats always seems to want the opposite.

So, he concluded, "We believe it is appropriate to let those tax cuts that go to the most fortunate expire." Got that? All you hard-working taxpayers who dare to earn more than $250,000 a year are just "fortunate," and it's time you paid your "fair share."

The Obama agenda includes increasing spending to such stratospheric levels that deficits must be solved with higher taxes. Of course, with elections looming, Democrats have suddenly found religion on deficits, which means arguing over how much extending the tax cuts will "cost." According to Politico, "Extending all the tax cuts would add $3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, while extending only the middle-class cuts would cost $1.4 trillion." Um, whose money is it?

Indeed, deficits are now such a public relations nightmare that Democrats didn't even bother enacting a budget this year -- they'll just let that $3.6 trillion blow in the wind and hope you don't notice the $1.5 trillion deficit. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans actually have a plan. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), an orthopedic surgeon who heads the conservative Republican Study Committee, has offered a budget that reduces federal borrowing from Obama's new baseline by $6.4 trillion over 10 years. Not only that, but it makes the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone and further lowers taxes by $1.7 trillion.

Price also proposes a spending "reset" to 2008 levels. "We think it's essential to show the American people we can cut spending enough to balance the budget even with the big hole Barack Obama has put us in," Price said. However, he admitted, "Even some Republicans will flinch from the spending cuts required to get to a balanced budget." Those Republicans should grow a backbone.

This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

"[T]he Bush-era tax cuts contributed to the deficit, did not create any jobs, [and] they should be repealed. What we should, though, renew are the middle-income tax cuts. ... If we want to lower taxes for the middle class and reduce the deficit and create jobs, extending the tax cuts at the high end are not furthering reaching those goals." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

If that's the case, why extend them at all?

News From the Swamp: Kagan Approved By Senate Committee

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to send Solicitor General Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination to the Senate floor. Perennial camera-hog Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was the sole Republican senator to cross party lines to support Kagan's nomination, even though, he confesses, she has a "philosophy I disagree with." Graham tried to wax eloquent, saying, "The last election had consequences. At the end of the day, after the hearing, it was not a hard decision for me to make. I thought she did a very good job and she will serve this nation honorably. And it would not have been someone I would have chosen, but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely." With friends like these...

This isn't the first time Graham has failed to live up to the "R" after his name. Last year he was the sole Republican vote on the committee in support of Sonia Sotomayor. The scales are certainly tipped in Kagan's favor for confirmation, which, for the next generation, would give liberals one more solid vote on the High Court in support of their attempt to completely deconstruct our Constitution.

Rangel to Face House Trial for Corruption

A House investigative panel has found that longtime Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) likely violated a range of ethics rules, including granting official favors in exchange for money, taking trips to the Caribbean using corporate funds, failing to report income from rental property in the Dominican Republic and misusing rent-controlled apartments in New York City. The New York Times reports, "The finding means that he must face a public trial before the House ethics committee, the first member of Congress to be forced to do so since 2002, when Representative James A. Traficant Jr. was expelled from Congress after a corruption conviction." (Since the Times didn't find it worth mentioning, we'll note that Traficant was also a Democrat.) Rangel is seeking re-election in November anyway, and he said there is no chance he will withdraw or resign.

New & Notable Legislation

Sen. Scott Brown's proposal to use $35 billion in "stimulus" money to fund an unemployment benefits extension fell on deaf ears in Congress this week. The Massachusetts Republican has justifiably taken some heat lately from his GOP colleagues for supporting several Democrat measures, but he now laments the fact that bipartisanship is a one-way street with leftists. Welcome to Washington, Mr. Brown. The $35 billion would have come from future stimulus projects that will not likely provide new jobs anyway. Democrats would rather fund the unemployment extension with deficit spending than use money that's already out there. So that's just what they did, designating it an "emergency" to bypass their own pay-as-you-go rules.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pulled cap-n-tax legislation off the floor Thursday after acknowledging that he couldn't twist enough arms to reach 60 votes. Instead, he will put forward an energy-only bill to respond to the Gulf oil spill and address other more popular energy items. Reid had pushed a comprehensive climate and energy bill that still wasn't enough for most leftists. The bill included a clean-energy package, restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, and, of course, more taxes. Environmental activists had hoped to see an economy-wide greenhouse gas cap rather than one that focuses specifically on electricity producers. They also complain that the negotiations that Reid, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have engaged in with various energy producers and lobbying groups haven't earned them any Republican votes, while watering down the bill. Not passing the bill is just about right, in our opinion.

Reid is also pushing the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, a blatant payoff to big labor that seeks to nationalize public sector unions for police, firefighters and first responders. The explanation for the bill is that emergency workers nationwide should be subject to the same rules governing hiring, pay and worker protections. In reality, it's an attempt to strip states and localities of their right to control local public service employees. If this bill passes, we can expect a fundamental breakdown across the country of first responder capabilities as greedy unions push for unrealistic and off-kilter rules to increase their own power.

The Senate passed a $60 billion war-funding bill Thursday after rejecting the House's $80 billion version, which included $20 billion in domestic spending. Republicans resisted adding the aid for states and municipalities to stem possible teacher layoffs because they said the bill should focus on Afghanistan. The House will take up the Senate version next week.

Click Here

No ObamaNation

Express how you feel with these best selling products. Our outrageously popular Bitterly Clinging shirt, poster and bumper stickers AVAILABLE NOW! FREE patriotic bumper stickers with every order!

'Teachable Moment' in USDA Official's Firing

Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart made quite a splash earlier this week with the release of a video clip of USDA official Shirley Sherrod, who is black, allegedly describing for an NAACP audience how she many years ago considered withholding help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy because she felt black farmers were suffering. For this alleged disclosure, Sherrod was forced by the Obama administration to resign immediately from her position, and the NAACP issued a statement condemning her act.

But that's not the whole story. Read more here.

Tea Party Infighting

The Tea Party movement was busy this week fighting amongst themselves. After Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams penned a satirical "letter" to Abraham Lincoln from NAACP President Ben Jealous, the Tea Party Federation -- self-described as a "broad coalition of local and regional Tea Party groups" formed "to create a unified message and media response" -- promptly kicked the Express out of its ranks, calling the letter "clearly offensive." A Federation press release had even demanded Williams' ouster from the Express as one condition of avoiding expulsion from the Federation.

The Tea Party movement's strength is not in centralized control or submission to "establishment" demands but in restoring constitutional authority and Rule of Law. Those playing Tory to the Tea Party's Patriots would do well to take a lesson from colonial history and remember what a bunch of "rabble rousers" can do.

Meanwhile, former Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott, who is now a highly paid lobbyist, said of the Tea Party: "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples." DeMint is a solid conservative senator from South Carolina. Lott's solution? "As soon as [Tea Party candidates] get here, we need to co-opt them." Of course, we all saw what happened to the Senate under Lott's brand of control. He's clearly more concerned with how Democrats feel about him than with upholding conservative (read: constitutional) principles.

West Virginia Special Election Set

West Virginia Democrat Gov. Joe Manchin signed legislation Monday setting a special primary to fill the late Robert Byrd's U.S. Senate seat for Aug. 28 and the special election for Nov. 2. On Tuesday, Manchin announced that he will seek the seat. For now, Carte Goodwin, Manchin's former chief counsel, holds the seat.

Republicans had hoped that Rep. Shelley Moore Capito would run, but she announced Wednesday that she would focus instead on retaining her House seat. Mining company owner John Raese, who ran for Senate in 1984 and 2006, will make a third attempt in the special election this year, but Manchin is the clear favorite -- assuming he can beat his 95-year-old challenger, former West Virginia Secretary of State Ken Hechler, in the primary.

Next Page Living in New York

Digest

2010-07-16T17:48:00.001-04:00

July 16, 2010

The Foundation

"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." --Samuel Adams

Government & Politics

To Justify Its Own Existence, NAACP Condemns Tea Party for 'Racism'

It's time to put the "American" in "African-American"

First Lady Michelle Obama went to the NAACP convention in Kansas City, Missouri, this week to speak on childhood obesity, but if you read the ABC News story on the speech, you might think she railed on the Tea Party movement for being racist. On the contrary, the First Lady stuck to her theme of encouraging children to eat healthy foods and get more active in their lives.

Yet since the NAACP's jihad against all things Tea Party is sexier and more inflammatory than yet another lecture on childhood obesity, the Leftmedia outlet hijacked its own headline story to play up the conflict and promote an upcoming protest march in Washington this fall. It's a telling dichotomy that ABC emphasizes polls diminishing the Tea Party movement's impact yet continues to treat the movement as a significant threat. If the Tea Parties were so impotent, one would think the media would ignore them. Then again, they tried that while the movement grew last year -- and just like everything from the Left, it didn't work.

NAACP chief Ben Jealous lived up to his name when he noted the Tea Party's political success, saying, "We have to close the enthusiasm gap." And to close that "enthusiasm gap," the "civil rights" group unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Tea Party movement to repudiate the supposed racism and bigotry in its ranks.

The entire text won't be available until the board of directors votes in October (that's brave of them), and Jealous equivocated: "We take no issue with the Tea Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement."

According to a press release, the resolution cites phantom incidents as proof. "In March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were accosted by Tea Party demonstrators and called racial epithets. Civil rights icon John Lewis was spit on, while Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was called the 'N' word." But the NAACP can't even get their story straight when it comes to these fabricated altercations.

In response, the St. Louis Tea Party passed a resolution condemning the NAACP's resolution condemning the Tea Party movement, specifically calling for the NAACP to withdraw its, "bigoted, false, and inflammatory resolution." We concur. The time has come for the NAACP to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear that there is no place for racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement.

As for our "post-racial" president and First Lady, they'd do well to focus their NAACP legions on the content of their own character, rather than baseless attacks on the character of others.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"The Tea Party, as a political philosophy, is to reverse what civil rights did and that is saying the federal government must protect people." --the "Reverend" Al Sharpton, calling states' rights a racist issue

Sharpton added, "There clearly are some racial leaves in their tea bag, but this is not just about race. It is about how you see government."

At least he got the last part right -- limited government versus nanny state.

News From the Swamp: Senate Passes Financial Bill

"The Senate approved a wide-ranging overhaul of the nation's financial regulations Thursday, handing President Barack Obama his second major domestic-policy victory of the year," reports The Wall Street Journal. The vote was 60-39, mostly along party lines. Republican (in the loosest sense of the word) Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine joined Scott "Kennedy" Brown (?-MA) in supporting the 2,300-page bill, offsetting the loss of Sen. Robert Byrd, who died recently, and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who voted "no" -- because the legislation's not tough enough. Barack Obama will sign the bill into law in the coming days.

According to the Journal, "The measure, once implemented, will touch all areas of the financial markets, affecting how consumers obtain credit cards and mortgages, dictating how the government dismantles failing financial firms and directing federal regulators' focus on potential flashpoints in the economy." Left out of the bill, though, were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the quasi-government-run mortgage giants that were the prime "flashpoints" of the current financial crisis. Instead, Democrats took the opportunity to put the screws to everyone else.

The New York Times adds further clarity: "The bill ... is basically a 2,000-page missive to federal agencies, instructing regulators to address subjects ranging from derivatives trading to document retention. But it is notably short on specifics, giving regulators significant power to determine its impact." One worrisome provision grants the federal government subpoena power for any financial information from any institution it wants, without probable cause.

Giving the game away, the bill's co-author, lame-duck Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), said, "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works." If this sounds chillingly familiar, recall what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said regarding the 2,400-page health "reform" legislation: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Income Redistribution: Democrats Talk Taxes

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said Tuesday that Democrats in the House will push to extend some of the Bush tax cuts before they expire at year's end. Of course, Hoyer didn't say this without venturing into the usual class warfare. "What you want to do is stimulate at this point in time, so you certainly do not want to increase taxes on the middle class, middle-income working Americans," he said. Without congressional action, rates will rise across the board. As for individuals earning more than $200,000 or couples more than $250,000, your taxes are going up because, according to Democrats, you do nothing to stimulate the economy. Running small businesses -- the hiring engine of America -- doesn't count.

Oddly enough, for Democrats to talk of extending cuts for the middle class (i.e., preventing a tax increase), they have to admit that taxes were cut for the middle class in the first place. "Tax cuts for the wealthy" was how the Bush cuts were always couched. Of course, if Democrats do take action, they will pat themselves on the back all the way to Election Day.

Meanwhile, the death tax expired at the end of 2009 and the Senate is just now getting around to taking action on it. Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) have introduced an amendment to a small-business bill that would extend permanently the death tax at 35 percent with a $5 million exemption, indexed for inflation. We suppose that's better than the 55 percent rate and $1 million exemption set to kick in on Jan. 1, but it would be nice if they'd just let it die. The lack of any death tax for just this year makes estate planning interesting. Just ask the Steinbrenners.

Make The Patriot Post your one-stop shop for news headlines and conservative opinion. We post only the "real" news, and, unlike other sites, we do it with NO advertising!

Immigration Front: DoJ Threatens Second Suit Against Arizona

On the Sunday talk-show circuit, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Justice Department hasn't ruled out filing a racial profiling lawsuit against the state of Arizona for its immigration law. This would be a new and separate suit from the one already filed to kill the law because it supposedly interferes with federal immigration statutes. Holder maintains that the federal government could revisit the law in six months or a year to see if there has been any racial profiling in the execution of the law. If Holder believes this, he must not have much confidence in the suit the DoJ has already brought. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer appeared unimpressed by Holder's threat of a second lawsuit, saying, "Why would they have to hesitate, after all the comments they made, and all the outrage that they made against the bill in regards to racial profiling, that it didn't show up?"

The federal government's hypocrisy over the Arizona immigration law just keeps piling up. See, for example, sanctuary cities such as Chicago and San Francisco that are in conflict with federal law because they willfully refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in identifying and apprehending illegal immigrants. Yet, the Obama administration won't file suit against these sanctuary cities. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler explained, "There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law." Of course, the difference is that sanctuary cities obstruct federal law, while Arizona seeks to enforce it. Such cities, however, do tend to be part of Barack Obama's base. The president would rather appeal to Hispanic voters than strengthen our borders and enforce our laws.

From the Left: Felons for Franken

Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, believes that illegal felon voters may have pushed Democrat Al Franken to victory in the hotly contested Senate race with Republican Norm Coleman. After several recounts, Franken ended up winning the election by just 312 votes, going on to become the 60th Democrat in the Senate and providing key support for ObamaCare and other legislative insults to our Republic. Minnesota Majority did a careful comparison of 2008 voter rolls with a list of known felons and discovered that there were 393 illegally registered voters in the state's two largest counties alone. Since the vast majority of felons routinely vote Democrat, it's likely that Franken has convicts to thank for his victory.

Minnesota Majority hasn't found much sympathy for its report in Hennepin County, the state's largest, but District Attorney Phil Carruthers of nearby Ramsey County is seeking more manpower to fully investigate the situation. A statewide review is certainly needed, but considering that Democrat Secretary of State Dan Ritchie enjoyed ACORN's support in his own election, don't hold your breath. If he truly cared about felon voting, he would've already investigated the registration rolls.

Next Page Living in New York

Digest

2010-07-09T20:33:00.001-04:00

July 9, 2010

The Foundation

"Justice is the end of government." --James Madison

Government & Politics

The Department of Injustice

Attorney General Eric "Cherub" Holder

The Justice Department filed suit against the state of Arizona Tuesday over its recently passed immigration law, saying the law "interferes with the federal government's balanced administration of the immigration laws" and, therefore, has crossed a "constitutional line." And believe us, no one knows more about crossing constitutional lines than the Obama administration.

In fact, the administration's real reason for suing may be patent infringement on constitutional line-crossing.

Truly, the lawsuit could allege copyright infringement, because all Arizona did was copy federal law. We don't know if Attorney General Eric Holder has actually read the 18-page law yet, but, as we've said before, it merely makes it a state crime for people to be in Arizona if they're in the United States illegally. If the police have an otherwise lawful encounter with someone, and if they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the U.S. illegally, the police are required to ask for documentation of immigration status. An Arizona driver's license is sufficient.

The law is not, as the DoJ alleges, an attempt "to set immigration policy at the state level." It is an effort to enforce federal laws that are not being enforced. If there's a legitimate criticism, it's that police resources are scarce enough without this added burden. But that's not Arizona's fault.

The bottom line is that the administration is seeking to do two things: preserve (or even expand) the power of the executive branch in immigration law and policy and win over an important and growing constituency group for generations to come.

It's the second point that brings us to another Justice Department action -- that of dropping a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther Party (another valuable constituent group for the Democrats) for intimidating voters on Election Day 2008 in Philadelphia. We don't know how much clearer the evidence can be than having the Panthers caught on video wearing paramilitary garb, wielding billy clubs and shouting racial threats at potential white voters in front of a polling place. Indeed, Bartle Bull was an eyewitness. He's also a former civil rights attorney and publisher of the ultra-liberal Village Voice. He called it "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."

Initially, the administration pursued the case, which was brought during the final days of the Bush Administration, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 after the Panther members failed to appear in court. A month later, however, Justice moved to dismiss charges in exchange for one Panther member's pledge not to carry a "deadly weapon" to a Philadelphia polling place and only until 2012. Not surprisingly, mainstream media coverage of this gross miscarriage of justice has been virtually non-existent.

The problem is race-based and it is endemic. J. Christian Adams, an ex-Justice official who resigned over the department's handling of the case, testified Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that the DoJ instructed attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases involving black defendants and white victims. Furthermore, he alleged that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes declared that she would not enforce Section 8 of the "Motor Voter" law, which requires states periodically to purge voter rolls of felons, the deceased and those who have moved. According to Adams, Fernandes said, "We're not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it."

Perhaps stating the obvious, Adams said the dismissal of the Panthers' case "raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election." It's not just neutrality that's a problem, though. "The salient thing about J. Christian Adams's accusation," writes Richard Fernandez of PajamasMedia, "is that, if true, it constitutes a pure exercise in the abuse of power [by the administration]. The other wrongs it represents -- the perversion of the electoral process, the violation of civil rights -- are secondary. The most serious allegation in the whole affair is that certain officials countenanced a crime because they wanted to."

The Panther case and the Arizona suit make plain that the Department of Justice is engaging in the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" method of governance: Give blatant favors to allies and crush opponents with brute force.

On a lighter note, perhaps the solution would be to combine problems. Instead of leaving them to obstruct voters at the polls, the feds could station Black Panthers with billy clubs at the border.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"I hate white people. All of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him! You want freedom? You're going to have to kill some crackers! You're going to have kill some of their babies." --"King Samir Shabazz," New Black Panther Philadelphia chapter leader -- whose charges of voter intimidation in the above-mentioned case were dropped by the new DoJ

News From the Swamp: The Kagan Hearings

The Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan this past week were a glimpse into a pretty dim future for American jurisprudence. Kagan offered an obsequious and often glib performance over two days of softball pitches by Democrats and surprisingly light questioning by Republicans. She remained true to her featherweight legal background by deflecting most of the questions she received, and everyone, including the American public, walked away from the hearings just as clueless about her as when the whole charade began. Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't help matters, because they refused to follow up on some important lines of questioning. They also didn't demonstrate any coordinated plan of attack for exposing Kagan as a doctrinaire leftist with no respect for constitutional Rule of Law.

Still, the clues about the real Elena Kagan are evident in her prior record, scant though it may be. She advised Bill Clinton to veto the partial-birth abortion ban, a bill that later became law and was upheld by the Supreme Court. In doing so, she even went as far as to manipulate the medical language of a statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to help protect the barbaric practice. Kagan also suggested that the Court should overturn the Solomon Amendment, which provides for the removal of federal funds for schools that deny recruiting opportunities to the military. The Amendment has since been upheld unanimously by the High Court. These two instances are indicative of just how out of step Kagan is with the jurisprudential requirements of the position to which she has aspired since her college days.

More troubling, though, is Kagan's embrace of trans-nationalism, the trend among lawyers and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution and legal system should incorporate international and foreign laws and legal rulings. On Constitution Day 2007, when most of the nation's educational institutions were embracing an educational program on the U.S. Constitution, Kagan hired noted trans-nationalist Noah Feldman to speak to the Harvard faculty. Feldman has been a constant and vocal critic of the American legal system because it has not fully embraced international law to guide its jurisprudence. Because Democrats control 58 Senate seats, Kagan is likely to win confirmation with a couple of turncoat Republicans, but the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the American public will pay heavily later.

Robert Byrd, Democrat of the Klan, (1917-2010)

Sen. Robert Byrd, a one time Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan chapter he started in West Virginia, died last week at the age of 92. First elected to the Senate in 1958, he was in the middle of his ninth term and was the longest-serving senator in U.S. history. He has been hailed widely as the Senate's "respected" historian and a master of parliamentary procedure. Pork was his specialty, and numerous public works and buildings in West Virginia bear his name at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Bill Clinton argued in his eulogy that the ends justify the means: Byrd "once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan," merely because "he was trying to get elected." That's a backhanded compliment if ever there was one. While many editorialists want to consider Byrd's Klan days as "fleeting," his racist views lived on for many years. He was the only senator to vote against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and he personally filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 14 straight hours in an attempt to keep it from passing.

If the real Robert Byrd were as colorblind as the media wants us to believe he was, his memory might just deserve more reflection. To this point, one need only compare the media's largely laudatory coverage of Byrd's career to its highly critical remembrance of long-serving South Carolina Republican and former Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond, who died in 2003 at age 100.

New & Notable Legislation

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) has introduced a bill to create a national Internet sales tax. Delahunt, who is a longtime fan of such a measure, claims that states aren't being compensated fairly by online purchases made by their residents from out-of-state vendors. In a time of reduced revenue, so goes the theory, state governments need to collect taxes from these sources, though such a tax will serve only as a drag on the economy. Perhaps a better solution might be to reduce spending.

By a vote of 215-210 House Democrats passed a "budget enforcement resolution" meant to set discretionary spending levels for 2011 at $1.12 trillion. This replaces the traditional budget resolution for the next fiscal year, which Democrats refuse to pass because they want to avoid being targeted by deficit-conscious voters during the midterms. The new resolution doesn't give any direction as to how Congress is supposed to meet its new goal; that will be determined by the president's bipartisan fiscal commission. This get-the-responsibility-off-my-back swindle is likely to suggest the infamous European-style Value-Added Tax among other alternatives.

Click Here

No Obama sticker

Our Obama seal with NO Symbol sticker is made from high quality vinyl and is 4" round.

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, a flag mural was painted on a concrete slab visible from I-680 east of Oakland. In a typical move from a clueless bureaucracy, however, the flag was painted over just days before Independence Day. It seems that someone at the California Department of Transportation (better known as Caltrans) wanted more bland uniformity along state highways. According to a Caltrans spokesman, the repainting was part of a "graffiti-reduction" project, and officials only recently discovered that the concrete slab where the mural was painted lay on state-owned land.

Even in California the outcry was swift and severe, forcing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to apologize for the desecration of the mural -- a move he called "unconscionable." That mea culpa extended an offer to the three artists who painted the flag nearly nine years ago to place a mural in a more "suitable" location through a proper Caltrans permitting process.

Two unidentified painters didn't wait, though, restoring Old Glory in time for the Fourth of July on that same spot. The red in red, white, and blue shouldn't stand for red tape. Thank goodness that there are still real Americans with a can-do spirit.

Next Page New York Interests

Digest

2010-06-26T13:27:00.001-04:00

Support The Patriot's 2010 Independence Day Campaign

$0

$200,000

Donate Online
Donate by Mail
Budget Breakdown

June 25, 2010

The Foundation

"[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man.... It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous." --George Washington

Government & Politics

McChrystal Heads for the Exit

Obama ousted McChrystal on Wednesday

In 2007, Barack Obama, then the junior senator from Illinois with only two years of national political experience (and zero years of military experience) under his belt, accused American troops in Afghanistan of "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." Furthermore, according to the community organizer from Chicago, American troops who had made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in Iraq had "wasted" their lives. Nothing Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in his now infamous interview with Rolling Stone Magazine compares with Obama's outrageous rhetoric, or that of numerous other congressional Democrats in recent years.

However, McChrystal tendered, and Obama accepted, his resignation Wednesday after the former's comments berating some in the administration, including Obama, became public, creating the predictable firestorm of pomposity. But this was no Truman-MacArthur showdown. The things the general and his staff had to say were insightful observations, however inappropriately expressed and devoid of military discipline.

According to one of the general's aides, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and former Marine Corps commandant, is a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke behaves like "a wounded animal" who "keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous." McChrystal complained about "another e-mail from Holbrooke," saying, "I don't even want to open it." He described U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry as "one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.'" The general's staff said that politicians like John Kerry and John McCain were "not very helpful" with their quick trips to the war zone and ensuing appearances on Sunday talk shows.

Perhaps the last straw was McChrystal's observation (as stated through "sources familiar with the meeting") that during Obama's first encounter with his top military brass he looked "uncomfortable and intimidated." As for McChrystal's first meeting with the commander in chief, an adviser added, "It was a 10-minute photo op. Obama clearly didn't know anything about [McChrystal]. ... The Boss was pretty disappointed."

Despite McChrystal's apology, what he and his staff said was too much for the narcissist in the White House. "I don't make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal as we are in full agreement about our strategy," Obama said, and that could be true. But he also claimed, "Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult." On the contrary, the decision to fire McChrystal seems to result from Obama's desire to avoid appearing "weak." As a consequence of his actions, though, he has shown exactly his weakness and thin skin. Yes, McChrystal, to quote Obama from another embarrassment, acted stupidly. He was right to have submitted his resignation, but we're not sure that Obama should have accepted it. The two could have had a beer summit and carried on with fighting -- and winning -- the war.

That said, we have to give Obama credit for selecting Gen. David Petraeus to take over the Afghanistan campaign, though Obama has not always spoken highly of the general. Technically, this is a step down for the CENTCOM commander, but Petraeus is the best choice, given that he turned around the war in Iraq to the point that we rarely hear about it any more. Afghanistan is a tougher animal, but we hope Petraeus can succeed again. One order of business should be to loosen McChrystal's overly strict rules of engagement that endanger American lives. Next would be to focus less on nation building and more on defeating the enemy.

Let's be clear: Our nation's warriors have a long history of speaking their minds between and among fellow warriors. McChrystal's mistake (aside from having voted for Obama, which the article claims), was to allow an agenda-driven hack from an ardently leftist anti-war rag unfettered access to the conversations among his inner circle. We might also observe that the men under McChrystal's command are bleeding and dying for their country in a war that their commander in chief seems only half-heartedly committed to. In this respect, their frustration is not only palpable -- it's justified.

News From the Swamp: White House Shakeup

White House budget director Peter Orszag will be leaving his post in July, moving on to the think-tank world. He is the first member of the Obama cabinet to depart, but the administration doesn't plan to look far for a replacement. Candidates include Office of Management and Budget director Rob Nabors, Laura D'Andrea Tyson from the president's Economic Advisory Board, and Gene Sperling, former Clinton economic adviser and current counselor to Timothy Geithner.

Orszag was a driving force behind the stimulus bill and ObamaCare as well as the skyrocketing federal budget. The big government pedigree of his possible replacements indicates that the Obama administration has no intention of changing its big spending ways -- as if that were in question.

There were also some rumors circulating about Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel calling it quits after the midterm elections. The London Telegraph cited frustrations between the "abrasive pragmatist" Emanuel and the "optimistic inner circle" of the Obama team. The White House quickly labeled the story "ludicrous" and said it should be ignored, but Emanuel originally viewed the position as an 18-month job, and it's no secret that he's interested in running for mayor of Chicago in 2011. There also may be some credence to the report that Emanuel has been clashing with other Obama advisers. He has a well-established reputation as a tough customer, and the leftist ideologues who populate Obama's team have reportedly rubbed him the wrong way more than once.

New & Notable Legislation

The House passed the DISCLOSE Act by a vote of 219-206 Thursday. The purpose of the bill is to roll back the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, which undid the portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law restricting corporate participation in elections. The Court said that such restrictions on free speech infringe on the First Amendment. The Court was right. Under the legislation, however, the Associated Press reports, "nearly all organizations airing political ads independently of candidates or the political parties would be required to disclose their top donors and the amounts they paid." The only Republicans to support the bill were Joseph Cao (LA) and Mike Castle (DE), while 36 Democrats voted against it, some of whom were upset over the controversial exemption carved out for the NRA. There is a chance the 41 Republicans in the Senate can put a stop to the legislation, but that remains to be seen.

Congressional Democrats and the White House reached agreement on the new 2,000-page financial regulation bill late Thursday, meaning both houses will vote as soon as next week. As Reuters reports, "The most sweeping rewrite of financial rules since the 1930s aims to avoid a repeat of the 2007-2009 financial crisis, which touched off the recession and led to taxpayer bailouts of floundering financial giants. Financial institutions would have to pay $19 billion to cover its costs." Of course, being a product of Democrats' efforts to solve a crisis, the bill is full of draconian restrictions coupled with special deals, all while adding to the burden that helped create the financial meltdown two years ago. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) admitted, "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works." He also crowed, "This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives." That's exactly what we're afraid of.

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) introduced the appropriately acronymous Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which would require congressional authorization for any new major rule proposed by the executive branch. This effort to trim the power of the executive has 57 co-sponsors and aims to address the steep climb in rules issued by federal agencies in recent years. Last year alone, 3,316 new rules and regulations were issued, creating yet another serious constitutional problem. Congress is supposed to be the body that makes the laws, not the executive. Ever since Abraham Lincoln -- and especially since Franklin Roosevelt -- the executive branch has steadily gained vast power. The REINS Act aims to reverse, or at least slow, that trend. We say fat chance.

The Senate didn't act in time to spare doctors and other health care professionals from steep cuts in Medicare reimbursement payments. The Senate passed legislation, but the House has yet to act, and Medicare already began processing claims for June at the lower rate. The bill that was voted on will ultimately increase payments to providers by 2.2 percent and be paid for with various health care and pension charges. Vice President Joe "BFD" Biden blamed Republicans for not going along with a permanent payment fix for doctors, but few elected officials want to face the billions of dollars in additional costs that will be necessary.

Hope 'n' Change: Obama Now Says Mandate is a Tax

After Barack Obama went on the record to "absolutely reject this notion" that the individual health insurance mandate is a tax, his administration is now arguing exactly the opposite in court. The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss a Florida-based lawsuit seeking to overturn the health care overhaul and, according to American Spectator, "cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government's ability to collect taxes." A DoJ memo argues that "no suit for the purposes of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person." So for those wondering if Obama's "no individual tax" promise would stand in a court of law, you should soon get your answer.

Meanwhile, with mid-term elections fast approaching, the Obama camp is putting insurance companies on notice not to raise rates artificially because of the new law. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued the following Orwellian warning: "We want to caution insurance companies that rate increases would be watched very closely." As Aetna CEO Ronald Williams noted regarding the health care bill, however, "I think there was a recognition that consumers are going to get more. When you get more, you pay more." Apparently, this administration has yet to acknowledge basic economics.

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 the remainder of 2010. Our posterity deserve no less.

With just a week left in our summer fundraising drive, we must raise $95,198. Help us honor our forefathers' sacrifices and restore Liberty for our posterity by making a secure online donation to The Patriot's 2010 Independence Day campaign. If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form.

Thank you and God bless!

Nate Jackson
Managing Editor

Next Page New York Interests

Digest

2010-06-18T15:40:00.001-04:00

Support The Patriot's 2010 Independence Day Campaign

$0

$200,000

Donate Online
Donate by Mail
Budget Breakdown

June 18, 2010

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

A Slick Shakedown

At least he looks like he's helping...

Barack Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office Tuesday night. His goal? To make it appear that he's "doing something" about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, but predictably, his solutions involve only more government control. "[O]ne of the lessons we've learned from this spill," he said, "is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling." In other words, more of the same oppressive government that contributed to causing the spill or, at the very least, worsening the results.

Obama then lectured Americans about our consumption. "We consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves," he complained. "And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water." Of course, Obama's chutzpah conceals the real reason oil companies are drilling in deep water -- which is that government arbitrarily continues putting land and shallow water off limits.

Comedian Jay Leno may have summed it up best when he quipped, "President Obama announced [Tuesday] that he wants to use the oil spill to move America toward green energy. I have a crazy idea. Maybe he should use the oil spill crisis to fix the oil spill."

Meanwhile, BP has acquiesced to Democrat demands for a $20 billion political slush fund, er, escrow account to be used to compensate people and businesses harmed by the spill. The fund will be administered by Kenneth Feinberg, a lawyer who oversaw both the 9/11 victims' fund and executive pay limitations under TARP. Democrats are further insisting that the $75 million liability cap for oil spills (passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress in 1990) be raised and retroactively applied to the company. Apparently, it doesn't matter that BP had already stated its intention to pay more than $75 million if necessary.

Obama declared that this is the best way to make the victims whole -- "We will make BP pay," he said -- but let's not forget that he has also ordered a six-month moratorium on drilling, to the outrage of politicians on both sides of the aisle and to the detriment of those working in the industry. Our fearless leader is hoping no one notices that he's giving Gulf residents money with one hand, while further crippling their economy with the other. To be sure, BP should be liable for the spill, as should Transocean and Halliburton, which were involved with the rig and the well. But as columnist Steve Chapman put it, "A villain as hated -- and justifiably hated -- as BP creates a temptation to indulge in excess, and Obama is not inclined to resist."

All of this notwithstanding, we should note that blaming Obama for not plugging the spill isn't entirely legitimate. However, he is certainly to blame for his initial dithering; for his overreach, which has exacerbated the disaster and could lead to similar accidents in the future; and for his pursuit of job-crushing energy policy (e.g., drilling moratoriums, cap-n-trade), which will further stifle a struggling economy.

Bureaucratic red tape has hampered cleanup by delaying oil burn-off and the use of dispersants because of environmental concerns (never mind the 60,000 barrels of oil a day gushing into the Gulf). The administration also waved off foreign assistance because of the ill-conceived 1920 Jones Act, which mandates U.S. union labor for particular jobs. Permit delays slowed the construction of barrier islands off the Louisiana coast, though that didn't stop Obama from bragging, "We've approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try to stop the oil before it reaches the shore."

To add insult to injury, Louisiana's oil-sucking barges were halted by the administration because the Coast Guard had to "confirm" that the barges had fire extinguishers and life vests aboard. After those "concerns" were allayed, the barges were then stalled because the Coast Guard had "problems" contacting the company that constructed the barges.

If Obama were more concerned with stopping the spill of oil rather than the spill in his poll numbers, he would offer whatever legitimate assistance the federal government can provide and then get out of the way.

Quote of the Week

"The big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is bad enough in itself. But politics can make anything worse. Let's stop and think. Either the government knows how to stop the oil spill or they don't. If they know how to stop it, then why have they let thousands of barrels of oil per day keep gushing out, for weeks on end? All they have to do is tell BP to step aside, while the government comes in to do it right. If they don't know, then what is all this political grandstanding about keeping their boot on the neck of BP, the Attorney General of the United States going down to the Gulf to threaten lawsuits -- on what charges was unspecified -- and President Obama showing up in his shirt sleeves? Just what is Obama going to do in his shirt sleeves, except impress the gullible? He might as well have shown up in a tuxedo with white tie, for all the difference it makes. This government is not about governing. It is about creating an impression. That worked on the campaign trail in 2008, but it is a disaster in the White House, where rhetoric is no substitute for reality. ... This is not about oil. This is about snake oil." --economist Thomas Sowell

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

In case you missed Obama's Oval Office Address, here's the short version: "I've returned ... I assembled a team ... I'd like to lay out ... I've authorized ... I urge the governors ... I saw and heard ... I've talked ... I've seen ... I've talked ... I refuse ... I will meet ... I make ... I asked ... I approved ... I want to know ... I met with ... I've established ... I've issued ... I know ... I urge ... I expect ... I was a candidate ... I laid out ... I say ... I am happy ... I will not accept ... I will not settle..."

New & Notable Legislation

The DISCLOSE Act, a campaign finance bill meant partially to reverse the outcome of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, came one step closer to passing this week. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) made a deal with the National Rifle Association that would exempt the organization from disclosure rules in the bill. The NRA's reasoning for this back room deal is that it exists to protect Second Amendment rights and will fight to keep its donors' information private. They aren't offering support for any version of the bill, but by backing out of the way, they are handing the keys to passage to Democrats and their union allies, who oppose everything the NRA stands for. Despite the NRA's Faustian bargain, Republicans remain opposed and Democrats were forced to cancel a Friday vote as they struggled to unify their own caucus.

The "jobs" bill under consideration in the Senate failed Thursday, garnering only 56 of the needed 60 votes to move forward. Republicans blocked the $120 billion package until the cost can be covered by cutting existing federal programs. Trimmed down from Democrats' original wish list, the bill still would have increased the deficit by $55 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has introduced an amendment that would essentially force diversity appointments on the Federal Reserve Board and its 12 regional banks. These appointments would be made by a diversity officer who would be appointed by the president. Diversity officers would also be charged with forcing more "diversity" on mortgage lending -- virtually the same idiotic scheme used by Fannie and Freddie that produced the housing bubble that triggered this recession in the first place.

"A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet," reports CNET News. Broadband providers, search engines and other companies chosen by the government "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security under a new bureaucracy called the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC). Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the primary sponsor, said it would give the federal government the power to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people." Forgive us if we're a bit skeptical.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"We're not satisfied with everything we've done [in Congress]. The way to cure that is to give us more authority and more ability." --Rep. Barney Frank

News From the Swamp: So Transparent

Some House Democrats are complaining that the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) is cramping their style by conducting intrusive investigations and releasing documents to the public that reflect poorly on House members. The Congressional Black Caucus has gone so far as to introduce a bill to weaken the office's ability to conduct investigations. Again, no word from the Congressional White Caucus, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who touted the creation of the office in 2008 as a way to bring an end to "the culture of corruption," has signaled that she might be fine with watering it down. Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL) may have best encapsulated the sudden loss of favor of the OCE among Democrats: "The cynical among us would assert that the people crying the loudest have the most to hide. Perhaps the OCE is a victim of its own success. If it weren't making a difference, we wouldn't be having this conversation."

SC Democrats Perplexed Over Their Own Senate Candidate

The strange case of South Carolina Democrat primary winner Alvin Greene continues to be an embarrassment to the Democrats. Vic Rawl, who lost by 18 percentage points to Greene in the June 8 Senate primary, filed a formal protest and hired election analysis experts to review the data from the primary. Rawl's team alleged a number of election anomalies including faulty voting machines, irregular counts and missing votes. On Thursday, the state party rejected Rawl's appeal. No one is yet sure just how Greene, 32, with no job, virtually no campaign, and no name recognition was able to beat Rawl, a longtime politically active officeholder. Greene has refused all requests to step aside, claiming that he is a lifelong Democrat, not a Republican plant as Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) has alleged, and that he won the race fair and square. Indeed, it appears that Democrat voters were simply too lazy to find out anything about the candidates, and chose the one with the nicer name.

From the Left: Congressman Assaults Student

"Do you fully support the Obama agenda?" Such was the question posed to Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) this week by two young men identifying themselves as students. Etheridge proceeded to assault one of the students, which, unfortunately for the congressman, was caught on tape. Predictably, there has been no move toward discipline from fellow House Democrats. While the dinosaurs of television and print media look high and low for phantom Tea Partiers spitting at congressmen or shouting racial epithets, their leftist comrades are denouncing the young videographer instead of the ill-tempered congressman.

Etheridge eventually issued an apology for the incident -- well, for having it caught on video anyway -- but he still hasn't answered the original question: Does he fully support the Obama agenda? That's a question for which voters in Etheridge's district deserve an answer, and his GOP opponent, Renee Ellmers, will continue asking for it as that campaign rolls on.

We Don't Support the Obama Agenda

The Patriot Post is on the front lines opposing the Obama agenda at every turn. Whether it's the health care takeover, industry nationalization, or tax increases and regulation, we stand in the way of Leftist action with every edition we publish. Proudly, we didn't take government handouts from TARP, the so-called stimulus, or Cash-for-Clunkers. (In fact, here in our humble shop, we each drive a clunker made in the previous century.) But we do need your help to weather the third quarter funding drought by reaching $200,000 by Independence Day. We're nearly a third of the way there.

Please, if you're able, make a secure online donation today to The Patriot's 2010 Independence Day Campaign. If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form.

Thank you and God bless!

Nate Jackson
Managing Editor

Next Page New York Interests

Digest

2010-06-11T20:31:00.001-04:00

Support The Patriot's 2010 Independence Day Campaign

$0

$200,000

Donate Online
Donate by Mail
Budget Breakdown

The Foundation

"In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." --George Washington

Government & Politics

Reading the Tea Leaves

Tea Party muscle

When we step back and view Tuesday's tempest in a teapot, one common theme emerges: Voters rejected the status quo. Except in Arkansas and Iowa, they didn't. Go figure. The Tea Party movement did flex its muscles a bit but suffered some defeats as well. So we emerge with little more than the usual muddied political picture and a lot of prognostication about what this means for November.

In California, Democrats retreaded old tires in Sen. Barbara Boxer, first elected in 1992, and former two-term Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, first elected in 1974, to run for governor again. These two establishment relics will face two Silicon Valley millionaire Republicans -- former eBay CEO Meg Whitman for governor and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina for Senate. Both ran on more or less conservative platforms, promising to tackle runaway government. In the We're-Out-of-Golden State, their business experience could be an asset -- if they stick to limited-government principles.

Incumbent Democrat Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas narrowly avoided becoming the third senator to lose a primary this year by defeating Lt. Gov. Bill Halter 52-48 in a runoff. Halter was backed heavily by Big Labor, while Lincoln, who was first sent to Washington a dozen years ago and boasted the backing of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, managed to paint the unions as Washington special interests. She's right, of course, but talk about the pot and the kettle.

South Carolina saw perhaps the greatest conservative rebuke of big government incumbency. Six-term Republican Congressman Bob Inglis finally ran out of good will after supporting TARP and cap-n-tax legislation, as well as telling constituents to avoid watching Fox News' Glenn Beck. Inglis managed just 28 percent of the vote, and faces a runoff on June 22 against Spartanburg County, SC, prosecutor Trey Gowdy, who built a large early lead and finished substantially ahead of Inglis, arguing that the latter was too moderate. Also, Tea Party-backed state legislator Nikki Haley vociferously denied allegations of marital infidelity and hauled in 49 percent of the vote in a crowded field for governor. She too faces a runoff against Rep. Gresham Barrett, though she likely will prevail.

Then there's the curious case of South Carolina Democrat Senate candidate Alvin Greene. Somehow, he couldn't afford an attorney in November to defend him against charges of showing obscene images to a University of South Carolina student but managed to plunk down the $10,400 filing fee to run for office four months later -- and then won the primary. Some Democrats are wondering how he slipped through the cracks. Easy -- he's a Democrat.

Perhaps the biggest Tea Party victory came in Nevada, where former state legislator Sharron Angle rocketed from single-digit support to win the GOP nomination for Senate, defeating better known and better financed Republicans Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian. In November, Angle will face Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the most unpopular politicians on any ballot this year. Reid immediately unleashed his multi-million dollar war chest with attack ads painting Angle as "extremist," and indications are that he's pleased by her victory. He is, however, trailing Angle by double digits in initial polls.

Democrats have controlled Congress for nearly four years and have enjoyed absolute power since Barack Obama strolled into office 17 months ago. During that time, they have run roughshod over the Constitution by piling up astronomical deficits, nationalizing financial institutions and other private businesses and ramming through a government takeover of the best health care system in the world -- all while blaming their Republican predecessors for breaking the bank. Will voters rebuke them by handing control of Congress back to Republicans? Both houses seem potentially winnable, but the GOP will have to offer a better, more articulate alternative than just, "Hey, we're not them."

News From the Swamp: Senate Fails to Pass Limitations on EPA

The Senate took up the EPA Resolution of Disapproval introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) this week, but it failed to pass Thursday night, 47-53. Six Democrats voted with Republicans: Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR) and Jay Rockefeller (WV).

The resolution would have blocked the EPA from implementing cap-n-tax restrictions by bureaucratic fiat, thus retaining that power for Congress. Under the Congressional Review Act that was part of the "Contract with America," Congress has the authority to veto any "major rule" by a regulatory agency within 60 days of its passage. Murkowski's fellow Alaska senator, Mark Begich, a Democrat, opposed the measure because the EPA's regulations put pressure on the Senate to pass cap-n-tax. "The danger if Murkowski were to become law," said Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), "is that there isn't the immediate incentive to put a price on carbon." The White House, knowing that great power was at stake, threatened to veto the resolution.

Earlier this year, Obama's hard-left EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared carbon dioxide, which is required for all life on earth, a pollutant subject to their regulation. Of course, it did this based on junk science from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The EPA can therefore use its regulatory authority to intrude upon every area of our lives in implementing cap-n-tax restrictions -- all without the vote of our elected representatives, who by defeating this measure abdicated their own constitutional authority. The regulations will go into effect in January.

From the Left: Kagan Hearings

Senate confirmation hearings are set to begin on June 28 for Elena Kagan, Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Kagan's aspiration to be a justice on America's highest court runs back as far as she or anyone who knows her can remember. With that single-minded goal, she's left little public evidence as to her ideological leanings -- lest her far-left views scuttle her nomination. There is evidence to be found, though, if conservatives dig deep and have time to review the material before Democrats move her nomination through the Senate.

The just-released 46,500 pages from the Clinton Library and from Justice Thurgood Marshall's papers at the Library of Congress give us a sneak peek at the extent of Kagan's liberalism. In numerous memos and internal comments, she has expressed support for late-term abortion, strict gun control laws, doctor-assisted patient suicide and same-sex marriage. Right now, the public doesn't seem to have much of an opinion about Kagan, and that's the way the White House wants it. When she makes her presence known on the Court, people will certainly receive an education.

Click Here

Calling all TEA Party Members

The Essential Liberty Guide is the perfect resource for your upcoming TEA parties and rallies. Much more than just a Declaration and Constitution booklet, this pocket reference already has a proven track record with TEA party patriots and is a must-have educational resource. Quantity discounts are available. All sales proceeds at The Patriot Shop support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.

PR Offensive for ObamaCare

Months after signing ObamaCare into law, the White House is working with a group of leftist supporters to craft a $125 million messaging campaign to sell it to the American public. The multi-trillion dollar monstrosity hasn't exactly grown in popularity as the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate had hoped. In fact, a steadily growing majority of the public in poll after poll believes the bill should be repealed and replaced with something more cost effective and more private-sector oriented.

This new campaign will be run by the Health Information Center and feature input from former Sen. Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy widow Victoria Kennedy, former White House Communications Director and Maoist wannabe Anita Dunn and a number of other left-luminaries and communications personnel. The cash to run the operation will come from unions, corporations and Democrat donors. (Of course, those special interests receive most of their money from government contracts, which means we are paying for this propaganda.) Obama's team expects to be intimately involved, and the administration has a number of high-profile public events planned in the weeks leading up to the midterm elections. Whether this effort will actually stem the expected anti-Democrat tide sweeping the country is hard to say, but so far the more Americans have learned about ObamaCare, the more they dislike it. Keeping it in the public eye could end up backfiring badly for the White House. We can hope.

Next NY Interests

Digest

2010-06-04T22:18:00.001-04:00

June 4, 2010

The Foundation

"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation." --James Madison

Government & Politics

A Congressman, a Former President and an Intern Walk Into a Bar...

Sestak

The plot thickens over the job offer to sitting Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and it may be only a matter of time before "Sestak-gate" enters the political corruption lexicon. Late last Friday, as the news cycle wound down going into the holiday weekend, the White House issued a memo declaring that its internal investigation of the alleged job offer to Sestak revealed no improprieties. This finding was certainly no surprise, but the administration's lame explanation raises more questions than it answers.

According to the official account, Bill Clinton approached Sestak in 2009 about accepting an uncompensated position on a presidential advisory board -- this in return for Sestak's commitment to refrain from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) in their state's Democrat Senate primary. Sestak promptly rejected the offer and went on to win the primary last month.

There are several problems with this story, however, not the least of which is that it differs significantly from Sestak's. When Sestak first stated publicly in February that the administration had tried to get him out of the Senate primary, he claimed that he had been offered a "high-ranking job" -- not an unpaid position on an obscure presidential advisory board. Furthermore, the only board for which Sestak might qualify is the Intelligence Advisory Board, but because he's a sitting member of Congress, he cannot lawfully take part. For the administration's explanation to hold water, we would have to believe that Joe Sestak would give up a Senate run and a current House seat to take a role on an advisory board that offers no pay, no political clout and virtually no future career opportunities. Or at least none compared to being a former congressman or senator. Sestak, a liberal Democrat and retired Navy vice-admiral, has built his campaign around issues of trust and integrity; needless to say, this episode certainly could tarnish his race in the fall.

Clinton

Nor will the White House escape the matter by bringing in scandal magnet Bill Clinton. It's suspected that Clinton's involvement is supposed to somehow absolve the administration of any wrongdoing because it puts them at arm's length. That's not the case, however, as Clinton still appears to have acted as an agent of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who, in sending Clinton, just may have violated the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act states that no federal employee may exert pressure to participate or not participate in political activity.

In related news, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina may soon be facing similar questions with regard to a job offer to Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff of Colorado. Romanoff's offer to drop his bid to challenge administration favorite Michael Bennet has resurfaced this week thanks to the Sestak affair.

Romanoff

Romanoff was rather vocal about his desire for a federal job during the Obama transition. He also expressed interest in a Senate appointment, which went to Bennet instead, or a shot at the lieutenant governorship slot when that opened up. It was only after he came up short all around that Romanoff turned to a Senate challenge of Bennet. (Apparently, making an honest living in the private sector never occurred to him.) Romanoff filed his papers as a candidate on Sept. 10, 2009, and the next day he received a call from Messina, who offered three separate opportunities with the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Trade Development Agency. Romanoff claims that none of the positions were guaranteed, but they would be available only if he was not already a candidate.

Since Obama's first attempt to sweep this under the rug seems to have failed, it will be interesting to see what future memos and documents have to say about what transpired in the ham-fisted political machine, er, "most transparent administration in history." To paraphrase the great political sage Forrest Gump, transparency is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get.

Open Query

"[W]hy do so many Bill Clinton stories end with the words 'nothing improper happened'?" --columnist Ann Coulter

From the Left: Blagojevich Has His Day in Court

After 19 months of delays, former Illinois Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich finally appeared in court Wednesday. Blagojevich is charged with using his office to obtain money, campaign contributions and other benefits while trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama when the latter ascended to the White House. The former governor was caught on tape discussing the Senate seat with such playful phrases as, "I've got this thing and it's [expletive] golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing." Typical of Chicago's pay-to-play politics. The lucky winner of Blago's choosing was Roland Burris, who is retiring rather than face the voters.

Among those expected to take the stand are White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL). The defense requested that Obama himself testify, but District Judge James Zagel ruled that out. Besides, The Transparent One has an airtight alibi: "I had no contact with the governor what -- or, uhhh -- or his office, uhhh, and so we -- I -- I -- I was not aware of, uh, what was happening. And as I said, uh, it's a sad day for Illinois. Uh, beyond that, I don't think it's appropriate to comment." And so clearly he was innocent.

New & Notable Legislation

Before jetting off for Memorial Day recess, the House passed two spending bills that will -- surprise -- increase the deficit. The Wall Street Journal notes that Democrats "approved another $116 billion in new welfare and other spending, raised $82 billion in new taxes on investment and business, and increased the national debt by another $54.7 billion. None of this was offset with spending cuts." The original "jobs bill" was priced at $191 billion -- a bit steep for Democrats facing voters this fall. So the leadership split the bill in two. One to extend welfare spending supposedly paid for by $82 billion in business tax hikes passed with 215 votes. Second came the infamous "doc fix" bill that raised Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, which passed with 245 votes. The bill's $21 billion price tag was lower than originally planned because, instead of extending the fix for four years, the extension is good for only two years.

Hope 'n' Change: Pelosi Cracks Down on Perks

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is cracking down on congressional travel perks -- well, sort of. Going forward, taxpayers will not be billed for business or first-class airfare for flights under 14 hours. It's not clear whether round trips or connecting flights will count in this total. Even shorter trips are hitting the taxpayers hard, however. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) took a $9,950 round trip flight to London on the people's business, and his excuse was that he couldn't find cheaper tickets. ABC News searched the Internet and found Washington-to-London flights starting at $700. That was easy.

The travel per-diem also has been changed -- sort of. House members are allotted $200 a day to spend in any manner they choose. Now, they will be required to return the unused portion of the cash, but no receipts will be required. No word on whether the Senate plans to follow suit.

Click Here

Great Patriot Accessories

Show your patriotism with our large selection of lapel pins, die-cast cuff link and tie tack sets, military wallets, wristbands and more!

Primary Updates

Tuesday's primary in Alabama wasn't kind to another party switcher. Rep. Parker Griffith was first elected to northern Alabama's 5th district as a Democrat but switched parties last year after opposing ObamaCare. Still, he couldn't convince voters of his Republican credentials and was defeated handily by challenger Mo Brooks. Griffith joins the growing list of incumbents tossed out during primaries: Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) lost their respective primaries, while Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) was ousted in the state's GOP caucus and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) faces a June 8 runoff against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

In Hawaii, former Rep. Ed Case dropped out of the Democrat primary race to allow undivided support for establishment candidate and state senate president Colleen Hanabusa. Might he have also been offered a position on an unpaid presidential advisory board? In a special election last month, Republican Charles Djou won a Hawaii House seat by defeating Hanabusa and Case with a plurality. Both Djou and Case ran as fiscal conservatives and together garnered 67 percent of the vote, meaning that leftist darling Hanabusa may not be a lock to retake a traditionally Democrat seat.

Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004

Sunday marks the sixth anniversary of President Ronald Wilson Reagan's death. His passing was a bittersweet event for all American Patriots, especially those of us who knew him and were honored to be mentored by him. Though he is now in the most shining city of all, his spirit and legacy in this life are eternal. As noted in our mission statement, The Patriot Post was founded, in part, to honor the legacy of President Reagan. To read Mark Alexander's tribute to the Gipper, link to "The Twilight's Last Gleaming."

Digest

2010-05-29T21:08:00.001-04:00

Digest · May 28, 2010

The Foundation

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." --James Madison

Government & Politics

Democrats Help Themselves to More of Your Money

Biden: "Let me explain why government is awesome"

"We have new ideas about how to spend government money wisely." So said Vice President Joe "BFD" Biden this week while discussing the $787 billion "stimulus" passed by Congress last year. He continued, "I'm very proud to say that there's been virtually no -- knock on wood -- virtually no fraud associated with the $787 billion program overall." Unless you consider that most of the money spent so far has gone to Democrat constituents, that is.

The occasion of Biden's comments was a Middle Class Task Force roundtable discussion on Wednesday with the aim of pushing the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. The bill would extend the Sept. 30, 2010 expiration date of the Emergency Contingency Fund, which in turn is part of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program created by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (Say that three times fast.) The extension would cost $2.4 billion over 10 years, but, hey, it's all about "jobs," which is apparently why we're stuck at 9.9 percent unemployment.

The price tag for the overall bill could be as high as $190 billion, the bulk of which Democrats aren't concerned about how to pay for. Paygo rules don't apply because, of course, this is another "emergency," a tune that will change before November as Democrats crow about their fiscal responsibility. The Wall Street Journal calls it a "grab bag of political payoffs, corporate welfare and transfer payments," including $65 billion for Medicare physician payments, $47 billion for unemployment insurance, $24 billion in Medicaid payments to the states (though this provision may be removed), and $1 billion for summer jobs for teens, to name a few.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) recently bragged on the House floor that such payments are "one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus" because "every unemployment dollar spent returns $1.64 of economic benefits." Sounds like we should be cheering higher unemployment.

Speaking of spending, Barack Obama sent legislation to Congress this week seeking a new kind of line-item veto. The Associated Press reports, "The legislation would award Obama and his successors the ability to take two months or more to scrutinize spending bills that have already been signed into law for pork barrel projects and other dubious programs. He could then send Congress a package of spending cuts for a mandatory up-or-down vote on whether to accept or reject them."

Though this serves to make Obama look tough on spending, toothpaste is pretty hard to put back in the tube.

As for the private sector, thanks to Democrat spendthrifts, it's shrinking while the public sector grows. "Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year," according to USA Today. "At the same time, government-provided benefits -- from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs -- rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010."

"The truth of the matter is that the Recovery Act is working," Joe Biden declared. All too well, as a matter of fact.

The BIG Lie

"The Democratic Congress and the Obama administration share a strong commitment to fiscal discipline and common sense in our budget, and we must continue to do everything in our power to boost our economic recovery, rein in the deficits we inherited, and remain responsible stewards of the public purse. After President Bush and Republicans in Congress turned record surpluses into record deficits and nearly doubled the national debt, Democrats are returning our nation to a course of fiscal responsibility." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on her own party's quadrupling of even the worst Bush deficit

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) thinks that Democrats aren't getting the credit they deserve for all the work they've done for America by confiscating wealth and giving it to automakers, insurance companies and unions. "I think there's a comprehension gap," said Kerry. In other words, you stupid Americans, you should be thanking the Democrats, not denouncing them.

New & Notable Legislation

Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) has introduced the Create Jobs & Save Benefits Act of 2010, which would in essence bail out union pension funds at a cost of $165 billion. Gold-plated union benefits contributed heavily to the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, as well as forcing many states and municipalities into serious budget crunches. Why shouldn't Democrats use taxpayer dollars for unions? After all, Big Labor spent $400 million on the 2008 elections and Democrats were virtually the sole beneficiaries. Socialist Workers' Party, anyone?

The Senate passed a $58.8 billion defense bill Thursday that will fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Tennessee flood cleanup, Haitian earthquake relief efforts and various State Department endeavors.

On Thursday, the House approved an amendment to the defense bill that would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," at least after a review is complete and other conditions are met. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted likewise. A House vote on the full bill is expected Friday. The original plan was to hold off on legislative action until the Pentagon released its impact study on repeal, which is expected in December. The political climate, however, has driven leftists to renege on that deal because they recognize that after the November elections they likely won't have the votes needed, and anything closer to the election would alienate even more voters, with the exception of homosexual activists. Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi called this new action a "compromise," but it's nothing of the kind, because they were in lockstep about repealing the policy from the start. Since leftists have no respect for the military in any case, the Pentagon report would have no impact on their decision no matter what it ultimately stated.

Immigration Front: 1,200 Troops to Border

In a show of "I'm doing something," Barack Obama ordered up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border for security, one-fifth the number George W. Bush sent. According to National Security Adviser James Jones, the troops will serve as a "bridge to longer-term enhancements," aiding with surveillance and intelligence while more Border Patrol agents are trained. Of course, re-relocating the 300 border agents that were relocated from the Mexican to the Canadian border a few months ago might also be an idea. Obama is also set to request another $500 million for border protection. Politicians of both parties are walking a tightrope when it comes to immigration. It will be interesting to see how they can thread the needle by securing the border (or at least appear to secure the border) while netting Hispanic votes at the same time.

Mexico, meanwhile, spun it this way: "[T]he Government of Mexico trusts that this decision will help to channel additional US resources to enhance efforts to prevent the illegal flows of weapons and bulk cash into Mexico, which provide organized crime with its firepower and its ability to corrupt." As we have noted before, Mexico's charge over the "flows of weapons" is bunk.

Notably, Obama left it to the Associated Press to relay his plan to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, one politician who is actually doing something to secure the border. She was unaware of the troop request until the AP called for comment.

From the Left: White House Says 'Trust Us' on Sestak Job Offer

Now that Rep. Joe Sestak is the Democrat Senate nominee for Pennsylvania, earlier accusations he made about a White House offer to accept a job in exchange for dropping out of his primary fight with Arlen Specter have picked up speed. Sestak refuses to elaborate on his claim and identify just who approached him and what he was offered, and the White House has mostly refused comment. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) has taken up the task of pushing the issue because either a retired Navy rear admiral and Democrat Senate candidate is lying, or someone in the Obama administration has committed a felony.

As The New York Times notes, however, "the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did." Barack Obama reassured, "There will be an official answer from our administration ... coming out shortly." He added, "I can assure the public that nothing improper took place." Nothing to see here; move along. So much for getting away from politics as usual by using the utmost transparency.

Click Here

New Gadsden Hats Are Here

Looking for a Gadsden hat? Then look no further. Choose this well-made embroidered cap which sports an American flag tag in back. Heavyweight washed twill hat is adjustable and comes in gold or khaki. All sales proceeds at PatriotShop.US support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.

Djou Wins in Hawaii

Republican Charles Djou won the special election in Hawaii's 1st Congressional District last week, replacing retiring Democrat Neil Abercrombie. Djou faced two Democrat opponents, who split 58 percent of the vote in a bitter intra-party fight. State Senator Colleen Hanabusa had the support of Sen. Daniel Inouye, who has controlled Hawaii's Democrat machine for decades. Former Congressman Ed Case, on the other hand, was categorized as a "reformer" who had the tacit support of the national Democrat establishment.

Democrats were quick to point out that this vote split was the only reason that Djou, a relative unknown, was able to win in the district, and they believe Djou will be ousted in November. That excuse may be more spin than truth. Hanabusa represents the establishment, which is very much out of favor this year. Case, who has a history of bucking the party line, has no intention of giving up the fight. No matter who wins what is likely to be a bruising primary fight in September, the victor is unlikely to pick up a lot of support from the vanquished. Djou has a lot of work ahead of him, but his defeat just a few months from now is far from assured.

Digest

2010-05-22T23:48:00.001-04:00

May 21, 2010

The Foundation

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." --Samuel Adams

Government & Politics

Blame it on the Rain

Curtains for Specter

The most watched of Tuesday's primaries was that between Sen. Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) and Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired admiral who has always admitted to being a Democrat. Specter began his career as a Democrat, switched to the GOP, and then went back to his first love before being shown the exit by his new/old party. Pennsylvania Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell, doing his best Milli Vanilli impression, blamed it on the rain: "The rain hurt" turnout for Specter, "no doubt about it."

On the other hand, the fact that Specter was heartily endorsed by George W. Bush in 2006 before being heartily endorsed by Barack Obama in 2010 didn't help, as made clear by a compelling comparison of Specter ads from 2006 and 2010 mixed by the liberal TalkingPointsMemo. As for Snarlin' Arlen, long known as one of the meanest and most arrogant senators on the Hill, all we can say is, Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Arlen.

More heartening news came out of Kentucky, where Rand Paul, son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), won the GOP primary to fill the Senate seat of Republican Jim Bunning, who is retiring. Paul trounced the establishment's choice, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, 59 percent to 35 percent. Democrats are spinning the result as benefiting them in November. DNC Chairman Tim Kaine said, "Rand Paul's positions fail to resonate beyond the far-right Republican segment of the electorate that supported him." It could be that Paul will have a tough time beating Democrat Attorney General Jack Conway, but there's no doubt the Tea Party is a force to be reckoned with.

In Arkansas, Democrat incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a leftist supporter of ObamaCare, couldn't hold off even-further-leftist challenger Lt. Gov. Bill Halter and is headed to a June runoff. Rep. John Boozman, winner of the GOP primary, leads both Democrats in polls.

Only one election pitted a Democrat against a Republican, and the Democrat won. Republicans had hoped to pick up Demo-gogue John Murtha's old House seat in PA-12, but failed to do so in a district that was the only one in the country to go for John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008. For Republicans, it was the third straight special election loss in a year when the climate is anti-Democrat. What's noteworthy is this: Democrat Mark Critz beat Republican Tim Burns by running as a conservative -- pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Arizona immigration law, anti-cap-n-tax and anti-ObamaCare. That Pennsylvania voters swallowed his schtick is not to their credit. Then again, the district does feature a 2-1 Democrat majority, so maybe Republicans shouldn't have gotten their hopes up.

Quote of the Week

"Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans! That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha. Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it." --columnist Ann Coulter

The BIG Lie

"On occasion I have misspoken about my service and I regret that and I take full responsibility. But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country." --Connecticut Attorney General and Democrat Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal

What misplaced words? The New York Times blew the lid off Blumenthal's dishonesty in a blockbuster report this week that could change the election landscape. Though he received five deferments and spent time in the Marine Reserves stateside during Vietnam, he repeatedly spoke of having "served in Vietnam." But one cannot "misspeak" about such things, particularly someone like Blumenthal, whom the Times describes as a "brilliant lawyer who likes to argue cases in court and uses language with power and precision." Blumenthal is a liar, plain and simple.

News From the Swamp: Souder Resigns

Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) resigned this week after admitting that he had an affair with a member of his staff. The eight-term congressman was part of the Republican revolution of 1994, making his name as a family values conservative. He opted to quit now rather than put his family through the pain of a drawn-out ethics battle. Unfortunately, his good sense came too late. Only 10 of the original 56 GOP members who won Democrat-held seats in 1994 remain in Congress, in part because, as blogger Michelle Malkin put it, "That is what happens to a Republican's brain and soul after eight terms in office. Beltway-itis corrupts."

Meanwhile, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford remain in office after similar infidelity. At least Souder had the dignity to resign, though his portrayal of himself as both the victim of "the poisonous environment of Washington, DC," and the better of those other cheating "politicians who drag their spouses up in front of the cameras rather than confronting the problem that they caused," was less than dignified. As Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto put it, "He still humiliated his wife by cheating on her, and by doing so in a way that became public. What does he want, a medal for not compounding the humiliation?"

Immigration Front: Holder Denounces Law He Hasn't Read

The Obama White House was so flummoxed over the recent passage of Arizona's immigration law that it wasted no time sending Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano onto the talk show circuit to decry the law's constitutionality. Holder even threatened a court challenge. It wasn't until this week that we learned that neither official has actually read the law. When Holder was challenged by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) about how he assessed the law without even reading the 10-page document, Holder replied that he "made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television..." So the nation's "top cop" bases his legal actions on behalf of the federal government on what he sees on TV? Maybe it's a good thing that "Law & Order" is going off the air.

The administration is also busy embarrassing itself overseas regarding the Arizona law. In human rights talks with China, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner lent a sympathetic ear to Chinese delegates who complained about U.S. human rights issues, namely the Arizona immigration law. This from a government that practices institutionalized infanticide to control its population, as well as routinely jailing and executing Chinese citizens who speak out against it. As Investor's Business Daily notes, "The administration's apology tour continues with a mea culpa to the world's worst human-rights violator for Arizona's enforcement of U.S. immigration law. You'd think Tiananmen Square was in Phoenix." That is moral relativism at its lowest, proudly brought to you by Barack Obama, who declared, "[W]e are defined not by our borders, but by our bonds."

Meanwhile, Arizona utility commissioner Gary Pierce wrote Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, suggesting that, in the spirit of L.A.'s boycott of its neighboring state, the Arizona Utility Commission is more than willing to help. "If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation," Pierce wrote. L.A. gets 25 percent of its power from a plant in Arizona.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"I strongly disagree with the recently enacted [immigration] law in Arizona. It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement." --Mexican President Felipe Calderon denouncing Arizona before the U.S. Congress, where Democrats cheered

Calderon also called for a renewal of the so-called "assault weapons" ban. Again, Democrats gave him a standing ovation.

Contrary to what Calderon and the Democrats say, we should be thanking Arizona for defending us against terrorist threats along our southern border.

New and Notable Legislation

In a 59-39 vote Thursday, the Senate passed Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-CT) egregious financial "reform" bill, ending more than three weeks of debate and amendments on the measure. The bill now heads to reconciliation with the House version, which passed in December. Four Republicans -- Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Scott Brown of Massachusetts -- voted for the legislation. If it wasn't already, Brown's short-lived honeymoon with conservatives should now be declared over.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "The legislation, broadly, is designed to close the regulatory gaps and end the speculative trading practices that contributed to the 2008 financial-market crisis, which prompted federal regulators to engineer a series of taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions. Among other things, the bill would create a new regulatory system to manage the collapse of failed financial institutions. The bill would also create a new consumer-protection agency." Naturally, all of this will be accomplished by the crushing weight of bureaucracy, all while leaving Fannie and Freddie alone. We're sure it was coincidence, but the Dow fell 376 points, or 3.6 percent, closing at 10,068 Thursday.

This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

"We see [health care] as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Hope 'n' Change: Press Freedom Met With Silence

Barack Obama signed into law the Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act in a high profile Oval Office ceremony this week. The law, named after the Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2002, passed Congress earlier this year. It will add treatment of journalists to the State Department's human rights watch list, making note of any government that censors journalists or subjects them to physical attacks, threats or unlawful imprisonment.

Obama touted the law as an expression of core American values. He promptly refused to take any questions from journalists in attendance. It's a cowardly habit to which he's grown rather accustomed: The "transparency" president hasn't held a press conference since July 2009.

Digest

2010-05-22T23:45:00.001-04:00

May 21, 2010

The Foundation

Government & Politics

Blame it on the Rain

Curtains for Specter

Quote of the Week

The BIG Lie

News From the Swamp: Souder Resigns

Immigration Front: Holder Denounces Law He Hasn't Read

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

Calderon also called for a renewal of the so-called "assault weapons" ban. Again, Democrats gave him a standing ovation.

Contrary to what Calderon and the Democrats say, we should be thanking Arizona for defending us against terrorist threats along our southern border.

New and Notable Legislation

This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

Hope 'n' Change: Press Freedom Met With Silence

Digest

2010-05-15T18:19:00.001-04:00

May 14, 2010

The Foundation

"[G]overnment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." --Thomas Paine

Government & Politics

Hope 'n' Change: The Side Effects of ObamaCare

The true scope of ObamaCare's side effects continued to be divulged this week with the revelation of some little-known provisions in the law. The lab tests are back, and the prognosis isn't good.

First, Section 9006 will force businesses to issue 1099 tax forms to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year. Currently Forms 1099 are received by independent contractors and freelancers to document income beyond wages and salaries for work they perform for businesses and clients. Starting on Jan. 1, 2012, these forms will have to be issued not just to individuals, but to corporations as well. If a freelancer purchases any good or service worth more than $600, they must issue a 1099 to the business from which they made the purchase. This provision encompasses just a few lines in the 2,400-page law, but it will add millions of new tax documents to each year's reporting.

Democrats defended the move based on their belief that it will put an end to some $300 billion per year in unreported income. Just think of all the tax revenue! Demos claim that this revenue will help fund continued tax cuts for small businesses. What they purposefully ignore is that the more complex the tax system grows, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to do business.

Meanwhile, the provision that allows adult "children" to remain on their parents' health insurance plan until age 26 has a surprise of its own. An estimated 1.2 million young adults are expected to join these plans after Sept. 23, and the Health and Human Services Department noted that premiums for the employers of those parents would rise about one percent in 2011 as a result. That's on top of the 6 to 7 percent hike that employers are already expecting next year. Furthermore, coverage for young adults must be offered at the same level as for that of other dependents. They can neither be charged more, nor receive a lower level of benefits. Parents who purchase insurance for their adult children in the open market can expect to pay an additional $2,300 in premiums next year.

Finally, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the health care plan will actually cost at least $115 billion more than estimated when it was signed into law. This pushes the law's total cost well above $1 trillion over 10 years (though "unofficial" estimates are as high as $3.5 trillion) and erases the $100 billion in deficit "savings" that Barack Obama bragged about during the legislative debate. The CBO's adjustment is necessary because Democrats didn't include real numbers in various portions of the law that include administrative costs for actually implementing the program. Any figures the bill's authors didn't know at the time were simply replaced with the phrase "as needed." The CBO has since had a chance to score these nebulous elements, and the president's own budget office has told Congress to offset these new costs with spending cuts or tax increases. Gee, which option will they choose?

Obama audaciously issued a veto threat for any portion of the bill that comes in above the original cost estimate. Since we surely couldn't believe him when he claimed that his health care takeover would actually save the country money, why would we begin to believe that he would veto any portion of legislation upon which he staked his political future?

Given all this, and given the many as-yet undiagnosed side-effects sure to come, we humbly suggest that the following FDA-type warning be read each time an Obama official mentions its crowning legislative achievement: Taking Hope 'n' Change may cause bloated budgets, irritated politics, nausea and heartburn. Unexplained costs could be a sign of a common but serious side effect of unbridled socialism.

New & Notable Legislation

The climate change bill, better known as cap-and-tax, was unveiled this week in the Senate. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are still determined to push this idiocy even though South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham recently walked away from the compromise they had crafted over the course of several months. The bill would tax large emitters of carbon emissions at $12 per ton, and it includes a mish-mash of regulations and subsidies for industries and transportation systems. Kerry and Lieberman yanked out the provision that called for expanding offshore drilling, hoping to make it more attractive in the wake of the Gulf oil spill. Investor's Business Daily has a chart of new programs, studies and reports created by Kerry-Lieberman. It's extensive. Without Graham on board, though, the bill won't find nearly the support it could have previously received, so chances for passage are much slimmer.

Barack Obama has called for legislation that would raise the cap on damages for which oil companies such as BP would be responsible in the event of a spill or other accident. Currently at $75 million, bills in the House and Senate would raise the cap to $10 billion. Fortunately, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) blocked the Senate bill Thursday. But the president also wants to punish BP and other oil companies with an unconstitutionally retroactive one-cent-per-barrel tax hike to help pay for the cleanup of the Gulf. Of course, we all know who will pay that tax in the end -- consumers at the gas pump.

Republicans are vigorously fighting Democrat attempts to restrict free speech by nullifying the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision that struck down certain corporate restrictions on political campaign advertising. The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, which has been introduced in the House and Senate, seeks to force corporations and major donors to make on-air endorsements of political ads they fund. The bill would also place new measures on coordination of candidates and outside supporters.

In a frightening assault upon law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech and assembly, the Terrorist Expatriation Act (and here we thought TEA stood for "Taxed Enough Already") was introduced in the House and Senate, stirring a vigorous debate that blurs the customary partisan lines on the issue. The bill, which has bipartisan sponsorship in both chambers, would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of Americans who ally themselves with "terrorist organizations."

Supporters indicate that any American who signs up with a "terrorist group" basically rescinds his rights as a citizen in any event. Of course, why then should they be Mirandized? Revoking citizenship would block American "terror suspects" from (legally) re-entering the United States, and it would also make them eligible for military rather than civilian prosecution just when the Obama administration is moving real non-citizen terrorists into civilian courts. Concerns have arisen about the constitutionality of the measure, and skeptics believe that suspects would need to be convicted of a crime before their citizenship could be revoked. Since the Obama administration has already labeled conservative groups as "terrorist organizations," TEA partiers and the like should check their visas.

Incumbent Sen. Bennett Gets the Gate

Last weekend, Utah Republicans demonstrated that they aren't afraid to cut one of their own loose when he strays from the ideals of the party. Republican incumbent Sen. Robert Bennett lost his chance for re-election when he was defeated at the GOP state caucus by two candidates supported by conservative groups -- or should we say "terrorist organizations"?

The Leftmedia went apoplectic to spin the story as indicative of a Republican party intolerant of those who reach out across the aisle. The reality, however, is that Bennett has become part of the Washington big-government machine. He supported TARP and co-sponsored a health care bill similar to ObamaCare, two measures which Bennett himself admitted "added to a toxic environment."

The three-term senator didn't go down without a fight, however, playing up his role on the Appropriations Committee and spending $3 million on his campaign. At the end of the day, conservative groups such as Freedom Works, Club for Growth and Tea Partiers more accurately represented the will of a people grown tired of ever-expanding government and the obscene spending that inevitably accompanies it.

Businessman Tim Bridgewater took the lead at the convention and will face off against attorney Mike Lee in the June 22 primary. Lee served as general counsel for former Utah Gov. John Huntsman and clerked for Justice Samuel Alito. "We're ready to end the era [of] thinking that the federal government can be all things to all people," Lee stated, "that it can solve all the world's problems. It can't, it doesn't. It never will."

Crist to Keep Campaign Cash

"Gov. Charlie Crist told MSNBC's Joe Scarborough on April 30 that he would 'probably' give refunds to donors who don't approve of him leaving the GOP," reports the St. Petersburg Times. "Some donors to his U.S. Senate campaign were told before the switch that they would get their money back or pro-rated refunds. No more."

Campaign spokeswoman Michelle Todd announced this week that there won't be any refunds. She explained the flip-flop this way: "We have never made an official statement before. It is now the official statement. They donated to the Charlie Crist for U.S. Senate Campaign, and it's still the Charlie Crist for U.S. Senate Campaign." Crist does have the legal right to hang onto the money, but it sure seems sleazy and desperate. Perhaps the spigots are about to run dry.

West Virginia Democrat Mollohan Loses Primary

"Rep. Alan Mollohan, a 14-term incumbent, has been defeated by state Sen. Mike Oliverio in West Virginia's Democratic primary," Politico reports. "With 97 percent of the vote in, Oliverio led Mollohan 56 percent to 44 percent." For voters in a coal state, Mollohan's reluctance to oppose cap-n-tax last year -- even though he eventually voted against the bill -- was a liability. Mollohan also came under fire from pro-life groups over his support of ObamaCare. Like Bob Bennett in Utah, Mollohan held the seat previously occupied by his father.

The Associated Press notes, "The defeat sets up a general election battle this fall in which both Oliverio and Republican primary winner, former state GOP chairman David McKinley, will try to position themselves as fiscal conservatives and foes of big government. Both had made federal spending a key issue in the primary." McKinley, of course, says it's about more than spending. "People just didn't like what was happening in Washington," he said. "The outcome is a referendum on Obama's policies, from bailouts of banks and takeovers of car companies to health care reform. It's clear this is not the agenda [voters] wanted. This wasn't the change they envisioned."

In Hawaii, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is pulling out of the special House election, basically conceding the seat to the Republican, Charles Djou. The DCCC favors former Rep. Ed Case, while Hawaii's two senators back Colleen Hanabusa, creating a split that appears irreconcilable before the election. Instead, the DCCC will focus on November, when they stand a better chance of unseating Djou, should he prevail on Tuesday.

Click Here

Great Navy cap!

Our newest Navy cap will be sure to please any sailor! Made from 100% brushed cotton twill, this quality blue cap features a raised navy emblem logo.

Razorback Replay

Arkansas voters will cast primary ballots this coming Tuesday. At stake are the nominations for U.S. Senate. A recent Arkansas News Bureau/Stephens Media poll shows anti-incumbent fever is alive and well in Razorback country, but, in a replay of the Indiana primary two weeks ago, Republicans will choose among top-down establishment candidate John Boozman, establishment stalking horse Gilbert Baker, and dyed-in-the-wool conservative Jim Holt, along with various conservative small fries.

The poll shows Boozman with the lead, Holt comfortably in second place, Baker a distant third, 15 percent undecided, and the others in single digits. Unlike the Indiana primary, where 60 percent of Hoosier Republicans voted against plurality winner Dan Coats, if no one garners more than 50 percent in Arkansas, then a runoff will occur between the top two vote getters.

Holt's record as a proven limited-government taxpayer advocate versus Boozman's well-established vote for spending increases and earmarks should bode well in a runoff. With establishment Republican funding channeled to Boozman and Baker, Holt is an underdog in money and is reliant upon volunteers.

On the Leftist side, incumbent Blanche Lincoln is in the fight of her career against fellow Democrat Bill Halter. While Lincoln leads Halter, her pathetic poll showings indicate that Halter has a good chance at pulling off an upset.

Digest

2010-05-08T15:37:00.001-04:00

May 7, 2010

The Foundation

"The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations." --George Washington

Government & Politics

What Country Is This Again?

American flags bad, Spanish NBA jerseys good?

It's no surprise that Arizona's recently passed immigration law continues to generate controversy. Immigration rallies took place across the country on May 1 -- or "May Day," the international communist holiday -- as thousands took to the streets in support of (illegal) immigration.

These "useful idiots" may think they're protesting against racism and bigotry, but with their Mexican, Cuban, Venezuelan flags; with their placard pictures of hammers, sickles, swastikas and KKK symbols; and with their violence against people and property, what they're actually demonstrating against is the Rule of Law.

The debate hit public schools on Cinco de Mayo as five students at one California high school were forced to leave campus for wearing -- we kid you not -- clothing with American flag designs. One of the students said administrators told them that they "could wear it on any other day, but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday, so we were not allowed to wear it today." One of the five is Hispanic. Last we checked, California is still part of the United States. (It bears mentioning that Cinco de Mayo is a holiday not celebrated much in Mexico. It was made popular by beer companies in the U.S.)

The debate also spilled from the political arena into the sports arena. While American flag clothing may be taboo in our schools, the Phoenix Suns, an NBA franchise, made a statement in Game 2 of their playoff series on Wednesday by donning jerseys that read "Los Suns" in support of Hispanic (illegal) immigrants and in opposition to the Arizona law. They wore the jerseys twice during the regular season. (Are there really that many Hispanics in the NBA?) Suns owner Robert Sarver says the law calls into question "our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law." General Manager Steve Kerr said the team wasn't after "a huge political statement" but wanted to "celebrate the diversity that exists here in Arizona." On the other hand, he said the law conjures up "images of Nazi Germany."

The team could have at least made an effort to get the Spanish right. A literal translation would be "Los Soles." Furthermore, they might want to rethink the wisdom of alienating their fan base, given that 70 percent of Arizonans support the law.

Adding insult to injury, The Phoenix News Times reports, "The greatest example of government bailout excess may just be Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver, whose banks have taken $140 million in Troubled Asset Relief Program funds." Apparently, he still had money for the basketball team, though.

So what to do? The Washington Times suggests a solution:

"[W]hile millionaire athletes become walking billboards for a political cause, the state of Arizona might want to review the terms of its relationship with the Suns. If Mr. Sarver wants to use his team to push a political agenda, perhaps citizens can push back. Imagine Phoenix residents channeling the spirits of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. by turning up en masse to Suns games, sneaking in without tickets, demanding special services like free food and access to box seats, overtaxing arena security and ruining the game for the people with tickets. They can call it a celebration of diversity."

We might add that if you give birth at a game, you get lifetime season tickets for the anchor baby. Or maybe the Suns should stick to basketball. Just a thought.

News From the Swamp: Another One Bites the Dust

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) became the latest Democrat to announce retirement this week, surprising many of his colleagues by deciding that 42 years in the House is enough. Not that he admits to being nervous about his prospects in November: "I've won 25 straight elections," he boasted. "Does anyone really believe I wouldn't have won again?" Actually, yes, his seat was in play with a strong challenge from Republican Ashland County District Attorney Sean Duffy.

Duffy thinks he has a chance because "Obey never comes back to the district. And he's the author of the failed economic stimulus plan. This election is going to be about debt and runaway spending." Of course, Obey is proud of his "accomplishment" with the stimulus. "My only apology is that it should have been larger," he said, "but it was the most that the system would bear at the time." Obey was also a key player in the passage of ObamaCare and thus has become a symbol of Washington's out-of-control spending. Indeed, no member of Congress is more to blame for the colossal increase in federal spending than the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Obey's district hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1984, but it could be difficult for Democrats to recruit a viable contender this late in the game. His retirement is yet another signal of the tough sledding Democrats face in November.

Congressional Primaries

Several congressional primaries were held this week, and while the results were mixed, the anti-incumbent wave predicted for 2010 is still alive and well. For the GOP, the biggest race was the five-way contest in Indiana, where the winner goes on to face Rep. Brad Ellsworth, the Democrats' handpicked successor to retiring Sen. Evan Bayh. Former Republican Sen. Dan Coats, heavily favored and promoted by establishment Republicans, won with 39 percent, a less-than-stellar performance that was likely hindered by his lobbyist background and abandonment of Hoosiers. Meanwhile, incumbent Republican Reps. Dan Burton and Mark Souder likewise squeaked by with only a plurality of the vote after their opponents attacked them for becoming creatures of Washington.

North Carolina Democrats turned out in record-low numbers and the two Washington-connected opponents looking to take on Sen. Richard Burr (R) will have to hold a runoff. In the Ohio Democrat primary to fill the open seat left by Republican George Voinovich's pending retirement, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher won with 55 percent, which seems impressive until one considers that his opponent was supported by ACORN and was so broke she didn't have enough money for a single television ad.

In other election news, The New York Times reports, "Among the many reverberations of President Obama's election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials. " The Times says party officials believe this is the result of "the marriage of two factors: dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, and the proof, as provided by Mr. Obama, that blacks can get elected."

From the Left: Traficant Is Putting the Con in Congress

James Traficant, the disgraced Democrat congressman who served nine terms in Congress before serving seven years in prison for bribery, obstruction and tax evasion, is out of jail and looking to get back into politics. He filed papers this week to run as an independent against a former staffer, Tim Ryan, who beat Traficant when he tried to run for re-election from prison. Thanks to Congress's flexible ethics laws, Traficant's jail time doesn't bar him from running again. While his lack of money and party support make his victory unlikely, if he's the same man we knew years ago, we will no doubt witness a colorful campaign.

The Patriot Post offers the best in conservative opinion: Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Jonah Goldberg and Michelle Malkin, just to name a few.

Hope 'n' Change: Big Brother to Monitor Your Bank Account?

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who didn't see fit to pay his own income taxes, may soon have the authority to watch over your financial transactions, thanks to a new federal agency that would be created in the Democrats' financial overhaul bill. The Office of Financial Research, straight out of a George Orwell novel, would serve as a central repository of transaction records generated at private financial companies. Geithner, along with an unspecified number of bureaucrats that he hires, will have unlimited access for "statistical analysis and research" of the nation's financial institutions -- supposedly for the purpose of spotting systemic problems that will allow them to act before another meltdown.

This agency is the latest in the series of unconstitutional power grabs that Democrats have grown accustomed to since Barack Obama became president. It violates American citizens' Fourth Amendment guarantee of security in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and its imprecise language leaves plenty of room for expanding the agency's activities without congressional approval. The type of information access that Democrats seek would not have enabled them to prevent the financial meltdown of 2008, but it would allow bureaucrats who work for this agency the opportunity to share their privileged information with the private sector one year after leaving the agency. So, ironically, the Office of Financial Research simply presents our bloated government even more opportunity for further corruption and mismanagement of the economy.

In other financial "reform" news, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the architect of the legislation, has agreed to drop the $50 billion bailout fund in an effort to get Republicans onboard. While Dodd is making concessions, though, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is making accusations, claiming that Republicans are stalling because "they are having difficulty determining how they're going to continue making love to Wall Street" if the bill passes. You're a class act, Harry.

Government & Politics

2010-05-01T20:36:00.001-04:00

Digest · April 30, 2010

The Foundation

Arizona Immigration Brouhaha

Did these guys just come to work?

Last week, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed a tough new law designed to crack down on the flood of illegal immigration in the state and the violence and mayhem that has accompanied it. Political mayhem is the price of the law's enactment.

Stepped-up enforcement of the border in California and Texas has funneled much of the illegal alien traffic and cross-border smuggling through Arizona. A sharp increase in crime has resulted, with Phoenix now being the kidnap capital of the United States. Ranchers near the border live under a state of siege, but demands that the federal government take aggressive remedial action have been unavailing. The recent murder of Rob Krentz, a kind-hearted rancher who often assisted desperate immigrants abused and abandoned by their "coyote" guides, prompted widespread outrage at the federal government's fundamental failure to protect its citizens against a dangerous foreign invasion.

The race-baiting grievance mongers wasted no time in denouncing the law. Vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of a swastika on the Arizona Capitol building (which we find to be an incredibly strange mixed message). Some leftist church leaders denounced the law as "hateful." Race hustler Jesse Jackson called it "terrorism." Calling it "stupid," "an embarrassment" and "racist," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (Tucson) said he would refuse to enforce it.

Latino activist and far-left Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) called for a boycott of his own state, saying, "I support some very targeted economic sanctions on the state of Arizona. We will be asking national organizations -- civil, religious, political -- not to have conferences and conventions in the state of Arizona. There has to be an economic consequence to this action and to this legislation." We're sure Arizona's 2.3 million unemployed will thank Grijalva for his principled stand.

Meanwhile, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, the government of Mexico issued a travel advisory and expressed concern about the rights of its citizens in the United States. Of course, Mexico plays by much more stringent rules when dealing with its own immigration issues.

These critics either haven't read the law or, more likely, don't want to be bothered with reality. Among other things, Arizona's new law makes it a state crime for people to be in Arizona if they are in the United States illegally. If the police have an otherwise lawful encounter with someone, and if they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the United States illegally, the police are required to ask for documentation of immigration status. An Arizona driver's license is presumptive proof of lawful status.

The law specifically forbids police from basing their actions solely on someone's race or ethnicity. It also compels the police to base their "reasonable suspicion" on criteria that are permissible under the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. Moreover, when she signed the bill, Gov. Brewer issued an executive order directing additional training specifically to avoid racial profiling when the law is enforced.

The new law, which in many places quotes federal law verbatim, was enacted because of the failure at the federal level to enforce those same laws. None of this matters to the Left. With tactics straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," they have demonized everyone who dares stand up for responsible enforcement of our laws and for the protection of our citizens.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama declared that the nation may not have the "appetite" for an immigration fight this year, so he removed the issue from his agenda. That's a relief.

Quote of the Week

"So Arizona passes a tough law against illegal immigration and suddenly they've got Washington's attention. One poll finds 70 percent of Arizona voters support this new law, so, 'Hey, maybe we better do something, too.' And like the lemmings they are when they smell a chance to score some political points, and some of them need a lot of help with the midterms coming up, there is now talk of rushing immigration reform through Congress. President Obama called the Arizona law 'misguided.' What's misguided, Mr. President, is the federal government's ongoing refusal to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Read the Arizona law. Parts of it are word-for-word the same as the federal statutes which continue to be all but ignored. Now we'll hear all sorts of blathering from our Washington gerbils about the need for a new federal law. There'll be news conferences and interviews and committee hearings and draft legislation and polling -- all the usual carnival acts that accompany any hot button Washington issue. Instead of simply closing the borders and enforcing the existing law so they could turn their attention to something like the national debt and the fact that the country is bankrupt, instead we're going to get this freak show. Washington's position on illegal immigration is patently dishonest from the top down. No enforcement, no border security, just pandering to the Hispanic voters and the corporations that hire the illegals. And then, when one of our states that's being ravaged by the presence of 460,000 illegal aliens inside its borders does something about it, the president says that's misguided. What a shame." --CNN commentator Jack Cafferty

Headline of the Week

"Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law" --Associated Press

Isn't that the point?

Click Here

Just in! American Patriot T-shirt

We are pleased to now offer our striking American Patriot logo on a 100% cotton navy t-shirt. All sales proceeds at PatriotShop.US support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.

More on the Ft. Knox Security Scenario

Regarding Mark Alexander's essay, "Army Preps for Tea Party Terrorists," the update on this story issued yesterday was not a correction or retraction, but additional information about the security scenario circulated at Ft. Knox.

In response to our initial inquiries regarding this scenario, security staff at Ft. Knox responded, predictably, "We are not authorized to discuss this exercise."

Before publishing this story, we established that there was, indeed, a security exercise at Ft. Knox this week, and that the security scenario Mr. Alexander described was, in fact, circulated among officers, security personnel and civilians involved in that exercise.

Mr. Alexander's description of this scenario was accurate.

After publishing yesterday, Mr. Alexander was contacted by Command Staff at Ft. Knox who confirmed that there was a security exercise, but that the scenario circulated among officers, security personnel and civilians, had been altered to include "Tea Party" and "anti health care" protesters "in order to make it more realistic."

In his essay, Mr. Alexander wrote, "It's not likely that Ft. Knox Commanding General James Milano or Deputy Commander Col. David Teeples, or even the regimental and brigade commanders for the 16th Cav and 194th AB, actually read the exercise scenario..."

Indeed, Command personnel informed Mr. Alexander that they had neither read the scenario nor authorized it.

Further, Mr. Alexander was informed that the officer who authored the scenario had been identified and would be brought in for "appropriate counsel" to ensure no such highly politicized scenario finds its way into official channels again.

Mr. Alexander says he accepts the explanation provided by Command staff with the caveat that it is not clear why objections to this scenario were not raised within the command by those who received it, thus requiring objections to be raised by The Patriot Post.

The fact that any officer would associate Tea Party folks with "white supremacists" armed with "military grade weapons" and "bomb making components," and believe that association would make this scenario "more realistic," is troubling, at best.

In regard to the verbatim scenario documentation we posted, even though those documents were not classified, Command staff asked that we remove them for specified security reasons.

As our mission is not only to uphold our Constitution by holding those in positions of authority accountable to their oaths, but also to support our uniformed Patriots, Mr. Alexander agreed to remove the documents from our Web site.

In conclusion, Mr. Alexander says, "It is important to note that the vast majority of uniformed officers and enlisted personnel serving our country are right-thinking Patriots who are serving their country with honor and integrity, who are true to their oaths. For sure, one Army officer will think twice about politicizing a security exercise scenario in the future, if he or she still has a future."

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

Dangerous radicals

SWAT teams and snipers deployed against Tea Partiers? The National Guard sent to combat crime in Chicago? Suing gunmakers in international court? Welcome to ObamaWorld. Read more here.

News From the Swamp: Financial Regulation Bill

After a week of parliamentary motions by Republicans and political mudslinging by Democrats, the Senate has begun debate on Sen. Chris Dodd's financial overhaul bill. Dodd (D-CT), who's hoping to make this his swan song before retiring at the end of this session, drafted the original legislation several weeks ago with a number of provisions meant to put America's financial system firmly under the boot of the federal government. Read more here.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"Now, what we're doing, I want to be clear, we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." --Barack Obama

Of course, the Obamas reported $5.5 million in income last year. When will it be enough, Barack?

New & Notable Legislation

The Senate climate bill crafted by John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) nearly went up in smoke this week when Graham threatened to walk away from the tenuous triumvirate if the Senate chose to work on immigration reform before the climate package. As mentioned above, however, immigration appears to be off the table. The climate bill, which is meant to reduce emissions that have been blamed for global warming, has been months in the making. The original Democrat draft of the legislation threatened to hamstring America's energy production and manufacturing sectors by placing onerous and unrealistic targets on those industries. Then again, how realistic can a bill be when it seeks to curb a problem that many legitimate scientists aren't even sure exists? But we digress. In the end, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that climate change would be the Senate's next project, and, by extension, the American energy and manufacturing would be their next target.

The House voted 223-169 Thursday night to allow the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico to decide its future political relationship with the United States -- meaning the protectorate could become the 51st state. According to Fox News, "The bill introduced a two-step ballot measure for Puerto Rico to decide if its residents want to change their current relationship with the United States. If they vote to change their status, they can then choose to become a state, pursue independence, or seek some other 'political association between sovereign nations.'" Even if Puerto Ricans choose statehood, Congress would have to vote again to admit the island to the union.

Crist Announces Independent Bid

As expected, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced that he will continue his quest for a Senate seat as an independent. Crist said that his decision to leave the Republican party is "the right thing for America" and "the right thing for Florida." Primarily, though, he thinks it's right for Charlie Crist.

His poll numbers have been declining steadily for months as former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio -- an actual conservative -- has won over Republicans in the primary race. Rather than admit defeat, the "moderate" Crist will try to duplicate the success of Joe Lieberman, who lost the Connecticut primary in 2006 to left-wing loon Ned Lamont, but bounced back to win re-election in the general as an independent. This situation differs in that Florida features a legitimate three-way race, with the advantage now going to Democrat Kendrick Meek. Crist may also have trouble hanging on to campaign donations from Republicans now angry that he has abandoned ship.

Government & Politics

2010-04-24T13:11:00.001-04:00

April 23, 2010

The Foundation

"The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position." --George Washington

Democrats and Crony Capitalism

The creators of financial "reform"

Democrats in Washington, fresh from their conquest of the health industry, are now greedily eyeing another power grab on Wall Street. After all, why should they stop with just 17 percent of the economy?

At issue is legislation crafted by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Fannie Mae) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Countrywide) that would ramp up regulations of financial firms in an effort -- so Democrats claim -- to avoid a recurrence of the collapse and ensuing bailouts of 2008. The bill is scheduled for a first test vote Monday.

As The Wall Street Journal reports, "The legislation would grant the federal government the power to seize teetering financial giants and dismantle them the same way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation now can seize failing banks. It would create a new financial consumer regulator, would boost the strength and budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] and would impose new transparency rules on the trading of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that helped bankrupt Lehman Brothers and nearly wipe out American International Group and Merrill Lynch."

On Thursday, Barack Obama, who has never held a real job, declared, "Now, there is a legitimate debate taking place about how best to ensure taxpayers are held harmless in this process. But what is not legitimate is to suggest that we're enabling or encouraging future taxpayer bailouts, as some have claimed. That may make for a good sound bite, but it's not factually accurate. In fact, the system as it stands is what led to a series of massive, costly taxpayer bailouts. Only with reform can we avoid a similar outcome in the future. A vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts. That's the truth."

On the contrary, Investor's Business Daily notes, "[T]he bill institutionalizes the doctrine of 'too big to fail,' a major reason why American taxpayers will be paying off the $700 billion TARP bailout fund for decades to come. Under Dodd's bill, every financial institution that might have a 'systemic' impact if it failed would be given the too-big-to-fail treatment. This is an invitation to bailouts without end."

The bailout trough would be filled with money from a new bank tax, which, in the end, would be paid by consumers.

In light of this regulatory effort, it's almost too obvious to point out the convenient timing of the SEC's mortgage-related fraud charges against financial giant Goldman Sachs -- charges leveled just as the Frank-n-Dodd monster bill was set to take the spotlight. Never let a crisis go to waste...

"The timing was perfect," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). "We're about to take up the financial regulatory reform bill. The banks are saying, 'Oh, this is totally unnecessary. We have everything worked out.' Now we find out the Securities and Exchange Commission has stepped up and charged Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest, with involvement in some trading that really turns out to be very suspicious." Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, added that the fraud charge "reinforces the need for much of what we were doing."

Naturally, the White House and the SEC deny collusion, but the SEC commissioners brought the lawsuit on a 3-2 partisan vote, signaling that evidence may be thin.

None of this is to say that Wall Street is opposed to Democrat regulation. In fact, these crony "capitalists" are lobbying (and paying) to get the field tilted in their favor. As one candid financial services lobbyist put it, "Obtaining a carve-out isn't rocket science. Just give Chairman Dodd and Chuck Schumer a s---load of money."

Obama took $994,795 from Goldman for his 2008 campaign, as well as $701,290 from Citigroup, $695,132 from JP Morgan Chase, and $514,881 from Morgan Stanley. (John McCain's biggest donor among this Big Four was Citigroup, which gave him $322,051.) Obama has numerous other ties with Goldman. Also, while Goldman lawyers negotiated with the SEC, its Chief Executive, Lloyd Blankfein, visited the White House four times.

Thus, this financial "reform" bill is like every other big government power grab in the last two years. The goal is to further the Left's agenda, and to reward Democrat constituents, who, these days, include the very Wall Street "fat cats" that Obama has been cynically denouncing. Besides, the root of all these problems was, and is, government itself, starting with the subprime mortgage mess, and the subsequent collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why are they not covered by this so-called reform?

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"Good bill, tough bill with teeth. It constrains risk taking so these guys can't take on this huge risk which [would] imperil the system again. But if they do, we get to put them out of their misery, unwind them, you know, organize the elegant funeral for them." --Treasury Secretary Timothy "Tax Cheat" Geithner on the "elegant funeral" for free-market capitalism

News From the Swamp: Climate Bill on the Burner

The Project on Climate Science, a coalition of environmental zealots, released a report just in time for Earth Day claiming that "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced." The release of the report was timed to influence the upcoming Senate debate over legislation being introduced by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and, formerly, John McCain.

The bill seeks to curb supposed planet-heating emissions by introducing crippling new taxes on energy producers and manufacturers, fees that will ultimately be passed on to consumers. The report offers clear support for the bill, claiming that human activity has led to a steady rise in global temperatures, rising sea levels and vanishing glaciers. The disgraced UN climate scientists reached these conclusions in 2007, though their own research fell into disrepute after it was discovered that they hid, altered and destroyed evidence in order to achieve outcomes favorable to the global warming contingent.

This latest fictional account only reintroduces a question asked when the UN scandal first broke. If the data supporting global warming is so "unequivocal," then why is it necessary to manipulate the evidence achieved from the research?

Click Here

New! "We the People" silk tie

Wear a patriotic statement with our handsome "We the People" tie. This Constitution of the United States of America design is made from 100% silk and hand finished in the USA. Cleverly packaged in a sleek gift tube, it's the perfect way to wear and give patriotic spirit!

New & Notable Legislation

The District of Columbia once again missed its opportunity to have full-fledged voting representation in the House of Representatives. The Associated (with the Left) Press reported the development with a bitter note: "The House has abandoned plans to take up legislation giving residents of the District of Columbia a vote in Congress that has been denied them for over two centuries."

The only reason the House "abandoned" the legislation is that it contained a rider that would have further loosened draconian gun restrictions the District modified slightly after the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional last term. House Democrats thus refused to allow the District's 600,000 residents congressional representation since that would have meant recognizing their Second Amendment rights. Priorities, anyone?

The Senate passed a bill by unanimous voice vote to deny members of Congress a pay raise next year. The House will most likely follow suit in this election year. Members of Congress earn (in the loosest sense of the word) $174,000 a year. Leaders make even more. We wonder if they know they can freeze the budget, too.

Around the Nation: GOP Primaries

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is entertaining the possibility of dropping out of the August 24 Republican primary against former state House Speaker Marco Rubio and running as an independent in this year's Senate race. Read more here.

Another Round of Criticism

Many guys, when faced with a Sunday suddenly opened up due to a change of plans, find it a convenient excuse to head to the golf course. So when the volcanic ash cloud enveloped Europe and forced the cancellation of thousands of air flights over the continent, including Barack Obama's plan to attend the funeral of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, Obama grabbed his clubs and his caddy and hit the links. It was his 32nd round since taking office. (Yes, someone counts these things.)

This is not to criticize Obama for something that was beyond his control. Several other world leaders were either forced to send their regrets or drive to the service. However, it's worth noting that the press hounded Obama's predecessor for taking too many vacations when there was important work to do. Bush played 24 times before giving up the game in 2003, remarking, "I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

At a time when there are all sorts of items needing Obama's attention, his signal may also be the wrong one. Then again, when he's on the golf course, he's not enacting more disastrous policies for the nation, and that's definitely in America's best interest.

Government & Politics

2010-04-18T20:11:00.001-04:00

The Foundation

"On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?" --Thomas Jefferson

Friday Digest 04/16/2010 ->

Health Care Surprise!

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Those were the famous last words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before ramming ObamaCare through the lower chamber in March. The California Democrat surely knew how foreboding her words were.

So what are some of the unfortunate provisions rearing their ugly heads, now that Democrats have succeeded in taking over one-sixth of the economy?

For starters, a loophole in the law enables insurance companies to -- gasp -- raise their premiums. "Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases," reports the Los Angeles Times. "It is a very big loophole in health reform," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). According to the Times, "Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively." Of course, "excessively" is relative in an industry that averages between 3 and 4 percent profit, and in which most premium increases are driven by the cost increases in medical care caused by government intervention.

Meanwhile, The Hill reports, "Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes -- in 2019 alone -- due to healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's official scorekeeper. The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older." So much for the pledge not to raise taxes, by not even one dime, on that very group.

The New York Times, however, blows the lid off the most amusing provision:

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the "personal health insurance coverage" of senators, representatives and their staff members.
For example, it says, the law may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

Let's see them fix it for themselves while leaving the lives of other Americans permanently altered for the worse.

As for the medical side of the equation, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the existing doctor shortage in the United States will be exacerbated by ObamaCare. This could lead to -- surprise -- decreased access to medical care and possibly sub par care in the near future.

Of the 954,000 physicians in the United States today, only 352,908 are primary care physicians. Yet doctors falling under the primary care umbrella -- general practitioners, pediatricians, family doctors and internists -- will be in the greatest demand under ObamaCare. The nation will need another 45,000 primary care physicians by 2020, so medical schools are attempting to lure their students to this field. ObamaCare supposedly encourages this as well, adding a 10 percent Medicare pay increase for those in that field. Even with this incentive, however, primary care is still not as lucrative as other specialties. Since a medical degree carries a six-figure price tag, it's no surprise that young doctors want to enter fields that will free them of their debt more quickly.

Furthermore, ObamaCare squeezes doctor-owned hospitals out of existence by either denying them Medicare/Medicaid funding or forcing them to seek approval from the Department of Health and Human Services, a.k.a. Big Brother. The reason: they cater to high-income patients. Heaven forbid.

Of course, all these things come as little surprise to those of us not wearing Commie-red tinted glasses.

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

There is no rest for the weary or, apparently, for progressives who continually need to prove their relevance. MoveOn.org, after a short celebration of the passage of ObamaCare, recently sent an email asking their constituents to fund their new effort: a campaign to stop Republicans from repealing it. They promise to "educate the people" on the benefits of health care "reform."

The funny thing is, they're championing a bill that a few short months ago they were asking Sen. Bernie Sanders (S-VT) to block as a "massive giveaway to insurance companies." None of the provisions with which they took issue were changed in the final bill, so MoveOn had to rely on the fact that people wouldn't know the difference. And they were right -- they have already raised $183,000. Can we call those donating the money ignorant for not knowing what's in the bill? Sure. But it's hard to ask more of citizens than we ask of our own Congress.

Fuel for the Brushfires of Freedom

In honor of Patriots' Day next week, please consider supporting The Patriot Annual Fund. Your support fuels our vital mission to inform and educate grassroots Patriots with the right perspective on news, policy and opinion. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

For a donation of $26, we will send you a copy of our popular Essential Liberty Guide, a vital resource explaining the American history of Rule of Law through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, an inspiring historical introduction, and much more. For donations of $52 or more, you will receive four copies, and donations of $100 or more will receive 10 copies.

Editor's Note

In Wednesday's Editorial Exegesis, The Washington Times referenced the site of anti-Tea Party activists planning to crash the Tea Parties with racist, misspelled, or other ridiculous signs. However, the Times referenced the incorrect site. It should have been CrashtheTeaParty.org and it has been corrected on our Web site. We regret any confusion.

Meanwhile, Bob Owens of Pajamas Media has some hilarious pics of some party crashers who didn't really understand the assignment.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"You would think they'd be saying thank you." --Barack Obama on the Tea Party protesters

News From the Swamp: Stupak Skips Re-Election Bid

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), the man who sold out his supposed pro-life values to help push ObamaCare to passage, announced that he will not seek re-election this year. Just as well, because he likely would have lost as his popularity has taken a serious dive.

He claimed that he could support the bill even when it included mandates for taxpayer-funded abortions, because Barack Obama promised to sign an executive order rescinding that portion of the legislation. As we have previously noted, however, the executive order has no teeth, in part because it simply repeats the bill's own language, and leftists will get their way with regard to abortion funding regardless. Still, Stupak thought that flimsy excuse would stick. He added that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would have had enough votes to pass the measure without his vote anyway, so it made no difference (part of this had to do with other "pro-life" Democrats undermining his coalition). But if the vote total was already there, then why not vote with your conscience, Rep. Stupak? Perhaps it's because you don't have one.

In fact, Stupak bragged, "I just made the Tea Party people spend a lot of money that wasn't necessary on all these ads they had to use against me so they can't use it on somebody else. I'll take credit in sucking their treasury dry." What a guy.

Judicial Benchmarks: Stevens to Retire

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he would retire at the end of the current term. This gives Barack Obama a second crucial Supreme Court vacancy to fill with a leftist judge, and a third vacancy, that of the frail Ruth Bader Ginsburg, might not be far behind. Stevens, the Court's fourth longest serving justice ever, was nominated by President Gerald Ford in 1975, and he's been drifting ideologically leftward ever since. His long term of service has certainly done its share of damage to the Constitution. Stevens has been a consistent advocate for racial quotas, he's been at the forefront of the movement to strip America of its power to handle terrorist detainees as military combatants, and his fingerprints are all over the 2005 decision Kelo v. City of New London. If you don't recall, that was the travesty that expanded the power of eminent domain so that government can now seize private property and just give it to other private entities for development in the name of generating tax revenues.

Now, the media are busy speculating about whom Barack Obama will pick to replace Stevens. The White House claims there are 10 candidates waiting in the wings, but the names that keep floating to the surface include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, U.S. Appeals Court judges Merrick Garland and Diane Wood, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. All are quite liberal, which should come as no surprise at all, but Garland is the one name considered least unacceptable to Republicans. Anyone deemed too much of an activist, such as Wood, for instance, would bring what Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called "a whale of a fight" during the confirmation hearings.

The schedule of the nomination, hearings and final vote will closely resemble that which put the "wise Latina," Sonia Sotomayor, on the High Court last year. The White House hopes to have a final vote before the August recess. Whoever is nominated will surely be a figurehead for midterm election fundraising on both sides. Conservatives should use the opportunity to further define Obama's attempts to reshape the judiciary with its lasting damage to the country because of activist judges' disdain for the Constitution and individual rights. We need only look at Justice Stevens' career for proof.

Make The Patriot Post your one-stop shop for news headlines and conservative opinion. We post only the "real" news, and, unlike other sites, we do it with NO advertising!

Andy Stern to Leave SEIU

Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern announced his resignation recently, but the reason for the sudden, unexpected move remains open to speculation. Under Stern's leadership, SEIU rose to become the second largest public-sector union in the U.S., with 1.9 million members. The SEIU spent $60 million to help elect Barack Obama, and Stern is the most frequent visitor to the White House. Obama has readily returned the favor with billions of dollars to states to help prevent rolling back government union wages and trillions of dollars in health care spending that will subsidize unionized insurance companies. Certainly, things couldn't be better for Stern.

However, the SEIU's shift in focus from union organizing to government lobbying and campaigning has come at a cost. After the 2008 election, the union owed $156 million, a 30 percent increase over the previous year. Its pensions are noticeably and severely underfunded. Yet, government unions face no competition, and they have become quite effective at squeezing taxpayers for high salaries and perks about which lowly private citizens can only dream.

We do not yet know the real reason for Stern's departure, but he will still exercise influence over the White House as a member of Obama's deficit commission. This means that he will be at the forefront of pushing more taxes on private citizens in order to maintain the inexcusably high government payroll he helped to create.

A Polish tragedy

Ninety-six of Poland's leading government officials, including its president and first lady, perished in a plane crash in Russia last weekend. The bodies of President Lech Kaczynski and his wife Maria Kaczynska have been recovered; both lie in state at the Presidential Palace in Warsaw, with a joint funeral slated for Sunday at the Wawel Cathedral in Krakow.

Ironically, the Polish delegation was arriving in Russia for a ceremony to commemorate the KGB's roundup and slaughter of thousands of Polish Army officers and other leaders during World War II at the nearby Katyn Forest. The irony of the plane wreck wasn't lost on many Poles, with former president Aleksander Kwasniewski calling Katyn "a damned place," adding that the crash "sends shivers down my spine." Another bitter twist: the plane was a two-decades old Tupolev of Soviet design, a relic of Poland's days under Russia's rule.

Thus far, the investigation into the crash points to pilot error as the cause. Despite repeated advisories to land at another airport, the Polish crew opted to make the attempt in heavy fog at the airport in Smolensk rather than divert to Moscow or Minsk. Perhaps the lingering distrust between the two nations played a factor; had the plane been diverted, the ceremony would only have been delayed.

Regardless, once again a proud people mourn a great loss.

Business & Economy

2010-04-18T19:51:00.001-04:00

Page III of IV -> <-

Income Redistribution: Beware the VAT

Like vows of transparency and bipartisanship, another Obama campaign promise is biting the dust -- this time, the pledge that he won't raise taxes on those earning below $200,000. With a (conservatively) projected $10 trillion budget deficit looming over the next 10 years -- courtesy of $45 trillion in federal spending, representing a 70 percent hike over the previous 10 years -- White House adviser and former Fed Chair Paul Volcker has named the value-added tax (VAT) as the drug of choice to fuel Washington's spending addiction, absurdly claiming that the VAT isn't "as toxic an idea" as it once was. Not toxic to whom, one might ask.

Unlike the Fair Tax, which would replace the income tax and apply only at the final point of purchase, the VAT is a consumption tax that taxes every stage of production and exists alongside the income tax. As such, the VAT would raise taxes for all Americans, even those in the lower and middle classes that Obama and the Democrats claim that they will shield from taxes. Despite this, Volcker parroted the liberal philosophy, "If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes."

Aside from hitting the poor and middle class, according to the Cato Institute's Daniel Mitchell, "[R]eal-world evidence shows that VATs are strongly linked with both higher overall tax burdens and more government spending." Clearly, neither of these rates a negative in Obama's America.

Obama and Biden File Their Taxes

Barack Obama and Joe Biden each released their 2009 tax returns Thursday. But how did they do at spreading their wealth around? Read more here.

Not Only Do They Vote, They Get Tax Refunds

Last week, undercover IRS agents busted 26 New York-area tax preparers for a slew of criminal acts, including claiming refunds in the name of dead taxpayers, inflating business deductions, and identity theft. While many would laugh off this story as one bunch of criminals putting another bunch of criminals in their place, the $95 million scam occurred over eight years and places the tax preparers in front of a federal judge, who can sentence them to hefty fines and years in prison.

However, this also highlights the problems and potential for fraud with our ever-changing tax code. While these preparers were charged with fraud, it's worth mentioning as well that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the titular head of the agency arresting them, is also a tax scofflaw.

Perhaps, though, this is a harbinger of things to come. With new IRS agents being needed to enforce tax law changes in the ObamaCare bill and the lurking prospect of a value-added tax that would put any number of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers on the hook for additional tax collection, busting tax cheats may become such a humdrum occurrence that stories detailing them may fall off the front pages of your newspaper. Indeed, they may become buried inside with the obituaries.

Click Here

The Girl's Own Book was first published in Boston in 1834. Author Lydia Maria Child spend the early part of her literary career writing guides for domestic and family life, including this book about nineteenth century childhood. Reprinted many times, this little book of entertainments for young girls is filled with marvelous and enjoyable activities to help young girls build character and have fun. Makes a great stocking stuffer!

Regulatory Commissars: Mass. Model for the Nation

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is campaigning for re-election, and his plan apparently includes playing fast and loose with the health care of people in his state. Patrick, a Democrat, has rejected 90 percent of the premium increases proposed by the state's insurance companies, leading to an actual shutdown of the Massachusetts small group market. So now, while Massachusetts "universal" health care has theoretically made insurance available for everyone in the state, it has in actuality denied coverage to hundreds of thousands of citizens and small businesses. And this is only the beginning.

The case was rushed to a Boston Court, which mandated that, pending a final decision, the insurance companies must continue selling premiums at the old rate. And no one -- not Patrick, nor even Obama and Pelosi -- can claim surprise. Massachusetts has been a health care cautionary tale ever since former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney signed universal health care into law there in 2006.

Both Patrick and Obama, when pushing for government-controlled health care, cited the alleged greed of insurance companies, yet the major companies injured by Patrick's tactics are in fact not-for-profit. Three of them -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health -- all declared operating losses in 2009. Now there's a distinct possibility that they won't be able to pay for their coming liabilities.

Next Page Back I Page

Government & Politics

2010-04-17T16:27:00.001-04:00

The Foundation

Friday Digest

Page I of IV ->

Health Care Surprise!

So what are some of the unfortunate provisions rearing their ugly heads, now that Democrats have succeeded in taking over one-sixth of the economy?

The New York Times, however, blows the lid off the most amusing provision:

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the "personal health insurance coverage" of senators, representatives and their staff members.
For example, it says, the law may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

Let's see them fix it for themselves while leaving the lives of other Americans permanently altered for the worse.

Of course, all these things come as little surprise to those of us not wearing Commie-red tinted glasses.

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

Fuel for the Brushfires of Freedom

In honor of Patriots' Day next week, please consider supporting The Patriot Annual Fund. Your support fuels our vital mission to inform and educate grassroots Patriots with the right perspective on news, policy and opinion. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Editor's Note

Meanwhile, Bob Owens of Pajamas Media has some hilarious pics of some party crashers who didn't really understand the assignment.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"You would think they'd be saying thank you." --Barack Obama on the Tea Party protesters

News From the Swamp: Stupak Skips Re-Election Bid

Judicial Benchmarks: Stevens to Retire

Make The Patriot Post your one-stop shop for news headlines and conservative opinion. We post only the "real" news, and, unlike other sites, we do it with NO advertising!

Andy Stern to Leave SEIU

A Polish tragedy

Regardless, once again a proud people mourn a great loss.

Friday Digest

2010-04-10T14:17:00.001-04:00

The Foundation

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." --James Madison

Government & Politics

Page I of IV ->

'Where's My Free Health Care?'

Now that ObamaCare has brought Hope 'n' Change™ to all the Fruited Plain, citizens are attempting to claim their fair share. However, it appears that, as McClatchy News notes, "Americans are struggling to understand how -- and when -- the sweeping measure will affect them."

Insurance companies, doctors' offices and hospitals have been inundated with calls reflecting that confusion. According to Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com, "They're saying, 'Where do we get the free ObamaCare, and how do I sign up for that?”

McClatchy, of course, doesn't blame Democrats for this misunderstanding; it blames conservatives: "That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism."

We'll give them one concession: Technically, ObamaCare is more fascist than socialist, in part because it isn't initially single-payer. Still, fascism and socialism are ugly twin stepsisters.

For McClatchy to blame defenders of liberty for Americans' misunderstanding of Democrats' misleading promises is yet another example of journalistic malpractice. The Leftmedia has been on board the ObamaCare bandwagon since the 2008 campaign, telling us how it will "provide" or "expand" health care to "all Americans." Likewise, Democrats have lauded themselves for providing "health care for every American" instead of admitting that they're going to force us to buy it. Thus, it's understandable that the average uninformed Joe would mistake an unconstitutional and tyrannical law for a goodie bag of freebies -- at least once 2014 rolls around and all provisions kick in.

These dupes should remember what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in March: "[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Apparently, while IRS authority to withhold tax refunds from those who don't buy insurance is in the bill, free health care isn't.

Dr. Galt Won't See You Now

After the recent passing of ObamaCare, a Florida urologist taped a sign to the door of his practice: "If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your health care begin right now, not in four years." Read more here.

GOP Has Some 'Splainin' to Do

"Although it is not unusual for either party to spend money in tony settings to cater to wealthy donors," The Washington Post reports, "the RNC's latest filings captured widespread attention for one expenditure at a risque nightclub: $1,946.25 for 'meals' at Voyeur in West Hollywood, which features topless dancers wearing horse bridles and other bondage gear while mimicking sex acts."

As late-night comedian Jay Leno quipped, "You know what I call a Republican that spends a lot of money in a strip club? A Democrat."

A Republican National Committee staff member was fired as a result of the expenditure, RNC chief of staff Ken McKay resigned, and a donor who attended the club has been asked to reimburse the Committee. That hasn't stopped criticism of Chairman Michael Steele for his lax fiscal management, though. The Post notes, "The RNC had more than $22 million on hand when he arrived last year, but is down to less than $10 million, despite raising a record $96 million during that time, records show." Steele raised $10 million less last year than the RNC did in 2005, and has spent $10 million more, including significantly more on private planes, limousines, catering and flowers.

Inexplicably, Steele accused critics of racism. Asked if "as an African-American" he has "a slimmer margin for error than another chairman would," Steele agreed: "The honest answer is yes." Can't you just see the donations pouring in now?

When asked about Steele's comments, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, himself a former RNC Chairman, retorted, "When you're a fat redneck like me and got an accent like mine, you can say, 'Well, they're going to hold me to a higher standard.'"

News From the Swamp: Cap-n-Tax

The Senate is about to take another crack at a cap-n-tax bill to curb carbon emissions. Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have allied to create a bill that would reportedly cut emissions some 80 percent by 2050. The bill sets out to achieve this by developing separate limits for manufacturers and utilities. Special interests representing manufacturers, farmers, the nuclear industry, the coal industry and others others who stand to be hurt are already lining up with requests for compensation and preferential treatment so that they won't be harmed by the new legislation. Don't fret, though -- the harm will be spread around just fine, with the bill killing an estimated 2.5 million jobs, reducing the GDP by almost $10 trillion, and adding $1,000 to annual energy costs for a family of four.

Click Here

1987 Bicentennial Constitution Prestige Proof

Silver Bicentennial 1987 Constitution Dollar Prestige Proof six piece coin set. Uncirculated, in original U.S. Mint folio packaging. Includes Essential Liberty booklet signed by Mark Alexander. Limited quantities available!

Unemployment Aid Lapses

Senators were so eager to get out of town for the Easter recess that they neglected to do anything about the lapse in unemployment insurance funding. As of Monday, April 12, unemployment benefits will temporarily expire for approximately 200,000 Americans. Senate Democrats wanted to push an extension of benefits under an emergency measure that would have allowed them to circumvent "pay as you go" rules, but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) blocked the move, demanding that spending should be cut someplace else in order to cover the costs. The Senate is expected to take up the extension measure when it returns to work next week. If approved, it will be the seventh deadline extension since June 2008.

Income Redistribution: Obama Expands Housing Fund

The Obama administration is planning to divert up to $600 million to its "hardest hit" list of financially troubled homeowners. The money used would be $50 billion from TARP and would go to a selection of states experiencing depressed housing sales and high unemployment. The states that will receive funds include North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Ohio and Oregon. This follows an earlier round of funding in February that went to California, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. Just another example of BO rewarding failure and punishing success.

Titanic Investments

Runaway federal spending continues to accelerate the U.S. toward its fiscal judgment day. Contrary to Democrats' claims of fiscal austerity, Barack Obama's budget will accumulate nearly $10 trillion in budget deficits over the next decade. By 2020, this unsustainable federal debt will reach 90 percent of the economic output of the United States. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the federal public debt of $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Obama took office is now $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) and will climb to more than $20 trillion ($170,000+ per household) by 2020.

Somewhat aware that bankrupting the nation is unpopular with the voters, the Obama administration is misrepresenting the true costs of their socializing huge portions of our economy. As part of the health "reform" debacle, liberals also nationalized our student loan program. In support of this sneaky and illegitimate federal takeover (and its elimination of thousands of banking jobs), the president claims that cutting out the middleman from the government-subsidized loan program will save "real money" by slicing $68 billion from the deficit by 2020. The irony of claiming that $68 billion is real money compared to the $20 trillion in deficits Obama is otherwise racking up is apparently lost on him.

Further discrediting Obama's claims is a new CBO analysis which notes that socializing the loan program actually adds $52 billion to the deficit. The $120 billion difference between Obama's fiction and CBO reality comes from factoring in all of the program's costs that Obama "forgot" to include. In what has become a tiresome pattern, Democrat claims of saving "real" money with Obama at the helm are as futile as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, since the fiscal iceberg awaiting our arrival continues to grow larger.

Friday Digest

2010-03-26T21:35:00.001-04:00

The Foundation

"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." --James Madison

Government & Politics

Page I of IV ->

Hope 'n' Change Tramples Constitution

Now that Barack Obama's mission of controlling your health care has been accomplished, the question American Patriots are asking is: what next? You can start by signing the Patriot Declaration, which reaffirms Constitutional Rule of Law. And take heart -- you're not alone.

Seven minutes after the president used 22 different pens to put his left-handed signature on ObamanationCare, 13 attorneys general filed suit on behalf of their states in federal court. Virginia filed suit separately, as other states are considering doing. Led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, the larger suit claims, correctly in our view, that Congress does not have constitutional authority to force individuals to purchase health insurance. The "individual mandate" is the method so-called compassionate leftists used to "extend" health care to all Americans.

As with so many unconstitutional power grabs, Democrats point to the Commerce Clause to justify the mandate. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), taking a slightly different tack, pointed to the "Good and Welfare Clause." That one must come right after the "Non Compos Mentis Clause" of the "living constitution."

According to the White House and other "experts" (i.e., leftist "constitutional" law professors), the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed. Based on precedent, they're probably right. No entitlement law has ever been overturned. Of course, finding in favor of the law would simply prove (again) that judicial despots, too, have abdicated their oaths to support and defend the Constitution.

In Congress, many Republicans are pushing for repeal. Obama taunted them and told them to "go for it." Very presidential. "I think House Republicans are determined to stand for both repealing and replacing ObamaCare with an approach that gives Americans more choices instead of more government," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). Unfortunately, that may be an even longer shot than defeating it in the courts. First, Republicans must be far more than the minority party they are today, but even should they take control of Congress, when was the last time a majority party repealed an entitlement? Indeed, Republicans created the largest one in almost 40 years with the 2003 prescription drug program.

In other news, Democrats are complaining about racial insults and physical threats from crazed right-wingers. Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) immediately blamed all conservatives, declaring, "If [you] participate in [these threats], either from the balcony or on the floor of the House, you are aiding and abetting this kind of, uh, terrorism, really." He added, "Silence gives consent." Proof, you ask? Don't worry about it -- Democrats would never exaggerate, lie, or flat-out stage these events, even if such tactics are straight out of community organizer Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" playbook.

Regardless, if Democrats are now cowering before an angry public, maybe they should have listened to their constituents instead of ramming through an illegitimate bill that puts the government in charge of 17 percent of the U.S. economy and the IRS in charge of enforcement.

But who are we to object? None other than Cuban communist dictator Fidel Castro has endorsed the "miracle" of ObamaCare. If that island's system is any example, we're in for a real treat.

Quote of the Week

"[T]his hour of liberal political victory is a good time to adapt the 'Pottery Barn' rule that Colin Powell once invoked on Iraq: You break it, you own it. This week's votes don't end our health-care debates. By making medical care a subsidiary of Washington, they guarantee such debates will never end. And by ramming the vote through Congress on a narrow partisan majority, and against so much popular opposition, Democrats have taken responsibility for what comes next -- to insurance premiums, government spending, doctor shortages and the quality of care. They are now the rulers of American medicine." --The Wall Street Journal

On Cross-Examination -- From the Left

"[T]he American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama. Let's not act as though the president didn't tell the American people -- the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised. ... They voted for President Obama who said this was going to be one of the first things he would do.... This was not some concept the president introduced after he won." --the "Reverend" Al Sharpton

Sharpton actually gets it partly right -- we were warned. However, the "overwhelming" 53 percent of the vote that Obama received was hardly "for socialism," though a good 10-20 percent of the voting populace does appear to want it. The independents who provided Obama his winning margin voted for flashy, feel-good, substance-free "hope 'n' change."

The BIG Lie

"We clearly believe that the bill's provisions are, in fact, constitutional and will be so held." --House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

And you are clearly wrong about the constitutionality.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"This is a big f---ing deal." --the ever-classy, ever-eloquent, ever-obsequious Joe Biden to Barack Obama after introducing him at Tuesday's White House signing ceremony. Biden had just finished telling his boss in front of the assembled minions, "You're the reason we're here."

Stupak's 30 Pieces of Silver

One Democrat feeling the heat is Rep. Bart Stupak, the supposed "stalwart" pro-lifer from Michigan. Stupak led a small but seemingly determined band of Democrat congressmen opposed to the Senate bill's permissiveness concerning abortion funding. As it turns out, it was all a show.

Stupak caved after Barack Obama promised an executive order banning the use of federal funds for abortions. Tellingly, even Planned Parenthood didn't object because, first, the executive order isn't legally binding; second, it can be revoked easily; and third, it said nothing that the bill didn't already say. It changed nothing -- federal funds will be used for abortions.

In truth, Stupak was always going to vote for the bill -- he just wanted his 15 minutes of fame. In October, he said, "If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion -- and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. Okay, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district. Could I vote for health care? Yes, I still could." His only "principle" was party loyalty and passing ObamaCare.

By the way, just two days before the vote, the Obama administration awarded $726,409 in grants to three airports in Stupak's district. At least those 30 pieces of silver won't be spent in one place.

Demo-gogues on ObamaCare

"If you're making over $200,000 a year, you're going to pay slightly more in taxes. It's the cost, I think, of having the kind of America that we want to have." --Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who by "we" means "congressional Democrats"

"Well, the drug companies will have their profits reduced by close to $90 billion over the lifetime of this bill. That's part of the strategy moving forward." --job-killing, innovation-crushing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

"The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." --Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) caught on tape letting the Freudian goal of ObamaCare slip

"When the deal goes down, uhh, this talk about uhh, rules, we make them up, as we go along..." -- Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), a former federal judge impeached for corruption and perjury, thus, in the small minds of rule-of-men-types, qualifying him to serve as a representative and member of the House Rules Committee, on the sausage factory recipe used to pass ObamaCare

News From the Swamp: Obama Employment Service

A few weeks ago, we reported on the White House payola scheme of offering plum government jobs to Pennsylvania Demo Rep. Joe Sestak and Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff in exchange for their bowing out of primary challenges to weak Democrat Senators Arlen Specter and Michael Bennet, respectively. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has repeatedly dodged the allegations, despite Sestak's public assertion (and re-assertion) that the offer was made.

We can only imagine what similar deals were struck last week to garner just enough votes to ram ObamaCare through the House. Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), made it known before the vote that any House member who sold a "yes" vote in exchange for a post-congressional federal job will have a difficult time clearing the Senate, where Coburn, like all senators, has the power to block nominations to federal positions. Coburn has never been shy about exercising this power, and he stated it clearly: "If you voted 'no' and you vote 'yes,' and you lose your election, and you think [your nomination] to a federal position isn't going to be held in the Senate, I've got news for you -- it's going to be held."

While union lobbyists weren't shy about threatening to withhold campaign funds to any House members who didn't vote for the bill, there is no solid proof (yet) that the White House offered to help ObamaCare supporters find new jobs if (read: when) they are voted out of office. But pay to play has been the Chicago Way for a long time.

Don't miss the best conservative opinion and the most relevant news headlines at The Patriot Post — all with NO advertising!

New & Notable Legislation

Included in the health care bill was a plan to revamp student-loan programs. The bill cut off federal subsidies and guaranteed backing for commercial banks such as Sallie Mae and Nelnet. Rep. George Miller (D-CA) complained, "Why are we paying people to lend the government's money and then the government guarantees the loan and the government takes back the loan?" Certainly, that doesn't make sense. But the Democrats' solution was, naturally, to takeover student lending, too.

House Democrats passed another so-called "jobs" bill Wednesday by a vote of 246-178. The bill grants $13.2 billion to local governments for construction projects and welfare programs. Seems like we've heard that song and dance before. Or as Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) aptly put it, "Another week, another stimulus."

After "fixing" health care and the rest of the economy, Democrats are turning their attention to another insidious problem: school lunches. A majority of Democrats feel that it's a good idea to further regulate your child's life by allowing the "Agriculture Department to create uniform standards for all foods in schools, including vending machine items, to give students healthier meal options," the Associated Press reports. Whatever happened to "get your laws off my body"?

Friday Digest

2010-03-19T21:49:00.001-04:00

The Foundation

"[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [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 sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics

Page I of IV

Constitution in the Shredder

"We are absolutely giddy over the great news that we've gotten," House Democratic Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) declared Thursday. No wonder. The Congressional Budget Office provided a predictable boost to Democrats this week with its "preliminary" estimate that the updated health care takeover bill (text here) would cost $940 billion over the next 10 years -- all without adding to the deficit.

If you believe that, we have some oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) cooed, "I love numbers. They're so precise." That is, if by "precise" she means bogus. The CBO is required to take legislation as it's written (or, more precisely in this case, how it's described), not necessarily as it will be enacted. The deficit-neutral finding is based on the Demo claim that increased taxes and shuffling Medicare and Medicaid expenses will "save" money. Cutting these entitlements, however, is easier said than done. Additionally, implementation is delayed, meaning there will be hardly any spending for the first few years under the bill. On top of that, a provision was recently added to the bill that ends student loan subsidies to lenders -- which conveniently accounts for nearly all of the $19.8 billion in deficit "reduction" that Democrats are touting.

As we have pointed out numerous times before, however, the money business is almost entirely beside the point. House leaders are trying to foist upon us an unconstitutional nationalization of the health care industry using a cowardly and unconstitutional method, namely, the "Slaughter Rule."

Because of the election of Scott Brown to the open Senate seat in Massachusetts, Democrats were forced to abandon their machinations in the upper chamber, though not before threatening to use "reconciliation" to jam the bill through on a simple majority vote. Now, the House is planning to "deem" the Senate bill passed, rather than vote on it, in a process known as a "self-executing rule." As Mark Alexander observed, "'Slaughter' and 'self-executing' may describe both the process and the electoral future of many Democrats in the House."

Columnist Tony Blankley explains, "[U]nder the proposed scheme, the Senate bill would be 'deemed' to have passed the House and become law without a presidential signature. Then the Senate would pass the House-demanded amendments, and the House members would then cast only one vote -- for the amendments they like, rather than the underlying Senate bill they hate. Thus (so Pelosi's theory holds) politically protecting House members, who could say they never actually voted for the publicly despised Senate bill." Profiles in courage, no?

Republicans attempted to force an actual vote on the bill, but Democrats defeated that resolution Thursday 222-203. A "vote" -- likely via the Slaughter Rule -- on the Senate bill is tentatively scheduled for Sunday. (Here's a list of Democrats who might need a little encouragement.)

Democrats don't care, but Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution is pretty clear: "[T]he Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively." If the bill passes the House via the Demos' trickery, no single bill will have passed both houses. Thus, we have a bill that is disliked by a strong majority of Americans, enjoys strong bipartisan opposition in Congress, and is being rammed into law via unconstitutional means. There's a word for legislation like this: illegitimate.

Barack Obama, a narcissist if ever there was one, has made clear that his presidency hinges on the passage of ObamaCare. Turning up the pressure, Obama met with "undecided" Democrats this week, no doubt to make them offers they can't refuse. After the meeting, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) said, "We went in there already knowing his presidency would be weakened if this thing went down, but the president clearly reinforced the impression the presidency would be damaged by a loss. He was subtle, but that was the underlying theme of the meeting -- the importance of passing this for the health of the presidency." It should go without saying that Obama's ego is not sufficient reason for trampling the Constitution while wrecking the American health system. But, then again, who says elected Democrats are principled?

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate. What I can tell you is that the vote that's taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don't think we should pretend otherwise. And if they don't, if they vote against it, then they're going to be voting against health care reform, and they're going to be voting in favor of the status quo. So Washington gets very concerned with these procedures in Congress, whether Republicans are in charge or Democrats are in charge. ... By the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what's in it, you'll know what's in it because it's going to be posted and everybody's going to be able to evaluate it on the merits." --Barack Obama

Translation: The Constitution be damned.

On Cross-Examination

"Politically speaking, [the Slaughter Rule] is beyond sleazy. It's meant to protect House Democrats, who are all running for re-election in November, from having to make a tough vote up or down on health care reform. Pelosi says of this process, quote, 'I like it, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill,' unquote. In Nancy Pelosi's world, accountability is a dirty word. ... This tactic has been used in the past, but never -- never -- for something as big and important as the $900 billion health care reform bill -- never. Republicans are jumping all over this, rightfully so. They're painting it as a way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility, which is exactly what it is. Some even suggest it's unconstitutional. Meanwhile, President Obama's campaigning relentlessly, calling on lawmakers to pass health care reform, quote, 'I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing,' unquote. Well, the irony here is if Nancy Pelosi gets her way, it won't take much courage at all on the part of our so-called representatives, will it?" --CNN commentator Jack Cafferty, who is by no means a conservative

The BIG Truth

"You know we're going to control the insurance companies." --Joe Biden, with his two cents

News From the Swamp: Debt Panel Takes Shape

Barack Obama's bipartisan panel on the national debt is slowly taking shape with the addition of six congressional Republicans this week. Joining from the Senate are Judd Gregg (NH), Mike Crapo (ID) and Tom Coburn (OK); from the House are Dave Camp (MI), Paul Ryan (WI) and Jeb Hensarling (TX). All six have pledged to push for spending cuts instead of tax increases to reduce the government's obscenely large debt. The commission's final recommendations will not be binding, however, and the White House has insisted that the panel complete its work after the midterm elections rather than before. This way Democrats can have political cover when they recommend tax hikes over spending cuts in order to bring the government's finances in order.

Higher taxes alone won't save the budget, though. The entitlements that have grown too large to manage will have to be trimmed if America is going to keep its AAA bond rating. Moody's Investors Service suggested this week that the U.S. is in danger of losing its top credit status if it doesn't soon control its debt-to-revenue ratio. A lowered credit rating will harm the government's ability to obtain favorable loans, thus leading to massively increased interest rates and taxes. The U.S. has maintained its AAA credit rating ever since Moody's first started rating the country in 1949, though the national debt currently measures 64 percent of GDP.

New & Notable Legislation

The Senate passed a $17.6 billion "jobs" bill Wednesday, the first in a series of such bills, and Barack Obama signed it on Thursday. The legislation includes highway funding as well as a payroll tax break for small businesses. Eleven Republicans voted for the bill: Lamar Alexander (TN), Christopher Bond (MO), Scott Brown (MA), Richard Burr (NC), Thad Cochran (MS), Susan Collins (ME), James Inhofe (OK), George LeMieux (FL), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME) and George Voinovich (OH). Last week, the Senate passed a separate $150 billion package, which included business tax breaks and extended unemployment and other benefits.

Speaking of Republicans and spending, the Senate GOP defeated a bid to freeze earmarks for one year, splitting from House Republicans who made the pledge last week. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) made the case against the pledge, saying, "We would be delegating that [spending] back from Congress to President Obama to make those decisions." Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) countered, "Folks, we have every power here by the way we appropriate to disallow the use of funds for certain things." We pause here to remind Senate Republicans who bravely voted to ban earmarks that they don't have to continue to request them just because they lost the vote.

Finally, the Senate took care of some truly important business this week -- friendlier sentencing for certain cocaine convictions. "Legislation approved by the Senate on Wednesday would significantly reduce the disparity in sentences handed out to those convicted of crack and powder cocaine charges," the Associated Press reports. "Currently, a person convicted of crack cocaine possession gets the same mandatory jail time as someone with 100 times the same quantity of powder cocaine." So why the urgency? The AP answers, "That 100-1 ratio has been particularly hard on the black community, where convictions on federal crack laws are more prevalent." The solution was to reduce the ratio to 18 to one, so we can all rest a little easier knowing that yet another unconstitutional power grab is a little less unfair than it used to be.

From the Left: ACORN Rotting Into History

Despite their steadfast denial of wrongdoing, ACORN is closing up shop around the country and putting an end to a saga which has gone on for several election cycles. Predictably however, this hydra just sprouted more heads with many former chapters simply reopening under new names, and apparently they have allies in the Justice Department. The watchdog group Judicial Watch this week released a laundry list of FBI investigative material that shows that ACORN indeed falsified a number of voter registration forms but managed to shift the blame to overzealous canvassers who wanted to make an impression on their superiors.

The pattern of questionable registration suggested in the documents, coupled with the lax enforcement of election laws by secretaries of state in a number of key battleground states, places the legitimacy of our electoral process into question. ACORN and its affiliate, Project Vote, claim their goal is to encourage democracy (as do many thug dictators), but they focused only on selected populations that they deemed would either favor Democrats or be willing to sell their vote. In the blind pursuit of power, these community organizers think they are above the law. So far, despite having been caught red-handed numerous times on camera, they're right.

All this sounds like the tactics of a certain onetime community organizer who's not letting niceties like following the Constitution get in the way of his agenda, so it's no wonder the Justice Department turned a blind eye to these allegations. Remember, ACORN was stopped only through the efforts of individuals such as James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart, and groups such as Judicial Watch. Who will prevent their outrageous crimes in the 2012 election?

Click Here

New! Washington Crossing the Delaware

This historic print of Washington Crossing the Delaware, by artist Emanuel Leutze, is handsomely framed in a solid black wooden frame. A beautiful addition to a home or office wall.

Friday Digest

2010-03-12T19:26:00.001-05:00

The Foundation

"[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man." --George Washington

Government & Politics

Page I of IV

Massa Pile of Corruption

What other dirt does Emanuel have on Democrats?

Former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) is currently the star of an ongoing ethics scandal that presents quite the dilemma for political analysts. The question is: What are Democrats up to while Massa tries to convince us to believe his story?

The congressman resigned Monday in the wake of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year's Eve, along with allegations of similar misconduct over the last year. Given that he's been in Congress for only a year, that's not a great report card. For his part, Massa claims he's merely the victim of political warfare by Democrat leaders who wanted him ousted before he could register the "deciding vote" on health care reform.

If Massa's claim is even partially true, it signals a redoubling of "Chicago-style" political assassination efforts by the Obama administration to ensure passage of their holy grail, health care legislation. Massa claimed that Rahm Emanuel, the Anointed One's Chief of Staff and left-hand arm-twister, accosted him in the showers of the congressional gym last November. "I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird," he recounted, "and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't gonna vote for the president's budget." While we wouldn't put such an act past Emanuel, we also note that, mercifully, there were no witnesses to the alleged encounter. Predictably, the White House denied the allegation.

Massa asked, "Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?" No, we honestly don't know. Then again, we also don't know about tickle fights among (supposedly) grown men.

Our take is that Massa is both a liar and a creep, notwithstanding the administration's goals, which are even creepier. Certainly, one less "no" vote on ObamaCare doesn't hurt, as far as the executive branch is concerned. No doubt House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Frutopia) is also pleased. However, such potential skullduggery does lead us to wonder what other sorts of dirt Obamanites have on other "undecided" Democrats should they fail to cooperate.

The downside of this strategy, however, is that the Dem-wits really can't afford many more high-vis scandals. Over the course of just the last two weeks, for example, three prominent Democrats have managed to rain considerable shame upon their party. In addition to Massa's disgrace, New York Gov. David Paterson, under scrutiny for interfering in a domestic violence investigation, announced that he would end his re-election campaign, and veteran Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) was forced to resign as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee because of numerous ethics violations. Add these to the stack of sleaze amassed by the Demos just since the Chosen One assumed office, and it amounts to a dismal track record for a party that claimed it would "clean up corruption" and stop "business as usual" in Washington.

Democrats won the House from Republicans in 2006 in large part by highlighting GOP scandals. Evidently, what went around appears to be coming back around ... and how!

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

"[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), confirming that too much Botox can kill brain cells

Don't believe us? See the video.

The BIG Lie

On Monday, Barack Obama declared, "Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) disagreed, albeit indirectly: "Anyone who would stand before you and say, 'Well, if you pass health care reform next year's health care premiums are going down,' I don't think is telling the truth."

See the video.

Regulatory Commissars: Pulling the Corker Out of the Bottle

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) stunned his Republican colleagues by working with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) this week to breathe new life into Democrats' financial "reform" package. Feeling pressure from his right, however, Corker has since pulled out of the deal, which Dodd is now pushing without him.

The House version of the bill, crafted by Massachusetts liberal Barney Frank, was recently considered dead in the Senate, and for good reason. It included a $4 trillion bailout provision for rickety financial institutions that would make TARP the official policy of the federal government. No more bankruptcies, no more survival of the fittest -- both characteristics of a free market. Instead, the government would be allowed to manipulate the markets on the backs of taxpayers. This bill would also create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), a massive new federal bureaucracy that would have the power to oversee and ultimately regulate not only financial institutions, but also virtually any organization that deals with consumers.

Corker, a freshman senator with an American Conservative Union rating of 83, should have joined his colleagues in the first place and let the bill die in negotiations. Instead, he worked with Dodd to keep the CFPA alive. His office stated that he doesn't support the bailout provision, but he did in fact vote for the TARP-bank bailout in 2008. Wall Street likes the bailout provision, because it coats big firms with Teflon to keep them from failing under almost any circumstances. It's a good thing that Corker, who has received $3 million in campaign funds from the finance industry since taking office in 2007, reconsidered when he did. Still, he shouldn't have put himself in that position in the first place.

Health Care and Student Loans?

Senate Democrats want to attach a provision to the health care reconciliation bill that would allow the government essentially to take over all student loan lending in the country. Democrats are having enough problems passing health care on its own, and this latest parliamentary trick could shake up the delicate vote balance. The student-lending bill would federalize all higher education lending and would thus cause the loss of tens of thousands of private sector jobs. Senators representing states where those jobs stand to be lost are now wavering on whether they can support health care with this completely unrelated provision attached to it. What a shame.

The student-lending bill doesn't stand much chance of passage on its own. The $67 billion that the White House claims will be saved by the legislation is more than offset by $77 billion in new costs. That figure is a lowball estimate as it doesn't take into account the rate of student loan defaults or accurately figure new spending increases over time. Worst of all, virtually no one in the Senate has seen this bill, and the public isn't aware of the details, let alone the fact that it may become law without much debate.

In related news, according to Roll Call, "The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress' original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package." We'll soon see how Democrats plan to work around this legal obstacle.

New & Notable Legislation

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) announced a measure that would cut Congress's salary by 5 percent in 2011. It has 21 cosponsors so far, and, if passed, it would save taxpayers $4.7 million. Granted, that's a drop in the bucket considering the deficits we're facing these days, but it would be an important symbolic step for Congress to recognize the economic woes being felt in the private sector. The House voted against an automatic pay raise in 2009 and 2010, but it hasn't taken an actual cut in pay since 1933.

The Senate voted 62-36 Wednesday to extend jobless benefits and temporary business tax breaks. Six Republicans and all but Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted for the bill, which will add about $130 billion to the deficit over the next 18 months. The GOP "yes" votes were mostly the usual suspects, Christopher Bond (MO), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME), David Vitter (LA) and George Voinovich (OH).

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) proposed an amendment last week to block the White House's arbitrary seizure of over 10 million acres of land in nine Western states. The land was designated as "monuments" under a questionable application of the Antiquities Act of 1906, in order to prevent resources development. DeMint pointed out that during times of economic stress, the government should be freeing up resources for development, not locking them up. Unfortunately, most of his colleagues disagreed. His amendment was defeated 58-38.

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) introduced the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010," which would provide for military, rather than civilian, detention of terrorism suspects. The bill is ostensibly a response to the Christmas Day undi-bomber incident, in which the perpetrator was read his Miranda rights. It permits detentions based on "the potential intelligence value of the individual," or "such other matters as the President considers appropriate." That's a lot of uncomfortable leeway. Furthermore, the military would have the power to detain high-value detainees indefinitely "without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported." Given that Obama's Homeland Security team views right-wingers as threats, one wonders just where this could lead. With "friends" like McCain...

Finally, in a bid to put their big-spending past behind them (or at least make a good campaign statement), the House GOP adopted a unilateral one-year ban on earmarks Thursday. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, that's a good promise ... if you can keep it.

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.