WE WILL NEVER FORGET 9-11-2001 - GOD BLESS

We will never forget, no matter who's in office.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER

Not enough can be said about this coming November, and the closer it gets the more excited I get. Every once in awhile, something good this way comes, and sharing is what it's all about.

One interesting facet of these elections -- notice how some in our fickle congress have changed their profile? All of a sudden McCain is tough on immigration, Lindsey Graham-nesty is re-thinking Cap & Trade, Collins is still trying to decide whether she is conservative to not, but puts up a front nonetheless, and just today, Ben Nelson votes with the Republicans on Financial (NON)Reform. How spineless can you get, guys? Too late. Your true profiles were revealed in the crunch, when it counted, and we were desperately calling out for your support!

Erick Erickson has a great short little piece in Red State about a new pledge called "REMEMBER NOVEMBER", and it gave me goosebumps. TAKE THE PLEDGE!


My N-Word is November
by Erick Erickson, April 25, 2010

One of my favorite signs at the tax day tea party in Washington, D.C. held up by the the Christo-fascist, flag waving, gun toting, racist, white power fueled, anti-semetic, neo-nazi, homophobic teabaggers, or whatever the Democrats are calling tea partiers these days, was “My ‘n’ word is November.”

The guy who held it up was there with his wife. Her sign said, “I only play a racist on MSNBC.”

Folks, this video has already appeared on the site, but I want to make doubly sure you’ve seen it.

Come November, we will remember.

http://remembernovember.com/

VISUALIZING OBAMA'S BUDGET COSTS

Although this was a little while ago, it's a perfect example of what Obama is trying to pull off with this deceiptful Financial Reform.

In another of his attempts to appear as the savior, Obama proudly touted that he is going to cut his budget. Poppy-cock!

How pompous this man is:

FIVE LIES WE LIVE WITH

As we listen to Obama's lastest cries again for "civility" in order to pass another of his power grabs, it reminds me of the cries "Bush lied, people died", and other horrific statements. It's another weak attempt to bury over a year of polarization, and is the unveiling of a man in conflict. You can always tell what the libs are up to by what they accuse you of doing (Ann Coulter). It's okay to oppose the government when the libs are not in power (à la Hillary), but when the libs are in power and you oppose the government, you're the party of "No", a racist, a terrorist, and more recently -- seditious! Oh my.

What does is mean when the president of the United States of America says our constitution is deeply flawed, or that it's a charter of negative liberties? It means we have a president living up to his only campaign promise -- redistributive change, no matter how much he has to lie to get it.

Ironically, conservatives truly love their country, their history, their Founding Fathers, and the constitution. They respect and admire capitalism, America's exceptionalism, and its people -- foreign and domestic. And unlike most liberal's demonstrations, conservatives are non-violent. As Rush Limbaugh so brilliantly pointed out in his Wall Street Journal piece,

"Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It's in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust."

And Roger Kimball points out in his piece in response to Bill Clinton's pathetic re-hashing of "loud, angry voices",

And the nonsense is not only self-serving, it’s also malignant. I mean, it’s not just this week’s prime example of liberal hypocrisy—“Liberals,” Limbaugh points out, “are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they’re not in power.” Then dissent is “the highest form of patriotism,” it’s OK to festoon walls with Bush=Hitler posters, etc., etc. But move the shoe onto the other foot and suddenly it is “unpatriotic,” even (if you—per impossibile—believe Chris Matthews and Joe Klein) “seditious” to raise questions about the growth of government and the fiscal and national security policies of the present administration.

Victor Davis Hanson writes another brilliant piece in Pajamas Media, and gives us all something on which to reflect. We're not crazy, it's the left doing what they do best -- spin!

Five Lies We Live With
by Victor Davis Hanson, April 19, 2010

Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Make no mistake about it, this is a dishonest age. That our daily lies are purportedly advanced in the cause of the common good, nevertheless do not make them any less lies.

Beware of sudden and apparently reasonable “calls for civility.” That pathetic mantra is usually voiced by a liberal administration and its supporters when criticism mounts that they are taking the country too far to the Left — like the Clinton implosion in 1993 or Obama today. I fear “civility” does not mean one should not write novels or produce movies contemplating murdering George Bush — that’s sort of an understandable agitprop art. “Civility” does not mean the New York Times should not give discounts to run ads in wartime like “General Betray Us.” That’s needed dissidence. Civility does not suggest that a Sen. Durbin, or Sen. Kerry, or Sen. Kennedy not use inflammatory language that compares our own troops or personnel to terrorists, Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalinists, or Saddam Hussein’s torturers; that most certainly in not uncivil. And it was certainly not impolite for Rep. Stark to call President Bush a “liar.”

“Civility” does not mean that we should not spew hate at anti-war protests; that’s grass-roots popular protest. It doesn’t mean that we should not employ Nazi and fascistic labels to tar the President of the United States like John Glenn or Al Gore or Robert Byrd did. “Civility” does not mean that a shrill Hillary Clinton should not scream that the Bush administration is trying to silence critics, or suggest that the commanding general of an entire theater was lying to Congress in ways that require a “suspension of disbelief.” That’s needed pushback.

O Ye of Little Memory! Do we recall any American shock when the Guardian published Charles Brooker’s lament — “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?” And I don’t recall anyone felt that language was getting too heated when Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, fumed, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.” And was it not The New Republic that highlighted Jonathan Chait’s infamous “Why I Hate George W. Bush” article? Of course, there was that thoroughly civil New York play, “I’m Gonna Kill the President.”

So, please, spare us the sanctimonious rot about being shocked by conservative metaphors like “lock and load” or “targeting” vulnerable Democratic districts. Like it or not, “civility” has nothing to do with real civility that is bipartisan in fashion and necessary for tolerance in a politically diverse culture. It simply means that conservatives must be stopped in their Neanderthal opposition to an enlightened agenda by any means necessary — by being uncivil to them when conservatives are in power, and demanding they not do the same when liberals run things. All political parties wish it both ways; but in the present age, the media and a cultural elite really have convinced themselves that speaking out against Barack Obama is a sort of heresy while smearing the Bush “regime” was de rigueur.

Diversity? Not.
Beware of the ubiquitous “diversity.” Diversity does not mean needed difference, as in a community of religiously diverse people — for example, a Harvard with plentiful booths in the free speech area promoting Mormonism, or ROTC, or support for Israel, or anti-abortion. “Diversity” does not mean 51-49 % votes in the faculty Senate over condemning or supporting the Iraq War of 2003.

“Diversity” does not equate to a faculty department equally divided among Marxists, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. No, sadly “diversity” is a second-generation word that was by needs reinvented to supplant the Orwellian “affirmative action.”

In the 1980s, American elite culture grasped that the old superstructure of racial preference was both too cumbersome and too narrow all at once: Too cumbersome in the sense that too many were asking uncomfortable questions like, “Why are we giving preference in hiring or admission to a Spanish aristocrat named José Lopes, as if he were a supposedly underprivileged Mexican-American who suffers from a legacy of racism?,” or “Why is someone in the upper-middle class who is half African-American given preference, and not a poor darker Mohinder Singh from the Punjab who in theory would encounter as much or more discrimination?,” or “Why are all these cynical white-looking kids claiming their grandmothers were one-eighth Cherokee?”

And yet affirmatives action was also all too narrow in the sense that should not upper-class women, and wealthy gays or hyper-achieving, wealthy Asians, likewise, be entitled to help?

In answer to both the contradictions of racial preferences and its narrowness, “diversity” came onto the scene. To the degree that anyone could establish that they were not completely white, male, Christian and heterosexual, they were “diverse” members of the community and could perhaps find some advantage or boost in the fierce competition for jobs and influence and money. No one could define diversity, but miraculously all seem to recognize it when they saw it.

The real diversity — that of differences in thinking and independence of opinion — was hardly welcome, and any sort of call for such genuine diversity of thought was seen as hostile and sometimes had to be dubbed “reactionary,” “racist,” “homophobic,” “sexist,” etc.

So we ended up with “diversity” meaning “university” — a synonym for monolithic intolerance, for everyone worshiping “diversity” without exception. If that seems harsh, it is also the way things are.

Wind and Solar and Millions of Green Jobs!“Green Power” and “wind and solar” oddly do not mean that we are going to power our homes and cars with entirely new fuels, at least in our lifetimes.

Instead that entire green lexicon assures us that we can feel good about ourselves by symbolic gestures, like subsidizing a noble wind farm or putting up an impressive solar panel through government subsidies that mask the current non-competitiveness of such alternate power. The truth is that 21st-century internal combustion engines are revolutionary compared with their fossilized predecessors just three decades ago. Like it or not, such engines — preferably in the near future burning natural gas that is becoming more, not less retrievable, and in combination with batteries or biofuel blends — will continue to power our cars. Semi-trucks, earth-moving equipment, and tractors are not going to become electrically powered any time soon.

Nuclear power, when all the acrimony dies down, will be reluctantly seen as the real green power. Again, for now all the Gore-related vocabulary will serve two main purposes: to make those who master and manipulate it quite rich, and the rest of us feel very good about ourselves — all the while as some sort of carbon-based fuel helps to power our cars, or a nuclear fuel powers our homes and charges car batteries, allowing us energy independence and a reduction in pollution. As we see with the current unprecedented shut-down of all air travel in Europe, nature in a second, not mankind in years, determines what we puny humans will and will not do.

Stimulus Everywhere
Recoil from the word “stimulus” — whether used by a Republican or Democratic administration. There is no such thing as an easy, fuzzy notion of instant money creating economic growth. Instead it is a euphemism not for borrowing, but for massive borrowing and unsustainable debt. Indeed, note that we do not even use words like “borrowing” or “debt,” but instead prefer “deficit” (e.g., It’s only a year-to-year thing) and “stimulus” (e.g., spending what we don’t have somehow makes us richer in the future).

“Stimulus” is thus a lie as it is used, or at best a half-truth.

The truth — even if right now we were to go ahead with a return to the Clinton tax tables, raise the caps on income subject to Social Security taxes, have the states keep increasing their sales and income taxes, and apply new Obama surcharges on health care — is that we are still going broke.

Do the math: $12 trillion is a lot of debt ($40,000 for each of us, $200,000 for a family of five starting out in the world — like a second home mortgage in other words). Twenty trillion dollars in just eight more years is doom (like two family vacation homes to pay for without the vacation homes to vacation to).

We are lied to about this almost every day: the government is going to have to cut federal spending in massive amounts, unless we choose to impose a nightmarish VAT tax, and watch thousands of new unionized federal employees spend trillions of hours deciding which item is politically incorrect enough to be VATed.

So when I hear “stimulus,” or “jobs bill,” I conclude that when the interest rates return to normal soon, we are going to take on Medicare, Social Security, defense, and almost everything else in the federal budget. Euphemism will perhaps again help some. Maybe we can invent new words like “furlough,” as in California where it really means, “Since we can’t touch your union contracted salary, you simply won’t work a day a month and we won’t pay you either.”

Cuts to Medicare can be “adjustments.” Reductions in Social Security can be “refinements.” “Downsizing” means getting rid of three carrier groups. “Forward looking” will be ending NASA as we knew it. As solace, at least our politicians will feel that the lying will be of the Platonic noble sort, inasmuch as we will be creating falsity to lower rather than raise spending, albeit brought on by the law of physics rather than our wise intentions.

Illegal What?
Almost everything said in association with “illegal immigration” is false. No, the now stalled fence is not a futile symbol of apartheid; in places where it is finished, it has discouraged illegal entry and reminded us that all counties have rights of autonomy.

Do not believe that “illegal alien” is necessarily a hurtful or inexact term. Everyone who crosses the border without proper authorization is both doing something “illegal” (not a mere “infraction”), and is an alien (not a U.S. citizen; “alien” = “not of this place”.) When I lived in Greece in the 1970s, I was an alien; had I overstayed my visa, or accepted work without proper documentation, I would have been an illegal alien.

“Anti-immigrant” is also a lie peddled in service to open borders — a lie by virtue that it deliberately blends “immigrant” with “illegal immigrant” to suggest opposition to all legal immigration. (In fact, Americans quite clearly support legal immigration.) It’s a lie by virtue that it personalizes opposition to particular “immigrants” rather than the concept of “illegal immigration.” And it’s a lie by its emphasis on “anti,” since opponents of open borders are not “anti” anything; they are pro-law and pro-enforcement of existing statutes. Those who break the law or advocate undermining existing legislation are clearly “anti” a lot.

Avoid blanket generalizations that all illegal aliens are either criminals or all hard-working wonderful people, just trying to get ahead. Instead, simply imagine what you would do if you lived in dire poverty under a corrupt, racist system and survival was a mere 6 hours a way to the north — and factor in all the psychological, emotional, and intellectual rationalizations that you would embrace to justify your illegal entry and efforts to feed you or your family, either through minimum wage steady employment, off the books cash for ad hoc labor, or government entitlement, or all three.

To the degree we are getting audacious bold people willing to take risks to come to America, we are also perhaps getting people who have little problem breaking the law with the acknowledgment that they will have to keep breaking law for years after arrival. I’ll let you decide which plus does or does not make up for which minus in that illegal immigration equation.

To the degree illegal aliens are poor in comparison, not with their comrades back home, but with communities in their new country, is to the degree anyone would be so, who does not know the language, does not have legal sanction and does not have a high school diploma. Racism plays little, if any, role. To remedy all three as quickly and painlessly as possible, one would of course support making speaking English optional, making being legal superfluous, and making diplomas mere certificates rather than proof of rigorous years of education.

To the degree one is poor, is to the degree all unskilled laborers are in a terrible recession, and to the degree any immigrants would be, who, on limited wages, in aggregate send back a collective $25 billion home in remittances.

So what is illegal immigration? For most, it is a desperate attempt by the poor of Latin America to find a better life in America, made all the more attractive because postmodern America has no confidence in its institutions and thus asks little of its immigrants in accepting our own culture.

And for us, the hosts?

For the corporation it is a way to profit, masked in libertarian apologetics, of letting the market adjudicate labor costs without government interference.

For the racial tribalist it is payback for the Mexican War of two centuries prior.

For the liberal machine, it is an instant way through serial amnesty to hook a block constituency and redraw the electoral map of the American Southwest.

For the postmodernist, it is a way to accelerate the end of the old melting pot and to substitute a salad bowl of constantly competing ethnic and tribal interests that can be united under elite liberal guidance to thwart the entrenched interests of supposedly corporate and nativist-run America.

The problem I think right now for the liberal cause is not just the Tea Parties. Rather, tens of millions of Americans have tuned out the sermons, and no longer believe much of what they are told. They clearly do not care for the moral lectures that they are subjected to. Instead, they suspect that their self-appointed moral censors are either self-interested or disingenuous — or worse still.

So how odd: we live in an age of untruth in which millions privately shrug and nod at the daily lies of our elites.

THE FATAL FLAWS OF THE WALL STREET BAILOUT BILL

Nobody plays the strawman game better than Barack Hussein Obama. We've had a bellyful of his strawman speeches since he began campaigning, and he has ebellished this speechification since his inauguration. This week we was at his finest, using Wall Street and big businesses as his current target, and all the while they're sharing the same bed, along with the news media as their cover.

This is just another big government giveaway to big business, Wall Street included, while the people who play by the rules get screwed -- again. Opposition to another huge government takeover of the private sector needs to be voiced loud and strong, or we are looking at a peridime shift of Americans who work hard and pay more than their fair share of taxes versus Americans who receive and depend on government handouts. This is explained by the eloquent Phyllis Schlafly's brilliant piece "Some Pay, and Some Recieve" in her Eagle Forum. She's such a wealth of knowledge, and an inspiration.

Tom Fitton writes in Judicial Watch, Beware Obama Financial "Reform":

Here’s one early lesson we’ve learned from the Obama administration: Beware the word “reform.” First there was Obamacare, which was nothing more than a government takeover of our nation’s health care system masquerading as “reform.” And now the Obama administration has set its sights on “reforming” Wall Street. In fact, on Thursday, the President took to the pulpit in New York, just blocks from Wall Street, to pitch his vision for so-called reform in a high profile speech.

No matter what Obama says, this much we know — his ultimate goal is to increase government control of the private sector. And he’s trying to do it quickly, before the elections this fall, just in case Democrats lose control of Congress and the mood in Washington further sours for the President and his statist agenda.

But, back to the hypocrisy -- this man, once again, is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, as he pontificates about the big bad Wall Street, lobbyists, and big businesses with one hand, while the other hand is about to grab himself more power than the Constitution ever intended. Liberty or Tyranny -- which one will reign?

The Heritage Foundation writes an excellent piece on the continuation of Bailout Bonanza:

The Fatal Flaws of the Wall Street Bailout Bill
The Heritage Foundation, April 23, 2010

Speaking to an audience of big business and big labor executives (including Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein, Bank of America's Bruce Thompson and SEIU's Andy Stern) at New York's Cooper Union, President Barack Obama noted "the furious efforts of industry lobbyists to shape" the financial regulation bill "to their special interests." Obama then admitted, "I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you. But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort." Obama should have saved his breath. Wall Street and big labor lobbyists have already joined forces to make sure the current Senate legislation has become a Wall Street Bailout Bill.

Big labor's ties to this White House are already well documented. Less known is just how close Obama administration interests align with the big firms that benefit most from the TARP bailout. The Washington Examiner reports that at Goldman Sachs, the nation's largest investment bank, four of the five in-house lobbyists were Democratic Capitol Hill staffers -- the remaining one gave $1,000 to Hillary Clinton last election. And USA Today notes that Goldman Sachs alone has given nearly $900,000 since January 2009 to congressional candidates, with 69% of that cash lining Democrat pockets. Finally, then-candidate Obama collected almost $1 million from Goldman executives and employees in 2008, more than the combined Goldman haul of every Republican running for president, Senate and the House.

So what have Wall Street lobbyists bought with their campaign cash and high priced lobbyists? A bill that gives permanent TARP-like authority to Washington regulators, thus enshrining Washington as a permanent bailout machine. Specifically, the bill:

Creates a protected class of too big to fail firms. Section 113 of the bill establishes a "Financial Stability Oversight Council," charged with identifying firms that would "pose a threat to the financial security of the United States" if they encounter "material financial distress." While these firms would be subject to enhanced regulation, such a designation would also signal to the marketplace that these firms are too important to be allowed to fail and, perversely, allow them to take on undue risk.

Creates permanent bailout authority. Section 204 of the bill authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to "make available … funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution." Although no funds could be provided to compensate a firm's shareholders, the firm's other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. The situation is much like the bailout AIG in 2008, in which the largest beneficiaries were not stockholders but rather other creditors, such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs.

Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is "in danger of default" and whose failure would have "serious adverse effects on financial stability." This determination would be virtually irreversible in court.

Establishes a $50 billion fund to pay for bailouts. Funding for bailouts is to come from a $50 billion "Orderly Resolution Fund" created within the U.S. Treasury in Section 210(n)(1), funded by taxes on financial firms. However, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the ultimate cost of bank taxes will fall on the customers, employees and investors of each firm.

Opens a "line of credit" to the Treasury for additional government funding. Under Section 210(n)(9), the FDIC is effectively granted a line of credit to the Treasury Department that is secured by the value of failing firms in its control, providing another taxpayer financial support.

Authorizes regulators to guarantee the debt of solvent banks. Bailout authority is not limited to debt of failing institutions. Under Section 1155, the FDIC is authorized to guarantee the debt of "solvent depository institutions" if regulators declare that a liquidity crisis ("event") exists.

Imposes one-size-fits-all reform in derivative markets. Derivatives are already increasingly being traded on clearinghouses thanks to private efforts coordinated by the New York Fed. But the Senate bill would require virtually all derivative contracts to be settled through a clearinghouse rather than directly between the parties. Applying such ill-designed blanket regulation would make financial derivatives more costly, more difficult to customize, and, consequently, less widely used—which would increase overall risk in the economy.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 64% of Americans are not confident that policymakers in Washington know what they're doing with regards to Wall Street. They have every reason to be concerned. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) tells National Review: "From the beginning, I've thought that the deal Goldman Sachs got via Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on their bad bets through AIG kind of stunk. They got $13 billion from AIG last year." DeFazio doesn't seem to realize that the bill Obama is pushing would empower Secretary Geithner to repeat the AIG bailout ad infinitum. No need to ever go back to Congress for a new TARP. The Senate bill is a permanent TARP. Which is exactly what Goldman Sachs and the rest of their Wall Street lobbyists wanted all along.

WHO YOU GONNA TRUST?

America is waking up, but is the damage done so far irreparable? I'd like to think better late than never, but there's a lot of hard work ahead in order to keep our country on its intended track as laid out by our Founding Fathers. The biggest immediate task is to carefully choose constitutional conservatives for both houses this coming November -- in SIX months.

Why has America lost its trust in government? The PEW poll reports nearly 80% of Americans do NOT trust their government. This past year we have witnessed appalling attacks on our constitution, process, and (worst of all) ehtics. We have witnessed a president lie to the American people time after time. We have witnessed congressional leaders lie in order to ram through one legislation after another. Why should we trust these people? We are losing our liberty under these people. Is this the change Obama promised us? Do we want it?

So the question kinda boils down to -- Who do you trust? We have disappointments on both sides. But, it's not a bad thing, because there are changes around the bend. Geoffrey Norman writes an excellent piece in American Spectator:


Who You Gonna Trust?
by Geoffrey Norman, April 22, 2010

There has been a lot said and written in the last couple of days about a new poll showing that only 20% or so of Americans "trust the government." The news is being gravely received and treated as further and redundant proof that the country is in a bad way.

To me, though, it sounds like pretty good news. We need more distrust of government for the very good reason that government is pretty much an untrustworthy enterprise. If more Americans had been inclined to distrust the government five, ten, twenty, or more years ago, we might not be in the fix we are in today and our distrust might not be so bilious.

Wouldn't it, for instance, have been a good thing if we had distrusted the entire Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac contraption which was the foundation of the housing bubble that, when it burst, led to the economic distress that has so many of us feeling distrustful and worse? If we had been a little skeptical of the government's claim that Fanny and Freddy were not backed by the full faith and etc. of the government and would not be bailed out if they got into trouble, then they might not have grown so fat on preposterous mortgages that they had to be bailed out using the full faith and etc. And we might all have jobs and more money today. But the people who ran those Government Sponsored Enterprises -- and got hog-rich doing it -- assured us that all was well. And we trusted them.

We can't claim innocence. This wasn't a "fool me once, shame on you," thing. By the time of the housing crash, we all had plenty of reason to know better. Still, we go on trusting, so shame on us.

We would, I think, be a lot better off today if we'd been a lot less trusting back in what we are all supposed to think of as a better, less dishonest times. Wouldn't the nation be better off its citizens hadn't accepted with docility the assertion, made in 1967, that Medicare would cost a mere $12 billion in 1990? Turns out that the actual number was a little closer to $110 billion. But how could any good citizen actually distrust a government that gets it wrong by a mere factor of almost 10? And how absolutely nihilistic of him to doubt that the Health Care Reform legislation so recently passed will both expand coverage and reduce the deficit.

Where's the trust?

Back when he was campaigning for the job, President Obama said he would do something about this trust deficit, declaring that, "…when it comes to what's wrong with this country, the American people are not the problem. The American people are the answer. The American people want to trust in our government again -- we just need a government that will trust in us. And making government accountable to the people isn't just a cause of this campaign -- it's been a cause of my life for two decades."

Well, on the matter of a different deficit, the one that has people worried about the world they will be leaving to their children and grandchildren, President Obama has resorted to an old Washington scam that we have seen before and should, by now, distrust instinctively. He has appointed a commission to study the matter and get back to us with recommendations.

Commissions like this one are established to do what everyone in Washington wants done (increase taxes, close useless military bases) but lacks the courage to do.

This commission will be chaired by Erskin Bowles who once worked in the government, for Bill Clinton, and Alan Simpson who used to work in the U.S. Senate where what they do, year after year, is vote for things they can't raise money to pay for. Among the other members of this commission will be Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois where the people in government ran the state into an economic ditch before some of them, but not nearly enough, went off to jail.

That anyone who is now, or ever has been, a member of the United States Senate is serving on the commission charged with reducing the deficit is prima face cause to distrust the whole enterprise. But, of course, we know what the commission is going to recommend before they even start running up bills to decorate their office space.

Get ready for the Erskine & Alan VAT. That would be a Value Added Tax.

When asked about the VAT, Robert Gibbs, this administration's Secretary of Distrust said, "This is not something the president has proposed, nor is it under consideration."

Which pretty much seals the deal.

Once we get the VAT, maybe we'll look back at that 20% figure and wonder how it could ever have been that high.


Geoffrey Norman is the author of Riding With Jeb Stuart and the editor of Vermonttiger.com.

THE CRONY CAPITALIST THREAT TO OUR ECONOMIC FREEDOM

As Obama blames Wall Street for the demise of our ecomony, truth be told by those who dare, this demise started with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977; Clinton's doubling down in the 90s; the initiation of the "everyone has a right to a house" mentality whether they can pay for it or not; Barney Frank bellowing fannie mae and freddie mac are "fundamentally sound"; and the complete disregard to all the warning signs the Bush administration brought up time after time.

We are now looking at another cram-down of another bad bill, and the question is -- can and do the Republicans have the you know what to stand up to this regime? Scott Brown appears to be leaning towards a Yes vote, along with all the usual RINOs. Brown was elected to be the 41st vote, or was that just for Obamacare, Mr. Brown? He also dismisses the Tea Party movement as playing a significant role in his election. Hmmmmm, is he up for re-election in November?

These actions only make the case for the importance of involvment in the November 2010 elections. It's going to be the most critical vote in history. Step by devious step, this regime has rammed through legislation, using urgency and "crisis" as the reason to act quickly. Don't bother reading the bill. Only afterwards are the ramifications revealed, which boils down to more government takeover and more taxes to pay for it. Where does it stop?

This "Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010" is no different, and is just another huge bite out of our private enterprise system. It's another step towards the destruction of capitalism, Obama's biggest contempt and resentment. The Heritage Foundation writes about the danger to our ecomonic freedom:

The Crony Capitalist Threat to Our Economic Freedom
by The Heritage Foundation, April 21, 2010

The Obama administration's game plan for passing their financial regulatory reform plan is clear: ignore the details of their bill, demonize Wall Street, and cast conservatives as the pawns of big bankers. But as Politico reports today, there's a complication in their battle plan: "The Democratic Party is closer to corporate America — and to Wall Street in particular — than many Democrats would care to admit."

Politico should be commended for acknowledging the left's cozy ties with corporate America, but then they go on to write: "Some Democrats acknowledge that the legislation — and the harsh anti-Wall Street rhetoric — could cost them campaign contributions from the financial services sector in what is already shaping up to be a tough election year." This is just flat wrong. As evidence and logic clearly demonstrate, the left's harsh anti-business rhetoric and glee for expansive regulation is a boon to their campaign coffers. As USA Today reports, Goldman Sachs alone has given nearly $900,000 since January 2009 to congressional candidates, and according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, 69% of the firm's contributions went to Democrats while 31% went to Republicans.

In fact, Goldman is not opposed to Obama's Wall Street Bailout Bill at all. As a Goldman official told Politico Monday: "We're not against regulation. We're for regulation. We partner with regulators." This echoes reporting done by The Huffington Post on loopholes in the banking bill. HuffPo was told by a financial services lobbyist: "Obtaining a carve-out isn't rocket science. Just give Chairman Dodd (D-CT) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) a ****load of money." And loads of money is what Wall Street has been giving to the authors of the Wall Street Bailout Bill. The Wall Street banker at the center of Goldman's SEC fraud complaint recently solicited money from his banker friends for Sen. Schumer describing him as "one of the few members of Congress that has consistently supported the hedge fund industry."

Sens. Dodd and Schumer are not the only ones colluding with bankers to profit from American taxpayers. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) scored $37,000 from a January fundraiser that included Goldman executives. And The Washington Examiner has detailed that not only did President Barack Obama receive seven times as much money from Goldman employees as President Bush did from Enron employees, but then-candidate Obama's $950,000 2008 total from Goldman executives and employees is the most a politician has raised from a single company since campaign finance reform. It's also more than the combined Goldman haul of every Republican running for president, Senate and the House.

There is a term for the Obama administration's practice of using their government power to play favorites in the private sector: crony capitalism. Former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Gerald O'Driscoll writes in The Wall Street Journal:

The federal government controls 90% of housing finance. Policies to encourage home ownership remain on the books, and more have been added. Fed policies of low interest rates result in capital being misallocated across time. Low interest rates particularly impact housing because a home is a pre-eminent long-lived asset whose value is enhanced by low interest rates.

Distorted prices and interest rates no longer serve as accurate indicators of the relative importance of goods. Crony capitalism ensures the special access of protected firms and industries to capital. Businesses that stumble in the process of doing what is politically favored are bailed out. That leads to moral hazard and more bailouts in the future. And those losing money may be enabled to hide it by accounting chicanery.

It is because of these crony capitalist policies that the United States has dropped out of the exclusive club of free economies and was graded “mostly free” for the first time in the Index of Economic Freedom's 16-year history. As Heritage's Center for Data Analysis Director Bill Beach explains, this has a real impact on the lives of Americans:

While the U.S. economy undoubtedly is righting itself from the most severe recession since the 1930s, it is doing so at a glacial pace. Clearly, the burden of public policies that reduce the free use of personal property and retard the unsubsidized risk taking of entrepreneurs are lengthening the recovery process. The real cost of this sluggishness are the millions of unemployed Americans who continue to wait for the return of economic spring and the millions more who hope for a better economic times. The real source of this human cost – the real driver of persistent economic want – is the erosion of our economic freedom caused by these government policies.

TN CANDIDATE FILES OBAMACARE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

As the number of states filing lawsuits against the obamination obamacare increases every day, a Tennessee congressional candidate, Van Irion, has filed a Class Action lawsuit against the unconstitutional bill. Americans watched with horror as this process played out in congress, and as the shock is wearing off, anger is now setting in. This highly unethical and unconstitutional process will be put to the test in our court system, and people are signing on in droves.

Mr. Irion was a guest of Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, and, at the time, there were roughly 10,000 plantiffs signed on. Since then, it has more than doubled. An interesting note, Texas was in the lead with over 2,000 signatures, and California was a close second. Amazing!! Currently Texas and California are neck and neck, but spreading the word has made an incredible difference -- so, pass this on.

Check out Obamacare Class Action.

Frequently Asked Questions

* Updated April 16, 2010

Q. Can anyone join the class action against Obamacare?

A. Any US citizen or company can join as a plaintiff to the action by filling out the form HERE.

Q. What is the goal of the lawsuit?

A. The goal is to reverse the incorrect interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Commerce and General Welfare clauses that allows Congress to regulate essentially every American enterprise. This will restore the 10th Amendment and reign in Congress. Without reversing this precedent, Congress will continue to believe they have the right to regulate our daily lives and will continue to produce onerous bills that do so.

Q. Will it cost me anything to join the class action against Obamacare?

A. No, I am litigating this case pro bono and am covering the court costs personally. Win or lose, the plaintiffs won't bear any costs or attorney's fees associated with this case.

Q. What do you do with the information you collect?

The email addresses are used to communicate with the plaintiffs when necessary. When we amend the complaint, there is a form that has to be filed with the court which states who the plaintiffs are. This form requires that I list each legal name and address including the county of residence.

Q. What will the plaintiffs get if we win the case?

We are not seeking monetary damages, but rather a declaration that the actions of the Defendants are unconstitutional, illegal, and void; a declaration that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights; and an order requiring the Defendants to halt enforcement of Obamacare.

Q. What happens next in the case?

A. The complaint will be amended to add all of the co-plaintiffs that have volunteered to join. The amended complaint will then be served on the defendants and they will be required to answer. They may do so by filing a counter motion or by filing an "Answer" to the claims in the complaint.

Q. What specifically is the case challenging?

A. Three claims are made in the complaint:

1.Abuse of Authority - The actions of the Defendants are not within the scope of authority granted them by the U.S. Constitution.
2.Violation of 10th Amendment - The actions of the Defendants violate the explicit limitations in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
3.Breach of Oath of Office - The actions of the Defendants represent a breach of the Defendants' duties contained within their oaths of office to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Q. Are there other attorneys on the case?

A. Several constitutional attorneys have offered their assistance pro bono for this case. We have a well skilled team to make this challenge.

Q. How is this case different from the other lawsuits filed against Obamacare?

A. This case has unique causes of action, as outlined above, that directly challenge the erroneous "Commerce Clause" and "General Welfare Clause" precedents of the Supreme Court. The interpretation of past courts have essentially rendered moot any limitations on the Federal government established in the Constitution.

The Commerce clause argument and the 10th Amendment argument were intended to be complimentary, just like those two parts of the Constitution are complimentary. They are opposite sides of the same coin. The argument is also about Canons of Legal Interpretation: Any interpretation of a single clause that negates the overall purpose of a law, contract, or other document, must be wrong. Such a clause can be included to create exceptions to an overall rule, but in those cases, the clause must be very clear about its limitations in reference to the overall purpose of the document. The scope of such exceptions must be clear and the courts must interpret them as narrowly as possible. The actions of Congress over the past 70 years have become the illustration that the "Commerce Clause" and the "General Welfare Clause" were misinterpreted as many years ago.

Q. Is this one of Obama's infamous "enemies lists"?

No, this is not an "enemies list" for Obama. Tony Shreeve, the lead plaintiff, is a Tea Party leader in Tennessee. He has been interviewed numerous times by NPR, Fox News, Politico, etc. You can Google him and know he is for real. I am also for real, you can Google me too. I have been speaking everywhere I can possibly can to tell people about the Constitution and how America was intended to operate, and if we just did that, the vast majority of our social and economic problems would greatly improve.

Please keep sending in your questions. I am happy to answer them.
Van

The Official Complaint

Complaint filed 4/8/10 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee

The complaint is a notice to the defendants, Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the United States, of the nature of the claims. The complaint does not require or contain a full legal argument at this stage. A complete legal brief of the unconstitutionality of Obamacare will be made after the defendants answer the complaint.

Shreeve v Obama et al (click to download)

Van Irion Speaks About the Obamacare Class Action Lawsuit




Van Irion Speaks About the unconstitutionality of Obamacare

SENATE SET TO RAM THROUGH ANOTHER BAD BILL

This Friday Senate Bill 3217, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, introduced by Democrat Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, is set to hit the Senate floor.

The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 in laughable in its wording. This bill grants unlimited authority to takeover banking institutions, and favors big institutions, rather than small business. Since this bill is another attack on the private sector and a threat on small businesses, it's time to hit the phones, faxes and emails again.

Contact your state senators, and, if you're up to it, contact as many other senators as you can. See Page 1, Page 2, and Page 3 for list of Senate phone and fax numbers.

There are 8 Republican fence sitters, so focus should be on them. Of course they include the Maine twin sisters:

Bob Bennett of Utah
(202) 224-5444 -- (202) 228-1168 fax
http://bennett.senate.gov/public/

Christopher Bond of Missouri
(202) 224-5721 -- (202) 224-8149 fax
http://bond.senate.gov/public/

Scott Brown of Massachusetts
(202) 224-4543 -- (202) 224-2417 fax
http://scottbrown.senate.gov/public/

Saxby Chambliss of Georgia
(202) 224-3521 -- (202) 224-0103 fax
http://chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm
Susan Collins of Maine
(202) 224-2523 -- (202) 224-2693 fax
http://collins.senate.gov/public/

Bob Corker of Tennessee
(202) 224-3344 -- (202) 228-0566 fax
http://corker.senate.gov/public/

John McCain of Arizona
(202) 224-2235 -- (202) 228-2862 fax
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/

Olympia Snowe of Maine
(202) 224-5344 -- (202) 224-1946 fax
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/


Related links for reference material: (h/t Tea Party Patriots)

The Wall Street Bailout Bill Threat to Your Bottom Line, Heritage Foundation

How To Create Bailouts Forever, Heritage Foundation

Hidden Danger in Dodd Financial “Reform” Bill, Red State

Dodd Bill Creates Permanent TARP and You Can Quote That, Heritage Foundation

Connecting the Dots: Does Wall St. Want Dodd Bill?, Real Clear Politics

Obama: Read My Lips, No More Bailouts (But Let’s Keep $50 Billion Around Just in Case), Heritage Foundation

CHARLIE CRIST MULLING INDEPENDENT BID

It goes without saying, the November 2010 elections are critical. One of the races that has been exciting to watch is the battle between my hero, Marco Rubio, and the sleezy Charlie Crist. Crist had such a lead in the beginning, some 30 points, and he wallowed in it with his cocky I-can't-be-beat attitude. Now that the wheels have fallen off, we can see his true colors.

Since Crist is one who changes his mind like a chameleon, he can't quite make up his mind which sinking ship to jump to next. 'What to do, what to do. Oh!! Let's do a focus group, 'cause I don't have the spine to stand by my own convictions. I'll do an Arlen Specter. It's been so successful for him.'

And the NRSC hasn't been any help either, since they chose Crist in the first place. They messed up with Crist, just as they did with Dede Scozzafava, who ran to the Democrats with her tail between her legs. Will Crist follow? Probably not, because I see him as a middle of the roader - non-committal. Independent should be a nice safe place for him.

The best tea partiers can do from now until November is get behind your constitutional conservative choice, as many as you can, campaign to get them noticed, and encourage Americans to get out and vote.

Erick Erickson has a little piece on Crist in Red State:


Charlie Crist Mulling Independent Bid
by Erick Erickson, April 19, 2010

Well, Charlie Crist is now himself saying he may run as an independent.

Don’t expect Rob Jesmer to lose his job. Jesmer, the man who woo’ed Crist into the Senate race thereby throwing the Florida Governor’s race into turmoil and the Senate race into turmoil will no doubt get a pay raise as chief strategist at the NRSC.

So what to do with Crist? The more relevant question is what to do with those who support Crist.

First, every Republican Senator who backed Crist must immediately demand their money back. That’s a no brainer.

Second, we need to see which Republican operatives stay with Crist and make sure they have a hard time finding work after leaving Crist.

Third, I hope the Club for Growth will, like they did with Arlen Specter, get every Crist donor to demand their money back.

Lastly, and most importantly, let’s anticipate the media narrative over the next week. It will go something like this:

Icky, close-minded conservatives drove Charlie Crist out of the GOP in their never ending quest for purity. That is the common and oft repeated mantra in the press.

But the data shows otherwise. When Scozzafava couldn’t win, she fled to the Democrats. When Charlie Crist couldn’t win, he too fled toward the left. Arlen Specter couldn’t win. He fled to the left.

When liberals lose, they take their footballs, go home, and get the media to run stories on how mean those conservatives are.

The best way for conservatives to shut them up? Beat them at the ballot box.

And in Florida, we will.

THE, NOT SO SUBTLE, RACISM OF THE LEFT

In another attempt to portray the Tea Party Movement as racist, the Sunday news programs were peppered with racism all day, using identical talking points. Wonder where they all get them. Hmmmm. There never has been and there is no room in this movement for racism, or violence, or anti-americanism. In fact, it's just the opposite. We love our country, and want it to succeed. We want all people to succeed. We want everyone to be happy and have the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labor, be free to speak their mind, to pray or not to pray.

The media also attempts to make it a point that there are fewer blacks and hispanics in the tea parties. In a country that has roughly 13% blacks and 14% hispanics, that sounds pretty reasonable, so what's the issue? Last year we had the obnoxious "in your face" CNN reporter, Susan Roesgen, who has since mysteriously disappeared. And, not to be outdone, this year we had the illiterate NBC reporter Kelly O'Donnell, but it truly backfired on her. The articulate Darryl Postell, a retired veteran, told her he was not uncomfortable at the Tea Party, as these were his people -- AMERICANS!! Mr. Postell was interviewed on Fox & Friends.

Why is it that dissent is embraced when it's on the left, as Hillary Clinton screeched, but it's sedition when conservatives oppose ? This could be laughable if it were not dangerous, as Hillary's husband put his foot in his mouth [again] when attempting to indicate radio talk shows and the tea parties would incite another Oklahoma City. Again, laughable if not dangerous, because Timothy McVeigh declared it was Waco that motivated his actions, and Waco occurred under the imcompetent hands of Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno. The Oklahoma City bombing occurred on the 2 year anniversary of Waco -- to the day.

Racism undeniably comes from the left, and finally conservatives have had enough. The left is being exposed. It's about time. Aaron Gardner writes a great piece on this in Red State:


The, Not So Subtle, Racism of the Left
"Diversity" v. Diversity
by Aaron Gardner, April 19, 2010

Last Friday, I read an article by Charles M. Blow of the NYT, apparently a self loathing racist, in which he lays out his observations of the Dallas Tea Party. In this article you will find the usual leftist cries and hues of a lack of diversity in the Tea Party movement.

This isn’t really a big deal for me at this point, as it has come to be expected. What did stick out, like a grain of pepper in a bowl of milk, was this comment:

Thursday night I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance.

To understand the absolutely heinous nature of this comment, first we must know who he was talking about and what a “minstrel show” actually is.

Let’s start with the who after the jump.

The Dallas Tea Party put out a video earlier this year challenging Keith Olbermann on his assertions that the movement is just a bunch of racist white people unable to accept that a black man was elected President. You may even remember the video…



Looks like a healthy dose of diversity from what I saw.

In fact, Charles points out in his article that Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel was one of many speakers who were, indeed, not white.

Now what?

Well, like any good racialist hack, Charles found a way to push the ever important narrative of a lack of diversity within the movement despite all facts being against him.

You see, “Zo” just isn’t authentically black like Charles. How could he be, afterall, he is against social justice, for individual liberty and responsibility, and -this one truly seals the deal- he’s a Republican.

To combat this narrative smashing diversity that Charles witnessed, Charles employed one of the most nefarious, and most repeated, charges leveled against those who dare to step off of the ideological plantation that is the Democratic Party. “Zo” is nothing but an “Uncle Tom”.

Granted, Charles did not use those words, but his message was abundantly clear when he called the Tea Party a “minstrel show”. Minstrel shows originally consisted of whites donning blackface and acting on the stage for the enjoyment of other whites.

I can only conclude that Charles M. Blow is either ignorant of this fact, or knew full well that he was calling into question the authenticity of Zo’s blackness. I lean heavily towards the latter.

This line of despicable thinking is indicative of how the Democratic party thinks about diversity; and racial diversity is just one instance of the misuse of the word diversity.

Indeed, we see this faux diversity in just about everything the left attempts to do. Whether it be a “one size fits all” Health Insurance market, where many vendors are forced to offer the same product; or, denying parents the option of school choice in D.C., instead forcing them to accept the “one size fits all” public education system.

To Democrats, diversity is limited only to those who believe in their monolithic ideology. If you do not subscribe to their ideology you are either a racist or a racist enabler.

Simple as that.

Charles M. Blow should be ashamed of himself for inciting racial divisions based purely on ideology. Unfortunately, I don’t believe self loathing racists are capable of shame.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MOCKS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AT TAX DAY TEA PARTY 2010

The second annual Tax Day Tea Party of 2010 was held in rallys across America yesterday without incident, racial slurs, spitting, or violence -- trash, alcohol, and drug free. I was privileged to attend the Monterey Tea Party Patriots Rally across from Dennis the Menace Playground, which was broadcast live by Mark Carbonero on KION 1460 FM radio who estimated was attended by 400-600 patriots, and also a local news station. Contrary to the biased New York Times recent poll, there were tea partiers of all ages and race. It was a gathering of Americans concerned with too much government, ignoring the will of the people, taking too much control, and spending out of control money they do not have and will not have for generations to come.

While Obama was dismissive of them last year, he was mocking them this year. This president of the United States of America mocks the American People, making him the worst commander in chief in American History. To paraphrase Mr. Krauthammer, does the arrogance of this man know no bounds? The best Tea Party sign of the day is here.

Personnally, the highlight of yesterday's Monterey Tea Party Rally was a family of six very young children, each with their own sign, and all well behaved. One of the boys named Sam told me that when one of his siblings has a child, he would be an honest to goodness Uncle Sam. The Father of this magnificent family is in the military, and the Mom is to be saluted for her gallent efforts in raising this beautiful family.

Yes, this regime has taken notice, and, like any regime, will stop at nothing to destroy a growing opposition to their tyranny. The one thing despots will never understand, you cannot surpress freedom for any length of time, as history has proven time and time again.

God bless America and its patriots