TIME NOW TO REVERSE ALL THAT LIBERALISM HAS DONE

Freedom has had another crushing defeat today, as 15 Republican senators and all Democrats voted in favor of and passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (SB 510). What is most troubling are the 15 Republicans, who apparently voted their own free will, rather than adhering to the pleas of the American people who spoke out loud and clearly on November 2nd.

Don't know about anyone else, but this election knocked the wind out of me. It was a long time coming, and, to coin a phrase -- All the Brothers Were Valiant. The past two years have been tumultuous, wreaking havoc on our nervous systems, but we fought back and won the battle -- historically.

How many times have we said "stop government control of our schools; stop regulating every aspect of our lives; stop this excessive, wasteful spending"? Now is the time to start the process -- possibly beginning with our schools, by using the school voucher system. That would put the fear of God in the school unions. But it would only be a start.

Something happens to politicians once they hit the Beltway, and it's not pretty. Now that a fleet of newbies are about to unload on DC, we must hold every Republican's feet to the fire. Many already there are not listening to the Election Day message, and we can only pray for the newly elected.

SB 510 has another chance to be stopped as they reconcile this atrocity in the House. The “Food Safety Modernization Act” is just another Big Government takeover, and represents everything the November 2nd election was all about. This is a massive expansion of federal regulation, increasing more power to the FDA, increases taxes, and increases food costs.

Call, fax, or email your House of Representatives and more. List of 111th Congressional phone and fax numbers Page 1, Page 2, and Page 3. A list of the "Gang of 15" who voted for this boon-doggle is at the end of this post.

Eric Cantor and John Boehner appeared weak today, after their meeting with "The One", and it was a tad discouraging. Would that I could, but we cannot give up now. If we are to preserve our freedom, we must hold their feet to the fire. The message (and our freedom) will be lost if we don't.

FOLLOW UP: House May Block Food Safety Bill Over Senate Error
A food safety bill that has burned up precious days of the Senate’s lame-duck session appears headed back to the chamber because Democrats violated a constitutional provision requiring that tax provisions originate in the House. (h/t RobNRick)

Just like a wanton greedy child, the libs desperate attempt to ram through their agenda, taking away our freedoms at every turn, will trip them up.

In other words, as Mr. Hawkins so aptly writes:

"It’s not simply time to hit the brakes on liberalism; it’s time to roll it back."

AWR Hawkins writes an excellent, no-nonsense piece in Pajamas Media. We cannot let up for a single day.

Time Now to Reverse All That Liberalism Has Done
The new Congress has no time to piddle around the margins. It's time to attack liberalism's heart and roll its legislation back.
by AWR Hawkins - November 27, 2010

As the November 2 elections vanish in the rearview mirror, newly elected Republicans seem united on trying to repeal ObamaCare. Nearly to a person, they list the repeal of that hideous piece of legislation as job one. And they also appear united on extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, which is how it should be. But we must keep their feet to the fire lest some weak-kneed Republicans like Senator Bob Corker (TN) pressure them into moderation. (Even before the election Corker was distancing himself from the “crazier Republicans” whom Tea Parties supported.)

We have to be louder than Corker and make sure the incoming Republicans understand we didn’t fight for their election in order to see them take office and morph into bipartisan weaklings along the lines of a John McCain (R-AZ) or a Susan Collins (R-ME). Nor do we want them to conform to the habits of John Cornyn (R-TX), whose initial refusal to fund Christine O’Donnell’s senatorial campaign in Delaware remains one of the most spineless and shameless actions undertaken by a Republican who actually claims to be a conservative.

Beginning now, as we transition from the election season, we must press incoming senators and House members not only to repeal ObamaCare and extend the Bush tax cuts, but to undo every bit of damage liberals have done to this country in the past. (I know we don’t control the Senate, but we are predominant in the House, and there we can use votes to repeal, undo, and otherwise revoke liberalism in such a way as to send a clear message about the issues that will define the 2012 elections in both the House and Senate.)

We have the momentum, for now. But if we don’t use that momentum to accomplish great things, or at least to attempt great things, we will only see how quickly momentum can atrophy and shrink away.

Why can’t we cut monies for projects liberals hold near and dear to their bleeding hearts as a means of achieving our goal of shrinking the size of government? This could include eliminating or making drastic cuts in funding for groups like the National Endowment for the Arts, and others that get their kicks from using taxpayer dollars to fund projects that ridicule Christians, Jews, and America’s heritage. We could vote to institute a school voucher program that would provide school choice to families who otherwise couldn’t afford it: a choice that would steal power from the National Education Association by allowing families to escape the air of indoctrination so prevalent in public education. We could also press for the privatization of Social Security, relaxation of certain asinine environmental standards, a national immigration law that mirrors the one Gov. Jan Brewer signed in Arizona, and a steep reduction in the 99 weeks of unemployment benefits currently offered to people who would rather not work.

In a word, we could actually take our cue from the liberal playbook and begin introducing and passing so much pro-freedom legislation in the House that our opponents are simply overwhelmed.

To do any less would be to do what Rush Limbaugh described as “piddling around the margins … and never really [getting] to the crux of what is wrong” legislatively in this country.

It’s not simply time to hit the brakes on liberalism; it’s time to roll it back.


AWR Hawkins is a conservative writer who holds a Ph.D. in military history from Texas Tech University.

GANG OF 15 (Republicans voting YES for SB 510)
Shame on these conservatives, especially those from America's heartland.
Alexander (R-TN)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Collins (R-ME)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kirk (R-IL)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Snowe (R-ME)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

STOP FEMINISTS' JOB KILLING LEGISLATION

They're ba-ack. And just like a pouty child, they will have their way, making this 111th Congress the most dangerous enemy of the state. Ignoring and misrepresenting the message sent worldwide on November 2nd, the liberal congress will force down our throats every disgraceful bill they can get away with, so it's up to us to keep their actions in plain sight, while the newbies look on.

One of the first assaults will be the passage of the "Paycheck Fairness Act", which has already passed through the House and will be up for a vote this Wednesday, Nov 17th, in the Senate, on its way to Obama's desk.

Call your Senators, and tell them to VOTE NO of S. 3772.

Pulling out a few bullet points from Ms. Schlafly's piece --
The so called “Paycheck Fairness Act” would stifle job creation, send existing American jobs overseas, and burden employers with expensive paperwork and frivolous lawsuits.

This bill makes no sense during good economic times, and would only add insult to injury now, when unemployment is near double-digits nationwide.

It's a “job killing, trial attorney bonanza,” and employers potentially would see female applicants as instigators of lawsuits, instead of contributors to productivity.

This bill would only ADD to the ever increasing problem of our litigious state of mind.

Time to TAKE ACTION again. Call the Senators.

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

From Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum:

Stop Feminists' Job Killing Legislation
Tell your Senators to vote NO on the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act

November 15, 2010

On Election Day, Americans spoke out against the radical liberal agenda in Washington, D.C. Voters demanded a Congress that will strengthen the economy and create more jobs.

But, the liberal left is still pandering to feminists and trial attorneys at the expense of American jobs by bringing the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act” to a vote during the Lame Duck Session that begins Monday, November 15th.

The “Paycheck Fairness Act” would stifle job creation, send existing American jobs overseas, and burden employers with expensive paperwork and frivolous lawsuits.

Your calls are urgently needed to stop the feminists from causing unemployment rates to rise even higher!

Originally introduced by Hillary Clinton during her time in the Senate, and reintroduced by Sen. Harry Reid, the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 3772) (PFA) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) in the following ways:

• Allows for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages to be granted, even without proof of intent to discriminate. Currently, an employer must be found to have intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices in order for an employee to receive monetary compensation, and even then, the employee is entitled only to back pay. The provision in the PFA is unacceptable and unnecessary, as damages are already available under Title VII for pay discrimination.
• Changes the “establishment” requirement. The EPA currently requires that employees whose pay is being compared must work in the same physical place of business. The PFA would amend the word “establishment” to mean workplaces in the same county or political district. It would also invite the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to develop “rules or guidance” to define the term more broadly. This leaves the door open for the EEOC to compare a woman’s job in a rural area to a man’s job in an urban area that has a much higher cost of living, which would drive up the cost of employing the woman in the rural lower cost area. Such increase in employment costs would result in fewer people being employed, and would also result in employers shipping jobs overseas.
• Replaces a successful pay discrimination-determining system with a proven failed system. The PFA would invalidate the successful, Supreme Court-endorsed system for determining whether pay discrimination has occurred (known as the Interpretative Standards for Systemic Compensation Discrimination), and would replace it with the highly inaccurate Equal Opportunity Survey, which has found true discriminators to be non-discriminators 93 percent of the time.
• Increases the numbers in class-action suits. Under EPA, if an employee wants to participate in a class-action suit against his employer, he must affirmatively decide to participate in the suit. The PFA would automatically include employees in class-action suits, unless they affirmatively opt out. This change would result in booming business for trial attorneys, and huge costs to employers, who may decide to ship jobs overseas to avoid such costs altogether.

In addition to these changes, the PFA would institute a system of “comparable worth” effectively allowing judges, juries and unelected bureaucrats to set employees’ wages, instead of employers. Thus, an employee’s compensation level would be based on some vague notion of his “worth,” instead of on concrete factors like education, experience, time in the labor force, and hours worked per week. The PFA would also cause employers to avoid hiring women in low-paying positions, since the employers may then become targets for burdensome lawsuits. This trend would result in even higher unemployment for low-skilled women, potentially increasing the number of families dependent on government assistance.

President Obama has called the PFA a “common-sense bill.” The truth is, this bill makes no sense during good economic times, and would only add insult to injury now, when unemployment is near double-digits nationwide.

Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush, called the PFA a “job killing, trial attorney bonanza,” and said employers potentially would see female applicants as instigators of lawsuits, instead of contributors to productivity.

Take Action

The House of Representatives has already passed the Paycheck Fairness Act, and President Obama has said that he will sign the bill into law if the Senate passes it. The Senate vote is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, November 17, so call your Senator and tell him or her to vote NO on S. 3772 the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act!”

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Further Reading:

• Hudson briefing (with papers)
• Obama Pleads for Women’s Vote, by Phyllis Schlafly, Oct. 29, 2010
• The Paycheck Unfairness Act, by Phyllis Schlafly, Nov. 16, 2010

REACTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT'S POST-ELECTION PRESS CONFERENCE

Look at what we've done! A hearty congratulations goes out to all conservatives and tea partiers for a job well done. It was historic, and a devastating blow against communism, socialism, marxism and all the other unsuccessful big government ism's out there. Through all the tears, aches and pains suffered over the last two years -- we have been triumphant.

Not since 1938, has there been such a blowout, and all the negative attacks by the press, the libs, and especially the soon-to-be-gone 'moderate' Republicans, cannot dim the light of this bright and shining victory.

The National Journal reported today that the GOP picked up 680 seats in state legislatures across the country, and now hold more seats than at any time since 1928. It far exceeds the 472 seats in the 1994 "Contract With America" blowout with a 52 seat pick up in the House, and the post-Watergate 628 Democrat seat pickup in 1974.

And yet, Obama is in complete and utter denial. Again, he blames an ignorant and mis-informed people for his "shellacking", and insists the election in no way is a reflection on him or his policies, but rather on a weak economy.

Really?

This conservative victory means more than meets the eye, for the 10 Republican Governor pickup means the all important redistricting process will play a huge part in the 2012 election.

So, while there were a few heart-breakers in the momentous 2010 election, there are so many reasons to be grateful and proud. It reminded me of the disappointment I felt when Ronald Reagan lost the presidential nomination in 1976, and why he is so loved to this day. His words were powerful then, and appropriate now -- so take heart, keep your spirits high, and keep up the great. Three cheers for all. You deserve it.

If anyone forgot why Ronald Reagan became the greatest president in modern times, here's one of many examples. This is a speech he gave as he bid farewell to his campaign staff after his second defeat for the presidential nomination: (h/t Mark Levin)

"Sure there's disappointment in what happened, but the cause.... the cause goes on. Don't get cynical ...because, look at yourselves, at what you were willing to do, and recognise that there are millions and millions of Americans out there that want what you want, that want it to be that way, that want it to be a shining city on a hill."

It brought tears to my eyes, and then he wrote --

We fought, we dreamed, and the dream is still with us.
Ronald Reagan



Keith Hennessey writes an excellent piece about Obama's post-election speech, his off-the-mark, carefully structured, sharp words, which "foreshadow his upcoming economic priorities and themes for next year’s budget and State of the Union address".

Reactions to the President's Post-Election Press Conference
by Keith Hennessey - November 3, 2010

Here are my initial reactions to important economic policy elements of the President’s press conference.

The President argued the electoral losses were the result of a continued weak economy and his inability to convince voters that he had made things better quickly enough. He repeatedly ducked the question of whether his policies contributed to the Democrats’ devastating losses. Two conclusions are consistent with ducking this question: (1) he thinks his policies did not hurt Democrats on Election Day; or (2) he knows they hurt Democrats but doesn’t want to admit it because doing so would further risk the policy gains he has achieved. I find it very hard to imagine (1), but I misjudged him last January and as a result I incorrectly concluded he would stop pushing for health care reform, so I lack confidence in my ability to discern between the two.

---------------------------------------------------------

He did not acknowledge learning anything from the election or that he was in any way surprised by the result. In contrast he surprised me with the word “confirmed”:

And yesterday’s vote confirmed what I’ve heard from folks all across America: People are frustrated — they’re deeply frustrated — with the pace of our economic recovery and the opportunities that they hope for their children and their grandchildren.

Given this answer, I’d like to ask him “Were you surprised by Tuesday’s results?”

--------------------------------------------------------

The initial press reaction was that the President “took responsibility for the losses.” The precise words in his prepared statement were, however, artfully phrase:

Over the last two years, we’ve made progress. But, clearly, too many Americans haven’t felt that progress yet, and they told us that yesterday. And as President, I take responsibility for that.

The President took responsibility only for “too many Americans [not feeling] progress yet.” That’s a minor concession, along the lines of “We didn’t communicate our policies well.” He conceded nothing about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of his economic policies, nor about the unpopularity of stimulus, health care, or cap-and-trade.

---------------------------------------------------------

In a prepared statement as important as this one, no language is accidental. These sentences foreshadow his upcoming economic priorities and themes for next year’s budget and State of the Union address:

But what I think the American people are expecting, and what we owe them, is to focus on those issues that affect their jobs, their security, and their future: reducing our deficit, promoting a clean energy economy, making sure that our children are the best educated in the world, making sure that we’re making the investments in technology that will allow us to keep our competitive edge in the global economy.

and

In this century, the most important competition we face is between America and our economic competitors around the world. To win that competition, and to continue our economic leadership, we’re going to need to be strong and we’re going to need to be united.

He also tends to connect economic competitiveness with domestic infrastructure, R&D, and education spending. This linkage is not accidental.

-------------------------------------------------------

He tried to erect a firewall around the health care laws:

And with so much at stake, what the American people don’t want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two.

Yet for several months he has been refighting (is that a word?) the tax rate battle of ten years earlier, and his entire economic message has been a backward-looking complaint and a relitigation of the policies and conditions he “inherited.”

--------------------------------------------------------

He floated a few areas of potential bipartisan agreement:

•the looming tax increases;
•energy:

◦expanding domestic natural gas supply;
◦energy efficiency;
◦“how we build electric cars”;
◦expanding nuclear power;

•education;
•limiting appropriations earmarks;
•fixing one tax provision in the health care laws that hurts small businesses;
•infrastructure spending; and
•immediate (and temporary) expensing of business investment.

------------------------------------------------------

He acknowledged that legislation pricing carbon is dead for the foreseeable future. In doing so he acknowledged a well-established conventional wisdom, but it’s still significant when the President says it. His “this year” language should kill silly speculation about a lame duck Congress trying to enact cap-and-trade in 2010, and his “… or the year after…” language takes cap-and-trade off the table through the remainder of this Presidential term.

I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year. And so it’s doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after.

He also signaled a willingness to trade legislative action on “clean energy” with dialing back (or prohibiting?) EPA from regulating greenhouse gases:

So I think it’s too early to say whether or not we can make some progress on that front. I think we can. Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.

And I think EPA wants help from the legislature on this. I don’t think that the desire is to somehow be protective of their powers here. I think what they want to do is make sure that the issue is being dealt with.

-------------------------------------------------------

Finally, on the question of looming tax increases he signaled that “this is something that has to be done during the lame duck session,” and he made no negative statements about extending all the rates. When asked directly “So you’re willing to negotiate?” he replied “Absolutely.” In upcoming days I’ll write about potential paths to a tax deal.


Keith Hennessey served as the senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush from August 2002 through the first three weeks of 2009.

MURKOWSKI GETS KQFD RADIO HOST FIRED

If anything should get defeated Alaska incumbant senator Lisa Murkowski out of office, it's her unscrupulous act of getting radio host Dan Fagan fired at KQFD Alaska. Murkowski was fairly and squarly beaten in the primary by Tea Party endorsed Joe Miller, but like a greedy, spoiled, wanton child, she stomped her foot, and cried like a baby, demanding she stay in the race as a write-in candidate.

Accusing Fagan of "electioneering", she sent her attack dogs to protest the radio station for allowing this. Isn't this what talk show hosts do? Fagan's response is correct, "radio talk show hosts constantly advocate for or against candidates", but it appears libs are thin-skinned. Murkowski is using her fleet of $1,000 per hour lawyers to threaten the radio station, showing the public just how unprofessional and spoiled she truly is.

This plan of Fagan's stemmed from a recent flip-flop in the Alaska court system, when Murkowski again used her power to instigage the overturn of a state regulation. The regulation, in place for over 50 years, forbids allowing any information about write-in candidates at the polling place or within 200 feet of its entrance. Could the phrase "Sore Loser" ring any louder?

Murkowski was crying in her spilt milk about this with Greta Van Susteren Sunday night, and Sarah Palin, often at odds with Dan Fagan, wrote a powerful response to the latest Murkowski hissy-fit, which she entitled "Lisa, Are You Going to Shut Down My Facebook Page for Writing This?"

Brilliant, Sarah!

Murkowski's actions are exactly what has infuriated a country. The fact that incumbants feel entitled to remain in office as long as they want; make decisions based on their own personal desires through any backroom deals necessary; ignore the will of the people; compromise their principles to achieve their personal goals; the use of D.C. Beltway thugocracy -- has awoken the sleeping giant. We have had enough!

Comments can be made to Alaska radio station KQFD here.

Using her power, Queen Murkowski lashes out when her subjects oppose her? Do the right thing, Alaska. If this woman wins -- I give up!

TEA PARTY WINNERS MAY BE SILENCED BY GOP BOSSES

What if Republicans take back the House? Have they really heard the American people? It's not just winning a seat in Congress that matters, but appointments to decision making positions that matter. If the newly elected members of congress are not given positions that effect government spending, the change America is looking for may not happen.

The GOP elitists know this, and although House Minority Leader John Boehner may have heard the ringing of the bell, there is no guarantee. Talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. The GOP's actions are going to be carefully watched, and appointments have consequences.

The whole point of electing constitutional conservatives is to bring back constitutional values of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets -- all critical to get our country back on track. New appointments for new Tea Party members will change the size and scope of government spending, but if they are shoved to the back, their impact will be meaningless.

Many, if not all, of the newly opened positions appear to be ear-marked (pun intended) for the senior members who have oligarchy running through their veins. They are the epitome of what is wrong with government and why there is such a conservative ascendancy. America wants to get back to representative government, and the new members must fight for this, just as they had to fight to get there. It's not over -- it's only just begun. Republicans have one chance, this chance, and it's a short one.

In her usual brilliant fashion, Betsy McCaughy of Defend Your Healthcare write of this trap in the New York Post.

The Seniority Trap
by BETSY McCAUGHEY - November 1, 2010

Republicans are expected to win enough seats in tomorrow's elections to control the House of Representatives. Already, GOP chiefs are divvying up key committee chairmanships -- with the same people who ran things last time 'round jockeying to get their power back. If that happens, voters who supported Republican candidates to rein in the cost of government will be defeated after the election by the seniority system in Washington.

Tea Party candidates promised voters they'd end profligate spending, ear marks and political deal-making. Those who win tomorrow must be heard and heeded when they get to Washington, rather than relegated to unimportant jobs.

The GOP lost control of the House four years ago in no small part because voters had come to doubt the party's commitment to controlling spending. Voters now seem outraged enough at Democrats' overspending to give Republicans another chance. But the party chiefs may blow it.

One of the most powerful jobs in the House is to chair the Appropriations Committee, which divides up billions of dollars of federal funds. It's the favor factory. Appropriators rise to top leadership positions in both parties because they decide whose pet projects get funded. By definition, reining in federal spending means reining in the appropriators' power.

The leading contender for Appropriations Committee chair is Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, a prototype of the lifelong politician. He's been in Congress 32 years. He rose to the chairmanship in 2005 and stayed on as ranking minority member when the GOP lost the House in 2006.

Under GOP House rules, Lewis shouldn't be able to retain his party's top slot on the committee for more than three terms, but Lewis is expected to ask for a waiver -- and likely will get it.

Such decisions are made by the Republican House Steering Committee -- whose chairman, Rep. John Boehner, will become speaker if voters give Republicans the House majority. The deliberations on bestowing chairmanships are secret, but generally consider seniority along with popularity: who raises the most money for GOP candidates, toes the party line, gets along best with other members, etc.

House Republicans imposed term limits on chairmanships in January 1995, making good on a key promise of their Contract With America and ensuring that the message the voters had sent in the 1994 election upheaval would have an impact on what actually occurred in the House.

Now, as then, opening House leadership positions to newer members is vital to changing Congress' pro-spending ways. Term limits are meaningless, if they can be overridden by cronies.

The prospect of getting a waiver is the ultimate incentive for a chairman to dispense costly favors, in utter disregard of taxpayers or the federal debt.

GOP newcomers in Congress should jump all over this. To rein in spending, they should demand that the Appropriations Committee be handed over to serious cost-cutters -- not the same old figures who failed to stop earmarks, put up with TARP and played along with the Democrats' vast ballooning of the federal debt.

Waivers are reportedly also in the works so that chairmanships of other committees, including the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Rules Committee, will go to the same figures who held those jobs the last time the Republicans were in the majority. That's outrageous.

Polls indicate that voters aren't only shifting their preference from Democrats controlling Congress to Republicans. Voters are also anti-incumbent. They know that lawmakers who have been in Washington for years ignore what the public wants. Candidates who win on Tuesday must go to Washington determined to end the oligarchy and restore representative government.

It's common sense that newly elected Congress members are likely to be truer representatives of the people than members who've held their seats for decades, climbed the seniority ladder, and catered to the Washington establishment. Yet party leaders will try to consign newcomers to unimportant assignments.

Other GOP members should also think twice about letting the old bulls run the show. This is not the way to hold onto the majority that the Democrats are forfeiting because of their big-spending ways. For 2010 to be a watershed, the rules must change.

At last February's Conservative Action Political Conference, Boehner was asked how he'd handle the Tea Partiers if he became speaker. He promised to listen to them and open the House to their influence: "I'll pledge to you right here, right now, that we're going to run the House differently." We'll soon see if he's ready to keep that promise.


Betsy McCaughey (DefendYourHealthcare.us) is a former New York lieutenant governor and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."