US Liberty Journal

OUR ELECTORIAL COLLEGE IS IN PERIL

2011-10-23T14:43:00.000-07:00

Our freedoms are under attack on a daily basis, and we are working hard not to sound like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". It's important to pick your battles, and this one fits the bill.

While the "state controlled' media is not reporting this, New Zeal writes: a "progressive strategy is underway to eliminate the role of the states in electing a U.S. President. By transferring electoral votes to a national popular vote (NPV) this 'Compact' would usurp the role of the states as safeguarded by our Constitution. In doing so, it could also neutralize Obama’s critics — totally."

There is a movement, the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC), and, as statists do, it's working its way through each state like a cancer. Heritage writes: a number of state legislatures have "already adopted an agreement in which participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state. The agreement would go into effect when states with a total of more than the 270 electoral votes (the number required to win a presidential election) have adopted the agreement." Unconstitutional doesn't give this assault justice!

Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum has written extensively about the dangers of a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). One of her excellent pieces "Beware of Attacks on the Constitution", she writes specifically how "The Electoral College Serves Us Well".

If not watched, bit by bit the statists will overturn our liberty, and by the time it's noticeable, tyranny will be the rule of the day. (Respects to Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny")

It's going to take all of us to stop this. You can find your contacts from the local assemblyman, to governor, to senator and above HERE. As my devoted grandfather would say:

A PYRRHIC DEFEAT

2011-08-11T16:47:00.000-07:00

For those of us who fought against the Boehner Bill, and who stood ridicule in the face, it has been a bitter-sweet "told-ya-so". We can't claim victory, because the battle will continue as long as there are greedy, power-hungry people looking to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

More importantly, we've been had. It's difficult to wrap my head around it being intentional, but actions speak louder than words, and in this new Debt Deal passage, votes won out over future financial disaster. They just don't have the backbone to take the steps we need to take to get to where we want to be. Oh my.

In fact, the Republicans messed up so badly, it's not even a Pyrrhic victory, but a Pyrrhic defeat, as Thomas Sowell writes:

In short, the Republicans have now been maneuvered into being held responsible for the spending orgy that Democrats alone had the votes to create. Republicans have been had — and so has the country. The recent, short-lived budget deal turns out to be not even a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. It has the earmarks of a Pyrrhic defeat.

This summer, Americans have the opportunity once again to let their feelings be heard. Our federal employees are on a long summer break, holding town halls across the nation. Remind them of how we were scared in to believing the debt ceiling had to be raised in order to protect our credit rating, and how millions of us cried out "no more debt", "live within our means".

The Fear Factor has been used too many times in the past few years, when our gut instincts told us no, but the politicians "who know better" said yes: TARP, the Stimulus Bill, ObamaCare, the Financial Reform Bill, and now the Boehner Bill (Thank you, Mr. Boehner, who gave the store away).

Every one of these monsters have proven to be more disastrous for America, and, in order to save face, the left is Dumping on the Tea Party, creating strawmen, and attacking American people who want to live by the Constitution. Hmmmmmmm, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. Let them call us terrorists (by the vice president of the United States), racists, hostage holders and all the other vile names that aren't worth mentioning here. Victor Davis Hanson writes, Spare Us the Sermons, Mr. President:

In an appeal to voters, Obama urged that they not act calmly, but get angry: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry!” The polarizing talk was the logical follow-up to his campaign hype of 2008, when he ridiculed the “clingers” of Pennsylvania, called on his supporters to confront his opponents and “get in their face,” and at one point even boasted, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” His jokes about Nancy Reagan and the Special Olympics were needlessly tasteless and crass.

Obama’s inflammatory language and tough metaphors are not all that unusual in the American political tradition. But what is odd is that a habitual participant in brass-knuckles political combat should call for the sort of civility that he himself did not and will not abide by.

Liberalism is a mental disorder, and rather than deal with the facts, the left name calls. We must be doing something right, because as the president has been "leading from behind", and the Democrats have not passed a budget in over 840 days, Republicans managed to pass the Ryan Budget and Cut, Cap & Balance. This would NOT have happened without the influence of the Tea Party movement.

So while leading with the hair-raising "Fundamental Transformation" comment, let's end with the Farewell Speech of President Ronald Reagan in the Oval Office, January 11, 1989 (h/t Mark Levin) -- from a man who had to deal with double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, and double digit interest. He turned our country around. President Reagan ended the Cold War and set the American economy on course for the longest period of growth in modern history.

God bless this great country, and the men and women who fight to keep it free.

Illustration: Obamacare's Debt by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

SPECIAL ELECTION IN LOS ANGELES 36th - TEA PARTY-BACKED CRAIG HUEY

2011-07-11T16:29:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, Tuesday July 12th, we have a chance to pick up a critical and near impossible congressional seat in the House of Representatives in of all places -- Los Angeles, CA. Mr. Craig Huey is running for Jane Harman’s seat against the reprehensible LA councilwoman Janice Hahn.

Craig Huey is a Tea Party-backed Republican businessman who has decided to take on the Democrat machine. Pajamas Media has put together all the information you need to know the real story, and it's pretty interesting:

As expected, Hahn is now leading Huey in the heavily Democratic district, but by not nearly as much as she should be. Hahn claims a 9-percentage-point lead; Huey claims he’s within striking distance at around 2 or 3 points behind; the only poll released so far had Hahn up by a mere 5 points — just within the margin of error.

Read the full article here.

As seems to be the GOP's recent profile, Tea Party-backed candidates are getting little help from them, which does not bode well for the GOP in light of the 2010 elections. Huey's campaign can use all the help we can give at www.craighuey.com.

Give either your time by working the phone, door to door, or money -- whichever you can afford, but this is an election we can win.

QUICK LINKS:
Erick Erickson, Red State - Craig Huey Or The Lady Who Employed Drug Dealers and Rapists?

American Thinker - A Guide to the CA-36 Special Election Tuesday

National Review - This Special House Election Can Be Called Gang-Related

Los Angeles, Examiner - Craig Huey's get out the vote effort in full swing - Janice Hahn is striking out

OKAY, YOU GAVE THE ORDER. NOW, CAN WE GET BACK TO WORK?

2011-05-05T18:29:00.000-07:00

As Obama takes another [undeserved] bow, President Bush comfortably retreats in the satisfaction of getting the job done. It was George W. Bush who laid out the steps that needed to be done to get the number one most wanted man, as his country, and the world, unleashed vile and contempuous accusations at him.

While most people are throwing accolades at Obama for a "gutsy move", I am one of the few who believe the man had no choice. Everything this man does is for the betterment of Barack Obama, and knowing that if he did not give the okay to take Osama out, it would blow up right around election time.

Now, can we get back to work, please? You know, the subject that plunged your poll numbers? The issue that Obama would rather avoid until after Nov-2012, so that he doesn't have to show his hand until then. The one that he showed the first two years of his presidency.

Obama has no intention of cutting back on his spending. He was given a gift that November day back in 2008 -- complete control of the Senate, the House, and the presidency, and he ran with it. In two years he has turned a country from a majority of makers to a majority of takers.

51 percent of households do not pay income tax. In addition, the top 20 percent of tax payers pay 67 percent of taxes. Upper-income taxpayers have paid a growing share of the federal tax burden over the last 25 years, so this talking point of the libs about "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires" is pure bunk.

This current administration was loudly shellacked in Nov-2010, but since the GOP's lackluster performance from the lameduck session to today, it is apparent the American people need to play a more stronger role than ever before. We elected people who would take a stand against out-of-control spending and robbing our grandchildren with uncontrolled debt, but they are showing signs of the all too familiar GOP weakness.

We have some true leaders on our side, such as Jim DeMint and Mike Lee, but they are sadly in the minority. The American people have lost patience with the feeble attempts to cut government spending. We want real fiscal responsibility, so let's keep the pressure on. We are that shining city on the hill.

A contact list of our representatives from Grassfire is here.

Senator Jim DeMint, the first man to set the bar in opposition to Obama, writes an excellent piece about our precarious economic situation, and our weak-kneed government employees.

The Greenville News

Don't Surrender to the Debt
by Jim DeMint - May 1, 2011

There are only two choices when it comes to our nation's debt crisis. Fight the debt, or surrender to it.

Some are already giving up.

Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, $3.6 trillion has been added to the debt and if the country continues on the path he has laid, the debt will nearly double in the next 10 years to $26 trillion. Yet many Democrats are insisting that it’s more important to increase the debt limit than it is to seek spending reforms to prevent our nation from going into bankruptcy.

Borrowing more money without any plan to cut spending is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. It won't improve the nation’s financial standing; it will only endanger it.

Debt increase advocates are misleading the public when they say fiscal catastrophe will result from a failure to increase the debt ceiling. They are using scare tactics to keep up their big-borrowing and spending sprees, just like they did to justify their Wall Street and mortgage bailouts. The Chicken Little claims that a debt ceiling lapse would mean the nation's creditors will not be paid are simply not true.

Next year, tax revenues are projected to cover 70 percent of federal expenditures. Only 7 percent of all projected federal government expenditures will be used to pay interest on the debt. While Washington would need to engage in significant cost-cutting measures, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed that default would happen only if Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner chooses to let it. He has the authority to prioritize payments to ensure that default does not occur by using the available money to pay the nation's creditors and cover essential services like Social Security payments without interruption.

The true threat to our economic future comes from continual increases to the debt limit with no credible plans to ever pay it off.

Trouble is already on the horizon.

Standard & Poor's recently downgraded their outlook of the U.S.'s long–term credit rating from "stable" to "negative." The International Monetary Fund is considering replacements for the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen has also warned, "The most significant threat to our national security is our debt." The loss of confidence in America's economy isn't because we're not raising the debt limit fast enough: it's because we have no credible plan to ever stop raising it.

Everyone agrees that the debt is dangerous. Refusing to confront it makes it more so. Granting the government another blank check in the form of a no-strings attached, borrowing increase is akin to waiving a white flag of surrender to the debt.

American families cannot afford our ever-expanding government. Over the last few decades federal spending has grown much faster than American earning power. Middle-income Americans' earnings have increased by 29 percent since 1970 but government spending has risen by a whopping 242 percent. A nation that owes more than it can ever produce is destined for bankruptcy.

That is why this moment must be leveraged to force deep, long-term structural reforms to the way the government spends money. The nation must balance its budget, or it will go bust. Republicans should oppose the increase unless Congress first passes a balanced-budget amendment that requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes. Every state except Vermont is required by law to balance its budget.

The reason the country is in such a predicament is because the government does many things it should not do, it cannot do effectively and can't afford to do. More of the same will make things worse than ever.

We must have a balanced budget amendment that requires Congress by law to make the hard decisions it has been avoiding for decades.

Cutting spending is part of the answer, but isn't all of it. In addition to finding ways to save money, members of Congress must work together to reform broken federal programs, restructure government and devolve more activity to the states. Instead of inventing new things the federal government should do, Washington must find ways to let go control and let states take over.

If politicians in Washington aren't forced to do this now, they never will. It’s foolish to believe that if we let the government borrow more, somehow, politicians will choose to draft a budget to put an end to reckless spending later.

History proves otherwise. Congress has raised the debt limit 10 times in the last 10 years, cast hundreds of votes to pass new spending programs and held no votes on a balanced-budget amendment. If politicians are not obligated to balance the budget, it is certain they will continue adding to the deficit by creating new entitlements, like Obamacare, instead of fixing broken programs, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Endless spending and borrowing is not the answer. It is the enemy. If we choose to surrender to the debt, instead of fighting it, it will surely lead to our demise.

2nd ANNUAL TAX DAY TEA PARTY RALLY, SANTA CRUZ, CA

2011-04-18T17:47:00.000-07:00

As the 2012 elections draw closer, and over 2 years of the intrusive Obama administration in our lives, the 2nd annual Tax Day Tea Parties were celebrated across the country. The main stream media continues to mininize the Tea Party movement, but it has become more and more prevelant on the lips of politicians, including the fearless leader.

One of the most thrilling Tea Party rallys had to be the one at the Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, with guest speaker Sarah Palin. Another Tax Day Tea Party rally in Washington DC heralded 4 prospective Republican presidential candidates -- so, We've Come a Long Way, Baby!

Now is the time for all good tea partiers to come to the aid of their country. Obama, never having really left campaign mode, has ramped up his attack and laid out his platform for the next gruesome 18 months. And attack he will, which makes it all the more critical for a strong Republican candidate to step forward. Personally, I don't see one right now, but am praying that the closer we get to the election, the urgency of the situation will bring forth an unexpected warrior, who will debate the issues, ignore the name calling, and take on Obama toe to toe. Obama will crumble like dried bread.

Since his great immaculation, Obama has pushed the envelope on endless occasions, but his Wednesday campaign speech in response to Paul Ryan (ever in his head now) takes the cake. He invited the author of probably the best and most honest budget in history, Paul Ryan, along with 2 of Ryan's colleagues, to hear his speech. Obama then proceeded to insult Congressman Ryan, and lambast Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" budget, showing the yellow streak that runs down the middle of this Commander in Chief's back.

Yes, Obama has pushed the envelope a little too far this time, and even Rush Limbaugh had enough, making an 'over-the-plate' observation:

"The Republicans need to take Barack Hussein Obama, throw his positions right back at him, unravel his BS and advance America's core principles. That's what made us great.**

Obama's not this cool, calm, collected guy. He's just... Folks, he's not a good guy. He's a mean, vindictive little guy. He's very cold."

**This should be the Republican Party's platform!

One of the best brains out there, Victor Davis Hanson writes in Pajama's Media about the maladies of Barack Hussein Obama.

PATIENT OBAMA
by Victor Davis Hanson - April 18, 2011

Last week the president gave a speech on the deficit, rightly trying to convince Americans that it is now beyond unsustainable. Yet his theme was that the Republicans’ attempts to reduce it were cold-hearted, endangering the most vulnerable among us, such as those with Down’s Syndrome, while protecting the proverbial “rich” from commensurate sacrifice. Let us, then, look at Obama, and the context of his speech, as a doctor might a patient.

Symptoms of the Illness
a) Obama just introduced a $3.5 trillion dollar budget with a $1.6 annual deficit — both record numbers. (If worried about debt, why then run up more record debt, if not by design to ensure higher taxes and larger deficit-run government?)
b) Obama ignored so far all the recommendations of his own blue-chip debt committee. (Why appoint an honorific committee that is to be humiliated?)
c) Obama demonized his opponents in precisely the manner that he had earlier warned against, both in his calls for a new civility following the Giffords shooting, and in promising not to demagogue cuts to entitlements in cheap partisan fashion. (Does his entire audience suffer from amnesia?)
d) Obama wants now to raise taxes on the “rich,” though right after the elections he had agreed that these hikes were a bad idea in such uncertain times. (An unwise idea in December is a needed one in April?)
e) Obama warns against shutting down the government in protest of unsustainable debt, though that is precisely what he voted for as a senator in 2006, when the deficit was about 1/5 of what it is now. (A Senator Obama would have been a President Obama’s worst nightmare?)
f) Obama said that neither he nor Warren Buffett needed another tax cut, although Buffett is the second richest man in America, who pays less a percentage of his income than most of those who make above the dreaded $250,000 — and Barack Obama is the country’s most privileged American who pays for virtually none of his own expenses. (The average optometrist really earns like Buffett and has no expenses like Obama?)
g) Obama still talks about ObamaCare, but has given 1,000 exemptions from it, often to those interests who were most for it. (If he exempted the entire state of Maine, could he just do the same for the other 49 and call it a victory?)

Diagnosis of the Malady
a) An erratic, unengaged president is bored with the work part of the job, enjoying far more the golf, attention, influence, and perks (despite not getting a “cool” phone system with a drop-down screen in the Oval Office), and so he simply sleepwalks through his speeches, oblivious to the contradictions he presents. (Who cares if his Libyan misadventure contradicts almost everything he said from 2002-10, since he was already on to Rio and praising Brazil for drilling off-shore in a manner we never would. Life is short, but the job cool.) OR

b) The president is cynical and says whatever he wishes without worry of consequences, because based on the past abyss between laurels and achievement (Harvard Law Review, offer of Chicago Law School tenure, record in the Senate, Nobel Prize, etc.), he feels exempt from scrutiny and audit. Indeed, he expects that he can always “hope and change” or “millions of green jobs” his way out of any rare, nit-picking journalistic follow-up. (A journalist will always declare him a “god” even if speech A nullifies speech B a day later). OR

c) The president says, like most, what he must to be elected and now reelected; Guantanamo, renditions, Iraq, tribunals, Predators, preventative detention, public campaign financing, revolving door politics, earmarks, lobbyists, etc. — these are all just “constructs” without real absolute truth. They are bad or good, depending on the political calculus at any given time — a consideration that changes sometimes hourly. So Obama seems to have discovered that what he said to get elected, or even said two weeks ago, he need not say today again or tomorrow. Polls change, so do talking points. (He also knows that 50% of the citizenry receive some sort of government money; almost 50% pay no income tax; and in February more money was redistributed than collected by the Treasury. Therefore most Americans will stick by him whatever he says — as long as he keeps the money flowing.) OR

d) The president is Machiavellian and, amid his apparent confusion and misdirection, has actually quite adroitly moved the country far to the left since 2009. While his growing number of critics bemoan his inconsistency, disingenuousness, ill-preparedness, contradictions, and lack of persistence, Obama looks only to the fact that the nation in the last 30 months has come to look more like his vision than that of his opponents. (The Left may groan, but they grasp that Obama’s youth, mixed ancestry, charisma, and untraditional candidacy are rare gifts that can advance a once unpopular agenda in a way a McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry never could.)

Prognosis
None of this symptomology is mutually exclusive, and, in fact, these indications are more likely complementary. Indeed, the president’s speech is a good harbinger of the campaign to come. Contradictions mean nothing. Quite blatant reversals are irrelevant. For Obama to win, our patient simply counts on three therapies in 2012.

1) All recessions at some point get a little better. The world is now in a so-so recovery. We have printed $5 trillion since Obama was inaugurated. For a short period, say until the end of 2012, such “stimulus” will have a stimulatory, inflationary effect. An upswing comes now; the perfect storm of stagflationary hyper-high-prices, chronic unemployment above 8%, and spiraling interest rates may not take full effect until after the election.

2) The deficit is indeed unsustainable, and premise #1 is, in fact, endangered by it. So the Republicans will have to deal with it, and thus must bear the charge that they cut Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, while fighting for the Bush “tax cuts.” If the Republicans want to “balance the budgets on the backs of the poor,” then Obama has no choice but to go to the barricades and stop that Dickensian ruthlessness. So propose a $1.6 deficit, ignore the debt commission, and let the Republicans play Scrooge to his Bob Cratchit.

3) The electorate is not as it was when it finally sickened of Jimmy Carter in August 1980. Far more are on public assistance, unemployment, Social Security, food stamps, etc., or work for thousands of new state and federal bureaus. There are millions more illegal aliens that have become citizens since the late 1970s. And the voting rolls have expanded exponentially among “nontraditional” voters. Thus, the political calculus about which pundits and talking-heads debate is not always what half the electorate worries about. The national debt, the annual deficit, the problems with ObamaCare, the tax code — all that matters very little. The key question for millions of voters in 2012 will be simply who ensures that my check arrives unchanged or augmented, and who either stops or reduces it.

File Closed
Patient Obama presents us with multifaceted, but now chronic and well-recognized symptoms. They reflect a variety of maladies that nevertheless form an identifiable syndrome. There is no real therapy to be recommended since the illness will have to run its course, with a prognosis that remains uncertain until it resolves one way or another in about two years — or in late 2012.

Read more incredible Victor Davis Hanson here.

SANTA CRUZ, CA TOWN CLOCK TAX DAY TEA PARTY RALLY

2011-04-09T15:15:00.000-07:00

April 15, 2011 – All Day

Help us celebrate the 2nd anniversary of one of the greatest movements in history!

T.E.A. PARTY RALLY

Town Clock & Post Office in beautiful downtown Santa Cruz

All are welcome!

HERE'S A FOOD STAMP GRAPH THAT WILL RUIN YOUR DAY

2011-04-04T19:38:00.000-07:00

If ever we wondered just how out-of-control this administration's spending is, nothing makes an example better than the number of people now dependent on government. This includes government jobs (doubled), food (off the charts), housing (in the tank), transportation (non-existent), energy resources (doubled), loans (pray), welfare, unemployment, and the list goes on.

At this point, it is becoming clear our real battle is in the budget and reducing the debt limit -- not increasing it. I'm done with what has become another $30 or $40 billion dollar reduction in the grand scheme of things. This is getting serious, but the politicians are playing Monopoly, rather then their constitutional role of advise & consent.

In line with the upcoming budget and deficit battle, this Food Stamps graph is just from 2008! A clear example of Obama's spending problem. From Moe Lane at Red State:

Here's a Food Stamp Graph That Will Ruin Your Day
Moe Lane - April 3, 2011

Because why have a nice, sunny morning? We probably can’t afford those anymore, anyhow.

H/T AoSHQ Headlines:

The Clarion Advisory

Primed by the financial meltdown; took off like a rocket in January 2009, and is now reaching for the stars. Over 44 million on the rolls (somewhere around 14.3% of the population), which is about 14 million or so more than when this administration took office. The graph is sufficiently grim and depressing on its own to make further commentary largely unnecessary, but I will add one sardonic comment. If current conditions are what the White House considers to be “our economic recovery,” then let me be clear: You’re Doing It Wrong.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Benefits are down, too. A little counter-intuitive, given that the time frame is the Democratic party’s control of the government… no, wait, in that case it’s not counter-intuitive at all.

WHAT WOULD DEMOCRATS CUT?

2011-03-28T15:25:00.000-07:00

As Congress finally returns to work, many are reflecting whether or not they made the right choice in the GOP's "second chance" election. This doubt began within a few short weeks of the historic November 2010 election shellacking, and the shellacking began to fade away, as the Democrats appeared unsinged.

Democrats skillfully morphed into the role of savior of imminent tax increases, Don't Ask Don't Tell reformer, a Christmas present of another 13 week extension of subsidized unemployment for an unbelievable total of 99 weeks, another generous gift of a one year 2 percent social security tax savings for employees only, plus more goodies for our stocking. Net effect -- a Republican Party all of a sudden on the defense -- again!

To make matters worse, the GOP has appeared weak in standing by their pledge to reduce the debt, reduce the budget, and crack down on Democrat spending. In fact, it's laughable. A $100 Billion promise turned in to different bills no higher that $61 Billion, and the percentage of reduction to national debt is not worth a "Gazunteit".

This week, as the GOP again takes the helm, it's time to re-ignite the message of the Nov 2010 elections. Just think about the fact that the Bush budget had a deficit of $163 Billion for the year 2007. The budget deficit was a record $222.5 Billion in February 2011, the shortest month (one month!) of the year. The GOP has to get a backbone and stand up to the bullies.

Obama's advisors remember how his popularity grew after the December tax deal, and they are doing their best to replicate that success. For Senate Democrats and Obama, partisan politics is the name of the game.

Fear kills. Rather than worrying about taking blame for shutting down the government, the GOP should take credit for lowering the deficit, spending and debt, and for finally taking steps to avoid a real government shut down. Quit passing it on to the next Congress. Be a man. Do it now!

The longer you are in a problem, the less likely you are to solve it.

When the Dems are in power, they steamroll the GOP, the rules, and anything that gets in their way. Why are the old school Republicans so spineless?!? That’s why we voted in the Young Lions and gave the Republican Party a second chance.

If we need a reminder to re-ignite this flame, remember what has happened over the last 2½ years. The Morning Bell from Heritage Foundation gives us a prospective of what Democrats would cut... nothing. Can the Republicans stand up and demand (not ask pretty please) better? Isn't that why so many rallied on their behalf? As they get back to work, it's time to remind them. Contact numbers can be found at TheOrator.com

What Would Democrats Cut?
by The Heritage Foundation, Conn Carroll - March 28, 2011

As a third temporary spending bill expires next week, the attention of Capitol Hill will once again be focused on producing a permanent spending bill to keep the federal government open and operating. The threat of a government shutdown would not exist had the Democratically controlled 111th Congress passed a budget for this fiscal year. In fact, not only did they fail to pass a budget, but for the for the first time in the history of the budget-making process, last year’s Congress failed to even vote on a budget. And now, even as the consequences of their failure are just days a way, the Democrats have still failed to agree on a plan that cuts spending.

Thirty-eight days ago, on February 19, the House of Representatives passed a budget that would keep the federal government open for the rest of this fiscal year. Responding to the overwhelming mandate from the American people delivered last November to cut federal spending, that House budget cut $61 billion in spending from 2010 levels. The Democrats then produced a plan that they said “cut spending,” but even The Washington Post Fact Checker found no real cuts.

And they will not even go on record identifying which cuts in the House’s bill they are willing to accept. The Post explains why: “Such a move would force Democrats to go on record defending programs that Republicans had identified as wasteful.”

It is understandable why the Senate is so afraid to offer its own spending plan. When the President offered his own budget for next year, he claimed that it would produce only a $7.2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. At the time, we predicted that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would produce vastly different numbers, since the President’s proposal included audaciously hopeful economic forecasts and fake spending cuts. Sure enough, on March 18 the CBO scored the President’s budget as causing $9.5 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. That is more debt than the federal government accumulated from 1789 to 2010 combined. Heritage analyst Brian Riedl surveys the damage:

These large deficits will persist because the President’s steep tax hikes cannot keep up with his runaway spending. Relative to the historical averages (which were also pre-recession levels), President Obama would raise taxes by 1.3 percent of GDP yet increase spending by 4 percent of GDP. The main drivers of runaway spending—surging Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs—would not be reformed at all. Accordingly, the annual cost of interest on the national debt would quadruple.
…
Under President Obama’s budget proposal, taxpayers would see large tax increases, bigger government, and slower economic growth. The President who declared that “I didn’t come here to pass our problems on to the next President or the next generation—I’m here to solve them” would, over the next decade, drop an additional $80,000 per household in debt onto the laps of our children and grandchildren.

The White House spent all of 2010 deflecting criticism about its deficit spending by pointing to the President’s debt commission. Then when the commission finally produced a report that included actual spending cuts, the White House couldn’t run from it fast enough. Congressional Democrats have no plan to cut government this year, next year, or any year. Conservatives should hold firm to their $61 billion in cuts and force Democrats to produce their own spending cut plan.

More MORNING BELL here.

THE DAMAGE OBAMA HAS DONE

2011-02-17T16:07:00.000-08:00

With his new budget, Obama not only ducked our economic problems, he gave it his famous finger. What was it that Tennessee Ernie Ford said -- "Another day older, and deeper in debt! Saint Peter dontcha call me, 'cause I can't go. I owe my soul to the company sto'e (that's the White House, my friends)" Debt, debt, debt. Debt for you, for me, for our children, and for our grandchildren. It's sinful, and the man in the White House has no conscience.

"It's Debt On Arrival", Congressman Paul Ryan said. If anyone thought for a moment that Obama was going Clinton on us, guess his budget will clear up his latest lie. Ironically, Obama is spouting how much cuts he's made, and [just like the so-called tax credits he made] are non existant, or so miniscual, they're not worth mentioning. The $3.7 Trillion budget is an insult, and rather than showing true leadership, Obama's turned a serious state of affairs in to a game of cat and mouse.

The Democrat Party is surely not the Democrat Party of old, where a young President began his historic leadership with the words, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." But the 1960s radicals of those days are now running the asylum, and Barack Obama has just poked America in the eye with his atrocious budget.

Couple that with the events happening in Wisconsin. Union mobs trying to hog tie the state government for attempting to get the out-of-control spending under control. Same thing in New Jersey. The public unions are bankrupting the country, and people are waking up to it. We're broke, and it's getting worse. The time of corrupt out-of-control spending is over.

From Dick Morris, a chart that will knock your socks off. It's stunning! Digest it, and keep the fires burning under the feet of our congressional representatives -- federal and state.

The Damage Obama Has Done
by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann - February 15, 2011

The mainstream media does not cover the full extent of the damage the Obama Administration has inflicted on this country. Even FOX News often doesn't have the time to go into sufficient depth to explain what is happening.

From our friend Ruth S. King comes a chart which all of us should read and absorb, sobering though it may be:

Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history. Over 27 times as fast! Metaphorically, speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane 27 times faster . . . it would be doing 1,755 MPH!

Sources:
(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. of Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury

In our new book, Revolt! (Due out March 1 – you can pre-order autographed copies now at DickMorris.com) we explain how Obama has wrecked our economy and chart a path to reverse the damage and defeat him in 2012.

These numbers make it crystal clear how crucial these two tasks really are!

Read more of his columns at DickMorris.com

WILL THE REAL NEWT GINGRICH PLEASE STAND UP?

2011-02-11T20:38:00.000-08:00

Here we go again. Newt Gingrich? Too many choices for the Republican ticket, and too many old and worn out ones at that, with not enough declared new faces. RINO Romney, who endorsed Mary Bono Mack, who voted FOR Cap & Trade, or Huckabee, who is more concerned with "governing" than standing on principle, and pardons criminals who go back to a life of crime -- one killing four police officers. That being said, I'm old enough to remember the waffling of Newt Gingrich on core issues. Not as bad as The Chosen One, but bad enough.

Back during early 2008 (pre the Tea Party Movement, I might add), it was Newt Gingrich who said "The Reagan era is over. The George W. Bush era is over. We're at a point in time when we're about to start redefining -- as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine -- the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs."

Now that Newt has seen where the wind is blowing (sometime after the infamous summer of 2009, and the shellacking he got for endorsing Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 special election over the Tea Party favorite Doug Hoffman), he has radically changed his tune. Sound familiar?

But, that's not the worst of it. Back during his reign in the House of Representatives, under his Contract for America, he made so made about turns, it was unrecognizable. He has cozied up with some of the left's most popular: Al "race baiting" Sharpton, Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi, Al "Global Warming" Gore, cozying up with Hillary[Care] Clinton, and playing goverment spending footsie with the other Clinton in the 1990s.

Here's a good one, from Devvy Kidd "Mr. Gingrich struts around like he's Thomas Jefferson. Nothing could be farther from the truth."

Another informative reminder is the JBS Exposé "The Real Newt Gingrich".

Newt's numbers are creeping up -- No thank you. I keep looking for that fresh blood, kinda Reaganesque. Do we really need another Jeckle-Hyde president? I think not.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS, MR. PRESIDENT

2011-01-31T18:08:00.000-08:00

"Actions speak louder than words." An old tried & true proverb said to me by my Mother over an entire childhood, and passed on by many common sense thinking families. Obama's State of the Union (SOTU) pep rally was so full of hyperbole, I lost count.

Watching the State of the Union address was as painful as last year's, and I kept hoping for another "You Lie!" outburst, because his speech was full of contradictions. Time after time we have heard: (h/t Mark Levin)

APRIL 9, 2009 – "And we will not rest until we reach a day when not one single veteran falls into homelessness"

MAY 11, 2009 – "I will not rest until the dream of health care reform is finally achieved in the United States of America"

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 – "We will not rest until we are succeeding in generating the jobs that this economy needs"

NOVEMBER 23, 2009 – "I will not rest until business are investing again, and businesses are hiring again"

JANUARY 28, 2010 - "We will not rest until we build an economy that's ready for America's future"

MARCH 5 2010 – "I’m not gonna rest & my administration is not gonna rest in our efforts to help people who are looking to find a job"

MAY 26, 2010 – "We will not rest until this well is shut, the environment is repaired and the clean up is complete"

JULY 8, 2010 – "My administration will not rest until every American who is able and ready and willing to work can find a job"

... and all the while, the only things Obama focused on like a laser was advancing his 'redistribution of wealth' agenda: Obamacare, Financial Control, Cap & Trade, Internet and Talk Radio control, a failed Stimulus, empowering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), growth of government, and ever increasing deficit spending.

It took some 35 minutes before Obama ever mentioned our looming deficit, albiet briefly with embarrassingly low-ball resolutions, while in the same speech stating a broken economy must "invest" more. His reference to a "Sputnik Moment" is laughable, when it was himself who put the kibosh on NASA. More empty Obama speak, as he attempts to hide the truth.

We have a man in the White House who clearly does not know what he is doing, or how to fix a country on the brink of disaster. We have a man in the White House who is more comfortable on a soap box campaigning, as he has done for the last two years, dining out, vacationing, playing sports while 'Rome is burning'.

As Charles Krauthammer said in his great piece "Deaf on debt: Returning to old liberal ideas, President Obama ignores the American people":

From the moon landing to solar shingles. Is there a better example of American decline?

So much for our "Sputnik moment".

The only way we can save our great country is to stay on top of our elected representatives, hold their feet to the fire, get rid of the weak-kneed moderates, and "Focus Like a Laser" in getting a constitutional conservative in the White House in 2012!

Senator Jim DeMint has some excellent suggestions in a recent email:

Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Mr. President
by Senator Jim DeMint - January 26, 2011

Dear Fellow Conservative:

The President used his State of the Union Address last night to disguise his liberal agenda in free-market, conservative rhetoric. Yet the specific policies he promoted are part of a deliberate strategy to grow the government at the expense of our personal freedoms and jobs.

For all of the talk in the media about how the President is moving to the center, he asked Congress last night to increase the role of the federal government in almost every area of our lives.

Rather than acknowledging the failure of his stimulus program to create jobs, the President claimed it saved our economy. Even worse, he called for more stimulus spending to "win the future".

You and I know that winning the future requires less government and more freedom, not the other way around.

Our Constitution is not indifferent toward liberal and conservative policies. It enumerates the very limited powers of the federal government and reserves everything else for the states.

Instead of calling for more federal intervention in our schools, the President should have called for reforms to allow states to opt-out of the ineffective and burdensome No Child Left Behind law.

Instead of calling for more federal intervention in our nation's highway system, he should have called on Congress to devolve these decisions to the states, which can build their own roads and bridges.

Instead of calling for a freeze in spending, the President should have called for a dramatic cut in spending to limit the size of government and balance the budget.

In nearly every area, the President is pushing America in the wrong direction. Unless Americans see through the rhetoric and stop his policies, we will lose our future. It's that simple.

Americans overwhelmingly elected Republicans this past election so they would put the brakes on the President's liberal agenda. I take that mandate very seriously and will do everything I can to stop the massive spending, takeovers, and debt that are destroying our country.

That is why I am introducing legislation in the Senate today to repeal the President's unconstitutional takeover of our nation's health care system.

The health care law was rammed through Congress despite widespread opposition from the American people. Yet the President told us last night to give up on repealing it, make only minor changes, and leave this experiment in socialism in place so it can strangle the greatest health care system in the world.

Not on my watch.

I'm not going to tell my children and grandchildren that I was around for this and failed to do everything I could to stop it.

Please contact your senators and encourage them to support the full repeal of the President's health care takeover.

Listening to the President last night reminded me of how much work we have to do to save the country we love. Even though we won many victories in the past election, the world's greatest salesman of socialism remains in the White House.

Fortunately, many Americans like you are alarmed by the direction of country and are taking positive action to send new leaders to Washington who will fight to save our country.

Thank you for your continued support and encouragement. Together, we can and we will secure America's future.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

WHY LIBERALS HATE THE CONSTITUTION

2011-01-21T18:51:00.000-08:00

Nothing irritates the Left more than being caught in a lie. Reading the Consitutiton in the opening session of the 112th Congress was nothing less than a revelation of how far it has been abused, and why the Left doth protest too much. It's something that should be done before every new session.

After the shellacking Obama received, and his desire for another term, he has cooled his jets with his new-found moderation. Can he win? Youbetcha. Are we just one-quarter through a two term Obama presidency? Perish the thought, but Clinton did it, with the help of conservative Dick Morris, and Obama now has Chicago's Bill Daley to do the same.

As Obama has done for the past two years, the next two will be an endless barrage of campaign rhetoric, altering his image in the process, and making it even more difficult to bear. But conservatives can hold his feet to the fire by making him accountable for his true hard left dogmatism. If the Republican Party caves to ridiculous pressures such as 'moderation', meeting in the middle with Obama, 'civility', accusations of 'racism', and everything else the Left throws at conservatives, Obama will win, and we will have six more years of him -- at least!

Remembering Reagan, if the GOP sticks to its conservative values, Obama can be beat. Don't let him hide behind the podium. Press him on all his pet policies such as Obamacare, press him on reducing [and balancing] the budget, on card check unionization, on carbon tax, on de-regulating small banks, on the FCC controlling talk radio and the internet. Make him talk about it. Eventually, his ego won't be able to resist it.

The lame-duck session was not a good sign, but this month the GOP has taken promising steps, including their $2.5 Trillion dollar spending cut proposal. They need to keep the pressure on, and use this as leverage against the upcoming debt increase. Force Obama to sign the spending cut, or make him defend why he needs to keep increased spending. Wonder how centrist that will sound.

If Republicans are to win in 2012, they must force Obama to defend his policies and his actions for the past two years, rather than hide behind the phony moderate he has been playing since his shellacking and the about-face he took on the Bush tax rates. He would like nothing more than to have the voting public forget his past progressivism of the last two years. His actions must remain in the forefront in 2011 and 2012, the actions that cost his Party the election last November. We can never forget. Remember Pelosi? Remember Reid? Remember the backdoor deals behind locked doors? Remember the name calling of tea partiers?

Who creates a climate of hate? Liberals would have you believe they are the party of the middle class, when history has shown over and over again how they repress and stifle freedoms. From voting against the Civil Rights Movement,to Woodrow Wilson's well hidden demonic rule, and the myth of FDR.

This excellent piece by Frank J. Fleming in Pajamas Media, while laced with humor, is shocking in its truth. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder, and I, for one, keep a pocket Constitution on me at all times.

Why Liberals Hate the Constitution
No matter how much liberals try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction.
by Frank J. Fleming - January 13, 2011

Since there are many more conservatives than liberals, and conservatives have so many guns, people often wonder why conservatives don’t just round up all the liberals and ship them to Antarctica to be forced to mine for jewels and gold. Well, there is a very good reason for that: by a strict constructionist interpretation of the American Constitution, there is no support for being able to deport liberals to a mining camp.

Now, if conservatives were a bit more flexible with their view of the Constitution, they would say things like, “Well, we have to remember it’s a living document, and the Founding Fathers hadn’t even thought of the threat of hippies running around free when they wrote it.” And then they’d look to the Commerce Clause and say, “Well, keeping liberals from meddling in America and forcing them do something useful like mining sure would help the economy, so it’s within the government’s power.” And then it’d just be a manner of scheduling all the boats to get liberals to Antarctica.

But that would violate the spirit of the Constitution since, by plain English interpretations of the government’s powers, we can’t forcefully ship liberals to Antarctica no matter how much people may think that would help the country. And that’s the point of the Constitution: people are constantly changing their ideas of what is good and bad, but the Constitution is much harder to change. It puts limits on what the government can do, and those limits can only be changed when huge majorities agree to it through the amendment process. And even after ObamaCare, there inexplicably isn’t enough support for a “Liberals Are to Be Sent to Mines in Antarctica” amendment.

After the hysterical way liberals reacted to the reading of the Constitution by Republicans to open Congress, with Democrats objecting to it, left-wing newspaper editorials denouncing it, and liberals online freaking out over it, no reasonable person would argue that liberals don’t hate the Constitution, but the reasons why aren’t as obvious. So the question becomes, why do liberals hate the Constitution so much — especially when it’s the only thing protecting them from freezing to death with pickaxes in their hands?

We are all aware that liberals want the Constitution to be a living document, like if Geppetto wanted Pinocchio to become a real boy so it would be easier to strangle him to death. They want it living so they can render its words meaningless. To them, the Constitution is this cryptic document only the most educated Ivy Leaguers are able to interpret. Recently, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein even stated that “the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago.” And then we have all these court decisions — much longer than the document itself – that find all these hidden rights not mentioned in the Constitution and explain away the ones that are clearly stated. And don’t argue with liberals on the subject, because they’re really smart and the only ones able to understand what they’re talking about.

Thus the freakout over the Constitution being read aloud. No matter how much liberals try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction. It almost reads like a direct condemnation of all the government expansion and power grabs liberals have been up to lately. You can’t hear its words without imagining the ghost of George Washington punching hippies. So you can see why they’d rather it not be brought to the public’s attention.

A big way gun rights proponents won their war was by putting the text of the 2nd Amendment everywhere. While “scholars” liked to pretend there was some debate on whether there is an individual right to bear arms, there wasn’t among the general public because anyone literate could read the amendment and quickly identify that the only operative part is “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Words mean things to most people, so asking the average American whether there is a right to bear arms is like asking what two plus two equals. Ask a liberal judge, though, and he’ll say, “Two and two of what? And ‘equals’ can mean so many things. It’s a very complicated question.” So when people see the long, rambling reasons from someone like Justice Breyer on why the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says versus the simple language of the Constitution, they start to realize they’d be much better served by having a twelve-year-old with basic reading comprehension as a justice.

The Constitution meaning what it says is only part of the problem liberals have with it, though. In the Constitution are the means to change the Constitution, and liberals are perfectly capable of proposing amendments to force people to buy health care or to get haters like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck off the air. Of course, they’d need to get a huge majority of the country to go along with them. And there is the problem. If the Constitution puts strict limits on government power and the only way for liberals to increase that power is to get a huge majority of the public to agree with them, then liberals would have to govern with the consent of the governed! Think of the indecency; liberals could barely do anything unless those nasty Tea Party people and fans of Sarah Palin said it was okay!

And while liberals do like certain freedoms, in their hearts they don’t really like this whole democracy thing. If liberals were only voting amongst each other, that would be great, but you can’t actually let everyone — some who only went to community college — have a say in what the government can and can’t do. Much better to have only the elites deciding themselves what they can do, based on their best intentions. It’s like what now ex-Representative Phil Hare said when questioned on the constitutionality of ObamaCare: He didn’t worry about the Constitution. If liberals are trying to change things for the better, why should there be any limits on them… especially ones enforced by the ignorant masses?

And so liberals hope that no one reads the Constitution and that everyone leaves all the questions of what the government can do to left-wing judges who will make decisions based on what they feel is right. Then liberals will be freed from having to get the consent of the unenlightened American public who give their kids Happy Meals and eat trans-fats. They will then have the ability to force people to do what’s best and give the government all the power it needs for a better, more ordered, peaceful society.

Until they’re shipped off to the mines.

Frank J. Fleming writes political humor at IMAO.us and isn't sure whether there are gold and gems to mine for in Antarctica, but that's besides the point.

CHRISTMAS - AS CELEBRATED BY THE PRESIDENTS

2010-12-28T14:14:00.000-08:00

As the "War on Christmas" continues, Americans are struggling to not let history repeat itself, and are also struggling to uphold our Constitution and the foundation that our Founding Fathers created.

Here is a brilliant piece by David Barton of Wall Builders. President Reagan's Christmas address will warm your heartstrings and give us hope that there is presidential material out there that truly love this great country:

Christmas – as Celebrated by the Presidents
by David Barton - December 25, 2010

Even though Christmas did not become a national holiday until 1870, it has a centuries old history in America. Interestingly, in colonial America, the southern regions that were more directly linked to High-Church traditions (e.g., Anglicans, Catholics, Episcopalians) celebrated Christmas; but the northern regions especially linked to Low-Church traditions (e.g., Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers) did not. Those Low-Church colonists associated the pomp and grandeur of Christmas celebrations directly with the autocratic leaders and monarchs in Europe that they so opposed.

Massachusetts therefore passed an anti-Christmas law in 1659, and it was not until the 1830s and 1840s that Christmas celebrations became accepted in New England (although as late as 1870, a student missing school on Christmas Day in Boston public schools could be punished or expelled). But by the 1880s, Christmas celebrations were finally accepted across the country and began to appear at the White House. For example:

In 1889, the first indoor decorated tree was placed in the White House, and in 1895, electric lights were added.
In 1923, the first National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony was held. In 1954 it was named the Pageant of Peace but in 1969 it became embroiled in a legal controversy over the use of religious symbols. In 1973, the nativity scene that had always been part of the Pageant was no longer allowed, but in 1984, it returned.
In 1953, the first White House Christmas card was created by President Dwight Eisenhower. (Ike was an artist in his own right and allowed six of his own paintings to be used as Christmas gifts and cards.) President Kennedy's 1963 Christmas card was the first to include an explicitly religious element, featuring a photo of a nativity scene. And in 2001, the first White House Christmas card to contain a Scripture was chosen by Laura Bush. It quoted Psalm 27: "Thy face, Lord, do I seek. I believe that I shall see the goodness of the Lord in the Land of the Living" – a Scripture she had chosen on September 16 (only 5 days after 9/11), based on a special sermon preached at Camp David.

Christmas was celebrated by our national leaders as a religious holiday, not the largely secular one it has become today.

For example, every Christmas Eve, President Teddy Roosevelt and his family would pile into the family sleigh (later the motor car) and travel to a Christmas service at Christ Church in Oyster Bay, New York. Following the pastor's sermon, Teddy would deliver one of his famous "sermonettes" on the true meaning of Christmas and then close the service with one of his favorite hymns, "Christmas By the Sea."

President Franklin Roosevelt would set up and decorate a tree on Christmas Eve, gather the family round him, and either read Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" or recite it from memory. (The original story is quite different from the modern movies by that name and is well worth the read.) He would also deliver explicitly religious Christmas Eve messages to the nation. For example, in 1944 following D-Day, he said:

Here, at home, we will celebrate this Christmas Day in our traditional American way – because of its deep spiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives; and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal Prince of Peace and good will. . . . [FDR then prayed a prayer for the troops, and closed with:] We pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on earth in which all the Nations of the earth will join together for all time. That is the spirit of Christmas, the holy day. May that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the years to come.

(I recommend you go online to the American Presidency Project and look up and especially read some Christ-centered Christmas messages from Presidents, such as that of Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, Harry Truman in 1949 or 1952, Ronald Reagan in 1982 or 1985, George W. Bush in 2003, and there are many additional examples. You should also watch President Reagan deliver one of his Christmas addresses.)

In recent years, there has been a relentless push from secularists and progressives to transform Christmas. Schools, government offices, and many commercial stores have replaced Merry Christmas with Happy Holidays to appease critics, not realizing that 93% of Americans celebrate Christmas, and 97% are not bothered by the use of the phrase "Merry Christmas." Yet far too often, the 3% seems to drive public policy; Americans need to push back.

Gratefully, religious Jews have been some of the strongest advocates for keeping Christmas a religious celebration. For example, Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for a number of national publications, declares:

I never thought I'd live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . . How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? . . . Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends!

Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Daniel Lapin agrees:

Secular fundamentalism has successfully injected into American culture the notion that the word "Christmas" is deeply offensive. . . . Anti-Christianism is unhealthy for all Americans; but I warn my brethren that it will prove particularly destructive for Jews. . . . Let us all go out of our way to wish our many wonderful Christian friends – a very merry Christmas. Just remember, America's Bible belt is our safety belt.

So . . . Merry Christmas!!!

Sign up on the WallBuilders email list and receive future information about historical issues and Biblical values in the culture, visit http://www.wallbuilders.com/.

CHRISTMAS TREES 'ROUND THE WORLD | A CHRISTMAS CAROL STORY

2010-12-20T18:45:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays. Wishing you all know peace, love and joy this Christmas season.

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. -2 Timothy 3:16

"This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still." -Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 (h/t Tom Kiley)

The story of "A PARTRIDGE IN A PEAR TREE"

Ever wonder what in the world do leaping lords, French hens, swimming swans, and especially the partridge who won't come out of the pear tree have to do with Christmas? A long, long time ago ....

From 1558 until 1829, Roman Catholics in England were not permitted to practice their faith openly. Someone during that era wrote this carol as a catechism song for young Catholics. It has two levels of meaning: the surface meaning plus a hidden meaning known only to members of their church. Each element in the carol has a code word for a religious reality which the children could remember.

-The partridge in a pear tree was Jesus Christ.

-Two turtle doves were the Old and New Testaments.

-Three French hens stood for faith, hope and love.

-The four calling birds were the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.

-The five golden rings recalled the Torah or Law, the first five books of the Old Testament.

-The six geese a-laying stood for the six days of creation.

-Seven swans a-swimming represented the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit--Prophesy, Serving, Teaching, Exhortation, Contribution, Leadership, and Mercy.

-The eight maids a-milking were the eight beatitudes.

-Nine ladies dancing were the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit--Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self Control.

-The ten lords a-leaping were the ten commandments.

-The eleven pipers piping stood for the eleven faithful disciples.

-The twelve drummers drumming symbolized the twelve points of belief in the Apostles' Creed.

Merry (Twelve Days of) Christmas Everyone

CHRISTMAS AT ARLINGTON CEMETERY

Wonder why we don't hear about this in the media.

Arlington National Cemetery

Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.

Know the line has held, your job is done.

Rest easy, sleep well.

Others have taken up where you fell, the line has held.

Peace, peace, and farewell...

As a traditional annual story on FOX News Sunday, these wreaths -- some 5,000 -- are donated by the Worcester Wreath Co. of Harrington, Maine. The owner, Merrill Worcester, not only provides the wreaths, but covers the trucking expense as well. He's done this since 1992. A wonderful guy. He has inspired places all across the country to join in, and is now an organization proudly named Wreaths Across America.

Also, most years, groups of Maine school kids combine an educational trip to DC with this event to help out. Making this even more remarkable is the fact that Harrington is in one the poorest parts of the state.

CHRISTMAS TREES 'ROUND THE WORLD

Before the ball drops in Times Square, the Big Apple turns on its holiday charm with the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center.

The Capitol Christmas tree in Washington, D.C. is decorated with 3,000 ornaments that are the handiwork of U.S. schoolchildren. Encircling evergreens in the 'Pathway of Peace' represent the 50 U.S. states.

The world's largest Christmas tree display rises up the slopes of Monte Ingino outside of Gubbio, in Italy's Umbria region. Composed of about 500 lights connected by 40,000 feet of wire, the 'tree' is a modern marvel for an ancient city.

A Christmas tree befitting Tokyo's nighttime neon display is projected onto the exterior of the Grand Prince Hotel Akasaka.

Illuminating the Gothic facades of Prague's Old Town Square, and casting its glow over the manger display of the famous Christmas market, is a grand tree cut in the Sumava mountains in the southern Czech Republic.

Venice's Murano Island renowned throughout the world for its quality glasswork is home to the tallest glass tree in the world. Sculpted by master glass blower Simone Cenedese, the artistic Christmas tree is a modern reflection of the holiday season.

Moscow celebrates Christmas according to the Russian Orthodox calendar on Jan. 7. For weeks beforehand, the city is alive with festivities in anticipation of Father Frost's arrival on his magical troika with the Snow Maiden. He and his helper deliver gifts under the New Year tree, or yolka, which is traditionally a fir.

The largest Christmas tree in Europe (more than 230 feet tall) can be found in the Praça do Comércio in Lisbon, Portugal. Thousands of lights adorn the tree, adding to the special enchantment of the city during the holiday season.

'Oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree': Even in its humblest attire, aglow beside a tiny chapel in Germany's Karwendel mountains, a Christmas tree is a wondrous sight.

Ooh la la Galeries Lafayette! In Paris, even the Christmas trees are chic. With its monumental, baroque dome, plus 10 stories of lights and high fashion, it's no surprise this show-stopping department store draws more visitors than the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower.

In addition to the Vatican's heavenly evergreen, St. Peter's Square in Rome hosts a larger-than-life nativity scene in front of the obelisk.

The Christmas tree that greets revelers at the Puerta del Sol is dressed for a party. Madrid's two-week celebration makes millionaires along with merrymakers. On Dec. 22, a lucky citizen will win El Gordo (the fat one), the world's biggest lottery.

A token of gratitude for Britain's aid during World War II, the Christmas tree in London's Trafalgar Square has been the annual gift of the people of Norway since 1947.

Drink a glass of glühwein from the holiday market at the Romer Frankfurt's city hall since 1405 and enjoy a taste of Christmas past.

Against a backdrop of tall, shadowy firs, a rainbow trio of Christmas trees lights up the night (location unknown).

... and I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight --

Merry Christmas to All, and to All a Good Night!

OBAMA'S "SWINDLE OF THE YEAR"

2010-12-10T14:02:00.000-08:00

From his Senate Conservatives Fund, Senator Jim DeMint wrote a detailed letter about the so-called 'compromise' to extend the Bush era tax rates. On the one side, it's Democrats as usual with their spend addiction and committed re-distribution of wealth at the expense of our children and grandchildren, but the other side is the most disturbing of all - Republicans have not seen the error of their ways.

It's almost as bad as Obamacare -- the more you read it, the worse it gets. Talk about Pork, it's loaded with it (and they keep adding more, the longer this drags out), along with more and more deficit spending. The Beltway must be a magical sort of Disneyland, where over spending has no ramifications, because Republicans are not holding up to their part of the November 2nd agreement, and have gone back to spending. That, or else they are not looking at what the other hand is doing. It's hard to believe they are that blind.

At this point, you gotta know Obama doesn't do anything without reaping loads of rewards on the back end. This mis-worded compromise is full of little goodies, such as scheduling unemployment to expire at Christmastime; the Bush tax rates to expire just in time for the 2012 re-election (scary thought, re-election); and more pay-offs to his cronies, including the unions. On-line gambling? Are you kidding me? In other words, as Charles Krauthammer writes, Obama just pulled a fast one on the Republicans.

Most of us want to spend the next two weeks before Christmas having fun shopping, gathering with friends and family, and rejoicing in the birth of Christ. But the next two weeks is all this Lame Duck session needs to add destruction to an already weakened country and economy. We can't let this happen. We worked too hard, and have been sold a cheap bag of Obama tricks.

If we have to bite the bullet for a month or two, so be it. It's far better than another close to trillion dollars in debt. We can't afford it. We don't have the money. Congress can pass a bill next month, that deals with extending the Bush tax rates only. Not more spending. And, they can make it retro-active. Americans had to deal with Clinton's tax increases retro-actively. It can be done. Republicans will have the majority. Nancy Pelosi has been fired. She no longer has the power, unless we give it back to her.

Read Senator DeMint's letter below (and Krauthammer's "Swindle of the Year"), and let's get to work. We can rejoice on Christmas Day, but in the meantime call, fax, and email our Congress that this is not the compromise we voted for. We can't move forward towards ending the deficit and recovering our economy by spending at the same time.

Have we been hood-winked again? What happened to no earmarks, no new spending, reduce the deficit? Here's some contact numbers for our elected officials. Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5. (Click on page to enlarge)

Obama wants this so-called 'compromise' desperately. You gotta ask yourself -- WHY?

From United States Senator Jim DeMint
Senate Conservatives Fund
December 10, 2010

Dear Fellow Conservatives:

Many of you have contacted me about the bipartisan tax deal reached between President Obama and Republican leaders. I've carefully reviewed the legislation and I wanted to explain to you why I cannot support it.

First, I do not want to see anyone's taxes go up and I have been fighting for years to permanently extend all the tax rates. I disagree with the President that we cannot afford to extend these rates for everyone. It's the people's money and we should not raise taxes on hardworking American families.

But this bill does much more than simply extend tax rates.

For starters, it includes approximately $200 billion in new deficit spending and stimulus gimmicks. That's a lot of money that will have to be borrowed from China and repaid by our children and grandchildren. If we're going to increase spending on new programs, we must reduce other spending to pay for it.

The bill also only extends rates for two years. We don't have a temporary economy so we shouldn't have temporary tax rates. Individuals and businesses make decisions looking at the long-term and we're not going to create jobs without giving people certainty as to what their taxes will be in future.

The bill also fails to extend all of the tax rates. It actually increases the death tax from its current rate of zero percent all the way up to 35 percent. One economic study shows that this tax increase alone will kill over 800,000 jobs over the next ten years.

Finally, the bill now includes dozens of earmarks for special interests, including ethanol subsidies, tax breaks for film and television producers, give aways for Puerto Rican rum manufacturers, favors for auto racing track owners, and a hand out for businesses in American Samoa.

The President called Republicans "hostage takers" this week but he should be pointing his figure squarely at himself. We've known for years that these tax rates were going to expire but he did nothing about it until the last minute. Now Americans are being told they have to accept hundreds of billions in new spending and stimulus gimmicks, an increase the death tax, and a bunch of unnecessary earmarks or their taxes will go up.

I'm not going to be bullied into voting for things that will hurt our country because politicians in Washington ignored the problem until it was a crisis.

Many of you fought hard to elect new leaders to the Senate this year with the expectation that they would fight deficit spending, tax hikes, and backroom deals. I take that commitment very seriously and I'm prepared to vote against this bill even if I'm the only one in the Senate to do so.

I appreciate the efforts made by my party's leaders to negotiate this deal but I believe Americans deserve much better. This deal should be rejected and then fixed. We can easily extend these tax rates without increasing spending once the new crop of Republican senators, including Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson, are sworn in. The President has already conceded that taxes cannot go up and we'll have more Republicans in Congress in a few weeks to fight for a better deal.

Thank you for supporting the principles of freedom and for your continued encouragement. I will continue to do my very best to be your voice in the United States Senate.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator

Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

PLAYING WITH THE TWO IMMUTABLE LAWS OF WASHINGTON

2010-12-07T13:54:00.000-08:00

It stinks. The only satisfaction was watching a defeated president pout, blame and lie, while the über left self-destructed. The left has finally realized that they lost power, and it isn't pretty. But.... Obama has exposed his true ideological self -- more pluses.

Where do we start on the negative side.

Small businesses have a temporary tax relief, but 2 years may not be long enough for them to extend the risks necessary for economic growth, including new jobs. It should have been permanent.
Unemployment has just been subsidized by tax paying Americans in extending an additional 13 months, for a total of 3 years. Notice the unusual amount of 13? That's so the next extension falls on Christmas next year, and just as in 2010, no one wants to cut off free money at Christmastime.
The 2 percent cut in social security is another re-distribution of wealth for people who don't pay taxes, and guarantees that social security will be at death's door.
The Death Tax is still going to be resurrected, although at a lower rate. Neverless, it's baa-ack. Taxes on money that has already been taxed. Wasn't there a revolution on double taxation?

No wonder Obama has conceded. This whole plan is a major re-distribution of wealth.

While Obama is playing as though he has made the supreme sacrifice, methinks he thinks this will play out to his advantage in the 2012 elections. "For the good of the people" has nothing to do with his decision. After all, it's always about him.

Red State's Erick Erickson writes an excellent piece, in his usual fashion, on what the American people get out of Obama's great sacrifice.

Playing With the Two Immutable Laws of Washington
by Erick Erickson - December 6, 2010

There are two immutable laws of Washington, D.C. To understand the tax compromise in the Senate, you must know the laws.

Politicians in leadership believe that if they make both the left and right angry they must have done something right; and,
If Democrats and Republicans come together in a compromise — no matter how bad that compromise may be — the media will herald the compromise and inevitably use the word “tone” in discussing it.

Then there is a corollary to the two rules: people who want a seat at the table with the politicians and media will turn into sycophants and tell you how delicious the compromise tastes.

Understanding those two immutable rules and the corollary tell you all you’ll need to understand about how the tax compromise will be played. Let’s review what the compromise is:

Extend current tax rates for two years
Extend unemployment benefit for another 13 months
A two percent cut in the payroll tax for next year
Death tax of 35% imposed above $5 million

We can first laugh about Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. After all that work, lecturing, and lamenting they have been, in one act, put back under the rock from whence they came.

There will be no more hand wringing over saving social security and the deficit. We’re going to blow it up. Ironically, we’re going to blow it up to preserve today’s tax rates and resurrect the death tax.

Second, we can laugh at the Democrats who are in full meltdown over the Democrats daring to extend current tax rates for everyone. For all the left’s talk about equality over freedom, the left believes they can treat the most successful with the greatest disdain and take away the freedom to take risks in this country and replace it with servitude to government.

Had Obama shown any leadership, he could have gotten this passed months ago on the grounds that it’d help stem losses in the midterms. But he didn’t, despite pressure from many Blue Dogs who will, in less than a month, be called “former congressman.”

Just last week Mr. Obama said, in his weekly radio address, “I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.” My what a difference a week makes.

Ultimately though, this is a compromise that leaves both sides coming up short and is full of compromising the GOP did not have to engage in, even without controlling the Senate. They could have gotten more. We will also continue subsidizing unemployment — yes you read that right. At some point it becomes welfare, not unemployment compensation.

The compromise does little to stem the tide of uncertainty that has kept businesses from hiring. Because the fight will be wrapped up in the politics of 2012, small businesses that have been keeping money on the sidelines will keep doing so. Any politician who says this has anything to do with job creation will largely be lying.

Nonetheless, we know this much is true: the media, after weeks of taking the Deficit Commission seriously, and many of the politicians who have done the same will celebrate this grand act of bipartisan comity.

For months, the Democrats have said they would never support extending the current tax rates because of their concern for the deficit. They will now.

For months, the GOP has said they would never vote to raise taxes and will now vote to raise taxes by resurrecting the death tax instead of killing it — the only reason being Jon Kyl (R-AZ) wanted to bring it back and has held this position for a while.

For months, both sides have claimed they were committed to saving social security. Instead, they will cut the payroll tax thereby bringing the bankruptcy of social security even closer.

We will know who the real conservatives are in Congress. They’ll be the Republicans who oppose this deal.

But hey, it is bipartisan!

Maybe we can get Jeff Flake to primary Jon Kyl. . .

TIME NOW TO REVERSE ALL THAT LIBERALISM HAS DONE

2010-11-30T17:21:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-15T11:01:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-04T15:38:00.000-07:00

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

2010-11-01T14:29:00.000-07:00

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

2010-11-01T10:32:00.000-07:00

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."

ALASKA RADIO HOST LAUNCHES MURKOWSKI SABOTAGE PLAN

2010-10-29T10:39:00.000-07:00

This is one time when I wish to be an Alaskan resident. Since loser, Linda Murkowski, is trying to sabotage candidate Joe Miller's campaign to be the next Republican senator (which he won fair and square), turnabout's fair play, especially in light of the crap shoot the courts are playing.
The court made two opposing decisions in one day about a "list of write in's" at the polling place. Murkowski attempted to re-write the write-in law in her favor. First the law was upheld that no lists were allowed, then later in the day, another court said lists of write-in candidates would be allowed! What is happening to our courts these days, but that's a story for another time.

If you are a resident of Alaksa, or know anyone who is, please pass this plan around. The plan is on the Conservatives 4 Palin website here.

Alaska Radio Host Launches Murkowski Sabotage Plan
by Rachel Rose Hartman

A conservative radio host in Alaska is calling on residents to sabotage Sen. Lisa Murkowski's campaign by flooding the state with write-in bids -- and listeners are following suit.

Kyle Hopkins reports for the Anchorage Daily News that more than 100 people filed paperwork in Alaska on Thursday to register as U.S. Senate candidates.

KFQD 750 AM radio host Dan Fagan is calling the plan an act of "civil disobedience" to protest what he views is an illegal effort by the state to aid Murkowski's write-in campaign. Fagan supports Republican nominee Joe Miller, a tea party candidate who beat Murkowski in a primary upset earlier this year.

A website devoted to promoting Sarah Palin, another Miller backer, dubs the effort Operation Alaska Chaos.

The state Republican and Democratic parties went to court to stop the state from providing voters at polling stations with a list of write-in candidates' names. The parties and other voting-rights advocates argue that the list provides Murkowski with an unfair advantage and violates state law.

That case remains active in the Alaska court system, with the state Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral arguments on Friday.

But Fagan isn't waiting for a last-minute decision. The host hopes that his effort will diminish any advantage Murkowski could receive via the state-sanctioned write-in list, by crowding the list with 100 or so names of new write-in candidates who filed before Thursday's deadline.

(Photo of Murkowski: AP/Chris Miller)

THIS IS A REFERENDUM, NOT AN ELECTION

2010-10-27T16:21:00.000-07:00

We heard him say it with our own ears -- My name is not on the ballot, but my agenda is. In all his speeches, across the fruited plain, for over two years, before a cherry-picked adoring audience, it's always about him. "My name may not be on the ballot, but our agenda for moving forward is on the ballot, and I need everybody to turn out," Obama said Tuesday afternoon during an appearance on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show. Is he saying this election is a referendum on him? Sounds like.

On the other hand, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had another message: "They can't talk about their record," he said on Monday in a radio appearance. "You know, this election is going to be a referendum on their job-killing policies."

This is the stand that Democrats must play because they cannot stand on their issues. Most of us will never forget that wintry cold Sunday night back in March when they eeked out enough votes to pass Obamacare by two. Most of us will never forget how they did it. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, and why November 2nd is so critical to us. This destruction has been going on for decades.

Basically, it's not any one thing the libs have done, but a sum of its parts. This overreach is a pattern of Democrats, but never on such a grand scale. Another reason why Nov 2nd is more a referendum than an election.

Dennis Prager writes a great piece on this 'Referendum', and what will happen if the Democrats are allowed to continue along this path of destruction. It's an inspiration to get out and vote, to get your neighbors, friends, and family [even foes, if you can convince them) to follow. Our nation depends on it.

P.S. Thought and prayers to Carly Fiorina, and happy to hear you're back out there -- on your way to a historic win!

This Is a Referendum, Not an Election
by Dennis Prager - October 26, 2010

Next Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010 is not Election Day. It is Referendum Day.

It may be commonplace for commentators to announce that every election is "the most important election in our lifetime" or something analogous. But having never said that of a presidential election, let alone an off-year election, this commentator cannot be accused of crying wolf when I say that this off-year election is not simply the most important of my lifetime. It is the most important since the Civil War.

The reason is that unlike all previous elections, this one is actually a referendum on the direction of the United States of America.

If the Democrats win:

-- The American people have announced, consciously or not, that they support the Democratic Party's "fundamental transformation" -- those were President Obama's words when he campaigned, and he has lived up to them -- of America from a liberty-based state of limited government into an equality-based welfare state with an ever-expanding government.

-- America will change from a country that emphasizes producing wealth to a country that emphasizes redistribution of wealth.

The left has never been primarily interested in creating wealth. Its primary goal always and everywhere has been to redistribute it. That so many businessmen and much of Wall Street are only now awakening to this fact is only a testament to the staggering lack of wisdom in big business.

-- America will produce increasingly narcissistic citizens.

For proof, just look at the virtual shutdown of much of France and the ubiquitous rioting of vast numbers of its citizens over a tiny change in its welfare state -- raising the age of retirement from 60 to 62. The idea that one will work two more years before receiving benefits until death so offends vast numbers of French -- including young people who have every reason to believe they will live until the age of 100 -- that they are fighting it as if their very lives were in jeopardy. That is the self-centeredness that all welfare states engender in their citizens.

-- America will further reinforce the conviction that minorities are victims -- who must be protected from their fellow Americans by the state.

Latinos, blacks, Muslims, gays and vast numbers of women have been told by the left and its political party that they are all persecuted by a country that is SIXHIRB -- Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist and Bigoted. That America is the least SIXHIRB country in the world is a fact that has been all but drowned out by the left-wing domination of television and print news media, all the entertainment media, and the high schools and universities.

-- America will continue to undermine its unique ability to Americanize people of all ethnic, national, racial, and religious backgrounds

With a Democratic victory the country's very motto -- E Pluribus Unum, "Out of Many One" -- will continue to erode as ethnic and racial identities rather one American identity are increasingly celebrated. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel has just announced that Germany's experiment with multiculturalism has "utterly failed," but the left and its political party, the Democrats, have redoubled their efforts to supplant E Pluribus Unum with multiculturalism.

-- America will continue its economic slide.

With a Democratic victory, unsustainable debts will mount, wealth-producing companies will continue to flee from higher taxes and more regulations, energy use will be taxed in the name of environmentalist utopianism, and the government will continue to print dollars.

-- America will become increasingly secular.

With a Democratic victory, the left's goal of rendering America's other motto, "In God We Trust," an anachronism will come closer to fruition. Leftism is a jealous god. As in Western Europe, the Judeo-Christian roots of this country are ceasing to play the indispensible moral role they have played since before 1776.

And what would constitute a Democrat victory next Tuesday? Anything other than a Republican landslide. Any other result will be interpreted by the media and by the Democrats as solely a result of the economic recession and as the normal losses of the dominant party in off-year elections.

In other words, the only way to ensure that the electoral results are seen as a repudiation of the growth of the state and the other Democrat and leftist goals is through an enormous Republican victory.

Only then will America understand that this election was not first about jobs. It was above all about America.

Read more Dennis Prager columns here.

My Favorite Jim Geraghty (NRO) Quote

2010-10-26T19:21:00.000-07:00

Commenting on the intra-party spat between the Democrat nominee for governor in Rhode Island, Frank T. Caprio, and Obama, Mr. Geraghty, of National Review Online, compared it to Shovel Ready Projects. On live radio, Mr. Caprio told Obama to "take his endorsement and really shove it". Originally Obama refused to endorse Mr. Caprio who is behaving like a Republican, but in typical "about face" fashion, Obama changed his stance on the issue, and decided to endorse him while on a campaign stop at a local factory.

From the NYT piece:

More than a political sideshow, the Rhode Island intra-party spat was a stark reminder that the president is willing to go to great lengths to keep his party in power on Capitol Hill – even if it means stepping into a hornet’s nest of local politics and getting stung.

Which leads me to my favorite Jim Geraghty quote:

This may be a "stark reminder" of that, but I don't know. After the declaration that the Cambridge police acted stupidly; the obliviousness to Democrats' worsening political problems for much of the cycle; the inability to move the numbers for Jon Corzine, Creigh Deeds, or Martha Coakley; the presumption that Pennsylvania Democrats would accept Arlen Specter; the ubiquitous vacations and golf rounds; the empty Oval Office address on the oil spill; and the endless invocation of the tired, repetitive, ineffective pushing-cars-out-of-ditches-and-sipping-Slurpees line, it may simply be a stark reminder that President Obama has the political instincts of a standard river trout.

(Side note: I am familiar with taking something -- most often a dissatisfying job--and shoving it. I am not familiar with how "really shoving it" differs from the standard shoving.)

Nicely done, Jim.

– Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot on NRO.

THE TEA PARTY IS HERE TO STAY

2010-10-19T17:23:00.000-07:00

In elementary school, our teacher screened a little known Cary Grant film "The Howards of Virginia". Now you might ask, why would a teacher be showing a Cary Grant film during school hours? Well, we were studying American Colonialism (you know, Obama's favorite 'hate America' topic), back in the day when American History was still taught in schools with great detail. It was a film [and subject] I never forgot, and still hold near to my heart today.

It’s about the events leading up to the Revolutionary War, encompassing the early career of Thomas Jefferson. The film pays meticulous attention to detail, and tells the story about pioneers who paved the way for the riches we enjoy today, through hard backbreaking work, untold sacrifices, pain & suffering, and the joy of success.

Juxtapose that with what we have today - - a nation almost 50% dependent on entitlements, most of whom do nothing for it. It’s not surprising that Obama and his ilk want to terminate our Senior citizens, because we know history, and the importance of hard work, charity, capitalism, and above all – freedom.

Is it any wonder why so many of us have gotten our second wind, and mustered up the strength & confidence to get out there and save our great country for our children and our children’s children. Long live the Tea Party and the spirit which drives this great force.

One of our biggest supporters, The Heritage Foundation writes an excellent piece about the Tea Party, what happens when a country is dependent on Big Government, why the Tea Party has grown by leaps and bounds, and why it’s here to stay. God bless Heritage for keeping us so well informed and strong enough to fight Goliath. Consider becoming a member and sign up for their Morning Bell. Check out the link to Jim DeMint's great piece about us in POLITICO.

The Tea Party Is Here to Stay
The Heritage Foundation - October 14, 2010

Today, The Heritage Foundation released its 2010 Index of Dependence on Government. This annual report tracks the growth of dependence-creating federal programs, programs that crowd-out what was once America's great civil society. At one time, social obligations and services were carried out by community groups, family networks and even local governments. Now, an ever growing and ever more unaccountable federal bureaucracy undermines our spirit of self-reliance and self-improvement by making more and more Americans dependent on Big Government. In 2010, we witnessed a record-breaking surge in American dependence on the federal government including:

Government support for dependent persons has grown from $7,293 per person in 1962, to $31,950 per person today (adjusted for inflation).

132.5 million Americans either pay no income tax or live in a household that pays no income tax. This is up from just 34.8 million in 1984.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid eat up 41% of all non-interest federal program spending. Unchecked, this will grow to 62% over the next decade.

Not all dependence is bad. As Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis director Bill Beach writes: "People spend most of their childhoods utterly dependent on their parents, and many people will rely on caregivers during their last years. Dependence on family, neighbors, fellow members of community groups, and—yes—local government is the normal, everyday stuff of life." But dependence on the federal government is categorically different. Federal government aid does not strengthen communities and families: just look at how the federal welfare system undermined family structures and hollowed-out communities for a generation.

Worse, federal government programs quickly become a drain on the vitality of the nation. Jonathan Rauch explains in his book, "Government's End": "By definition, the power of government to solve problems comes from its ability to reassign resources, whether by taxing, spending, regulating, or simply passing laws. But that very ability energizes countless investors and entrepreneurs and ordinary Americans to go digging for gold by lobbying government. In time, a whole industry - large sophisticated, professional, and to a considerable extent self-serving - emerges and then assumes a life of its own. This industry is a drain on the productive economy, and there appears to be no natural limit to its growth."

But there is still hope for our country: the Tea Party. Decentralized and skeptical of central authority, the Tea Party offers baffled politicians and lobbyists no one to co-opt. Sally Oljar of Tea Party Patriots recently told Rauch: "Our real mission is education and providing resources to grassroots activists who want to return the country to our founding principles. We recognize that's going to require a cultural change that will take many years to accomplish."

The Heritage Foundation fully supports their endeavors and believes the Tea Party movement is here to stay. Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) write in today's Politico:

Americans have been disappointed by leaders in both parties who campaigned to right past wrongs and then, after getting to Washington, cared more about power than promises. Tea party supporters care more about principle than party labels or politics. ... [T]he tea party has roots that are deeper and aim higher. Deeper because it is within the best tradition of popular movements in our history — from the Great Awakening that gave rise to the American Revolution to the conservative revival that helped elect Ronald Reagan. Higher because it aims to recover our moral compass, bequeathed by our Founders and preserved ever since.
...
Some past grass-roots movements have succeeded, and others have failed. Success comes because the energy of the moment is translated into a lasting, governing philosophy consistent with the settled opinions of the American people. On this score, prospects look good. The tea party isn’t about to go away after the November elections. Its powerful message of limited government is likely to remain a sharp thorn in the side of those in both parties who want to continue politics as usual.

As The Daily Caller notes today: "The Heritage Foundation think-tank has made it clear: they may be an established conservative organization, but they’re with the Tea Party activists who’ve risen up to protest Washington’s old ways." The only way for us to end the era of big government dependency is to fight against it together. As Ed Feulner would say: "Onward!"

Take the Heritage Foundation with you here

BEN FRANKLIN PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE CARTOON

2010-10-18T20:08:00.000-07:00

Join or Die

by Benjamin Franklin
Cartoon in the Pennsylvania Gazette
May 9, 1754

In his well known best humor, Ben Franklin wrote a satirical commentary in his Pennsylvania Gazette suggesting that as a way to thank the Brits for their policy of sending convicted felons to America, American colonists should send rattlesnakes to England. Three years later, his infamous cartoon was born with a more serious edge.

This cartoon shows a snake cut into eight pieces, each labeled with the name of one of the colonies. The position of each colony in the snake corresponds to the geographic position of the colonies along the American coast, with the snake's tail pointing south and the head pointing north. The colonies, from tail to head (south to north), are: South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England (New England refered to the colonies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire). The caption reads, "JOIN, or DIE."

The cartoon appeared along with Franklin's editorial about the "disunited state" of the colonies, and helped make his point about the importance of colonial unity during the French and Indian War. At the time, there was a superstition that a snake which had been cut into pieces would come back to life if the pieces were put together before sunset.

The Gadsden Flag

By 1775, the snake symbol wasn't being printed in newspapers, but was appearing on uniform buttons, paper money, banners and flags. The snake was no longer cut in to pieces, but shown as a coiled American timber rattlesnake.

Some Marines enlisting in the fall of 1775 were carrying drums painted yellow, emblazoned with a fierce rattlesnake, coiled and ready to strike, with thirteen rattles, and the motto "Don't Tread on Me" and the beginning of a new flag was born.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "HOW TO ACHIEVE OBAMA'S AGENDA"

2010-10-18T14:40:00.000-07:00

This knocked me over. If anything should alarm you, it would be the possibility of this happening. Rush Limbaugh closed his show today with a knock-out punch:

"To help Obama achieve his agenda, get rid of Congress, get rid of the Supreme Court, and shred the Constitution!"

Holy Cow!

This was Rush's final advice to a Teacher/Mom who was desperate to spare her child from writing an essay on how to help Obama advance his agenda. It doesn't take Rush long to respond with another pearl of wisdom, and at the final break -- he delivered one of his best!

This is what we have to deal with in our public schools, and another excellent example why our education system should not be in the hands of government, too tempted to form the minds of our young.

An observation: These past few days, Obama has sounded desperate, shreaking, and out-of-sorts. Can anyone remember when he actually did something presidential? After a much anticipated lame duck session, Obama will be back on the road again, doing what he loves best -- campaigning. This time, for his election.

Can we ever catch a break?

'VOTER FRAUD WATCH' - UNCLE PAJAMAS WANTS YOU!

2010-10-17T14:10:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of concern for voter fraud in the Nov 2nd election, but we have learned a few things since the 2008 election -- it's rampant. The dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, and just recently Michelle Obama's unlawful electioneering at a Chicago polling place has hit a nerve. As atrocious as these two examples are, they pale in comparison to the illegal votes cast, or votes prevented from being cast.

Gigi Gaston, a Democrat, is a filmaker and director of a documentary "We Will Not Be Silenced 2008" which reveals alarming voter fraud completely ignored by the press and law enforcement. This election must be different, with thousands of 'watchdogs' out there carrying cameras, videocamera, or a cell phone with both.

By now, it is apparent to many that applying the laws of our country has become a game of eenie-meenie-minie-moe. This election is our chance to bring back our country, founded on Judao-Christian principles and rules of law that apply to everyone. This election is our chance to stop this "fundamental transformation of the United States of America".

Pajamas Media has a new initiative for election day 2010 called "VOTER FRAUD WATCH" and is laid out by CEO Roger Simon, where all us little Star Reporters can report "Something Fishy".

‘Voter Fraud Watch’ — Uncle Pajamas Wants You!
by Roger L. Simon - October 10, 2010

OUR ELECTION DAY PLAN

PJMedia is announcing a new initiative for election day 2010 — “VOTER FRAUD WATCH.” This initiative is to be carried forth on Pajamas Media and PJTV.

As almost everyone would agree, in a democracy the integrity of the vote is paramount. If significant fraud or intimidation occurs at our polling places during an election, our democratic system of government is in peril.

PJMedia has been at the forefront of this struggle for integrity of the vote, most recently via its coverage of the Department of Justice/New Black Panther controversy. This coverage was led by DOJ whistle blower and former attorney in the department’s voter rights division, J. Christian Adams. Mr. Adams has agreed to lend his legal expertise to “Voter Fraud Watch.”

WHAT WE INTEND TO DO

Under “Voter Fraud Watch” PJMedia seeks to develop a network of citizen journalists/poll watchers to monitor as many polling places as possible across the nation on election day. These people would report back to us — with either video, still photos, text or some combination thereof — on cases of voter fraud, intimidation or other voting malfeasances they may encounter. We will then cover these occurrences heavily on Pajamas Media and PJTV and promote them to the media at large.

It should go without saying that we expect these reports to be made irrespective of the political party or ideology of the person or persons involved.

WHAT POLL WATCHERS SHOULD LOOK FOR

Most important are voter intimidation and “electioneering within X feet of the poll.” (The X is there because this distance is matter of state law. Please check the requirements in your state.) These areas are obvious and visible.

According to Christian Adams, other areas of interest are:

1. Forced assistance. Everyone has a right to have someone help them vote, except their employer or union representative. But all too often forced assistance is imposed on elderly voters. The voter doesn’t get to vote, but instead the assistor votes for them. This allows large numbers of votes to be cast by a single machine connected assistor. This particularly corrupts the “down ballot” contests where the voters would otherwise have no idea for whom to vote.

2. Registration fraud. In many places, political organizations are submitting large numbers of registrations. Often they are duplicates, meaning someone gets registered multiple times. They are often deficient, and do not include information such as Social Security numbers or DL numbers. If they are registered without these numbers, as many often are, there is no assurance that these are real people. In states without voter ID, they will be able to vote as ghost voters.

3. And, of course, dead voters.

We would also be interested in instances of behavior that, while not strictly illegal, arguably stretch ethical limits for voting in a democracy. Again, this would be irrespective of political party or ideology.

WE NEED YOU AND YOUR SUGGESTIONS

The methods for uploading these election day reports are still evolving, but will be publicized on Pajamas Media and PJTV shortly. Our producer/editor Bryan Preston is preparing an instructional video on “best techniques” for shooting and uploading video in the field with Flipcams, iPhones, Blackberrys and other cellular phones. He will also be producing a test video from an actual polling place in his home state of Texas, where the polls open for early voting a couple of weeks in advance of election day on November 2.

But none of these methods and techniques are helpful without you. We need your participation in the project in the form of suggestions now (please leave them in the comments section below) and in the field on election day. In all areas you are allowed to bring a camera to the polls and photograph outside. In some you are allowed to photograph inside. Again, this is a matter of state law.

In any case, if you would like to join us in this project, and we hope you do, contact us at pollwatch@pjtv.com. Please indicate your area of the country and level of video and/or camera expertise. We are aware that other organizations have taken an interest in voting matters this election and would be pleased to cooperate with them as well.

We look forward to more dialogue on this topic in the very near future. Don’t forget to leave your suggestions.

Roger Simon is a mystery writer, screenwriter and CEO of Pajamas Media.

BEWARE THE RABID DOG IN THE ELEVENTH HOUR

2010-10-16T15:39:00.000-07:00

Beware the rabid dog. Liberals are licking their wounds, and in recent rallies, Obama has sounded desperate, fatigued, and completely out of sorts. In a recent statement, he was at his race-baiting best and played the Rosa Parks card. Claiming that he had pulled America out of the ditch the Republicans had made, he said:

"We can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

Stooping to a new low, Obama used a racially charged pajorative that no other leader would be able to get away with. In this Univision interview, he is more divisive than ever before, making America out to be the enemy. With just one week until this critical election, apparently there are no holds barred, including lambasting your own country. This is a president who is suing one of our sister states, and asking Latinos to join the fight against the enemy -- America. Could he be any more divisive?

On the other hand, Democrats are sounding like Ronald Reagan all of a sudden. This is when the libs are at their worst, and the fangs will come out with just days before the election. It's known as the October Surprise, and I'm not talking baseball.

I remember the 1992 Senatorial election between Bruce Herschensohn and the evil Barbara Boxer. Herschensohn had closed a double digit gap, and a desperate Boxer came out with a smear tactic in the eleventh hour before the election accusing him of frequenting strip clubs.

Herschensohn admitted that he had visited a strip club with his girlfriend and another couple once, but that didn't matter to Boxer. She took a one time incident and exploded it hours before the election, costing, what many believe, the election for Bruce Herschensohn. Ironically, Mr. Herschensohn is one of the rare and decent politicians we have had in decades, and Boxer tried to destroy him.

Although his campaign attempted to expose Boxer's deception, she won by five points -- and we're still stuck with her. Who can forget her lambaste of Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh to "call me senator". Wake up California!

Boxer has a reputation of pulling out the stops in the eleventh hour. She did it again in 1998 against state Treasurer Matt Fong, accusing him of not supporting patients' right to due HMOs, untrue, but when did the truth matter to Boxer?

We have déjà vu all over again, and be prepared for another Boxer slime blast, Ms. Fiorina, for she will find something, blow it out of proportion, and smear it just before the election with no time to respond, but enough time to do the damage.

Are these the kind of people we want running our country? I don't see conservatives running smear campaigns. They are running on facts, and libs cannot do that, because the facts speak for themselves. It's important to focus on this -- facts not smear, facts not blame -- in the waning days before the mid-term elections. They are so critical.

Forewarned is forearmed. Now, get out and vote.

MICHELLE OBAMA AND ELECTION INTEGRITY

2010-10-15T18:15:00.000-07:00

In the royal court of King Louis Obama and Michelle Antoinette the laws apply to thou but not to them. We have seen this in incidentals such as cauliflower for us but french fries for them; no Las Vegas trips for us but excessive vacations to Europe and Martha's Vinyard for them; Mme Antoinette says Barack "will require you to work" while he plays endless rounds of golf, surpassing the 8 years George W. Bush was in office.

But the most egregious was the dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. In the same vein, we now have Michelle Obama stumping for her husband inside a polling place in, of all places, their hometown of Chicago.

The press and the White House are, of course, downplaying this with a "Stand By Your Man" excuse, but if it were First Lady Laura Bush or, heaven forbid, Pat Nixon, they would be up before a Senate hearing.

The man who knows first hand about the New Black Panter case, J. Christian Adams formerly of the DOJ, writes a short piece on the injustice of tyranny in Pajamas Media.

Michelle Obama and Election Integrity
Did FLOTUS flout election law?
by J. Christian Adams - October 14, 2010

The laws are supposed to apply equally to everyone, or so we thought most of our lives. Today Michelle Obama did something that was never tolerated during any of the many elections which I monitored: she politicked inside the polling place. This is the latest example of the Obama administration not believing in equality before law.

Today, when Michelle Obama voted early in Chicago, she reportedly told a voter that he needed to vote to keep her husband’s legislative agenda alive. This took place in an area where such electioneering is prohibited by Illinois law. The law has criminal consequences.

Like the New Black Panther case, photographs exist of the lawbreaking. And like the dismissal of the New Black Panther case, the administration has swung into action to abet lawbreaking. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that the first lady supports her husband’s agenda.

Like so much about the New Black Panther case, that isn’t the point. The point is the rule of law, that precious institution that makes America thrive and, in her darker hours, survive. Laws should apply equally to everyone, whether a president or a prisoner. That is the revolutionary idea that drove our revolution.

People like Pete Rose and Richard Nixon learned that America has little tolerance for those who think they are above the law.

Is this the worst thing to afflict an election? Of course not. Armed New Black Panthers were obviously much worse. In the larger scheme of things, Michelle Obama’s lawbreaking is authentic “small potatoes.” But someone in her position has a higher obligation to the institutions our nation treasures, like the rule of law.

The stand-up response from the first lady, and the White House press shop, would be to admit a mistake, affirm they believe in respect of the rules that protect election integrity. But this isn’t a stand-up administration. Like the stonewall that followed the New Black Panther dismissal, we have learned that this is an administration incapable of admitting they screwed up.

What does a ban on electioneering have to do with election integrity? It prevents people from being bothered, coerced, or badgered. A blanket ban on electioneering in the polls prevents both what happened in Chicago today and the thuggery that characterized elections throughout our history. Michelle Obama should step up and admit a mistake, and talk about the importance of laws ensuring election integrity. To do otherwise tells us what we need to know how much they respect election integrity safeguards.

J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His website is www.electionlawcenter.com

WHO IS ‘A THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY’?

2010-10-12T14:14:00.000-07:00

Barack Hussein Obama's roots are now out of the closet. Will it make a difference? Possibly. By November 2nd? God willing.

Where does Obama's Soviet slanted view come from? In Red State, Erick Erickson writes:

"Why would the President of the United States want to slander 3 million American companies, and their tens of millions of employees? Why would he assume them evil enough to subvert the law deliberately like this? Is the man who got his political start in the home of a terrorist, who spent twenty years worshipping in the church of a man who preached contempt for America, whose childhood mentor was a communist radical, and who shows no more understanding of basic economics than a cliff notes reading of Das Kapital . . . projecting?" (Read full piece here. It's a good one)

Those of us who were listening saw the product of his roots early on. He gave it up when he opened his mouth on the campaign trail mentioning the need for a civilian military "more powerful than our military"; when he told Joe the Plumber (later threatened with an IRS audit) "when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody"; he revealed it again talking to Wall Street when he said "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money".

But, ladies and gentlemen, we have a president who has lied to the American people so many times during his twenty months in office, it's unfathomable. It's historic. His current deceit has taken on a new dimension. While stumping in Philadelphia this weekend, Obama made the outrageous statement that the United States Chamber of Commerce "was a threat to democracy".

Say what? The only thing that is a threat to democracy is Barack Hussein Obama. In his Cloward & Piven style of destroying our economic structure, he has taken over the industries of auto, banking, insurance, finance, healthcare, and threatens the takeover of unions, natural resources (Cap & Trade), and anything else he can get his hands on.

The issue here is - where's Obama's proof, and more importantly -- where is the press in demanding proof behind this slanderous statement? Why can’t the press, the politicians and the public get beyond the fear of racism accusations and demand proof? Whether it's proof of his recent statements, or proof of his birth, or proof of his academic history, or proof of his legal practice, why is Obama not pressed for answers, where they would demand them of President Bush?

Obama's recent assault on the United States Chamber of Commerce in their use of foreign funds for political use is completely unfounded. His assault on Karl Rove and GOP strategist El Gillespie is also unfounded. Again, where is his proof? Why is no one demanding it? Why is no one questioning his use of foreign funds? There were many loopholes in an investigation of Obama’s 2008 campaign funds, and many unanswered questions. Barack Obama has received more funds from big oil companies, including the foreign country owned BP, from those 'evil' insurance companies, and 'greedy' Wall Street, from millions of anonymous donations, and no one questions it.

Obama is now apparently backing off his vile accusations of the Chamber of Commerce, but he has planted the seed, leaving Vice President Joe Biden and White House Advisor David Axelrod to continue planting the lies. Thugocracy reigns.

Once again, the infamous Ann Coulter quotation speaks volumes:

"You can always tell what the libs are up to, by what they accuse you of doing."

QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

2010-10-08T14:59:00.000-07:00

As the Nov 2nd elections are finally within reach, we are witnessing the onslaught of a herd of wolves in sheep's clothing. Suddenly the Democrats are talking like conservatives, but their voting records show these people are lying.

Will Americans be fooled this time? Will they fall for the smooth talking leftists who cannot run on their victories over the past 20 months? Say it ain't so, Joe.

The left voted over 90% of the time with either Pelosi, Reid, Obama, or all three and these three are perfectly happy to be temporarily dissed, as long as the Democrat candidates win, so that they can maintain the absolute power they have enjoyed over the past miserable 20 months.

Shows how strongly they stand behind their principles.

In her Eagle Forum, the quick-witted and knowledgeable Phyllis Schlafly lays out some excellent questions that should be asked of ALL candidates -- of both parties -- to help make that final decision where to cast their vote.

Questions for Congressional Candidates
by Phyllis Schlafly - October 8, 2010

We look forward to the 2010 elections in the hope that we can decisively reject Barack Obama's plans to "fundamentally transform the United States." Here are some questions voters can ask all candidates to help decide whom to vote for.

Will you vote against all tax increases and new taxes?
Will you vote to extend all the Republican tax cuts?
Will you vote to cut federal spending to the pre-bailout level?
Will you vote to abolish the death tax without passing a new tax (called "carryover basis") on the sale of inherited property?
Will you pledge to vote to repeal Obamacare?
Will you vote for legislation providing that all health plans receiving federal tax benefits include the availability of high-deductible insurance with health savings accounts?
Will you pledge to enact a government-wide ban on the funding of abortions in any health plan that receives federal benefits?
Will you pledge to vote against any form of amnesty for illegal aliens?
Will you vote to cut off funds for the Attorney General to sue to get a judge to knock out Arizona's popular immigration-enforcement law?
Will you vote to require employers to use the E-Verify system to verify the Social Security numbers of their employees?
Will you order the federal government to build the fence on our southern border as legislated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006?
Will you send U.S. troops to our southern border to prevent illegal entry?
Will you vote for legislation providing that no judge can force the government to communicate with anyone in a language other than English?
Will you vote for legislation requiring that aliens seeking to enter or remain in the United States must renounce a belief in jihad, sharia, polygamy, child marriage, arranged marriage, "honor" killings, and female genital mutilation?
Will you vote to prohibit Mexican trucks on U.S. roads?
Will you vote to stop giving the benefits of U.S. citizenship to babies ("anchor babies") born to illegal aliens?
Will you vote for legislation repealing EMTALA (which requires hospitals to provide free medical care to illegal aliens) and limiting Plyler v. Doe (which requires public schools to give a free education to the children of illegal aliens)?
Will you vote against any bills that exceed the enumerated constitutional powers of Congress?
Will you vote to prohibit the use of taxpayers' funds for any activity designed to promote economic or political union with North America or any foreign countries?
Will you pledge to vote No on increased federal involvement in education?
Will you urge congressional committee chairmen to hold public hearings on the grab for legislative powers by supremacist judges, and then take appropriate action to require the judiciary to respect the separation of powers?
Will you vote to tie federal school appropriations to informed, written parental consent for curricula, surveys, classes or books that may be privacy-invading or offensive to religion or conscience?
Will you vote to defund Planned Parenthood?
Will you pledge to vote No on any attempt to repeal DOMA?
Will you support the right of all fit parents to the care, custody, and control of the upbringing of their children, even if parents are divorced?
Will you vote No on any effort to revive the so-called Equal Rights Amendment and on any legislation implying that the ERA, which expired in 1982, is still somehow viable?
Will you vote against repeal of the law that forbids open homosexuals from serving in our military?
Will you oppose any and all proposals for a national Constitutional Convention (known as a Con Con)?
Will you oppose any attempt to bypass the Electoral College by a vote-transfer deceit called National Popular Vote?
Will you vote against any legislation to pretend that the District of Columbia is a state and entitled to a state's representation in Congress?
Will you vote No on any carbon tax or cap-and-trade bill?
Will you vote to eliminate the ban on our favorite light bulbs?
Will you vote No on Card Check that eliminates the secret ballot in workers' elections?
Will you vote for legislation providing that actions claiming a violation of the Establishment Clause shall not be eligible for an award of attorney's fees?

Questions especially for Senate candidates:

Will you vote No on the New START Treaty, which would restrict our right to build anti-missile defenses?
Will you vote No on the UN Law of the Sea Treaty?
Will you vote No on the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child?
Will you vote No on the UN Treaty on Women (known as CEDAW)?
Will you vote against any judicial nominee who espouses the unconstitutional theories of a "living" or "evolving" Constitution, or an "activist" judiciary?

The more Yes answers to these questions, the more support the candidate deserves.

Read previous Phyllis Schlafly columns

THE FIRED CONGRESS

2010-10-05T10:29:00.000-07:00

Jim DeMint makes an excellent point. In the business [real] world, when an employee is fired they are escorted off the premises and not allowed to return for fear of future damage. What kind of damage can a group of ticked off congressional people do in the Obama Regime? I shudder to think.

The pressure will be on Republicans to cave in to the whim of Democrats, especially towards the holidays, but another one-third of them will be up for re-election in 2012. Although many of us will be overwhelmed during that time, and having been there last year (who can forget the Harry Reid Christmas Eve obamacare vote), it will be time to melt the phone lines -- again.

If not, they will rob us blind. They have a whole Christmas list of items just waiting to ram down our throats, but this is a new era, and Americans saw up close and personal how 'politics as usual' was done. Well, that is no longer acceptable and we can make a difference.

We're reminded that the Republicans did not shove taxes, pork, or earmarks through before the Pelosi Regime took over. Is turnabout fair play? I think not. The Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, writes a great piece on this in National Review Online:

The Fired Congress
In December, more than a dozen senators will come back to Washington and decide how much more tax money to take from Americans, without being accountable to any of them.
by Jim DeMint - October 5, 2010

Some companies have a policy that once someone is fired, they aren’t allowed back on the premises out of fear they might do further damage to the company. It’s too bad Congress doesn’t have the same policy. Because before they’re replaced in January, all of the Democrats who are put out of a job in November will be able to come back and rob the nation blind.

More than a dozen senators will come back to Washington and decide how much more tax money to take from Americans, without being accountable to any of them. Higher taxes, cap-and-trade, amnesty, and card check will be top-priority items for the Fired Congress, otherwise known as the lame-duck Congress. They’re also likely to roll unfinished appropriations bills into a massive, pork-stuffed omnibus to snag every last possible earmark on their way out of Washington.

This must not happen. The only acceptable outcome of the lame-duck session is a continuing resolution to keep government operating at current levels of spending and taxation, as I pushed the Senate to do in 2006 after Republicans lost the majority to the Democrats. No last-minute earmarks, no add-ons, no tax increases, and no big deficit spending.

By simply passing a continuing resolution that kept the government funded at current levels until February 2007, Republicans stopped more than 10,000 earmarks from being enacted and prevented big spenders in Congress from wasting billions of dollars on pork-barrel projects. Then, 2007 became the year without earmarks, because when that temporary continuing resolution expired in February, Congress extended it for the rest of the year. We should adopt the same approach during the 2010 lame-duck session.

To stop a wasteful omnibus and instead secure a continuing resolution, Republicans must hold together. Fortunately, the GOP may have a few reinforcements on the way. Three new senators will take office immediately following the midterms — one each from Delaware, Illinois, and West Virginia, where special elections are being held to replace temporarily appointed senators. And the Republicans running in these races are eager to help.

Illinois Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk has promised that if he wins, “I will become the 42nd Republican senator, with the opportunity to put the brakes on any lame-duck overreach.”

Delaware Republican candidate Christine O’Donnell has made it part of her pitch, too. “Who do you want serving in that lame-duck session?” she has said. “Someone who’s going to promote that very liberal agenda that can’t even get enough Democratic support, or someone who is going to push back against the establishment?”

West Virginia’s Republican Senate candidate, John Raese, who is up in the polls, has stated unequivocally that he would oppose the Democrats’ lame-duck agenda. He has said, “It is completely inappropriate for House and Senate Democrats, who would be in cahoots with President Obama, to take up any legislation that would significantly affect the country after an election that will considerably alter the political landscape of Congress. Any attempt to do so would be a slap in the face to all Americans who voted for a change from the liberal status quo.”

More candidates should go on the record with such statements. There’s a whole month of campaigning left before the midterms, and voters can extract promises from their elected officials not to let the Fired Congress pass major legislation. This is a reasonable request that even the Democrats should be able to support. Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck has called on Democratic senator Michael Bennet to promise to oppose any tax hikes Harry Reid may try to ram through during the lame-duck session. All Senate Democrats up for election this year should be asked to do the same.

Getting more elected officials to speak out against a spendthrift lame-duck session can help deter the Democratic leadership from cramming it with votes. It’s been reported that Democrats are considering as many as 20 pieces of legislation to bring up for a vote. After failing to get the New START Treaty (an agreement that hurts America’s missile-defense systems) ratified, to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and to pass legislation to give amnesty to illegal aliens, Democrats see opportunity after the elections, when a number of their members won’t have anything to lose.

Democrats are also hoping that the pressure of a Christmas deadline will get some Republicans to break their way. White House senior adviser David Axelrod recently said he thinks Republicans will “blink” and help Democrats raise taxes as the end-of-the year deadline approaches. Republicans must not cave.

Democrats are playing political games and Americans are going to fire them for it in November. When the Democrats come back in December to box up their personal belongings, Republicans must make sure that’s all they take with them.

— Jim DeMint is a U.S. senator from South Carolina.

ARMY GENERAL: FT. HOOD WORST TERRORISM SINCE 9/11

2010-10-04T14:15:00.000-07:00

Here is a well spoken, strong man. The kind of leader conservatives want, someone unafraid to call a spade a spade, a person of faith, and a person of principles. He is retired Army three-star General Jerry Boykin, and he had a few words to say to CBN news anchor Lee Webb. As Mr. Webb said, he "doesn't pull any punches."

Wonder if he would consider running in 2012....

WHAT WAS BEFORE IS AGAIN

2010-10-04T10:37:00.000-07:00

We are going to start hearing all about a Democrat surge in the weeks and days before our November 2nd historic elections -- especially in light of the highly successful Communist/Socialist gathering of Oct 2nd at our nation's capitol. And you can believe that, as much as a Democrat surge.

CSPAN used an 8-28 rally photo (here) for this Socialist gathering and later had to pull it because they were exposed. Just goes to show you that the real media is taking hold. It also shows the left is openly embracing their socialist/communist identity.

These people are so desperate, the gloves are coming off (as usual) and the stuff will be slinging right and left -- pun intended. This is where the biased mainstream media will play their most important role to date -- misleading the American people in a pivotal mid-term election.

In case some of us have forgotten, and younger voters have been programmed by the liberal education system, Erick Erickson points out in Red State:

What Was Before Is Again
by Erick Erickson - October 4, 2010

The New York Times ran an article over the weekend that the House of Representatives is still not in the hands of the GOP. A Newsweek survey came out with an oddity of a generic ballot answer. Gallup has been jumping all over the place.

Had I a show, I’d say “roll the tape.” Instead, you’ll have to settle for this.

Here’s Charlie Cook’s review of the October generic ballot data trickling out:

In polls by the Gallup Organization for CNN and USA Today, among all adult Americans, Republicans have now been ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot test in all five surveys taken since mid-August. In the most recent poll, taken last Tuesday and Wednesday, Republicans had a 3-point advantage among registered voters, 48 to 45 percent.

A CBS News poll … among registered voters still found a narrow one-point Democratic edge, 42 to 41 percent, but that’s compared to a 10-point Democratic advantage in October 1992.

An … ABC News poll found a 3-point Republican advantage among adults nationwide, 47 to 44 percent, compared to a 6-point GOP edge in both September and August ABC/Washington Post polls.

Tim Curran in Roll Call noted, “[A] slew of late polls show key races tightening around the country” and there were “indications of a slight Democratic comeback last week.”

Hotline reported “recent polls showing Dems even or leading in generic ballot questions” and asked Bill Kristol for comment. Kristol said, “Republicans have not gotten as many votes across the nation as Democrats in a Congressional race in 40 years.”

Margaret Carlson is on television saying of the GOP’s insurgency, “The corks were popped a little early.”

David Lauter, writing in the Los Angeles Times, reports

Asked which party can do a better job on the country’s major problems, 36% favored Republicans, 29% chose Democrats and 15% said neither party….

The GOP holds similar edges on individual issues, including crime, welfare reform, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Even on health care, where the Democrats once enjoyed a large margin, the two sides are now even, at 38%, with 14% saying that neither party is up to the job.

The GOP edge generally has not come about because Republicans have won major improvements in their ratings as problem-solvers. Instead, respondents turned away from the Democrats, dropping their ratings. Moreover, the percentage saying they think that neither party can handle the nation’s problems has risen.

Yes, yes, the nation hates the GOP, but wants the GOP in charge.

Now, here’s the catch — all of those stories were from October of 1994 ranging from 4 weeks to a week before the November 8, 1994, sweep of the GOP.

The polls were tightening. The Democrats were again neck and neck with the GOP in 1994. Not only that, but the economy had improved. The recession was not only declared over, but employment was significantly on the rise.

The President was on the campaign trail in October of 1994 trying to rev up black voters and telling people not to go back to the era of George Bush. Same this year.

On October 9, 1994, a month out from the November 8, 1994 election, the Washington Post’s Kevin Merida wrote, “One matchup pits William Frist (R), a wealthy heart-lung transplant surgeon from Nashville, against Sen. Jim Sasser (D), an 18-year veteran who chairs the Budget Committee and is making a strong bid to be the next Senate majority leader. Though some polls have showed the race tightening, several independent analysts doubt that Frist has enough to knock Sasser out. But he is trying.”

Bill Frist won the race 56% to 42%.

Read more Erick Erickson here.

OUR DYING CONSTITUTION - and HOW TO REVIVE IT, III

2010-10-02T15:52:00.000-07:00

As the November 2010 mid-term elections approach, it is more and more apparent they will be the most critical elections in modern times. For decades, our Constitution has been under attack [ironically] by our court system, led by statist administrations.

If America is to "keep" the republic that Ben Franklin warned us about, we must learn and understand our founding documents. We should learn that it is not a living document, but rather a legal document to preserve individual justice -- not social justice. Its genius is its simplicity.

Obama is chomping at the bit to "fundamentally transform" our founding documents through the courts, as he believes they are a "charter of negative liberties". This is where the 'transformation' of our country will happen -- through liberal far left judicial appointments, and a weak Republican party afraid to stop this assault.

Eagle Forum has put together their "Court Watch", and will have continuing presentations and tools to help us fight and revive our Constitution. Sign up for their updates and join the fight.

Our Dying Constitution - and How To Revive It, III
by Phyllis Schlafly - October 1, 2010

With barely one month remaining before the pivotal elections of 2010, economic policy continues to attract more attention than any other issue area. But the most critical issue in this election — as in American politics and law in general — is the continuous dying process of our venerable Constitution and how we can — MUST — revive it. This issue of constitutional health and survival is gaining more prominence in the public eye, and Court Watch shall continue to focus on Reviving the Constitution! in this series of "Court Watch Briefings."

While our current constitutional miasma is perceived by many Americans as the pernicious product of a Democrat-controlled Presidency and Congress, the court system has actually been for decades leading the battle against the Constitution. Our current deplorable condition was described most forcefully by former U. S. Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC), whose words bear repeating here, as in recent "Court Watch Briefings" on "Our Dying Constitution. In 1981, Ervin wrote that

The usurpation of this power [to amend the Constitution] by Supreme Court Justices does not prove that the Constitution is a living instrument of government. On the contrary, it proves that the Constitution is dead, and that the people of our land are being ruled by the transitory personal notions of Justices who occupy for a fleeting moment of history seats on the Supreme Court bench rather than by the enduring precepts of the Constitution. [emphasis added]

In order to revive the Constitution, we must understand as much as possible about the nature and exercise of the "enduring precepts of the Constitution" and how they are being tossed aside like straw in a windstorm by the "transitory notions of Justices who occupy for a fleeting moment of history seats on the Supreme Court Bench." A firm foundation for our understanding is provided by the preeminent British legal scholar, H.L.A. Hart of Oxford University (Hart is known as the "Father of Neo-analytic" or "Linguistic" "Jurisprudence," and has been cited in at least three different U. S. Supreme Court cases).

In the mid-Twentieth Century, Hart designed a model of a "legal system"; and this model can be applied by us to guide us in our fight to revive our American constitution. In the simplest terms, Hart's model reveals that there are critical characteristics which any legal system must embody if it is necessary to survive and thrive. These critical characteristics we can describe as the "three Cs" — certainty, consistency, and continuity. These three Cs are the focus of Talking Point #1 of the "Fundamental Four" facts which we described in our last "Court Watch Briefing" as truth statements essential to reviving our Constitution.

"Certainty" means that laws (or court decisions) can be objectively and clearly understood. If a body of court decisions considered authoritative at any one point in time contains uncertain decisions, "chaos," not "certainty," marks the system.

"Consistency" means that no individual judicial decision should contain one portion that conflicts with another portion. Similarly, judicial decisions at a particular point in time should not contradict one another. If either condition exists, "contradiction," not "consistency" plagues the legal system.

The critical characteristic of "continuity" requires that a legal system must consist of continuous judicial decisions. That is, current decisions must be consistent with past decisions unless there is authoritative, compelling reason for change in the decisions (the most important reasons being that the U. S. Constitution demands the change). If continuity is not maintained, the legal system will suffer from "convolution."

In upcoming issues of our "Court Watch Briefings," we shall examine the judicial attack on the three Cs and the Constitution. And in the immediate future, we should use these three markers as additional means of evaluating the views and actions of candidates in the 2010 elections. If our Constitution suffers long enough and badly enough from a loss of the three Cs, we will, to use Professor Hart's terms, deteriorate from a mature/healthy system to a primitive/moribund system. The long-term result? Daniel Webster prophesied the sad but predictable result:

. . . if these columns [of American constitutional liberty] fall, they will be raised not again. Like the Colosseum and Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful and melancholy immortality. bitterer tears, however, will flow over them than ever were shed over the monuments of Roman or Grecian art; for they will be the monuments of a more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever was — the edifice of constitutional American liberty.

EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT SHOULD — AND CAN — UNDERSTAND AND EFFECTIVELY FIGHT TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUTION. SOUND INTIMIDATING? THE BLACKSTONE INSTITUTE CAN HELP! Available online or directly from Blackstone are educational weapons to start you on your mission. (Each of the following can be studied individually or in groups.) These weapons include:

"Courting Justice Blitz": a spectacular 45" multi-media DVD and printed materials overviewing the battle to Revive the Constitution and the RTC Plan "Blackstone Blitz": two 55-minute "whiz-bang" multi-media online presentations with printed materials arming you to attack Reconstructionism and defend Constitutionalism
The "Basic Blackstone": our "must-read" piece, included in each of the Blitzes (and available separately), and containing the new second edition of our premier "Constitutionalist Manifesto" and "Constitutionalist Papers"
Our bombshell "Mega-Blitz": created by combining two Blitzes into a single study to be covered in four separate sessions, a four-hour workshop/seminar, etc.

JOIN US IN FIGHTING TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

EagleForum.org/courtwatch or BlackstoneInstitute.org or 325/673-3020

TIMES, NEWSWEEK Hit O'Donnell, Skip Coons Record

2010-10-01T18:46:00.000-07:00

As the onslaught of dirty politics rears its ugly head roughly 30 days from Election Day, there's a battle between the biased mainstream media and the truth. This is a battle conservatives have been fighting for decades, but since the arrival of The Chosen One, it has become blatantly open.

Since the new millennium, the internet has opened doors the mainstream media is wishing never happened. Because of their blatant bias, people are starved for other resources which the internet provides worldwide. There is a wealth of information conveniently at our fingertips, and the mainstream media has lost its followers to the point of near extinction.

Buckle up, Voters -- it's going to be a bumpy [sic] ride. Stay strong, stay informed, and above all -- stay engaged!

Jeffrey Lord writes a brilliant analogy in great American Spector:

Times, Newsweek Hit O'Donnell, Skip Coons Record
by Jeffrey Lord - September 30, 2010

So here they come. Again.

Yawn.

The Left Wing Media Machinus Maximus once more trundles the old rusty guns into place and starts firing…sort of. These old cannons date back to at least the late 1940s. Let's run the list.

1948: Congressman Richard Nixon becomes famous as the man who helped Time magazine editor Whittaker Chambers reveal Alger Hiss, a Harvard Law grad and ex-aide to FDR and Truman, was in fact a Soviet spy. The accusation turns out to be true and Hiss goes to jail.

RESPONSE: Media smears both Nixon and Chambers. Nixon, nominated for VP on Eisenhower's ticket in 1952, is accused of unethical behavior in a "scandal" that involves a fund in which wealthy supporters pay for travel expenses. Nixon is forced to defend himself on television. Opponent Adlai Stevenson has same kind of fund, media doesn't care.

1951: William F. Buckley, Jr.'s first book, God and Man at Yale, is published.

RESPONSE: Among a list of of charges, Buckley is accused of being a Nazi, a Fascist, a Stalinist and…oh yes…simply obnoxious.

1964: Barry Goldwater is nominated for president by the GOP, beginning of the modern conservative movement success in presidential politics.

RESPONSE: Goldwater is accused of wanting to drop nuclear weapons on Vietnam, racism, mental instability, in need of a psychiatrist, supporting violence, and being a Nazi sympathizer.

1966: Ronald Reagan runs for Governor of California.

RESPONSE: Reagan is accused of being an extremist, a nut, a member of the John Birch Society, an idiot, stupid, dumb a Fascist and a racist.

1988: Dan Quayle is nominated for vice president by the GOP.

RESPONSE: Quayle is accused of being not very bright, dumb, an air-head, a fool, a draft-dodger.

2000: George W. Bush is nominated for president to run against Al Gore.

RESPONSE: Bush is accused of being dumb, stupid, a hopeless drunk, a fascist, a fundamentalist Christian extremist.

2004: Dick Cheney is re-nominated for vice-president.

RESPONSE: Cheney is accused of being a right-wing fanatic who wants to blow up the world, evil, a habitual liar, a Fascist, a Nazi and a racist.

2008: Sarah Palin is nominated for vice president.

RESPONSE: Palin is accused of being dumb, stupid, a right-wing crazy, and idiot and a fool.

2010: Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Joe Miller, and now Christine O'Donnell are all nominated in upsets of conservatives over the GOP Establishment.

RESPONSE: All are accused of being wackos, idiots, extremists, dumb, crazy and more.

Today, the New York Times runs a hit piece on Christine O'Donnell painting her as a "perennial protest candidate" and "provocateur," and slams her for not catering to the national media (hmmm.) Newsweek discusses her "notoriety."

This after a campaign in which Ms. O'Donnell has been pictured as…you guessed it…a nut, a slut, an idiot, dumb, a witch, a fool, crazy as a bedbug etc.

And…oh yes… Bill Maher openly tries to blackmail O'Donnell with a threat to run old clips from a failed TV show unless she does what he wants -- come on his show.

Does anyone notice something peculiar here?

When did this kind of thing begin?

That's right -- the late 1940s. Just as the Cold War began with what proved to be a fifty-year-plus death struggle between the Communist Soviet Union and the United States. And what has been the compelling issue in American political life from that time to this very day?

Let's let William F. Buckley sum it up: "I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."

Today the collectivist media crowd swipes yet again. From Nixon to Chambers to Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan, Quayle, Bush. Palin and today's O'Donnell, Angle, Miller, Paul, Lee and Rubio -- and conservative media from Fox News to talk radio -- the song is always the same. Only the verse is different.

And the opponents? The liberal in-crowd? The liberal media Double-Standard is always, always in play. From Alger Hiss to Chris Coons they have gotten press that makes them everything from demi-Gods to just swell happy-go-lucky Joe averages. The Times presents Coons today as "happy to tick off events" he's attended, just a determined hard-worker busily engaged in "retail politics." And so forth. Nary a word about Coons stonewalling on controversial Yale Divinity School courses from which he says he draws his values that he will take to Washington. Zero on Coons bringing his social justice theories to New Castle, Delaware public policy. Less than zero on his devotion to liberation theology. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Everybody gets the game. And the game is over.

Read more great Jeffrey Lord here.

BLOOMBERG WANTS TO BE A KINGMAKER

2010-09-24T17:46:00.000-07:00

While Obama and his administration work to control every social aspect of our lives, the need to learn and understand our Founding Documents couldn't be more critical. What is the purpose of government, and what are its limitations? Important to know, and critical to enforce -- by the people. Because government will not do so on its own, as we have painfully witnessed over the past 20 months.

We are in the fight of our lives, as dependency on government has grown like a cancer. "It's the chief purpose of Obama's big-spending bills", says Ms. Schlafly, and continues "The decline in marriage and the increase in illegitimate births (41 percent last year of all U.S. births) are the principal cause of the growth of the welfare state."

There have been two recent reports that should shake the world of every hard working, tax paying, responsible American citizen. One report tells us that welfare is at its highest level in the history of our country. So much so, that it is unsustainable. The great Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain, said "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

The other recent report informes us that America is at the highest level of poverty in 51 years. This is absolutely unacceptable. How can a country so rich with resources, talent, and innovation get to this state?

Liberalism! A mental disorder.

One of my most favorite political activists, Phyllis Schlafly, writes another brilliant piece on government intrusion in her Eagle Forum:

There is no way to cut the current fiscal havoc unless we reduce the handouts of taxpayers' money caused by social issues and cut taxes on small businesses so they can create more jobs. Remember Ronald Reagan's maxim: if you subsidize something, you'll get more of it; if you tax it, you'll get less of it.

Bloomberg Wants To Be a Kingmaker
by Phyllis Schlafly - September 24, 2010

New York City's billionaire Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has decided he wants to be a political kingmaker using his own deep pockets plus his rich friends. He's unhappy about the remarkable success of the Tea Partiers in nominating conservative candidates, and he wants to remake the Republican Party under the label Moderate.

His first foray into this venture is to host a fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. That alone should disqualify him from respectability in the Republican Party.

Other Democrats Bloomberg is endorsing include the candidates for Colorado Governor and Senator, John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet. Bloomberg says his idea of how the Senate should function is the 40-year collaboration of the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT).

Bloomberg is famous for getting the New York City Council to allow him to run for a third term as Mayor, despite the city's two-term limit. He won with only 51% despite spending a ridiculous $185 per vote.

Bloomberg plans to finance candidates who agree with him in supporting abortion, same-sex marriage, suffocating gun control, and amnesty for illegal aliens, but keep silent about the social issues in the hope that voters won't notice these candidates' rejection of conservative principles. But the Ronald Reagan model for victory requires a coalition of active fiscal, national defense, and social conservatives, and Republicans will be losers if they don't stick to that winning formula and rejoice that, as Time Magazine's cover announces this week, "It's Tea Party Time."

Candidates in 2010 cannot fail to address and answer questions about the social issues decided by judges this year. One major social issue is support of marriage as one man and one woman, which is defined in 31 states by vote of the people, plus the federal law (Defense of Marriage Act: DOMA).

Supremacist judges have been overriding the will of the people on marriage. Although a majority of Californians passed a citizen initiative outlawing same-sex marriage, on August 4 a federal judge knocked this out, saying Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

On July 8, another federal judge declared that DOMA's one-man-one-woman definition of marriage is unconstitutional. On July 15, the D.C. Court of Appeals approved same-sex marriage, writing that it would somehow violate "human rights" to allow D.C. residents to make the final decision through a citizen initiative.

Social issues? You bet. All federal candidates should be required to address the issue of marriage and the abuse of power by out-of-control judges.

Immigration is another social issue where decision-making power is being taken away from the people and assumed by supremacist judges. On September 9, a federal appellate court ruled against the Hazleton, PA city ordinance that required landlords to rent only to legal residents and employers to hire only legal residents.

On July 28 a federal judge proclaimed that Arizona cannot enforce its new law passed to enforce existing laws about illegal aliens. The judge thus overrode the will of the big majority of Americans who not only support the Arizona law but want their own state to pass a law just like it.

On July 14, a federal judge stopped enforcement of a Nebraska law (passed by the unicameral legislature 44 to 5) establishing that abortionists should inform women about health risks (such as breast cancer). Abortion is a very live social issue now that polls show the majority of Americans believe abortion is wrong.

Congress is now debating the military rule called "Don't ask don't tell." But on September 9 a federal judge grabbed the issue away from our elected representatives, calling it unconstitutional.

The fiscal conservatives who argue that only money issues should be part of political debate should face the reality that social issues are the chief purpose of Obama's big-spending bills. The decline in marriage and the increase in illegitimate births (41 percent last year of all U.S. births) are the principal cause of the growth of the welfare state.

Federal taxpayers are now providing some or all the living expenses for 40 percent of Americans through means-tested handouts, mostly to the unmarried. This is the actuality of Barack Obama's boast to Joe the Plumber to spread the wealth around.

The Obama Democrats know which side their bread is buttered on: 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Obama in 2008, and Obama's strategists want to increase that number. They even put a marriage penalty in Obamacare.

There is no way to cut the current fiscal havoc unless we reduce the handouts of taxpayers' money caused by social issues and cut taxes on small businesses so they can create more jobs. Remember Ronald Reagan's maxim: if you subsidize something, you'll get more of it; if you tax it, you'll get less of it.

Read previous Phyllis Schlafly columns

AN OBSERVATION

2010-09-16T17:47:00.000-07:00

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

DON'T TELL ME IT'S NOT HALLOWED GROUND

2010-09-14T11:24:00.000-07:00

This past weekend, America remembered 9-11. There was a miriad of emotion - intense sadness, pride for our first responders, joy for our country, undaunted in the face of terror, and nine years ago today, comforted by our strong leader, commander-in-chief President Bush at Ground Zero. Just as December 7th is remembered as "a day that will live in infamy", so will 9-11.

Along with the ashes of thousands of innocent people, Ground Zero is covered with the blood, sweat and tears of all those who put the pieces back together again, and all those who wept.

Just like the Arizona in Pearl Harbor, this is hallowed ground and should be respected as such. The landing gear of those planes fell on the roof of the Burlington Coat Factory building, and no question how involved this building is in the terrorist attacks of radical Islam.

There is so much to remember about that day, which is a good thing, and Keith Hennessey has a piece today - the day President Bush went to Ground Zero, 9 years ago - sharing some moving moments, that moved my soul. Don't tell me this is not hallowed ground:

“I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you!”
by Keith Hennessey - September 14, 2010

Nine years ago today President Bush visited Ground Zero in New York City. One lasting image is of the President, standing on a pile of rubble with his hand on the shoulder of a firefighter named Bob Beckwith, talking to the rescue workers with a bullhorn.

Over the weekend I realized I know most of the people who were with the President at that moment.

Eric Draper was the President’s chief White House photographer for all eight years. He led an incredible team of photographers who captured key moments in the Presidency. Eric is a phenomenal photographer, a good man, and I am proud to have worked with him.

I’d like to share Eric’s photo and comments from Eric and others who were on the scene when it was taken.

You can click on the photo for a higher resolution version.

From left to right:

• (partial white shirt) unnamed NYPD;
• (black helmet, in back) unnamed rescue worker;
• (white helmet on head and in hands) Assistant NYFD Chief ?
• (light blue helmet) Al Concordia, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Presidential Protection Division, US Secret Service;
• President Bush;
• retired firefighter Bob Beckwith;
• (blue coat) Carl Truscott, Special Agent in Charge, Presidential Protection Division, US Secret Service; and
• Governor George Pataki.

(I would greatly appreciate help in identifying those whose names I don’t know.)

Eric Draper, White House Photographer:

I remember standing at the site which still smoldered from the terrorist attack three days earlier. President Bush had just finished touring Ground Zero and embracing and talking with hundreds of firefighters. As the White House Photographer, I focused on capturing the strong emotion there. I had to press my way through the crowd to stay with the President, who was being guided to a spot to speak. I was close enough to the President to touch his legs if I tried, so I had to use my widest camera lens. When he said, “I can hear you,” I knew it was going to be a powerful, historic moment. I watched my President lead the country through its shock and grief.

Eric reports that the photo was taken with a Nikon N90 camera, 17-35 zoom lens on Fujichrome 400 film. Shutter speed 500/2.8.

(My plug for Eric: Eric now runs his own photography business and I highly recommend him.)

Joe Hagin, Deputy Chief of Staff:

Most don’t realize it but he is actually standing on a crushed fire engine – the highest part of what was a huge fire pumper, reduced to about four or five feet high. The firefighter standing with him was actually a retired member of the department who grabbed his old helmet and headed to Ground Zero when he saw what had happened on TV.

Bob Beckwith, the firefighter standing with the President (in a Time magazine story five years ago):

I got home and I told my wife, ‘I’m going down,’ ” he said, referring to the smoldering remains of the Twin Towers.

At first, his family dissuaded him from going to Ground Zero, but after Beckwith discovered that one of his colleague’s sons was one of the hundreds of firefighters missing, he put on his old uniform, strapped on his helmet and went to join the rescue efforts.

Beckwith had to finagle his way into Ground Zero when he approached the heavily guarded perimeter.

“I said, ‘Come on, guys. You know I got to get in there.’ I showed them my identification card from the fire department and so a couple of guys let me through,” Beckwith said.

Once inside the perimeter, Beckwith got a firsthand look at the charred remains of the World Trade Center and immediately began working to find survivors.

…

“And the president came and he is shaking hands with all the ironworkers and all the cops and all the firemen that were down there … and I figure he’s going over to the microphones, but he makes a quick right, and he puts his arm up and I said, ‘Oh my God!’ “

After helping the president onto the truck, Beckwith begins to crawl down, but Bush stops him.

“He says, ‘Where are you going?’ I said, ‘Uh, I was told to get down.’ He said, ‘No, no, you stay right here.’ “

…

“Do you remember the TIME magazine where the president is holding up the flag? He wanted me to have that flag. I still have it,” Beckwith told CNN.

Logan Walters, personal aide to the President:

Driving to the event there was a real emotional tension, we all knew we were going to a place of epic tragedy in our Nation’s history but the reason for our visit was to provide strength and support to those who were there, and the Americans who would be watching on television. Not a lot of conversation, and because the event had little planning there was little to discuss on the way. We knew there would be unscripted moments that would be seen around the world. The wreckage on the site was terrible, there were several places where smoke was still rising from the ruins of the towers. Beams, wires, concrete and other skeletal remains were visible among the ash. Although many families and friends were still hopeful of finding loved ones, it was apparent upon seeing what was left of the towers that it would take no less than God’s hand to pull a survivor from what was left there. It was a heartbreaking sight. None of us at the White House had slept much since the attack, but we had showered and grabbed a meal or two and some rest. It seemed like no one at Ground Zero had stopped working since they were allowed into the site, and by talking to the people in charge we learned that was generally true. People were literally working to total exhaustion, multiple days without any real rest or food, and were still pushing themselves. No one wanted to give up. We talked to numerous emergency responders as the President walked the site. Most looked exhausted, had ash on their clothes and faces, and were emotionally drained. As the President talked to them, expressing gratitude, consoling some, and encouraging all, you could feel the strength and energy rising. He stepped up on the ruins of the fire engine, was handed the bullhorn, and began to speak. From the other side of Ground Zero, where a large number of the emergency responders had gathered, someone yelled “We can’t hear you!” The President’s response was from his heart, totally unscripted, and everyone felt he power of his words. The site literally erupted with cheers, it was incredible and energized and lifted those working at Ground Zero and those of us traveling with the President. In the end, all of us, I think the President included, left with a renewed energy and strength. Those men and women inspired all of us to work hard and do all that we could to support the President as he worked to protect our Nation. What we came to provide to them, they actually gave to us.

Karen Hughes, Counselor to the President:

I traveled to New York with President Bush on September 14, and will never forget the raw emotions, the incredible sadness, yet, in the end, the enduring inspiration of that day. Although I had seen the images on television, nothing could have prepared me for the moment when our motorcade turned the corner and we saw the still smoldering pile of twisted steel at Ground Zero — it was so horrifying that my hands instinctively covered my face. The rescue workers had been working non-stop for three days. They were exhausted, angry, full of emotion — and they wanted to hear from their President. We had not planned for him to speak, as earlier that day he had delivered a moving address at a national prayer service at the National Cathedral in Washington. But we realized that the rescue workers at Ground Zero needed to hear from their President, and our terrific advance staffer, Nina Bishop, went to find a bullhorn. She had the President climb up on a ruined fire truck so people could see him and he kept fire fighter Bob Beckwith up with him — the crowd was shouting they couldn’t hear him — and when he turned and said, “I hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from all of us soon,” it summed up the determination of our nation. The President’s remarks were a response to the rescue workers — totally unscripted, perfect for the situation, and standing there, I knew immediately this was an historic moment. I turned to my friend, Joe Allbaugh, the director of FEMA who had been Governor Bush’s chief of staff in Texas, and said, “That’s the person we know, and that’s going to be in his presidential library someday.” It was a day of incredible emotion and sadness — there was literally a hole in the heart of Manhattan — yet in the end, it became a day of inspiration as our motorcade left the city and thousands of New Yorkers lined the streets shouting “Thank you” to the volunteers and “God Bless America!”

Greg Jenkins, advance team:

I was shepherding the pool that day, having arrived with a small team from DC the night before, and was standing next to Draper when he took the photo. Nina Bishop — another advance person — was the one who is responsible for the bullhorn. As the President was shaking hands with first responders it became increasingly clear that he had to say something. Thinking fast, Nina found a bullhorn and when the President stood atop the rubble she simply handed it up to him and he did the rest. Completely unplanned. Totally authentic moment. But the untold story is how the video came to be.

When people recall the television imagery of the President making those remarks atop the rubble, what they don’t know is how that happened. Twice.

The press pool consisted of some print reporters, some still photographers, and one television crew (correspondent, producer and cameraman). Since we were in the middle of Ground Zero, the television camera wasn’t connected to an uplink truck, therefore it was not live. What we didn’t know was that another network some blocks away had a camera on top of a building pointed at Ground Zero. From their vantage point, and as far as they could zoom in, all they could make out was a small cluster of people at Ground Zero (that was us). The producer in our press pool was on his cell phone giving live color commentary to all the networks who were in the pool. The networks also had access to the live shot from the other network from the building some blocks away. When the producer said that the President was about to make some remarks, he held up his phone to get the President’s voice. The networks put the voice of the President broadcast from a cell phone over the live video from the other network, and voila!

The closeup video that we recall of the President’s remarks atop the rubble was actually broadcast later in the day when the pool cameraman was able to feed his closeup video.

I’d love to add to this post the recollections of any first responders on the scene when the President spoke, or any of those in the press pool mentioned by Greg..

Thanks once again to President George W. Bush for his leadership during this time of national tragedy and crisis.

And thank you to all those who worked so tirelessly at Ground Zero nine years ago.

Keith Hennessey served as the senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush. He is currently "doing a little bit of TV commentary", and writes his own blog at keithhennessey.com.

BANNED IRISH TV INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT BUSH - GUESS WHY

2010-09-13T13:40:00.000-07:00

This is an interview that has apparently been banned by the liberal press. The interview was on Ireland's RTÉ One television, and the interviewer -- well, I'll let you decide.

This interview has also apparently not been shown on American television, and it is obvious as to why not.

INTERESTING NOTE: Check out the ratings of this video

GET SET FOR BIG PREMIUM HIKES

2010-09-13T12:47:00.000-07:00

As Speaker Nancy Pelosi lectured to her flock of minions, "We have to pass the bill, so that you can find out what is in it", truer words were never spoken. It is well known that this bill was not read by the majority of congress; members of congress had to be bribed [with our tax dollars] in order to vote for the bill; there were backroom deals we will never hear about [unless a "Deap Throat" eventually comes forward]; the public, at a joint session of congress, were, in fact, lied to by a president of the United States.

There are countless measures in this bill that are unconstitutional, the biggest being a mandate to buy health insurance, now being challenged in our courts across the country.

Now that it has been passed - against the will of the people - Americans must hold Republican's feet to the fire about the repeal of this specious bill. Lately there has been some hemming and hawing about a repeal, and those who appear reluctant need to be singled out.

These are the type of moderates that we are trying to clean out of the Republican party, such as Mike Castle in Delaware, who voted for Cap & Trade as part of the Gang of Eight (great piece by Michelle Malkin. Castle's primary is tomorrow, Tues Sept 14th, along with 7 other critical states, who is running against Christine O'Donnell (neck and neck). Remember to get out and vote.

Over the years we have seen our freedoms in peril, as they chip away at the edges. "It's not too late to reclaim the American Idea", Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said recently. This election we have a chance to elect true conservatives, even though the liberals and the liberal media attempts to paint them as radicals. Look who's talking! Methinks they doth protest too much.

We also have the Republican elitists working against constitutional conservatives, which makes it more difficult, but can be done. It's the old "Ruling Class" vs the "Country Class", as the American Spectator writes about, making term limits more necessary now that we have seen how public office has been so abused. These people have been in public office way too long, and have developed an "I'm royalty" attitude, rather than the privilege of serving the people, the dangers written at length by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

The brilliant Betsy McCaughey, PhD writes an excellent piece from the New York Post on why our health insurance premiums are going up [another lie by the current president], and what to look for if this bill is not repealed:

Get Set for Big Premium Hikes
by Betsy McCaughey - September 13, 2010

President Obama is boasting that his new health law provides "free" preventive care, such as mammograms and colonoscopies. But when you open your mail, you'll find out that's untrue; all he's doing is making you pay for it in advance.

The government isn't going to force you to get a colonoscopy, but being forced to pay for one feels almost the same.

Millions of Americans are getting notices that their premiums are going up to pay for changes required under the ObamaCare law. Section 2713 of the law requires that those premiums include the full cost for such preventive services as Pap smears, mammograms and smoking-cessation programs. Obama's "free" really just means you won't have a co-pay if you decide to get that service. But it's not free -- merely prepaid. When a restaurant charges you $25 for the all-you-can-eat buffet, it can't claim dessert is "free."

Another reason premiums are soaring this fall is the rapid rise in Medicaid enrollment, now up to a record 50 million people nationwide. When Medicaid rolls expand, it's a double whammy for the rest of us; our taxes go up and so do our premiums.

Medicaid pays, on average, 86 cents for every dollar of care provided. Doctors and hospitals are shortchanged. They try to make up the difference by charging privately insured patients more. The average household paid almost $1,800 a year in added premiums to offset Medicaid costs before the recession began. Now, with Medicaid rolls up, that hidden tax increases your premium even more.

Get set for larger premium hikes in 2014. That's when most ObamaCare provisions go into effect.

Before Congress passed the health law, the Congressional Budget Office warned that individual and small-group health premiums would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher under ObamaCare. In other words, Congress members who voted for this law knew it would raise your insurance costs.

A major reason is the one-size-fits-all benefit package, which you'll have to have whether you want it and can afford it or not. It will include things many consumers haven't had to buy in the past, such as addiction treatment for heroin addicts (Sec. 1302).

Another reason is the expansion of Medicaid. Obama said he'd solve the problem of the uninsured by making insurance more affordable, but 60 percent of all those who will gain coverage in 2014 are being put on Medicaid -- which, again, will increase the hidden tax in your premium.

By 2019, 82 million people will be on Medicaid or S-CHIP, the public children's program -- that's more than 28 percent of all Americans under 65.

Obama pledged to "bend the cost curve" on health insurance. But he's bending the truth instead. When you open your mail, you can thank ObamaCare for the premium hike.

Betsy McCaughey, a former New York lieu tenant governor, is author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It." betsy@defendyourhealthcare.us

---

Betsy McCaughey
Defend Your Healthcare
www.DefendYourHealthcare.us

OUR DYING CONSTITUTION - and HOW TO REVIVE IT, II

2010-09-02T19:37:00.000-07:00

During the current administration's reign, we have witnesses our constitution shredded bit by painful bit. By the grace of God, America is awakening and becoming more involved. The threat of losing our freedom has never been greater -- our freedoms, as meticulously laid out in the founding documents, written by Christians and founded on Judao-Christian principles.

We are 60 days away from what will be the most important mid-term elections in our history to date. We have lots of work ahead, and knowledge being all powerful, Eagle Forum has, once again, stepped up with some excellent tools in order to help with this daunting task. This is Part II, and Part I is linked here.

Check it out...

Our Dying Constitution — and How to Revive It, II
Eagle Forum, by Virginia Armstrong, PhD - September 2, 2010

As the elections of 2010 loom closer, the politics of Barack Obama's reign are a swirling miasma in which many of the American electorate are caught up. But the most critical issue in this elections — as in American politics and law in general — is the continuous dying process of our venerable Constitution and how we can — MUST — revive it.

This situation is described so aptly by former U. S. Senator Sam Ervin that we repeat here his words as quoted in the opening of our last Court Watch study. In 1981, Ervin wrote that

The usurpation of this power [to amend the Constitution] by Supreme Court Justices does not prove that the Constitution is a living instrument of government. On the contrary, it proves that the Constitution is dead, and that the people of our land are being ruled by the transitory personal notions of Justices who occupy for a fleeting moment of history seats on the Supreme Court bench rather than by the enduring precepts of the Constitution. [emphasis added]

Today, we may correctly argue that the Constitution is not quite dead. It is also accurate to argue that the moribund condition of our basic document is indeed due to U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who interpret the Constitution, not according to its "enduring precepts," but according to their "transitory personal notions." And there is every reason to make these judicial death blows — and how to repel them effectively — the center of all our political/legal life.

We must

Make it a primary national priority to protect and promote the survival and health of the U.S. Constitution, and.
Be armed to declare and defend the "Fundamental Four" — facts/talking points which advance our primary priority.

The "Fundamental Four" talking points are listed below:

T.P. #1: Any legal system (including that of the U.S.) can survive and thrive ONLY if it continues to be characterized by the three Cs — certainty, consistency, and continuity.

T.P. #2: Constitutionalist theory/Judeo-Christian worldview is the only approach to the Constitution which will protect and promote the three Cs in America's law and culture.

A "worldview" is a depiction of reality; only the worldview approach adequately explains reality. A "worldview" consists of an orderly arrangement of inherent, interrelated components central to a particular worldview.
A central component of a worldview is "constitutional theory," consisting of an organized system of core concepts.
The Judeo-Christian worldview and the constitutionalist theory it encompasses manifest characteristics unique to this worldview and superior to any alternative.

T. P. #3: In America's current Culture War, the three Cs are being undermined by Humanists/Reconstructionists' war against Constitutionalists for control of America's Constitutional theory (principles). This fierce assault is most forcefully and clearly revealed in court decisions (products) concerning the specific issue areas of religious liberties, evolutionism v. creationism, life, and homosexual rights/marriage.

T. P. #4: Americans have the mandate — and the muscle — to fight more effectively to Revive the Constitution!

Basic principles support the mandate.
Specific plans exist for implementing the mandate.

EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT SHOULD — AND CAN — UNDERSTAND AND EFFECTIVELY USE THESE POWERFUL TALKING POINTS TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUITON. SOUND INTIMIDATING? BLACKSTONE CAN HELP!

Available online or directly from the Blackstone Institute are educational weapons to start you on your mission. (Each of the following can be studied individually or in groups.) These weapons include:

"Courting Justice Blitz": a spectacular 45" multi-media DVD and printed materials overviewing the battle to Revive the Constitution and the RTC Plan.
"Blackstone Blitz": two 55" "whiz-bang" multi-media online presentations with printed materials arming you to attack Reconstructionism and defend Constitutionalism.
"The Basic Blackstone": our "must-read" piece, included in each of the Blitzes (and available separately), and containing the new second edition of our premier "Constitutionalist Manifesto" and "Constitutionalist Papers".
Our bombshell "Mega-Blitz": created by combining two Blitzes into a single study to be covered in four separate sessions, a four-hour workshop/seminar, etc.

JOIN US IN FIGHTING TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

EagleForum.org/court_watch or BlackstoneInstitute.org or 325/673-3020

THE SUCCESS OF THE BECK RALLY

2010-08-31T17:07:00.000-07:00

The Conservative Revolution vs America's Ruling Class. We are unique! Speaking humbly, to be a small part of this historic ground-swell is exciting, and a bit frightening at the same time. The Tea Party movement has grown to monumental proportions because America has had enough of 'Dirty Politics', and it's not going to take it anymore. There was a culmination of this movement in last year's 9-11 March on DC, and again in the 8-28 Beck rally at the Lincoln Memorial.

We have seen elected officials scoff at their own people, and rule against them, time after time. We have seen our own government sue one of our sister states, for simply attempting to protect themselves in the same manner laid out by our federal government. We have heard too many times our nation is arrogant, we are a nation of cowards, we are no longer a Christian nation, and that America is a mean country.

We have had enough!

The liberal press is just frothing at the mouth to lay blame on someone -- anyone, but they cannot. This movement doesn't need a leader, it comes from within -- which is why all the venom and the vitriol they throw at us only gives us strength. What makes me perk up is the little phrase "Reagan Was Right", and the values for which he stood. They keep us on the right path, holding our timeless founding principles in the light where they belong, and God back in to our country.

Putting the DC rally in perspective is an excellent piece by Jeffrey Lord in American Spectator: (Loved it)

The Success of the Beck Rally
by Jeffrey Lord - August 31, 2010

I love watching Glenn Beck on TV.

Day winding down, he makes so many good points. As someone who has spent a lifetime studying history, been there in government and politics, I find it great to watch Beck's particular insistence on educating Americans about real history that has gone missing. Having long ago learned first hand the progressive-race connection, for example, by having lived for a couple years in Woodrow Wilson's hometown, I am stunned to see someone have the wit and the chops to detail this particularly disturbing history of America's "progressive" president on popular television.

Bravo.

So I watched the rally on C-SPAN.

And you know what? (He says gently…)

I was elated -- and concerned.

Elated because putting together something like this is no day at the beach. Beck clearly worked his heart out on it and so too the Tea Party folks and all manner of others. It was a triumph. A huge success and Beck deserves congratulations for it.

If I may raise one concern.

Believe it or not, I found this event to be a bit of an intellectual muddle.

After considerable amounts of time doing a superb job on his television show analyzing American history -- from early American religion to the Founders to the Progressives -- and managing to draw a television audience of amazing size with all this, it was almost as if there was a bit of indecision as to what to say at this rally. Was this politics? Or religion? Or something else?

In truth, I wasn't sure. There's a difference between spot-on political assessments of "social justice" and being Billy Graham. Of urging people to political action -- and religious action. Oddly, this is one of the reasons (in reverse) why Beck opponents in the world of liberal religion have lost members: they have presented themselves as religious leaders yet behave as if they were secular politicians. Beck seems to be struggling with being a secular talk radio commentator -- or the Reverend Glenn.

There's nothing wrong with either. But the latter, per se, seems not what he was about all of this time up until now.

FOR REASONS THAT HAVE nothing to do with Glenn Beck -- television, the celebrification of America, the eternally human tendency to be attracted to powerful personalities -- it is critical to remember that events of this nature are not about the speakers but the participants. Martin Luther King's famous speech will be remembered forever -- but it will be remembered because the American people understood how to bring about racial equality for all Americans using the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Principles King spent a career discussing.

In other words, while the headlines go to a King or a Beck -- it is in fact the principles and the millions working to make those principles a reality that are always the real story.

But if the leader is well-intentioned yet unclear, well, muddle ensues.

The 2010 election is not about personality X,Y or Z. With the greatest of respect to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, both of whom I like, neither this election -- nor any other -- can afford to be about Glenn or Sarah or Newt or Rush or Sean or Mark or the Tea Party or Rand Paul or Sharron Angle or Alaska's Joe Miller or anyone else.

Is God part of this election? Yes, as always in American history. Beck is fond of quoting what originally came from Lincoln, saying that it's not important whether God is on our side but whether we are on God's side. But having well and powerfully established himself as a man of politics, Beck seems to be going elsewhere. True? Untrue? No idea.

Conservatives would do well to remember that this election is simultaneously about none of the above -- and all of the above. It is about millions across America who are totally un-famous beyond their church, their village, town or city, their service club, their school, their military unit if serving.

The 2010 election -- and every day we all draw a breath -- was correctly summarized centuries ago by Edmund Burke when he spoke of the principles at stake in a "partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born."

The Beck rally, says Beck, was about prayer. About God. And God generally supplies the help. As John Fund reported over at the Wall Street Journal, the grass roots nature of this event was evident as hundreds of Tea Party members buckled down to do the hard work of making the event and other events associated with it actually happen and run smoothly. But the Tea Party as it has emerged has presented itself as a political movement concerned about economics and politics. Not a religious faith.

The conservative movement's success comes from, among other things, the very fact of its messiness. Burke never said it wouldn't be messy. It is totally uncoordinated, filled with vibrant personalities who are busy blossoming in their own way that is not someone else's way. To which one can only say: Amen! This is a central strength, never a weakness. Beck says the rally to him was about God and, with his brigade of 240 ministers and awards for Faith, Hope and Charity, he added a distinctly unique flavor that is his. Some watched and saw a direct connection to politics. To each his own.

Ronald Reagan never ever saw himself as anything other than what he was his entire, mature adult life -- an advocate for timeless conservative principles. The reason conservatives celebrate the life and presidency of this mortal human being was his thorough, in-the-bones understanding of the fact that the principles are timeless -- even if individual humans are not. To be a Reaganite is to take Reagan's lesson to heart.

Liberals are out there just going crazy waiting for Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or any other prominent conservative to take a fall -- so they can turn around and say to the country: "See? It doesn't work. It's all about them." Turning himself from talk radio and TV commentator Glenn to Reverend Glenn will surely be seen by some -- if in fact that's what happening -- as just such an opening.

If Glenn Beck hasn't yet figured out where he's going with all of this, all the more reason for conservatives to stay focused on principles.

Beck has to know this. He comes across as so remarkably open, educating himself and his audience as he goes along. This is what surely accounts for part of the enthusiastic response from his audience. So too does Sarah Palin get it.

But whether Americans see the Beck rally as a rally about God or a rally about American politics, without doubt what is also at play here is the absolute rebellion that is taking place across America. A rebellion of which Beck and Palin and Newt and the call for God are symptoms but not causes. The American people in 2010, not at all unlike the American people in 1776, have had it. As Angelo Codevilla has so devastatingly captured in his forthcoming book on America's Ruling Class, beyond any one issue they are simply done with the arrogance that is the "dismissal of the American people's intellectual, spiritual, and moral substance." They are done, more than done, with the self-selected class of their fellow citizens whose "principal article of faith, its claim to the right to decide for others, is precisely that it knows and operates by standards beyond others' comprehension."

THIS REBELLION HAS BEEN COMING for a very long time. Surely the 40-plus years of yanking God out of every public school and square plays a role in this upheaval. Take a good look around.

One of the most successful books in the last year has been Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.

What's particularly interesting about Levin's book is that it was written before the election of Barack Obama. Which is to say, that Levin understood exactly the continuing conservative revolution -- and that it was not, as its critics of the moment wishfully insisted, dead. A prediction made with some regularity since at least the day after Barry Goldwater's 1964 defeat.

On the contrary, the success of conservatism can be measured in multiples of ways, Levin's book sales but one.

Let's take Levin's own talk radio field. Rush Limbaugh is in a class all by himself. The story of his success is both personal and a tale of conservatism's genuine popularity. His influence as he patiently and entertainingly explains principle in terms of daily events is simply unmatched. There are others behind Rush, from Sean Hannity to Levin to Beck and so on. Each with his own unique style. America knows these people well.

Which means something in the real world of 2010 politics.

Has anyone paid attention to the success of Sean Hannity's Freedom Concerts? Here's a guy who spent his vacation-less August trekking from city to city putting on star-studded musical extravaganzas at the rate of two a weekend from Atlanta to Las Vegas to San Diego and Dallas to Cincinnati to name just a few locations. Sold out crowds. Tens and tens of thousands of people. Millions of dollars raised for a charity, the Freedom Alliance, which in turn has used its funds for, among other things, the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund. A program to help educate the kids of those who were disabled or lost their lives in the military. Hannity pays for chunks of this personally. And the concerts are always presented with the help of Alliance co-founder retired Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and a cast of hundreds.

Does no one think this means anything politically? That there's no message from all those people who show up to cheer on Hannity as he sings (sort of!) "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" with Charlie Daniels fiddling away? Of course there's a message, and that message is about principles. Conservative principles.

Does no one really get the Sharron Angle story? Here is a conservative struggling in her Nevada primary race against more establishment, better-known and financed Republicans. Suddenly she is lifted from obscurity because Levin has taken up her cause -- and now she is the designated terror that Harry Reid is trying to use to scare Nevadans into giving him yet another endless term? Even as Reid's son tries to claim the state's governorship? Of course there's a message here -- a message about conservative principles.

Does no one understand the role of talk radio -- alongside Sarah Palin -- in Joe Miller's apparent lead over the establishment incumbent GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski? Yes, indeed, once again it was Levin at work. Levin plunged into Arizona, and took up the cause of McCain opponent J.D. Hayworth -- losing. But the loss is beside the point. The real point is Levin's understanding that these races for conservatism are won state by state, district by district, one vote at a time, doing the nitty-gritty of hard work all across America.

IT HAS BEEN BEYOND BREATHTAKINGLY foolish for liberals to take a look at the Tea Party movement and shut it out, dismissing the participants as just a bunch of racist, ignorant Nazi-loving nuts. Aside from being insultingly and deliberately bogus, it was mind-bogglingly stupid. A year ago I spent some time in the small town of Lebanon, Pennsylvania, while Senator Arlen Specter was conducting one of those now-famous raucous town hall meetings on health care. The astonished police told me there were at least 1,000 people outside on the streets. I spent time talking with those in the crowd. They were from all across the state. They had taken time off of work to drive to Lebanon. They came on their own. They did not, they made it clear, come because of anyone on the radio or television. They were mad. Furious about what they saw as, in the President's words, an attempt to "fundamentally transform" their country from a set of constitutional principles to some sort of statist utopia.

All of this hot success -- the conservative books, the talk radio shows, the summertime Beck rally and the Hannity concerts, the ratings of Fox News and the prominence of publications like the one you are reading -- combined with the Internet -- are in the process of bringing forth the next chapter in a serious philosophical movement that features a veritable universe of stars past and present discussing in Burkean fashion a timeless set of principles.

From the Edmund Burkes, John Lockes, Adam Smiths and Abraham Lincolns to a Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and on and on right down to, as was said in the famous Longfellow poem of Paul Revere's ride, "every Middlesex village and farm" -- the conservative revolution flowers. And yes, Beck is correct to include early American religious leaders in this long chain.

Make absolutely no mistake.

Glenn Beck is doing his thing, which only he can do and do well. This is no slam at Beck. It is just an expression of, well, not understanding where he's going with this. Those half million on the mall with him are now part of this chapter of the Conservative Revolution. Whether they were showing up for God or America or tax cuts or to support the troops, whatever it is or was is having an impact. And so too the thousands who showed up at Sean Hannity's Freedom Concerts are part of all of this. Yes, don't forget the people who bought -- and continue to buy --- Mark Levin's book. Or Laura Ingraham's or Ann Coulter's or Michelle Malkin's or -- yes again -- Glenn Beck's. Not to mention who those who voted for Sharron Angle or Joe Miller or conservative candidate X. Or those who tune in faithfully to Rush.

But never forget that the real hero here is, well, you. Or, as Beck might have it, the children of God.

The average American who gets out of bed every single day and raises a family, goes to work, pays the taxes, serves in the military or in some fashion is the driving force in their community.

And the average American is now in open rebellion from coast to coast. Against a ruling class bent on social engineering when they're not busy erasing American history.

The message is timeless. The principles sound. They are colorblind and reject attempts to divide by race, class or religion. And yes, they do have a core that comes from a Judeo-Christian heritage

America, as Ronald Reagan use to say, is an idea. You can move to England yet you will never be an Englishman. You can move to France but you will never be French. But anyone can become an American (legally!). And once here, a realization takes hold, as Levin quotes Reagan in his book.

"Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Conservatives, Levin noted in his book, need to get busy.

If the Beck rally, the Hannity concerts, the talk radio and Fox ratings, the book sales and the intensity factors of every poll out there are correct -- conservatives are busy.

Millions of you. All at the same time. All in your own way. God's children one and all.

To borrow from James Carville: It's the principles, stupid.

Can you say Amen!

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Counting the Deaths on Commander-In-Chief Obama's Impotent Hands

2010-08-30T20:04:00.000-07:00

As this president will no less take credit for any positive and lay blame for all negative on his Tuesday "War" speech, Obama will more than likely bloviate on his brilliance in winning the war in Iraq. Before he does, a horrifying fact must be made. In the 20 months of this man's presidency, we have lost 632 valiant American lives in Afghanistan, the worst being the last three months, more than under the entire watchful eye of the Bush administration of over 7 years.

Have you heard that in the news?

Shameful. Is there no holding this mainstream media accountable for such debotury?

Obama has announced strategic information to our enemies, putting our brave military in more harm's way than we can imagine. And while he over-indulges himself at the Vineyard on our dime, did it ever enter his mind (or heart ..... oops, doesn't have one) that a phone call or visit to our Soldiers and their families might give them consolation? No, just shoves another ice cream cone in his face.

It's no wonder the "Miss Me Yet?" shirts are outselling all others.

Haystack writes an excellent piece in Red State:

Counting the Deaths on Commander-in-Chief Obama’s Impotent Hands
And asking when Obama will attain full "baby killer" status
by Dave Poff (haystack) - August 30, 2010

I have been watching iCasualties.Org daily for the past 5 weeks. This is not a morbid curiosity; I have done this because I noticed back then that June 2010 was the worst month for US casualties of any so far in the Afghanistan war…ANY point during the 9 years we’ve been fighting it.

I noticed, upon further investigation, that the numbers were on pace to be even worse in July (which they ultimately were) and that there was not one [expletive deleted in deference to the posting guidelines] mention of this anywhere in the major media outlets. I was angry, however unsurprised I might have been, but I determined that I would quietly watch…and “listen”… to the news to see if anyone else was paying attention over these past 5 short weeks. They were not.

Over 50 Soldiers have died since I started paying attention, and the only news story I’ve seen tells of the 7 Soldiers that died last weekend. A death here or 2 or 3 there don’t, apparently, qualify as news. Meanwhile, our metrosexual President (unable to talk to the American people or the families of our fallen heroes because he’s been just too busy riding his girl’s mountain bike adorned in that goofy looking helmet which keeps him safe on his harrowing ride along the treacherous streets of Martha’s Vineyard), seems completely indifferent to these numbers.

I wouldn’t want to talk to these families either, if I were him.

In 86 months the total number of casualties in Afghanistan was 630 under the Bush command. Under Obama’s weak, waffling, hand-wringing and navel-gazing command, in just 19 months, the US casualty count as of August 30, 2010 now surpasses Bush’s numbers, sitting now at a total of 632…and counting. How can this be?

We’ve had 4,763 strategy reviews. We’ve made kissy-face with our enemies. We’ve announced to them that we have a date-certain withdrawal plan if only they could just quiet themselves and wait us out. We’ve changed leadership on the ground, modified the ROE, incorporated the Rahm Emanuel-style approach to winning friends and influencing people there, and we’ve even begun indirect negotiations with our enemy to help facilitate their return to power once we tuck tail and run.

While our former President vacationed on his ranch, running chainsaws and wearing his man pants, he took time to visit Soldiers and the loved ones of the fallen wherever time allowed. He does so still. THIS President, beclowning himself at the Vineyard on our dime playing golf, either misunderstands his role as Commander-in-Chief during hostilities or he doesn’t care. George Bush, while winning (or trying to win) wars endured daily headlines about body counts. He endured countless calls for his resignation or, failing that, his impeachment. George Bush was a lot of things to a lot of people but he always cared about the Soldiers and their families…and he SHOWED it to them on a regular basis. He cared then, and he cares to this very day. Obama clearly does not.

The question now, with Obama’s complete lack of care or concern about the Soldiers or their families or their sacrifices, is when the calls will come from the left for his own resignation or his own impeachment. I’m fairly certain, like the chirping crickets in the headlines across America, I know the answer already.

CALIF. PRIMARY REMINDER: LAIRD ENDORSED BY OBAMA VS. BLAKESLEE AUG. 17th

2010-08-10T19:12:00.000-07:00

Debate Calendar

August 17th is a special state Senate election in a runoff between John Laird (D) and Sam Blakeslee (R). Laird has recently been endorsed by Obama, and if Laird wins, the Democrats would be within one vote of the two-thirds majority they need in the state Senate to approve tax increases and the state budget. Over the last 19 months, we have witnessed what happens when there is no balance of power.

Both campaigns have been "well-greased with cash", and a write-in ballot will make it easier for California voters off on summer holidays across the district to mail in their vote, so every vote counts.

From The Californian in June:

Monterey County voters have a chance to impact the balance of power in the state Legislature on June 22.

The special primary election to fill the open state Senate seat in District 15 pits Santa Cruz Democrat John Laird against San Luis Obispo Republican Sam Blakeslee. You might call it the battle of the North vs. the South.

Drawn in 2001 to protect a moderate Republican, Abel Maldonado, Senate District 15 has morphed into a Democratic majority. Maldonado's appointment to lieutenant governor earlier this year left the Senate seat open. Republicans are desperate to keep it to prevent Democrats from moving closer to a supermajority in the Legislature with a District 15 victory.

Blakeslee took a 7 percent lead in the June 22nd primary winning 49.4 percent of the vote, just short of the needed 50%. This makes the August 17th runoff critical, as the Democrats hold a 7-point registration edge in the district. Laird has a record of raising taxes and killing jobs. Sound familiar?

Let's get out and vote -- time to "take out the trash".

HOUSE CALLED BACK TO CONGRESS TO PASS MORE BAIL OUTS

2010-08-07T11:48:00.000-07:00

In light of the recent Senate vote (thank you Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) to pass a $26 billion bail out for states and government unions, financed in part by an $11 billion tax hike, Nancy Pelosi smells the blood in the water, and has called congress back from their summer break to pass this in the House so it can be on Obama's desk [quickly, now, it's critical] before anyone has time to think about it.

Rather than cutting the fat and the over spending by government officials, the government uses teachers, firemen, and police -- the people who stand in harms way to protect Americans -- as a ploy to bail out the unions and pensions. A favorite façade of Pelosi's is as always "It's for the children".

Dick Morris asks the good question:

As long as the Democrats control Congress, they will continue to rubber-stamp Obama's requests for bailouts of profligate states. But when the Republicans take control, they will be less than forthcoming. Republicans will ask the central question: Why should taxpayers from states that have cut their budgets and observed spending restraint, pay for the extravagances of the other states? Why should forty-seven states have to pay for California, New York, and Michigan?

Full story here.

The vote is to be taken the week of August 9th. They are not listening to the outcries of Americans, and are instead ruling against the will of the people. In plain words, we are living in a soft tyranny. We live in the greatest country in the world, and our voices matter.

Grassfire has a contact list with fax numbers here. Speak up, America! Contact congress today.

The Heritage Foundation writes about the Obama tax hikes, and another step towards a welfare state:

The Obama Tax Hikes, Another Step Toward a European Welfare State
The Heritage Foundation - August 6, 2010

Last night, the Senate voted 61-39 in favor of a $26 billion | bailout for states and government unions financed in part by an $11 billion tax hike that will kill American jobs at U.S. companies that compete overseas. Worse, before that final vote was taken, the Senate also defeated two amendments by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), both by 58-42 votes, that would have prevented the largest tax hike in American history. And earlier this month, Vice President Joe Biden told ABC News that the only thing wrong with President Barack Obama's first $862 billion economic stimulus was that it didn't borrow and spend enough.

The message to the U.S. economy's job creators from this Administration and Congress is clear: You can expect higher spending, higher taxes and higher deficits for years to come. The verdict on this approach is in. Today the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor and Statistics released its monthly jobs report showing the economy shed 131,000 jobs in July as 143,000 temporary census workers lost their government jobs. With the private sector only managing to add 71,000 jobs and averaging only 51,000 jobs over the past three months, the private economy appears stuck in first gear. Despite the job losses, the nation's unemployment rate didn't budge from 9.5% because another 181,000 discouraged workers left the workforce. All told the U.S. economy has now lost 2.4 million jobs since President Barack Obama signed his stimulus bill, and his administration is 7.6 million jobs short of what he promised the American economy would support by 2010.

Faced with this failure, the Obama administration wants to double down on its tax and spend policies by hiking taxes on America's job creators. Research on the last seven recessions shows that small businesses generate about two out of every three new jobs during recoveries. But the $3.2 trillion Obama Tax Hike in January will hit these businesses the hardest. As Heritage Foundation analyst Curtis Dubay has detailed, while only eight percent of small businesses pay the highest two tax rates, those businesses earn 72 percent of all small business income and pay 82 percent of all income taxes paid by small businesses. According to a study by the American Family Business Foundation, just stopping President Obama's Death Tax hike alone would create 1.5 million jobs.

But lower taxes and a more dynamic private sector is not the direction that President Obama wants to take the country. Obama's economic direction is obviously not popular among conservatives, and is now becoming less and less popular among independents and liberals. As Slate columnist David Weigel | told National Review's Dan Foster this week: "It is like the biggest failing of Obama, and I keep saying this, that he just can't be honest about the fact that he wants America to be more like Europe. Obviously he does." We couldn't agree more. For two generations after post-war reconstruction, Europe and America have pursued different economic models, and accordingly, moved in different economic directions. The American model was low tax, low spending and small government. It favored growth, income and vibrancy. The European model is high tax, high spending and big government. It favored fairness, equality and stability. It also featured unemployment rates double those of the United States, often hovering around 10 percent. Now that is no longer the case. Under Obama’s economic leadership, U.S. unemployment rates are surpassing Europe’s.

Commenting on President Obama’s budget, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) told National Review Online: "This budget presents a choice of two futures. … This budget is about more than specific programs or policies. It is really about the American idea, and whether we want to move towards a European-style welfare state." Allowing the Obama Tax Hikes to occur will be one huge step down that road. Is that really the choice Americans want to make?

DENNIS PRAGER Q&A AT UNIVERSITY OF DENVER

2010-08-04T12:24:00.000-07:00

Dennis Prager speaks at the University of Denver, with Sarah Palin and fellow talk show host Hugh Hewitt. For the first time, Dennis talks of the importance of the November 2010 elections as critical. He also speaks about the biggest threat to America, and the "Why" America.

It gives pause for thought, and emphasises the importance of teaching American History year after year after year; we must teach what it means to be an American, and why America is exceptional. America liberates, it does not control. We are the greatest force for good.

America must never forget from whence it came, or the struggle to form a country whose freedom is based on God given rights. Our school system needs an enema, and taken out of the hands of government where it has become politicized.

ON GINGRICH: A LEGACY OF SURRENDER

2010-07-27T18:09:00.000-07:00

Same old, same old. Where is that fresh face, with the conviction to stand their ground against tyranny, corruption, and a complicit press? We are living in a new age, where politicians openly disregard protocol, tradition, the rule of law, and the all important Constitution of the United States of America.

What we do have are a lot of old faces that didn't exactly ignite the nation, and one that should just retire, or teach, or make more DVDs, which aren't bad. Newt Gingrich, "dusting off an old playbook", has been making gestures as though he's back in the game.

Lest we forget, it's worth mentioning his positions from back in the day. Back in the day when our country was desperate for leadership, for taking a stand against big government, and for a backbone. But the "Reformer In Name Only" didn't have one, has a long history of caving in, and doesn't show any sign of change. It was Gingrich who recently suggested the tea partiers and the NAACP hold a town hall in light of their accusations about racism. Are you serious?

Do we really need another elitist in the White House?

Howard Rich writes another great piece on Mr. Gingrich in POLITICO. Gingrich is so not the guy to bring back conservative principles and values to the Republican party.

On Gingrich: A Legacy of Surrender
by Howard Rich, July 27, 2010

The news that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich folded like a cheap suit in the wake of a brazen political attack on the tea party movement was sad. But not surprising.

As far back as his second term in Congress, in 1980, Gingrich sided with big labor interests until brought to his knees by a National Right to Work education campaign. Contrary to his image, Gingrich has demonstrated throughout his political career that he possesses no real ideological mooring.

Now, his legitimizing the NAACP’s crass political attempt to play the race card reveals him to be nothing more than a rank political opportunist – a White House-aspiring demagogue who prefers looking good for the liberal legacy media to standing up for our rights as citizens and taxpayers.

Practically-speaking, Gingrich no more subscribes to the tea party ideals of limited government, individual liberty and personal responsibility than President Barack Obama. At least, that’s what one could infer from his endorsement of liberal “stimulus”-supporter Dede Scozzafava in upstate New York last year.

In fact, Gingrich previously dismissed the tea party as nothing more than the “militant wing of the Republican Party” — a crude diminution of a diverse group of freedom-loving Americans.

That’s why, when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People decided to play the race card against the tea party earlier this month, it wasn’t shocking to see Gingrich immediately raise the white flag and suggest that the Tea Party should give credence to this attack by co-hosting town hall meetings with the NAACP. Rather than rebuking this unfounded attack and exposing its political motivations, Gingrich chose to cave – again – in hopes of giving America a “teachable moment.”

This policy of appeasement had disastrous results in past. In fact, it is responsible for the GOP’s fateful retreat from its limited government roots after the “Republican Revolution” of 1994.

“When the Republican Party faced withering criticism during the government shutdown of 1995 to 1996, our leaders folded instead of standing their ground,” then-former Rep. Tom Coburn wrote in his 2001 book, “Breach of Trust.” “Rather than doing the hard work of explaining to the public, or even to rank-and-file Republicans, what was necessary to reduce the size of government, our leaders retreated.”

By taking the easy way out, and bowing to the altar of political-correctness, Gingrich established a pattern of appeasement that has defined the GOP to this day. Making matters worse, it was his arrogance which precipitated the costly sellout.

"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One,” former House majority leader Tom DeLay later wrote. “Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child. The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same.”

Nor was the Republican Party -- which from that moment began caving left and right to the Washington establishment it was elected to uproot.

In short order, Gingrich’s Contract with America gave way to bridges to nowhere and other big government spending outrages.

Now, in the hope of positioning himself as a legitimate presidential contender in 2012, Gingrich is again betraying the ideals of the limited government movement for his own political gains. Instead of calling NAACP leaders out as intellectual frauds, Gingrich is seeking to give their race-baiting views a national platform at the tea party’s expense.

Such appeasement is a recipe for disaster.

True limited government advocates should recognize both the NAACP and Gingrich for what they are – enemies in the fight for greater personal and economic freedom for all Americans.

That is the real “teachable moment” of Gingrich’s latest betrayal.

Howard Rich is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.
Read his "GOP: Contractually Bound?".

KNOW WHEN TO HOLD 'EM

2010-07-26T20:21:00.000-07:00

There is an ongoing struggle to maintain truth and accuracy in history today. We see the destruction of historical truth in our schools; the anti-semite Oliver Stone has taken atrocious liberties in his upcoming 10 part Showime series (which should be boycotted) about Stalin, Mao, Hitler and the Holocaust; and our universities are rife with liberalism and their distortion of history.

The fact that the NAACP was founded by whites is not widely known, or that Martin Luther King was a Republican, or that JFK voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which was proposed by President Dwight D. Eisenhauer (R). It was President John Kennedy who opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King. While it was President Ronald Reagan who declared the third Monday of January to be a federal legal holiday commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday. President George H.W. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas as the first black U.S. Supreme Court Justice. President George W. Bush appointed Colin Powell the first black Secretary of State, and later Condoleezza Rice for the same position.

From Frances Rice:

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

Down through history, conservatives have been the party of no color. We want everyone to prosper, everyone to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and everyone to be allowed their God given rights. We do not look upon the world through the prism of race.

It is critical to remember all of this, in a time when this president and his administration have continually played the race card from the moment he took office. Let us not forget that momentous speech of Eric Holder's, informing us "we are a nation of cowards". What a stupendous way to begin a 'regime' (which Howard Dean referred this administration as on Fox News Sunday).

Here is a wonderful piece by Clarice Feldman from the great American Thinker. She lays out step by step the atrocities going on in the Obama administration and their obsession with race.

Clarice's Pieces: Know When to Hold 'Em
by Clarice Feldman, July 25, 2010

Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler" is as good a start to this week's summary as I can think of:

"You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em,

Know when to walk away and know when to run.

You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.

There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done."

In my view, Obama still doesn't know when to hold or fold his race cards. Neither does the NAACP. They've been bluffing the dummies so long they think they can get away with it forever. And they are wrong.

And when "the dealin's done, the Democrats and their friends in the press will find out that their decades-long race-baiting of their political and ideological opponents has lost its power to bluff. Let's start seeing and raising them every time they try it .

Obama ran and won in large part on a theme: this was going to be a post-racial presidency. We could end the Balkanization of American and begin working together. From the outset he danced a tightrope. To appease his base -- and perhaps because it fits his worldview -- he filled his administration with people who had a decidedly racialist/ spoils system view of government. The agenda was to increase the number of racial preferences while pretending it was not doing so.

One of his most important picks was Eric Holder as Attorney General. And one of Holder's first acts was to call the United States "a nation of cowards" on racial issues. "Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we average Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about race," he said.

At the same time, his Department was dismissing a case it had won against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation and directing the staff of the Civil Rights Division to ignore similar cases in which the perpetrators of voter intimidation were black and the victims white (according to sworn and corroborated testimony). It was forcing jurisdictions still under the Voting Rights Act to adopt voting rules that would assure racial quotas were met in election outcomes. To date, the Department, instead of welcoming a debate on race and on its conduct, has refused to cooperate with any official inquiries on its conduct.

In the same vein, when the Administration stripped car dealerships from Chrysler and GM owners race was a factor in deciding who would be allowed to remain in business and who would not.

On the Hill, with Congressional assistance, new racial preferences were slipped into ObamaCare and the misnamed Financial Reform Act. All of this had the likely effect of driving further a wedge between citizens; violating our firmly held belief in equality of opportunity and creating more tensions and ill-will.

Last summer the President made an unforced error, attacking the Cambridge police Department for what he characterized as behaving stupidly in arresting Harvard Professor Gates. When it turned out that it was Gates who was at fault and Obama who had acted unfairly before the facts -- the "context" if you will -- were known, he tried to patch it over with a Rose garden Beer Summit.

This week, the President again acted precipitously in forcing the resignation of Shirley Sherrod, a USDA employee, for her remarks made in March to an NAACP group .When it appeared that her remarks -- while they were intemperate and would surely have been deemed racist if they'd been made by a white speaker, were somewhat ameliorated (but no less racist) by her claimed epiphany that the issue was class, not race -- he was forced once again to backtrack. Obama apologized and apparently another position was offered to her.

In the event you haven't watched all the ins and outs, here's a summary.

Shirley Sherrod was the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack appointed her to this position on July 25 of last year, days after a group she'd formed with her husband and others won a thirteen million dollar settlement of a suit they'd file against Vilsack claiming the Department had discriminated against them, a case whose claims have mushroomed and for which taxpayers have already paid out over a billion dollars plus some millions in defense costs, in some cases to plaintiffs with dubious claims.

Speaking at an NAACP dinner in Georgia, she talked about how some years before while working at a non-government organization -- she'd not done all she should have to help a struggling white farmer. Her words are clearly racist. The audience signaled agreement with them.

Andrew Breitbart received a copy of this tape.

When the NAACP falsely charged Obama's opponents in the tea party with being racist, Breitbart who has repeatedly shown the claim against the tea party to be without foundation unloaded the tape, using it to show the hypocrisy of the NAACP:

Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another group's racial tolerance.

In fact, Breitbart's aim was directed as much toward the media as the NAACP and Sherrod's class warfare language. He said, when presenting the video tapes:

The emerging Tea Party nation understands that the media has focused on the manufactured racial schism while intentionally ignoring the schism between free market thinkers and government expansionists, that the latter of which is brazen in its desire to transform America into a European-model welfare state with a healthy dose of socialism.

It's unfortunate that the NAACP's recent resolution and false accusations have forced us to show you video 1 when video 2 is the bigger problem. That's not to say video 1 is not a problem, but this country can ill afford, in this time of economic peril, to waste our time poking and prodding at the racial hornet's nest that was supposed to have been removed with this post-racial presidency. But now President Obama and the modern-day Democrat party reveal they are anything but post-racial.

Yet again, the juxtaposition of the real video evidence shown here versus the mainstream media's straight faced reportage of the NAACP's baseless accusations demonstrates that, once again, the American main stream media has asserted itself as the number one enemy of the truth, when the facts don't fit the left-wing narrative. Like the NAACP, it has become no better than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in its willingness to exploit race for political ends and their unflinching support of the Obama's left-wing agenda.

Not on the version of the tape he had, but on the longer version in the NAACP's possession, Ms Sherrod later said she'd had an epiphany: Poor whites weren't the enemy. It was the rich folks who were harming the poor of all races.

Perhaps Breitbart should have made even clearer that he was not attacking her, but the NAACP. He later clarified that her admission of racist behavior concerned conduct which occurred before she was on the government payroll. It was clear nonetheless that what he'd given (two different snippets from the speech, the latter advising blacks to seek employment at the USDA here they wouldn't be fired) was not the entire tape. Fox news, signaled to its producers not to use the tape and with the exception of Bill O ‘ Reilly, they held off showing the video until she resigned though other media did run with it before the entire tape was found.

The NAACP leapt in and demanded she be fired, and the White House pressured her to resign.

When the full tape -- or at least more of it (there is an unexplained break in the tape) -- was made public, the NAACP backtracked, the White House apologized and there was a suggestion that she was going to be offered another job in "civil rights."

What Breitbart had done was a bit of judo, using the NAACP's hair trigger response to racism and its habit of using selective and not credibly evidenced reports against opponents like the tea party to embarrass the organization itself to demonstrate how careless it is in its accusations of racism. They stepped in it with both feet, embarrassing Ms. Sherrod, the White House and their own organization in the process. To my knowledge this is the first serious pushback against such NAACP techniques. There is a certain symmetry in all this.

As my friend JMH noted," They demanded that tea party leaders publicly excommunicate putative racists in their midst -- and then suddenly found themselves stumbling over their own petard."

Those who use this to attack Breitbart are wrong. He baited the hook and all the usual suspects leapt at it.

People are already hard at work trying to rewrite the history of this. In the new version Ms. Sherrod is another Dreyfus according to the laughably hyperbolic Keith Olbermann, but in her speech while on the government payroll she said,

"Now we just endured eight years of the Bushes, but we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President."

After the forced resignation the NAACP had some "context" which in its mind softened the racism in the initial video, the NAACP blamed Fox and Breitbart for their own overreaction to the video.

She, too, blamed Fox. She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage.

"I think they should but they won't. They intended exactly what they did. "They were looking for the result they got yesterday," she said of Fox. "I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."

In sum, in the new telling of the events Breitbart's own words are ignored and he was blamed for what were the White House and the NAACP's intemperate actions. Sherrod and the NAACP both blamed Fox, the network that held back on the basis they wanted to see the whole tape and would not run the story until it could see the whole thing and get some context for her remarks.

For Sherrod and the NAACP the enemy is Fox and Republicans. Not themselves or the White House. For Obama the fault is Vilsack's.

The story gained even more traction than it might have -- at least online. (Who knows what minimal information those who rely on old media have of any of this?)

The reason for that is the Daily Caller obtained the archives of the 400 member listserv JournoList emails which reveal the connivances of this band of journalists and academics.

There's a lot of unsavory meat being exposed. Not the least of it is the plan to tar any opposition to Obama and his policies during the presidential campaign as racist even though the claims were far fetched and baseless, and to prevent news of Obama's racist and Marxist Reverend Wright from being published.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists." [Emphasis supplied.]

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: "Listen folks-in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn't about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people."

"Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.' He's dead on," Tomasky continued. "We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease."

Don Surber reviewed some of the campaign coverage and noted how often the reportage contained false accusations of racism.

One of the columnists in his hometown, Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun-Times, frequently cried wolf, er, racist.

Consider this from an October 9, 2008, column: "Despite Palin's steady stream of hateful speech, Obama's poll numbers have gone up, while McCain's supporters are growing antsy."

What hateful speech?

She opposed Obama's policies, not his skin color. And when Palin said of Obama he "launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist," Palin was absolutely right. Only two groups have ever bombed the Pentagon: Al-Qaeda and Bill Ayers' Weather Underground.

Mary Mitchell's column also included a reference to a phantom shout of a racial epithet at a Palin rally. This set a pattern of unsubstantiated of racism at rallies against Obama any time things get tough. members of the Congressional Black Caucus trolled for racial taunts at a Tea Party. Hearing none, the rumor of an N-word against Congressman John Lewis was whispered.

Let me tell you, if it happened, Congressman Lewis would still be shouting against it. There would be videos of it.

This makes it seem as if Obama was chosen by the Democratic Party solely because his race could shield their socialistic agenda from attack. To be sure, he received the highest percentage of white votes any Democratic presidential candidate has received since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Some of that may be white guilt. Most of it was a vote against President Bush.

While liberals point to a few incidents here by fringe groups, conservatives point to Obama belonging to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. "Black liberation theology" turns out to be race-baiting. No patriot would return to a church after the pastor swore "God Damn America." Barack Obama wrote a book titled by that preacher.

So now Obama has a race problem?

The chickens, as Reverend Wright would say are coming home to roost.

The denouement comes too late to remedy the outrages perpetrated by the race baiters over the years. How much "context", for example, did civil rights activists give the decent Judge Pickering with a lifetime of working for better racial relations and square dealing? None, of course.

But this tactic has been so good to them, the examples of the bluffs' working are numerous. Thus Senator Byrd was given a hero's farewell in the Capitol, his role in blocking civil rights legislation for years was all but forgotten by the Democrats and most of the press when his party laid him to rest after a long career redolent of racism. But Byrd's an easy example of how public memories have been distorted by time and media disinformation. Here's a better test. Ask your family and friends if then Senator John F Kennedy, voted for or against President Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights Act.

When you realize how few know the correct answer, maybe you'll agree that the time to push back against this race card bluffing and media distortion of the truth is long overdue.

Read more Clarice Feldman here.

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON TEA PARTIES

2010-07-22T16:08:00.000-07:00

This has been one unbelievable week, with everything being thrown at tea partiers just to see what would stick. In this administration, when you think the past week has been unbelievable -- along comes another one just as earth shaking. But, this past week has been one of the most vile.

The one thing I have learned about this incredible movement is that we are people who love this country, are gounded in its roots, and will live or die to preserve it. We want everyone to share in its riches -- our God given right to the pursuit of happiness, in all walks of life, of all colors, of all religions.

The left can throw anything they want at us, but they will never destroy the spirit of freedom on which this country was founded, and what is in our hearts, and that is what has motivated people to get involved, some [such as myself] for the first time in their life. Better late than never.

This is a moving and motivational piece by David Barton of Wall Builders that is well worth sharing:

A Historical Perspective on Tea Parties
by David Barton, July 22, 2010

In recent months, Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Parties have come under unrelenting criticism from the national media and several national organizations. (Significantly, Liberals and Progressives are the most fixated on discrediting Tea Parties.)

Yet, I find that the Tea Parties represent a welcome addition to the national political scene and public policy debate. I especially appreciate the fact that they focus more on principles than policies – that so many of their meetings are dedicated to learning more about the Constitution, American Exceptionalism, and the principles of limited government.

But like any new movement, they have made mistakes; and they have said things they did not understand that the national media would misportray; but that's understandable. The members of the Tea Parties are largely citizens who have been previously uninvolved in the political process and are therefore largely inexperienced with its lurking snares.

Is there an historical perspective on this "new" movement? I was asked by a newspaper to do an op-ed piece on that question. In case you're interested, I've enclosed that article below (which can also be downloaded). Enjoy!

- - - * * * - - -

Tea Parties – Same Song, Second Verse

America's first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation. Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The "Indians" even swept the decks of the ships before they left.

Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales. And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent, but such was not the case.

Interestingly, in many ways, today's Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the "American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act"). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.

Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.

"To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones." "Avoid occasions of expense...and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions...to discharge the debts." George Washington
"Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to...extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt." Alexander Hamilton
"The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness." "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." Thomas Jefferson

These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; (2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget; (4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress. Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that while Americans differ on the way they view the Tea Parties, they support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one.

Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: "My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad." But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.

The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today's Tea Party rallies when he said: "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!"

- - - * * * - - -

To make a tax-deductible contribution to WallBuilders and help us further our mission of educating Americans about our religious, moral, and constitutional foundations and how public policy can preserve those foundations, click here.

God Bless!

David Barton