Target 2010 - Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Barbara Boxer was born Barbara Levy in Brooklyn, New York where she attended public schools, graduating from Wingate High School in 1958. In 1962, she married Stewart Boxer and graduated from Brooklyn College with a Bachelor's Degree in Economics. For the next three years, Boxer worked as a stockbroker while her husband attended law school. The couple later moved to Greenbrae in Marin County, California, and had two children, Doug and Nicole. Boxer's husband, Stewart, is an attorney in Oakland who specializes in worker's compensation cases and is known for keeping a low profile when it comes to politics. Many cases are referred to him by labor unions, including the Teamsters. The Boxers’ son, Douglas, who is also a lawyer, now practices law with Stewart Boxer and is a member of the Oakland Planning Commission, having been appointed to that office by then-mayor Edmund Brown, Jr.

Barbara Boxer has been in politics since 1976 when she was elected to the Marin County California Board of Supervisors. She first ran for the position in 1972 but was defeated in a close election. It was Barbara’s husband, Stewart, that had originally planned to run for the Board of Supervisors, but decided the campaign would interfere with his law practice, so Barbara ran instead. In 1976, she had the support of Marin Alternative, a Progressive (American Socialist) group that Boxer had helped form a few years earlier. Marin Alternative eventually dissolved in the late 1970’s but since Boxer was already elected to public office, they had apparently served their purpose.

Boxer was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. Serving California’s 6th Congressional District, Boxer represented Marin and Sonoma Counties for the next ten years. During this time she focused on human rights, environmental protection, military procurement reform, and abortion issues from a pro-choice stance. In her first big setback, Boxer was one of the 450 Congressmen and House staffers implicated in the House Banking Scandal of 1992, personally writing eighty-seven overdraft checks while serving in Congress. The degreed economist and former stock broker issued a statement on her part in the scandal saying; “in painful retrospect, I clearly should have paid more attention to my account." To quiet public dissent over her behavior, Boxer wrote a $15 check to the Federal Deficit Reduction Fund for each of her eighty-seven overdraft checks. Well, at least she wasn’t appointed to head the Treasury Department or the House Ways and Means Committee but I think those positions are only offered to tax cheats and not people that merely pass bad checks.

As if to draw attention away from her own fiscal misdealing; Boxer, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee championed the fight for fiscal reform in Military Procurement. I’m sure everyone remembers the stories that came out of those hearings about $400 screwdriver and $10,000 toilet seats, but much of the truth behind those stories were never made as public as the price tags were. Many of the military purchases that were brought under scrutiny were made for special purposes and in very limited numbers, with those few items bearing the entire cost of design and manufacture that would normally amount to pennies per item if they ever went into mass production. Case in point is that $400 screwdriver.

The premier American spy plane of the day was the SR-71 “Blackbird”. The SR-71 has a top speed of no less than Mach 3.3 and to travel at those speeds, nearly the entire surface of the aircraft was made from titanium. Titanium is an exceptionally light weight and strong material but had an adverse and corrosive reaction if scratched by the usual chromium-steel tools used everywhere else in the aerospace industry. Special cadmium plated tools were required for the project but tool manufacturers didn’t make cadmium plated tools for any purpose. Only 32 of these cutting edge aircraft were ever manufactured limiting the number of special tools and equipment the military needed to support them. The few hundred screwdrivers that were needed had to be ordered as a special item so those few tools bore the entire cost of design, tooling costs and manufacture which was added to the material cost of each of the screwdrivers produced, making the price seem absurd to anyone that didn’t know the whole story.

By the way; the $10,000 toilet seat Boxer railed on about was for the Space Shuttle and aside from the few smaller shuttles built for testing, only five full-size, space-worthy shuttles were ever built. Because it is used in zero gravity, I doubt anyone would argue that a toilet seat for the space shuttle is not something you can readily pick up at Home Depot so the end result was a special order for five custom designed and manufactured seats that had to meet strict criteria.

Despite the political setbacks after the House Banking Scandal, otherwise known as “Rubber-gate” because of all the bounced checks, the Liberals in California still elected Boxer to the United States Senate in 1993 where she currently sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Curiously enough, after seventeen years in the Senate, Boxer is still considered a “junior Senator” which only serves to illustrate the need for Congressional term limits as many of the “Senior Senators” have been there for decades; having lost all touch with their States, their constituents and in some cases, their bodily functions.

While Boxer had made some sound choices during her career, many of her votes reflect her Progressive ideology and that ideology has often clouded her judgment in votes that have adversely affected her State and the people she represents. The organizations that focus on taxpayer rights, business opportunities and personal liberties grade Boxer extremely low; in some cases, receiving an absolute zero. Being a Progressive, I’m sure Boxer stands proud that she has received extremely high grades from America’s most notoriously Liberal groups such as the ACLU (87%), the Socialist front Group, Americans for Democratic Action (95%), the AFL-CIO (100%) and the Campaign for America's Future (100%), just to name a few. Incidentally, the Campaign for America's Future is another one of those George Soros funded anti-American groups with links to ACORN, MoveOn.org, Rock the Vote and National Council of La Raza. If that is her support, then we really have to question what they have been getting in return.

Boxer now faces a tough race in California now that many of her policies and beliefs have made their way into the California political spectrum and have done irreversible damage to the State economy. The added taxes imposed by the massive Federal programs she supports promises to bankrupt California altogether and her constituents are facing an uncertain future with State and local services at risk of severe cuts added to dwindling prospects for meaningful work as employers threaten to leave the State or are struggling to remain in business.

Barbara Boxer had some harsh words for the Tea Parties during the Healthcare Debates but is now asking her own supporters to become as energized and involved as the Tea Parties are. Apparently, Boxer hasn’t learned that massive new government programs and the taxes that come with them don’t excite anyone but other Progressives or her Democratic colleagues in Washington. The mask has been stripped away from the Progressive movement and now that many of them have actually dared to speak openly about their agenda, the face that was revealed is not that of a kind and gentle benefactor; but is rather, the harsh and craggy faces of Marxist demagogues that have disgraced the pages of History where ever they came to power.

If America is to ever recover her former glory, the Progressive movement must be exposed, expunged and voted from office where ever they exist. Barbara Boxer is not the whole movement but she is certainly one of the diseased sores left by its infection of the body politic. Her State may never fully recover from their experiment with Progressive politics but unless Californians would prefer that America go down with them, they must act decisively this November to replace Boxer and let her live as a private citizen, burdened with the same load that she expected the mere peasants of California to carry as she enjoyed her life as an elite member of the Progressive ruling class.

Paul

Target 2010 - Phil Hare (D-IL)

Phil Hare was elected to Congress as part of the 2006 Democratic sweep brought on by America’s general dissatisfaction with George Bush’s policies. The anti-war movement aided by liberals in the main stream media had certainly strived to make Bush toxic by linking him with the rising number of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the allegations of US mistreatment of terror suspects. While that certainly didn’t help Bush, his downfall, like his father, had more to do with fiscal policies and the perception that he was disconnected from the true concerns of the American people.

Phil Hare came from a blue-collar family which is a plus to anyone running for public office in Illinois. He worked at the Seaford Clothing Factory in Rock Island where he spent thirteen years. During the time he worked at the Seaford Clothing Factory, Phil served as a union leader and as President of the Unite Here Local 617, an offshoot of the AFL-CIO. He also served six years as an Army reservist.

Proving that Illinois really doesn’t ask much of their elected officials, Mr. Hare is a product of Alleman High School in Rock Island and had earned an Associates Degree from Black Hawk College in Moline. An Associates Degree is an undergraduate academic degree awarded by community colleges, junior colleges and some four year colleges after completion of a course of study usually lasting two years. Since Hare doesn’t expand on the studies he completed to earn his degree, I can only assume it was Liberal Arts, P.E. or perhaps underwater basket weaving; the favored subject of limited achievers.

Hare began dabbling in politics when he ran as an Alternate Delegate to the Democratic Presidential Convention in support of Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts in 1980. One of the three delegates for Kennedy, Hare and his fellow Kennedy supporters were defeated by the delegates running in support of Jimmy Carter. In 1982 Phil left his union position to help Lane Evans, who was running for the US Congress against Republican incumbent, Tom Railsback. Hare and Evans had been close friends since 1976 when they worked together as volunteers for Senator Fred R. Harris' campaign for President. Surprisingly, Tom Railsback was defeated in the Republican primary by conservative challenger, State Senator Kenneth McMillan forcing Evans and Hare to shift gears and turn their attention to McMillan. Evans would defeat McMillan in November, and in appreciation, appointed Hare as district director.

For the next twenty-four years, Hare worked as an aide to Evans and assisted him mostly in the areas of constituent issues and labor problems. As an aide to Evans, Phil Hare oversaw the closings of Case International Harvestor plant in East Moline and the Maytag plant in Galesburg. The closings of these major businesses and many others resulted in a loss of more than 2,200 jobs in the 17th district as US companies began to flee over-regulation and high taxes in the US for countries that were a little more appreciative of the role successful corporations play in the health of an economy.

After Evans announced his retirement in March of 2006, Hare announced his candidacy to succeed Evans. Hare received the endorsement of Lane Evans and in a special Democratic caucus of precinct committee members from the 17th Congressional District, Hare defeated the four other candidates and became the district’s Democratic candidate for the 2006 Congressional race where Hare focused much of his campaign on labor issues. Since Illinois is not a right to work State, many people of the 17th district are union members (whether they like it or not) and let’s face it, labor issues in a State that loves to drive business away with union interference is an important issue for the people left looking for work. Apparently his promises worked and Hare defeated Republican Andrea Zinga in the general election of 2006 and ran unopposed in 2008 counting on America’s dissatisfaction with Bush and an easy ride on Obama’s coat tails.

Hare has followed Evans’s lead and his voting record is not just Liberal, it is very Liberal. That shouldn’t surprise anyone; especially since the mask came off shortly after the election and people found that Hare was not merely a Democrat, a Liberal or a union man….he was a Progressive and would become one of the founding members of the of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and an ardent supporter of the Progressive Caucus’s Socialist agenda.

Hare is an unapologetic supporter of Labor Unions and unfortunately, Labor Unions are for the most part, unapologetic supporters of Socialist ideology. Curiously, Hare doesn’t appear to be an unapologetic supporter of the actual union members and has openly supported Card Check, a provision in a recently proposed bill that would strip union members of the right to cast a secret ballot in union elections. The secret ballot was the membership’s only protection against intimidation and scare tactics used by corrupt and violent union leaders and while this maybe something a former union President would love to offer his “friends” as a gift, it is certainly something the rank and file is overwhelmingly opposed to.

Hare also voted for the recent healthcare bill even though he had previously stated that he would never support healthcare legislation that did not include, in his words, “a robust public option”. In a recent interview, Hare was asked about the Constitutionality of the healthcare legislation to which he replied: “I don't worry about the Constitution on this to be honest…I worry about the thousands of people that are dying because they don’t have health insurance." As video clips of his dismissive comments about our Constitution made their way across the internet and onto the news, Hare responded saying that his statement was taken out of context and what he really meant was that he was not concerned about the constitutional challenge to the legislation. I’m not so sure about his explanation because as the questioning continued, the interview started to ask what part of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to require people to purchase health insurance but Hare interrupted him and blurted out "I don't know! I don't know!... But at the end of the day I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country."

Hare mistakenly added that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An unidentified voice on the tape reminded Congressman Hare that the line he just quoted was from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution but that didn’t matter much either. He waved his hand and said “either one.” Either one? This may come as a shock to the Black Hawk doctor of underwater basket weaving but he swore an oath to support and defend one of those documents when he became a Congressman and most of us think it would be a really good idea if he knew which one it was and what it actually says.

Why would we expect Mr. Hare would have actually read the Constitution when he obviously hasn’t read the bill he had just voted for? When asked if he had read the bill he told the interviewer that he had read the bill three times. Really? To have read the 8100 pages of the bill and the corresponding documents that would have to be read for the bill to make sense in the time the House leadership allowed before the vote, one would have to read one page each minute and then comprehend what it means in totality. That, my friends, would be a feat for a bona fide speed reader let alone a union boss with a two year degree in arts and crafts (or whatever it was).

Clearly Mr. Hare has no respect for the Constitution; no respect for union members and even less respect for his constituents if he can vote for a bill that he could not possibly have read. In fact, to vote for a bill that he openly opposed on principal simply because Nancy Pelosi told him to, Phil Hare must have very little respect for his own convictions and that is something that worries me most of all.

Paul

Target 2010 - Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)

I suppose no list of Congressmen that need to be fired would be complete without Charlie Rangel. Charlie began life in Harlem, New York in 1930 as the second of three children. Rangel’s father was frequently unemployed and absent from the home until he finally left his family in 1936. At first, this didn’t seem to affect Charlie and he appeared to do well in elementary and intermediate school; even holding a job at a neighborhood drug store at the age of eight. By high school, Rangel began losing interest in school, was frequently truant and often driven home by police. Rangel’s maternal grandfather worked for the courts and knew many of the local judges and lawyers. He managed to keep Charlie out of serious trouble while he struggled with life in his early teens trying to come to grips with his own identity. Rangel would eventually drop out of Dewitt Clinton H.S. at the age of 16 and began working at a number of menial and low paying jobs.

Charles Rangel would eventually enlist in the Army and served from 1948 through 1952. During the Korean War, Rangel was part of the all-black 503rd Field Artillery Battalion in the 2nd Infantry Division. Rangel distinguished himself during the battle of Kunu-ri in North Korea. Despite heavy fighting and relentless air strikes, Chinese forces flanked the U.S. 24th Division and the U.S. 35th regiment forcing them into retreat. During the retreat, Rangel was part of a vehicle column that became trapped and fell under attack by Chinese forces. Wounded by shrapnel from Chinese shell and facing sub-zero cold, Rangel found himself fighting the elements as well as the Chinese. As U.S. soldiers were being cornered and captured, a number of men from Rangel’s unit looked to him and his reputation for leadership. It took three days but Rangel managed to extricate roughly 40 men out of a battle that would kill nearly half the battalion. They manage to escape the Chinese encirclement and return to American held territory. For his wounds and bravery, Rangel would receive the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star for Valor, a Presidential Unit Citation, The Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation and three Battle Stars.

Rangel considered his time in the military as a formative period in his life and made himself a promise that he would not return home to the same life he left behind. Rangel left the military with an honorable discharge at the rank of Staff Sergeant. Rangel returned home and immediately finished high school completing two years of study in a single year. Rangel went on to earn a B.S. from the New York University School of Commerce in 1957, where he made the dean's list, and on full scholarship, obtained a Juris Doctor from St. John's University School of Law in 1960. His college experience also moved him into the realm of racial and social activist Rangel is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity established for African-Americans. He is a member of the fraternity's World Policy Council, a think tank whose purpose is to expand Alpha Phi Alpha's involvement in politics, social and current policy regarding international concerns.

After passing the Bar Exam, Rangel began work with Weaver, Evans & Wingate, New York’s most prominent black law firm where Rangel earned a reputation for providing legal representation for black civil rights activists. In 1961, Rangel was appointed as an assistant U.S. Attorney for New York’s Southern District by then, U.S. Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. With a number of new positions in and around the Democratic political scene, Rangel developed a greater interest in politics and with Percy Sutton, formed the John F. Kennedy Democratic Club in Harlem which over time would be re-named the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Democratic Club. After several unsuccessful bids for elected office, Rangel would get his big break when his friend and mentor, Percy Sutton, was appointed as Manhattan Borough President leaving a vacancy in the New York State Assembly. With Sutton’s help and endorsement, Rangel won that seat in 1966, serving two terms during which; he became friends with New York Governor, Nelson Rockefeller.

Emerging as a leader among black legislators in the Assembly, Rangel supported many ideas that were not widely viewed as popular or in the best interest of the City. He proposed the legalization of gambling, specifically the “numbers” game; saying that for the average Harlemite, playing the numbers was “moral and a way of life.” Rangel opposed harsher penalties for prostitution stating it was ineffective. Curiously, Rangel proposed holding drug pushers criminally accountable for the actions of drug users. While he claimed illegal drug use was a national security issue he also believed that Harlem drug users were principally victims and wanted to move the criminality of drug related crime a little further up the ladder. This way he could claim to be tough on crime while sparing his constituents from harsher penalties. His reputation and friendship with Nelson Rockefeller paid off in 1970 when he defeated long term NY Congressman Adam Clayton Powell for NY’s 18th Congressional District’s seat.

Rangel is a skilled speaker and an adept politician but like his predecessor, has remained in Congress long enough to develop an air of elite entitlement. Powell found himself deeply embroiled in scandal and by the mid-1960s, Powell was being increasingly criticized for mismanagement of the Education and Labor Committee budget, taking trips abroad at public expense which included travel to his retreat on the Bahamian isle of Bimini. He was also under attack in his district, where his refusal to pay a slander judgment made him subject to arrest. He spent increasing amounts of time in Florida and gained a reputation for absenteeism during the meetings of his own committee. In 1967, the House Democratic Caucus stripped Powell of his Committee Chair and the entire Congress eventually voted 307-116 to exclude him from Congress; a move that the Supreme Court would later call improper. Powell would eventually win reelection and was seated with the 91st Congress but was also fined $25,000 and denied seniority.

The budget scandal, Powell’s absenteeism and a personal scandal where it was found that Powell’s mother was on the payroll of his staff from 1961 until 1967 even though she left the U.S in 1961 to reside in Puerto Rico made him an easy target in the 1969 election. Rangel used the accusations against Powell to forward his campaign for Congress. While Rangel only defeated Powell by a mere 150 votes in the Democratic Primary, he won the Congressional seat with 88% percent of the vote over his Republican challenger.

One would think the fall of Adam Clayton Powell would have served as a notice to other presumptuous demagogues but I suppose those lessons are only apparent if you haven’t enjoyed overwhelming reelections for nearly forty years. Now, Charles Rangel has just had to resign his position as Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee because of allegations of scandal that are curiously similar to Powell’s committee budget fiasco. Additionally, Rangel has failed to pay taxes on rental properties that he owns abroad and has misused New York’s rent control assistance by joining three rent controlled apartments together for an office and an additional rent controlled apartment as a residence; all while listing his permanent address as a home in Washington. I suppose what makes the allegations against Rangel even worse is that he was the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; the Committee that writes the tax regulations the rest of us have to live with or else.

Charlie counted on his Parties dominance in Washington to protect him and they tried their best until public opinion demanded that he be removed from the chairman position and fully investigated. Charlie was so secure about his Parties protection that when an independent video journalist saw Rangel in the Capitol building and asked about the allegations, Charlie laughed at him and said “Why don’t you mind your own God damned business” before boarding an elevator. Apparently Charlie forgot that the Congress is our business. That tax cheat Congressman should expect serious questions from tax payers when there are questions of wrong-doing. That the reasons he is being questioned by the ethics committee is because even after 39 years in Congress, we still expect that the people that write the rules actually follow them too.

Today is shopping day and I have already checked the expiration date of the perishables in my refrigerator. I think it’s about time we put an expiration day on our Congressmen too. It only took 15 years for Adam Clayton Powell to take advantage of his position but Rangel has been there more than twice that time and is apparently, twice as corrupt. His answer to that video journalist only proves that he believes Congressmen, especially senior Congressman, are the elite and no longer need to address the questions posed by mere peasants. Charlie’s expiration date came and passed decades ago and it’s time to dump out the stale and bring in someone new (and honest). Sorry Charlie…it’s time to go.

Paul

Target 2010 - Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Henry Waxman is one of the more nefarious members of Congress and poses a greater threat than most because of his seniority as a thirty-five year veteran of Congress. His political ideology and voting record are currently rated between 85 and 100% by a whole host of Progressive and Leftist political organizations but of course, that should come as no surprise. Anyone that has followed Waxman’s career has seen that time and time again, Waxman has openly displayed a real love for political activism and Socialist principals. He champions many of his causes with a hard core belief that government must act for the good of the people, even if those actions are unpopular and stretch the very fabric of the Constitution. Curiously, as he claims to speak for the public, much of the legislative action that Waxman is famous (or infamous) for, necessarily requires a degree of government control over the people that is clearly beyond the lawful limits decreed by the enumerated powers of the United States Constitution.

Many Progressives are drawn to the study of Political Science and Law to facilitate their ideology and Waxman was no different. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a Degree in Law from UCLA Law School. Anyone that has been alive for the past forty years knows who UCLA is and what they represent. They have been one of the centers of Progressive ideology for decades and their halls and buildings are clogged with openly Socialist professors and educational programs. Many of those professors actively pursue the indoctrination of their students until they are drawn into a zombie-like belief of what is now called, social and economic “justice”. The curious thing about this brand of justice is that it unapologetically advocates stomping on the rights, freedoms and possessions of some, to provide a subsistence level, government funded existence for others. I was raised to believe that the redistribution of wealth is not justice; it is Socialism but then again, I didn’t go to UCLA. In the end, I think the only thing UCLA excels in is providing future Progressives with a lexicon of new and less threatening words they can use to sell Marxist principals to an unsuspecting nation.

It is clear that Waxman drank the “Kool-Aid” while he was in UCLA because he is one of the most far left leaning Progressives in Congress and second only to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that is an admitted Socialist. Waxman pushed for crushing legislation against the tobacco industry and was instrumental in the House passage of many anti-smoking legislative packages that included the imposition of heavier “sin” taxes for tobacco products. I know there aren’t many people that think that smoking is a good thing, including me. It is a nasty, filthy habit but in reading the Constitution, it should remain a nasty, filthy personal choice because there is no way to tax smokers into submission without inflicting grave damage on the Constitution.

Taxation was never meant to regulate behavior and the imposition of those specific taxes is a direct assault on the Ninth Amendment affirmation that the general public has more rights than those that are specifically stated in the Constitution. It also flies in the face of Article One, Section Eight (The Powers of Congress) which states clearly that taxes are to be collected only to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States and that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. There is nothing uniform about a tax on one consumable item that is not levied on all of them and there is no compelling argument that the Congress has the right to impose a tax that exceeds the criteria of Article One, Section Eight to encourage or dissuade behavior. The Constitutional issues with Waxman’s urge to ignore personal freedoms for our own good have been argued six ways from Sunday and I doubt little progress will be made on that unless we can establish a list of definitions that clearly state the intentions of the law as it was written by the founding fathers.

Laying taxes aside for the moment, Waxman is quoted as saying something far more dangerous to a nation of free people. Henry Waxman said "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” One must first recognize that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because it was the only way to guarantee that the rest of our rights would remain inviolate at the hands of the Federal government. The founders did not trust a strong central government and recognized that a limited government would only remain limited for as long as the people maintained the ability to “keep them honest”; by force if needed.

I submit to you that the only people that would be nervous about American citizens that would use weapons in the defense of their rights are the people that intend to deny those rights in the first place. The Progressive movement seeks to replace the Free Market with a government based on Socialist principals and it is well known that the first impediment to this “Progressive Transformation” is the uninhibited private ownership of weapons. As such, the first assault on our rights must have the affect of nullifying the Second Amendment before they can move with impunity to tamper with any of the rest. I don’t think it’s any great mystery that Henry Waxman is a devoted advocate of strict gun regulation. For those that think gun registration and licensing is a benign action that promotes safety; don’t forget that every government that made radical changes towards Socialism used those very registration and licensing records to zero in on gun owners when the confiscation of weapons finally began.

Henry Waxman is currently Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which is an extremely powerful position and Waxman has used that position to nudge the country closer to the hidden goals of the Progressive movement than at any time in our history. In many ways, Henry Waxman was the muscle behind Nancy Pelosi when it came to extorting the votes they needed for the Healthcare Bill from reluctant Democrats. As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, there are matters taken up before his Committee that can direct billions in funding to the States of Congressmen willing to cast the “right” vote and those same Congressmen could see projects and special funding dry up and blow away if their votes weren’t in line with the demands of the House leadership.

Of course, those deals are never discussed openly on the floor of Congress but you can bet that language favoring Congressmen that sold their votes behind closed doors has already been slipped into Bills totally unrelated to Healthcare so the trail to connect the bribes to the votes would be difficult, at best, to follow. The justification for this can be found in the open admission by the Democratic leadership is that this is the way business in Washington is done. It doesn’t really matter if Candidate Obama campaigned on a new era of transparency and honesty in government, Obama is President now and he made it very clear during the healthcare summit that the campaign is over.

Henry Waxman used every power at his disposal to move the healthcare bill forward and now he is already positioning himself to do the same for the comprehensive Energy Bill otherwise known as Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is his bill and is even more intrusive and fiscally irresponsible than the Healthcare Bill. Through the smart grid, smart meters and compliant appliances, the government will have the ability to reach into your home and regulate how long your appliances run and how much you will pay to run them. The regulation of CO2 is not actually meant to curb climate change. It is meant to provide a vast new source of revenue for redistribution, bringing us even closer to a Socialist State. Just as in smoking, if the government were serious about reducing CO2, they wouldn’t simply charge you a fee to produce it or to use it; they would actually regulate it with goals for reduction.

Waxman is a vicious little troll that has been in Congress long enough to believe that he is a member of the ruling class instead of just another United States citizen elected to represent his constituents. As with most Progressives, Waxman has forgotten his responsibility to his district and to the Constitution. You can always spot the Congressmen that have been there way too long. They are the ones that think the Constitution is a hurdle to be jumped or a challenge to be overcome. Unfortunately, Henry represents an area that doesn’t pose much difficulty for his reelection but I still have faith. I think this year exposed career politicians for what they really are and that is the polar opposite of the founder’s intention of having a citizen legislature. You can’t stay in Washington for thirty-five years and pretend you have the first idea about what your constituents expect from their government. The biggest favor anyone can do for Henry Waxman is to send him home so he can get reacquainted with the human race.

Paul

Target 2010 - Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

Texas has always remained a highly independent State, especially where politics have been concerned. They consider anyone living north of the Red River a “Yankee” and have often joked that the difference between a Yankee and a Damned Yankee was that a Damned Yankee shows up with a moving truck. The problem with Damned Yankees is they also show up with a desire to alter the political landscape whenever they get where they are going and for the most part, their Liberal leanings are at odds with the Libertarian and Conservative beliefs engrained in Texas’s rich heritage.

Having been born in Queens, New York, Sheila Jackson Lee certainly qualifies as a Damned Yankee. Ms. Lee showed up in Houston Texas with her moving truck in 1975 after her husband, Dr. Elwyn Lee, secured a position at the University of Houston. Having received a degree in Political Science from Yale, Sheila Jackson Lee then pursued a degree in law (Juris Doctor or J.D.) from the University of Virginia Law School. In many cases, the study of Political Science infects people with warped ideas on how to use law to affect ideological change rather than reinforcing the traditional view of law as a societal tool to maintain peace and stability within the structure of the Constitution.

Having been armed with a sufficient quantity of Socialist ideals and the degrees needed to spread them throughout society, Sheila Jackson Lee made three attempts to obtain a local judgeship before being appointed as a municipal judge in 1987 by then Mayor of Houston, Kathryn J. Whitmire. Whitmire, who was the first woman mayor of Houston was a former professor of Political Science at the University of Maryland’s Burns Leadership Academy and a Progressive Democrat herself. As a former professor of Political Science, Whitmire understood the importance of establishing a Progressive presence in the court system so that they can begin the work of tweaking existing legislation in favor of their ideological goals and Sheila Jackson Lee had the credentials of someone she could trust to do just that.

The position of municipal judge was the springboard Jackson Lee needed to thrust her into the public arena. In 1989, Jackson Lee won a seat on the Houston City Council where she continued her mission of chipping away at Constitutional rights to forward the Progressive agenda. A major impediment to the ultimate Progressive goal of collapsing the US Constitution is the 2nd Amendment and Texans had traditionally guarded the 2nd Amendment with passion. To chip away at that right, Jackson Lee used the Alinsky trick of framing the argument to elicit the answers she wanted. If minor changes can be made to local law that would impose slight limits on gun owners, then those minor changes could be used later as a precedent for more control and limits.

Jackson Lee launched her assault by pushing a gun safety ordinance that would punish parents that failed to keep weapons away from their children. Alinsky and Jackson Lee both knew that no one would argue against the idea of keeping guns away from children but this wasn’t about children; this was about taking the first step towards gun control in an area that predominantly favored gun ownership. Every community already has laws specifically designed to protect children and punish those, including parents, that would endanger a child. Current law provided all the muscle local law enforcement needed to safeguard children against reckless parents but what it didn’t do was raise a question about owning guns and that is what Jackson Lee wanted. Of course Sheila Jackson Lee was elected to Congress, assuming office in January of 1995 so any interest she may have had to continue her fight against gun owners would now have to take place in the national arena.

I have always maintained that Progressives are the single greatest threat to America because they a gang of closet subversives that clothe themselves as part of the mainstream and speak the language of Middle America while exercising a carefully crafted strategy designed to transform America into another “Socialist Utopia” one law at a time. Saul Alinsky laid the groundwork out in his book “Rules for Radicals” where he stated quite clearly that to obtain their ultimate goal; Progressives must hide their agenda and be willing to accept small steps towards achieving a larger goal. He recognized that Americans would fight tooth and nail against major changes but could be nudged into accepting Socialism one piece at a time; especially if they thought they were getting great benefits from the government for a small investment of taxes or minor freedoms. Progressives pray upon the generous nature of the American culture and sell their ideas on the premise that government programs are just an extension of their own charity.

Sheila Jackson Lee is not only a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus but a member of the Congressional Black Caucus as well. That is also in keeping with Alinsky’s strategy of framing the argument to achieve results instead of actually engaging in honest dialogue. A favorite technique of Progressives is to claim that any opposition to their plans is motivated by hate rather than political ideology. For the past fifty years, they have successfully branded anyone that opposed their agenda as racists fighting against social justice for poor and minority Americans. That was actually very effective until just recently. After all, it’s hard to throw claims around about racism when the United States has a greater degree of racial diversity in local, State and Federal government than any other nation on the planet. The idea that Barack Obama was elected by such a wide margin should have shut down any argument of societal racism in America but the left still tries. The difference is that the charges are now so ludicrous that they just haven’t been able to gain the same traction they once did.

Progressives like Sheila Jackson Lee are actually doing America a favor. They have become so emboldened by their recent victories that many have tossed out Alinsky principals and have begun to publically air their real agenda instead of sneaking in through the basement a piece at a time. That is why the independent and Conservative people in this nation have been so actively opposed to the President’s plans. American’s still don’t like sweeping change and they have never liked Socialists. Most Americans can’t even utter the word Socialist without out getting a sour taste in their mouths.

Sheila Jackson Lee actually considers the Marxist regime of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez as “friendly” to the United States and has proposed relaxing the U.S. ban on weapon sales to that nation. She also has continued her fight against the 2nd Amendment and co-sponsored a bill that would restrict the ownership of so-called “assault” weapons; a bill that has such a loose interpretation of what an assault weapon is that it would have been a major blow against the lawful ownership of hundreds of weapon classes and accessories. Keep your eyes open because they are not done with this one yet. If they are going to seize the control they need over the population to realize their dreams then the first thing that has to be done is the elimination of privately owned weapons and they will use any means at their disposal to bring that about.

Sheila Jackson Lee still hasn’t learned that with her election to Congress, she has a responsibility to display obedience to the law and that adherence is obviously optional to Jackson Lee. In 2006, she was one of five Congressman and six other activists that were arrested for disorderly conduct during a protest in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington. Strangely, Jackson Lee spoke very harshly about the Tea Party protests in front of the Capitol this past weekend despite her own penchant for angry protest. What she didn’t mention in her news appearances on the issue is that none of the Tea Party members were arrested as she was, so their protests apparently did not contain the same level of intensity as her own. Truthfully, there would have been no incidents at all during the Tea Party protests last week if Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress had chosen their usual route to the Capitol Building. Instead, they walked through the crowd in an act of open defiance against the protest. In the end, it was Pelosi’s insistence on flaunting the impending vote in the faces of the protesting crowd that served to inflame them.

Sheila Jackson Lee was prominently mentioned during the town hall meeting protests over healthcare last August. She was the only member of Congress that was so blatantly indifferent to her constituent’s concerns that she continued to carry on cell phone conversations while people were speaking at the meeting. I’ve been in meetings that were very important and the general rule of courtesy is to turn the phone off, let an aide take messages or at the bare minimum, to turn it to silent ring. As a member of Congress pledged to represent her district, there should have been nothing more important than to hear from the people she speaks for.

Sheila Jackson Lee is one of the people that least deserves re-election. There was no doubt that she would vote for the healthcare bill because it fits the Socialist agenda that she supports. She didn’t bother to read any of it because it didn’t matter…..she was going to vote for it regardless of what it contained or how many of her constituents openly despised it. If re-elected, she will certainly continue on her march to bring about her Progressive idea of a Socialist America; an ideology shared and promoted by President Barack Obama.

Paul

Target 2010 - James Oberstar (D-MN)

In preparation for the 2010 election, I am preparing a weekly series to expose those members of Congress that are deserving of special attention this election year. To open this series I have selected Representative James Oberstar (D-MN). James Oberstar is another career politician that has made a mockery of his office and has spent the last thirty years doing everything possible to add to the deficit and debt that countless generations of Americans will have to repay.

Of course, as a member of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer Labor Party, one would hardly expect that Jim would be a fiscal conservative. In fact, there isn’t a tax he doesn’t like as long as it’s progressive enough to buy all the votes he needs through massive social spending. While Oberstar is not a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, his affiliation with the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party provides him with enough ownership of the increasingly disturbing title of “Progressive” as the Party most comfortably identifies itself with a Liberal / Progressive ideology. There are several members of Congress that are members of the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party, most notably, the recently elected Progressive screw-ball Al Franken.

The Democratic-Farmer Labor Party, or “DFL”, was born after the 1944 merger between the MN Democratic Party and the Farmer Labor Party. The Farmer Labor Party was part of Minnesota’s political landscape since 1918 and was a direct descendent of America’s passing interest with Communism and Socialism at the turn of the century. Most of America eventually grew up and realized that these ideologies were wholly un-American while others, like members of the Farmer Labor Party, took their Socialist leanings underground until they could safely reemerge as Liberals. Of course, they quickly tarnished the name of Liberalism, which forced them to eventually adopt the name of Progressive. During the formation of the Farmers Labor Party, they were politically aligned with American Socialists and American Communists until they decided to break ties with any group that would plot to overthrow the United States through violence and that was the good news. The bad news is that the DFL is closely modeled after the British Labour Party and to bring about the collapse of the Republic using our own laws against us is clearly something they can live with.

My most notable opposition to James Oberstar has to do with his decision to change his vote and support the current healthcare bill being forced through the House of Representatives. Mr. Oberstar sold himself as a pro-life Democrat. Of course now that the bill was in jeopardy, his Progressive (Socialist) spots have shown through and he is willing to turn his back on something that is very important to his constituents in order to help Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi take the first step towards to socialization of America’s healthcare system.

Oberstar refused to vote for the first bill that passed through the house until the Stupak Amendment provided an iron clad guarantee that Federal funds could never be used for abortion, upholding a long standing belief and principal of most Americans. Even Pro-choice Democrats have no problem with banning the use of Federal funds for abortion as long as abortion would remain a choice that people could make as their conscience dictated. Of course we know the Senate rejected the House bill as well as the Stupak Amendment, crafting their own bill under the leadership of Max Baucus in the Senate Finance Committee. It was almost guaranteed that the block of pro-life Democrats in the House would reject the Senate Bill unless there were guarantees that the prohibition of Federal funds for abortion would be promised in a resolution conference; a promise the Senate will not make and a majority of the House Progressives don’t want.

Instead of standing by his principals, Jim Oberstar sold his vote to Nancy Pelosi. Of course, after all the controversy surrounding the “Cornhusker Kickback”, the “Louisiana Purchase” and “Gator-aid” that benefited no one but Nebraska, Louisiana and Florida; nothing quite as controversial would be advertised this time. I predict that once the bill is passed, we will see huge sums of that unspent stimulus money make its way into Minnesota and a few other States that happen to be represented by Congressmen that had one of those crucial, last minute changes of heart to finally support the bill. Why else would so much of that critically important stimulus money still be sitting around? Unfortunately for this gang of thieves, we will be watching this time and will connect the dots as they appear.

Jim Oberstar did something far worse than prostitute himself for some undisclosed, undercover bit of Federal funding. Oberstar sold his integrity. His constituents did not want this bill and they especially did not want their tax money paying for abortions. He promised them he wouldn’t vote for a bill that would help fund abortion and now he will have to answer to them. The biggest problem with selling your principals is what can you run on after that? Can you ask the voters to trust you when you can’t even be trusted with your own convictions? Can you claim to be an honest man when haven’t even been true to yourself? Can you look your constituents in the eye when you now find it hard to look in the mirror?

This goes beyond anything the Federal government has ever done and Jim Oberstar knows it. For the first time in the history of this nation, people will be forced to pay taxes knowing that their money will be used to fund something that many of them not only find morally reprehensible but forbidden by their faith. How can Congress claim to abide by our First Amendment protection of Religious freedom and then force people to violate their own religious principals by knowingly funding abortion? It might be easy for Jim Oberstar to sell his soul but what about his fellow Minnesotans? What about his countrymen?

America is a Republic; a representative government, but it is becoming increasingly clear that what is being represented in Washington is not the will of the people or the voice of the majority. What is being represented is the ideology of a small but powerful group of Progressive radicals that will stop at nothing to transform our nation into the latest “Socialist Utopia”. Oh sure, Progressives don’t actually say “Socialism” because they know freedom loving Americans will reject that. They use carefully crafted code words designed to make people feel good about change like “social justice”. After all, what American would oppose justice? Superman was for justice…even Underdog was for justice! But social justice is different. Social justice is nothing more than stealing from the responsible to help pay for the irresponsible.

Progressives also love to talk about a “truly Democratic Society”. Again, most Americans confuse democracy with freedom and there are quite a few that are not even sure what a Republic is let alone that America is one. Democracy is a society where everything is decided by a direct vote. There are no representatives because none are needed. On the surface, that sounds awesome but Progressives know that only a Democracy can elect a dictator. Think about all of the “Democracies” around the globe like Communist China; the Soviet Union; Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; Ahmadinejad’s Iran and Chavez’s Venezuela. "Truly Democratic Societies" really aren't worth a damn because the ruling party first decides who and what is on the ballot and then controls the counting of the votes.

Mr. Oberstar has brought us one step closer to Socialism and has emboldened the people that want to bring us seven dollar gasoline, five hundred dollar electric bills and a "truly democratic society". This is only the beginning because once this is passed they will move on to energy, housing, food, etc. The goal of the Progressive movement is total control because they can provide nothing for the masses unless the individual surrenders control.

Paul

Is it really Bush's Economy or Obama's?

The New York Times inadvertently validated my assertions that Republicans would be wise to recognize the anti-incumbent fever sweeping the nation but in order to keep their credentials as a liberal member of the Robert Gibbs Propaganda Club, found it necessary to embellish the story with their own pro-Obama flavor. The Times reported that a recent Times/CBS poll shows the President with an edge over Republicans in the upcoming election, totally missing the point. All of Congress is entering the election cycle with its lowest approval rating ever and that should be hard to ignore unless of course, you have the additional armor of being the Liberal media’s intellectually elite shock troops.

Of course the poll was crafted in such a way that you had to agree that Bush was totally at fault for our current economic woes; exonerating the President from all responsibility. I will be the first to admit that Bush’s economic strategies were an abject failure and while he was tough on terror, he was no better than a run of the mill, liberal spending Democrat when it came to economic and public policy. What the poll ignores is the duplicity of Obama’s closest advisors in perpetuating that failure which deepened the recession.

It began with the appointments to his cabinet. Tim Geithner had studied international economics in college and his early career placed him in the International Affairs Division of the U.S. Treasury and as an attaché to the United States Embassy in Tokyo. He was also deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy, senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs, assistant secretary for international affairs and the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs.

One would think that resume would have qualified him to be Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury but there are some disturbing issues hidden in his resume too. In 2002 he left the US Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department. He was also the director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund; an organization that rarely has the economic interests of the United States at heart but instead, finds itself regularly aligned with the United Nation’s desire to redistribute the wealth of Western democracies to developing nations.

The friends (and enemies) that Geithner made while traipsing around the world seems to have shaped quite a few of his views and it is his “citizen of the world” mindset that made Geithner necessary to Obama’s cabinet. While going through the confirmation process it was found that Geithner had some tax “difficulties” of his own and he dismissed those difficulties, blaming his lack of expertise in using the personal tax preparation program “Turbo Tax” for the discrepancies. Really? A man studied in international economics that just happened to have an early career in the Treasury Department couldn’t figure out how to use a $19.95 computer program to pay his taxes? Well, the Senate bought that excuse so I will let that rest. Not because I believe him, but because there are bigger problems with Geithner than that.

Geithner was President of the New York Federal Reserve in 2003 and Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee component. In 2006, Geithner became a member of the Washington financial advisory panel “The Group of Thirty” where in 2007, he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank. Do you see a red flag there? Geithner also arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns and also supported his friend and Goldman Sachs CEO, Henry Paulson, in his bid to promote the bailout of AIG. While billions in taxpayer funds were flowing into Bear Stearns and AIG, Geithner curiously ignored Lehman Brothers, letting them slip into bankruptcy. But hey, friends are friends and all that. The bottom line is that there are number of private economists that say Geithner’s actions severely damaged the United States economy while he played fast and loose with taxpayer funds; favoring friends and destroying enemies.

If that isn’t bad enough, we have Rahm Emmanuel. Emmanuel is noted for having an explosive temper that manifests itself in ways that could be considered damaging for a White House Chief of Staff. Emmanuel had worked on a number of Democratic campaigns including the Presidential campaign of Bill Clinton. While working on the Clinton campaign, he reportedly sent a dead fish in a box to a pollster that was routinely late in providing much needed poll results. In another incident after the 1996 election, Emanuel was so angry at Clinton’s campaign enemies that he stood up at a dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of what he considered traitors, shouting 'Dead!” and plunging the knife into the table after each name was called out. It sounds like Rahm’s parents let him watch way too many violent movies as a child.

Unlike many of his current colleagues, Rahm Emmanuel actually had a real job before entering politics and the seedier world of investment banking. Unfortunately for Rahm, his job at a Chicago Arby’s ended suddenly when he lost part of his finger in one of the machines. Considering Geithner’s qualifications as Treasury Secretary include imploding the US Economy as head of the NY Federal Reserve, I am really surprised that Emmanuel wasn’t named to head OSHA or the Department of Health and Human Services; especially when considering his impeccable safety record. However, it is Emmanuel’s cut-throat Chicago style of politics that is the real criteria for his position as Obama’s Chief of Staff. As Chief of Staff, he is one of the orchestrators of the administration’s “blame Bush” campaign and one of the crafters of the Obama “evil greedy banker” policy. He should know; after all, he was an evil greedy banker himself.

Rahm Emmanuel was an advisor to Bill Clinton; a position he resigned from in 1998 to pursue a career in investment banking with Wasserstein Perella. In his two and a half years at Wasserstein Perella, he earned a reported $16.2 million dollars. As an additional favor to his friend, President Clinton named Emanuel to the Board of Directors for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") before he left office in 2001. Emmanuel’s position earned him at least $320,000, including later stock sales. Obviously a political appointment, Emmanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees; a Board that met no more than six times per year.

During Emmanuel’s time on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities. Imagine that? The Obama Administration subsequently rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) later accused the board of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention." Thanks to Obama’s stonewalling of the Freedom of Information Act request, we will never know the depth of Rahm Emmanuel’s participation in those scandals or how much his actions may have damaged the fiscal stability of Freddie Mac. We can only assume that if Obama’s friend and Chief of Staff were not implicated, that the FOI request would probably have been granted.

Emanuel resigned from the board of Freddie Mac in 2001 when he ran for Congress; eventually filling the seat vacated by another Chicago criminal, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Blagojevich is currently on trial for Federal Corruption charges stemming from an investigation that alleges that he (Blagojevich) tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama when he became President, for cash or favors. Emmanuel kept his Congressional seat until his appointment by Barack Obama to the position of Chief of Staff.

The part that I cannot figure out is how this administration claims insulation from the current financial crisis when so many of Obama’s key appointees played major roles in bringing about the near collapse of the economy? Factually, if the Democrat controlled Congress that Bush was plagued with from 2006 forward, had actually performed their required function of providing oversight for the Federal administration structure, perhaps corrective action would have been taken by Bush that could have mitigated the economic implosion of 2008. Like I said before; friends are friends and enemies are enemies and the Democrats in Congress would have had to crucify some of their own to do that and there was no need to sacrifice them if you had a Republican President you could blame instead.

Monday – Why hasn’t the economy shown signs of recovery? The truths Obama can’t blame on Bush.

Paul

The DNC's Crayon Campaign

At least now we are getting a glimpse at some of the campaign strategies that the Democrats will be using in the 2010 election cycle. As support for the President and his henchmen in Congress falters, they have begun an almost childish campaign to attack anything that stands in opposition to their grand plans. So far, this effort goes beyond the negative and has actually descended to the level of a kindergarten fight over the only see-saw.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) http://www.dscc.org/ has invited visitors on their website to grab their crayons and add dumb slogans to a speech bubble attached to a picture of Sarah Palin. I remember doing things like that in third grade, at least until I got caught. To be kind, I would call it sophomoric but to be accurate, it is moronic. While I’m sure they thought this was clever and meant to amuse their devoted followers; after all, who visits that web-site anyway, but beyond that, the truth behind this ugly game is that Palin threatens them.

The website asks visitors to add a comment that reflects their interpretation of Palin’s Tea Party speech. Of course they are not looking for an accurate account of the speech or they would have simply re-printed it. What they are trying to illicit are comments that question Palin’s intellect, patriotism and honesty. They apparently cannot dispute her facts so they have to resort to letting would-be cartoonists have an attempt to make something up that could be used to ridicule and denigrate Palin personally. Truthfully, is this any different than some jerk with a magic marker drawing moustaches and eyeglasses on movie posters? Is this the best the DSCC and the DNC have to offer? If so, is it any wonder that the economy is still lagging and the government seems to be deadlocked trying pass legislation that Americans have overwhelmingly rejected while nearly half a million of our citizens are added to the unemployment rolls with each passing week.

The threat that Palin represents is not that her name has popped up here and there as a possible candidate for a Presidential run in 2012; they said that about Scott Brown the day after he won the Massachusetts Senate race so that is merely conjecture. Her threat is in her ability to galvanize the individuals that are the Tea Party. The Tea Party sees her as one of their own and when she says they must find unity or risk defeat in November; it is that message that scares the hell out of the Democratic strategists. The DNC was counting on the splintering effect diversity within the Tea Party could have spelled without Palin’s message so in short, Palin must be destroyed.

I also received an e-mail from Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The focus of today’s e-mail was the Republican initiative to extend the Bush tax cuts. In his appeal, Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman made a comment that a million dollars is not a lot of money. Of course, the DNC is jumping all over that and calling for a letter writing campaign to local news papers and even provided a nifty little application that allows the reader to enter their zip code and send an e-mail to every newspaper in that circulation area as well as to some of the national papers. Wait a minute? I thought it was the Republicans that manufacture anger? The truth is, as much as Democrats have accused Republicans of seeding dissent, the Democrats directly support and control multiple organizations dedicated to just that purpose.

Michael Steele’s comment was taken completely out of context and now the Democrats are using that snippet in another classic attempt at class warfare. Their e-mail has an income calculator that allows the reader to enter their income to see how many years it would take to accumulate one million dollars provided they have no other expenses. Of course this is targeted to enrage the peasants (the working class in DNC doublespeak) so that they pick up their torches and pitchforks and march behind Obama on his campaign to punish those evil rich people. What Michael Steele really said was that in the context of investment and job creation, a million dollars doesn’t go very far at all. Democrats cannot begin to claim that their primary focus is on the economy or job creation when their ideology is framed by the mindless seizure of money from those that have traditionally created the majority of jobs in the United States.

Another thing on the radar screen is the much discussed healthcare summit scheduled for February 25th. The President has already said that he has no intention of backing down on healthcare reform and that scrapping the current bill is not an option so what kind of summit is this? Since the election of Scott Brown, the White House has been trying to put the best possible spin on this. Democratic strategists have blamed the loss on the stalemate with healthcare legislation and Obama blamed Bush (now there is a surprise) for the anger still permeating the electorate. Whatever they want to call it in public, the conversations they have in private are very different discussions. They know people are angry that the President has failed in his promise of transparency so for this meeting, the C-Span cameras will be rolling. They know people are angry at the refusal to let Republicans join in the discussions so the President announced that the meeting will consist of members of both Parties.

The question many have is will this summit really be an exchange of ideas or are they planning a “gotcha” moment for the Republican attendees? I think the President is too single minded to allow the election of Scott Brown stand in his way. I expect this will be a public forum to shame Republicans into support for the bill or be labeled as obstructionists. Well, gotcha is only gotcha if you don’t see it coming. Republicans must enter the room prepared to talk about the common sense reforms that American’s really want and not be coerced into supporting this massive and expensive expansion of government if the President concedes on a few minor Republican initiatives.

Republicans need to realize that the bill, as written, leaves much of the nuts and bolts decisions on healthcare to an advisory board created under the bill. The people seated on that board will all be directly appointed by the President or appointed by people that the President has already appointed to existing agencies. Regardless of what is promised to Republicans during the summit, those promises will evaporate in committee once the ruling board has been established. Worse yet is that the bill already contains language that would make it nearly impossible to reverse decisions made by the board. They need to be very clear in that this bill was a partisan project on the part of Democrats and there can be no bipartisan support unless the bill is scrapped and a real effort to reach consensus is apparent in whatever takes its place.

Unfortunately, the Democrats still control Congress and there can be no bipartisan discussions as long as they don’t need the Republican vote to advance their agenda. The election of Scott Brown may have taken away their ability to shut down debate without at least one Republican but there are still a few so-called Republicans out there that can be swayed to provide that 60th vote so that bills can come to a vote. We saw that in the healthcare debate when Olympia Snowe added the single Republican vote. Not that her vote was actually needed, but that one vote gave the Democrats the ability to claim that the legislation was now bipartisan. Snow later voted against the legislation but once legislation is at that stage, only 51 votes would have been needed anyway. It’s an old trick previously mastered by John Kerry giving him the authority to utter those famous words: “I voted for it before I voted against it.”

Republicans need to find the same unity that Democrats have been using against them for years. If they do not speak with the same voice and espouse the same ideals, the message will be blurred and the people will find it hard to believe that Republicans have learned their lesson and are willing to bring a new conservatism to the nation. Despite the antics of a desperate Democratic campaign machine, they must take the high road and leave the negative tactics to their Democratic challengers. People want to know someone has good ideas and real solutions to their problems; solutions that negative ads and mud-slinging cannot address. Coakley lost an enormous amount of support by going negative. Let’s not make the same mistake.

Paul

2010 - Can Republicans Win?

Now that 2010 is finally here, the Republicans would do well to remember the age old adage that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The public rejection of a liberal agenda proposed by an unpopular President is not a guarantee that Republicans will sweep the mid-term elections. As unpopular as Barack Obama is, his poll numbers are still double that of Congress and the anger that meant victory for Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and Scott Brown was not just meant as a message to Washington, but was also the leading edge of an anti-incumbent wave.

Neither Party has secured the faith of the American people and most view Congressional Democrats and Republicans as two pictures of the same dog. Both have a history of corrupt cronyism; both are guilty of broken promises; both have shown an unwillingness to reduce the size of government and neither has taken any steps towards reducing the levels of deficit spending let alone any real attempt to reduce the National Debt. Democrats have recently argued that Bill Clinton substantially reduced the deficit under his administration at the current spending deficits are only needed because of the damage that George Bush inflicted on the economy.

While it is true that the deficit was drastically reduced while Bill Clinton was President, the notions that his policies had anything to do with that reduction are strictly nonsense. Bill Clinton enjoyed a spill-over affect from Alan Greenspan’s reduction of interest rates. The lower interest rates reduced the interest we paid on the National Debt and that represented a roughly $200 billion dollar savings for the Federal government.

Washington has a far worse deficit than money. There is a deficit of trust and an overwhelming number of people have no faith in Congress at all. The recent accounts of back room deals and the selling of votes for the healthcare bill have severely hurt Democrats so they will have a difficult time in the fight to regain that trust. Some realize that there may be no way around the prevalent anti-incumbent sentiment and have already decided that the best opportunity to retain Democratic control is in not running. This will allow a new face to challenge the Republican candidates instead of an incumbent damaged by his association with a radioactive Congress.

Democrat strategists are deathly afraid of the new wave of conservatism sweeping the country and are doing their level best to see that if Republicans must win, that the candidates at least have a moderate philosophy. They have begun their assault on Conservatives, painting them as neo-Nazis and something to be feared. The attempt is to create fear among independent voters and to force the hand of local Republican Parties to moderate their choice of candidates. Since the healthcare debate began, they have been accusing the Republicans of obstruction and partisan politics that has stood in the way of critical legislation. Of course that is ridiculous. Before the election of Scott Brown this January, the Democrats enjoyed a filibuster proof Congress and could have passed any piece of legislation without a single Republican vote. It was the divisions among Congressional Democrats that have stalled the healthcare bill and that is because no matter what the President or Rahm Emmanuel want, it is a bad bill and some Democrats are just not biting.

Republicans can not simply run for election on the notion that they are not Democrats. They must bring about a renewal of the Party and clearly state the ideals and promises that set them apart from Democrats. They must develop a positive message of how they would deal with America’s most critical challenges. People are disillusioned and disheartened and there is no belief that the Government can be restored and that the debt that has made us slaves to China and other nations can be brought under control. Congress must be willing to reign in the super-agencies within the Federal government. The notion that agency chiefs and special advisors have regulatory powers outside of the control of the elected officials in Congress has upset the balance of power in Washington and has given the White House unconstitutional control over the nation. This is witnessed in the EPA’s threat to implement carbon restrictions by fiat if the Congress does not pass the President’s energy bill (cap and trade).

Special advisors were created to allow a fast response and specialist analysis in times of crisis. They should never have been allowed to become permanent positions and most should have been eliminated after the immediate crisis was over or in the case of a long term problem, should have been used to shape long term policy within the responsible agency and then eliminated. A “special” advisor isn’t all that special if they never go away. The President has the power to fill cabinet positions with Congressional oversight but many of these special advisors have been given real power without being required to answer to Congress. Legislation should be written that would require all special advisors to pass the same confirmation process as cabinet level appointees, or to have special advisors appointed by Congress at the President’s request for special assistance.

Social Security should be privatized and placed under the control of a congressionally appointed fiduciary. The Federal government raided those funds to support Johnson’s “great society” back in 1968 and has been liberally using the SS funds collected from working Americans ever since.

The current healthcare bill should be scrapped and the Federal government should eliminate the restrictions that have prevented insurers from competing across state lines and allow the same tax credits for small business owners that provide health benefits that the larger business and unions enjoy. Legislation to protect doctors against frivolous law suits is a must and the requirement to prevent insurers from dropping clients once they become ill is an easy remedy that does not require 2000 pages to address. Similarly, measures that allow portability of insurance while changing jobs and a common sense approach to pre-existent conditions should be sought. Pre-existent conditions will be the tricky one to get right. The only reasons insurers exclude pre-existing conditions for a set period of time is to prevent people that never had insurance in the past from jumping into a policy after they become sick. Take your pick…health, auto, homeowner, boat, travel…no insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions for all the obvious reasons.

Energy should be declared a vital strategic interest of the United States and the development of domestic resources should be exempt from regulation by the EPA. Additonally, energy development should not be subject to nuisance law suits by environmental extremists because it is a strategic concern. On the subject of strategic interests, it is foolish that our defence industry relies heavily on foreign made components. Any component used in the manufacture of military equipment should be required to be a domestic product.

The Republicans must embrace their conservative roots and commit to restoring the limits on Federal power written into the Constitution. The enumerated powers deny the Federal government the power to interfere in education, health and a myriad of other issues that are supposed to be under the authority of the individual States. If the Federal government has no Constitutional authority in these matters, then the corresponding agencies should be disbanded, returning those powers back to the States where they belong.

They must reduce taxes and make the reductions permanent to spawn true growth in the economy. They must eliminate the estate tax which has had a devastating effect on the family succession of ownership of small businesses. They must address the sacred cows of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which is the real crisis. The unfunded liabilities of these programs have exceeded $100 trillion dollars, overshadowing the National Debt by a factor of ten to one.

Most importantly, they must resist the rhetoric on the left that restoring Conservative values to the Republican Part will drive moderates and independents out of the so-called “big tent”. Big tents are for circuses and the Progressive Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain have done more to damage the focus of the Party than anything the Democrats have done. These men may be strong on defense but they are every bit as fiscally irresponsible as Barack Obama is. If they were really serious about reform they would also begin the battle to bring about a Constitutional amendment that will finally impose term limits on Congress. The biggest reason that Congress is so disconnected from Main Street America is that many of them haven’t seen Main Street in thirty, forty and even fifty years.

Paul

Palin calls for unity at Tea Party Convention

Sarah Palin made her much anticipated speech before the First National Tea Party Convention in Nashville Tennessee on Friday night. For the people that are familiar with Ms. Palin’s credentials, her message contained few surprises but for those that were only exposed to the highly critical coverage of the Tea Party movement through a mostly Liberal press, viewing her speech may have given them their first real look at the core values of this growing wave of Conservative Constitutionalism. Of course, that is assuming they took the time to watch it in its entirety and did not foolishly rely on the carefully selected snippets and caustic analysis of the Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermanns of the world.

The main focus of her speech noted the disparity in the vision that the American people have for the future of the United States compared to the agenda of the current body politic. While the main focus of the Sunday morning “talking heads” was the sharp criticism she had regarding the direction the President has taken our country in the past year, Palin’s criticisms were by no means, limited to one man or even to one Party. She possesses something that has been long lost in Washington; a keen understanding of the factual definition of a Federal system of government. Palin recognizes the root cause of the anger on which the Tea Party movement was founded and she is one of the few political people that have validated the widespread disdain for the Washington machine that has thwarted that rule of law and ignored the will of the governed.

The founders intended to form a union of sovereign states, each possessing the power of self determination and all guided by a Constitution of laws that were mutually agreed upon. The States voluntarily entered into this union and a Federal Government was established to perform the functions of government that would unify the States, provide for the common defense and establish a uniform relationship between the “united” States and foreign governments. The Constitution granted limited powers to the Federal government and only to the degree required for the Federal government to fulfill the duties designated to it under the Constitution. All other powers were to be retained, entirely, by the States and their citizens.

While Sarah Palin did not speak of the political history that mutated the Federal government into this insatiable leviathan, she apparently understands that the government has criminally deviated from these Constitutional directives and has been on a slow, methodical march to usurp State Power under some mystical authority derived from a bastardization of judicial and legislative policy. Palin noted the historical failure of the Federal government to provide even basic services without an enormity of waste and the blatant insensitivity to the crisis’s they have themselves created for main street America while serving the interests of unions, friends and political allies.

Palin spoke quite eloquently of recent Federal blunders and abuses of the Federal Government: the ineptitude of Federal bureaucrats that have not only failed to accurately track the effects the Stimulus bill had on job creation but in fact, have no idea where billions in Stimulus funds have even gone; citing money spent in dozens of Congressional districts that do not exist; the overreach of Congress by assuming authority it does not have to interfere in private corporations, take over auto makers and force its vision of healthcare reform on an unwilling nation; the ignorance of a Justice Department that grants Constitutional rights to foreign combatants that are hell bent on the destruction of America and the arrogance of a President that refuses to hear the voice of the people and still plans to proceed with an agenda that we keep telling him over and over that we do not want. I’m sure if she presented a full list of the past year’s failures, she could have easily spoken for hours but that was not the point of this convention or of her speech.

The main point of her speech was in recognition of the composition of the Tea Party movement itself. While the opposition to Washington has unified a great number of people, those people do have a wide and varied list of concerns that the individual members consider important. The difference in those interests could spell trouble within the movement unless there is a greater goal in mind and Palin tried to narrow the focus of the movement towards a goal they can all agree on. While born out of negativity, she challenged the conference attendees to focus on their hopes for the future. Palin invoked the memory of Ronald Reagan on the anniversary of his birth and reminded the audience of Reagan’s legacy.

Reagan had also inherited a nation in recession and could very well have taken the low road of blaming Jimmy Carter for the country’s financial difficulties but instead, he forged forward with his vision of restoring prosperity by enacting enormous tax cuts; cuts that even his critics admit, did bring a tripling of revenues to the treasury. Of course the recovery could have been far greater if it were not for the last great battle of the cold war that spawned massive increases in military spending and the TEFRA act of 1986, an act that would severely curtail the scope of deductions business could claim as exemptions. While opposed to TEFRA, Reagan was forced to accept this or risk losing his entire tax reduction package. The end result was that TEFRA limited the amount of money that business would invest in itself and in new employees but the cuts did have a spectacular effect on the economy despite that limiting factor.

The important part of Reagan’s legacy was in what his leadership provided for the spirit of America. In what seemed like a single moment, Reagan swept away the depression of Viet Nam, the shame of Nixon’s resignation, the hopelessness of the Ford and Carter economies and the indignity of Iran’s assault on our embassy and our pride. Moments after his inauguration, Reagan stood before the crowd and announced that the American hostages held in Iran for 444 days, had been released and had already crossed into international air space. Iran knew what Libya, the PLO, Hamas and other terror networks and nations would soon learn the hard way; Reagan would not yield to bullies, would not negotiate with terror and would bear any expense to enforce justice anywhere in the world. In that sense, Ronald Reagan truly was the embodiment of hope in America, not the half-hearted campaign rhetoric of a junior Senator whose only real experience in government was how to spend taxpayer money at the local level.

Former Governor Palin reminded people that conservatives united to support Reagan and that support transcended party affiliation. She cautioned the audience and the Tea Party movement in general, not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by letting that unity elude them now. The greatest strength of the movement is that it is focused on the Constitution and not on any one person. That can also be its greatest weakness if this sea of individuals allows the movement to splinter. There is a larger game afoot and people must not let one issue or another confuse the bigger picture of restoring the democratic republic based on the ideals clearly defined in the Constitution. Indeed, our future lies in the past and if we fail to look beyond minor details or become fixated on the foibles of some very human candidates, the Progressives in Congress may win by default as our votes are cast to the four winds. The Tea Party should not become a third party but rather, their future lies in shaping the electoral process as an advocate; lobbyist, if you will, for the Constitution and for the sovereignty of the States.

In a question and answer session after the speech, Palin noted that there are many Conservative Democrats, otherwise known as Reagan Democrats that are equally disenchanted with the direction of Washington. While she sincerely hopes that the Republican Party finds their Conservative roots so they can gain the trust of the Tea Party rather than compete with them, she also hopes that the Tea Party can remain focused on issues and not ideology because that is what is needed to attract and retain the Conservative factions within the Democratic and Independent Parties.

The time for unity is now and the Progressives are already trying to divide the Republican Party between Conservatives and Moderates and are attempting to isolate the Tea Party entirely. We must remain strong, we must remain focused and we must remain united. Remember, one of the first flags flown at the time of the revolution was that of a dismembered snake emblazoned with the words “Unite or Die”. It would do us well to fly that flag again.

Paul