Obama - Eighteen Months and Counting

We are approaching the eighteen month mark of the Obama Presidency and what a ride it has been. Despite Candidate Obama’s criticism of the deficit under the Bush administration, President Obama has presided over a quadrupling of deficit spending and has to date, added a whopping $2.36 trillion dollars to the national debt. The White House’s own calculations show that the spending levels outlined in the President’s budget will add another $9.7 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next ten years. That assumes of course, that we have a budget.

While the Federal government has been busy involving themselves in matters in which they have absolutely no constitutional authority such as healthcare, internet content and taking control of auto manufacturers, Congress has failed to focus on the things they are mandated by law to do such as securing the US borders, overseeing Federal agencies and adopting a budget. Of course, if you have no budget, you don’t have to make the hard choices of what to cut to keep it in balance. Instead, the Federal government continues to address spending by passing bill after bill that extend current spending levels and raising our debt ceiling to keep the cash flowing.

The Obama administration’s contribution to the national debt will shortly equal what Bush spent in the last four years of his presidency. Since his inauguration, Obama has raised the national debt 20% as a percentage of GDP (the entire national economy or Gross Domestic Product) and current calculations show that we will owe 100% of GDP by the year 2015. George Bush added $4.36 trillion to the debt during his entire eight years in office and even though Obama spoke harshly about the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration, President Obama is now poised to far exceed that measure of irresponsibility within the next two years. Moody’s has already warned that America is on the verge of losing its triple A bond rating if we do not reign in our current spending craze. The loss of that rating would require us to pay higher interest on our existing debt and an increase of just a couple of points on a twelve trillion dollar debt would spell financial ruin for the nation but the spending continues unabated.

So what else has the last eighteen months brought us? The Obama administration has brought deep divisions between every race and economic strata in the country. The tactics used to promote their Socialist agenda has created an atmosphere of controversy that has pitted entire groups of people against each other. As the administration tries to gain support for its dangerous and short sighted energy bill, they have gone as far as suggesting it is a race issue; that minority communities are unfairly burdened with a disproportionate amount of industrial pollution. They have taken the seriousness of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s and are trying to frame every aspect of their agenda in terms of racial and economic justice. They are shamelessly using low income and minority communities to forward this agenda; an agenda that will drive those communities deeper into poverty as a very few of the Progressive elite sit back and watch their wealth and power multiply. Of course, since those elite Progressives are friends of the President and the Main Stream Press, those fat cats will be exempt from the same scrutiny used to examine the earnings of Wall Street executives.

Unions and former 1960’s radicals have been instrumental in writing the Stimulus bill, the Healthcare Bill and the Energy Bill. The language in those Bills has funneled billions of tax payer dollars into special projects that benefit the interests that helped write the bills. The President has already thumbed his nose at hard working Americans by issuing an executive order giving preference to Union contractors in government projects costing more than $25 million dollars. That order effectively blocks 80% of private contractors from those projects simply because their employees have not unionized. Under the Healthcare Bill, hospitals are only eligible for Federal funds for training programs if their staffs are unionized; clearly a gift to Andy Stern and the SEIU for their help during the election. Of course Union preferences won’t mean much if we continue on the path of national bankruptcy. After all, you need to have money to fund projects and training programs.

The Obama administration has adopted a policy of sheer luck where counter-terrorism is concerned. Catastrophe has only been avoided because the weapons training that our latest would-be assailants received was flawed and the devices they used failed to detonate. Still, Obama plans on only adding an additional 100 people to review and update the no-fly list but needs 17,000 new IRS agents to make sure you buy healthcare insurance. Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, has problems using the term Radical Islam in connection with these failed terrorists but Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano has no problem using far more troubling descriptors when it comes to defining the dangers posed by Tea Party protestors. In fact, the only danger the Tea Party represents is that they mean to block the President’s agenda and that is something the current administration will not tolerate.

Cass Sunstein, Obama’s “Regulatory Czar” has even suggested that our government use tactics once reserved for the Soviet KGB and discretely infiltrate Tea Parties and other groups that protest the administration’s plans. Sunstein would also like to see the government use its power to organize information campaigns to counter the Tea Party message and promote the President’s agenda. Excuse me, but isn’t that called propaganda? If you don’t believe this administration has no problem using propaganda to gain support and power, take the case of Obama’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. The White House has impeded any attempt by the press to gain access to Kagan for an interview. They even contacted a school where Kagan’s brother teaches and “suggested” the school deny news access to Kagan’s brother. Instead, an unnamed White House staffer conducted a sanitary interview of Elena Kagan and that is the only material that has been given to the press. What are they hiding? Even Kagan’s thesis has been scrubbed from the internet; a thesis that clearly said she lamented the failure of Socialism to gain momentum in the United States.

The past eighteen months has brought America closer to financial ruin that at any other time in history. The programs and policies of this administration have depleted our ability to respond quickly to additional economic downturns and have placed us dangerously close to the point where we may not be able to afford to adequately defend ourselves. While the Feds corral militia groups in Michigan, North Korea has been acting with impunity against South Korea, apparently unafraid of a meaningful American response. While Congress launches a harsh campaign against Toyota because of safety concerns, Iran continues on the path to nuclear arms without a worry in the world. While the Mexican drug war continues to spill over the border into Arizona and Texas, the Obama administration is seeking to seize private property in Vermont to strengthen our border with Canada.

Obama refuses to answer questions about the radical past of his closest advisors. He refuses to answer questions about why his campaign spent nearly a million dollars to seal documents and information about his past. He refuses to answer questions about why his Social Security number was part of a group of numbers reserved for residents of Connecticut, a State in which he never resided and why that number was issued a full three years after his first known job at a Hawaiian ice cream shop. He refuses to answer questions about why his application for student aid was filed stating he was a foreign student of Indonesian patronage. He even refuses to answer the question about why the birth certificate he submitted to the Federal Elections Commission, a birth certificate issued in 1961, has no State seal and shows his father’s race as African when African is neither a race nor a nation; nor would it have been used as a description of race in 1961 America.

We have a long way to go before November 2012….I only hope the nation can survive that long.

Paul

Atlas Shrugged - The Next "Story of Us"?

When Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was published in 1957, it was considered a work of science fiction. The theme of “Atlas Shrugged”, as Rand described it, is "the role of man's mind in existence." The book explores a number of themes that Rand would subsequently develop into the philosophy of Objectivism. She was sharply criticized for her ideas and her philosophy of “Objectivism” was denigrated as selfish and regressive in the light of the needs of the general public.

Despite these charges, “Atlas Shrugged” achieved enduring popularity and has maintained consistent sales in the following decades. In the wake of the late 2000s recession, sales of Atlas Shrugged have sharply increased, according to The Economist magazine and The New York Times. The Economist reported that the fifty-two-year-old novel ranked #33 among Amazon's top-selling books on January 13, 2009.

What is the new-found interest in this book? “Atlas Shrugged”, originally called “The Strike” by its working title, portrays an America much like we see today. Overbearing government regulations, distributive policies and a generally accepted point of view held by public officials that radical progressive action must be taken for the good of all and anyone opposed to those policies are disgraced and openly chastised.

In the book, one by one, leaders of industry were disappearing, leaving their businesses deserted and their workers displaced. The book does take an odd turn when those business owners begin to reappear as Objectivist pirates seeking to topple the existing system to establish a new government that promotes the virtues self-reliance for the good of their progeny.

No one really believes that pirates will begin raiding the United States in retaliation for government intervention and oppressive taxation but Atlas is apparently beginning to shrug. New York and California have been seeing a trend of wealthy citizens fleeing the latest round of taxes that have been unfairly levied on them. The computer age no longer necessitates that these people congregate in major centers of commerce since the internet itself, has become the lifeline. The point is, there is no longer any status associated with a Park Avenue address, particularly if that address comes with a personal income tax rate of nearly 60%, now that Healthcare Reform has actually passed. Is it really that bad? Well, the latest figures show that out of eight and a half million people in New York City, a little over forty-three thousand pay more than forty percent of the City's tax revenues. That is obscene by anyone's standards.

The tax exodus not a new trend; in 2006, the rate at which college graduates were escaping New York had risen 127% and the same problems plague California as job prospects evaporate and taxes climb skyward. The real problem for these two bastions of liberal politics and “social responsibility” is that the vacuum created by those that are leaving is being filled by people that do not possess the same earning power so state and city tax revenues have been steadily falling as well. Heaven forbid these states would re-evaluate their commitment to redistributive policy. No, they would prefer to find new revenue sources to fill the void.

The next tax adding to the burden is the so-called “millionaires tax” to fund part of the healthcare reform bill. The truth is the millionaires tax kicks in at income levels well below a million dollars and when combined with the existing tax burden experienced by New York residents, the top marginal rate will effectively be 57%. Since the exodus has begun, New York Governor David Patterson has been insistent that New York must adopt a tax system that is at least competitive with neighboring states and in fact, should consider tax incentives that encourage businesses to relocate to New York, not flee in fear. These ideas have not met with much favor among the more liberal members of the elected elite in New York and in fact, have cost Patterson his position as Governor of New York as the power brokers in NY politics pushed him out of the race.

Anyone looking at the unemployment figures knows that the stimulus plan hasn’t produced the economic results the government had hoped for. The first mistake was the stimulus money was doled out to recipients that understand job creation as poorly as the Federal government does; the Cities and States. It was spent in the worst possible ways with New York again, leading the pack. When comparing the number of jobs that were claimed to have been created directly through stimulus expenditures against the amount of money that was spent, the national average was seventy-three thousand dollars per job with New York reportedly spending nine million per job. As with any short term infusion of capital, the results are bound to be short term as well so we can imagine that those extraordinarily expensive jobs will disappear when the money does.

So why has the stimulus plan failed to deliver? Once again, Atlas is shrugging. Business owners are cringing as they look at the antics and bribes used in Washington to pass healthcare that are now being dusted off to pass the climate bill. Back door meetings and massive spending bills with threats of more taxes, penalties and mandates do not encourage small business to expand, let alone re-hire those that were laid off in last year’s economic downturn. Additionally, if the mandate for private business participation under the current healthcare proposal is fifty employees, how many companies with forty-nine employees will resist expansion and stay right where they are? How many companies with fifty-two employees will downsize to escape the mandates and worse yet, how many will decide that the benefits of operating a business in America just don’t make sense anymore?

The stock market hasn’t rallied yet either. Not only have the threats of increased capital gains taxes dissuaded participation, with the Federal Reserve running the printing presses on overtime, not even Treasury Bills look safe anymore. We also have a new ominous specter; the threat of direct government interference in business. 60% of General Motors is now owned by the Federal government, which should make any advocate of capitalism nervous. There have been executive salary caps placed on banks that received Tarp money and while the legality of that was still under debate, the government announced its plan to cap the executive salaries of all financial institutions since they fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal government. Following that logic, who is safe? After all, don’t all corporations fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal government at one level or another?

So what happens if Atlas truly does shrug? What would happen if owning a business became a liability as the Federal government placed more of the burden of America’s social programs on their shoulders in the form of new mandates? What happens if the wealthy decide that leaving New York or California doesn’t offer enough protection against confiscatory taxes? Will they leave the country? The “top one percent” that the Obama regime keeps targeting certainly has the means to do just that. In fact, many have the resources to pull out of the game entirely and live quite comfortably for the rest of their lives on what they have already accumulated. What would happen to the great plans of progressive politics if the top one percent stopped earning a taxable income and just started living? What would happen if the “top one percent” suddenly became people with incomes of one-hundred thousand dollars, eighty-thousand dollars or maybe fifty-thousand dollars when the real wealth in America decides they are not playing anymore?

Some argue that Europe has had massive social programs and progressive taxes for years and business still thrives there. Really? Greece is now on fire because the bills have finally come due and the rest of Europe is now teetering on the brink of fiscal disaster since all of their economies are tied together. The only real advantages Europe has is that European trade agreements favor those at home as does their patent process. Also true is that much of the European infrastructure is fairly new when compared to America’s. Don’t forget that much of Europe was destroyed and rebuilt after World War II. We don’t have that luxury and our older industrial centers find it continually harder to compete with our modernized competitors. Most of Europe has never embarked on the self destructive path of paying its people to stay home that began with Johnson’s “Great Society”.

We have created a new class of subsidized dependents. These are people that have been subjugated by an unfair social services system that demands that you either collect all from the government or get nothing. Fear of losing housing, healthcare and a meager cash allowance keeps them neatly enrolled in the system and insures that they will continue to vote for the people that promise the money will keep coming. After all, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul’s support. As unemployment increases and the wealthy “shrug”, who will keep these programs in place? We cannot print much more money or the world financial institutions will lock American currency out of the global economy. What will we do if Atlas does shrug?

Paul

America: Are We Still The Land of The Free?

One of the biggest questions that needs to be asked today is “Who are we?” I was raised to believe that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. That freedom has become harder to find these days mostly because we, as a people, weren’t brave enough to stand up and protect our freedom. There is also a certain degree of selfishness. As long as the latest assault didn’t affect you personally…did you stand up and say “No, this is wrong”? Did you vote for people that proposed raising taxes on “millionaires” simply because you were not a millionaire or did you ask your government “what have you done with the trillions you have already spent?” Does it bother you to know that the millionaire’s tax you voted for kicks in at an annual income of $250,000 or is that still high enough that it doesn’t affect you? Better yet…do you really believe that as the revenue stream from these “quarter-of-a-millionaires” dries up that, eventually, the government won’t have to redefine a “millionaire” again as someone whose income is a little closer to your own?

I warned years ago when a slew of sin taxes were proposed on tobacco products that no matter where you stand on the habit of smoking, that this was a bad idea. The tobacco taxes weren’t really about forcing people to quit, they were about a new source of revenue. As more people realized the hazards associated with smoking, many quit and smoker’s numbers were steadily falling when these new sin taxes were proposed. When it came time to pass the tax, the smokers opposing the tax were in the minority and the tax passed easily. That really wasn’t a surprise because by then, government had already learned how to create support by labeling the target group. This time it wasn’t the greedy rich people we were going to tax but those inconsiderate smokers. In fact, this wasn’t about saving their lives anymore. The theory of second hand smoke had turned the issue away from using sin taxes to encourage healthy choices, into punishing smokers for engaging in a habit that could affect your heath, not to mention raise your health insurance costs because of their increased medical demands.

I said then that this was just the trial balloon. If we would authorize the government to use the tax system to force lifestyle changes where smoking was concerned, then we had just given them the authority to control any personal choice that government deemed unhealthy or dangerous. People thought I was being ridiculous then and some even said I was bordering on becoming a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, my vindication can be found in the pages of the healthcare bill and in local newspapers. The new healthcare bill adds a tax for sugary beverages and tanning salons because they are bad for you. California is now proposing a new “junk food” tax; and if you think that won’t become popular enough to be considered by every cash-strapped State and City government, then think again. I will bet you anything right now that it will even be considered as a new revenue source for the healthcare bill before the plan is fully implemented in 2014. After all, the healthcare bill has already changed the definition of a millionaire to be any individual that makes more that two-hundred thousand dollars or any married couple making more than two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Ink can be very powerful in Washington.

Now that we have vilified smokers, some would like to take that even further. Brooksville, Florida has just announced that it is looking at plans to crack down on smokers in the most egregious display of an abuse of power ever perpetrated by a municipality. During Monday's 5:30 p.m. meeting at City Hall, council members will consider a tobacco policy that forbids smoking or chewing the substance on city property, in city-owned vehicles and personal vehicles that are on city property or are being used for a city function. The policy would apply to city employees and the public alike.

City employees would have one year to quit smoking or chewing tobacco or face disciplinary action that includes termination "Depending on the facts and circumstances of each infraction." Employees could also pay to participate in a smoking cessation program on their own time. Applicants that admit to using tobacco would be denied employment altogether. This is an outrage and people that believe that America is still a free nation and that government has no business interfering in our personal choices should speak out loudly and without reservation. Just as the sin taxes are now being expanded to junk foods and sugary beverages; this is not as much about smoking as it is a direct assault on personal liberty that will more than likely be expanded as well.

The overweight contribute as mightily to the cost of healthcare as smokers do and in fact, as the high taxes on tobacco products reduce the number of people that smoke in this country, some have already claimed that obesity now exceeds smoking as the number one cause of preventable death in America. Those sources also state that obesity related illnesses have already reached parity with smoking in the amount of healthcare dollars used to treat the affects of bad personal choices. Is it a really absurd that one day Brooksville might decide the cost of providing health insurance for the obese had become too prohibitive? Does the American’s with Disabilities Act cover Americans that have “chosen” to become disabled because of their eating habits? Before anyone gets confused, I am not advocating that the obese should become the new target for government oppression but I have more than a sneaky feeling that your Federal government is about to open that door and the States will follow suit.

Don’t forget that after the healthcare bill was signed Nancy Pelosi said that “this is more about diet than diabetes.” Well, that isn’t possible unless Nancy knows that the new law intends to write your diet for you somewhere in the thousands of regulations and directives that have yet to be written by the healthcare advisory board created by the legislation. Michelle Obama has publicly made her cause the fight against childhood obesity and surely, the government will now reflect that battle in their new guidelines for school lunch and fitness programs. The healthcare bill already includes a hefty sum for play yard equipment designed specifically to promote healthy activities.

Again, health is something that should not be taken for granted. A healthy lifestyle can spell the difference between a long and productive life and a long and debilitating illness. The information is out there already and people, so far, have made choices based on their personal beliefs. If we allow government to make those choices for us, or if you believe government should have the power to exclude smokers from even earning a living, then where will it end? Will we have to surrender contact sports and motorcycles? Will high-heels and roller blades be banned? What about the potential for the spread of disease? Since the policy being considered by Brooksville reaches into people’s homes by saying if you use tobacco in any form, at any time and in any place, you cannot work for the City then is stands to reason that allowing this to stand invites the government into our homes to control even more behavior. The worst part about this is that the City and not society, would then establish what in safe and what is not. They would determine your health and welfare choices based on their criteria, not yours.

Suppose they determine that speech could be dangerous because of the anger it could possibly incite? There goes the First Amendment. Guns can be very dangerous depending on whose finger is on the trigger…should we ban guns because of the health implications….goodbye Second Amendment. Ridiculous? With this ban on smoking and the City of Brooksville already planning on testing people to make sure they aren’t smoking at home…where is your Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure? Where is the sovereignty of your person and property? Where the hell is the Constitution?

So the question again is “Who are we?” What is the America you believe in? Have we surrendered so many of our rights already that the government is already poised to take more based on the precedent set by our silence with sin taxes. After all if you can tax it, you can control it and if you control it, you can ban it and if you ban it….America just isn’t America anymore, now is it?

Paul

More Tax and Spend But Where Are The Jobs?

So the news these days is that the stock market is rallying after the passage of healthcare and the stimulus bill is finally bringing us out of the recession. Newsweek (or is it News Weak? I never can remember) ran a story recently that America is back; claiming the recession is over. Well, if we are actually recovering from the recession, where are the jobs? The increase we see in the Dow has nothing to do with the stimulus bill and while it is on the rise, it is not because companies are hopeful about healthcare savings but because they are trying to mitigate the negative effects the tax increases will bring in the future.

There are massive new taxes on the way because of the healthcare bill in addition to the increases business will see after the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. Corporations operate under different tax rules than private citizens and are able to shift their losses around to offset earnings where it will provide the most benefit. In fact, corporations can amend previous returns and move losses back three years or use them as far as twenty years into the future to offset future income. That is what we are seeing this year in the Dow. Companies know their taxes will be substantially higher in 2011 and are posting their income in 2010 when the taxes aren’t great, but they aren’t as insane as they will be next year. Once the tax cuts disappear and the new tax impositions from the healthcare bill are in place, the losses and expenses from this year will be used to offset the tax liabilities in 2011 and that will have a drastic effect on the Dow Jones.

Reagan made the same mistake when he took office. He promised tax cuts to rouse the economy but rather than make them immediate, he phased the cuts in, which allowed companies to post losses during the years of higher taxes; biding their time until the tax cuts took affect. Once the tax cuts were in place, the economy soared, ushering in one of the largest peace-time expansions of the GDP in history but before those cuts were actually made, the economy lagged and jobs suffered. Conversely, businesses are now taking advantage of the temporarily lower tax rates knowing that those rates are guaranteed to rise sharply in 2011. Furthermore, business is counting on the November 2010 elections to restore some sanity to government. While the Republicans cannot secure enough seats to repeal healthcare, they can certainly block the funding needed to implement it; stalling the healthcare legislation until 2012 can bring in a new Congress and a new President.

The President can try to put a happy face on the prospects Democrats are facing this election but he knows that a vote for the healthcare bill was a vote for their own retirement. Going into the healthcare vote, Republicans were no more liked than Democrats were but the scandalous way this legislation was forced through Congress against the will of the people has severely damaged the Democrats. While people are not quite sure they can trust Republicans right now, Republicans do have the distinct advantage in not being Democrats. The President has been trying to label Republicans as “the Party of no” but the Democrats have labeled themselves “the Party of sit down and be quiet you silly people”. In the whole grand scheme of things there is an awful lot you can do to Americans before they get truly angry but ignoring them just isn’t an option.

The frightening part about the President’s predicament is that it has fostered another sense of urgency in the White House and now every program and policy the President really wants is going to be desperately rushed in much the same way that TARP, the Stimulus and Healthcare was. Don’t forget that TARP had to be done right then and there or banks were going to fail, throwing America into a new depression. Well, TARP passed and Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke and the President claimed credit for averting financial disaster but isn’t it funny that as soon as executive salaries were capped in the companies that accepted TARP money, those silly companies discovered that they actually did have liquidity and paid the TARP money back as fast as humanly possible. Well, most of them did. Curiously, the only ones that couldn’t pay the taxpayers back, and in fact, still needed more money, were the government’s own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Imagine that!

Then there was the Stimulus Bill. We had to pass that one without thinking about it because joblessness was on the rise and without this critical infusion of money, the unemployment rate would get as high as 8%. Well, we passed that without thinking about it and unemployment climbed above 10% before stagnating at a miserable 9.7%. Recovery.gov still has no idea how much of your money was wasted on frivolous projects like amphibian underpasses so that frogs and salamanders can safely cross the road or funding studies about the drinking habits of Indonesian transgender prostitutes. Billions are listed as being given to Congressional districts that do not exist and since the government cannot say with any accuracy how many (if any) jobs were actually created, the White House has had to claim that the Stimulus Bill saved two million jobs knowing full well there is no way to substantiate a “saved job”.

With the Healthcare Bill we all watched in horror as the legislative process was subverted into a corrupt and underhanded push to pass something nobody wanted. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama all blamed the Republicans for trying to stonewall the legislation when the bare fact is that the resistance that nearly derailed the bill was entirely on the other side of the aisle. Reluctant Democrats had to be bullied, threatened and bought off just to get the votes they needed to push this through. Once Scott Brown had been elected to the Senate, it was thought that the bill would finally die the death it deserved but the Senate Bill was taken behind closed doors once more where Pelosi and Obama abused House Democrats. They would use the same tactics Harry Reid used, forcing them to vote for the Senate Bill so they could ram it through under reconciliation; requiring only a simple majority in the Senate, effectively negating Scott Brown’s vote.

Now that the healthcare bill has passed all the nasty little details are emerging. The Medicare cuts, the tax increases and the admission by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, that the healthcare bill is designed to “correct a mal-distribution” of wealth in America. For those of us that warned about the redistributive goals of the bill, a healthy “told you so” might certainly be warranted but what good would that do now? Then there are the unintended consequences to deal with. America’s largest corporations are reporting that they will loose hundreds of millions in profits because of the healthcare bill; something that Henry Waxman fumed over, demanding that these companies appear before his committee and explain themselves. Waxman claimed that a report prepared prior to the passage of the bill said these companies would see a decrease in healthcare costs amounting to roughly three-thousand dollars per employee and he insisted upon knowing why they were not taking those savings into consideration. As it turns out, the report to which Henry Waxman was referring had nothing to do with the Senate healthcare bill and was based on a limited and incremental approach to healthcare reform similar to what the Republicans had proposed.

I suppose the funniest story came out last week when the Congress found out that the healthcare bill they all told us they read contained a little secret none of them knew about. Unless they act to correct the bill, Congress and their staff members are all going to lose their health insurance and will be forced into the exchange market. The only problem for them is that the way the law is written, they must lose the insurance now and the market they have to purchase from won’t even exist until 2014.

Despite the President’s promise that jobs are going to be his priority in the coming year his next race to get something past the Senate is on the financial reform bill. This bill places drastic and dangerous limits on American financial institutions placing them at a severe disadvantage when competing against foreign banks that are curiously not mentioned in this “much needed” reform bill. Even though Harry Reid said it may not be possible in an election year, the President insists that immigration reform is right behind his Financial Reform Bill. Also tucking into the White House fast track to destroy the country is the infamous Cap and Trade massive energy tax. The Senate is threatening to unveil their copy of that scam as early as the end of next week. So I have to ask the same question I started this article with….Where are the jobs?

Paul

The Left Tries Tinkering with the Tea Party

During the course of the last year we have seen a definite change in the perception that Progressives have towards the Tea Party. New Tea Party groups began springing up all over the country as soon as the country recognized that despite his centrist campaign, the newly elected Barack Obama had steered his administration hard to the left. Established Tea Party groups saw an exponential increase in membership as soon as the eight-hundred plus billion dollar stimulus bill passed and the focus in Congress turned to healthcare. At first, the organized opposition to the Tea Party was basically to ignore them and the main stream media did their level best; burying stories about Tea Party activists where no one but hard core, cover-to-cover readers would find them. The thought was that without coverage or recognition that they would fizzle out and disappear.

Well, they didn’t fizzle out and they certainly haven’t disappeared. They showed up at town hall meetings during the August recess and while those that got in aired their opinions, the ones that didn’t stood outside with signs and slogans. After the Tea Party launched a massive protest at the nation’s Capitol, the press could no longer ignore the intensity and passion of the people that, until then, were showing up at Congressional offices and town halls all over the nation. Another means of dealing with this threat to the Progressive agenda had to be found. Nancy Pelosi led the charge with accusations that the Tea Parties were nothing more than an annoyance campaign organized by the Republican Party, health insurance corporations and special interest groups. Pelosi claimed they were not an actual grass roots movement; calling them “Astroturf” and manufactured anger. Ironically, while Nancy labeled the Tea Party manufactured anger, MoveOn.org, Americans for Democratic Action, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Organizing for America and more, were orchestrating counter protests and were in some cases, actually paying people to attend; a move which would prove disastrous later.

When Tea Party members began appearing on news programs, mostly on Fox, the main stream media went on an information search to discredit the people that were speaking for the movement. If Nancy Pelosi said they were paid for by the Republicans, surely they should be able to find those links and bring this manufactured hoax to a grinding halt. Looking in every dark corner and alley; under each rock and behind every tree the media found nothing but retirees, small business owners and private citizens that had never even been part of a political protest in their lives. Rather than change her tune when confronted with the total absence of Republican influence in the Tea Party movement, Nancy Pelosi shifted gears and began speaking about the rage that had permeated the town hall meetings and protests. If we can’t prove they are Astroturf, then maybe we can prove they are nothing but an ugly, racist and irrational mob. Pelosi spoke tearfully about how much this hateful discourse reminded her of the anger that had been part of the political scene in San Francisco during the 1970’s and how that anger had quickly descended into violence.

What Ms. Pelosi failed to mention was that the San Francisco mobs inciting violence in the 1970’s were overwhelmingly people on the left; Progressives like herself that did not have a legitimate voice in politics and had taken the radical activist route to force their issues on an unwilling public. The left had always taken to the streets and those marches nearly always became a violent clash between radical mobs and the authorities. Despite the inaccuracies, the main stream media had their new marching orders and began to dig through the Tea Party protests looking for signs that could be interpreted as hateful or racist and started reporting about people shouting out vile comments or wearing Swastikas. Curiously, the photographs that were taken showed plenty of American flags and signs reading “Hands off my healthcare” but none of the pictures were hateful, racist or even vulgar. There were no images of people wearing Swastikas or raising their arms in Nazi salutes. There were miles of footage showing people chanting “Kill the Bill” or speaking about the outrage they felt because Congress had been ignoring them but I still haven’t heard any racial slurs or provocative language. One would think that if any of those things were evident at Tea Party rallies, that the media would have led their national coverage with that. They did not.

Then in August it happened. The Democratic headquarters in Denver Colorado was vandalized. The media storm was immediate and centered on the anger that the Tea Party was fomenting against the supporters of healthcare reform. Every window that had been shattered contained a poster supporting the President’s healthcare initiative illustrating how dangerous these protests were becoming. Within days, the police apprehended 24 year old Maurice Schwenkler for the attack. In a curious twist of fate, Schwenkler was neither a right wing zealot nor was he a member of the Tea Party. Schwenkler was in fact, a Democrat activist and a supporter of the Healthcare Bill. He had previously been arrested for misdemeanor unlawful assembly at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN and had actually worked for the Democratic Party in the past. Schwenkler had also been paid five-hundred dollars by the Colorado Citizens Coalition, a non profit group that supports Democratic candidates, for his work in a door to door campaign to drum up last minute support for Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

There was very little coverage of Schwenkler’s arrest and no retractions of the damning rhetoric the press used as they attempted to link the attack with Tea Party activists. No indications were ever made as to Schwenkler’s motive for the vandalism leaving us to wonder “why?” It could simply be that he had an argument with people at the office and had an axe to grind with them but it may very well be that Schwenkler assumed that an attack of vandalism launched against Democratic offices would automatically be attributed to the Tea Party providing Nancy Pelosi with new speaking points about Tea Party violence.

Similarly, the charges of Tea Party hate and bigotry hoisted on the news networks after the House healthcare vote have failed to be substantiated with a single video clip or sound bite. Stenny Hoyer is now saying that anyone that doesn’t believe that racial slurs were lobbed at black Congressmen or that they weren’t spat upon are no different than the kooks that believe the Holocaust never happened during World War II. Sadly, there are miles of records and films to substantiate the brutal slaughter of more than six million Jews during World War II. Those films were taken in a nation that was ruled by a totalitarian military regime that had complete control over the media and yet, these films survived and exist to this day. However, here in the United States none of the hundreds of news cameras and microphones that accompanied those Congressmen as they walked through the Tea Party crowds to take their historic vote captured one scrap of evidence…..not one! If I were a member of the Jewish leadership I would be furious at Stenny Hoyer for even suggesting this charade could possibly be compared to the Holocaust.

The main stream news still hasn’t covered the brutal beating of Kenneth Gladney, a black Tea Party activist that was assaulted by counter protesters wearing SEIU shirts and jackets. The Missouri man was knocked to the ground and kicked for handing out literature during a Tea Party rally. A video taken of the incident clearly shows racial epithets were used as the assailants pummeled this man yet, the gang of thugs were basically charged with a misdemeanor when a civil rights violation and hate crime, had obviously taken place. A similar incident happened in Thousand Oaks, California where a 65 year old bystander that stopped to see what was happening at a Tea Party gathering was attacked and had part of his finger bitten off by a paid counter-protester bused in by MoveOn.org, a civilian activist group organized by the Democratic Party. Local police pursued that crime as vigorously as they did the incident in Missouri, with the charges against the attacker being little more than the equivalent of a ticket of littering. If the press really wants to see protest violence, they are obviously following the wrong groups because there is tons of video they can air if they follow the President’s supporters.

Now we have a new name and face to add to the list of Democrats manufacturing anger at Tea Party protests. Obviously the press can’t find the violence that Nancy Pelosi has accused the Tea Party of so he is going to help her by organizing people to infiltrate the Tea Party protests to create the disturbances the press couldn’t legitimately find. Jason Levin, a media lab school teacher at Beaverton, Oregon’s Conestoga Middle School says they want to “exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them”.

He adds “We’re going to attend their rally, but plan to have a bunch of truly ludicrous signs. Things that say “Obama drinks Christian Baby Blood” or “Jesus wrote the constitution”. The more misspelled words the better…You could also dress in overalls with no shirt, or a stained “wifebeater” t-shirt, But you get the general idea. Some other thoughts are to ask people at the rally to sign a petition renouncing socialism. See just how much info you can get from these folks. The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!”

All Levin has done was to provide the smoking gun the Tea Party needed all along. The main stream media has yet to uncover these crazy signs and acts of violence in previous Tea Party protests so the assumption will now be that any violent or rude behavior at future Tea Party events must be the work of one of “Levin’s Losers”. Like that name? I made it up myself! Levin may have created more problems for himself than simply undermining the effectiveness of his own cause. He has apparently been working on his blog and website while he was supposed to be teaching his Oregon students and has drawn some unexpected and unpleasant attention from the school district. Hopefully his lack of involvement with the students actually spared them from the usual radical indoctrination routinely perpetrated by Socialist teachers and they are now better prepared for the realities of life than Mr. Levin is.

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

Obama Care Is On Display in Massachusetts

Since 2006, Massachusetts has had a State managed healthcare system nearly identical to the healthcare bill that just passed into law. During the debates I had suggested that people take a long hard look at existing State health systems because every State that has meddled in healthcare has experienced crippling difficulties. While several States have attempted this, Massachusetts was the one that had nearly everything the Senate bill featured. The exchange; the subsidies and most importantly, it had an individual mandate requiring all residents to purchase an acceptable insurance plan or face a penalty.

The first effect Massachusetts felt was that individuals that had the money, desire and an idea to create a business began slipping across the borders into neighboring States to avoid the increased taxes and regulations imposed after the implementation of “Commonwealth Care”, the Massachusetts healthcare plan. As the plan began to mature and more of the uninsured obtained insurance either purchased to satisfy the mandate or provided through subsidies for the impoverished, the number of uninsured dropped to the lowest in the nation at just around 4%. Unfortunately, Massachusetts did nothing to make the prospect of practicing medicine in the Bay State any more palatable than it was before everyone had insurance so there was a measurable doctor shortage almost immediately. Wait times to see doctors have become frustratingly long and the extra burden placed on primary care physicians has taken a toll on the quality of care which were two things that voters had been assured would never happen.

The other thing that the people of Massachusetts were assured was that the cost of obtaining health insurance would finally be reigned in but that too, would turn out to be just another broken promise. The fact is that the cost of insurance in Massachusetts that was already the highest in the nation continued to climb at a staggering 10% per year, well ahead of inflation. By early 2008, the “safety net” hospitals that provided care for low income people in urban areas were experiencing serious budget shortfalls due to the combination of reduced "free-care" payments from the state and low enrollment in the exchange or “Commonwealth Care”. The State had reduced payments to hospitals expecting a reduced need for hospital charity as more people enrolled in Commonwealth Care but the enrollment that took place made little difference. What the social engineers in Massachusetts did not anticipate was that the fine for not having insurance was so low that people would learn to “game” the system. You could avoid thousands in insurance premiums and pay a minimal fine of a few hundred dollars and then get insurance through the exchange later when you absolutely needed it.

Some had argued for meaningful fines associated with the refusal to purchase health insurance but the bill would never have passed with the higher fines in place. As it was, the State spent years in court defending the mandates and fines and still has legal challenges waiting in the wings. One would think that the shortages to the hospitals would be an easy fix to address and all that would be required was to have the legislature reinstitute the reimbursements for indigent care but by then, the State was facing a short term funding gap of one-hundred million dollars and needed a new three year commitment from the Federal government for an additional one and a half billion dollars or the system would be in serious trouble.

Since the referendum ballot adopted by Massachusetts severely limited the States ability to increase taxes, the State floated several ideas to increase revenues such as an additional one dollar tax on a pack of cigarettes, but none of these measures were capable of stopping the arterial bleeding endemic in Commonwealth Care. The one-hundred million dollar short term funding gap would be the good news for 2008 as the State disclosed they had a one point three billion dollar deficit, much of which was attributed to the failings of Commonwealth Care. In 2010, the portion of the Massachusetts budget consumed by health and human services is a staggering fifty percent (50%) of all State spending. In response to the growing cost to the State, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has instructed the State Division of Insurance to reject any request for health insurance rate increases that exceed the rate of medical inflation. Guess what? All of the available plans requested rate increases that exceeded the rate of medical inflation and 235 of the 274 requests were denied setting the stage for a showdown between the authority of government and the independence of business in Massachusetts.

The Governor’s instruction to the State Division of Insurance amounts to a unilateral imposition of price controls on an industry already hampered by State regulations and reduced reimbursements from the State. Four of the six companies that provide insurance through the Massachusetts exchange have posted substantial losses for all of 2009, which is what prompted the requests for rate increases. The insurers responded to the Governors edict by refusing to write any new policies until the matter was addressed and immediately filed suit against the State.

On Monday, a judge in the Suffolk County Superior Court ruled against the insurers stating that the insurers must exhaust the appeals process with the Division of Insurance before seeking a ruling from the courts. Four of the insurers have already filed appeals in accordance with the judge’s decision, vowing to take the matter to the Superior Court if necessary. Facing what is in essence, a health insurance blackout, Massachusetts Insurance Commissioner Joseph Murphy ordered the protesting insurers to return to the market with acceptable price quotes by 3pm Thursday, April 15th or face fines of five-thousand dollars a day per carrier plus one-thousand dollars for every consumer that is unable to buy coverage because of the action. So far, only one carrier, Health New England, has provided the new quotes demanded by the Commissioner.

Hopefully, they can resolve this for the benefit of those that rely on their health insurance because of long term illness or emergency needs but this may turn into our first real case of “Atlas Shrugged”. Let’s face it, the Federal government may have prohibited health insurers from competing across state lines but they are national companies. The only thing the Federal prohibition does is force the largest insurers to create 50 separate companies with the administrative costs that go with them. Blue Cross-Blue Shield in Massachusetts can thumb their nose at the Governor and Commissioner and close up shop completely in that State and do all the better for it. When a train has a car with a bad wheel, they separate it from the train and keep on going and for government to attempt to force a private company to sell a product at a loss is not just foolish, but un-American.

This isn’t the only challenge Commonwealth Care has. They still haven’t been able to attract doctors that want to work under those conditions so the State is now relaxing the restrictions on nurse practitioners and allowing them to perform health services formerly reserved for licensed doctors opening the door for yet another lowering of the quality of care. Before anyone goes into a rage over my comments, I know that nurse practitioners are hard working and dedicated people worthy of praise but they are simply not doctors. If there were no distinction between the two, there would be no need to bear the expense to complete additional education and go through the rigors of licensing to become a doctor. The fact is that just the suggestion that a change in State regulations would lower the quality care to fill the shortage of doctors leaves the State open to massive new law suits. It won’t take long for savvy personal injury attorneys in Massachusetts to provide a costly link between the State’s expansion in the role of nurse practitioners and the perception that suddenly, every medical procedure that doesn’t meet the recipients expectation could have had a different outcome if a bona fide doctor performed the services.

With the similarities between Commonwealth Care and our newly passed healthcare bill I seriously doubt there can be a substantially different outcome. Since the healthcare insurers will not be able to avoid the draconian price controls that will undoubtedly be imposed within a year or two after implementation by simply moving their business to another State, the insurers will most likely be driven out of business when the money runs out. You can bet we will have the same doctor shortages, the same wait times and the same willingness on the part of the public to pay the fines until they actually need insurance; insurance that will no longer be able to exclude pre-existing conditions. It’s a little late for the hard look the media is giving Commonwealth Care and I doubt they would even be doing these stories now if Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts wasn’t a possible Republican contender in the 2012 Presidential election. What Obama Care may eventually bring us is a resurgence of questionable home remedies as doctor services become a game to see who can survive the wait, but this is the kind of progress that Progressives bring to everything.

Paul

Is the Healthcare Bill Constitutional?

Is the Healthcare Bill constitutional? This may well be the most important question ever asked in the United States and many of those States are asking it. The premise dictated by Congress is that they derive their authority to enact the Healthcare Bill through both the Supremacy Clause that states that Federal Law supersedes State law and the Commerce Clause that gives the Federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The argument in favor of the Supremacy Clause is a moot point if the law that Congress passed is found to be unconstitutional. Since the Healthcare Bill relies heavily on the funding accrued through a mandate that every American must now buy healthcare insurance, the obvious question is what actually constitutes commerce? The Congress has obviously mistaken their need to mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance to fund their program with the constitutional authority to mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance. Since the Healthcare Bill is an empty shell without that mandatory purchase, the Congress and the President are not likely to give this up easily.

So what is commerce? According to Merriam-Webster, commerce is: “the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place”. Franklin Roosevelt broadened the definition of commerce during the Great Depression to facilitate government control of food prices. For this FDR used the argument that even the production of food products for personal consumption could disrupt the interstate price of those commodities. His rationale speculated that if too many people began growing their own foods, then the national price of food would be adversely affected, causing further economic harm. Since the nation was in a State of economic emergency, people were willing to try anything to stop the bleeding and Roosevelt got his way.

FDR’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause allowed him broad powers and he used them to create a multitude of new agencies that began the process of seizing powers that clearly belonged to the individual States under the banner of aggressively attacking the Depression and putting people back to work. Of course, the left loves to argue that is was those measure that saved the nation from economic ruin even though the enlightened and educated know that the Depression didn’t end until World War II destroyed every manufacturing center in the world except those safely located in the United Stated and the carnage killed and wounded more than 600,000 previously unemployed Americans; Americans that would no longer add to the unemployment rolls no matter what Roosevelt did.

More than seventy years later, the U.S. Congress is still using that perverse interpretation of the Commerce Clause to broaden the power of the Federal government even further. Today, as in Roosevelt’s day, for something to be considered commerce, an action had to take place and someone would have to buy, build, sell or grow something before we could claim that commerce existed. Now Congress wants to go even further and Congressional Democrats are struggling to make the case that since not buying insurance could adversely affect the commerce of healthcare, it may be lawfully regulated by Congress through the commerce clause. It was a stretch of the imagination and a violation of the Constitution when FDR claimed Congress had the right to regulate the actions of private citizens because those actions “might” interfere with interstate commerce. The idea that Congress can now regulate the inactivity of private citizens because that inactivity will interfere with a level of commerce that didn’t exist until Congress passed a healthcare bill that required the unwilling involvement of all US citizens goes beyond unconstitutional and could very well be criminal.

Why do I say criminal? Well, let’s look at the crime of extortion. Again, the Merriam-Webster definition says that extortion is: “the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially: the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice”. Ok, what does it mean to extort? Merriam-Webster says that is: “to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power”.

The Healthcare bill dictates (forces) all Americans to purchase healthcare insurance. Failure to purchase health insurance will result in a fine (obtain money) of up to 2/1/2% of that persons income. The Internal Revenue Service (an official) will be responsible for confirming that you have adequate insurance and will levy and collect fines if you don’t (intimidation). Why did they use the IRS and not the massive new agency that will direct healthcare benefits and expenses? Because the IRS is the only Federal agency that can collect fines without proof of guilt or due process; forcing the afflicted citizen to prove his innocence rather than the government having to prove your guilt; a must in every other area of law.

Well, what do you know! The penalties and collection of fines established by the healthcare bill fits the definition of extortion perfectly! After all, the President and Congressional Democrats were clear that this was not a tax or else the President would have broken his promise of not imposing a middle class tax increase. Even if they called it a tax, Congress only has the Constitutional authority to raise taxes to pay the bills of the Republic and to provide for the defense of the nation but those taxes must be uniform and a tax only collected from those that do not purchase health insurance is certainly not uniform.

As with many things, once this finds its way to court the question of intent is bound to arise. Some unwitting Democrats have already provided us with the answer to that. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) says the bill is meant to correct a maldistribution of wealth….and you thought this was about health. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says it’s “more about diet than diabetes” indicating that they intend to use the bill to exert unconstitutional control over the general population. Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) invoked a quote from Thomas Edison during a meeting of the rules committee that “there are no rules here – we’re trying to accomplish something”. He then added that “all the Republicans are want to talk about are the people” as if a duly elected representative of the United States Congress can act without the consent of the governed and still claim constitutional authority. Even worse was the moronic statement made by Representative Phil Hare (D-IL) who said “I’m not worried about the Constitution; I’m worried about the thousands of people that are dying because they don’t have healthcare”.

It looks like the intentions have been clearly established here. Max Baucus wants to play Robin Hood, Nancy Pelosi wants to pick your lunch for you and I’m not sure how that squares with Alcee Hastings equivalent of one of the ruling elite saying “let them eat cake” in response to the unpopularity of the legislation. Bringing up the rear we have Phil Hastings that never even heard of the Constitution even though he swore an oath to support and defend it. And these are the people that want us to believe they have the authority to demand you buy insurance or else?

No, there is no constitutional authority for Congress to demand that you purchase a private product of their choosing for your personal use, using your money to purchase it. I’ve heard the left wing spokesmen on radio and television trying to equate this mandate with auto insurance. Well, there is a big difference. The insurance requirement is only mandated for people that choose to purchase a car for use on public roads (an act of commerce). There are no insurance requirements for vehicles that are operated solely on private property and there is no mandate for people that do not own a car to have to purchase insurance to help drive the cost down for those that do. The auto insurance mandate is required by the individual States, not the Federal government and anyone that has bothered to read the Constitution knows that the States and the people retain all powers not specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution; including the right to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle within their respective States.

Paul

Healthcare - The Myth of Neutrality

Now that the Healthcare bill has become law, we are finally getting some of the transparency we had hoped for during the debates. Unfortunately, this transparency came too late to be of any use during the legislative process and the news is devastating. Despite the promises of budget neutrality made by the President and the Congressional Democrats, this neutrality is turning out to be a shameless and cruel hoax. While the President points to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that claims the bill will provide deficit reduction of just over $100 billion dollars in the first ten years and $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years, those numbers were intentionally manipulated by the Democratic leadership.

The CBO can only score what it is before them. It can not extrapolate based on intent and it cannot adjust even when it knows key provisions have been left out of the materials they have been given. The $500 billion that this bill cuts from Medicare was factored in as a savings measure to provide solvency for Medicare through 2019. One would think that if it were a savings measure, that the money would remain in Medicare to restore balance to the program considering the projected rate of expansion. No; instead that $500 billion was also scored as part of the funding for a new entitlement program in the healthcare bill to provide subsidies for the purchase of healthcare insurance for low income families. Counting the same money twice in a business plan or as a proposal to investors would be a crime unless that plan or proposal is being submitted by Congress to the CBO for analysis.

The CBO must also score the bill based upon the language contained in the bill and must assume the cuts proposed in the bill will be law and will take place. Historically, the Congress has already passed cuts to Medicare in many previous years and to date, none of those cuts have ever been enacted. The CBO would love to say “Are you kidding? You guys have never made Medicare cuts before so why should we believe you will now?” The sad truth is they are prohibited from adding anything to their analysis that isn’t part of the actual language before them; including the intent and historical spinelessness of Congress.

Since the $278 billion dollar “doctor fix” was also removed from the legislation and will be considered as part of a spending package separate and apart from the Healthcare Bill, the CBO was prohibited from considering the budget implications from that as well. So far, a cursory look at the fiscal manipulation Democrats used to conceal the true cost of this bill adds up to three-quarters of a trillion dollars and that is just the beginning. It doesn’t sound like that $100 billion dollar savings in the first year is all it’s cracked up to be. As far as the $1.2 trillion dollar savings the CBO estimated for the second ten years is concerned, that is equally as fictional. What the President left out in his speech to the nation was the side note the CBO gave him on their estimates for year eleven through twenty of the program. The CBO made sure they cautioned that the estimates they provided are unreliable beyond ten years and that the projected savings can only be realized if the assumptions made by Congress in the legislation remain valid.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Large portions of the uninsured are going to be driven into the expanded Medicaid program; a program that bears little consequence for the Federal government but can spell disaster for the individual States. It is very easy for Congressional Democrats to claim budget neutrality when they can shift 70% of this new burden onto the States and let them worry about how to deal with it. Many of these States are already struggling with budget problems of their own because of the recession and loss of tax revenue. In short, while Congressional Democrats try to sell the illusion of budget neutrality and the benefits of the healthcare bill before the November election, the States are going to have to raise your taxes, cut your services or both just to avoid bankruptcy because of the new unfunded mandates in the bill.

Many of the States realize they are already at the tax saturation point and will find it exceedingly difficult to raise taxes to offset the increased Medicaid liability without driving their real tax payers out. States like New York, New Jersey and California have already seen an exodus of the highest earners in recent years and when the affluent in these areas have finally had enough, they aren’t moving to neighboring States for a measly one or two percent decrease in taxes; they are moving to one of the seven US States that have no personal income tax which should be a lesson for us all. As world markets decline, investors are going to look for the safest place to put their money and many would prefer the security and stability of the United States. Unfortunately, the wild spending and outrageous taxes have taken us out of the running and nervous investors would rather take a chance on China’s experiment with limited Capitalism than America’s incredibly stupid experiment with Socialism.

As Federal policy drives the States closer to the brink of disaster, many are beginning to fight back. Several have passed legislation negating the individual mandate that would force citizens to purchase healthcare insurance under the new Healthcare bill and more than twenty more have identical legislation pending. Of course that legislation does not exempt the citizens and businesses in those States from the new tax liabilities so it in fact, allows people the privilege of paying more for absolutely nothing in return.

Congressional Democrats are already kicking back stating that the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution invalidates those measures reminding those States that Federal law supersedes State law. Of course the Supremacy Clause only applies to Federal law that is actually constitutional and that is where several States are applying their attention. Within minutes of the signing of the Healthcare Bill into law, a number of States filed suits challenging the constitutionality of the mandates that force individuals to purchase healthcare insurance and the unfunded mandates the States will face as the number of people enrolled in Medicaid climbs as a result of the bill.

Tomorrow, we will discuss the constitutional questions surrounding the Healthcare Bill and why Congress and the President are secretly concerned about those challenges.

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

Political Violence? Conservatives Don't Throw Bricks.

I find it mildly amusing after decades of violence from the left over everything from war to the environment that they are so fearful of flag waving patriots at Tea Party Protests. There has been a concerted effort to liken Tea Party protests to the actions of an angry mob but those that have attended those rallies know who and what the Tea Party is. Most Tea Party groups know that the main stream media has been scouring these events so they can hand pick a few pictures of the more extreme protestors to impugn the movement as a whole and it would do well to treat those reporters with suspicion whenever they are present.

The power of the media comes into its own once they have an audio conversation of more than a few words. The less scrupulous of these media organs have absolutely no problem dissecting a five minute conversation and using snippets of your comments to craft a controversial answer to a question you were never asked. Those in the public eye know this and most are savvy enough to skirt these traps by crafting their answers to avoid particular statements that could be inflammatory when taken out of context. Still, a few slip through the cracks such as Sarah Palin’s comment on reloading or that she was putting a “sight” on Democrats she was “targeting” in the 2010 elections.

Sarah Palin was the subject of numerous jokes during the 2008 campaign because she is an avid hunter in her home State of Alaska. He references to weapons and hunting terminology was meant to be an “in your face” swipe at those who tried to use her love of hunting against her and rather than submit to the criticisms, she decided to wear it as a badge of courage. The left however, seized the opportunity to claim her statements were meant to incite violence against Democrats and attempted to link the post-healthcare bill brick throwing incidents at her feet and at the feet of her Tea Party followers.

I really do have to wonder about all these claims of violence anyway. During the heated healthcare debates in August of 2009, multiple windows at the Democratic offices in Denver Colorado were smashed adding up to more than eleven thousand dollars in damages. Since the windows that were targeted held posters praising Obama’s efforts to reform healthcare, Democrats were quick to accuse right wing zealots and Tea Partiers claiming they were trying to invoke fear and foment hatred against supporters of the President’s healthcare initiative.

Days later, Denver Police arrested 24 year-old Maurice Schwenkler for the attack but Schwenkler was neither a right wing zealot nor was he a member of the Tea Party. Schwenkler was in fact, a Democrat activist and a supporter of the Healthcare Bill. He had previously been arrested for misdemeanor unlawful assembly at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN and had worked for the Democratic Party in the past. Schwenkler had also been paid five-hundred dollars by the Colorado Citizens Coalition, a non profit group that supports Democratic candidates, for his work in a door to door campaign to drum up last minute support for Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

While the motives for Maurice Schwenkler’s acts of vandalism were never disclosed, it is clear that this was not someone that had been angered over the Democrat’s push to pass Healthcare Reform. Could it be that this was an idea he and his other radical friends came up with to discredit Tea Party opposition to his beloved President? Could this have been a contrived act perpetrated with the hope that the Republicans and Tea Parties would be blamed?

One can never be certain but since their list of heroes include Marxists, Socialists and some very radical thinkers, it is a credible possibility. This is curiously reminiscent to the 1933 blaze that gutted the German Reichstag building. The fire was deemed arson and there was an outcry from Hitler’s loyal party that Dutch Communists were responsible. Several Dutch Communists were arrested but just one, Marinus van der Lubbe, would be tried and executed for the act. The fire was then used by Adolf Hitler to suspend many of the German Republic’s civil rights and to disperse the various Communist opposition Parties present in Germany at the time. It was not until years later that Gestapo Archives seized by Russian forces during World War II were rediscovered in Moscow. These archives show that the fire was actually the work of Hitler’s loyal SA or Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers), the paramilitary arm of the Nazi Party. The work of several modern day researchers claim that the fire was intentionally set by SA commandos so that the Nazis, under Hitler’s command, could create a crisis that would radically broaden his powers.

The reality of the situation is there is an understanding among Democrats that most Tea Party activists are law abiding members of society that abhor violence and ignorance. I believe their hope is that if they can connect the Tea Party or Republican supporters with random acts of violence that it will fracture the Tea Party and render it impotent; that independents and conservatives will flee if they believe the Party has been taken over by dangerous factions.

We saw this strategy employed during the Tea Party protest that gathered in Washington before the final House vote on the Healthcare bill. Instead of entering the Capitol Building through their usual underground passageway, House Democrats lead by Nancy Pelosi challenged the crowd as they walked to the Capitol Building. There were reports that racial slurs were lobbed at black Congressmen and that some were even spat upon. Really? Well, despite hundreds of news cameras, microphones and security agents, not one of them actually witnessed these alleged events; there were no arrests made and none of the so-called victims of these horrendous acts would agree to appear on a single news show to tell America what happened to them.

Is that even possible? Do you doubt for one moment that if a Congressman were assaulted, threatened or spat on that the perpetrators wouldn’t have been arrested on the spot? The films I saw of the Congressional Democrats walking to the Capitol Building showed that their security people had cleared the path for them and maintained a comfortable distance between the crowd and the Congressmen. I clearly heard security personnel tell people to move back but I didn’t hear one racial remark. The cameras didn’t capture a single image of anyone spitting and neither did any of the other news networks that were present.

House Democrats equated their walk through the Tea Party protest with the historic civil rights marches of the 1960’s when in reality; it was far more similar to the marches staged by American Nazis, Skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan. Like those marches, this little walk was designed to challenge the protestors. They were hoping that someone, anyone, would do something that would bring shame and scrutiny upon the Tea Party movement. When they couldn’t incite the response they wanted, I believe they made it up as they went along. That is why none of them would appear on the news programs. It is one thing to have Nancy Pelosi tell us that she heard that this had happened, its quite another to convince someone to stand before news cameras and lie to the American people that you were the victim of an assault that never happened; an assault that not one of the hundreds of cameras that were present had filmed.

Now we have windows being broken again; a few Democrats here and a few Republicans there. Even though the perpetrators have not been apprehended, we are being told that it is the acts of right wing zealots and angry Tea Partiers again. Has anyone even asked where Maurice Schwenkler has been lately? No I don’t actually believe he is responsible this time but considering what did happen this past August and the unsubstantiated nature of the alleged assault on House Democrats earlier this month, I am more inclined to believe in Elvis sightings than I am in their claims that Tea Partiers are suddenly throwing bricks again. Let’s face facts. Acts of violence and vandalism are the calling card of the left; not the Tea Party. Conservatives don’t throw bricks and we don’t make pipe bombs. We don’t incite violence and we don’t get arrested at protests. In fact, we even pick up our trash when we leave, something that the left never does; ironically, not even at a protest for the environment.

Paul

Progressive Arrogance - The Lights Are On But the Rats Aren't Running

I suppose if there is a bright light on the horizon it is the fact that important discussions on the direction of our nation are finally taking place. The actions of government since the election of Barack Obama have sent a clear message across the country that this is the year we must act to restore our Constitution or there very well may be no Constitution to restore. As November approaches, we may end up thanking President Obama; not for his agenda, but for his arrogance. The Progressive movement saw in Obama, a President that would end their wait and take bold action to finish the work begun by American Socialists during the early years of the twentieth century. The end result is today’s Progressives are so emboldened by President Obama that they are standing out in the open for a change and attempting to force transformative change upon an unwilling society.

Saul Alinsky made it clear in his book “Rules for Radicals” that an open attempt to force major change would be met with harsh opposition. His tactics called for subterfuge and infiltration to gain the advantage over an unwilling public. He strategized that by looking and sounding like Middle America, one could guide political conversations and eventually gain support for a whole host of Socialist programs by cloaking them in a false sense of urgency or compassionate need. Well, since the election of Obama the cloak has been lifted and the light of day is shining on the most massive and immediate shift towards Socialism ever attempted by the left. The resistance Alinsky predicted certainly came as expected but with an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House and Senate, Progressives didn’t concern themselves with the outcry of concerned Americans as they pushed forward.

Some have been uncharacteristically vocal about their intentions. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said the so-called “comprehensive” healthcare bill was now going to be followed by much more legislation. She added that it is really more about diet than diabetes indicating that Americans have surrendered more than their freedom where the purchase of healthcare insurance is concerned and may soon be subject to government interference in what they eat and how they live.

John Dingell (D-MI) said in a recent interview with Paul W. Smith “The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." Mr. Dingell doesn’t say what kind of control he is talking about but it is clear that this bill is about far more than the access to affordable healthcare that they sold it as.

Max Baucus (D-MT) was interviewed by CSPAN as the Senate voted on the reconciliation package. Appearing disheveled and sounding tired, Baucus may have spilled more than he planned because his comments finally admitted what many of us had feared; that the healthcare bill had less to do with health than it did with some warped Progressive idea of Social Justice. Baucus rambled before the cameras “Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

So a healthcare bill that was sold to the American people as being designed to address the problem of thirty million Americans that could not afford healthcare insurance and would have the additional benefit of reducing the cost of insurance for employers, the Federal government and average citizens, suddenly has a myriad of new purposes that were never discussed or disclosed until it was already signed by the President. Now that it is actually law, they are willing to tell us that in addition to forcing everyone to buy health insurance, it will control diet, it will control us and it will fulfill the Socialist dream of stealing the earnings of those that create wealth to fund entitlements given to those that merely consume wealth.

To the many of us that actually took the time to look past the campaign rhetoric of Barack Obama and research the man himself; this comes as no surprise. Most of this was already out there well before his bid for the Presidency. He had always supported a universal, national healthcare system; he said that he did not believe in reparations for slavery because in his own words “reparations do not go far enough” and he said that “the Constitution was a document of negative values because it only said what the government could not do to you”.

Obama admitted in his own book and in his own words “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." Even the photograph that has been widely circulated of his days as a college professor contained more proof than we needed. It shows professor Obama at the blackboard adding detail to a chart taken directly from Alinsky’s book. Now why would someone that claimed to be a centrist late in his campaign for President be teaching Marxist economic principals taken directly from a book written by an icon of Progressive radicalism?

I think Reverend Al Sharpton said it all when he admitted in an interview with Fox news "First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama. Let's not act as though the president didn't tell the American people…the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised." I’m sure that revelation comes as a shock to all the people that voted for hope and change and had not considered that Socialism was one of Obama’s campaign promises.

Despite two years of candidate Obama’s rhetoric, hope and change are awfully hard to find right now. Nearly 80% of Americans fear the economy is on the verge of collapse and even though the President promised new focus on economic stability and jobs during the State of the Union Address, Barack “Nero” Obama is still fiddling around with healthcare, immigration reform and cap and trade as the Federal government under his leadership racks up a second straight year of record budget deficits; adding three trillion dollars to our unsustainable debt. In fact, Obama’s deficits are nearly four times higher than the deficits that he roasted Bush for during the campaign. Don’t get me wrong…I am not defending the spending policies of the Bush administration. Part of the reason Obama was elected was that Bush personified a Republican Party that had turned its back on conservative values and not only lost the trust of independent voters but lost the attention of the Republican base as well.

As far as change is concerned, there is little that Obama can claim there either. He said he would unite Washington with a new sense of bipartisanship and then pursued an agenda so radical that he was barely able to get it past moderate Democrats in his own Party. Every closed door meeting and corrupt deal he brokered to gain passage of healthcare led people to question “where is the change?” Every story of waste, abuse and cronyism associated with his massive stimulus bill caused people to ask “where is the change?” Of course, Democrats in Congress and in the Liberal press didn’t help his case when all they would offer is how many times these strategies were used by Republicans in the past. Well, if Obama is going to continue the same tactics used by the Bush administration; again, “where is the change?”

The change is there all right; it’s just not what he promised or people expected. As the statements made by Obama and his Progressive friends add to the tally of Socialist rants, those of us that warned about their intentions from the start suddenly don’t look as crazy as we did in January of 2009.

Paul