Inependence Day - 2010

July Fourth marks the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence; the announcement that the British colonies established in the new continent would no longer yield to the edicts of Great Britain and would establish a new system of self rule based on the principals that their freedoms were ordained by God and not granted by the British crown.

Like many, I received a mass e-mail signed by Barack Obama and sent through democraticparty@democrats.org; the official e-mail link to the Democratic National Committee to commemorate the 4th. I will reprint that e-mail below for the benefit of those that may not have received one:

Paul --
The Fourth of July is especially dear to my family. For us, it is not just our nation's birthday. It is the day Michelle and I became parents 12 years ago. And I can't wait to watch the fireworks with Malia on her birthday tonight, as we do every year.

As we celebrate the profound pride of being American, today is a time to honor the women and men in our armed forces, whose immeasurable bravery and sacrifice have made our country what it is today.That sacrifice is shared with husbands and wives, with sons and daughters, with fathers and mothers, who are asked to wait at home as their loved ones protect our nation. Their heroism, too, has helped pave the path of our freedom.

Even before we moved into the White House, Michelle was a champion for those military families. She has witnessed their struggles, and she has made it her personal mission to fight for them. On this Fourth of July, she recorded a personal message, commemorating our nation's birthday and paying tribute to these families.

Please take a minute to watch Michelle's video -- and join us as we honor our military families here and abroad.

:http://my.democrats.org/page/m/4052b0db/51f4b9d/6b18329e/74b960b9/1130136430/VEsE/.

From all of us, happy Independence Day.

Thank you, and may God bless America.

President Barack Obama
July 4th, 2010


The President’s message mentions family and fireworks or more specifically, his family and fireworks. Yes, just as any confirmed narcissist would do, he has even managed to make Independence Day about him. It’s not just our nation’s birthday…it’s the day that he became a parent twelve years ago. In all fairness he did mention the brave men and women serving in America’s armed forces and I have no issue with that except to say that he failed to mention the real reason we celebrate the Fourth of July.

Considering the President has a staff of speech writers, advisors and special advisors, I doubt that failure was an oversight. Perhaps the President fears that drawing attention to the Declaration of Independence would create additional impediments for his radical Progressive (Socialist) agenda. Let’s face it; the Declaration of Independence was more than just a document that announced our intention to sever ties with Great Britain. The Declaration also included a list of grievances that the colonists noted as justification for their actions. Many of the grievances written into the Declaration of Independence are once again becoming issues in the United States but this time the oppressor is not the King of England, it is the Federal Government itself. Don’t believe me?

Well, the Declaration begins, in part, by saying that “…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” It is clear to most that the passage of TARP, Healthcare Reform and the current drive to pass the cap and trade and immigration reform legislation has all happened without the consent of the governed. In fact, the polls against such legislation and the massive public outcry witnessed throughout the process displays that this administration has not only sought to forward their agenda without the consent of public but in spite of it.

One of the grievances listed in the Declaration says: “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.” Doesn’t that sound like the entire argument behind Federal opposition to the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law (SB1070). The Governor signed a bill into law presented to her by the duly elected State Legislature to address the immediate and pressing need of reigning in illegal immigration and the crime that accompanies it. Once signed into law, the Federal Government is now prepared to sue Arizona because Immigration policy, in their interpretation, is the sole responsibility of the Federal government; a responsibility that the Federal Government has chosen to ignore for political expedience.

How about this one? “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” No, I’m not making this up…it’s in the original document. There are hundreds of agencies and panels created by the new healthcare bill alone. Let’s not forget the debt reduction panel that is now meeting in secret to figure out how the American Tax payer is going to resolve the trillions this President intends to add to our already massive public debt. Of course their findings will not be released until December 2010, well after the mid-term elections. We have a gulf oil spill commission to study the effects and suggestions to effect remediation of the leak but just this past week, the President established a second commission to oversee the operations of the first commission. The EPA under the Obama administration is using their newly expanded powers to threaten Congress to vote for Cap and Trade or else. If Cap and trade is not passed, the EPA warned Congress, the nation will face dire economic consequences as the administration unilaterally enacts carbon restrictions that will bring American businesses to a halt.

How about: “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation”. What is Cap and Trade, Climate Accords and the U.N. Small Arms agreement other than allowing a commission of foreign powers to exact controlling power over the citizens of America without our consent or representation"? Yes, it can be argued that there is representation because those agreements must be ratified by the Senate, but we have all seen the coercion and bribery used to gain Senate support for other items in the President’s agenda so can we be absolutely certain that the rights of free American’s are being protected if the process allows any meetings to be held in secret? Do we really have representation if we are bound to foreign agreements once they are ratified and have no power to rescind bad agreements through our electoral process?

Then there is: “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” The Federal Government may not have suspended the State legislatures but the actions of the Federal Government since the inception of the Progressive Era have rendered them increasingly impotent. The Federal Government has gained control of millions of acres of State lands and in some cases, lands equal to 90% of the State’s entire land mass. Those lands can not be exploited for their rich mineral deposits nor can they be used for private purposes that could generate billions in revenues for the afflicted States. States that have enacted legislation to protect the Second Amendment rights of their citizens to own guns for hunting and for their own protection have received letters from Federal authorities reminding them that Federal Law supersedes State law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. States that have enacted legislation to protect their citizens from having to purchase healthcare insurance because of the unlawful mandates in the healthcare bill are facing court challenges under that same Supremacy Clause.

Of course, to have that supremacy, the Federal law in question must be constitutional but now that we have adopted a policy that allows ideologues with no judicial qualifications to be seated in the Supreme Court simply because their politics favor the President’s agenda, is there any doubt that the highest court in the land is now as completely corrupted as the Federal Government is?

No, the President will not mention the founders or the actual Declaration of Independence on Independence Day. He knows full well that if more people actually read this incredibly important document or took an interest in the Founding Fathers that not only his agenda, but the Democratic Party as well as the Progressive movement would be brought to their knees. Do not be fooled by the Obama’s feigned respect of the armed forces. Progressives know all to well that everyone in the military has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and that this oath takes precedent over the orders issued by the commander in chief. Obama’s glowing admiration of the military is meant simply to hold them at bay while he continues to “transform America” little by little; hoping they won’t notice until he’s done.

Paul

What Would Orwell Write About Obama - Or Has He Already?

Originally published in 1949, George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” described what life under a totalitarian oligarchy would look like. Through his many books, Orwell warned us about government controls that would seek out and punish those who were not in line with the edicts of that government. Many thought that “1984” was Orwell’s indictment of the British Labor Party and Oceania, the country profiled in this book, was meant to be the future of England if the socialist movements in Great Britain remained unchecked. Mr. Orwell dismissed that rumor and hinted that the book was in fact, reflective of his disdain and deep distrust of Stalinist Russia.

Oceania's four government ministries are in pyramids the façades of which display the Party's three slogans, the names of which are diametrically opposed to their true functions: "The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. Through his work, he warned us about the heavy hand of unchecked government and the inherent corruption that is inevitable when government officials become a small core group of powerful elites.

The Ministry of Peace reported daily on the heroic advances in Oceania’s perpetual war. Of course there were periodic “mini crisis’s conjured up to keep the cause for war alive and well but Oceania would always prevail in the end, at least in the news. Oceania’s world was the remnant countries that survived the atomic war that Orwell largely believed was unavoidable. It is comprised of the three coalesced “superpowers” of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia.

While the three powers remained in a constant state of war, the war was never fought within the borders of any one country but rather, only in a disputed area. Each superpower was strong enough that it could not be beaten by the combined strength of the other two “nations”. Alliances were made and broken constantly but the Ministry of Truth would simply revise history so that the Party could claim the “new alliance” always will and always had existed.

The Ministry of Truth, similar to Russia’s Pravda, was responsible for the news, entertainment, education and the arts. This Ministry of Truth was also charged with monitoring the statements of the Party and if needed, re-writing history to insure that whatever the Party said would be true.

The Ministry of Love would identify, monitor, arrest, and convert, real and imagined dissidents because the only valid and therefore, permissible love, was love of the Party.

The Ministry of Plenty rationed and controlled food, goods, and domestic production; every fiscal quarter, the Ministry published false claims of having raised the standard of living, when it has, in fact, reduced rations, availability, and production. Of course the “war” was always cited as the need for rationing and the need for Oceania to demand patriotic increases in productivity.

There seems to be an awful lot of parallels to “1984” in modern America, so much so, that I think that Orwell may have been more of a prophet than a novelist. Anyone that has read a newspaper or watched network news lately can only find it hard to ignore that the mains stream media has routinely disregarded anything that would detract from Obama’s image or impair his mission to “fundamentally transform America”.

When the Tea Parties converged on Washington to protest against healthcare reform the press, or should we say “The Ministry of Truth”, re-wrote History and underreported the numbers by a factor of ten. They scoured the crowd to find that one out of a thousand that held signs that were a bit bolder than the rest and crafted stories about the “angry mobs”, negating the peaceful nature of the gathering. Independent estimates placed the crowd size at between one and two million people and the National Park Service confirmed that not only were there no arrests for disorderly conduct, but that the crowd actually cleaned up after themselves as they left leaving nothing behind that would detract from their message.

In comparison, a group of only five thousand socialist activists gathered in Pittsburgh to protest against capitalism during last year’s G-20 summit. Trash bins were set ablaze and rolled through the streets at the line of police officers guarding the conference. In one night of protests, the police had to resort to firing tear gas grenades and “bean-bag” non-lethal bullets into the mob and reported over two hundred arrests. Of course, reports covering these protests were hard to find and where they appeared at all, were soft-peddled rather than risk showing that anyone would protest against President Obama.

I suppose the Ministry of Plenty would have to be the White House itself. Only the White House could claim victory for the Stimulus Bill as unemployment climbed from 7.6% before the bill’s passage in February of 2009, to over 10.2% in October of that year. The “Ministry” created a web site to extol the virtues of the Governments actions and that web site has been rife with misinformation and fictitious claims and exaggerations of created and saved jobs. Even a peripheral examination of the figures claimed on recovery.gov show a web of deceit with jobs created figures inflated up to ten times the actual amount and outright lies regarding jobs figures from Congressional districts that simply do not exist.

The White House cannot show any success in the economy in general so it has taken the next best step. People are still losing jobs in record numbers as the economy sags even deeper into recession so the numbers people within the White House are quick to point out that even though more than 450,000 people lost their jobs last week; the job loss figures were slightly lower than the previous month so the stimulus bill and the White House “in essence, saved thousands of jobs. Only government could be so bold. If the government was a corporation and the same people used this logic in reporting the profit and loss statement to the board of directors, they would all be at home working on their resume’s,

The Ministry of Love? Well, that is evenly divided between Congress and the White House. Promises to address gay rights issues such as same sex marriage and the exclusion of openly gay individuals from serving in the military are on the opposite end of the scale that Democrats used to craft the Healthcare bill. The healthcare bill, like many other provisions of the tax code contain a marriage penalty that levies higher taxes on married couples than it does on individuals. I suppose if there was any good reason to support gay marriage it would be to eliminate the marriage penalties from the tax code. After all, Democrats wouldn’t dare use the same antiquated tax structure that punishes married couples once those couples include such a vocal portion of their core constituency.

I believe the biggest travesty in this administration is the Ministry of Peace and that is Obama himself. Part of the responsibility of the Presidency is the role as Commander in Chief of the United States Military. Under this administration the effectiveness of the military has taken a back seat to the image of the President. American troops are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan as the President continues to provide only portions of what the field commander says he needs to guarantee victory. Ignoring the treat to the troops that are already in the field does not promote peace but only displays the vacuous policies of a weak an ineffective President. While I am sure he has a sincere desire for peace, the reality is that this poor showing bolsters the will of those that would do us harm and America now faces new threats from Iran and North Korea. It would do Obama well to recall the words of Benjamin Franklin who correctly said “If we act like sheep we will be eaten by wolves.”

Paul

The Roots of Socialism in America

I listen to students and young people comment on politics or society and wonder “how could they possibly believe what they are saying?” It dawned on me that to be able to draw reasonable conclusions, these young minds would have to have been properly educated and have access to all of the facts and not just the select few that suit the political agenda of the educator. While frustrating, there are reasons for this apparent lack of common sense.

The roots of socialism in America are found much as they were in Europe; a revolt against the harsh working conditions of the industrial revolution. It was Karl Marx, a philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, communist and revolutionary, whose ideas are credited as the foundation of modern communism. Marx summarized his approach in the first line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism. This would emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy".

While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution in 1917, and few parts of the world remained significantly untouched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century.

Teddy Roosevelt would never be known as a Socialist but he did espouse many ideas that were Socialist in nature. He considered himself a progressive and while he did believe in American Imperialism and a strong world military presence, he also believed in heavy government regulation, government control of wages and the redistribution of wealth for the public good.

On the heels of the Russian Revolution, Communist and Socialist movements found an audience in the American Labor movement. The Socialist Party of America was a coalition of local parties based in industrial cities. Even though by 1912 they claimed more than a thousand locally elected officials in 33 states and 160 cities, the party was factionalized. The conservatives, led by Victor Berger, promoted progressive causes of efficiency and an end to corruption. The radicals wanted to overthrow capitalism, tried to infiltrate labor unions, and sought to cooperate with The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). With few exceptions the party had weak or nonexistent links to local labor unions.

Once the stock market collapsed in 1929 forcing enormous numbers of people into unemployment, the communists surged once again and began to organize rallies and marches in support of workers and workers rights. In March, 1930, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers marched through New York City, Detroit, Washington, San Francisco and other cities in a mass protest organized by the Communist Party’s Unemployed Councils. In 1931, more than 400 relief protests erupted in Chicago and that number grew by 150 in 1932. The leadership behind these organizations often came from radical groups like Communists and Socialists, who wanted to organize “unfocused neighborhood militancy into organized popular defense organizations.” Workers turned to these radical groups until organized labor became more active in 1932, with the passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act.

While Communists and Socialists did gain a foothold in these turbulent years, Walter Philip Reuther the president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) would soon change that. As a prominent figure in the anti-Communist left, he was a founder of the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. He had left the Socialist party in 1939, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s was a leading spokesman for liberal interests in the CIO and in the Democratic Party.

Labor unions eventually eliminated the public connections between the unions, Communism and Socialism. They traded those links for something less troubling in the public eye, the progressive arm of the Democratic Party which espoused many of the same ideals as Socialists without the negative connotations; what some would call “Communism light”. Now the real work to transform the nation could begin under the American flag and right under the noses of the American people.

Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader 1958 to 1964, had once made a statement is a speech saying that he would “bury” America. Some thought that meant that he meant military action or that he would launch a nuclear attack to bring about his prophecy. That raised even more fear among average Americans during the cold war even though war was hardly his intention.

Khrushchev was perfectly willing to let America move to the left incrementally; here a little, there a little. When speaking about FDR’s New Deal, Khrushchev said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism.”

Changing terminology and calling socialist programs “compassionate conservativism” doesn’t change the nature of the beast itself. Redistributing the wealth to win votes will produce the same devastating end as redistributing the wealth because you are an outright socialist.

From 1959 until 1989, the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) received a substantial subsidy from the Soviet Union. Starting with $75,000 in 1959 this was increased gradually to $3 million in 1987. This substantial amount reflected the Party's subservience to the Moscow.

Yuri Alexandrovic Bezmenov, now known as Tomas David Schuman, was born in 1939 in the former Soviet Union and worked as a journalist for Pravda. In this capacity, he secretly answered to the KGB. His true job was to further the aims of communist Russia After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and culture of India, while, at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow's policies. He decided to defect to the West.

Bezmenov/Schuman is best remembered for his Pro-American Anti-communist lectures and books from the 1980s. From his writings and speeches Mr. Bezmenov said: “Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes.... It has nothing to do with espionage. I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic.... That's probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.

The result? The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.”

Thanks to the soviet doctrine in “ideological subversion”, America now has over 10,000 avowed socialist professors teaching in our universities that continue the practice of indoctrination. We also have over 70 members of Congress that consider themselves socialists or progressive socialists. In fact, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the authors of the Climate Bill (cap and trade) are two of the Progressive Socialists in Congress which a great reason to oppose that Bill all by itself.

Paul

Arizona's New Immigration Law

Arizona recently passed, and signed into law, “strict new” immigration legislation which has brought the State under fire and thrust it into the national spotlight this week. The truth behind this legislation is that it is hardly new and considerably less strict that the opponents would have you believe. Open border advocates are incensed that Arizona would have the nerve to pass a law that basically says that something that is illegal is, well, illegal. The armies of the left are shouting accusations that Arizona has adopted Nazi tactics and will be asking people walking down the street for their “papers”. Cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are calling for boycotts against Arizona as if California still has enough industry left after their experiment with Progressivism to make all that much of a difference to Arizona. In fact, I think that if Arizona continues down the path of Conservatism and adopts some “business smart” tax policies, they could easily capture what business California has managed to hold on to while that State imposes more ridiculous regulations, falls deeper in debt and taxes climb even higher. Hey, in Arizona you can still get a McDonald's Happy Meal with a toy!

The law Arizona passed is nearly an identical copy of existing Federal law but unlike “Big Brother’s” edition, the Arizona law specifically prohibits race as a consideration. Those subjected to scrutiny under this new law must have been stopped by the police for an obvious infraction of existing law or must be displaying suspicious behavior. Once contact with law enforcement has been made, the police must also have a reasonable suspicion that the subject is in this country illegally before asking for identification, excluding race as a cause for suspicion. Of course, that is the part of the story that the main stream press and open border proponents have intentionally left out of their description of what Arizona has done.

There will be no swarms of police harassing Latinos on the streets of Phoenix; there will be no door to door searches of private property and there will be no traffic stops to check citizenship. Arguably, there are some police officers that have engaged in behavior that is prohibited under department rules and in some cases, race was clearly the motivation. That is a sad state of affairs wherever it happens and it has happened all over America at one time or another. While the media would have you believe that this is standard procedure for most police departments the truth is that this is not representative of the vast majority of police and the explosion of camera phones and digital video recorders have been very effective at exposing those individuals and removing them from duty.

The safeguards against racial profiling present in the Arizona law will actually serve to spotlight police officers that believe they can act with impunity and abuse the power they have been given. With every civil rights organization focused on finding those abuses, is there any doubt that the slightest infraction will not be met with a torrent of legal challenges and in the prosecution of the offending officer? In fact, Arizona may well turn out to be the best place in the country for lawful immigrants as police abuses in other cities are dismissed as meaningless because of their enlightened laws where immigration status is concerned. Let’s face it, burglars don’t break into a house across the street from a police station; they go where no one is looking and all eyes are on Arizona right now.

The President has called Arizona’s new law “misguided” and that it only illustrates the need for the Federal government to enact comprehensive immigration reform before other States follow suit. Attorney General Eric Holder is exploring the possibility of challenging the law in court and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said that he believes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. This only displays their lack of understanding of the law that Arizona has passed. Since it is based on existing Federal law, if the Arizona law is unconstitutional and violates civic rights, so does the Federal law. This is little more than political posturing. Lindsey Graham, a Progressive Republican, has long pushed for an amnesty program that would grant legal status to the hoards of people that have already broken American law to be in the United States but we’ve tried amnesty before; haven’t we? The purpose of the last amnesty program was to prevent the hardships that illegal immigrants would face after they had already established a life in this country if they were sought out by new immigration laws and repatriated.

We granted amnesty to those illegal immigrants that had maintained residence in the United States for at least five years with the understanding that we would improve border security and provide for effective enforcement of immigration law in the future. So far, the Federal government failed miserably in its responsibility to secure our borders and that is the reason for Arizona’s new law. Isn’t it funny that one of the things that Congress is clearly responsible for, the defense of the nation, has taken a back seat to healthcare reform, Cap and Trade and the takeover of General Motors; none of which can be found in the Constitution. Clearly, if you want actual examples of misguided legislation, you must look to Washington, not Arizona.

In recent years, Arizona and other Border States have been inundated with a virtual tidal wave of violent criminal activity because of the drug wars in Mexico. In the absence of any meaningful act by the Federal government to prevent this flood of drugs, criminals and yes, innocent Mexican citizens seeking asylum from the brutality of lawless drug gangs in their home land, Arizona was forced into action to preserve law, order and quality of life. Those that are opposed to the law either do not understand its limitations or are located a comfortable distance from the war zone brewing at the Arizona border and just don’t give a damn. The Mexican government is, and always has been, a bad partner in eliminating these problems and has actually encouraged illegal immigration into the United States rather than take the next logical step towards their own legitimacy. When Arizona police have found illegal immigrants, they have never been able to count on the Mexican government to provide accurate information about criminal history and that is what has cast a cloud of suspicion over all illegal immigrants.

Arizona has long been tolerant where immigration is concerned and aside from the questionable activities of the Maricopa Sherriff’s department, has provided a safe and beneficial environment for people seeking a better life. Most of the residents of Arizona go about their lives with out race as a consideration and we have been able to build a pretty decent life here with a level of diversity that most of the country would find baffling. Truth is; we don’t care. What we do care about is crime and how that affects our families. The drug gangs waging war in Mexico are particularly brutal and have no consideration for human life and the Federal government has offered no help against their intrusion into Arizona.

Did it help that Attorney General Eric Holder intruded to make sure that three members of the infamous MS13 (Mara Salvatrucha) gang would not receive the death penalty? The three were in the United States illegally, were arrested in Virginia and charged with murder and conspiracy. As Federal prosecutors were preparing their case, Holder stepped in and instructed them not to seek the death penalty. Holder refused to comment on what prompted his involvement in this case but apparently he believes that Michigan militia men and Arizonans are far more dangerous than your run of the mill, murder for hire foreign drug gangs or international terrorists for that matter.

It is this insane posture assumed by the Federal government that forced Arizona to take unilateral action. If we are to be left to protect ourselves by a disinterested Washington, then they should not be surprised when the people on the front lines actually take action. Los Angeles’s reaction is a little surprising since they have had some of the same issues with their shared border with Mexico. San Francisco had previously announced that they are a “sanctuary city” and would not cooperate with Federal immigration law so who cares what kind of immigration problems San Francisco has. Sanctuary was really only a fun little political ploy but seriously, considering where they are located, who could they possibly be getting flooded with; Oregonians?

Maybe that is where the real racism is in all this? Los Angeles was very quick to denounce Arizona and has called for a boycott of Arizona businesses even though the law was carefully crafted to avoid any possibility of racial profiling. Is it because they believe Arizona’s new law is that outrageous or is there a real fear among Los Angeles politicians that illegal immigrants residing in Arizona may leave the State to avoid deportation and show up in L.A.; posing an additional burden to their local services? Why hasn’t the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco extended their hand to welcome this wave of refugees they have claimed will be driven from Arizona?

Well, to anyone that is in Arizona illegally all you need do is obey the law, respect your neighbors and you have nothing to fear. In fact, I’ll probably see you at the next county fair. If obeying the law is something that is a problem for you, then I would suggest you head to the sanctuary city of San Francisco. They have already said they would not cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement so that is your best chance to avoid capture and deportation.

Paul

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The men that drafted the Constitution of The United States added the Amendments in the order of their moral priority. If one looks at the Constitution and the Amendments with an eye on practicality, the Second Amendment then becomes at least, par with the First Amendment in importance. The Second Amendment is the guardian and guarantor of the Bill of Rights, preventing the Federal Government from writing any law that would deny the citizens of this nation the arms they would need to defend the nation, their State and to defend the rights that were secured under the new government.

Without the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would have little meaning and no defense against a corrupt government. Let us not forget that the men who drafted the Constitution had also written into the Declaration of Independence “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” It is clear that they possessed a deep and abiding distrust of governments in general and while they labored to create a nation founded in freedom, they recognized that this Republic was a supreme experiment and the outcome was yet to be proven.

Many opponents of the private ownership of firearms use the first few words of this amendment to say that this was strictly to provide for the arming of a State Militia; that it was never intended as a right for the common citizen to possess firearms. Well, once again we will delve into the Federalist Papers. That is where you will always find the clear intent of the men that wrote the Constitution and the Amendments. An excerpt taken from a document written by Alexander Hamilton on January 10, 1788 says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

It was the intent of this Amendment to insure that the citizens are armed to defend this fledgling nation and it is clear by this passage alone, that the entire populace was expected to be armed. The “Militia only” interpretation the detractors of the Second Amendment say is implied in the Constitution clearly does not exist. The “regulation” that is implied in the Constitution was directed at insuring the Citizens were properly armed and is not meant to say that those that may bear arms can only exist as part of a National Guard or regular Army and in fact, this passage indicates that was not to be expected of the people.

Bear in mind that Congress had already created an army that had just secured our independence from Great Britain and there were provisions written into the draft of the Constitution that provided Congress with the means and the authority to raise an army, a navy and to secure the funds to provide for them both. If a militia was the sole intent of the Second Amendment, it would be the one and only redundant provision that appeared in the whole of the Constitution.

I find it mildly interesting that those that claim the intuitive insight to interpret the Constitution on our behalf tend to ignore the very store of documents that are the road map through the minds of the men that wrote it. To ignore the Federalist papers is a gross injustice to the American people and an insult to the honor of the founding fathers of this nation.

So why do I feel that the right to bear arms is so important? I could point to the article I posted here yesterday as one good reason. Pravda has all but written off the United States and quite honestly, if we do not put a stop to the insanity of 3.6 trillion dollar budgets, trillion dollar deficits and the wholesale looting of the treasury by “community organizers”, I agree with them. Rather than spell out a scenario of doom and gloom I will name my second reason, or rather Thomas Jefferson will...

"…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is quoted as saying: "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." Let’s face it; only someone that intends to deny or destroy our rights and freedoms would be fearful of the people that would stand to defend them. It further tells me that if he could find a way around the Second Amendment, they would have already started collecting guns.

Henry Waxman is one of the authors of the Waxman-Markey or Climate Bill. This bill is supposed to protect the environment by reducing the carbon output of the United States. To do so, this bill will severely cripple the manufacturing industries in this nation and place draconian restrictions on personal power consumption by raising the price of energy to a point that will be unsustainable for the average American household.

The truly criminal part of that legislation is that it will have no effect on the environment whatsoever. China and India are the largest producers of carbon emissions and refuse to hamper their economic growth by enacting similar measures. The bill will certainly reduce carbon emissions in our country but not because we are cleaner. The emissions will be reduced as manufacturing industries relocate to other nations that do not possess costly restrictions on manufacturing and are truly happy for the opportunity to put their citizens to work doing the jobs we once had. Is this why Henry Waxman is nervous?

Gun opponents would cite crime statistics involving the use of firearms. The statistics they ignore is that the vast majority of those crimes are committed with unlawfully obtained firearms and in many cases, by people that are already prohibited from owning firearms because of a felony criminal record. You see, criminals by definition, do not obey the law so weapon legislation does not stop them. They also ignore the statistics that say that gun violence is predominately highest in the cities where they already possess stringent gun ownership laws. That is because the criminals aren’t quite so brave when there is an even chance that you might have a weapon too.

The text written by Alexander Hamilton that was posted above is a clear indication that the nation’s founders looked at the citizens very differently than Congress does now. We were the nation then, equal in status and rights. Now we are treated as the subjects of this massive government, nearly as much as we were under King George and that alone is sufficient to reinforce the need for the Second Amendment.

To make things worse, the Federal government continues to expand its powers beyond those granted to it under the Enumerated Powers Act, which is highly dangerous in a government that is full of people that think they are the new aristocracy. Remember, criminals by definition, do not obey the law and that includes the elected ones.

Paul

The First Amendment - Part Two

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Yesterday we covered the freedom of religion, or at least what it has become after the reinterpretation of it by the courts after atheist and leftist tinkerers had finished their work. Today we will address the second clause of the first amendment.“Congress shall make no law ……. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

Some would argue that logical restrictions of free speech are warranted in some cases because the content of that speech is abrasive, intolerant or even violent. We’ve all heard that recently charged in the world of talk radio or political television where a statement made by a commentator is offensive or even hateful. Almost immediately, those claiming to be offended by those statements send out the rally cry to eliminate this voice from the airwaves. I’m sorry, but people will always be offended by one thing or another and that is not a compelling reason to restrict the first amendment. There is however, an effective protection already available to those that are easily offended by these views. It’s called personal responsibility. The last time I looked none of these personalities had a captive audience that is forcibly subjected to their programs. If you don’t like what is being said…don’t listen to it, don’t watch it and for heaven’s sake, don’t buy it. Whew! That was easy!

I will be the first to admit that some of those voices are harsh and intolerant; some are ignorant and some are just plain vicious. Then there are others that are being targeted and ridiculed not because they were overtly cruel in the expression of their ideas but rather because the ideas themselves fundamentally differ from those that would seek to silence them. No matter how conscious I am of keeping my writings centered on the truth and how much I strive to invite rational discussion on these issues to promote a healthy understanding between opposing views, there are some that are so disinterested in the word, that they resort to personal attacks and display a sincere and passionate desire to silence me as well. Believe it or not, I support their right to speak freely too…I simply choose to ignore it.

The founding fathers were well aware of the intricacies of free speech and knew that some would promote dissent and even hatred. Even still, they recognized that the freedom to express ones thoughts and ideas in both spoken and printed form was essential to the well being of the Republic. On November 23, 1787, James Madison addressed these concerns in a letter written to the people of New York, which was then the seat of the U.S. Government. This letter is part of a collection of writings know as the Federalist Papers. The Federalist papers provide clear insight as to the thought and intentions of the men that created our Constitution and the Federal Government as we know it. Mr. Madison said…“It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

I know that eighteenth century English is a bit hard to follow at times but the essence of his argument was that to eliminate liberty, including the freedom of speech, because it may feed anger would be similar to eliminating air because it may feed fire. The former would suffocate the Republic to prevent anger while the latter would suffocate life to prevent fire. And yet, we still have people that see fit to advocate just that; the suffocation of the Republic to quell dissent. Mark Lloyd, appointed by Mr. Obama as the Chief Diversity Officer, a newly created position in the FCC says that “…freedom of speech and of the press has become a distraction…”

Mr. Lloyd is currently driving a program that will, if allowed to be enacted, effectively shut down privately owned radio and television stations that do not pass his “diversity equation” by requiring fees (let’s just call it what it is, a conservative talk tax) equal to 100% of their operating budget. In the interest of fairness and diversity, those fees will be used to fund public broadcasting. Public broadcasting, whose programming incidentally, supports the Obama administration’s agenda.

Stations that cannot pay the fee will have their broadcast license withdrawn and sold to minority interests that better reflect his idea of diversity. My fear is that his idea of diversity is actually code for programming that is ironically, identical to that of public broadcasting.

Well if that is the new direction of the FCC, then of course the Constitutional protections of free speech and a free press would be a distraction. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Lloyd, they may be a distraction but they are also protected under the word of law and would pose a constitutional quagmire for this Presidency if people in his administration openly sought to erode that protection.

Freedom of the press possesses the same protections under the Constitution and for the same reasons. Fortunately for the press, there is no government equivalent to the FCC so they don’t suffer the same degree of interference that the broadcast media does. Besides, the majority of main stream newspapers overwhelmingly support the Obama administration and therefore, the content in these publications is effectively sterilized before it is printed. I would submit that if the press were actually hostile to this administration that there would be plans to bring the printed press under the guidance of Mr. Lloyd as well.

It is exceedingly hard to find a print paper that contains views that contain a diverse and broad spectrum of views which is why I posted that quote by Abbott Joseph Liebling on the picture that adorns the top of this page. “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”. If you want diversity in the press, don’t shut them down, get your own press and compete for the hearts and soul of the American people. That is the fair way; the American way; the Constitutional way.

Film falls under this as well as a medium of expression. We know that a major portion of the Hollywood elite also support the President. The overwhelming majority of documentary and political films are highly critical of conservative ideals and label libertarians as lunatics however, they are vocally supportive of the progressive movement. Why is it that the demands for a fair and diverse representation of opposing views is not being thrust upon film and entertainment industry as fervently as it is in the broadcast media? After all, there is an agency for that. Once again, the majority of Hollywood and their works merge nicely with the agenda of this administration so that is obviously diverse enough to gain a pass from the watchful eye of government. Besides, Hollywood guards themselves far more carefully that government ever could.

Ron Silver was a well known film actor as well as a progressive and liberal activist. He starred in many films and television programs and had a bright future awaiting him in the industry. That was until he was so enraged by the terror attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 that he became a very vocal supporter of President Bush and of the war to bring those responsible to justice. That did not fit the Hollywood mold and the powers that be saw to it that he rarely, if ever worked again. His exclusion from film continued right up to the time of his death.

The internet is now under assault because of the wide spread use of this forum for those who wish to be heard. Most would not take the time if the news reported actual news instead of airing hour long editorial pieces. No one would waste their time on blogs, web pages and web news if the press would fulfill their obligation to accurately and fairly report the unfiltered truth. Since the profusion of people that believe this nation is in danger have taken to the internet to spread the word, that has become a threat similar to that on broadcast networks. New legislation is being drafted that would give the President the authority to deny internet traffic, even private and business internet traffic, in the event of a national crisis.

Well since this administration has assumed the reigns of government how many crisis’s have already been announced in an attempt to fast track legislation in keeping with the President’s agenda? Let’s see….there was the subprime mortgage crisis, the climate crisis, the healthcare crisis, the credit crisis, the banking crisis…on and on. Is it far fetched to assume that if internet journalists and bloggers are impeding the President’s progress in healthcare or the climate by causing doubt in the minds of Americans, could that not be viewed as a “national crisis” all by itself?

No, the founding fathers recognized that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were of paramount importance to the Republic and are part of the natural right that all men possessed with or without government consent. We do not need government control of free speech because we have already insured that hand in hand with the freedom of speech there is a responsibility that has tangible and effective enforcements.

If the misuse of your free speech rights has denied a person any one of their basic civil rights then there are legal and civil consequences for that. If you yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater there are legal and civil consequences for that as well, especially if there are injuries. If you slander someone with false accusations there are legal and civil consequences for that too. It seems like the people and the States themselves have done a pretty good job in making sure people use this freedom wisely without the heavy handed oversight of the Federal Government which once again, proves the genius and foresight of those amazing crafters of the Constitution.

Please come back tomorrow for part three of the First Amendment…Freedom of Assembly

Paul

Target 2010 - Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul

The Obama Plan: Plenty of Change But Little Hope

As if the Obama administration wanted to help me make the point I was illustrating in yesterday’s article, a new flurry of regulatory threats are now emanating from the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Apparently the government is taking its stance on healthcare very seriously now that they have made themselves a fixture in your health insurance and by virtue of that, a fixture in your health care decisions. In addition to everything we have already heard in the healthcare bill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now posturing itself to regulate the amount of salt in your foods. This is changing the focus of the agency from protecting you against tainted or diseased foods and assuming the role of deciding what you should eat because a bureaucrat can now decide it is not good for you.

Food without salt through government edict? Somehow I just don’t think that Washington is listening to us. We want government out of our lives; not taking control of our most basic choices. The people that should not have added salt in their foods because of a medical condition already know what they can and cannot have and have been making those decisions for themselves ever since doctors made the link between food and health. Necessarily, the regulation of salt would put some foods normally high in this once crucial condiment on the chopping block. I’m not sure you can even make bacon without salt and even if you could, would it be worth eating? Can you imagine a pretzel that didn’t have a healthy sprinkling of course salt or the summertime favorite, margaritas by the pool without salt encrusting the rim of the glass? New York is already going down this road and it is driving chefs crazy in the Big Apple. Professional cooks know there is nothing more basic to great tasting foods than the salt that enhances the natural flavor of nearly everything it touches.

Unfortunately, we now have a slew of radical advisors in positions of power within the White House and administrative agencies. Some, like Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory Czar that also has a keen interest in animal rights, would prefer to see America abstain from eating meats as well. If we allow the FDA to pick our seasonings; can a government selection of our main course be that far behind? Sunstein’s beliefs are centered on government control of the masses, he also recognizes that direct regulatory actions can at times, be counter productive. Rather than risking confrontation with the people, Sunstein prefers a clandestine approach that would guide the actions of Americans while giving people the illusion of free choice. This would be accomplished by broadening government regulatory authority to limit the range of options people would be offered. Of course, those regulations would be imposed on manufacturers and industries so the resulting limits placed on American citizens would not be such an obvious intrusion of government.

In a 2008 book he co-authored with Richard Thaler titled: “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Sunstein speculates that we should maintain an illusion of liberty where personal decisions are concerned by having the government “nudge” people to make better decisions. Obviously Mr. Sunstein believes that the learned scholars of his alma mater, Harvard, or the Washington agencies chock full of “deep thinkers” are in a far better position to make those critical choices for you. Sunstein’s book is not ashamed to mention that the regulatory power of government and a liberal application of the tax structure could easily be used to nudge people to make “correct” decisions based on the government definition of correct. Just the idea that he thinks that this coercion process is acceptable in a free society protected by unalienable rights deeply concerns me. Our freedoms and rights would have to be, at the very least, “trimmed” before any nudging could lawfully take place. Of course, if the nudge was gentle and hidden under the guise of the “regulation of commerce”, the question of government interference with personal liberties may never actually make headlines.

Even more insidious are the recent actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA chief Lisa Jackson, recently declared an endangerment finding against Carbon Dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases”. The finding allows the agency broad powers to regulate these gases under the existing authority granted to the agency under the Clean Air Act; avoiding the need for Congressional action all together. The purpose is clear. The President wants his Energy Bill (Cap and Trade) passed because of the enormous tax revenues that will be collected under the false premise of protecting the environment. Many in Congress recognize the dangers of this bill and the damage it will do to our economy so the passage of this bill is in question. Much of the resistance is due to the fact that the President’s Energy Bill offers absolutely no benefit to the environment. The general knowledge that the science behind global warming and climate change has been tainted with news of corrupt data and a concerted effort to silence dissent and debate has further complicated passage of the bill.

In the face of the uncertain future of the Energy Bill, the EPA has threatened to use their endangerment finding to impose regulatory sanctions on Carbon emissions in an attempt to blackmail Congress. Jackson argues that regulatory sanctions would be far more damaging to the US economy than the Cap and Trade Bill; in essence, telling Congress they must now pick the lesser of two evils but is climate change what this is really about? China, the world’s largest producer of CO2 and India, another mass producer of the questionable gas, have already said they will not sign an agreement to reduce their Carbon emissions. Best estimates say that the Carbon reduction proposed in the US energy bill will reduce global temperatures by a mere one tenth of one degree Celsius by the year 2050 and the cost factors to achieve this inconsequential reduction stagger the mind.

The implementation of the President’s Energy Bill may show a net decrease in the Carbon emission produced by US industries but the reality is that these Carbon emissions will only have been transferred to foreign nations that have not burdened themselves with self destructive legislative agreements to reduce their Carbon output. This will place the US at a disadvantage as business weighs the cost of these new regulations and that cost difference will drive manufacturers to nations where profitability is still possible. Curiously, this crucial Energy Bill does not place punitive taxes on goods coming from nations that have not agreed to reduce their Carbon output so how serious are we about actually reducing Carbon emissions to “save” the planet? This bill will only allow foreign nations to steal our few remaining industries, forcing millions more into unemployment while facing exponentially rising costs for electricity and fuels right here at home.

Lisa Jackson said something else in a recent speech that is crucial to deciphering the President’s interest in Cap and Trade. Radical Communist Van Jones, former Green Jobs Czar for the Obama administration, had once accused “white polluters” of intentionally steering poisons into minority communities; leaving many of us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about. Now Lisa Jackson says that instances of pollution and environmental degradation are disproportionately higher in low income and minority communities across America and to combat this, the EPA is building up their “environmental justice” team. The United States Congress had passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 with major amendments added to strengthen it in 1970 and again, in 1990. Congress followed that with the Clean Water Act in 1972 which was also amended and strengthened in 1977 and 1987. Since we have already entrusted the government with monitoring pollution and gave them the teeth to aggressively fine violators of these comprehensive environmental laws how can there be such an alarming pollution problem in America, let alone a disparity in the distribution of that pollution if the EPA and other Federal agencies were actually doing their jobs?

If the legislation was impotent after two or more amendments or the EPA was disinterested or incapable of performing their duties with the strength of the legislation already at their disposal, then why should we believe that a multi-trillion dollar energy bill will make them any better at what they do? Secondly, if there is irrefutable evidence that there is a disproportionate amount of pollution being steered into low income and minority communities, then a hate crime has been committed and the Justice Department has also fallen down on the job as well. Since Lisa Jackson has been with the EPA for twenty years now….what is her part in this conspiracy? Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, was the head of the EPA under Bill Clinton so what did she know; when did she know it and does that mean indictments are on the way?

The truth is there is no conspiracy; there is no alarming disparity in the level of pollution by community and there is no climate change that isn’t a natural process of a dynamic earth. This is another attempt at the enactment of this administration’s redistributive wish list because, as Barack Obama said, “I don’t believe in reparations (for slavery) because reparations don’t go far enough.” This is not a redistribution of wealth to level some imaginary Progressive playing field. This is a massive redistribution scheme designed to overturn the entire wealth structure of the United States and any policy instituted by government that seeks to pit one segment of the populace against another, must be by its intent, unconstitutional.

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