Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Rahn Curve - Big Government Depresses The Economy

Richard Rahn of The Cato Institute created the Rahn Curve to chart the effect of government spending on the economy. You will note that the curve resembles the Laffer curve that relates the economy to taxes. You have to wonder what economics textbooks those dunderheads in Washington are reading.

Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK'd

The author of this article, Phyllis Schlafly has long been a Conservative activist and Constitutional attorney. In this article she makes the case that Kagan has no love for the Constitution and would instead, substitute her liberal/progressive beliefs for those of our founders and the current law of the land.

Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."

Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America. That's the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

The left is counting on Kagan to play a major role in getting the Supreme Court to uphold Obama's transformation of our exceptional private enterprise system to a socialist economy. The New Republic magazine is salivating at the prospect that Kagan will reassert the discredited doctrine of the "living Constitution."

A Rasmussen poll reports 42% of Americans oppose Kagan's confirmation, and only 35% favor her. Are senators listening?
Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK'd

Oil Spill To Do List - An Indictment Of Obama's Inaction And Direction

The Heritage Foundation has researched the oil spill and come up with 10 things that can be done right away, and should have already been done, to lessen the impact of the spill on our ocean, beaches, wetlands and gulf states' economies. They also have kept the "to do" list open for other suggestions.

In reading the article, Morning Bell: Obama’s Oil Spill To-Do List, it is difficult not to get angry at Obama and the Federal bureaucracy for standing in the way of real measures to mitigate the damage.

The inaction and stonewalling by Obama couldn't be worse if he intended to do so. Then, maybe that has been his direction all along. After all, it is not the oil spill, it is his cap & tax energy bill that is his #1 priority and has his full attention.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

California on 'verge of system failure’

The states are looking for a bailout from the Federal Government to rescue them from the "out of control" spending their representatives have engaged in.  Since it is obvious that the Federal "non-budget" is deeply in the red, where do you suppose the money will come from?  

The only solution, short of cutting spending, which is anathema to the liberal Democrats, is to borrow, print and tax.  Borrowing, at the rate we are currently, runs the risk of our lenders drying up and interest rates skyrocketing.  Printing money runs the risk of hyper-inflation, the silent tax.  You all know the job-killing effects of taxes.  Look for the VAT soon.

Arnella Sims has seen a lot in her 34 years as a Los Angeles County court reporter, but nothing like this.

Case files piling up by the thousands, phones ringing off the hook, forced midweek courthouse closings and occasional brawls as frustrated citizens queue for hours to pay parking fines.

“People think we’re becoming a Third World country,” said Ms. Sims, 55. “They don’t understand.”

It’s a story that’s being repeated all across California – and throughout the United States – as cash-strapped state and local governments grapple with collapsed tax revenues and swelling budget gaps. Mass layoffs, slashed health and welfare services, closed parks, crumbling superhighways and ever-larger public school class sizes are all part of the new normal.

California’s fiscal hole is now so large that the state would have to liberate 168,000 prison inmates and permanently shutter 240 university and community college campuses to balance its budget in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Think of California as Greece on the Pacific: bankrupt and desperately needing a bailout.

“We have to get some federal money,” argued Ms. Ross of the California Budget Project. “The impact [of the Schwarzenegger budget] would be enough to slow down the U.S. economy. It would be bad for the U.S. and, arguably, bad for the world to do the shock therapy approach.”

And California isn’t alone in angling for a bailout. U.S. states are facing shortfalls totalling nearly $300-billion in 2010 and 2011; they also must wrestle with hundreds of billions more in unfunded pension obligations to their workers. “There are a few Greek crises brewing among the United States of America,” said economist Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research Inc.

The task is made all the more difficult because California and virtually all other states are barred by legislation from running operating deficits, forcing them to balance their budgets annually by slashing spending, raising taxes or both. Typically, states can only borrow short-term funds, or for capital projects.

Billionaire Warren Buffett, who advised U.S. President Barack Obama during his White House run, suggested recently that a Washington bailout of California and other troubled states is inevitable. How, he wondered, can Washington deny California after saying yes to General Motors, AIG and dozens of banks.

“I don’t know how you would tell a state you’re going to stiff-arm them with all the bailouts of corporations,” Mr. Buffett said.
California on 'verge of system failure’

Jeff Sessions' Opening Statement: Kagan Confirmation Hearing

This statement alone, is a solid argument to deny Kagan a seat on the Supreme Court.

South Carolina: Primaries Say Goodbye to Good Ole Boys

The results of the primaries in SC this year have created quite a stir around the nation. Incumbents fell like flies, and gender and race were set aside. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, by their endorsement of Nikki Haley, came out winners, and Tim Scott, a black congressional candidate, coasted to victory in a 90% white district.

Strange things happened in SC as detailed by Pat Caddell in his article: South Carolina: Outlier or National Precursor?

MICROBES, Gulf Oil Spill-MICROBES Restore Environment in Just Six Weeks

Official video starts at 1:57 of the clip. Sounds like they should give it a try.

POLICE STATE 2010: Obama Has A List Of Americans Targeted For Assassination

Another example of Executive discretion being used contrary to the tenets of the Constitution.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Is Democracy In Danger? Obama Can Now Suspend the Internet?

Many Presidents have promised things, on the campaign trail, that they were unable to keep because of the need to compromise with the other party. Obama has no excuse. He inherited a majority in both the Senate and the House and had the freedom to do what he wanted. And that he did. He abandoned the campaign rhetoric and his moderate disguise, and went full steam ahead with his liberal ideology. Anyone who doubts his intentions should look at his czar appointments and they would not be confused any longer.

What amazes me is that the Democrat Congress is a willing participant in the destruction of our liberties. Most recent case is the bill giving Obama the authority to suspend the internet for four months during a time of emergency. Just enough time to conceal a "Coup d'état" from the "pseudo media" bloggers, the only media that is not in the tank for the progressive agenda.

I don't think Obama has this in mind yet, but legislation and his unconstitutional use of Executive authority is heading in the direction Thomas Sowell points out in his Townhall article, Degeneration of Democracy.. Who knows what a narcissist like Obama will do when faced with this kind of opportunity?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI): Democrats Cancel Budget - First Time in Modern History

The Democrats do not want a budget that will highlight just how much our economy is in trouble and how much they are spending on growing government. After all, the election is only 5 months away.

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

These 5-4 decisions make me nervous. All the progressives need is one more vote to socialize the country and nullify the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Sunday, June 27, 2010

“Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America”: an update

Makes you wonder, whether Obama is right or wrong, why so many Jewish people support him. I happen to be one who has the belief that Truman and the UN made a mistake, but now that so many of the people have settled there, we have no other choice than to support, an otherwise peaceful nation, over their antagonists and enemies.

As Richard says, Obama, with his Muslim upbringing, is a danger, not only to Israel and Europe, but also to the USA.

But the true Obama keeps peeking out. He’s going to “spread the wealth around,” remember, he faulted the Supreme Court for not venturing into issues of “redistribution of wealth” and not “breaking free” from some “essential constraints” placed upon politicians by “the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.” And he also, as I keep reminding you, promised to “fundamentally transform the Untied States of America.”

To help you think about some of what that would mean, take a look at this sobering discussion between Jerry Gordon, senior editor at the New English Review, and the historian and author Richard L. Rubenstein, a contributor to the New English Review (thanks to my friend Roger L. Simon for bringing this to my attention). Dr. Rubenstein is a soft-spoken and measured commentator. But though he speaks quietly and makes his points in a sober, understated way, what he says is dynamite. Obama, he points out, is a “revolutionary” figure who is aiming to transform the “American political system and economic system” and America’s relationship to the rest of the world. He is suspicious of Europe, contemptuous of Great Britain, and hostile to Israel. In his obsequious behavior to the King of Saudi Arabia, he has underscored his deep filiation with the Muslim world. He aims, in short, for “radical transformation. He is the most radical President America has ever had.” Depressing, but necessary, viewing for this summer Sunday.

“Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America”: an update

Liz Cheney: Obama's Binge Spending Is a National Security Issue

The Money That Is Sold Abroad Is You!

Obama's Response to Arizona's Cry

Saturday, June 26, 2010

The Scariest Picture You’ll Ever See

I think the author also missed one point, that the wealthiest people tend to live near major metropolitan areas and, because they do not have to worry about their daily subsistence, like moderate income people do, many tend to be more liberal. This leaves those in the middle to fend for themselves.

What you’re looking at is a map of the 2008 Presidential election, broken down by the results in each county. If Barack Obama received most of the votes in a particular county, it appears in blue. If John McCain was the winner, that county is in red.

If you added up the land mass of every blue and red county you’d see something really striking—the Republicans won 80 percent of this country, when measured by acreage. John McCain got a majority of votes in 2,417,000 square miles of the United States. Barack Obama, by comparison, won in just 580,000 square miles.

Ah, but now let’s look at the population numbers for each county. McCain still came out ahead, but not by much. The total population of counties won by Republicans was 143 million, while the population of counties won by Democrats was 127 million.

Basically, the Democrats swept the populations centers—the cities and more populated suburban areas—while the Republicans won everything else.

Now, guess what you would find if you could then overlay this map with one showing the distribution of food stamps, unemployment checks, subsidized housing and other welfare payments? Sure, there will be some in all of those red areas. There are plenty of Republicans receiving Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure there are even some Republican farmers who get paid not to grow crops. And there are certainly some Republican businessmen getting subsidies from Uncle Sam.
But the overwhelming majority of voters in the red areas pay more into government than they receive; while just the opposite is true in the blue areas. The majority of people there receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. In fact, 45 percent of adults in America pay no income taxes at all. Not one red penny. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Can you guess where most of those people live? And which party they vote for? While you ponder the significance of these statistics let me repeat a quotation I used in last week’s column when I was discussing the differences between a republic and a democracy:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, and is always followed by a dictatorship.”

The statement does not come from one of our Founding Fathers (although I’m sure that, to a man, they would agree with its warning). No, it was written long after our revolution, by a Scottish historian named Alexander Fraser Tytler. By the way, he wasn’t predicting the collapse of our republic; he was talking about what happened to the Athenian democracy 2,000 years ago.

The Scariest Picture You’ll Ever See

Obama Can't Take Michelle to Arab Countries Because He's a Muslim?

Knowing that his birth father was a Muslim and his early schooling was in a Muslim country, this makes a lot of sense.

Sheppard Smith, Fox News.

“If you check President Obama’s last trip over-seas, his wife left just
after their visit to France. She has yet to accompany him to any Arab
country. Think about it. Why is Michelle returning to the states when
‘official’ trips to foreign countries generally include the First Lady.”

Here’s one thought on the matter.

While in a Blockbuster renting videos I came across a video called “Obama”.
There were two men standing next to me and we talked about President Obama.
These guys were Arabs, so I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed
home following the President’s recent visit to France instead of traveling
on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband. They told me she could not
go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Iraq . I said “Why not,(?) Laura Bush went to
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Dubai .” They said that Obama is a Muslim and
therefore he is not allowed to bring his wife into countries that adhere to
Sharia Law. Two points of interest here: 1) I thought it interesting that
two American Arabs at Blockbuster believe that our President is a Muslim, 2)
who follows a strict Islamic creed. They also said that’s the reason he
bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a signal to the Muslim world,
acknowledging his religion.

For further consideration, here is a response from Dr. Jim Murk, a Middle
Eastern Scholar and expert on Islam. This is his explanation of what the
Arab American’s were saying.

“An orthodox Muslim man would never take his wife on a politically oriented
trip to any nation which practices Sharia law, particularly Saudi Arabia
where the Wahhabi sect is dominant. This is true and it is why Obama left
Michelle in Europe. She will stay home when he visits Arab countries. He
knows Muslim protocol; this includes, bowing to the Saudi King. Obama is
regarded as a Muslim in the Arab world, because he was born to a Muslim
father; he acknowledged his Muslim faith with George Stephanopoulus. Note
that he downplays his involvement with Christianity, by not publicly joining
a Christian church in D.C. and occasionally attending the chapel for
services at Camp David. He also played down the fact that America is a
Christian country and said, unbelievably, that it was one of the largest
Muslim nations in the world, which is nonsense. He has publicly taken the
side of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel and he ignored the
National Day of Prayer, something no other President has ever done. He is
bad news! He conceals his true faith to the detriment of the American
people.” — Jim Murk, Doctor of Philosophy in Middle Eastern Culture &

ACTIONS speak louder than words.

Very interesting way of looking at the actions of Obama.

Democrats Vote Down 5 Percent Rule

In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."

With logic like this in high places, we are in real trouble. 57-42????? Get rid of the 57.

Read IDB article here.

U.S. Chamber Official: Disclose Act 'Shreds' Constitution

Add this to Obama's agenda in my prior blog, and you get the reasoning behind the bill. It is being enacted for the sole purpose of helping Democrats win in November. By "precluding expedited judicial review", it stalls any possible court ruling until after the elections. The damage will have already been done. It is so blatantly political that the Democrats should be embarrassed. As if they really care what the people think. This borders on the criminal, and should be swiftly taken up by the Supreme Court if it passes.

The Disclose Act that House Democrats passed Thursday would "shred" the U.S. Constitution and represents a "blatant partisan maneuver to protect their incumbency," according to U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President R. Bruce Josten.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Josten says the Disclose Act, which passed by a 219 to 206 margin, reveals just how much Democrats fear the nation's rising anti-incumbent fervor.

"I think it's clear what's going on here," says Josten. "The House Democratic majority and the Senate Democratic majority in Congress are clearly trying to tilt the playing field in the middle of the game, racing and rushing to do it."

Only two Republicans voted for the act: Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana and Rep. Michael Castle of Delaware.

The Disclose Act that House Democrats passed Thursday would "shred" the U.S. Constitution and represents a "blatant partisan maneuver to protect their incumbency," according to U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President R. Bruce Josten.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Josten says the Disclose Act, which passed by a 219 to 206 margin, reveals just how much Democrats fear the nation's rising anti-incumbent fervor.

"I think it's clear what's going on here," says Josten. "The House Democratic majority and the Senate Democratic majority in Congress are clearly trying to tilt the playing field in the middle of the game, racing and rushing to do it."

Only two Republicans voted for the act: Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana and Rep. Michael Castle of Delaware.

Just last week it looked like the bill was in trouble due to a controversial "carve out," or exception, granted to the National Rifle Association excluding it from the bill's provisions. But the bill was resuscitated in part thanks to a strong endorsement from the White House.

The administration declared Monday that the Disclose Act "takes great strides to hold corporations who participate in the Nation's elections accountable to the American people. As this is a matter of urgent importance, the administration urges prompt passage of the Disclose Act."

But Josten says the act would heavily restrict the rights of more than 100,000 associations nationwide to run ads expressing their political views.

Groups opposing the measure span the political continuum, including the ACLU, the Sierra Club, PIRG (the federation of state public interest research groups), the chamber and many others.

The chamber recently called the bill a "desperate attempt" by Democrats to grab a political advantage in the midterm elections.

The act requires companies and associations to submit a mountain of paperwork to the Federal Election Commission if they want to run an ad.

Some companies – those that receive substantial government contracts or took TARP bailouts – would be altogether banned from spending money on election advertising.

It also bans any company with more than 20 percent foreign ownership from advertising, which means international companies that employs tens of thousands of U.S. citizens, which also attract substantial foreign investment, could no longer pay for U.S. campaign-related advertising.

CEOs who are major donors would have to appear on in ads to notify the public of their involvement. The top donor to the advertising organization would be required to appear in the commercial to explain their role as well.

Finally, a TV ad would have to list the top five funders to the organization. The disclaimers alone would preclude the possibility of a 15-second advertisement.

Josten and other business leaders charge the act's onerous provisions are obviously designed to dissuade the business community from exercising its First Amendment rights.

Another reason the bill's intentions are suspect: Its principal author is Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

Van Hollen's primary job, as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is to get Democrats elected to Congress.

"I don't think there's any doubt," Josten tells Newsmax in the exclusive interview. "Mr. Van Hollen made it very clear that the Democrats are 'anxious,' to quote him, to pass this as fast as they can before the elections clearly to protect their incumbent majority, because the anti-incumbent mood across the country is probably the highest since 1994."

Adds Josten: "The first paragraph in the Constitution states declaratively that Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of the speech," Josten says. "We just had a Congress shred that part of the Constitution. They have now created in effect a multitiered law with respect to free speech.

Josten says the measure also gives preferential treatment to labor unions.

"Organized labor, which notably was the single largest political spender in the 2008 election, some $420 million, who just in the past three weeks has announced their intention to spend $150 million minimally in this election to protect 'incumbency,' to quote them, they are carved out of the bill, no effect on them, no real disclosure, no real reporting requirements required of them," he tells Newsmax.

According to Josten, every other bipartisan campaign reform dating back to 1943 has contained a provision requiring an expedited Supreme Court review, to ensure no infringement of the First Amendment. But not this one.

"This piece of legislation in fact precludes expedited Supreme Court review interestingly enough," Josten tells Newsmax. "It forces any potential challenger to the litigation to go through a district court process to be heard. And then ultimately, maybe three or four years from today … you get your hearing before the Supreme Court. They are clearly trying to cut off any opportunity to raise the constitutional issues that this bill tampers with, and I say in fact begins to shred."

Whether the act becomes law now depends on whether Democrats can muster enough votes to bring it to the floor of the Senate. So far, GOP sources tell Newsmax, the 41 Republican votes needed to block the bill are holding firm. But Democrats are expected to mount a serious effort to encourage a defection.
Read "U.S. Chamber Official: Disclose Act 'Shreds' Constitution" here.

Also listen to Mark Levin's podcast on the Disclose Act, below:

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system

Wayne Allyn Root was a classmate of Obama at Columbia and has summarized the steps the President is taking to turn the US into a socialist country. In my prior blogs, I have covered all of these items, but this is the first time his actions have been summarized into a master plan. Obama and his socialist friends have gained control of two branches of the Federal government, with only the judiciary branch divided. There will be no stopping the progressives if the Supreme Court falls into liberal hands.

2010 is the time to regain control of Congress and 2012 the Presidency. Heres hoping the Conservative members of the Court can hang on long enough to see this happen.

Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency.

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.Â

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama.

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system

Friday, June 25, 2010

Buzz Aldrin - We Should Colonize Mars

Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, same landing, wants a faster pace for space exploration. This interview in Vanity Fair is an intriguing look into a man who is 80, but still looks forward to the next adventure.

But what he’s (Obama) describing is a very leisurely way. He’s talked about getting a bunch of things in the orbit of Mars by… what year did he say again?

The mid-2030s.

Well that’s all well and good. But I want to land on the damn place! And I want to minimize the expense. I want to make sure that when they land, they’ve got a support system. I’m convinced that sending people to Mars is so expensive that if you go once and bring the people back and then go again and bring the people back, we’re eventually going to run out of money. But what if we send people the first time and they don’t come back? What if they stay there?

Then you’ve got a bunch of astronauts on Mars going, “Hello? Can I get a little help here? What the f**k?”

But then we send six more people, and now we’ve got twelve. It’d be between three and four times cheaper to send people there and then leave them there.

Do we tell them that in advance? Or do we just wait and spring it on them after they’ve landed?

Did the Pilgrims on the Mayflower sit around Plymouth Rock waiting for a return trip? They came here to settle. And that’s what we should be doing on Mars. When you go to Mars, you need to have made the decision that you’re there permanently. The more people we have there, the more it can become a sustaining environment. Except for very rare exceptions, the people who go to Mars shouldn’t be coming back. Once you get on the surface, you’re there.

You’re talking about building a colony?

Exactly! Every twenty-six months, there’s a window of going to Mars that may last for about a month or so. It just so happens that there’s an opportunity to put a habitat on Mars in the fall of 2022. So we put a habitat there and you check it out for a year or so, and it’s unmanned. Then in the spring of 2025, I send a crew and they stay for a year and a half, and then I bring them back. I send another crew in ‘27 and then I bring them back. I send another crew there in ‘29, and they stay. And then in ‘31 I send six more people, three to one of the moons of Mars and three directly to Mars, and now I’ve got nine people there. I can add six every twenty-six months.
Buzz Aldrin Is Not All That Impressed With Walking on the Moon

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Sweden Economic Model - Moving Toward Deregulation and Lower Taxes

Sweden's economy built on free markets, moved toward socialism, now moving away from their unsustainable progressive policies.

Repealing Obamacare? Yes, We Can! | The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation has found through their research that ObamaCare can be repealed and that similar bills have been defeated in the past. What we do need now are the legislators and President that see the inherent dangers in a government run health care system.

Repeal Has Been Done.

The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (H.R. 2470): This act—which was enacted with huge bipartisan support in Congress—forced seniors to pay for a drug benefit that many of them did not want through a special tax on top of their premiums. It was repealed just one year after passage when details of the complex law came out during implementation.

Clintoncare of 1994: The 1,342-page Clinton plan was considered by the mainstream media and political pundits inevitable for enactment. The Clinton plan not only sought to ramp up centralized health care decision making in Washington; it was also billed as “paying for itself.” However, after the Congressional Budget Office reported that Clintoncare would add tens of billions of dollars to the federal deficit, the bill failed to get the congressional support it needed to pass the Senate.

Public Opinion Matters: Despite initial support, a majority of Americans found the two above health reform proposals to be unacceptable. Closer public scrutiny of the two bills caused popular support to plummet. In fact, congressional town hall meetings during the spring of 1994 took on a similar tone to those of August 2009. Without public support, policymakers have an increasingly difficult time pushing through or implementing comprehensive changes.

Why It’s Possible Now

Massive Disruption in Benefits: Historically, Americans like and want to keep the health care coverage they have. But the health insurance industry will be so altered with Obamacare that it’s unlikely any insurance plan will remain unaffected. In fact, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ actuary office estimate that 14 million Americans would lose or be transitioned out of their work-based plans. Additionally, seniors face huge benefit shakeups in their Medicare Advantage plans.

Cost More Than Bargained for:

The government has a habitual problem of underestimating how much major health programs will cost taxpayers. The Medicare catastrophic program’s projected costs doubled within 12 months of passage, while Clintoncare—which the President promised would be fully paid for—was later projected to add tens of billions to the deficit. Obamacare is no different. The new health law, which was at first estimated to reduce the deficit, is now expected to cost upwards of $115 billion over 10 years.

Super-Sizing Bureaucracy:

In the order of magnitude, Obamacare is beyond anything that has ever been attempted before. With its scores of new or expanded agencies, boards, commissions, panels, and programs, the new law gives birth to a regulatory regime that will involve reams of red tape for the coming years.

Applying Brakes on Obamacare

State Opposition:

More than 20 states have already signed onto lawsuits challenging the federal government for overreaching its regulatory powers, particularly by creating an individual mandate. States are also pushing back on requirements to establish federally approved health insurance exchanges and to expand Medicaid eligibility. Meanwhile, legislators in 37 states have introduced or enacted resolutions to advance “health care freedom.”

Advancing Conservative Ideas:

It’s not enough for conservatives in Congress to play defense. They need to be on the forefront pushing a health care agenda that would actually help millions of Americans. This can be done by fixing the glaring unfairness in the tax treatment of health insurance, promoting robust competition among insurance plans, and aggressively pursuing state-based solutions.
Repealing Obamacare? Yes, We Can! | The Heritage Foundation

Is the Welfare State a Ponzi Scheme?

When you think of Bernie Madoff, you think of a criminal who fleeced hundreds of people out of their life savings. Bernie is now in jail. Congress, through their deficit spending and ever increasing taxation, is fleecing the American taxpayer and our children out of their livelihood. Don't we need a law to protect us from the big Congressional ponzi scheme?

Ponzi schemes rely on people falling for promises that are literally too good to be true – but the outcomes are never really in doubt for the perpetrators of these scams, are they?

First they are playing with money that does not belong to them – which means they cannot lose. Also, when the scams finally unravel, the perpetrators have invariably moved on to their next group of unsuspecting victims –where the fleecing begins anew.

Sound familiar? It should. This is the modus operandi of governments all over the world in our current era of Keynesian excess – an era in which new taxes, fees and fines must be continually created and levied in order to pay for promises made in previous years. Of course these government promises are never actually “paid for,” the IOUs just keep mounting as the burden of repayment is extended further down the line to future generations of taxpayers.

Crisis compels the scammers to grow even bolder in their efforts to fleece the taxpayers. In fact, these “too good to be true” scams have only grown more expensive in response to the recent economic downturn.

Spain’s welfare state includes a socialist labor system that makes it nearly impossible to fire workers for any reason. And like Greece, its habit of dispensing unsustainable taxpayer-funded largesse has been propped up for years by government denials and deception. Most recently, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero chose to deal with the brewing fiscal crisis by ignoring it and delaying long-overdue reforms in an effort to maintain his political positioning.

It’s the Ponzi mentality all over again.

Eventually, though, the scammers will run out of people to scam – and Spain could very well represent the last great heist. Spain represents 10% of the euro zone banking system and 16% of all net euro-zone loans, meaning that its collapse could very well bring the entire global house of cards tumbling down. Such an outcome would clearly have disastrous effects on the American economy, which makes the aggressive expansion of the welfare state here in the United States all the more unexplainable. Greece and Spain (as well as Portugal and Ireland) are clearly cautionary tales – not examples for America follow.
Howard Rich: Is the Welfare State a Ponzi Scheme?

John Stossel: Guns Save Lives

If we cannot stop drugs from coming across the border, how would we stop the guns if there was a ban here in the US. The street gangs in our major cities and the Southwest are all armed, so what is a law abiding citizen to do when confronted with this or other dangers?

If there is no proof that gun bans reduce violent crime, then why do liberals lobby so hard to ban them? My guess is that it is just another control fetish, and maybe, just maybe, a fear that the citizenry will revolt when the liberals have succeeded in taking away their freedoms.

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.

While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.
That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.

Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims', success. So criminals don't attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.

Government may promise to protect us from criminals, but it cannot deliver on that promise. This was neatly summed up in book title a few years ago: "Dial 911 and Die." If you are the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility.

How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?

The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.

The press ignores the fact that often guns save lives.
John Stossel: Guns Save Lives

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Christie With Cavuto

SC Republican Nikki Haley's Victory Speech

Open Thread: A Good Night for Conservatives |

Results of the SC runoffs bodes well for the conservatives.

So argues the Examiner's David Freddoso, who posted this recap:

In Utah, Mike Lee narrowly won the GOP nomination for Senate after a campaign marked by acrimony and dirty tricks. Lee had the backing of conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., who had sought compromise legislation on global warming and voted to censure fellow South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., was defeated by prosecutor Trey Gowdy.

Tim Scott, R, who was backed by the Club for Growth, crushed the son of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond in last night’s runoff to get the GOP nomination in the state’s coastal first district. He stands to become the first black Republican in Congress since 2002.

Jeff Duncan, R, another Club for Growth candidate, won the runoff and the nomination in the third district that had been vacated by Rep. Gresham Barrett, R.

Barrett, meanwhile, lost his primary for governor against state Rep. Nikki Haley, R, who, like all the other winners mentioned above, is now a prohibitive favorite for the fall.
Open Thread: A Good Night for Conservatives |

Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging

WDSU in New Orleans has reported on this most recent interference by the Federal Government into the dredging operation meant to protect the shores of Louisiana. With the hurricane season approaching, time is of the essence and the 7 days it will take to move the operation and loss of what was already done is critical according to the local government.

There is a lot of concern that the cleanup and barrier efforts are being impeded for political reasons, and if not that why not suspend the Jones Act, why not accept other countries help and why block or slow down local efforts?

The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.

The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.
Nungesser said the government has asked crews to move the dredging site two more miles farther off the coastline.

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama. "Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.
Nungesser has asked for the dredging to continue for the next seven days, the amount of time it would take to move the dredging operations two miles and out resume work.

Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging

Comprehensive Amnesty Threat

Concerned that my education may be deficient, I looked up the word "illegal" in the dictionary and found this definition: "not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit". Feeling a little better about my schooling, I began to wonder what the qualifications were for elective government service. Today the Secretary of Labor came out demanding fair and equal pay for "illegal" immigrants and now the President, who is charged with the enforcement of our immigration laws is now considering granting millions of "illegals" amnesty, a gross violation of his oath of office. Obama will most likely ignore this letter since only Republicans have signed it. Where do the "so called" moderate Democrats stand on this? They are probably chomping at the bit to get these 13 million Hispanics onto the voting roles.

So much for the rule of law.

The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative.

Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

Dear President Obama:

We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.

While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.

The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.

We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible.
Comprehensive Amnesty Threat

Sketching prospective divisions for expanded Big Ten and Pac-10

Being an Ohio State graduate and Buckeye fanatic, this article about the Big Ten realignment interested me. The article also deals with the changes in the PAC 10 for those of you out west.

Excerpt of Stewart Mandel article:
With the Big Ten and Pac-10 going to 12 teams as soon as 2011 and, in all likelihood, adding a conference championship game, I've spent more time lately than I care to admit trying to figure out how the respective leagues will split themselves into divisions. It's a somewhat tedious exercise, yet undeniably fun. And this budding hobby isn't limited to fans and media. I spoke to one coach last week who said he and his athletic director had spent that morning sketching out various scenarios on a board.

Anyway, I'm fairly certain I've got it all figured out. Jim Delany and Larry Scott: Feel free to take my ideas.

The Big Ten

The 12-Team Big Ten
Ohio State (1)Nebraska (3)
Michigan (2)Penn State (4)
Purdue (7)Wisconsin (5)
Michigan State (8)Iowa (6)
Northwestern (9)Illinois (10)
Indiana (12)Minnesota (11)

The Pac-10

The 12-Team Pac-10
Washington StateArizona State
Oregon StateUtah

Read the full SI article "
Sketching prospective divisions for expanded Big Ten and Pac-10".

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Violence at the Border - Nogales, AZ Law Enforcement Officers Targeted

The border is a war zone with not only illegals flooding the US, but drugs are crossing our border unimpeded. All this while Obama is refusing to protect our territorial boundaries for political reasons.

Immigration vote stirs emotions in Neb. town

It is a shame that small towns that are being overrun by illegal aliens have to suffer economic ruin in order to get the immigration laws enforced. The ACLU has nothing to do except bring frivolous lawsuits to benefit their liberal agenda. If they spent half as much of their funds and time and effort defending the Constitution and the citizens rights, we would be much better off.

With roughly 57 percent of voters supporting the ordinance, Fremont joins Arizona and a few other cities in the national debate over immigration regulations. The community about 35 miles northwest of Omaha has seen its Hispanic population surge in the past two decades, largely due to the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel plants.
Supporters argued the measure was necessary to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement.

Trevor McClurg said the measure is fair because it's aimed at people who aren't legally in the U.S. "I don't think it's right to be able to rent to them or hire them," McClurg said. "They shouldn't be here in the first place."

The Fremont measure, which requires city officials and employers to ensure that applicants are in the country legally, was modeled after the Hazleton ordinance. But that law has been tied up in court and has never been enforced. A federal judge struck down the ordinance, but it is on appeal.
Barletta said the community of about 32,000 has paid $500,000 - all covered by private donors - so far to defend the ordinance. But that's only a portion of Hazleton's $5 million legal bill. Its insurer has refused to pay the $4.5 remainder in legal fees, Barletta said, and Hazleton is suing the insurer to collect. The costs could go much higher, as opposition lawyers are seeking $2 million from Hazleton to cover their fees - and that doesn't include fees accumulated in the appeal process.
In Fremont, officials are aware of the potential costs. Hartwig distributed information before the vote, noting not only Hazleton's costs to fight lawsuits but those that other towns incurred defending their own immigration ordinances. Farmers Branch, Texas, has run up more than $3 million in legal fees since 2006, and Valley Park, Mo., has seen about $270,000 in fees since 2008, Hartwig's statement said.
Fremont officials are assuming that the costs of the ordinance - which includes legal fees, employee overtime and improved computer software - will average $1 million a year, the statement said.
Immigration vote stirs emotions in Neb. town

McChrystal’s Fate Is Unclear as Obama Cites Poor Judgment

The original article is quite long but gives you more insight into General McChrystal's life and demeanor. He has quite an interesting background and is more of a "cowboy" than you would normally see advancing to a place of leadership in this PC world. You can read the full Rolling Stone article here.

President Obama said his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, had used “poor judgment” and Pentagon officials said the general had prepared a letter of resignation, as he flew to Washington on Tuesday to find out whether he would be fired after a magazine article quoted him and his staff disparaging top members.

“I think it is clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment but I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make a final judgment,” Mr. Obama said, speaking briefly to reporters at the White House in the afternoon. Whatever decision he makes, he said, would be in line with his central focus of what was best for the country and the war in Afghanistan.

In the article, one of General McChrystal’s aides is quoted as referring to the national security adviser, James L. Jones, as a “clown.”

A senior administration official said Mr. Obama was furious about the article, particularly with the suggestion that he was uninterested and unprepared to discuss the Afghanistan war after he took office.

The article, “The Runaway General,” quotes aides of General McChrystal saying that he was “pretty disappointed” by an Oval Office meeting with Mr. Obama, and that he found the president “uncomfortable and intimidated” during a Pentagon meeting with General McChrystal and several other generals.

The article does not mention any serious policy differences with Mr. Obama, who chose General McChrystal to take charge of a major escalation of American troops and equipment. And most of the critical remarks attributed to General McChrystal appear to come from his aides.

In his statement, General McChrystal said, “I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.” The author of the article — Michael Hastings, a freelance journalist — appears to have been granted intimate access to General McChrystal’s inner circle. Most of the comments seem to have been uttered during unguarded moments, in places like bars and restaurants where the general and his aides gathered to unwind.
Read NYT article here.

Judge halts Obama's oil-drilling ban

Finally, in his haste to circumvent the law to further his liberal agenda, Obama has been stopped by the courts. We can only hope that the courts will overturn the ObamaCare legislation and uphold the Arizona immigration law.

The courts are an integral part in preserving the Constitution and our freedoms. Obama is trying to turn the tenor of the Federal court system far to the left. Because the appointment of court justices are for life, once the balance has shifted, we will have no place to turn to regain our God given rights.

A federal judge in New Orleans halted President Obama's deepwater drilling moratorium on Tuesday, saying the government never justified the ban and appeared to mislead the public in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Judge Martin L.C. Feldman issued an injunction, saying that the moratorium will hurt drilling-rig operators and suppliers and that the government has not proved an outright ban is needed, rather than a more limited moratorium.

He also said the Interior Department also misstated the opinion of the experts it consulted. Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don't support the blanket ban.

"Much to the government's discomfort and this Court's uneasiness, the summary also states that 'the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading," Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration will appeal the decision, and said Mr. Obama believes the government must figure out what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon rig before deepwater drilling goes forward. Still, the ruling is another setback as Mr. Obama seeks to show he's in control of the 2-month-old spill.

Democrats and Republicans from the Gulf states have called on the president to end the blanket moratorium, saying it is hurting the region.

Oil company executives told Congress last week they would have to move their rigs to other countries because they lose up to $1 million a day per idle rig, and said there are opportunities elsewhere.
Judge halts Obama's oil-drilling ban

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? By THOMAS SOWELL

It is clear to me, looking at the GM takeover, stiffing of bond holders, union payoffs, cash for clunkers, home buying incentive, nationalization of health care, forcing of loans to banks, failure to secure our borders for political gain, and now extorting billions from a private company without legal authority; Obama shows very little respect for our Constitution. The Federal Government is usurping more and more of the states' authority and individual freedom.

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.
Read Investors Business Daily article here.

Education: National Standards Overwhelming Local Control of Schools

We all know that the Federal Government cannot efficiently or effectively run anything, but now they are trying to force national standards on us all by using our tax money to bribe the states into capitulating. There is nothing the Dept. of Education can do that the states cannot do better on their own. The closer the decision making process is to the parent, the more responsive the solutions will be. We should eliminate funding for the Federal Dept. of Education and get rid of it once and for all.

But if the Obama administration has its way, states might not have a choice in the matter. The U.S. Education Department recently released a “blueprint” for reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. The blueprint language indicates the administration will try to tie $14.5 billion in money for low-income school districts to a state’s adoption of national standards.

While it was one thing for states such as Texas to eschew $4.35 billion in Race to the Top money, it will be nearly impossible for states to turn down their share of $14.5 billion in Title I funding. “Voluntary” once again rings hollow.

Proponents tout national standards and tests as a way to improve academic achievement. For half a century, the federal government’s role in education has continued to increase significantly with no positive impact on student learning. Yet, national standards proponents see this new federal role in standards and testing as the answer. But proponents are wrong to conclude national standards would improve American education. Here’s why:

Misconception #1: National standards are necessary so parents can understand how their children compare with other children across the country. The information parents need is already available. State tests let parents know how well their children have mastered the curriculum. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, currently administered to samples of students in each state, provides an external audit of state tests. If transparency about that data has been insufficient, it does not merit a national standards and testing regime. It calls for better transparency and accountability to parents.

Misconception #2: National standards would make American students more competitive with their international peers. While it’s true that many of the countries that outperform the United States on international tests have national standards, so do most of the countries that score lower than the United States. Even when it comes to state standards, the relationship between academic performance and the quality of those standards is inconsistent.

Misconception #3: National standards are necessary because state standards vary in quality. While it’s true that some state standards are better than others, the same pressures that drive down state standards would likely plague national standards. For that reason, national standards will tend to decline toward the average among states, undercutting states with higher standards, such as Massachusetts. Ultimately, the goal of uniformity would result in the standardization of mediocrity.

National standards would also further remove parents from their children’s education. Instead of being able to petition their local school boards or state leaders for changes in academic content, parents would have to lobby bureaucrats in Washington, DC, if they wish to see changes in what their child is learning.

This is perhaps the most worrisome part of the shift toward national standards. If imposed, parents and taxpayers will no longer be able to retain one of their most significant tools for education reform: the power to shape their schools’ academic content, standards, and testing.

Instead of moving toward a system of rigid national standards, which would represent an unprecedented federal overreach into education, states should empower parents with information about school performance and increase transparency about academic achievement. And ultimately, parents should be able to use that information to choose a school that meets their child’s needs. We know what works in education, and it begins and ends with parents–not the federal government.
Morning Bell: Time to Stand Up to the National Standards Agenda

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Obama and the vision thing

You have to love Charles K., he tells it like it is. Obama's speech was a disaster and showed he has no compassion for "the little people". Charles gives him credit for wanting to be a visionary. I think that is just a cover-up for his lack of experience and having no idea of what this nation is all about.

There's a reason petroleum is such a durable fuel. It's not, as Obama fatuously suggested, because of oil company lobbying but because it is very portable, energy-dense and easy to use.

But this doesn't stop Obama from thinking that he can mandate into being a superior substitute. His argument: Well, if we can put a man on the moon, why not this?

Aside from the irony that this most tiresome of cliches comes from a president who is canceling our program to return to the moon, it is utterly meaningless. The wars on cancer and on poverty have been similarly sold. They remain unwon. Why? Because we knew how to land on the moon. We had the physics to do it. Cancer cells, on the other hand, are far more complex than the Newtonian equations that govern a moon landing. Equally daunting are the laws of social interaction -- even assuming there are any -- that sustain a culture of poverty.

Similarly, we don't know how to make renewables that match the efficiency of fossil fuels. In the interim, it is Obama and his Democratic allies who, as they dream of such scientific leaps, are unwilling to use existing technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign (i.e., imported) and risky (i.e., deep-water) sources of oil -- twin dependencies that Obama decried in Tuesday's speech.

"Part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean," said Obama, is "because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water."

Running out of places on land? What about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the less-known National Petroleum Reserve -- 23 million acres of Alaska's North Slope, near the existing pipeline and designated nearly a century ago for petroleum development -- that have been shut down by the federal government?

Running out of shallow-water sources? How about the Pacific Ocean, a not inconsiderable body of water, and its vast U.S. coastline? That's been off-limits to new drilling for three decades.

We haven't run out of safer and more easily accessible sources of oil. We've been run off them by environmentalists. They prefer to dream green instead.

Obama is dreamer in chief: He wants to take us to this green future "even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet precisely know how we're going to get there." Here's the offer: Tax carbon, spend trillions and put government in control of the energy economy -- and he will take you he knows not where, by way of a road he knows not which.

That's why Tuesday's speech was received with such consternation. It was so untethered from reality. The gulf is gushing, and the president is talking mystery roads to unknown destinations. That passes for vision, and vision is Obama's thing. It sure beats cleaning up beaches.
Read Charles Krauthammer's article here.

Obama - Can't Get Comprehensive Immigration Reform Passed If We Secure the Border

The President is in violation of his oath of office, and is doing so intentionally in order to pursue his political agenda. We all knew what was going on, but now it has been verified.

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”

Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress has an obligation, a duty, to secure the border.

(This part of Sen. Kyl’s remarks begins at the 3:17 mark of the video below.)

Read "Obama tells Kyl in private Oval Office meeting: I won’t secure border b/c then Republicans will have no reason to support “comprehensive immigration reform” here.

Washington's Double Standard by Ken Connor

The excerpt below about Obama's hypocrisy in sending his children to private schools is but one of the examples of laws being made for political reasons, all the while exempting Congress from the poison fruits of their legislation.

The article's conclusion is that all we have to do is vote them out. This is getting harder and harder to do as Congress continues to throw money at special interest groups, puts more and more people on the public dole, and expands its budgets for "constituent info", otherwise known as "campaign financing at taxpayers expense". We must institute term limits before it is too late.

There's recently been some chatter in the blogosphere debating the need for a new amendment to the Constitution – one that would require laws passed by Congress to apply to lawmakers equally as they apply to the rest of American citizens. The feasibility of such a measure is questionable, and currently there is no such amendment being proposed in Congress; nevertheless, the enthusiasm behind the idea reveals a growing sentiment among many Americans that the federal government no longer represents the people, but rather presides in Washington as a group of self-interested elites that long ago lost touch with reality.

President Obama's administration has been tainted with the stain of hypocrisy from Day One, when news broke that he'd chosen to send his daughters to the elite private Sidwell Friends School while simultaneously allowing his Democratic cohorts in Congress – at the behest of the powerful National Education Association, no doubt – to kill a scholarship program that afforded 1,700 of D.C.'s most underprivileged kids to escape the District's failing public school system. Apparently the President, along with 38% of Congressmen who elect to send their kids to private schools, sees nothing ironic about denying American parents the right to choose the best school for their kids.

What the voters must realize is that we don't need a Constitutional amendment to make our representatives change the way they do business. All we need to do is show up on election day and change who we send there.
Read Townhall article here.