The Road to Greece?

We are almost at the point where the rubber meets the road. One of the rules of life that everyone should memorize is: Actions have Consequences. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid pushed and fought and arm twisted to pass Obamacare. As our economy has continued to suffer, and as jobs have disappeared, the Democrats in Washington have continued to spend money as if the Washington Monument was loaded with cash.

Whether you agree with these policies or not, the policies of the Democrat controlled congress has come with a price tag. The Tea Parties have argued that President Obama and Congress are taxing our children and our grandchildren. We have word now that the reality may be worse: our children and grandchildren may not have the jobs to get taxed. Dick Morris writing yesterday says:

Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.

And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.

If our bonds are being downgraded, then we can see the road to Greece from here. A combination of lowered credit, mounting debt in the form of Social Security and Medicare, with a good, strong helping of national health care puts us on a path towards Greece. As we rush to implement national health care, Canada is looking for a way out of it. Canada has discovered what the Tea Parties have said for months now: Free health care is very expensive. We have two choices. We can continue down this road. We may even have some good times, but at some point, we will have to pay the bill for this. When that happens, we will be in the same place Greece is today.

Or we can get off this road. We can realize that a national health care system will cost money. We can stop trying to cut our own throats and start using all the energy at our fingertips: oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal. You name it, we use it. At some point we have to make a decision: Will we continue to be the world's Superpower, or will we follow Greece?

A Call to Action

I consider myself an amateur historian. Amateur because I don't study history for profit, I study it because I find it an incredible story. I would argue that the story of America is one of the richest, most beautiful stories ever told, and stands against any work of fiction ever written. I love the National Archives in Washington. Seeing the actual Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution is a very moving experience. On the west side of the Archives, the following inscription is written in big bold letters:

The glory and romance of our history are here preserved in the chronicles of those who conceived and builded the structure of our nation.

I never fail to be moved when I read that inscription. As an amateur historian, I will tell you that I find it hard to believe the tyranny that has been forced on our nation by the U.S. Congress, by the U.S. Senate, and by the current President of the United States. I do not use the word "tyranny" lightly. Tyranny is defined as "oppressive power". Today, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the most massive redefining of our economy to take place since The Great Depression. Under the guise of "health care reform", this law gives the government the power to decide what kind of health care you and your family receive.

In addition to this travesty, it will increase our deficit according to Democrats own internal memo's. The law costs $1 Trillion. That's $1 Trillion we don't have to spend. The law attempts to pay for itself through taxing the very services, devices, and people, it claims to help. A few days ago a comment on this blog went, "Oddly, when I woke up this morning and looked outside, I didn't see any communist nationalistic troops with tanks rolling down my street." True. However, is your health care better today? Do you get better appointments at the Doctor's office? Is your Doctor even still in business? Do you suddenly have medicine you couldn't get on Saturday? Is the "change" in your insurance worth the estimated $500 Million in new taxes we will see on January 1, 2011? The honest answer to most of these questions is "no".

This health care law by itself hasn't destroyed our nation. However, with its passage into law today, I can see the end of our nation from here. Our country can't afford the price tag of this bill in this economy, coupled with the price tags of Social Security and Medicare. Both of these programs are running out of money. Some estimates state they will be out of money in the next ten years, just as we're paying increased taxes for the law signed today. The Democrats in Washington have decided a one and a half year crusade to centralize healthcare decision making power is more important than getting people back to work, and more important than improving our economy.

The "Greatest Generation" fought to protect our country, and the west in World War II. However they failed to pass on the values of their generation to their children. The Baby Boomers are starting to retire, and failed to fix Social Security or Medicare, and failed to protect our nation from the encroachment of soft tyranny. This "beneficial tyranny" believes in protecting everyday people from themselves at the price of their freedoms. President Obama says, "I will protect your health, just give up your right to make your own health care choices."

It's now up to our generation to stop this soft tyranny, and to begin to repeal it. It's up to the Baby Boomers who are still willing to fight, the Generation X-ers who must fight, and Generation Y that is coming into its own politically. Lines have been drawn around freedom, and around uncontrolled, nation destroying spending. If you're reading this blog, YOU must make a choice. You must decide if you will continue to fight for this country or if you will sit back and let Democrats in Washington decide how to run your life. Will you take care of yourself and your family, or will you trade your freedoms for the shackles of government handouts.

In 1964, Ronald Reagan told an audience that they had a rendezvous with destiny. Today, we face that same rendezvous. Will we fight for our freedoms? For our nation? In the coming months, each of us must ask, as Reagan did, "Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Another famous Reagan quote also applies to today:

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

Now is a time when we must decide: Will we protect our nation and leave freedom and this great country to our children and grandchildren, or will we let planners in Washington make our decisions for us and voluntarily put the shackles on our children's children?

"What Will Democrats Do Now?"

That seemed to be the question I heard the most yesterday. With the election of a Republican to the blue state of Massachusetts, what will the Democrats do? Here are my thoughts on what Tuesday's election means.

No Obamacare This Year

The Senate Republicans seem to be doing a very good job of standing in the breach. With a 41st vote, the Republicans can stall any legislation as long as they want. The only way to pass Obamacare is through reconciliation or by the House adopting the Senate bill. Speaker Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the House, and reconciliation will strip the bill to the point that Reid may not even recognize it. There may still be health care reform this year. However, I think it will be very different from what we have seen so far.

"Moderate" Democrats Will look for the door.

There are two types of Democrats in the party today: Progressives and Democrats. Progressives are the true liberals of the party like Reid, Clinton, and Pelosi. "Moderate Democrats" or Democrats are the more main stream or even "blue dog" element of the party. The progressives have been telling the moderates for months now that they must pass health care reform or they won't get reelected in November. President Obama has told Democrats he will personally campaign from coast to coast for them after they pass health care. Today, moderate Democrats are looking at Massachusetts and thinking that Obama campaigned for Coakley and she lost. She lost in Massachusetts and she lost the independent voter by 3:1. They remember New Jersey and Virginia where Obama campaigned and the Democrat lost in both cases. In both cases independents voted for Republicans by a 2:1 margin. Career politicians see as job #1 getting reelected. President Obama doesn't have the shirt tails to give them the cover they need in November. Already Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) says health care reform has as much chance of passing as pigs flying out has butt. Democrats weren't talking like this before Tuesday. I think some Democrats will simply announce they aren't seeking reelection, others will start distancing themselves from Reid and Pelosi and may start voting against things like health care reform or cap and trade.

The Politicans will Begin to Listen

During the last twelve months, a number of Republicans and Democrats have participated in Tea Parties across the country. They have gone to their representatives office to complain. They have sent emails, letters, and phone calls telling the congressman or senator how to vote and what the voters thought. These people have been ignored. Many Democrats in Congress and the Senate simply believed the voters couldn't, or wouldn't, really do anything. Now Nelson has been run out of a restaurant for the first time in his political career by angry voters. A solidly blue state has elected a semi-conservative Republican who campaigned on fighting a Democratic President on his signature issue. I promise you a number of politicians are looking for ways to seem more responsive to voters. That's always a good thing.

Maureen Dowd vs. South Carolina

Over the past few days I have been more than a little disturbed at the number of people who are accusing Republicans of racism. According to such intellectual giants as Maureen Dowd, President Jimmy Carter, or Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson, if you disagree with the President, you are a racist. These are the same people who told us it was Patriotic to question President George Bush. President Carter has had his own problems with race in his past and should probably focus on cleaning those up before he attacks others. These attacks are from the same party that has given us Klu Klux Klan member Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator from West Virginia. One of Byrd's claims to fame is to be the only sitting member of the Senate who was once an admitted Klan member. The President's Attorney General accused Americans of being cowards when it comes to race. Maybe he was referring to his own party…

I thought I would start my research for this column by reading Maureen Dowd's column for myself. Maybe she had been widely misquoted in the press. Surely no one would accuse another person of racism based on something Ms. Dowd imagined. She points out that,"…fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!" That's right. Maureen Dowd says Joe Wilson is a racist not because of what he said, but because of what she imagined. In a sane world, Ms. Dowd would be laughed at as she was run out of town.

While this has been heavily covered, what I hadn't realized was that Ms. Dowd goes on a rant against the entire state of South Carolina. She slanders Mr. Wilson's involvement in the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, while not mentioning any problem with Byrd's involvement with the actual KKK. She draws on the history of South Carolina to accuse Joe Wilson of racism. Why is Joe Wilson a racist? Because South Carolina fired the first shot in the Civil War. Because Jim DeMint wanted conservatives to "break" the President (Democrats were the model of civility and bipartisanship under President Bush). Because Mark Sanford refused stimulus funds when he felt the state couldn't afford the price tag that came with the stimulus bribes.

In perhaps the most bizarre section, she quotes a Democrat from South Carolina who attacked Bill Clinton in the Palmetto State for alleged racial attacks against then candidate Obama (again, Democrat racial attacks). Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said that a resolution must be passed against Joe Wilson because:

"In South Carolina politics, I learned that the olive branch works very seldom," he said. "You have to come at these things from a position of strength. My father used to say, 'Son, always remember that silence gives consent.' {emphasis mine}

Keeping in mind that the Congressional Research Service says that HR 3200 would allow legal and illegal immigrants to buy health insurance, and that Joe Wilson knew these aspects of HR 3200, does the Democrat from South Carolina really believe Wilson should have kept quiet and given his "consent" to a falsehood?

Perhaps the next time Ms. Dowd wants to accuse a state of being populated by racist, she should do a little homework.

Ms. Dowd, just because you included a racist statement in your mind doesn't mean the rest of us did too. If you want to throw heinous terms around based on what you imagined, listen to the late Michael Jackson, and start with the Man in the Mirror.

Can Congress Read?

"If every member pledged to not vote for {the health care bill} if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes."

-- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

This was Mr. Hoyer's response when asked about a petition being circulated asking House members to read everything they vote on. Mr. Hoyer believed the thought of members reading what they vote on was worth a few chuckles on camera. Quite often members and their staff don't read the bills they vote on. Some of this is laziness and some of it is due to the size and speed Congress now passes legislation. For example, the Stimulus Bill was 1,100 pages long (at a price of $787 Trillion) and members were given 13 hours to review the full bill before it passed. The Cap and Trade bill was 1,200 pages and had a 300 page amendment added at 3 AM the day it was voted on. The final version of the Cap and Trade bill didn't exist in written form when it passed the House. A printed copy of the U. S. Constitution is only about 10 pages long.

To be fair, this is not a Democrat only issue. The 108^th Congress, which was controlled by Republicans, passed 2,900 pages worth of legislation in a combined 48 hours (at the bargain price of slightly less than $1 Trillion). Both Republicans and Democrats have been embarrassed when provisions of these bills finally saw the light of day. Republicans were surprised to find their Ominbus spending bill included a provision to allow Republican leaders to review anyone's tax return they choose. Democrats outraged voters when it was discovered the Stimulus bill included provisions for AIG bonuses after the government bailed them out. After campaign finance reform passed in 2003, members had to hire experts to tell them exactly what was in the bill they just passed.

Most people would probably say this is a problem. President Obama campaigned on a 5 day period for bills to be posted on the internet and reviewed by the public. Conservative, liberal, and libertarian groups have all started petitions to get lawmakers to read what they vote on.

If bills are too long to read, they shouldn't be passed. If it can't be read in the time members get to debate it, they should take more time to review the bill. Our expectations of our representatives are so low, we wonder if we can make them read something that may tax us or our children. We give them a pass on legislation that may outlaw things we do, limit our freedoms, or may affect our children. In a reality, when they vote on something they haven't read, they abuse their power and insult their constituents. It isn't enough to read a summary a lobbyist puts in their hand. If they can't read the bill, why are they even there?

Democrats don't need Republicans

I first saw this add at Red State and I really enjoyed it. It points out something that voters need to remember between now and November 2010: The Democrats control all of it. Any legislation the Democrats want to pass, they can pass without a single Republican vote. They have enough votes to pass anything in the House and they have enough votes to stop a filibuster in the Senate.

Any laws they write can go to the President. If he signs it, they get it. Want higher taxes, cap and trade, government run health care, they can do it all without a single Republican vote.

Remember this in the coming weeks when they say Republicans are trying to stop them or the Republican Party is the "party of no". The only way Republicans can stop any bill is to win the support of the public. Any legislation the Democrats want to pass, they can pass without any Republican support.

Remember this the next time you here Democrats say that the Republicans are preventing them from doing what they want. The only thing that will stop Democrats is the fear of being held accountable for the laws they pass.

The Specter Defection

There has been a lot of commentary in the media over Senator Arlen Specters move from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Many are portraying this as a wakeup call in some form or another. One of the best pieces I have read on Specter's move is by Noemie Emery of the Weekly Standard. Mrs. Emery uses Specter's defection as a call for more of a big tent in the Republican Party. I think she is right.

Mrs. Emery points out a fact that many voters on the right and the left forget: Conservatism is a movement and not a Party, while the Republican Party is not a movement. The goal of a movement is to advance a set of ideals. The goal of a political party is to get more people elected and to implement a political platform. Republicans need Conservatives to win national elections. Conservatives need Republicans (even the not so conservative version) in order to get their ideals acted on. As good as Mrs. Emery's article is, there are two points she and most commentators seem to be missing.

First, many elected Republicans have pushed the parties platform aside. Elected Republicans have forgotten the Contract with America, and have become as big government as their Democratic counterparts. Many voters who traditionally vote Republican are upset with that. To make matters worse, since the 2006 elections, the Republican party has had trouble convincing voters that they want to get back to the Party of the 90's, let alone Regan's big tent party of the 80's. Many Republicans talk about attacking new voters. But they phrase this in how they wish to change the party. Republicans should be looking at ways they can phrase their message or better communicate it to traditionally Democratic voters.

The other point that seems to get lost is why Specter changed parties. Mrs. Emery touches on it, but then forgets it. Arlen Specter was most likely going to lose his primary battle. He looked at the numbers, and in order to stay in the Senate, switched parties. He is very likely to get reelected as a Democrat. In my opinion, this speaks to a larger problem. Specter has been in politics since the 60's. He started his career as a Democrat, and switched to the Republican party after his first election. He has been in the Senate since 1981. He is approaching 30 years in the Senate. Mrs. Emery and other Republicans seem to think it is tragic that he would loose his primary. I think it would have been a good thing. Do we really need Senators in office for 30 years? One of our problems in the Congress is that these older Senators are more concerned with winning another term than they are with fulfilling their role as the outlined by the Constitution.

Specter's defection should be a wake up call for the Republican Party. I think Republicans needed to be doing some soul searching right now for a number of reasons. However, I believe Specters defection should call us all to examine a different issue: Term Limits in Congress and the Senate. Specter switched parties to stay in office. Do we really need any Representative or Senator in office for thirty years? I don't think so. If a President is term limited to two terms, why should a Senator (or Representative) be able to make a full career of sitting in the Senate or the House?

Maui Tea Party

Having attended a Tea Party in Atlanta a while back, I was very excited when the national tea parties started showing up for Tax Day. I was going to be on vacation, but was able to coordinate with the organizers in Maui to be at their tea party today.



Unlike the last one I went to, the weather was great. I asked around, and I estimate there was probably 200 to 300 people at the event by the time I left. This is pretty amazing because most of the people were residents of Maui. Many of them were complaining about their local representatives.

I have heard today's events reported as "tea parties that were started by conservative bloggers, talk show personalities, and republicans." This isn't true. These tea parties are grass roots movements. The one I attended today was organized by a self proclaimed Democrat. In an email to me, he stated that he has supported a number of liberal groups over the years, but he felt the spending in Washington has really gotten out of hand.

As I am on vacation, I thought most of this post would be some of my favorite pictures from today's event in Maui. This first one made me laugh the most:



Considering this weeks revelation of what the Deparment of Homeland Security thinks of out spoken conservatives, I thought this one was pretty good too:


This sign also appeared at another Tea Party in Lahaina earlier in the day:



One participant was kind enough to let me borrow his sign so I could get a photo of me at the demonstration for my readers:

Democrats Kill D.C. Scholarship Program

There is a school choice program in D.C. that Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to kill. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program allows parents in the District of Columbia to move their children out of dangerous and failing schools and send them to better performing, safer schools with some federal help. By "dangerous and failing" , Dan Lips and Robert Enlow write:

"One out of every eight D.C. students reported being assaulted or injured with a deadly weapon during a recent school year. That’s equal to the percentage of D.C. eighth-graders who scored “proficient” in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress."


Currently there are some 1,700 children enrolled in the program. At a cost of $14 million, these children are able to attend schools that help them prepare for college, and keep them safe. In an age of multibillion dollar bailouts to banks and auto companies, this program is on the cutting board because Democrats believe in teachers unions more than they believe in families, children, or freedom. Freedom of choice is o.k if Democrats are talking about killing an unborn child, but it is unacceptable when discussing getting a good education for a student in a bad neighborhood.

The current spending bill as passed in the House kills the D.C. scholarship program after the 2009 -2010 school year. Any students still going to private schools will be forced to go back to their zoned public school. Yesterday, Natasha Shannon wrote in the New York Daily News defending the DC program. Ms. Shannon is able to send her two daughters to a better school than she was able to attend as a kid. She graduated valedictorian of her class in Harlem and began attending a community college. In college she had to attend remedial classes in order to stay in school because her high school hadn't prepared the valedictorian to attend a community college.

Democrats have not argued that the D C public school system is working. Instead, Democrats in Congress are dumping money into the D. C. system, and expressly forbidding it be used for any school choice program like the one currently in place. Without authorizing any study on the success of the current DC program, they are killing its funding. Democrats are showing they care more for teachers unions than for parents and children. I thought it was Democrats who fought for minorities and not big business.

For once there is a government program that appears to be working, and is providing families with freedom. Surely we can fund it at the same time we are trying to save badly managed auto companies and banks.

More Surprises from the "Stimulus" Package

If you are supporting the Democratic Spending Bill before the House and Senate, perhaps this paragraph from Bloomberg (authors Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry) will make you think twice:


The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.


I hope you read that very carefully. The money involved would pay off more than 90 percent of all home mortgages, not just troubled ones. I have written a number of times regarding the insane cost of these plans. However, another Bloomberg author has found another reason to oppose these plans. Betsy McCaughey explains that the stimulus package, as currently debated, will usher in a new world for you and your health care.


In her article, Mrs McCaughey references the exact page number each of these provisions are contained in. For brevity, I have not reproduced the page number. To start with, the stimulus package with digitize your medical records. This sounds innocent enough and is even billed as a way to save your life if you are traveling and need medical attention. The doctor will have access to your medical records via a federal website. Assuming you are confident these records are secure, and there can't be any breach at the federal level, we will continue on. If this worries you, don't read any more because the rest of this will terrify you.


Now that your medical records belong to the federal government, a new entity called "The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" will begin reviewing your files and the treatment your doctor provides to ensure that your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate. If your doctor isn't, and is trying to treat your specific circumstance, or is trying some sort of experimental treatment on you (even with your consent) then your doctor can face very serious repercussions. The exact language of the bill is vague on this, and will create a separate federal group to decide what that penalty is. According to Mrs. McCaughey, most of these recommendations are out of recent Health and Human Services nominee, and non-tax paying Democrat, Tom Daschle's book. In his book, Daschle says our health care should be more like Europeans. We should slow down the development of new drugs and experimental treatments because they simply cost to much. We should also be willing to accept "hopeless diagnosis". In laymen terms this means if it costs to much to keep you alive, the doctor shouldn't be doing it. To quote the article:


Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).


If the stimulus package is signed into law, then a person and council named by the Democrats will decide what treatments you should or shouldn't receive, will be able to penalize your doctor or hospital for not following those treatments, and will decide how much it should cost to keep you or a loved one alive. If it costs too much you shouldn't get the treatment.


Consider this fact from Mrs. McCaughey: the bill provides more funding for these provisions than for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marince Corp combined.


You may believe this new Health Care system should be implemented. I think it will be a dark day in our country if it ever happens. I also believe our country could be permanently damaged by this. However, either way, it should outrage all Americans that the Democrats and President Obama are trying to sneak this in. This shows that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama know the American people will not support it. The Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. If they really thought Americans wanted this, they would create a separate bill and pass it. The Republicans would be powerless to stop it.

I encourage you to contact your Senator and tell them to vote against this. Ask them to defend these Health Care provisions to you and explain why they support them. If you don't know their contact info, look it up here. Don't let them sneak in legislation that could affect how, and how long, you and your loved ones live.

The Pelosi - Obama “Non-Stimulus” Plan

As of this writing, Democrats in the House have passed a $813 Million spending bill. Democrats in the House and President Obama have all called this an economic stimulus plan. In truth, it is a runaway spending plan with very little in it to actually stimulate the economy. I saw two quotes today that really scared me. The first one from the Heritage Foundation Website:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." – FDR Treasury Sec. Henry Morgenthau Jr., architect of the New Deal.

The second in today's issue of USA Today:

House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wis., said the goal is to act now and address problems later. During the Depression, he said, President Franklin Roosevelt "tried lots of things. We'll do the same thing."

The two quotes together don't give me confidence that Democrats know what they are doing right now. I really don't like the "act now and address problems later" part either. Obama campaigned on a new kind of politics in Washington. However, what we see is a plan that we are being told will stimulate the economy that includes:

--$20 Billion to increase Food Stamps

--$18.5 Billion for energy efficiency

--$20 Billion to renovate elementary and secondary schools

--$30 Billion for highway construction (out of almost $1 Trillion in spending)

This is without looking at the list of multi-million dollar line items that go to special interest groups such as ACORN, STD education and prevention programs at the CDC, national endowment for the arts, assorted federal "green" jobs, and of course the Smithsonian and the national mall. For more on these non-stimulating line items, see here, here, or here. The last link is from the National Review Online and is probably the best discussion of the plan anywhere. Are the programs in this bill worth funding? Maybe, maybe not. But they don't create jobs, and Democrats shouldn't call this a stimulus bill. An extra $650 million is going to help people convert their TV's to the new digital format. Approximately $80 Billion is going to states that can't balance their budget already.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are telling us that this is urgent. We must pass this right now. American jobs are at stake! However, the Congressional Budget Office is saying that less than half of the "stimulating" part of the bill, the $30 Billion in highway construction money, would get into the economy over the next four years! Only $26 Billion of the $274 Billion in infrastructure spending would be used by next fall! The American public is being sold a bill of goods with this plan. This massive spending plan won't stimulate the economy, and only 64 % of the entire bill will reach the economy over the next four years!

The only bright side to this is that Republicans (and 11 Democrats) voted against this bill today. Succeed or fail, this bill is 100% Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. It will fail, and I am afraid it will take part of the country with it.

Should We Trust Democrats with Cars?

The Democrats in Congress and President Bush have been working on a bailout for GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Many of the arguments that have been used to justify this bailout were the same arguments used to justify the $700 Billion bailout of the banks and home lenders. That bailout passed, but we have seen an increase in the percentage of home's being foreclosed on. In the last few weeks it was revealed that even while the Executive and Legislative branches were hammering out a bailout, Secretary Paulson was intending to use the money in different ways than what we were told he would use it for. Congress set up an oversight group to keep an eye on how the money was spent. However, as of this writing, Congress and the President have yet to name any members to the board. With this in mind, is there any reason we should trust the government to pass emergency legislation to bail out the auto industry? Is there any reason we should trust a Democratic Party majority to try and bail out the auto industry?

If we examine the beliefs and goals of the Democratic Party they don't match up well with the interests of auto companies. The Democratic Party believes in man made global warming. They believe it is the crisis of our time. They also believe using oil and gasoline are bad. How many times have they campaigned on taxing big oil? The DNC is the party of the Unions. While Unions aren't the only reason GM, Ford, and Chrysler are in trouble, they are a big reason. No one has ever accused unions of being "pro-industry". Why would they start now? Looking at the planks to the DNC one would question why they would want the big three to survive.

The Democratic Party was trying to force the auto industry to drop lawsuits against California's fuel regulations as part of any bailout. The Democrats in Congress are still trying to force "greener" cars on the auto industry while preventing them from bringing the higher fuel economy vehicles they make overseas into the United States. Why? Because Democrats want the environmentalist and the union members happy with the party. They have never really cared how the auto companies might fare with their laws. Why should they start now?

If Congress really wanted to save Detroit, there are other more meaningful ways of doing it. They could do away with the CAFÉ standards. They could lower taxes in general on both industry and workers. They could allow Detroit to bring in the vehicles they make in Europe. I believe any sort of loan is just going to delay bankruptcy by these auto companies. Perhaps other solutions might work. But either way, why would we expect Democrats to help the auto companies?

A Terrible, Terrible Decision by Our Government

Something has been bothering me the last few days, and I have decided to use this forum to get it off my chest. Our government passed a $700 Billion economic bail out package last week. We were told last week that the government had to do something. Some members of the House who voted against the plan on Monday, justified their vote on Friday by saying, "Things are bad, and we can't sit by and do nothing, so I am voting for this plan I don't like." Let's put aside the millions of dollars of earmarks (bribes?) that were associated with this bill. This logic is terrible because there are more than the two options of (a) do nothing, and (b) pass a bill that is so large, I can't even consider the amount of money it encompasses.

The "funny" thing about this is we were told we had to pass this bill. The Senate passed it, the House passed it, and the President signed it. Both Presidential candidates voted for it. The market, however, seems to have other ideas. The market tanked on Friday, and tanked again today. The market closed just below 10,000 points for the first time in a long time.

We are now being told that these things take time. The market will respond over the course of the next few weeks. We are also being told that the government has to take its time when using this $700 Billion so they don't abuse it and don't misuse it. What happened to "we have to do something now?" What happened to "we were going to see a crisis if Congress didn't act"?

The truth of the matter is there was always the (c) option. This option entailed looking at other options that might fix this situation without costing $700 Billion. This option entailed taking time to examine the situation, examine the failures of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and then proceed with that knowledge and with the caution this situation required.

However, this is an election year. Obama and McCain have now both showed that nothing trumps looking like you're doing something in an election year. Most Representatives and Senators have done the same thing. Political commentators that I admire spent last week arguing that something needed to be done so that this won't be saddled on their presidential candidate.

For the first time I can think of, I am truly mad at my government. I honestly believe our government got it wrong last week. Getting it wrong if you think you are doing the right thing is one thing. Getting it wrong with the intent to simply win an election is an entirely different can of worms.

Over the next few weeks, I will be adjusting a few things. We have reached a point where more seems to be required of me and like minded individuals. I don't know what my new course of action will be, but I am going to chart a new one. This blog will continue to be a forum for open, honest, political debate. However, I will be getting more active somehow, and I will be bringing my readers along on the journey.

Democrats To Blame for Mortgage Crisis?

Josh, a friend of mine, sent me the first video which he got from Neil Bortz's site. Watch this, and the next one featured on Rush Limbaugh's site and see if you can figure out who is really to blame for the current economic crisis. I am keeping this one short because I think everyone should see these before they vote:

This video is from The Mouth Piece





And from Naked Emperor News

Government 101 – Me and My Soap box

I have been spending some time this week reading up on the economic crisis. I have been struggling with the question of if I believe our Congress should give the Executive branch a $700 Billion check. Proponents say if we don't do it, then our economy (and the economy of the rest of the world) will collapse. Opponents say that bailing out the market is irresponsible, will saddle taxpayers with a huge debt, will devalue our dollar further (thus hurting our economy and the world's), and may not fix the problem. Some have argued for other solutions such as suspending the capital gains tax for two years. They argue that there is private capital out there waiting for the right price to jump in. Warren Buffets infusion to the market of $5 Billion yesterday sure seems to give this argument some weight. What is the right answer? Honestly, I think all of the arguments have their strong points and their weak points. The bailout check would be used to buy up bad mortgages. Managed correctly (which I don't know if the government can do) this could actually return a profit to the government and to taxpayers. I am always a fan of removing taxes and getting private capital flowing, but is suspending the capital gains tax for two years enough to get that money moving? If we have learned nothing from the Great Depression, we should have learned two lessons. First, business and the market hate uncertainty. It scares them. Businesses will hold on to money, and not invest, until they are sure what the government plans to do. Second, passing laws just to pass laws can sometimes make matters worse. What if giving the Fed's a $700 billion check simply delays a much worse crash?

My wife made me watch Glenn Beck last night. If you didn't see it, you should go look for it on CNN or YouTube. I found the transcript for the show here. If I am recommending you view a CNN program, you really should sit up and take note. Glenn Beck had former Shell Oil executive John Hofmeister on and asked viewers to call in to ask any question they wanted of Mr. Hofmeister. Mr. Hofmeister has a new organization called Citizens for Affordable Energy. While watching that episode, and talking to my wife about the economic crisis and the energy crisis I realized we haven't come up with the correct solution yet because we haven't asked the right question yet. The right question is: When are we going to start legislating like adults, and not like children who just want to feel good?

Go look for articles on the economic crisis. Most of them blame it on the "Sub prime mortgages" or "bad mortgages" or "questionable lending". This is code speak for "loans that were given to people who should have never gotten a loan in the first place." Congress encouraged / forced banks to give loans to people who wouldn't have qualified for them. They did it under the guise of "making homes affordable for everyone." This is the problem. Any sane adult should be able to take a step back and look at the world and realize there are people in this world who will never be able to afford a home. There are charities that have as their goal fixing this. This is a noble goal. However, it isn't a realistic one, and it isn't one our government should be legislating to fix.

Another example is Polar Bears. How? Simple. Recently our government, under the evil George Bush, placed Polar Bears on the threatened species list. Bear in mind (no pun intended) that the worldwide Polar bear populations are at a high point. There are now more Polar Bears in the world than at any point in the twentieth century. Why did they get placed on the threatened species list? Because it "felt good".

We can't drill in water closer than 50 to 100 miles from our shores. Even though the most productive oil rigs are within the 50 mile mark, congress has decided we shouldn't drill there. Why? Sun bathers don't like to see oil rigs. What if there is an accident? Who will protect the birds? The safety record of the oil industry is actually pretty impressive. You have heard of a few spills, but by and large, oil is moved around this country every day and the only time we hear about it is when our gas prices go up. For those of you who think we can get rid of oil and replace it with solar or wind power, you are living in a pipe dream. If you think political environmentalist are going to let you construct wind and solar energy "plants" you haven't been paying attention. Already there are concerns with wind mills killing migratory birds. Sane adults can pass a comprehensive energy plan that uses oil, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro and anything else we can safely squeeze energy out of.

What about our tax code? Here is a colossal waste. We have a cumbersome tax code that is designed to make the wealthiest people in the United States give their money to the "poor". Think Robin Hood with a gun and the federal government. We don't tax business and individuals to keep the government running and for the government to do those things the Constitution gives it power to do. We tax to try and earn votes, and because it "feels good" to stick it to the wealthy and to Big Business. What this really does is to drive businesses over seas and to take money from the people who might be able to bail us out of our current financial troubles.

I have great faith in the American people. At some point, Americans are going to wake up and tell their representatives to start passing laws like adults and not like 60's era hippies. When that happens, you will see a real energy policy, a tax code that makes sense, and as Glenn Beck would say, the few surviving hippies running for the hills while the rest of us chase them there with torches, cell phones, and SUV's.

Quick Notes: Biden and Russia

Once again, it is time for an exciting issue of Quick Notes. There has been some "exciting" news on the Presidential front, and some distrubing news on the international front. On to my thoughts...


Democratic VP Candidate Joe Biden: After a really poor performance by the chosen one last Saturday at Saddleback, Presidential candidate Obama tapped Joe Biden for his VP candidate. I think the best you can say for this pick is that it was a "safe" pick. Biden is a little closer to the middle of the road than Obama. Of course, Obama is so far out in left field it doesn't take much to get closer to the middle. Biden has some of the same "elitist" baggage that Obama has. During the announcement today, Sen. Obama introduced Sen. Biden as the next President. "President" Biden then refered to Obama as Barack America. I am hoping for a number of slip ups like this over the next couple of days to really make the DNC convention exciting.


Russia: Russia has pulled some troops out of Georgia, and entrenched others. I think very few people believe that Russia is ready to give up Georgia. Russia now controls the port of Poti. I believe this gives Putin control of oil shipments leaving Georgia. At the very least, it is a huge hold on what comes and goes to Georgia.


Talk and threats aren't going to work to get Russia out of Georgia. It is time for the United States, the United Nations, and NATO to act. I purpose the following response:


First, the International Olympic Committee needs to remove the 2014 Olympic Games from Russia. These games are set to be held a few miles from Georgia. There is no better insult to democracy than to go through with them. A boycott isn't enough. Athletes shouldn't be penalized for the actions of a nation that acts like this. The games could be sent to somewhere else, somewhere that might send a clear message to Russia. Perhaps the Ukraine?


Second, The G-8 should immediately disolve and reconstitute itself as the G-7, minus Russia. This has been an imperial grab by mother Russia, and Putin needs to know the other nations of the world will not accept this.


Third, the Ukraine and other former Soviet states should be offered expidited admittance into NATO. If Russia's actions are a message to tell the U.S. and NATO to back off, our response should be clear. We will not back down from bullying tactis.


Finally, Russia has been very unhappy with the missle agreement the U.S. has agreed to with Poland. We should offer the same agreement to the Ukraine.


Russia wants to make a play to control all oil in that part of the world, and control all of the former Soviet states. The rest of the world needs to show mother Russia that the days of the empire are done. If Russia wants to be part of the mature world, it needs to act like it.

Quick Notes -- Gang of 10, Energy, and Georgia

The late William F. Buckley once said, "I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." I wish to change that just a little. After watching the campaigns of both Senator Obama and Senator McCain, I would rather be governed by a random lottery of 1000 people in the United States than our current elected Congress and Senate. I have lamented many times that neither Obama nor McCain represent the best from their parties. This week has further depressed me on the ability of our currently elected representatives. This means you get to enjoy a somewhat expanded version of Quick Notes.

Energy. Without looking at the polling data, I think it is safe to say that Energy has become the number one issue of the election. This can always change. On a daily basis, I see more in the paper, on radio, and on TV about energy and gas prices than any other issue. There are a number of positions out there. Obama wants to stop using oil in our country in the next ten years. He also wants to give "middle class families" a $1000 check to help with prices at the pump. How would he pay for this? With windfall profit taxes on big oil companies. If we put profit taxes on oil companies, what do we really think will happen to the price of gas?

McCain has been better on this issue. He has changed his position on off shore drilling. He wants to increase nuclear power in the U.S. He even wants to increase our alternative energy production. I agree with these issues, but don't believe they go far enough. I am an "all of the above" kind of guy. I believe we need to drill for oil in our country wherever we believe it is economically feasible. If that means off shore, in ANWR, or in the Grand Canyon, then do it. We need to build more nuclear power plants in the U.S. If France can get 80% of their energy from nuclear power, why can't we. The Pickens Plan calls for more wind energy. I am skeptical, but the plan calls for it to be financed 100% from private sector funds. Any alternative energy that private financiers want to go for, I support. They use their money, they drive the market, and if they are successful, they should reap the profits. This is Capitalism at it's best.

This is a long winded way of saying that there is an issue out there that both McCain, and the Republicans can win on this year. Conventional wisdom is that this year, Obama should win, and the Democrats should pick up seats in both the House and the Senate. Imagine turning that on it's head. However, into this discussion steps...

The Gang of 10. Democrats aren't the only one trying to drive a stake in the discussion of off shore drilling. 5 Republicans in the Senate have joined the fray. There is a great article on this at Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain. If you follow politics, and are a conservative Republican, all you need to hear is Lindsey Graham and bipartisan compromise. These two phrases generally mean Democrats get what they want, and Republicans get screwed. The Gang of 10 plan allows off shore drilling, but only in a few states, and with the permission of those states. It bars drilling in ANWR, it provides $84 billion of tax incentives for alternative fuels that are paid for with new taxes on oil companies. These senators have decided they can tax certain companies to provide incentives to their competitors. Imagine Congress taxing Microsoft and giving the money to Apple. Or taxing Starbucks and giving the money to McDonald's. It is arrogant, unwise, and against the very nature of our market economy. The five Republicans, Graham (R-SC), Chambliss (R-GA), Isakson (R-GA), Thune (R- SD), and Corker (R-TN), have shown a colossal lack of judgment.

Georgia. Turning to world events, Russia has started a full scale war with the nation of Georgia. This is a very complicated matter that I may more fully explain in a future post. However, something to keep an eye on is the possibility of a nuke being used in this engagement. When the Soviet Union collapsed, 5000 small nuclear weapons went unaccounted for. The government of Russia said they were destroyed, and that all evidence of their destruction, and all correspondence ordering their destruction was also destroyed. In addition, Georgia was sitting on some nuclear weapons, which they turned over to Russia in exchange for U.S aid. In both of these cases, there is a chance that some nuclear weapons (some as small as 44 lbs) may be in the hands of the Georgian government, or some of the smaller groups fighting in this engagement. If they feel that Russia is about to take over their entire country, Georgia may feel it has no option but to set one of these off. Keep an eye on that part of the world to see what happens.

Congress and Their 5 Week Vacation

Pack 04 has once again taken me up on an offer to write on here. Here is his guest post, hope you enjoy!

It has probably been beaten to death by now but why not pile on:

Sen. Tom Coburn: We’re fighting hard. You need to be fighting hard.

Sen. Jeff Sessions: If the government is not functioning, it’s difficult to know how to help them.

Rep. Chris Shays: If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight — that would be the outrage of outrages.

Sen. John Warner: An action of that consequence would send a very bad signal to the world that they don't have the resolve that matches the resolve of the brave troops that are fighting in the battle today.

Sen. John Kerry: An Iraqi Parliament that spends July and August sitting around a swimming pool while their country descends into further unrest.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: While our troops are in harm's way there and the need for us to see strong political change, it seems they've left before their work was completed.

Words spoken around the time the Iraqi government was planning a 2 month vacation last summer. Last Friday by a vote of 213-212 the House decided to take a break and go on vacation. I suppose nothing bad is going on in America. Energy prices are high, we are in a “recession,” people cannot afford to get medicine or healthcare, the war in Iraqi is still going on. I guess these issues we were led to believe are not as critical as thought. Those are all things the House can do something about. Maybe they are just going to telecommute.

They are going on vacation using/spending money that they receive from our tax money. The Speaker of the House gets $217,400 a year, $169,300 a year for the rest of them. They also get a cost of living increase. I work for state government, most likely my promised cost of living increase is going away because the state has not collected as much. Do you think they will decide not to give themselves a cost of living increase?

They are going on vacation and my Dad who lives hours away from me had to cancel his vacation to see me because he cannot afford to travel down here. I get to see him very little every year. I cannot afford to get up to see him either for the same reason. Let’s look big picture, this month troops are going to die, people are going to get sick and stay sick because of lack of affordable health care, kids are going to go hungry because people had to choose between buying food or driving to work.

The evil republicans and a few democratic voted to stay to solve problems. They lost but I am proud of them. What do the republicans need to do now? Stay in DC and work. Send photographers out to take pictures of the Democrats on the beach. Run ads showing who is doing what. Win in November.

Bill Russell for Congress!

I am a Conservative.

I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty. I believe in rugged individualism because individuals can make far better choices than any government entity in providing for families, protecting households, choosing doctors and health care plans, and deciding which teachers and schools are best for children. I believe prosperity is best ensured by what Adam Smith called the "invisible hand" of a natural, price driven economy.

-- Lt. Colonel William Russell

Wow. These are the words I am dying to hear a Republican presidential candidate say. I would also love to hear them coming from a Republican running to represent me. In this case, they come from Lt. Colonel William "Bill" Russell, who is running for the Pennsylvania 12^th Congressional District. You may ask, "Who is the current Representative from the 12^th District, Pennsylvania?" That would be John Murtha. If you follow politics, and know who Murtha is, you are probably thinking that Lt. Colonel Russell doesn't stand a chance. Let me give you a few facts Michelle Malkin reported on today:

• The Second Quarter reports brought some troubling news for Rep. Murtha: Russell outraised him 6 to 1. By the way, active duty military personnel (such as Lt. Colonel Russell) are not allowed to actively campaign until they complete their military service

• A judge ruled in February that Russell had failed to collect enough signatures to get on the primary ballot. However, more than 4,000 write in votes later, Russell's name is now on the general election ballot.

• On the morning of September 11, 2001, Russell and his pregnant wife were working at the Pentagon. They both escaped unharmed.

• Lt. Colonel Russell has served for 28 years in Active and Reserve service. This includes six tours in hostile fire zones. He is a veteran of both Iraq wars.

Went I went to the William Russell for Congress website, I kept finding more and more reasons to support the Lt. Colonel over John Murtha. Murtha is as corrupt as they come, and even some Democrats are tired of him. During the write in campaign, Russell had to get 1000 votes to get on the ballot. He got 4,000. He also got an additional 1,000 Democratic write in votes!

I don't ask my readers to contribute to a political campaign very often. Michelle Malkin points out that the bulk of his donations during the 6:1 route of Murtha were $50 or less. If you are thinking of contributing to a campaign this year, this is the one. Lt. Colonel Russell can't actively campaign until September 1^st, so anything you can spare ($5, $15, $20 or more) would help him out, and may put a corrupt politician out of a job.

Democrats and Oil Just Don't Mix.

It would be hard for anyone alive not to know that gas prices are at an all time high. I would bet a gallon of gas that gas prices are going to factor big in the election this year. Everyone running for election or re-election this year is going to have to address the price of oil.

So, what do we do about the price of gas? To solve any problem, we must first find what may be the cause or causes of said problem. If the Republicans have any brains, they will make the argument that gas prices are directly the result of a Democratic Congress. Don't believe me? Sit back and prepare to be dazzled.

I did a little homework (something most members of Congress and the Senate fail to do). The price of a gallon of gas on January 22, 2001 was $1.46 per gallon. On June 9th, 2008, the price of a gallon of gas is $3.98. Today, most people are placing the average price of gas around $4.00 or $4.05 per gallon. It would be easy to look at this and say, "Well, we have two oil men in the White House, it must be their fault!" Of course, one would think that oil men would understand perfectly well how oil prices work. But lets dig a little deeper (no oil pun intended).

Over the course of the Bush Administration, the price has gone up 63% over seven years! That translates into 9% per year! Before my Democratic fans get outraged, I have more numbers to share. The price of gas on January 23, 2006 was $2.31 per gallon. That translates into an increase of $1.67 since Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Reid, and the Democratic Congress took over. Again, on a per year basis, Pelosi and Reid can claim credit for a 21% increase per year in gas prices! And, worse still, if we give Bush credit for all the gas increase before the Democratic Congress, he gets 86 cents over 5 years. I think Pelosi and Reid still win.

Some of you out there might think I am skewing numbers to my own benefit. Let me end with a question based on what the Democrats want to do, and what most Republicans want to do.

Question 1 (Democratic Plan). Many Democrats are in favor of a "wind fall profit tax" on oil companies. What do you think this would do to the price of a gallon of gas?

Question 2 (Republican Plan). Most Republicans are in favor of domestic drilling. If Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Clinton had a press conference tomorrow and said they would remove all obstacles to domestic exploration of oil, what do you think would happen to the price of a gallon of gas?