Sunday, January 31, 2010



And, Now, for Some Good News

Alan Caruba—1/28/10

After the State of the Union speech and the instant analyses on television and the punditry that follows on newspaper's editorial pages and, of course, on news/opinion websites and countless blogs and forums, the tendency is likely to dwell on how it portends more of the same bad policies.

It is obvious to the "experts" and to the general population that this President and Congress has burdened the nation with an insane amount of debt, something in the area of $330,000 for every man, woman and child. Babies born today will arrive with that burden. That's not what American's voted for in 2008. That's not what they wanted or expected in 2009.

That, however, is what they got and what they will continue to get in the contemptuous nonsense that pours forth out of the White House like an infected wound. However, the triage of the American economy and future began in Virginia, in New Jersey, and in Massachusetts. The next bailouts you will read about between now and next November will be Democrat members of Congress announcing they will not run again.

"Après moi le déluge" is attributed to the French king, Louis XV (1710-1774) who bankrupted his nation and would cost his grandson, Louis XVI, his head in a revolution (1789-1799) that went so badly that Napolean eventually took over and annointed himself Emperor. If only Barack Hussein Obama had the old king's grasp of economics and history.

The Tea Party movement is the modern equivalent of the American Revolution that went quite well, albeit taking some seven years to wear out the British resolve to hold onto its colonies. Within six months, the new nation had signed agreements with Great Britain to get trade going again though, in 1812, there was another disagreement involving a bit of military conflict. Since then, we have been good friends through thick and thin.

I cite all this history because the history of America, along with a careful analysis of its demographics, its population, native-born and naturalized, portends that, once we get past the megolomania and Marxist ideology of the current pretender to the throne...oops, I mean to the Oval Office, America is ideally poised to dig itself out of its current financial difficulties.

And that, dear reader, is the good news!

An excellent analysis of the current and future demographics of the United States appears in an issue of World Affairs. It is titled, "Undying Creed: The Acceleration of Our Exceptionalism", written by Joel Kotkin, a scholar at the New America Foundation.

It is important to keep in mind that America has had some really bad and mediocre Presidents in his short history. We are dealing with only the 44th one and he, like several of his predecessors will be assigned to the chapter titled "What Were We Thinking?"

Kotkin has looked at the population trends around the world in places like Europe, China, India, Japan and South Korea, and come up with some very interesting conclusions. Unlike these nations, the American population has a higher rate of fertility, assuring new generations to be raised with values that have led to what is called our national "exceptionalism."

Americans work hard. Harder, in fact, than most other nations and the reason is that we believe that hard work will lead to a better life, not one on the dole from the government. We attract skilled labor from nations that don't offer as much opportunity as we do. And, while our population is expected to grow to at least 100 million people by 2050, it will not consist of a largely aging population in places like Europe and the Far East that will outnumber its more productive members. Even our older people will continue to work well beyond "retirement" age and are likely to become a rich source of volunteerism.

By contrast, China's one-child policy will, by 2050, leave it with a rapidly aging population. Russia is already on the precipice of both a diminishing and aging population. Japan, too, has an aging population and no real diversity.

Then, too, Americans like raising children, have a strong, commonly shared moral code, and religious values. According to a recent Pew Global Attitudes survey, about sixty percent of Americans think religion is "very important." A Marxist will never understand this.

While we just avoided a total financial meltdown (largely by infusing billions into several banking institutions---eagerly paying it back) the real beneficiaries have been the many local banks that avoided the high risk loans and other investments. All across America they are having the assets of failed banks transferred to their administration as the government steps in to avoid the horrors that befell Americans in the 1930s. This also accounts in part for the slowdown in credit and loans by both large and smaller banks as they get themselves back to normal, prudent banking standards.

Contrast the Recession's impact with Japan whose "rate of decline in Gross National Product was three times that of the U.S., while Germany and Britain contracted by twice as much." America's economy is simply more resilient. We have lost a great number of jobs, but they will return more swiftly than in other nations. If, of course, the government gets out of the way!

By 2050, Americans will look different. The infusion of Asians and Hispanics will lead to a new kind of American civilization that will exist "across the entirety of human cultures and racial types. No other advanced populous country will enjoy this kind of ethnic diversity."

Kotkin predicts that America "will probably not be the hegemonic giant it remains today, but the America of 2050 may well evolve into the one truly transcendent superpower in terms of our society, technology, and culture."

By the time 2010 ends, President Obama will have been politically neutered. Power will shift to a chastened Republican Party whose new leaders will renew the fundamental principles of conservatism and redirect national priorities from the ideologies of liberalism to a pragmatic determination to meet our present and future needs.

John Quincy Adams said, "Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air." We have seen courage in the town hall meetings, in the Tea Party events, in elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. We have it in spades!

Alan Caruba is a widely syndicated commentator. His weekly columns and more can be found on his blog, Warning Signs, and he is the founder of "National Anxiety Center", a clearinghouse for information about "scare campaigns" designed to influence public opinion and policy. Caruba founded the Center in 1990, having been a business and science writer for many years, in addition to being a public relations counselor who has worked with many leading think tanks, corporations, and trade associations.

Alan is founding member of the National Book Critics Circle; he also posts a monthly report on new books at Bookviews. In addition, he is a longtime member of the Society of Professional Journalists, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the National Association of Science Writers.

A popular guest on radio and television, Caruba is available to address groups on the topics about which he writes, including environmentalism, energy, education, national security and sovereignty, property rights, and Islam.


“Starving the Monkeys: Fight Back Smarter” is about the struggle of the creative, productive members of society against the parasitic masses that author Tom Baugh refers to as the monkey collective. Monkeys are the looters and moochers who essentially dine from the plates of the producers through the tax and legal structures they have put in place. Baugh contends that the vast army of collectivist monkeys would literally starve if left to their own devices.

“Starving the Monkeys” refers to Baugh’s recommendation that the producers strictly limit the monkey diet, by withholding their productive efforts on behalf of the collective. Not by refusing to pay taxes, but by temporarily throttling back on their productive output, and thereby hastening the fall of the monkey collective, which is even now teetering on the brink. He advises retreating into a personal “Galt’s Gulch” until after the impending financial and social collapse, and then emerging with one’s intellectual and productive tools intact. In the former Soviet Union, beleaguered individualists referred to this as “internal emigration.” Whether this strategy will be taken up by enough producers to have an effect on the collective remains to be seen, but it reflects the “Atlas Shrugged” meme that is echoing loudly today, as employers hold off on new hiring for just one example.

Although this is a book designed to help you survive what may be our imminent financial Armageddon, you won’t find recommendations on long-term food storage or home defense firearms. Other recent titles cover that ground, such as Fernando Aguirre’s “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse,” and John Rawles’s “How to Survive the End of the World As We Know It.” According to Baugh, by far the most critical survival weapon is the one between your ears. This book is all about honing your mental edge to razor sharpness for the purpose of surviving the collapse intact.

Starving the Monkeys is not an easy read. It’s extremely challenging, not only to political correctness but to many popular dogmas, including some religious ones. No sacred cow or ox is left ungored. I guarantee that thin-skinned feminists will be highly offended. If you have a low tolerance for seeing your pet beliefs or heroes under attack, this is not the book for you. For example, if you think that Lincoln was our greatest president, you will certainly not enjoy this book, to say the least. I picked the ingrained American devotion to “Honest Abe” as one example among countless others. Be warned. Baugh comes after numerous cultural and social beliefs and traditions with a steel crowbar, to pry them apart and analyze their weaknesses as he sees them. In fairness, he turns the same critical analysis on himself.

So why should you read such a problematic and often uncomfortable book, by a consistently prickly and acerbic (but always hilarious) writer? Simple. For the equally consistent brilliance of thought displayed. You may disagree vehemently with many of Baugh’s suppositions (as I certainly did), but you cannot deny the breadth and power of his thinking. The single chapter titled “The Idea Factory” is worth the entire price of the book, and so are several others.



Democrats fall as fast as Nixon Republicans in 1974

By: Michael Barone

Senior Political Analyst

Republican Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts' special Senate election was for Democratic leaders a moment that can be described in two words, of which I will only print the first here, which is "oh."

Left-wing bloggers, liberal columnists and the stray Nobel Prize winner-turned polemicist are all urging Democrats in Congress to pass, somehow, some way, a health care bill, and many of them are calling for a second and even larger stimulus bill.

But Democrats in Congress are replying, as politicians are wont to do when challenged by party wingers, that their name is on the ballot. New York Times editorialists can opine that the Massachusetts result had nothing to do with opposition to health care, but their life's work is not in peril.

Democratic officeholders know theirs is. Some are heading for the hills. Four well-regarded veteran congressmen announced their surprise retirements in December; two longtime Democratic senators folded in January. Family concerns have suddenly become very pressing.

Others are holding out against the bloggers. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "unease would be the gentlest word" to describe House Democrats' refusal to pass the Senate health care bill. Her elegant ears must have burned in that caucus meeting.

Sens. Evan Bayh and Blanche Lincoln, up for re-election in Indiana and Arkansas and facing by far the most negative poll numbers in their long political careers, let it be known that there was no way they would support the reconciliation process, requiring only 51 votes, to jam through a health care bill.

But more than health care legislation is in trouble. I have not seen a party's fortunes collapse so suddenly since Richard Nixon got caught up in the Watergate scandal and a president who carried 49 states was threatened with impeachment and removal from office.

The victory of a Democrat in the special election to fill Vice President Gerald Ford's House seat in February 1974 was a clear indication that the bottom had fallen out for the Republican Party. Brown's victory last week looks as if something similar has happened to the Democratic Party.

Many people ask me whether the Democrats are in as much trouble as they were in 1994. The numbers suggest they are in much deeper trouble, at least at this moment. Back in 1994 I wrote the first article in a nonpartisan publication suggesting that the Republicans had a serious chance to win the 40 seats necessary for a majority in the House. That article appeared in U.S. News & World Report in July 1994.

This year political handicapper Charlie Cook is writing in January, six months earlier in the cycle, that Republicans once again would capture the 40 seats they need for a majority if the House elections were held today. I concur. The generic vote question -- which party's candidates would you vote for in House elections -- is at least as favorable to Republicans as it was in the last month before the election in 1994.

Nothing is entirely static in politics, and opinions could change. Barack Obama could shift to the center, as Bill Clinton did after his party's thumping in 1994; the economy could visibly recover and start producing new jobs; a crisis like 9/11 and a good presidential response could boost the president and his party as 9/11 boosted George W. Bush and his party in 2001 and 2002.

But I sense that something more fundamental is at stake. Obama in his first year adopted the priorities of what pundit Joel Kotkin, a Democrat himself, calls the "gentry liberals." Obama called for addressing long-term issues like health care and supposed climate change. He and his economic advisers, like many analysts across the political spectrum, underestimated the rise in unemployment. Talk about "green jobs" has proved to be just talk.

Obama's conciliatory foreign policy and his attempts to mollify terrorists have produced no perceptible positive responses and run against the grain of most American voters. Questioning the Christmas bomber for just 50 minutes and then reading him his Miranda rights has left Obama open to charges that his policies fail to protect the American people.

The cacophony of conflicting advice from left-wing bloggers, pundits and elected officials is a sign of a party in disarray, its central premises undermined by events. Massachusetts may have been a wake-up call enabling the Democrats to recover. But right now they're tossing and turning.

Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on



They Still Don`t Get It!

No Government Healthcare Reform

J. D. Longstreet—1/29/10

The dunces in the Congress, both houses, apparently still do not get the message the American people have been sending them loudly and clearly over the past few months. Even AFTER the election of the 41st vote against ObamaCare, they insist the American people want healthcare reform.

They are absolutely wrong!

As an American "people," myself, I can attest to the fact that we want nothing to do with government-run, government controlled, government sponsored, so-called universal healthcare, otherwise known as ObamaCare.

Some leftists organizations who pretend and, in some cases, presume to speak for their membership, and for the American people as a whole, insist to the Congress that we DO want government sponsored and/or government-run healthcare reform. THEY, TOO, ARE WRONG!

What we want is for the government to get the hell out of it and allow the free market to work in the healthcare industry as it does in any and every kind of business in America. At least it USED to before the socialist in the White House, and those in Congress, began to meddle in the business affairs of the country.

The Democrats are busy looking for a way, anyway, to save face for their president, Obama. They KNOW his presidency, so far, has been a failure and will be recorded by history as such. But if they can get a bill, any bill, he can sign that will provide the appearance of having accomplished something, anything, in his first year in office, it will, they think, counter balance, or mitigate, history's record of Obama's failure as a President.

They are partly correct in thinking that. I mean, how often do you read, see, or hear, when references are made to former President Bill Clinton, that he was impeached? EVER? That's what I thought.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said a decision on exactly how to proceed should not be long in coming. Schumer said: "That doesn't mean we're going to sit here and twiddle our thumbs for weeks and weeks and weeks, but it'll take a few days to figure out what the best solution is," he said.

A word of wisdom to the good Senator from New York: "Senator, LEAVE IT ALONE! DROP IT and LET IT GO!"

It IS conceivable the Dems will use their old trick of Incrementalism to get ObamaCare passed, anyway, right in front of our eyes, without us seeing it. They will take the bill apart, literally, and pass bits of it, one bit at a time, until they have ObamaCare passed into law. In fact, Pelosi has said: "One way or another, those areas of agreement that we have, will have to be advanced, whether it's by passing the Senate bill with any changes that can be made or just taking pieces of it. "

We must be even more vigilant, now, than ever. The Democratic Party is wounded and a wounded animal is at its most dangerous when it is hurt and afraid.

The Obama Regime has not given up on securing major healthcare reform. They have yet to grasp the truth that the American people are far more concerned over the country's economic mess than in government-run healthcare - ObamaCare.

Many democrats are fearful the President will take a stand for a renewed effort at passing ObamaCare this year in his State of the Union Address. Many in the President's own party want ObamaCare scuttled and off the board, completely. They are taking heat from their constituents back home to do something about the economy and the abysmal unemployment figures. They have begun to understand the American people already have their priorities straight. Fix the economy FIRST! Do it NOW!

The "Far Left" is pouring on the coal and stoking the fires under the dems to stay with ObamaCare until they get it passed -- anyway they can. The Far Left has expended a huge amount of money, energy, and effort in their campaign to reshape public opinion toward government-run healthcare. They are giving democrats in the House and the Senate "fits." The pressure is intense. But, hey, the politicians asked for the job!

The old expression: "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings!" certainly applies here. Actually, try as I might, I can't even see the fat lady in the wings!

No, I don't think it is over. Maybe it is my natural paranoia, but I cannot get past the feeling that the dems will continue to press ObamaCare in hopes of wearing down the resolve of the American people and finally, finally, get it passed into law.

Now, I have a question to ask: When did the relationship between the American people and their government become adversarial?? I can't put my finger on a date, but I think the cause is the absence of term limits. When a politician stays 18, 20, or 24 years in Washington, DC, instead of at home with his friends and relatives and the people he purportedly represents, he/she loses touch. Caught up in the grandiosity of the nation's capitol he/she begins to think in elitist terms. Consciously, or not, he/she BECOMES a member of the ruling elite. When that happens the ties between him/her and his/her constituents is severed. He/she no longer represents the constituent. He/she represents the government. He/she, and his former constituents, are then adversaries. That is where we find ourselves in modern day America -- us against them.

The American people are angry, angrier than I have ever seen them. If you think the anger of the Massachusetts voters, in a BLUE state, no less, was hot, test the white-hot heat of rage in the RED states!

There are nine months, and a few days, until the Mid-Term Election in November. If the election were held today there would be a massacre of incumbents at the polls. As if stands today, even if the rage cools somewhat in the intervening months, incumbents can still expect a political blood bath at the polls this fall. Americans do not suffer fools lightly.

Back on January 12, 1848, Abraham Lincoln said the following: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit." Those words should be engraved in stone over the doors to the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, and most certainly, over the door to the Oval Office.

J. D. Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in "America First".

He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an "in the field" and "on-air" news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.

Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to "old Lutheranism" to express and exercise his faith.


I was almost tempted not to comment on the president's state of the union address, except to point out that we know by now that a Barack Obama speech doesn't actually do anything.

Obama's speeches have received such frequent and exaggerated praise for their supposed eloquence that it is easy to miss the fact that they do not actually persuade voters or change calculations in Congress. Consider his last address to a joint session of Congress, in which he argued for his health care bill. The speech produce a small bump in the polls—which lasted about four days, after which the public's approval for the bill continued to slide and support in Congress remained anemic.

Wednesday night's speech was no different. Afterwards, centrist Democrats in Congress declared that he had done nothing to change their stand on the health care bill. As for the public, RCP's Sean Trende describes a television focus group's reaction:

CNN as always had its focus group with their “magic dials,” where the Democrats, Independents, and Republicans could register their feelings toward the president. CNN showed a clip where the president began talking about health care reform. He was going along at about what looked like 50% with R's and I's, and 90% among D's. The second the words “health care” came out of his mouth, the numbers among R's and I's dipped about 10 points. This suggests that he hasn't made much progress in turning around the public's views of health care reform.

Moreover, the speech went on: “Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.”

During this segment, the dials for Independents and Republicans plummeted. Republicans were around 20%, while Independents were actually around 0%.

It's amazing how quickly Obama has faded from political phenom to someone who enjoys zero support from independent voters on his central legislative priority. I don't think Trende quite understands the reason for this total rejection of Obama by independents. He blames it on Obama being too informal and "folksy." In fact, the line "Now let's clear a few things up" was not delivered in a folksy or self-deprecating manner. (When has Obama ever been either of those things?) It doesn't come across as clearly in print as it did in its actual delivery on television, but I thought the line sounded testy, impatient, condescending. The basic attitude was: you people are too stupid or venal to understand what I said the first ten times I said it, so let me lecture you once more.

That was the overall tone of the speech, and it is why this speech just might do something: it will make independent voters hate Barack Obama for his insufferable paternalist attitude.

Obama's paternalism begins with his view of what the American people want from government. "I know the anxieties that are out there right now…. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children—asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work." That's his view of the American people: we are like children, writing in to supplicate him for jobs and other goodies to be delivered from Washington. We are "hurting" and "need help," Obama tells us, and because the help isn't coming fast enough, we are "frustrated" and "angry."

In Obama's alternate universe, this is his diagnosis of the voters' swing against the Democrats, seen most clearly last week in Massachusetts. It is not the outrage of adults who are expressing their refusal to be made dependent on the state; it is a temper tantrum delivered by children who are frustrated that Washington isn't doing enough to provide for their needs.

Most of all, Obama regards us as children in our mental functioning. Why is the health-care bill failing? According to Obama, it is because it is "a complex issue" and he has not done a better job of "explaining it more clearly" to us. Perhaps he should use smaller words next time, to fit our limited vocabularies and short attention spans.

But he assures us that "health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo." I had to rewind my DVR and listen to that line again when I heard it. Did the president of the United States just ask the American people to revise their opinion of his health care bill by deferring to the authority of "experts"? The ultimate political power in this country is not wielded, thankfully, by "experts." It is wielded by the American people themselves, who undertake their own effort to understand and evaluate legislation. And it should be obvious by now that they have heard plenty of the president's explanations; he's been on television endlessly touting the bill for the better part of a year. The problem for the president is that the American people have already educated themselves on this bill, and they have arrived at their conclusion.

The American people are not as stupid as Obama assumes. When he boasts that "we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person," they know that the Democrats have increased spending by a trillion dollars and proposed to do so by a trillion more—and that the American people will eventually have to pay for it.

Or consider the reaction to his bogus "freeze" on government spending, which would only limit about 14% of the budget, letting the rest of it grow like mad. When Obama added that this proposal wouldn't even take effect until 2011, spontaneous laughter burst out in the chamber. In an ad-libbed response, Obama swiveled his head toward the Republicans, narrowed his eyes in contempt, and shot back, "That's how budgeting works."

He was referring to the fact that Congress passes each year's official budget in the previous year, so that the budget passed this year will be the budget for 2011. But the people remember that a Democratic Congress had no trouble throwing out the official budget when it came time to spend $700 billion on the TARP bailout, or another $800 billion on the "stimulus." The American people understand "how budgeting works" because they manage their own budgets, and when the downturn came, they didn't have the luxury of waiting until next year to cut back. That's why they laughed at Obama's "Lord give me chastity, but not yet" approach to fiscal restraint. And his sarcastic response just lets them know that he isn't listening to them and doesn't think they have anything worthwhile to say.

That brings us to the speech's most stunning expression of contempt for the American voter: "But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know." Let him know? How do you suppose we ought to let the president know what we think? Perhaps we should all show up at town hall meetings, or hold giant rallies across the nation and on the DC mall. Perhaps pollsters could fan out across the country to ask us our opinions. Perhaps Republicans in Congress could propose alternative legislation. Perhaps we could even hold an election—let's make it easy for the president and hold it in left-leaning Massachusetts—that would serve as a referendum on health care. Of course, we did all of those things, and the president made it abundantly clear that he doesn't give a damn what we have to say.

He also made it clear, more subtly, that he isn't really talking to us anyway. Here is how Obama described people's discontent with his administration: "I campaigned on the promise of change—change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change—or at least, that I can deliver it. But remember this—I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone." This is not addressed to the general public or to independent voters. They have not been concerned about his failure to deliver "change"; they've been concerned that he wants the wrong kind of change. So who is the audience for this speech? He's talking to his "base" on the left, trying to shore up their support. And he's talking to Democrats in Congress: "I know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills." So his main recommendation is that the left should band together to overrule the verdict of the voters and shove the health care bill through anyway.

I don't think he'll succeed. But he will persist long enough to expose his contempt for the American people and thoroughly repel them.

This is what I predicted back in July of 2008, at the height of Obamamania, in a TIA Daily item titled, "Why We Will Hate Barack Obama." As I wrote then, "we will all grow to hate Obama, on a personal, visceral level, if he is ever allowed to control the levers of power. The reason is that he is one of the most high-handed, self-aggrandizing, arrogant political leaders we have ever seen…. Once we have to deal with Obama's sense of personal entitlement every day, boy is it going to grate on our nerves."

Is it grating on yours yet? I thought so.


I also wanted to say a few words about the Republican response to Obama's speech, delivered by newly sworn-in Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

What struck me about McDonnell's speech is how it reflects the tension between the Republican establishment and the tea party movement. Reflecting the cautiously moderate, Pragmatist establishment, the speech was filled with vague altruist bromides. But peeking out occasionally, and somewhat incongruously, were a few elements of the ideas driving the tea party movement—serious, radical ideas about the nature and role of government.

Here is the usual "moderate" statist mush: "All Americans should have the opportunity to find and keep meaningful work, and the dignity that comes with it…. [B]ringing new jobs and more opportunities to our citizens is the top priority of my administration." And here is glimpse of the tea party ideas:

It was Thomas Jefferson who called for "a wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ...and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." He was right….
The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level. Without reform, the excessive growth of government threatens our very liberty and prosperity.

Restoring the "proper, limited role of government" in opposition to a government that "threatens our very liberty"? Where did he get those ideas?

But these were just a few lines, and overall it was the centrist bromides (mostly about "equality of opportunity") that won out.

Republicans love to talk about the example of Reagan, and they all remember the famous televised speech on the choice between liberty and statism that launched Reagan's national political career. But they hardly ever actually draw from that example. Reagan certainly was "folksy" and connected to the American people—but not through such trivialities as McDonnell's opening reference to his sons watching SportsCenter. Reagan didn't connect to the American people by showing that he shared their interest in sports. He did it by showing them that he shared their interest in liberty.

That's what the Republicans need today, and it's a shame they couldn't produce it now, when the time is so ripe for it.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal

Saturday, January 30, 2010


Obama Says He's Not a Bolshevik, Communist Party Thinks Otherwise

January 29, 2010


RUSH LIMBAUGH: So Obama says he's not a Bolshevik but, folks, the Communist Party USA loves Obama. Here are just some sample headlines. "CPUSA and Obama Platforms are Identical." August 8th, 2008: "Forget for the moment about Bill Ayers and Obama's other Communist friends and mentors of the distant past," and they go on to cite how his agenda and theirs are platforms, Obama's and the CPUSA, are identical.

Look, we had some fun with this in the first hour but Osama has come out and started spouting every talking point on global warming from Algore and Nobel Peace Prize-winning United Nations to Barack Obama: Beating up on America, America is destroying the planet, America didn't sign Kyoto; Osama's signaling his desire to destroy USA, its economy, western civilization, capitalism. It's just what the Communist Party USA wants, just what Obama is doing. Here's another: CPUSA: Obama Will change USA Forever," and they're happy about it! August 7th, 2008: "Communist Party CPUSA Endorses Obama."

"Communist Party USA Hails Obama Victory." "'From the understandably elated editors of the Communist Party USA's people's weekly, formerly the Daily Worker, July 1st, 2009: 'Communist Party USA Eelebrates Obama's First Six Months.'" "Communist Party USA to Take the Streets for Obama," August 10th, 2009. This is to oppose the tea parties and the town hall meetings that were going on. "Communist Party USA Honors SEIU and the AFSCME Union Leaders." "CPUSA Speech Lays Out Obama Agenda." I mean, it's right there for people to see; and these are not, you know, play communists. They're not all that powerful here. Well, they are actually with Obama in office. But he says that he's not a Bolshevik. "I'm not. I'm not an ideologue," but he most definitely is.


Read the Background Material...

Sweetness & Light: CPUSA And Obama Platforms Are Identical

Sweetness & Light: Communist Party USA Hails Obama Victory

Sweetness & Light: CPUSA Honors SEIU, AFSCME 'Leaders'



Glenn Beck's Revolutionary Holocaust

Here is last Friday's (1/22/10) special from the Glenn Beck Show. The whole thing is well worth watching as it explodes numerous historical myths. It begins by documenting the fact that the Nazi's were philosophically and historically part of the left. It then continues by discussing several Communist genocides of the twentieth century. Although because of time limitations, Beck is only able to skim the surface of Leftist crimes.



Friday, January 29, 2010

Could Obama Be INSANE?

Bill Turner , The Patriotic Resistance

As I sat listening to B. Hussein Obama give the strangest state of the union address I have ever heard, several thoughts came to mind about what he was saying. I brushed the thoughts aside now and then to yell, “You lie” at the television, but he did not stop. The alleged media pundits drove me further to the brink by saying the president was “doubling down” on his agenda. He didn’t double down, which implies he would have some money left over. He doesn’t. B. Insane Obama went all in Wednesday night. The Obama administration is behind me and Wednesday night I felt them there.

Back to the thoughts that Dear Leader so kindly inspired last night:

* Is he out of touch with America?
* Is he so arrogant he does not care how Americans feel?
* Are his aides hiding reality from him?
* If he is aware how America feels, how does he get his pants on?

Is B. Insane Obama out of touch with America?

The initial response is “Yes” but it isn’t that simple. The seventy minute chastising of anyone and everything that speaks or has spoken out against Obama and his progressive agenda felt his wrath. The Supreme Court Justices were chastised by the arrogant one for supporting the Constitution. He even lied to do it. Because the GOP is listening to the voters, Obama said they lack leadership. Want another example? How about the commission to limit banker pay and tax them, retroactively, for having taken money from the feds (which is Un-Constitutional). The commission is made up of folks (all of them) with ties to Goldman-Sachs.

The Liar in Chief showed his arrogance by chastising the Senate for defeating his bill to spend more money, to create a commission on government spending, that won’t even start until 2011 and has no teeth. Congress controls spending, taxing and the deficit. That whole “Constitution” thing just keeps getting in the way.

The Tony Soprano moment of the speech came when he said he would issue an executive order to circumvent the legislative leg of the people's government. Wednesday night the man-child president showed his fangs multiple times and it was ugly. He insists on forcing health care on America, despite the fact that the majority of Americans do not want the drugs he is dealing. And, despite the fact that global whining is last on the list of things Obama should be working on, so say the American people, Obama states he will force his green agenda (Watermelon Communism-Green on the outside and red on the inside) and carbon reduction strategy on America, while spending money to create jobs. Nice. The carbon reduction agenda that Dear Leader has embraced will cause America to lose so many jobs, his fundamental transformation of America will be complete. America will become a third world country with Obama as the tin pot dictator.

Are B. Insane Obama’s aides hiding reality from him? If this is true, he cannot be president. Arrogant, autistic, ignorant people who will not check things for themselves do not meet the mental capacity challenges of the oval office.

Let us examine some more of the direct and infamous lies Obama told:

* Spending freeze – Associated Press states it will save less than 1% of all deficit monies the next ten years. Remember, the Liar in Chief scoffed at doing this when John McCain suggested it during the campaign.

* Health care – Obama said the Democratic plan would allow people to keep their insurance and their doctors, but the bill doesn’t guarantee either. Their plan has massive cuts to Medicare Advantage, which would definitely affect coverage of a large portion of America’s seniors and disabled.

* Lobbyists – Obama has not “excluded” lobbyists from his administration; he’s hired over a dozen for key posts, and the AP notes seven of those waivers were for White House posts. Obama called for restrictions on lobbyist contributions, but those already exist.

The lying liar also said that we killed more terrorists last year than in 2008. A blatant lie. He also stated the START talks with Russia were going well. Putin said Russia will not reduce nukes, Obama gave him his lunch money and said okay. Epic failure. And then there is the complete re-write of American history by the Indonesian Wonder Boy:

Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but the Con Law professor may want to retake his high school civics class. Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from Democrats. In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years. And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.

It takes a president with a lot of guts to stand up and lie for seventy minutes to the American people. Unless he is a taco shy of the combo plate. Or, is clueless about what is really going on and is just trotted out to speak, a lot. B. Insane Obama is obviously a combination of things: Pathological liar, narcissist, megalomaniac, gutsy and determined. His determination to ruin America is the thing we should all fear the most. It makes me wonder what the over/under is on his being led out of the White House in a straight jacket crying like a little girl?


Obama Verdict: Insane

The Market Ticker
Saturday, January 3. 2009
by Karl Denninger

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result" - Albert Einstein

One of the brightest men ever to walk the earth.

President Obama (in a bit more than two weeks) doesn't even make it into the bush leagues compared to Mr. Einstein.

Here's his latest:

“These are America’s problems, and we must come together as Americans to meet them with the urgency this moment demands,” he said today in his weekly radio address. “If we don’t act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.”

Well, you got it half right Mr. Obama.

The half being that these are America's problems, and we must meet them with urgency.

The half you got wrong is that your prescription will make it better.


"The incoming 44th president, back on the U.S. mainland after a 12-day vacation in Hawaii, is working on a package of tax cuts and spending on infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and transit systems, to stimulate growth and create 3 million jobs. Eighty percent of these will be in the private sector, he said. "

Uh huh. And where will you get the money?

Oh, you'll simply load on more debt, right?

Isn't that how we got here in the first place - spurring on more debt after the 00-03 Tech Market implosion?


You also have recorded history on this, which says it doesn't work. Japan, for instance, as the WSJ points out:

"Not to spoil the party, but this is not a new idea. Keynesian "pump-priming" in a recession has often been tried, and as an economic stimulus it is overrated. The money that the government spends has to come from somewhere, which means from the private economy in higher taxes or borrowing. The public works are usually less productive than the foregone private investment."

No kidding. Never mind that the debt remains left behind, and it continues to drag on the economy in perpetuity.

The problem is who you're listening to. People like Buffett, who should have (and could have) avoided a huge drawdown in Berkshire's value - but didn't. People like Geithner, who along with Bernanke know how to perform compound interest calculations, but simply didn't care during the 03-07 time frame.

Along with Paulson they supported the removal of leverage limits, repeal of Glass-Steagall and other regulatory "reforms" that effectively let the banking system place huge bets with non-existent capital - exactly identical to walking into a Casino in Vegas and writing worthless markers.

The only difference is that when you do that sort of thing in Vegas you either go to jail for fraud or Guido breaks your kneecaps.

In Washington DC you get made Treasury Secretary and are able to cash out $500 million smackers for yourself, tax free, then bill the Taxpayer for your obvious and blatant line of BS.

The people of this nation voted for change Mr. Obama, not "more of the same."

Yet "more of the same" is exactly what you're proposing when it comes to economic policy, even though if you are really as intelligent as you (and others) have claimed you know full well it won't work.

10% unemployment?

What you're doing here will guarantee 15% unemployment. Oh, perhaps not immediately, but I'm willing to wager you won't get to the end of your first and only term before this all comes crashing down on your head, and it may happen within the year.

You cannot solve the problems this economy has until the bad debt is forced into the open and is either paid down or defaulted, the liars are locked up for their crimes, the off-balance-sheet games are permanently halted and the laws that prevented this crap from happening are reinstated and, more importantly, enforced.

I've seen exactly none of that proposed by you sir, which tells me that instead of preparing for a better future ahead of myself and my family I should instead prepare for economic and political Armageddon, for the path you are on and the one your advisers are recommending to you is certain to lead to disaster.

Oh, and if you think The American People are going to fall for it, well, how do you say "good luck" in Japanese? Being lied to and bamboozled now for over 20 years, the people are waking up fast to the fact that folks like Madoff are not the exception - they're the rule - and that these scams, frauds and charlatans could only exist with not only a willful blind eye in Washington DC but with explicit involvement and complicity in the fraud.

Ultimately the Wizard of Oz is either forced to sheepishly admit the truth and do the right thing or he risks the people starting to pen documents that begin with the sentence "When in the course of human events......"

A Nation In Decline

Many politicians are asking the question today: "Why are the American People so angry?" The following may lend a clue to the clueless.

According to the annual "Index on Economic Freedom," produced by the Heritage Foundation, the United States now ranks 8th, just behind Canada. That's a drop of two full points since last year, and the largest drop of all nations in overall economic freedom. .

The index ranking is based on 10 measures of economic openness, regulatory efficiency, the rule of law, and competitiveness. The basic principles of economic freedom emphasized in the index are individual empowerment, equitable treatment and the promotion of competition.

According to the Heritage Index, the U.S. lost ground in seven of the ten categories. Losses were particularly significant in the areas of financial and monetary freedom and property rights. Driving it all were the massive bailouts, government intervention in such things are the auto and banking industries, and runaway environmental protection policies.

While the United States is among the "most declined" nations, Mexico ranks among the "most improved." The United States was once the bastion of economic and personal freedom for its citizens, making it the wealthiest economy and the highest standard of living in the world. Today, it has chosen to abandon that model of freedom, instead seeking economic security through government programs and controls.

As a result, our nation stands on the edge of economic collapse; more than 10% of our people are out of work; costs are skyrocketing, and goods and services are becoming harder to come by.

Socialism does not work. It robs the fruits of labor from one citizen to fill the pockets of another. It kills incentive. It demoralizes industrious people. And it leads to misery. Socialism combined with Fascist Corporatism (as in the current trend toward Public/Private Partnerships) creates government-sanctioned monopolies, giving the corporations the reins of power over government at the expense of the people. That is the model America has now chosen to follow.

The United States is on a path to destruction. In one year it's dropped two more points toward totalitarianism. The people feel the pain and are furious about it. And yet, the Obama Administration still thinks the anger and protests are just false products of the Republicans and Fox News. Astonishing.

See the complete Economic Freedom Index at

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation's leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, property rights and back-to-basics education. For over thirty years he has fought against government oppression.

In 1988 Tom established the American Policy Center (APC), an activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, VA. In 1992 Tom DeWeese became passionately involved in the fight for the preservation of American private property rights and against intrusive environmental regulations. He is also a recognized leader in the fight to preserve American national sovereignty from intrusive United Nations' policies on global governance. APC has also joined the fight to rescue American education from federal intrusion and the fight for American privacy rights against intrusive government data banks, and a national identification card.

He makes regular appearances on radio and television talk shows and has articles published in several national publications.

Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report You my contact Mr. DeWeese here.


Following Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts and the collapse of the Democrats' statist agenda in Congress, the greatest danger to the Republican Party is complacency, a sense that they are destined to be swept back into power in November.

In fact, the most brutal bloodletting in the near future may be within the Republican Party itself. The same "tea party" rebellion against big government that swept a Republican into power in far-left-leaning Massachusetts is also bringing forth insurgent challengers against establishment Republicans in the party's primaries. You can see that in the new poll that shows challenger Marco Rubio pulling ahead of Charlie Crist in the Republican Senate primary in Florida. Crist is no aloof, entitled Martha Coakley; he's a personable campaigner and a popular governor. Yet his support for President Obama's free-spending "stimulus" bill earned him the enmity of the "tea party" patriots. And in the last year, it is the tea party movement that has wielded the decisive balance of power in American politics.

I recently landed in the middle of another important skirmish: the wide-open Republican primary battle in Virginia's fifth congressional district. The story is a microcosm of the tension and mutual suspicion between the tea party movement and the Republican establishment.

As a resident of the Charlottesville area—Charlottesville is at the north end of VA-5—I have been involved with the Jefferson Area Tea Party group, and they asked me to be the moderator for the first of three tea-party-sponsored debates for the fifth district Republican candidates. (See video of the event on YouTube or listen to podcasts from WCHV, the local conservative talk radio station.)

In stepping into the role of moderator, I got a quick education in the political conflict within the right as it is playing out on the ground.

Among the tea partiers and the grassroots, there was already a sense that the party establishment was attempting to anoint a candidate from above, putting its thumb on the scale for Robert Hurt, a state senator from the south end of the district. Hurt has already been backed by House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, whose safe seat in the seventh district makes him a big wheel in Virginia GOP politics.

But like Crist, Hurt has a record that leaves him open to the charge of being a weak-kneed moderate—most notably a 2004 vote in the General Assembly for a $1.4 billion tax hike in the budget proposed by Democratic governor Tim Kaine. Hurt supporters point to his conservative record on other issues and dismiss this as "one vote from six years ago." But it is important to realize why that vote looms so large. The situation Hurt faced in 2004 is precisely what a freshman Republican congressman from the fifth district will face in 2011: congressional Republicans will be pressured to support higher spending and higher taxes for fear that "we will be blamed" for causing a legislative impasse. That's precisely what President Clinton did in 1996, it's what President Obama will probably do next year, and it's what Tim Kaine did in 2004. The tea parties want a candidate they can trust not to cave in under that kind of pressure. What they don't want is a congressman who acts like a beaten dog and doesn't believe he can win this kind of fight.

In December, the dissatisfaction of the grassroots with the establishment boiled over into a battle over whether the party should select its congressional candidate in a convention or a primary. A convention has its problems. Attendance at a convention is not necessarily representative of the district and could end up selecting a marginal candidate—the guy whose supporters are not the most numerous but the most fanatical—who ends up being weak in the general election. But a primary is seen as favoring Hurt, the well-funded, establishment-backed candidate. The fifth is a sprawling, mostly rural district where it is difficult to advertise without buying airtime in multiple markets, so a primary favors the candidate with more money and name recognition. And with six other candidates challenging Hurt from the right, the fear is that the non-Hurt vote will be hopelessly splintered, allowing him to gain a plurality while winning only a minority of the vote.

The whispered fear in the back of everyone's mind can be expressed in brief code: NY-23. That was the special election in upstate New York last year where local Republican Party county chairmen selected a liberal Republican state legislator, Dede Scozzafava, as the candidate to replace an outgoing Republican congressman. This invited a third party challenge from a much more conservative candidate, and the resulting internecine conflict ended up splitting the vote and getting a Democrat elected.

There are a lot of differences between VA-5 and NY-23. Hurt is far to the right of Scozzafava, there is no existing third party infrastructure (as there is with the Conservative Party in New York), and the candidate will not be selected by a bunch of old men in a smoke-filled room—there will be a primary on June 8. But here's where there is a similarity: if the non-Hurt vote is splintered and he wins with a minority of the vote, this could invite an independent challenge in the general election, either from one of the six rejected primary candidates, or from popular former Republican congressman Virgil Goode, who has not ruled out a run.

It is regrettably normal in an article like this to mention the establishment candidate—and then not mention the names of the six other challengers, which merely exacerbates the advantage given to the establishment candidate. So let me name the other challengers: Mike McPadden, Jim McKelvey, Ron Ferrin, Ken Boyd, Feda Morton, and Laurence Verga. And since I'm giving everyone's website, here is Senator Hurt's.

The incumbent, Democrat Tom Perriello, has no business winning re-election. He was voted into office in 2008, the best year for Democrats in three decades, by a margin of less than 750 votes. With the swing back to the right in the last year, he ought to be finished—unless the vote on the right gets split.

In this environment, you would think the establishment candidate would be assiduously courting the "tea party" grassroots, gaining their support or at least blunting their opposition. You would be wrong. Until recently, Hurt has been driving most of the tea party groups away.

Which brings me to the debate I moderated on January 22. According to debate organizer Mark Lloyd, of the Lynchburg tea party group, he initially secured Hurt's commitment for this date back in November, going out of his way to accommodate Hurt's schedule in the General Assembly. But then later the Hurt campaign started to make sounds about backing out, which they did officially a few days before the debate.

I'll admit that as moderator of the event I might be biased, but I think this was a huge political error. Grumblings were already in the air that Robert Hurt cared more for the endorsement of the party establishment than for the approval of the grass roots, and this seemed to confirm it. The explanations from the Hurt campaign have been vague and frankly unconvincing. Campaign manager Sean Harrison told me on Tuesday that Hurt didn't attend because of "prior legislative commitments," but it's hard to imagine what these would be at 7:00 pm on a Friday, on a day when the General Assembly ended its session at 2:00 pm. And I wasn't able to get a clear answer from the campaign about what Senator Hurt actually was doing that evening that was more important than the tea-party-sponsored debate.

In short, the grassroots concluded that Hurt was deliberately stiff-arming them. One example alone will give you an idea of the reaction of the tea party grassroots. Charlottesville tea party activist Carole Thorpe, who very ably managed the logistics of the event, stayed up the night before making a cardboard cut-out of Senator Hurt, which she placed in one of the seats at the forum as a visual reminder of his absence. It was such a striking image that the Charlottesville Daily Progress put it on their front page—a big picture on the middle of the front page, above the fold.

The Hurt campaign seemed to think he could skip the tea party event and no one would particularly notice or remember. Instead, everyone who even glanced at the front page of the local paper knows that Robert Hurt blew off the tea party movement. For a Republican politician running for office in the Year of the Tea Party, that's a political debacle.

I've heard from the local tea party organizers that the Hurt campaign has suddenly become much more conciliatory towards them, making a firm commitment for two future tea-party-sponsored debates. But the damage has already been done. And meanwhile, Hurt's competitors got the field to themselves to increase their name recognition and woo the support of the tea partiers.

Do not underestimate the impact this could have on the race. The tea party movement has mobilized a large number of totally new political activists. The two organizers of the January 22 debate are typical. Neither is or ever has been a professional politico; Mark Lloyd is a manager with a well-drilling company, while Carole Thorpe is a stay-at-home mom and amateur thespian. Both have long-standing political convictions, and both have been involved in politics in a low-level, sporadic way, volunteering at phone banks or polling places. But now they find themselves putting in countless hours organizing candidates' debates and trying to influence congressional elections. This is a vast new outpouring of previously dormant political energy, motivated by the sense that they can really make a difference for the cause of liberty.

But the fear among the tea partiers is that the Republican establishment still doesn't get it. It has the instincts of any establishment: it is afraid of any competing base of power that is too cantankerously independent and unpredictable. I get the sense that many of them view the tea parties as loose cannons, as interlopers who are interfering in the normal process of political succession within the party. They don't realize that this is a year in which an endorsement from the party establishment doesn't work for you—it works against you. Hurt's campaign manager recently told me, for example, that the idea of friction between the tea parties and the party establishment is a "figment of the imagination" of the rival candidates. But I can tell you firsthand that it is real, and the Hurt campaign's reluctance to acknowledge it merely reinforces the impression that they are out of touch with the grassroots.

At the January 22 debate, Mark Lloyd described what the tea party movement means for the existing political establishment. Referring to Scott Brown's recent victory in Massachusetts, he said, "If you paid attention to what's happened this week, there's just a little message to those in the government, in the established parties: we're comin' to get you."

The tea party supporters are people who want to support the Republican candidate—and boy do they want to defeat Tom Perriello. But they have been disappointed too often by Republican politicians who toe a small-government line in Farmville (and yes, that really is the name of a town in the fifth district) while voting for bailouts and big spending when they get to Washington. As candidate Mike McPadden put it, "We had a conservative movement in 1994, and it was over in six months. In twelve years, while the so-called conservatives ran our House of Representatives…look where we are after 12 years from 1994 to 2006. Are we better off? No, we are not…. We will get it right this time, if we send people to Washington who are serious about cutting taxes and cutting the size and growth of government."

The Republican establishment needs to wake up to this message in time and show that they really are listening and responding to this pro-free-market, pro-liberty groundswell.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal

Thursday, January 28, 2010

"Holy Crap, Rush Limbaugh, It's Obama's Birth Certificate!"

Tracked down in Kenya by Indiana Jones! No word on the Jewels of Cairo...


American Jews Reject Obama

January 27, 2010
Jews leaving Dems: ADL's Foxman Alarmed
Clarice Feldman

In my hometown newspaper, [link repaired] notice is finally taken that Jews are growing increasingly disenchanted with the Democratic Party, a move I could hardly have imagined before Obama.

Barack Obama started his presidency with an astounding 83% approval rating among American Jews. Nine months later, that support had dropped to 64%, and he ended 2009 with a dismal 48% approval rating. The president is clearly no longer on the same page.

Podhoretz recently delivered a stinging rebuke to the Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman specifically (and the left generally) for sabotaging American Jewish interests. He set the record straight: "Our interests and our ideals, both as Americans and as Jews, have come in recent decades to be better served by the forces of the right."

Podhoretz not only argues that anti-Semitism has been banished from the right over the past 40 years but points to a long history of ADF "seeing an anti-Semite under every conservative bed" while remaining blind to the reality that "anti-Semitism has found a hospitable new home on the left, especially where Israel is concerned."

The RJC platform coincides with the same core principles that propelled Scott Brown to victory in the recent "Massachusetts Miracle." At the top of the list is a vigorous approach to terrorism. According to Sattler, "That starts by calling it what it is. We cannot ignore people who want to kill us."



Yes, I’m starting with Massachusetts. I’m entitled. My mother, of blessed memory, was born and raised in Pittsfield, Mass, one of six remarkable sisters, the daughter of a kosher meat wholesaler. I lived in Pittsfield for a few years, attended Redfield School, and I was there when Dewey lost to Truman, one of my earliest political memories. We also lived for a couple of years in Springfield, where my father, of blessed memory, ran Indian Motorcycle Company towards the end of its storied history.

The Ledeens were of course Dems, and later on, in New Jersey, became liberal Republicans of the Clifford Case variety, but in Massachusetts I only remember Dems. And so it was with considerable surprise that I found that Pittsfield had gone for Brown. Indeed, 69% of Pittsfield voters chose him.

I don’t think a vote of such magnitude was based merely on anger, a word invariably trotted out to explain Democratic defeats (remember the “angry white man” a few years back?). I do believe that passion played a big role, but a somewhat different one: not anger, but fear. They’re afraid of Obama. Afraid of what he’s doing to them, and therefore prepared to change sides.

This fear is extremely broad-based. It is not limited to social class nor to domestic or foreign policies. Banks are not lending, companies are not hiring, because they are afraid of what Obama will do next. Both are afraid of onerous taxes, including new health care burdens, and the banks fear new regulations and the consequences of the recently declared war on evil bankers by the president. Seniors are afraid they will be deprived of medical treatment. Juniors are afraid they are going to be forced to buy health insurance they don’t think they need. Across the board, Americans are afraid they’re not going to find work, and won’t be able to afford a house. And, as the Massachusetts vote showed, Americans are worried about threats from abroad, worried about Iran, afraid of terrorist attacks, and afraid the Obama Administration doesn’t take all this seriously enough. As Scott Brown put it, most Americans think our tax dollars should go to fighting terrorists, not to pay lawyers to defend terrorists.

Machiavelli once asked whether it was better for a ruler to be loved or feared. He said that it would be best to be both, and that either one could work all by itself. But if you must choose, he said, fear is better, since love is fragile, while “fear of punishment works every time.”

Which is true enough. But notice that the “fear” Machiavelli is talking about is very different from the fear Obama is generating. Machiavelli is saying that a ruler must be strong enough to convince potential enemies that they will have to pay a very high price for challenging him. Obama isn’t acting like a strong leader, either here or abroad. In the past few days he’s been rudely insulted by the Iranians [1] and the Russians (who compared him to Ahmadinejad), and he’s become an object of ridicule for previously friendly tv stars like Jon Stewart [2].

He doesn’t instill fear of punishment. It’s his policies and his weakness that frighten us. The man himself risks inspiring contempt. Which, as Machiavelli says, is the most dangerous thing that can befall any leader.


The Kamikaze Congress!

J. D. Longstreet—1/27/10

Have you noticed that the US has a Congress with a death wish? Oh, yes! We have a Congress made up of socialist and communists who are set on suicide.

You may ask, "How can you say such a thing, Longstreet?"

Well, actually, it is stating the obvious -- obvious to everyone, it seems, but the "so-called democrats" in the White House and the Congress.

ObamaCare is a death sentence to the democratic majority in the Congress and will certainly relegate Obama, himself, to the long list of one term democratic presidents. To pass the bill is suicide for the democrats and they are hell bent on doing just that! Their work continues in the shadows of locked rooms as they devise alternate plans to get that bill to the President's desk for his signature.

A TV evangelist has recently been credited with having said the Haitians had made a pact with the devil, a couple of centuries ago, and that led to the earthquake. Following that logic -- I have to tell you, it surely appears the current Congress of the US has made a pact with an evil force of some kind! They appear to be under some sort of "spell." They are racing toward oblivion and nothing we can say will deter them. They are totally heedless of the warnings. It really does appear they are automatons marching to their demise.

The American people do not want the ObamaCare. According to the Rasmussen poll 58% of Americans do not want ObamaCare! We have said it over and over. We do not want Cap and Trade! We have told them time and time again that we don't want it. We do not want Amnesty for illegal aliens. We have instructed the Congress to forget Amnesty and to close and seal the borders of the US and allow no one in save for those legally seeking to enter the country.

They are not listening to us and they are unresponsive to our wishes. Therefore, they must go -- and go they will this coming November. Why do you think so many of them are already announcing their retirement? They are the smart ones. They want to leave and save what little face they have left.

Look, as much as I hate to even think it, the truth is the United States is now ruled by an oligarchy. An oligarchy is the rule of many by a few. In other words, we have a country, at the moment, which is no longer ruled by "the people," as the Founding Fathers intended, but ruled by a handful of elite politicians -- and Obama's Czars -- and intellectuals educated beyond their abilities.

We have referred to it as a "rogue government." However, now that Scott Brown, a conservative republican, has won the special election in Massachusetts, the socialists in Congress will be frantically trying to stir back toward the political center. Their chief problem will be the indisputable fact that they have been exposed for what they are and any actions they attempt at creating the appearance of becoming centrist will be suspect, at the very least, by the electorate.

Their facade has cracked and is crumbling around them.

We told you many months ago that this socialist led Congress would overreach. They did. Now they must pay the consequences. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has said Americans will have ObamaCare "one way or the other!" She didn't even blink when she said it! I don't know about you, but I read that as a clear confirmation that the Congress simply does not care what the American citizens want or don't want. We will get what THEY decide we are going to get... PERIOD! Now, if that isn't the act of a rogue government, I don't know what is.

It is now clear, however, Ms. Pelosi underestimated the near rage of the American people over the absolute arrogance of such a statement, and I suspect it contributed to Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, and a turning point in direction the Congress and the Obama Regime had planned for the next three years. Her admission that she did not have the votes in the US House to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare was evidence that the current socialist government of the United States has just taken a severe blow to their collective solar plexus and are reeling back on their heels.

They have been acting as though they are some sort of fringe religious cult. It is common knowledge many democrats in the House and Senate are, indisputably, going to lose their seats in Congress if they continue their socialist plans and policies. Yet many say the loss in Massachusetts resulted from their not being Progressive enough! It is as though they have lined up to drink the poisoned Kool-Aid and die a political death, sacrificing their political lives for a Progressive/Socialist idea that REAL Americans WILL REPEAL at the very first opportunity.

So, what to do?

Throw the bums out!

We will have that opportunity this coming November in the Mid-Term Election. Americans must flood the polls on that Tuesday to save The Republic. For make no mistake about it - The Republic is in peril. Our Rogue Congress is, in my opinion, "a clear and present danger" to the Republic and it is the duty of American citizens to make every effort to save their country by voting the Socialists, Communists, Statists, and Progressives out of office in November.

It is a necessary first step in reclaiming our country -- AND our birthright as free Americans.

J. D. Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in "America First".

He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an "in the field" and "on-air" news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.

Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to "old Lutheranism" to express and exercise his faith.

A1 to A73 in 24 Hours: The Life and Death of ‘Watergate Jr.’

By Andrew Breitbart

For those in the mainstream media committed to report the false and libelous narrative of “Watergate Jr.,” “wiretapping” and “bugging,” I predict much egg on your J-school grad faces. In your rush to judgment to convict James O’Keefe and his companions, you vengeful political partisans of press forgot to ponder: “Was Mr. O’Keefe up to one of his patented and obvious clown nose-on hidden camera tricks, trying to make his subjects look foolish?” Blog commenters seem to be quicker on the uptake than six-figured Washington-based pundits these days. And I predict there will be tape to vindicate these four pranksters, too.


Wednesday, January 27, 2010

O'Keefe Busted! "There's Something Happening Here..What It Is Ain't Exactly Clear.."

ACORN has ascended. They elect our politicians and receive billions in tax money. Their world is a revolutionary, socialistic, atheistic world, where all means are justifiable. And they create chaos, again, for it’s own sake. It is time for us to be studying and applying their tactics, many of which are ideologically neutral. It is time, as Hannah said as we walked out of the ACORN facility, for conservative activists to “create chaos for glory. -- James O'Keefe

This case is very curious, and I’m wondering this morning after much reflection that it may well be a “set-up” none other than O’Keefe.

Like Hannibal at Cannae, O’Keefe may have pulled back his front as a tactic to draw in the enemy and destroy them. My sense is that this is a gig devised to blow up in the prosecutor’s face and give O’Keefe a hammer on the prosecutor and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

ACORN 'gotcha' man arrested in attempt to tamper with Mary Landrieu's office phones

By David Hammer, The Times-Picayune

Alleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe, 25, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group's credibility.

Also arrested were Joseph Basel, Stan Dai and Robert Flanagan, all 24. Flanagan is the son of William Flanagan, who is the acting U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana. All four men were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.



1. The ‘physically and verbally represented’ themselves part is the conclusion of the agent and basis for arrest- not what necessarily occurred nor necessarily a crime.

2. Item 5 indicates they ‘represented’ themselves to the employee as phone repairers. Nothing defines ‘representation’ other than their wardrobe. Is dressing like a Village Person a crime?

3. Item six states they requested access to a phone and manipulated it. Well, if they touched it, they manipulated it. I’ve asked for use of a phone in various places. Is that illegal? It continues to go on that he tried to call the number with his cell. So?

4. Item seven states they indicated they needed to do repair work. What exactly did they say? Was it a ‘must access’ or ‘could we access’ or merely ‘there is repair work to be done’ [he might need to repair his truck] followed by a query to the phone room location. Asking where a room is isn’t illegal.

5. The conclusion states that they admitted to entering a Fed property under false pretenses. Goodness. Many folks sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and do just the opposite have misrepresented themselves...and they swore something. Where are their arrest warrants?

6. Reading the final summary, it appears that entering under false pretenses isn’t the crime; it is the horrid offense of ‘attempting to manipulate’ a phone. When is it against the law to touch a phone?

While I may sound like an ACLU partisan, it seems to me that this case is not well fleshed out and they were held on the most tenuous claims.

In fact, if they were found guilty, would it be illegal to enter a Federal building if you disagreed with a policy, but lied in fact or by omission so you could get in to speak to a Senator? ‘I wanted to thank Sen. Reed for all of his great work...’ then ‘Sen. Reid, you sir, are a despicable louse and unworthy of your Senatorial seat!’ That certainly would be a false pretense.

If you manipulated or touched a piece of office equipment or fixtures in a Federal office, should you be arrested? So much for using the toilet!

There was NO information that ANYTHING was destroyed, maliciously tampered with, made inoperable or operable in a manner different from it’s prior function. So what is the crime of ‘manipulation’?

If someone goes into a Federal office for benefits and leads someone to think they are ‘qualified’ but don’t actually lie nor sign a form swearing they are representing the truth, should they be carted off to jail? To me the person doing the screening would be the guilty party as they would or should have some sort of fiduciary accountability as part of their job description if they can determine benefits eligibility or lead others to do so. If not, the agency or NGO which receives tax-payer funds and hands them out willie-nillie is likely operating outside of their charter or their charter needs a revision pronto-quick.

I realize this may seem way off base from the original complaint, but I find it a perfect nexus from a legal standpoint.


MSM Leaping to Conclusions — While Big Government Waits for Facts
by Andrew Breitbart

Wait until the facts are in.

Mainstream Media, ACORN, Media Matters (all the supposed defenders of due process and journalistic ethics) are jumping to conclusions over the arrest today of James O’Keefe, with the clear intention to smear and, if possible, convict O’Keefe and his alleged co-conspirators in the court of public opinion in order to taint the “jury of their peers.”

The ACORN story was a huge black eye for the organized left and their allies and cohorts in the mainstream media. So they are relishing every minute of this breaking story, making it their top story – while they ignored the initial ACORN story until they no longer could.

MSNBC and other “news organizations” are even billing this developing story as “Watergate”. What do Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow know? And when did they know it?

I’m sure they would like to believe O’Keefe is stupid enough to try to “wiretap” a sitting U.S. senator in broad daylight during office hours, while recording the entire sequence of events on his cell phone camera. And they’d like you to believe it, too.

But there is absolutely no allegation in the criminal complaint that “wiretapping” or “bugging” is any part of this case, just the charge that O’Keefe and the others entered Sen. Landrieu’s office in New Orleans “for the purpose of interfering with the office’s telephone system.”

And yet Carol Leonnig, in a story in Wednesday’s Washington Post writes in her lede:

The conservative young filmmaker whose undercover sting damaged a liberal activist group last year faces federal criminal charges in an alleged plot to bug the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu

In other words, speculation is rampant, but facts are few. And basic logic suggests that there’s much more to this story since there is so little information.

Leonnig, as you may remember, is the reporter who was forced to retract the false and libelous accusation that O’Keefe was motivated by racism in his ACORN sting.

Will Leonnig and the Washington Post be compelled to retract again?

Let me state clearly for the record: wiretapping is wrong. But until I hear the full story from James O’Keefe, I will not speculate as to what he was doing in Louisiana.

Regardless of the outcome we will keep the readers of Big Government apprised of this emerging story.

A story is beginning to emerge here:

By atomicweeder at Free Republic

Senator Landrieu was concerned that her offices had been bugged by FBI, on Holder’s orders? (and therefore on Obama’s orders?).

Somehow this concern was communicated to William J. Flanagan (US attorney for western Louisiana).

In turn, he accidentally or purposely reveal this information to his son, Robert.

Robert then conspired with O’Keefe and a couple of other conservative wise-guys to reveal the FBI wiretapping operation.

Their plan? A purposely clumsy attempt to pose as telephone repairmen and tamper with the phones. They knew that if the FBI had wiretapped the phones, the FBI would be there in a matter of minutes.

At which point O’Keefe would use his cell phone to make a video of the FBI agents showing up.

In other words, O’Keefe, etc may have been springing a trap.

My theory: By knews_hound at FREE REPUBLIC

I think that they were pretending to be Telephone repair people because apparently Landrieus office is impossible to reach by phone. I suspect, and this is a WAG mind you, that in fact the office phones were busied out by the staff. The result of which is that no one can call the office unless they know another number. I suspect they were filming Landrieus receptionist filing her nails, surfing the net and assorted other things rather than take calls.

The “tampering” I suspect was their “repairman” verifying that the phone did in fact work and that if the office CHOSE to, they could take calls at any time yet they had forwarded all calls to voicemail or something of the sort.

Reading the affidavit, I saw that they were charged with trespassing among other minor charges. Protesters routinely get arrested for this are are typically released after 3 days for time served.

I wonder how much is actually going to stick, especially once the video hits.

I would not want to be the judge sentencing them to any sort of time after it is shown that contrary to Landrieus claims, they were literally polishing their nails while the people were blocked from contacting their representative.

BONUS Conspiracy Theory; I bet that the “accomplice” that was in the car a block or two away was busily calling Landrieus office over and over and they were filming the attempts to call along with scenes of the receptionist updating her Facebook while voicemail was telling callers that no lines were available.

I could be wrong but I do think that this is very close to what did and will happen.


Statement from James O’Keefe

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: no one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetuated by ACORN. For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story. MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.” The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public. The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me. And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting. The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN. For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story. MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.” The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public. The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me. And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting. The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.


What's Behind O'Keefe Story?
January 28, 2010


RUSH LIMBAUGH: I wanted to comment on this strange story. James O'Keefe and another guy got caught in Mary Landrieu's office, and the original report in the Washington Post said that... O'Keefe is the guy who with the girl did the videos that blew the top off the ACORN scams. He was in there, and got caught in the phone room, and the Washington Post reported what he was doing was bugging the phone lines of Mary Landrieu. Then the police said, "No, no, no, that's not what he was doing. We don't quite know what he was doing, but he was not bugging it." I'll tell you what he was doing. I know exactly what he was doing.

These people have turned off their phones, or they're redirecting calls from constituents to go somewhere to a dead line, and then they're saying, "Our phones are jammed. Nobody can get through. We don't know what's wrong." I bet you... I don't know this. I'm just speculating. But I'll bet you O'Keefe and his buddy who posed as telephone repairmen were in there to try to find out if somebody had jimmied with the lines so that constituents could not call the office and complain. 'Cause remember, during amnesty a couple summers ago, nobody had trouble getting through, and the members of Congress (House and Senate both) got fed up with it. But it was enough to convince everybody not to vote for it.

It was put together behind closed doors, just like the Senate was. I've always... During the August recess and during the last fall, I was always puzzled. Why in the world...? Michele Bachmann called and a couple other people called and said, "Look, these phone calls aren't doing anything. We have to have people actually show up. We have to have people show up in the Capitol and eyeball these people, congressmen and senators, and let them see firsthand the rage 'cause the phone calls aren't working and the e-mail isn't working. Well, maybe it wasn't working because the calls were not getting through. Calls were being jammed or forwarded, redirected somehow. I'm just wild guessing, but don't doubt me. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what O'Keefe was doing.