Friday, December 31, 2010


"May you will live in interesting times." (A Chinese curse)


My seat belt is clicked and my hands are in the air as the roller coaster gets to the top of the first big dip...

I yell at the top my voice along with my fellow riders on car 2011 as we plunge into the abyss...


What a ride this will be!

"Where's The Love?"


Just consider these estimates on part of the costs of the latest Obama Hawaii trip:

* Mrs. Obama’s early flight to Hawaii: $63,000 (White House Dossier)

* Obama’s round trip flight to Hawaii: $1 million (GAO estimates)

* Housing in beachfront homes for Secret Service and Seals in Kailua ($1,200 a day for 14 days): $16,800

* Costs for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel: $134,400 ($400 per day for 24 staff) – excluding meals and other room costs

* Police overtime: $250,000 (2009 costs reported by Honolulu Police Department)

* Ambulance: $10,000 (City Spokesperson)

TOTAL COST: $1,474,200



...And Leftards say only whites have a problem with racism, DUH!

Evil racism was on display at the Oklahoma City metro bus terminal downtown on Christmas Eve, 2010. Watch as this group of young men work to teach bus riders about God and race.

When asked about their organization, and whether they have a pamphlet or contact information, the response was quick and threatening: “I don’t have nothing for you, white man.”

Let me be clear: they have the right to say these things in a public place, and I support that right fully. This is not documentation of an illegal act that should be regulated by government.

This is a matter to be discussed in churches and workplaces across our city. It must be a conversation about whether racism still exists in our modern world, and whether we understand it when we see it with our own eyes.

Who will condemn this for the racism that it is? Who will not call this racist?

Some of the greatest hits from this video:

“God hates Christmas.”

“The white man has set up laws where the faggots and lesbians have rights, and parades.”

“The white man is against nature, and we prove that out of scripture.”

“The white man is in power now because he is a thief and a murderer.”

“God hates America, and he will destroy it.”

“The white man has never taught you about God. He lied, and told you he was God.”

These are members of a local church, the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, located at 3005 N. Classen Blvd.


The radio host who sat-in for Rush this past week (can’t remember his name) said that comparisons to Sarah Palin in 2010 are eerily reminiscent of Ronald Reagan in 1978-79. The Carter camp was ecstatic when Reagan got the GOP nomination in 1980. He trounced Carter. Carter conceded before the polls even closed in California.

Someone better tell the Dems to be careful what they hope for. Remember a lot of people voted for Obama in the Primaries just to stop Hillary, thinking Zero wouldn’t have a chance to win.

So, go ahead Democommies, do your thing.


Democommies crowdsourcing to get Palin elected in primaries

Slashdot ^ | 30 DEC 10 | PVoce

"In what could be the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing project ever, Democrats are beginning to organize to purposely vote for Palin in the 2012 Republican primaries. Their theory is by having Palin as an opponent, Obama will have the best odds at winning reelection. Recent polls have shown that Obama comfortably leads Palin by 10-20 points, but Obama is statistically tied with Romney and barely ahead of Huckabee. They even have a state-by-state primary voting guide to help Democrats navigate various states' rules for voting Palin in Republican primaries."



Thursday, December 30, 2010


R. Lee Ermey Calls For Revolution Against Obama Socialism

R. Lee Ermey: I got to tell you folks, we’re having a big problem this year. The economy really sucks. Now I hate to point fingers at anybody but the present administration probably had a lot to do with that. And the way I see it, they’re not going to quit doing it until they bring this country to its knees; so I think we should all rise up and we should stop this administration from what they’re doing because they’re destroying this country.

They’re driving us into bankruptcy so they can impose socialism on us. That’s exactly what they’re doing, and I’m sick and damn tired of it and I know you are too.

But I know the Marine Corps will be here forever. This administration won’t. Semper Fi. God bless you all.

I think we should all rise up and we should stop this administration from what they’re doing because they’re destroying this country.



Manmade famine in America

Thomas Lifson
It seems inconceivable, but people in America are going hungry en masse due to a famine caused by political authorities. Fresno, California is not yet a sister city of Kiev, Ukraine, but the two cities, capitals of rich agricultural regions, share a history of mass hunger caused by central governments indifferent to the suffering of their people, in the pursuit of ideological goals. Investor's Business Daily explains:

Fresno is the agricultural capital of America. More food per acre in more variety can be grown in the fertile Central Valley surrounding this community than on any other land in America - perhaps in the world.

Yet far from being a paradise, Fresno is starting to resemble Zimbabwe or 1930s Ukraine, a victim of a famine machine that is entirely man-made, not by red communists this time, but by greens.

State and federal officials, driven by the agenda of environmental extremists, have made it extremely difficult for the valley's farms, introducing costly environmental regulations and cutting off critical water supplies to save the Delta smelt, a bait fish. It's all driving the economy to collapse.

In the southwest part of the Central Valley, water allotments as low as 10% of normal have created a visible dust bowl. The knock-on effect can be seen in cities like Fresno, where November's unemployment among the packers, cannery workers and professional fields that make agriculture productive stands at 16.9%.

So bad is the economy, due to federal water restrictions, that almost a quarter of local families are going hungry in Fresno:

Local newspapers and Fresno County officials are trying to rally Facebook users to vote for Fresno in a corporate contest sponsored by Wal-Mart for $1 million in charity food donations for the hungry. Fresno, a city of 505,000, has taken the national lead because 24.1% of Fresno's families are going hungry.

The destruction of the agricultural economy of America's most productive region is yet another example of federal policies literally destroying America's productive capacity. To be sure, the Fresno famine is not causing mass starvation, merely hunger. But this America, and destroying jobs and agricultural capacity is a shameful initiative of government.

Page Printed from:


Peace groups outside the main gate of Beale Air Force Base today are protesting the treatment of the private suspected of handing secret reports over to WikiLeaks.

They are also calling on military personnel at the base to resist war and the use of the drones.

Protesters from Veterans for Peace, CodePINK and other groups are asking for "basic constitutional principles and human rights" be extended to Pfc. Bradley Manning.

Manning is suspected of downloading thousands of secret reports and diplomatic cables and handing them over to WikiLeaks.

The protesters are encouraging members of the military at the base near Marysville to support Manning "for revealing the truth to the world community about the failed war of terror," said Toby Blome of CodePINK in a press release.

Manning is being held in solitary confinement at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia on charges that could lead to a 52-year prison sentence.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Wednesday, December 29, 2010


Great minds think alike.

Like fellow Floridian and writer Chuck Baldwin I have relocated to the natural fortress of Montana. You know things are getting serious when long time Southerners relocate to the vast and cold regions of our nation's fourth largest state where the poorly prepared for winter can die of exposure in hours. In the cold of a Montana winter the wise dress in layers of winter clothing and carry emergency kits of food, water, sleeping bags, first aids kits and other survival items in the trunk of their cars, just in case of a breakdown on an isolated road, many miles from rescue.

It's certainly not the winter that attracts Montana's newest residents, the cultural attractions that are few and far between, or even the hunting season. What does attract the growing legion of transplanted Southerners and Americans from all over the USA is the idea of isolation from federal power where we can mass, train and equip a revolutionary army.

You heard me. The Second American Revolution is moving out from the talking and planning stage to the action stage. All over the Northwest groups of patriots are moving into heretofore quiet small towns and counties with express purpose of either taking over the local power structures, or supporting those officials who support the revolution. When these districts are secured one by one at some point a large section of the country will be in effect, The Second American Republic. Then entire get the picture.

At some point the federal government will have to move against the revolution in force. I think many members of our oppressive Washington Regime are Communists who have dreamed of "The Revolution" since childhood and will find the use of brutal military force against patriots a vision come true. Thus the battle will be joined by opposing sides who are at their core of being revolutionists, albeit for polar opposite reasons. The coming conflict will be horrible and bloody beyond imagination. At the end of the day, I think those on the Left who have prayed for this war will have their prayers answered, but they won't like the answer.

Indeed, this is the winter of our discontent. I hope spring sees the beginning of the liberation of America from the tyranny of the latter day King George III and His Tory Ministers.


The DEMOCOMMIE governor of Hawaii said:

"What bothers me is that some people who should know better are trying to use this for political reasons," Abercrombie told the Los Angeles Times last week. "Maybe I'm the only one in the country that could look you right in the eye right now and tell you, 'I was here when that baby was born.'"

During his gubernatorial campaign, Abercrombie blasted WND for publishing a report that Abercrombie was listed as a member of the U.S.-based Marxist-oriented Democratic Socialists of America.

Trevor Loudon of the New Zeal blog, a researcher on communism, uncovered the November-December 1990 issue of the Democratic Socialists of America's official magazine, "The Democratic Left," that listed Abercrombie as a member of the party.

The magazine stated the group's political action committee endorsed two congressional candidates, "DSAer Democrat Neil Abercrombie seeking to regain the House seat representing Honolulu and Vermont independent candidate Bernie Sanders."


Conservatives today are in essentially the same position that the radical Left was in back in the Sixties. Then, every institution in American society -- the "Establishment" in Sixties jargon -- was socially and temperamentally conservative. The radicals found themselves with nowhere to go but the streets. Today's "Establishment" is uniformly leftist, and conservatives are as unwelcome in the halls of power today as the radical Left was 45 years ago. In order to move forward, conservatives are going to need to do what the Left did in 1968: begin in the streets, capture a political party and convert it to its agenda, and follow up in the courts when they lose elections.

Even more important, conservatives are going to have to learn to exploit national crises to advance their agenda. And surely these crises are coming -- the national debt, currency valuation, inflation, Iranian nuclear weapons, illegal immigration, a day of reckoning in Afghanistan, and so on.

Voters will demand alternatives to Leftist policies when these crises appear. If the Republicans do not present conservative alternatives, Conservatives will have to form a party of their own.




The ratings are out for 2010.

Perhaps not surprisingly Fox News continued its march of dominance through the cablesphere, clocking its second-highest rated year ever in total viewers.

It was also the only news channel to hit the top 10 in cable networks, ranking fourth in Primetime behind USA, ESPN and TNT.

Want some context for that? Fox News' total viewers for the year exceeded MSNBC, HLN, and CNN combined.

That dominance came primarily at the expense of CNN which lost 29% of its total viewership in 2010 and 34% of its prime time viewers. Yes, you read that right.

MSNBC, meanwhile stayed the course in total day total viewers - it was the only news channel not to drop in that category -- but dropped 5% year over year in prime time total viewers and 9% in the prime time demo.



In a second incident in Ghazni, part of the southern Taliban heartland, police said a blast killed a man suspected of being either a suicide bomber or of trying to plant a bomb under a truck.

“We don’t know yet whether the man who was killed was a suicide bomber who detonated or if he was just planting the bomb under the truck. He was killed in the blast,” deputy provincial police chief Mohammad Hussain said.




Tuesday, December 28, 2010


U.S. Secret Service Civil War Against Ronbo (Episode XXX) THE BATTLE OF MISSOULA

In the last episode of our action packed saga of one man's twilight struggle against the evil empire of the federal government, our hero RONBO (so named by SS Agent John Francis McKenna in 1996) confronted imperial storm trooper and U.S. Secret Service Agent TAD DOWNS at the door of his motel suite in beautiful downtown Missoula, Montana where Agent Downs was told to "pound sand."

Like a tried and true imperial SS storm trooper, Agent Downs, no doubt under the direct control of Big Sister of the Department Homeland Security in which he labors with only a very small $250,000 yearly
pay package when all perks are included, raises RONBO's august status on the Watch List to "Person of Interest." As is well known, a POI is someone whom law enforcement will soon arrest. This label is designed to make the suspect nervous and commit some type of irrational act that will lead to their arrest.

However, the SS are dealing with the wily RONBO, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and professional soldier of the U.S. Army Military Intelligence who also stood toe to toe against the Russian KGB and East German STASI while stationed in West Berlin in the 1970s. Hence, RONBO is well trained and experienced when dealing secret policemen of many nations. In addition, there are a wealth of books in the public library on persons in other countries who have had to deal with the secret police, for instance, the great Russian Christian, patriot and freedom fighter Alexander Solzhenitsyn who waged a decades long literary war against the Soviet Union.

Solzhenitsyn, who served eight years in the GULAG for being critical of Stalin in a letter to a friend during WW II, has been well studied by RONBO. The lesson learned is that the best way to confront an evil regime from the inside - and by 2010 the federal government of the USA has evolved into something very wicked - is by truth and art. Solzhenitsyn, who many scholars think was a factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, achieved this by the underground publication in the Soviet Union of his masterwork, "The Archipelago GULAG" which was published above ground in the West to rave reviews.

RONBO's underground printing press is the Internet where his blog, "The Freedom Fighter's Journal" has a world readership of about 1,000 "hits" a day with totals approaching one million. It is clear that this six year old publication, which includes an online book, "The White Rose," is having an impact judging by the comments and tracking the locations of the readers.

How will this story end? Will RONBO be arrested and thrown once again into the GULAG? Will RONBO be exiled from the USA by the federal government? Will RONBO be assassinated by the U.S. Secret Service? Don't laugh about the last possibility - all the SS has to do to secure RONBO's termination with extreme prejudice is to tell local law enforcement that he's "armed and dangerous" and the local police will happily gun him down on sight.

Tune in for episode XXXI "The Republic Strikes Back" where the wily RONBO launches a rebel fleet of criminal and civil charges against the Darth Vaders of Homeland Security.


From Music To Murder

A music video on official Palestinian television (2000-2010) is designed to promote the desire among Palestinian males to be killed in the conflict with Israel in order to achieve the reward: beautiful virgins in Paradise. The video shows a woman being shot dead and joining other virgins in Paradise. Afterwards a man is killed and he is greeted by all the virgins who have been awaiting him.Palestinian TV similarly encourages child-Martyrdom by promising different child-friendly rewards in Paradise.


The [western] Roman government [seated in Ravenna after 402 AD] appeared every day less formidable to its enemies, more odious and oppressive to its subjects. The severe inquisition, which confiscated their goods and tortured their persons, compelled the subjects of Valentinian [III] (425-455 AD) to prefer the simple tyranny of the barbarians, to fly to the woods or the mountains, or to embrace the vile and abject condition of mercenary servants. They abjured and abhorred the name of Roman citizens, which had formerly excited the ambition of all mankind. If all the barbarian conquerors had been annihilated in the same hour, their total destruction would not have restored the empire of the West: and if Rome still survived, she survived the loss of freedom, of virtue, and of honour. [Gibbon uses the term “severe inquisition” in referring to the Roman equivalent to our Internal Revenue Service.]



O the Islamic disgrace: Killed by a lowly woman! I guess poor Johnny Jihad never heard of the Western female warrior tradition.

Spc. Charles Moore, left, of Angleton, Texsas., along with Spc Andrew Vanderhaeghen of Rochester, MN., of 2nd Platoon Bravo Company 2-327 return fires upon a sudden attack by Taliban on Combat Out Post Badel in eastern Afghanistan near Pakistan border on Saturday, Dec. 25, 2010.(AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

A US soldier, right, aims his weapon, as an Afghan policeman looks on, left, after a suicide attack in Kandahar south of Kabul, Afghanistan on Monday, Dec. 27, 2010. A car bomb exploded in the heart of the southern city of Kandahar Monday, killing at least three people and wounding more than a dozen, an Afghan policeman who witnessed the attack said. (AP Photo/Allauddin Khan)

Pfc. Nikolai Starr from San Antonio Texas, right, along with Spc. Charles Moore of Angleton, Texas., of 2nd Platoon Bravo Company 2-327 return fires during a sudden attack by Taliban on Combat Out Post Badel in eastern Afghanistan near Pakistan border on Saturday, Dec. 25, 2010.(AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

Pfc. Kyle Garcia from Ridgefield, Wash., right, along with Spc. Steven Galvin from Holstein, Iowa, of 2nd Platoon Bravo Company 2-327 Infantry, returns fires after a sudden attack by Taliban on Combat Out Post Badel in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistan border on Friday, Dec. 24, 2010. The two U.S. soldiers were wearing Santa Claus hats to celebrate Christmas eve inside the small outpost when Taliban fighters shot at them from a hillside outside the base. Still wearing the hats, the soldiers rushed to take defensive positions and returned fire on the Taliban. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

In this Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 picture, Sgt. Benjamin Olivarez of Kingsville, Texas, with the 2nd Platoon Bravo Company 2-327 Infantry, tests his weapon at Badel Combat Outpost near Pakistani border in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 picture, Pvt. Robertson Nicholas of Enola, Pa. foreground, an with Sgt. Benjamin Olivarez of Kingsville, Texas, both of the 2nd Platoon Bravo Company 2-327 Infantry, looks through their weapons during a patrol in Chowkay district near the Pakistani border in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

PFC Kyle Garcia from Ridgefield WA , of 2nd Platoon Bravo Company 2-327 Infantry takes up position during an attack by Taliban with small arms on Badel Combat Out Post near Pakistani border in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec 23, 2010.(AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

PFC Kyle Garcia from Ridgefield WA , of 2nd Platoon Bravo Company 2-327 Infantry points out Taliban position during Taliban attacked with small arms at Badel Combat Out Post near Pakistani border in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec 23, 2010.(AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

Pfc. Nikolai Starr from San Antonio TX, of 2nd Platoon Bravo Company 2-327 Infantry takes up position during an attack by Taliban with small arms on Badel Combat Out Post near Pakistani border in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec 23, 2010.(AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

Pics From The Front…

Monday, December 27, 2010


IN ANY WAR .....



THE earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside.

Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.

All of this cold was met with perfect comic timing by the release of a World Meteorological Organization report showing that 2010 will probably be among the three warmest years on record, and 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record.

How can we reconcile this? The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes. Last winter, too, was exceptionally snowy and cold across the Eastern United States and Eurasia, as were seven of the previous nine winters.

Don't waste your time reading the rest of this ignorant shit

"Oh, Yeah? Palin Will Nuke Obama In The 2012 Debates!"

Williams: "There's nobody out there except for Sarah Palin who could absolutely dominate the stage and she can't stand on the intellectual stage with Obama"


Happy Kwanzaa By: Paul Mulshine | Thursday, December 26, 2002

On December 24, 1971, the New York Times ran one of the first of many articles on a new holiday designed to foster unity among African Americans. The holiday, called Kwanzaa, was applauded by a certain sixteen-year-old minister who explained that the feast would perform the valuable service of "de-whitizing" Christmas. The minister was a nobody at the time but he would later go on to become perhaps the premier race-baiter of the twentieth century. His name was Al Sharpton and he would later spawn the Tawana Brawley hoax and then incite anti-Jewish tensions in a 1995 incident that ended with the arson deaths of seven people.

Great minds think alike. The inventor of the holiday was one of the few black "leaders" in America even worse than Sharpton. But there was no mention in the Times article of this man or of the fact that at that very moment he was sitting in a California prison. And there was no mention of the curious fact that this purported benefactor of the black people had founded an organization that in its short history tortured and murdered blacks in ways of which the Ku Klux Klan could only fantasize.

It was in newspaper articles like that, repeated in papers all over the country, that the tradition of Kwanzaa began. It is a tradition not out of Africa but out of Orwell. Both history and language have been bent to serve a political goal. When that New York Times article appeared, Ron Karenga's crimes were still recent events. If the reporter had bothered to do any research into the background of the Kwanzaa founder, he might have learned about Karenga's trial earlier that year on charges of torturing two women who were members of US (United Slaves), a black nationalist cult he had founded.


Sunday, December 26, 2010

Saturday, December 25, 2010


Top Stories of the Year: Day of Reckoning

There will be no TIA Daily editions for the week between Christmas and New Year's. TIA Daily will return on January 3. We wish our readers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

The top story of the year is, of course, the mid-term election, which was a historic repudiation of the Democratic Party and its big-government agenda.

But it is important to remember that the year started in despair, with Congress shoving through ObamaCare over and against the will of the people, no matter what the political consequences. As I wrote on January 8, "This isn't legislation—it's a suicide bombing. The Democrats are willing to blow themselves up, so long as they can take private, for-profit health care down with them."

But we got some good advice from the very beginning, including the first item below in which Dick Morris does an improbable—but surprisingly good—impression of Winston Churchill, urging us to "never give in." The next day was the first issue of TIA Daily in which I linked to an article on the vague, slight, outside possibility that a Republican just might be able to win a Senate seat in Massachusetts. It was the first hint of the reckoning to follow.

By the end of the year, independent voters had swung decisively against the Democrats and made a good down payment on implementing Tracinski's Rule of American Politics: the left must be suppressed, hounded, mocked, vilified, and made to feel ashamed of itself, because that is the only protection for our liberty.

But the under-appreciated story of the election is the Republican sweep on the state level, which sets up another day of reckoning: the point at which governors and state legislatures will have to confront the way in which decades of runaway spending have bankrupted state governments. A "day of reckoning" is what New Jersey Governor Chris Christie calls it in a surprisingly good segment on the state budget crisis on "60 Minutes," while in a new column in the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson makes clear that the primary cause of this budget disaster is the states' unsustainable pension and health care obligations to government employees.

That is going to be one of the top stories of 2011, as some states—those with governors like Chris Christie—confront their budget disasters, while others like California and Illinois continue to evade them, all the way into bankruptcy.

But there is another story that will hit beyond 2011. What the states did with their government employees, the federal government has done with everyone. Social Security and Medicare are pension and health care obligations that were enacted for precisely the same reason—to buy votes—and which create exactly the same problems that states are now facing, but on a much larger scale. I don't expect this to become a top issue in 2011, but one of our jobs for the next year is to prepare people, and particularly the Tea Parties, for the time when the fate of the big middle-class entitlements does become a crisis and has to be confronted.—RWT

Top Stories of the Year

  1. Never Give In
  2. Marked Men
  3. America's PIGS
  4. Democratized Aristocracy
  5. "Government of the Employees, by the Employees, and for the Employees"
  6. Day of Reckoning

Submit articles, interesting links, letters to editor, or comments to

Top News Stories

Commentary by Robert Tracinski

1. Never Give In, January 4

Dick Morris, channeling Winston Churchill, gave the best answer to the pre-Christmas Senate vote for the health-care bill. Somewhat clumsily combining Churchill's "we shall fight them on the beaches" speech and his "never give in" speech, Morris wrote:

If they beat us in the Senate, we will fight them in conference. If they beat us in conference, we will fight them in the House. If they beat us in the House over healthcare, we will fight them over cap and trade. We will fight them over immigration and amnesty. We will fight them over the deficit. We will fight them over the debt. And we will fight them in 2010. We will fight them in the House. We will fight them for Senate seats in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, and Arkansas. We will fight them in Colorado and North Dakota and California and Washington State. We will fight them in Illinois and in New Jersey. We will never, never, never, never give up!

Dick Morris in the role of Winston Churchill? Now I've seen everything. But he does, in fact, have the right spirit.

The Democrats are pushing a rotten bill, and they are doing it in the most rotten, partisan way possible. So we don't have to accept it—not any of it. This is not the usual pattern for major pieces of welfare-state legislation. As everyone has been pointing out, no bill of this size with this kind of broad, far-reaching effect on the public has ever been passed without public support and without bipartisan support—some significant number of Republicans breaking ranks to vote for it. That's part of the reason why previous welfare-state expansions have become permanent: those programs enjoyed wide enough support to demoralize their opponents, who eventually accepted them as fixed features of American politics.

But this time the public is solidly opposed to the bill and it attracted only one Republican vote in the House and none in the Senate. That means that there is no reason to accept this bill as a done deal, or as a permanent fixture. If it passes, Republicans and conservatives are already talking about a campaign for repeal (see here and here) that would carry them through the next two elections.

Even if Republicans do very well in this November's mid-term election, it is impossible for them to gain the votes to overcome a presidential veto, so repeal of the health-care bill would have to be the main issue of the next presidential election, too. If so, all the better, because it would give advocates of liberty a clear and clean issue to vote on. As Jonah Goldberg argues, "Americans will finally be given a stark philosophical choice on a fundamental issue." He is, of course, over-estimating the extent to which Republicans will approach this issue in clear philosophical terms or on a fundamental level, but it would still be a campaign well worth supporting.

And Dick Morris points out that the Democrats' bill provides an excellent target for such a campaign.

Obama's health care bill, the poisoned Kool-Aid making its way through the Senate, will not confer any of its supposed benefits on Americans until 2013. But they will find themselves chafing at its restrictions and paying its taxes immediately after the law takes effect. Then, they will see no gain, but plenty of pain, for the next three years.

Another part of the reason why welfare-state programs become permanent is that they buy votes. The left eagerly points to the benefits that are paid out, while hoping voters will forget the costs, and some people buy the ruse and become a firm bloc of supporters for the program. But this bill starts the opposite way, putting all of its costs up front, and only buying the people's votes later on. Dick Morris explains why this was unavoidable.

This odd juxtaposition of "suffer now, benefit later" is the byproduct of the administration's sleight of hand in specifying ten years worth of cuts and taxes in the legislation, but deferring its benefits for the first four years. By comparing six years of spending with ten years of taxing, it managed to appear deficit neutral under the rules of the Congressional Budget Office. In fact, the annual revenues fall far short of covering any single year's worth of spending, adding to the deficit for each of the last six years over the next ten, but, viewing the decade as a whole, it appears deficit neutral.

Ironically, in trying to avoid stating the actual cost of this legislation, the Democrats have made sure that voters will notice those costs even more once the bill is passed—giving Republicans a great issue on which to campaign for the next three years.

The spirit of this campaign for repeal—if it becomes necessary—is best summed up in a sign spotted at one of last summer's tea party rallies: "Shove It Down Our Throats in 2009, and We'll Shove It Up Your"—and here there appears a little symbol of a Democratic donkey—"in 2010."

Before then, however, there is another form of resistance: legal and constitutional challenges to various provisions of the bill. The first target will be the individual mandate, the requirement that every individual buy health insurance or pay a government fine. This is so unprecedented and unjustifiable an intrusion into the individual's rights—a tax just for existing—that it will face legal challenges demanding to know whether Congress has any such constitutional authority. Which it doesn't—though it is an open question whether a majority of the Supreme Court will rule that way.

The legal resistance on this issue has already begun, in an unexpected form. Various state government are trying to pass their own laws—Virginia's version is described here—guaranteeing the right of every individual to buy, or not buy, any health-insurance product he chooses. It is a deliberate attempt to set up a conflict between the federal health-care bill and a state-level guarantee of the basic rights of its citizens. Now that would be an interesting legal case, wouldn't it?

All of this and more can be done if the health-care bill manages to achieve final passage through Congress this month. But we're getting ahead of ourselves a bit, because we're not done yet with options to stop the bill in Congress.

As voters come out of their Christmas break and begin paying attention to politics again, each side is trying to define the character of the final Senate bill. The right is attempting, with notable success, to define the bill in one word: corruption.

Their main focus has been on the "Cornhusker kickback." This refers to a provision slipped into the Senate bill at the last minute to secure the vote of Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska (the "cornhusker state"). Nelson insisted that the federal government agree to cover all of his state's expenses—hundreds of million of dollars—for the bill's mandate expanding eligibility for Medicaid. The deal did not extend to the other 49 states, which will have to raise state revenues to cover this increase in spending.

The campaign against the "Cornhusker kickback" achieves three things.

First, in the eyes of public, this defines the bill as corrupt and full of hidden payoffs for special interests, of which this is just one example. (For more examples, see here.) These corrupt little payoffs are incidental to the bill in one sense; if they were all removed it would still be a bad bill. But in another sense, they reveal something essential about a government takeover of health care: it is all about looting, about how one group of people can tax and regulate others in an attempt to get something for nothing. All statist programs are rife with this kind of scheming, and they have to be, because whenever wealth is seized by force, there is a battle among the looters over how to divide the spoils. The Cornhusker kickback is the most visible reminder of this fact.

Second, the fight over special favors for Nebraska (and for other states) raises a basic constitutional challenge against the health-care bill. In fact, a group of Republican state attorneys general has threatened to sue if this provision is not dropped, citing numerous violations of the Constitution. A special favor to one state certainly violates the spirit of the Constitution by creating what is, in effect, a special treaty between the federal government and a single state giving that state privileges above the other states. This is precisely what whole structure of the Constitution was originally meant to prevent: the federal government becoming an instrument for the looting of some states by others.

And here's the beautiful thing about this constitutional challenge: the Democrats can't easily fix it without upsetting the whole set of political calculations required to get the bill passed in the first place. If the federal government doesn't pay for the increased Medicaid expenses that it mandates, it will be a huge cost increase for all states, putting pressure on senators to oppose the bill. But if the federal government has to pay for these increased costs for every state, then the cost of the bill spirals upward, and Democratic leaders risk losing the votes of congressmen who want to maintain the image of being "deficit hawks."

More broadly, in order to squeak by with the votes they needed in the House and Senate, the Democrats had to go on a vote-buying spree, offering money for hospitals in some districts, exemptions for limitations on Medicare Advantage programs in other districts, special tax breaks here and federal subsidies there. Start removing those special favors, and Democratic congressmen may decide that they can no longer justify the bill as being beneficial for their constituents. Or to put it more bluntly: votes that have been bought will become un-bought.

Finally, the attack on the Cornhusker kickback focuses pressure on the man who may be the health care bill's weakest link: Ben Nelson. Over the holidays, Senator Nelson has already faced a firestorm of criticism for his vote on the health care bill. Rather than being able to boast about the pork he brought back for his home state, he had to apologize for it.

"That's not the way we operate," said Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican who is sometimes suggested as a possible opponent for Mr. Nelson in 2012. Mr. Heineman said that as news of the Medicaid provision spread, people in Nebraska felt embarrassed at the thought that they had been made part of some political deal, even if it was to benefit them.

Any such exemption should affect all states, Mr. Heineman said, not just one. "Our citizens got angry," he said. "It was an attack on their integrity."

Polls now show Senator Nelson, "a former governor and second-term senator who won re-election in 2006 with 64 percent of the vote" running behind Governor Heineman by nearly a two-to-one margin.

Senator Nelson has been reduced to begging for mercy, pleading with the group of Republican state attorneys general to "call off the dogs" on this issue.

Oh yes, and as I'm writing this, the latest news is that the Mayo Clinic has stopped accepting new Medicare patients at some of its clinics because the federal government has cut back Medicare reimbursements to a level at which doctors and hospitals lose too much money to keep operating. Yet the health-care bill would mandate additional cutbacks in Medicare reimbursement rates.

So don't be too impressed by the fact that the health-care bill squeaked by with 60 Senate votes over the holidays. The whole thing is such a corrupt fraud, has so little public support, and has so many angles from which to attack it that it can be defeated. The bill is so bad that there is even the prospect that we can turn the left against it. So it can still be defeated this month in Congress. And if that doesn't work, it can still be defeated in the courts. And if that doesn't work, then there are a lot worse things the Republicans could do in the next two elections than to campaign on the repeal of this bill.

Winston Churchill had it right: "Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." Never give in.

2. Marked Men, March 22

Well, they did it. In the face of overwhelming public disapproval and with zero bipartisan support, House Democrats just voted in favor of the Senate health care bill, 219-212, without even the "deem-and-pass" evasion of pretending to vote only for an amended version of the bill.

How did this happen? Kim Strassel has a good overview of the corrupt sausage-making that got the bill passed, but the essence is this.

The "whip counts" that showed Democrats didn't have the votes turned out to be accurate—based on a certain range of normal assumptions, one of which was unexpectedly overthrown. What the whip counts showed was that the vote would be decided by the "Stupak Democrats," a group of about a half-dozen to a dozen anti-abortion Democrats led by Michigan's Bart Stupak. Getting the Stupak Democrats on board seemed impossible: any move to mollify the anti-abortion Democrats by promising to restrict government funding for abortions would cost the votes of an equal number of pro-abortion-rights Democrats.

President Obama found a way to square that circle. He signed an executive order that somewhat vaguely declared that no federal money should be used to fund abortions, which was enough to bring the Stupak democrats on board. But because he did this by executive order, he was not asking the pro-abortion-rights Democrats to approve actual legislation that restricts abortion. He got the votes of the one group without losing the votes of the other. Suddenly, the math worked in his favor.

Of course, this is all a fraud. An executive order can be changed at any time, and it cannot override the language of the underlying law, which Democrats openly admitted. So this was just a surrender, plain and simple, and so it's no surprise that an anti-abortion group that was about to give an award to Stupak promptly rescinded it.

I am actually in favor of the right to an abortion, so I don't particularly care about Stupak selling out the anti-abortion cause. But the Stupak Surrender is symptomatic of a wider pattern, the real reason this bill made its way through. The wider pattern—and the big lesson of this vote—is that it doesn't matter what any Democrat says he's for. When it comes down to the wire, he's only for one thing: collectivism.

Thus, just like Stupak, the "fiscally conservative" Democrats who claim to be concerned about deficits and runaway federal spending also broke for the bill, using the equally unconvincing fig leaf of a rigged Congressional Budget Office report which preposterously claims that a new multi-trillion-dollar entitlement will reduce the deficit.

The same goes for all of the House Democrats who expressed opposition to various awful provisions of the Senate bill—only to vote for the thing in higher numbers than they voted for their own previous House version. Sure, they also voted for a separate package of changes to the bill, but for all they know, those changes are dead on arrival in the Senate. So that's just another fig leaf.

Again, this is the lesson: Democrats stand for collectivism. They stand for resentment of the independent individual, who is to be reined in and cut down to size by a vast network of government taxes and controls. That is their basic ideology, and they will act on it because that is why they went into politics.

That also explains the suicidal politics of the vote. As "centrist" Democratic pollster Pat Caddell put it, this was "political Jonestown": "The opponents of this plan are holding tea parties, and the Democrats are gonna hold a Kool-Aid party."

Remember the old fable about the scorpion and the frog? The scorpion asks to ride on the frog's back so he can cross the stream, but the frog refuses because the scorpion might sting him. The scorpion points out that this is against his own interest, because if he stings the frog, he too will drown in the stream. So the frog agrees, and halfway across the scorpion stings him anyway. As they are both about to drown, he asks the scorpion why. The scorpion replies: because it is in my nature to do so.

It is in the nature of a scorpion to sting, and it is in the nature of a Democrat to vote for collectivism, no matter what the consequences.

Incidentally, this is yet another example of the Broken Culture Fallacy, the "bad news is good" argument about how putting the left into power will provoke a reaction in favor of free markets and we'll all end up better off in the end. In fact, letting Democrats gain power in Congress simply means that we get socialized medicine whether the American people want it or not. Note how close the vote was: only four fewer Democrats in Congress, and the bill would have failed. So anyone who ever advocated voting for Democrats as a protest or as a way of triangulating against the religious right—an argument fashionable in Objectivist circles a few years ago—bears part of the responsibility for this catastrophe. I take no satisfaction in pointing this out, not even a grim one, because we should not have needed a catastrophe to teach us that lesson.

The fact that we lost this round of the battle doesn't mean we have to take it lying down. Pat Caddell is right. Take a look at the "aye" votes on the final roll call: these are all marked men. They must be treated as marked men, or else we—those of us who want to live independent of state control—we will all be marked men.

But we don't have to wait until November to act against Obamacare. Twelve state attorneys general are already filing lawsuits arguing the key provisions of the bill, particularly the individual mandate, are unconstitutional.

For his part, President Obama is under no illusion that he can just declare victory and move on. He knows the bill is massively unpopular among the American people, so he has prepared a plan to sell it to us after the fact.

But the negative consequences of this bill are going to be felt, and soon. (The best advice I've heard about how to personally deal with the consequences is to immediate find a regular primary care physician—because there is likely to be a shortage of them.) And Obama will face resistance on the most basic level. As one commentator responded to Obama's plan to keep selling the bill: "All of that, and we still have to keep talking about ObamaCare?" I think the American people decided what they think about ObamaCare last August. Nothing the president has said since then has moved them, and nothing he says afterward is likely to do so, either. He will just enrage them with its paternalistic condescension. Another commentator—I can't remember where—describes Obama's attitude as being like the advice of a parent to an unwilling bride forced into an arranged marriage: you may resist it now, but you'll grow to love it. I'm willing to bet that we won't.

So our new crusade is a campaign for repeal—a campaign that will take three years. It is mathematically impossible for Republicans to gain a veto-proof majority in the Senate next year; there just aren't enough Democratic senators up for re-election. So overturning this law will have to wait for 2012 and the election of a Republican president pledge to the cause of repeal. So far numerous top Republicans have signed on to the idea: Senator Jim DeMint, House Majority Leader John Boehner, even John McCain. So have prominent commentators on the right, including William Kristol.

This last is interesting, if you know the history of the neoconservatives. It was one of the godfathers of neoconservatism, William Kristol's father Irving, who articulated the neoconservative approach to the welfare state. The big entitlements are too popular and well-established to fight, Kristol argued, so the only thing conservatives can do is to try to reform the welfare state to bring it more in line with conservative values. This was the idea of a "conservative welfare state." If Kristol's son is now refusing to accept a new welfare-state program and talking about repeal instead of reform, that reflects an interesting change in the political atmosphere.

Still, there is no precedent for such a repeal. Congress has never rolled back a significant expansion of the welfare state. Ever. But then again, Congress has never shoved through a major piece of legislation in this way, in such defiance of public opinion. So maybe this is the time for precedents to be broken. And if it is, maybe that will open up discussion of repealing other welfare state programs.

If there is any good to be salvaged from the current disaster, that will be it.

3. America's PIGS, July 8

Europe is in turmoil because of the insolvency of the Southern European welfare state. The PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, countries with relatively unproductive economies and relatively generous welfare states—are collapsing, and they are dragging the rest of Europe down with them.

But America has its own PIGS: states like California, Illinois, and New York that are on the leading edge of socialism in our own country, and which are also approaching insolvency and threatening to drag the rest of the nation's economy down with them.

Barack Obama's home state has already reached insolvency. The article below indicates that Illinois has run out of money and simply stopped paying some of its bills—and also that the state is politically paralyzed and unable to take any steps to solve the crisis, because no one in the political establishment is willing to cut government spending.

If the crisis in Southern Europe is a warning of where America is headed, the crisis of America's PIGS is a warning about how bad things already are.

"Illinois Stops Paying Its Bills, but Can't Stop Digging Hole," Michael Powell, New York Times, July 2

For the last few years, California stood more or less unchallenged as a symbol of the fiscal collapse of states during the recession. Now Illinois has shouldered to the fore, as its dysfunctional political class refuses to pay the state's bills and refuses to take the painful steps—cuts and tax increases—to close a deficit of at least $12 billion, equal to nearly half the state's budget.

Then there is the spectacularly mismanaged pension system, which is at least 50 percent underfunded and, analysts warn, could push Illinois into insolvency if the economy fails to pick up.

States cannot go bankrupt, technically, but signs of fiscal crackup are easy to see. Legislators left the capital this month without deciding how to pay 26 percent of the state budget. The governor proposes to borrow $3.5 billion to cover a year's worth of pension payments, a step that would cost about $1 billion in interest. And every major rating agency has downgraded the state; Illinois now pays millions of dollars more to insure its debt than any other state in the nation....

Few budget analysts are surprised to see Illinois, with a limping economy and broken political culture, edge close to the abyss. Two of the last six governors have served jail terms, and a third is on trial.

"We are a fiscal poster child for what not to do," said Ralph Martire of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a liberal-leaning policy group in Illinois. "We make California look as if it's run by penurious accountants who sit in rooms trying to put together an honest budget all day."

More broadly, Illinois is caught between blue state convictions about social safety nets and a red state aversion to taxes.... "Blagojevich was not a tax-and-spend governor; he was a spend-and-borrow governor."

4. Democratized Aristocracy, August 13

I've described before how I view the left as a kind of revival of aristocracy. Once again, we find ourselves under the saddle and spurs of an entrenched elite that regards itself as holding special privileges, possessing the right to control our actions and confiscate our wealth for their own uses, and who try to avoid having to answer to the people or seek the consent of the governed.

This is not a hereditary elite, but rather an elite composed of ambitious social climbers who claw their way up through entrenched, corrupt, government-connected institutions. I suppose you could call it a "clerisy"—a system of rule by clerks or bureaucrats. But that implies a bunch of modest, grey little men who are mostly concerned with maintaining their own sphere of petty authority.

The term "aristocracy" is needed to capture the extravagant, swashbuckling corruption involved in very, very many of these cases, and particularly the growing pattern of political operatives looting extravagant six-figure salaries from the taxpayer. It's a democratized aristocracy. We used to say that any kid can grow up to be president. This is more like saying that any kid can grow up to become emperor.

The symbol for this new aristocracy is the city of Bell, California, a somewhat run-down and not especially prosperous corner of Southern California where local officials had voted each other into salaries as high as $1.5 million per year (including benefits and pension)—paid for by illegally increasing property taxes to the second-highest rate in the nation.

Now comes the news that what made this possible was organized vote fraud. In a small, politically apathetic suburb, a few sharp operators figured out that no one was paying much attention to local politics, so that voting in local races was small enough to be swayed by relatively modest efforts at vote rigging—allowing the gang free reign to loot the town clean.

"It All Starts with Vote Fraud," John Fund, Wall Street Journal, August 7

The explosive scandal that saw officials in the lower-income city of Bell, California (population 40,000) purged last month due to outrageous salaries and pensions may have had its roots in voter fraud.

City Manager Robert Rizzo, who stood to collect a $600,000-a-year pension, and police chief Randy Adams, who was due a $411,300-a-year pension, were just two of the officials forced to resign after their platinum parachutes were uncovered. Now it turns out that they had been hired and kept in their jobs by elected officials who allegedly took advantage of Bell's traditionally low voter turnout to commit ballot fraud....

Four voters told the Los Angeles Times that city officials walked door-to-door urging them to vote absentee. One later was counted as voting absentee even though she said she never filled out a ballot. Two other voters said local council members had personally collected their ballots for delivery, a violation of state law. In addition, a retired Bell police officer has identified at least 19 people he says voted in Bell but were either dead or living outside the country at the time.

5. "Government of the Employees, by the Employees, and for the Employees," August 30

Republican control on the state level matters because it is not just the federal government that has thrown itself into a permanent fiscal crisis. Many of the big, left-leaning states have long since been turned into mechanisms for looting by government employees, and they are up to their necks in unsustainable debt and insatiably growing pension obligations.

No state is in worse shape than California, and in the main link below, Arnold Schwarzenegger describes the scope of the looting and sums up the system in a pithy phrase: "government of the employees, by the employees, and for the employees." While you check out that article, please also take time to look at a good overview of California's destruction by the left, where "During the second half of the 20th century, the state shifted from an older progressivism, which emphasized infrastructure investment and business growth, to a newer version, which views the private sector much the way the Huns viewed a city—as something to be sacked and plundered."

Unfortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger hasn't done much to solve that problem, though in this op-ed he vows to get tough. Meanwhile, New Jersey governor Chris Christie actually has taken on the public employees' unions. According to an admiring profile in BusinessWeek:

What earned Christie national fame wasn't the magnitude of the cuts but the way in which he picked a fight with public-employee unions. When he announced this spring that he was skipping the pension fund contribution, he made it a symbolic act, too, vowing not to put more money into the system until the legislature agreed to reforms necessary for long-term solvency. Christie also pressured teachers, who don't work for him, to agree to contribute 1.5 percent of their pay toward their health-care benefits. He warned them that if they didn't go along, he would campaign against passage of school budgets in their districts. Most teachers refused to contribute, Christie did as he had promised, and voters rejected a record 59 percent of school budgets. At the end of June, the Democratic-controlled state senate and assembly passed Christie's budget almost unchanged from his proposal.

If more Republicans can get elected on the state level—and then break the power of this neo-aristocracy of corrupt government employees—then perhaps they can demonstrate to the public that they actually deserve to be re-elected.

"Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future," Arnold Schwarzenegger, Wall Street Journal, August 27

As former Speaker of the State Assembly and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown pointed out earlier this year in the San Francisco Chronicle, roughly 80 cents of every government dollar in California goes to employee compensation and benefits. Those costs have been rising fast....

Much bigger increases in employee costs are on the horizon. Thanks to huge unfunded pension and retirement health-care promises granted by past governments, and also to deceptive pension-fund accounting that understated liabilities and overstated future investment returns, California is now saddled with $550 billion of retirement debt....

At the same time that government-employee costs have been climbing, the private-sector workers whose taxes pay for them have been hurting. Since 2007, one million private jobs have been lost in California. Median incomes of workers in the state's private sector have stagnated for more than a decade. To make matters worse, the retirement accounts of those workers in California have declined. The average 401(k) is down nationally nearly 20% since 2007. Meanwhile, the defined benefit retirement plans of government employees—for which private-sector workers are on the hook—have risen in value.

It's as if Sacramento legislators don't want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of the employees, by the employees, and for the employees.

6. Day of Reckoning, October 19

November 2 is not just an election day. It is a day of reckoning.

The Democratic Party faces a reckoning for using the financial crisis as a pretext for a government takeover of the economy and for the exercise of raw, unchecked, arbitrary power. It faces a reckoning for spending trillions of dollars of money we haven't even earned yet on a wish-list of big-government programs and paybacks to the public employees' unions. It faces a reckoning for engineering the government takeover of whole industries and for expropriating the rights of bond-holders in order to favor the interests of unions. It faces a reckoning for acting as if there are no constitutional limits on government power, as if they can do anything they like to us so long as they tell us it's for the "general welfare."

The Democratic Party faces a reckoning for not being "shovel-ready"—for being effective only at preventing private economic activity—for enacting, in the first weeks of the new Congress, a stimulus bill that swiftly succeeded in bankrupting the country, but which failed to stimulate anything other than the bloated pensions of state employees and the six-figure incomes of federal bureaucrats.

And most of all, it faces a reckoning for passing a trillion-dollar takeover of our health care against our will and over our loudly expressed objections.

The Democratic Party faces a reckoning for showing contempt for the governed—for telling us that they had to pass the bill so that we could find out what was in it, as if we were too stupid to analyze it for ourselves—for smearing ideological opponents as racists—for regarding all the bitter clingers in flyover country as mentally defective because, in the words of President Obama, they're "hard-wired not to always think clearly" when the issues get too difficult for their poor little heads.

The Democrats face a reckoning for trying to revive the basic principle of aristocracy: the idea that there is a small elite in the nation's capital who know better than us how we ought to work and think and who are therefore entitled to run our lives and spend our money.

This is what needs to be repudiated. If the Democrats are allowed to keep control of Congress after so openly defying the will of the American people, then they will be emboldened to initiate a new and even broader round of assaults on our liberty. And at this point, with expectations high for Republican gains, if Democrats lose control of Congress by a small margin, they will think they got a reprieve and they may be motivated to cling to their agenda for the final two years of Obama's presidency.

They need to be shown who's boss. They need to taught, in a way they will remember for decades, that they answer to the people. We need a Democratic loss that will go down in the history books, one that will stun even the most pessimistic Democrats. They have to realize they are up against a broad historical movement and not just a temporary off-year protest against incumbents.

We need to make this election into the opening shot of a second American Revolution.

This is why I'm offering my recommendation two weeks before election, because it is important not just to vote for Republican and against Democrats. It is important to make November's victory as big as possible by doing whatever you can to aid Republican congressional campaigns. There is still time for your campaign donations to make a difference in close races, and now is the perfect time to offer your services as a volunteer, particularly for the "get out the vote" operation. We need to bring as many pro-liberty voters to the polls as possible, to ensure a massive advantage in turnout that buries the Democrats.

This is also no time for third-party protest candidates. If you want to send a message to the Republican Party to reform itself—well, we already had an opportunity in the primaries, and we did a pretty good job of it. We'll get another good opportunity in the 2012 primaries. But now is the time to support your local Republican candidate even if he is uninspiring—because at least he will be susceptible to pressure from the Tea Parties and from pro-liberty voters, whereas the Democrats have demonstrated that they will simply ignore us.

And he will be susceptible to pressure from a Tea Party Caucus of small-government radicals in Congress, including a number of congressmen who are influenced by Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. These are the Republicans—I've profiled many of them in TIA Daily, and I'll continue to do so in the final weeks—who deserve our positive, fully enthusiastic support. One of the ways you can support them is to send them to Congress as part of a strong congressional majority in which they will wield outsized influence.

With a committed leftist still in the White House, it is crucial to have a powerful, radicalized Republican majority in Congress as a counter-balance to the vast arbitrary authority of the modern presidency. We can expect an unrepentant and unreformed President Obama to try to bypass the new Congress, imposing his agenda through the vast authority of executive-branch regulatory agencies. The EPA is already preparing a system of energy rationing more draconian than "cap-and-trade," which they are ready to impose with no specific authorization from Congress. The only thing that can prevent this is a significant effort by the Republicans to reclaim that constitutional authority of Congress. The REINS Act would be a good start.

The issue here is whether there are any limits on government power—whether the Constitution is a limit and whether the consent of the governed in a limit. In the past two years, the Democrats have made their position on constitutional government clear: they are against it. The Republicans are mixed, but their party contains the only Washington contingent of constitutionalists, and they must be put into power.

The best analogy to the current situation is the old story about the frog in a pot of water, who doesn't notice as the heat is gradually turned up until he is boiled alive. President Obama turned up the heat a little too fast, and a lot of voters have suddenly begun to notice: this water is boiling. And they're not going to be content with just turning it down to a low simmer. I think a significant portion of the public has woken up to the fact that we've been losing our liberty for a century and we're on the brink of socialism. The first step is the pull back from the brink, and the next step is to begin pulling back the government to within its narrow constitutional limits.

In that respect, this election not the end of the struggle for liberty. It is the beginning—and let's make it a strong beginning.

One-Year Subscription — $74
Six-Month Subscription — $38

Subscribe now!