Friday, March 26, 2010

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the readers of THE FREEDOM FIGHTER’S JOURNAL that Sergeant Ronbo will be posting at irregular times until further notice. The main reason due to leaving Salt Lake City shortly and being on the road and so forth. Furthermore, I’ve reached a condition known in the Trade as “Blogger Burnout” which seems to hit many bloggers every few years on the keyboard. The third reason is lack of compensation for the many hours spent in preparation, writing and posting my articles.

I originally started to blog on June 10, 2005 when I posted a newspaper article by the late Billy Cox in order to correct the record on a legal matter. I didn’t intend to post further, but the thing about blogging is that it’s like having just one potato chip – you just can’t have ONE, so before you know it you’re hooked. As addictions go blogging is one of the better if you post for a good cause and I would say that the liberation of the human race is about the best cause one can promote.

If this is the end of THE FREEDOM FIGHTER’S JOURNAL, it is well said, "all good things must end some day." At some point in time the United States of America will end, as will all nations, people, animals and the planet itself. The universe has an expiration date as well. Only Almighty God and his angels are eternal. The good news is that life goes until the end times, and the blogsphere will go on until this venue ceases to be popular, or Big Brother pulls the plug. To my readers who look for a good blog I would point them in the direction of Alan Caruba at Warning Signs.

Alan Caruba Lives in New Jersey

His latest book is Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy.

I think of all the 3,000 plus articles I've posted on THE FREEDOM FIGHTER'S JOURNAL, the best were The Falling Man of 9/11 and Remember 9/11: Freedom Isn't Free and Sergeant Eddie Jeffers Speaks From The Grave.

What we see in these three articles is a reflection of our era. It is a Dark Age of world war that reminds every man and woman in this country to do their duty. Sergeant Eddie Jeffers was one such man who died at a young age fighting in Iraq. The video and song "Freedom Isn't Free" reminds us that freedom is purchased at the highest price of all, and we must all be prepared to offer up our lives in the defense of liberty at a moment's notice. "The Falling Man of 9/11" reminds us of all of the victims of that infamous day when peaceful America was dastardly and cowardly stabbed in the back by nationals from countries we thought were allies.

It is said by our enemies - the Islamists and Socialists - that the United States is too morally weak to stop their assaults. They say that Americans fear death and will do anything to avoid fighting to the last ditch. I say that the example of Eddie Jeffers and The Falling Man prove that all real Americans will do what needs to be done to stop the advance of tyranny. If that involves military service in far off lands in difficult conditions, Americans will do that. If it involves jumping off buildings to cheat the Islamists of a willing victim, Americans will do that. If it involves fighting our own homegrown Socialists in a bloody Second U.S. Civil War, Americans will do that as well.

I would like express my warm regards for the readers and contributors to this blog.

Ronbo's Favorite Articles:








Tuesday, March 23, 2010

THE CRASH OF 2010? 2011? 2012?

[EDITOR'S NOTE] The political shoe for America has already fallen and bloodless (So far!) civil war between the Left Socialism and Right Capitalism has divided the country into warring factions for a 21st century repeat performance of the 20th century's great wars of ideology.

The next shoe to fall will be the economic one that threatens to throw the USA and the entire world back into the worst days of the Great Depression of the 1930s, as the house of economic cards made in America and built on absurd government interventions and clever Wall Street Ponzi schemes threatens to come falling down at any minute.


Post-Apocalyptic zombie finance

By Spengler

By 2014, International Monetary Fund official John Lipsky remarked March 21, the debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio of the Group of Seven countries will reach 100%, and the governments of the industrial world will carry the highest debt burden since shortly after the end of World War II.

That is bad news; worse news is that governments are shoveling money into the world banking system to finance the debt expansion. Following the great bank bailout of 2008, the global banking system is socialized de facto, shifting its resources towards government debt and away from private sector financing.

Governments averted a financial apocalypse in 2009 by bailing out the bankrupt banking system. But who will bail out the governments? The answer for the time being is that they will bail themselves out at the expense of the private economy.



While I work on some longer articles on the significance of Sunday's health care vote and where we go from here, today's TIA Daily is given over to three short articles put together from comments sent to me in the past day by Tom Minchin, Jack Wakeland, and my old friend Gene Barth.

Gene in particular captures what I think is the right perspective on the coming years. We had hoped that the tea party rebellion would lead to a quick rejection of the far left and its policies, largely ending President Obama's ability to do mischief after the first six months of his administration.

Instead, we now have to adjust our perspective and realize that this is just the beginning of a Long War Against the Left.—RWT

Feature Article

Hope Is Dead—Long Live Optimism, by Tom Minchin

The Long War Against the Left, by Jack Wakeland and Gene Barth

N-Word-Gate, by Jack Wakeland and Robert Tracinski

TIA Daily Feature Articles

1. Hope Is Dead—Long Live Optimism

by Tom Minchin

Whereas it is true people need intellectual ammunition—arguments they can use to fight for freedom—there is a more fundamental need: a code of virtues that will enable them to keep fighting.

The hardest thing to overcome is disgust and despair. You can have all the arguments—the right ammunition—but if you don't think you can win, you will still succumb. You need a way to maintain your morale—to counter the effects of dispiriting circumstances. In short you need a solid basis to expect a better future.

What can provide it when the news headlines fill you with revulsion?

The virtue of optimism.

The virtue of what? Optimism. But this is a very particular type of optimism. It is not wishful thinking, and it is not mere hopefulness or even assuredness based on favorable circumstances—an assuredness that vanishes with the first real adversity. It is confidence in one's own potency, and it has to be maintained and fought for like any virtue.

Just as courage must be exercised like a muscle to stay real, so must confidence about the future. You must keep proving to yourself you have it by overcoming obstacles and continuing to win.

Holding optimism as a virtue begins with understanding what it is and is not. Optimism in its most basic sense is "confidence in the future." And that kind of confidence is only possible to a rational man. As Ayn Rand wrote in "Epitaph for a Culture," the Apollo space program was the supreme demonstration, for it "has shown us the precondition of self-confidence, optimism, and progress, like skywriting left in the wake of those rockets: rationality." That bears repeating: the pre-condition of optimism is not faith, good fortune or wishful thinking. It is rationality.

What kind of optimism? The kind that can get a man to the moon and back against all the arguments that it is impossible, too dangerous, costs too much, and isn't worth it—the same arguments that will be used to say America cannot be restored to freedom after the passage of Obamacare. But it can.

I will have a lot more to say about optimism. It is a virtue worth getting to know.

Editor's Note: This last line is a teaser for upcoming articles in TIA's print edition—about which I will have more to announce soon.—RWT

2. The Long War Against the Left

by Jack Wakeland and Gene Barth

Editor's Note: After passage of the health care bill in the House, the next step is the Senate's passage of the House's amendments to the bill, by way of "budget reconciliation." In the first segment below, Jack Wakeland discusses how "budget reconciliation" is being turned into an unlimited excuse to bypass the filibuster, a key safeguard against bare majority rule in the Senate.—RWT
The Senate will now stretch the definition of the "budget reconciliation process" to include the re-writing of major new legislation. There will be no debate in the Senate—the "cooling saucer" of the federal legislature—over House markups of the health care control bill that Barack Obama is about to sign into law. There will be no cloture vote [to override a filibuster] because the debate over the health care control bill will be considered to be over by the fiat of Senate Leader Harry Reid, the Senate Rules Committee, and the Senate Parliamentarian.

As the House and Senate enter the Byzantine world of the "budget reconciliation process," our fate will be in the hands of Alan Frumin, the Senate Parliamentarian, an unelected bureaucrat appointed by the Senate Majority Leader to keep the Senate in order.

Rules that were set up to rapidly settle final disagreements between the House and the Senate regarding dollar estimates of government programs are now going to be applied to a sweeping new law, an enabling act for the federal regulation of every aspect of health care.

The rules are a legislative equivalent of "sudden death overtime" in football. Under the "budget reconciliation" rules, only 20 hours of floor time for debate in the Senate are allowed. Given the scope of the new federal powers in the health care control bill, this means that there will be no time for close examination, debate, or constituent feedback on changes to the 2700-page document. All there will be time for are dozens of side-deals within the Democratic caucus and dozens of temporary pacts of eternal non-aggression between different factions of the Democratic caucus.

Under the Senate rules, this fast-track process only applies to disagreements over dollar amounts. Under the "reconciliation" process's "Byrd Rule," Senators can make a motion—a "point of order"—against any part of the reconciliation bill that does not address budgetary issues, against every extraneous add-on.

Under the sudden-death overtime rules, who is the final arbiter of what is or is not germane to the budget and what is or is not an extraneous add-on? The Senate Parliamentarian.

The health care control law "budget" changes will include a major expansion of the student aid entitlement in order to buy the votes of college students and new graduates whose habit of leftist thinking has not yet been deprogrammed by contact with the real world.

But this is not all that will be added during the illegal "budget reconciliation" push. Since this big push will probably be the last time that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can supposedly get away with declaring anything they want to be a "budget" change, I predict that the 2700-page health care control bill to become a massive 4000-5000-page Christmas tree.

The leadership of the House and Senate are going to try to load up the "budget" change amendment to the health care control law with things like: an amnesty program for illegal aliens that targets poor, pro-Chavez Mexicans and central Americans, but excludes ambitious Pakistani small business owners and urban professionals with post-graduate degrees; "card check" that will eliminate secret ballots in union elections so union goons can "persuade" anti-union voters on a one-on-one basis; some kind of CO2 reduction control (via an authorization for the EPA, some kind of a mandatory national "renewable energy" mandate, or some kind of a CO2 cap-and-trade policy that applies only to the electrical power industry).

Expect total lawlessness—no 60-vote requirement to end debate and no debate of any kind—in the Senate "budget reconciliation process."

The left is charged up with their conquest of America's private health insurance companies. They have the taste of a nationwide power grab on their lips, and they're going to want, expect, and feel entitled to more, a lot more—and they're going to feel entitled to grab it in a hurry, before anyone can stop them.

Under this rule, the Senate Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin—a man that the American people did not elect—will be the final judge of whether a vast expansion of the Pell Grant student aid program can bypass the Senate's rules on ending debate. Alan Frumin will decide if "card check" can bypass the Senate rules on ending debate. Alan Frumin will decide if an amnesty program for illegal aliens can bypass the Senate rules on ending debate. Alan Frumin will decide if EPA funding to develop CO2 cap-and-trade regulations for the electrical power industry can bypass the Senate rules on ending debate.

All hail our new ruler, Alan Frumin!

Editor's Note: To this, Gene Barth provided the following response.

If it comes to pass, this spectacular orgy of enslavement will fully commit Americans to a Long War against the Left in this country. I think that we are already at that point. I know that I am.

Americans don't like to go to war. We would rather pursue normal lives in a thriving, free world. At the time of 9/11, Jack pointed out that knocking down iconic skyscrapers in the heart of Manhattan is what was needed to focus America's attention on the Islamist militants. Now, we will not take our eyes off of them until they are attenuated to the level of background noise.

In a similar way, Barack Obama and the Democrats' push for socialization of the economy represents a domestic cataclysm that will cause normal, freedom-loving Americans to commit to a Long Cultural War against the Left. We now understand that keeping the left off of our throats and then gradually pushing them down into the cultural noise will occupy a much bigger chunk of our lives in coming years than we would normally devote to politics.


3. N-Word-Gate

by Jack Wakeland and Robert Tracinski

Editor's Note: The article below makes repeated reference to an old racial epithet as "the n-word." Now, we all know what that word is, so my first response was simply to reprint it as a full word, on the grounds that you are not children and do not need to be shielded from the ugly realities of life. But the "n-word" has acquired the status of a borderline obscenity, largely for a good reason: the now deeply ingrained cultural prohibition against racism. In fact, you can get in more trouble for using the "n-word" than you would for using a fully fledged obscenity like the "f-word." For that reason, I expect that spelling out the whole word could cause us problems with filters designed to block unsolicited message—e-mails known by another word we can't use; let's call is the "s-word." And in this hypersensitive era, even having the word printed out—no matter what the context—could potentially cause problems for subscribers who read TIA Daily at work. Hence the clumsy use of the politically correct placeholder, and this apology for using it.—RWT
The nationwide headline: tea party protesters in DC spit at members of the Congressional Black Caucus and called them [the n-word]. This story will be the only headline that the establishment press will carry about the tea party protest.

The central part of the story is an account by Congressional Black Caucus members John Lewis and Andre Carson that they were repeatedly called [the n-word] by members of the crowd as they walked by the Tea Party protesters. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, who was some distance behind the two, says he heard the epithet, too. Based on initial reports, it appears that the statements that two of the congressmen made to the press were spontaneous and unrehearsed.

But these claims may be a fabrication, a deliberately coordinated act by the four Congressional Black Caucus members who made the accusation: Representatives John Lewis, Andre Carson, Emanuel Cleaver, and James Clyburn (the House Majority Whip).

In this video, the four men can be seen walking together in a group of eight, including some of their staffers.

The fact that they all walked so closely together through the tea party group in front of the Capitol Steps casts a different light on the men's stories about the supposed incident. The incident was supposed to have happened in front of the Capitol Steps during a one minute and 30-second period, the middle half of which is recorded on the above video.

In the video, there is no audio record of a group of Tea Party protesters chanting [the n-word] together 15 times. There is no audio or video record of any altercation with someone spitting at Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. There is no audio or video record of a DC policeman momentarily detaining the attacker, talking it over with Rep. Cleaver, and then letting him go.

Given these physical circumstances, we must conclude that there is no corroborating evidence that anything these four men accused the crowd of doing actually happened.

Given the history of the past 20 or 30 years of repeated instances of entirely fabricated claims of "racist acts" made by black leftists, we must infer that four of these Congressional Black Caucus members—leftists—could very well have made an entirely fraudulent accusation. It is entirely possible and reasonable to ask: did the four slander the tea party marchers on the DC Mall? Did they slander them in a deliberately coordinated act?

On the FOX Financial Network cable TV show, "America's Nightly Scoreboard" tonight, Andrew Breitbart observed that not one single video or audio of the shocking racist words or the assault have been posted at YouTube. He challenged some one to come forward with cell phone or camcorder video that shows the epithets and spit being hurled at the four black Congressmen. Mr. Breitbart challenged some one to come forward with video that shows heads turning with shock at [the n-word] being yelled. Are there videos showing the DC police detaining a protester and talking with Rep. Cleaver?

If a group of leftists had planted themselves among the tea party protesters to hurl the racist insults, Mr. Breitbart noted, they surely would have recorded the event and it would be posted on YouTube.

Andrew Brietbart noted that the entire body of the establishment press took the word of the four Congressional Black Caucus members as fact, as if no source independent of this four-man, self-corroborating team was necessary to establish the truth of the claims.

Editor's Note: Now here is my addition to Jack's note.

When I saw this story, I was immediately suspicious of it, because it does not fit with my experience of the tea party movement, where racism has been totally absent. But it does fit perfectly—too perfectly—with the Democratic Party's line of attack against the tea parties.

It is now becoming clear what this frame-up of the tea parties was meant to accomplish. Representative Lewis and his fellow conspirators were trying to stage a re-creation of the Selma civil rights march, in which blacks demanding their civil rights walked through a gauntlet of violent attacks. Forty-five years later, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are still trying to cast themselves in the role of brave martyrs facing down ignorant rednecks.

Here are the passages, from the Washington Post report linked at the top of this article, that give the game away:

Democratic leaders and their aides said they were outraged by the day's behavior. "I have heard things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to get off the back of the bus," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the highest-ranking black official in Congress.

And Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a statement, "On the one hand, I am saddened that America's debate on health care—which could have been a national conversation of substance and respect—has degenerated to the point of such anger and incivility. But on the other, I know that every step toward a more just America has aroused similar hate in its own time; and I know that John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement, has learned to wear the worst slurs as a badge of honor."

"This is not the first time the congressman has been called the 'n' word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans," said Rotert, Cleaver's spokesman.

This is how desperate the Democrats have become. The last really good thing the liberal Democrats did was their early backing for the civil rights movement (which was opposed, not by Republicans, but by Southern Democrats). So they have to keep re-living the one historical moment that gives them an aura of moral authority.

In this case, it may well turn out to have the opposite effect. If it is confirmed that this was a hoax perpetrated by the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus, then it should be a major scandal. Let's call it "N-Word-Gate." It is an incident that removes every last vestige of President Obama's promise of "post-racial" politics, and it will further inflame public outrage against the Democrats—and give further credibility to the tea party movement.

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

The Political Jonestown For Democrats

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.—RWT

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

Monday, March 22, 2010

Today Everything Changes in America

J. D. Longstreet—3/22/10

America, as we knew it, ceases to exist today (Sunday, March 21st, 2010). You may think that is an overly broad statement, a statement that just isn't so. But, I would assure you it is, if anything, an understatement!

Today the socialists in the US House of Representatives will pass (or by the time you read this tome will have passed) National Healthcare Reform - that which we have chosen to refer to as ObamaCare. It will forever have HIS name on it, as well it should, because it was his campaign to "fundamentally change America" and his use of the ignorance of most publicly educated Americans that brought us to this reintroduction of slavery in America. Yes, ObamaCare, by any other name, would still be slavery. Why? Because it is pure, flat-out, socialism, and socialism is the enslavement of a people until communism takes over their nation's government.
I may have lost one of the best friends I have ever had, in my entire life, as a result of our own debate over ObamaCare and socialism in America today. His belief in a strong central government and my belief that a strong central government is pure evil, and my persistent belief in "state's rights" as granted by the US Constitution, drove us to a heated debate. Later, I reminded myself that the socialists in charge of our government today NEED Americans at each other's throats.

You know, ObamaCare is scary enough -- all by itself. But when one understands that it is only the BEGINNING, only the very first step in total control of the lives of Americans, it is not only frightening, it is terrifying. Freedom loving Americans must, somehow, stop this socialism.

Freedom-loving, liberty-loving, Americans must begin the campaign to repeal ObamaCare right now, today. Actually, I have already begun my personal campaign to have the "law from hell" repealed. I urge you to do the same.

I was thrilled to see the crowds of Americans in Washington yesterday demonstrating against socialized medicine. It was a great event for the Tea Party. I thought, as I watched on TV, that we have to bring this same level of energy toward defeating as many of the socialists and RINO's in Congress as we possibly can this coming November in the Mid-Term Election. America will need a fresh start and she cannot get it if the incumbents remain in power in our national legislature. What is even more important -- we won't have a snowball's chance in hell of repealing ObamaCare if we do not remove the incumbents and replace them with representatives and senators sworn to support repeal of ObamaCare.

Repealing ObamaCare will certainly not be easy. Some fellow commentators are questioning the fortitude of the GOP members of Congress when the chips are down and the battle rages for repeal. I must tell you, I have the same concerns. Remember, even if we manage to gain control of both houses of the Congress this November, Obama will STILL be in the White House and he will most certainly VETO any bill that repeals ObamaCare -- should it ever reach his desk. Yes, repeal will be an uphill battle - all the way.

Repeal of ObamaCare will be one of the most difficult tasks ever undertaken by the American people. Once a government program wraps its tentacles around the freedoms and, yes, the wallets, of the American people it is near impossible to loosen them enough to forcibly extract them and return America to its free state.

We have a most difficult job ahead of us. It begins now, today. We absolutely must see that the democrats are defeated at the polls in the Mid-Term Election this coming November. Between now and then we have to locate and encourage candidates who believe in freedom for Americans -- and candidates who hate socialism -- to run for the offices up for election. And, somehow, we must only elect that candidate who will not fold when the going gets rough in Congress.

Bipartisanship be damned! It was bipartisanship that got us to this point in American history where the country has adopted socialism. In order to repeal ObamaCare and return America to its "constitutional republic" form of government, we cannot afford to elect a single limp-wristed, weak-spined, candidate. We will be engaging in a war in our national legislative body and we will need WARRIORS!

I urge you to begin your personal efforts today to Repeal ObamaCare.

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.



Obamacare Bill: A Declaration of War

By David Horowitz

The President was right about one thing. The vote on Obamacare on March 21, 2010 was a historic one. The Democratic Party has in the course of the nine-month health care debate revealed itself to be an anti-democratic Party and an anti-liberty party. It is a party that has demonstrated its contempt for the Constitutional framework, for the democratic process, and for the expressed will of the American people. Its brazen contempt for the compact that holds the diverse factions of this country together has initiated a political war at home that will extend not only into the next elections but into the next generations that will be encumbered with the trillions in debt and oppressive government controls that the socialist majority in Congress has demonstrated that it is intent on inflicting on this country. The people of this nation are still sovereign, and their voice will be heard. Tonight’s vote was lost but it is not the end of the battle. It is the beginning.



Vladimir Lenin coined the phrase “the commanding heights” to symbolize the sectors of the economy that largely control or support others, such as oil, railroads, banking, steel and foreign trade. From the late 1920s until the 1980s nearly all products, resources and services in the Soviet Union were owned and operated by the government. Like 20th century communist Russia, the United States is experiencing a period in which the majority in government view themselves as controlling the commanding heights of its economy. Prior to his election in November 2008 Barack Obama gave notice of the agenda about to be implemented when he said,

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

This fundamental transformation is the achievement of the Left’s wet dream of the Great Communist Revolution, the transformation of America from free market capitalism to government control of its commanding heights; an economy whereby the American people are dependent upon the government for all products, resources, and services, how they will be produced, and who is to produce them.

To understand the Left’s method and objective with the U.S economy, one needs to understand the purpose of the economic theory they implemented immediately upon gaining control of both the executive and legislative branches to “solve” the financial crisis. The economic principles of John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) are highly prized by the Left because they provide rulers with plausible justification for their control of the population. In his book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Keynes begins

“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

“Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

The U.S. economic crisis was precipitated in late June 2008 by Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer’s intentional leak of a memo questioning the solvency of IndyMac bank. The memo triggered a deposit run on IndyMac which led to its failure. The combination of IndyMac’s failure, Lehman Brothers collapse and Fannie Mae’s impending subprime mortgage crash effected a gathering storm in the markets until September 15th when, in a matter of hours, a colossal drawdown of money market accounts in the U.S. caused the disappearance of $550 billion from the American banking system. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania stated if authorities had not closed the banks that day, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the U.S.

Combined with mortgage industry failures, this electronic run on banks handed the Democrats in Congress the justification to utilize the panic for political benefit and initiate the nationalization of the banking and mortgage industries under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP.) This early October Surprise propelled Barack Obama into office and provided further ammunition for his administration’s deliberate takeover of the private market.




As President Barrack Hussein Obama continues to press his radical socialist agenda on an America that wants no part of it, the question in the minds of millions of Americans forms: "Is Obama the new Salvador Allende?"

Salvador Allende was a Communist piece of human trash who secured power in Chile and proceeded to destroy a functioning democracy.

He gained power in 1970 with a bloc of Socialists, Communists and radicals supporting his bid for the presidency. From there, he proceeded to try to transform Chilean society from a democratic government into rank socialism.

Allende nationalized the banks, the copper companies , expropriated large agricultural estates and turned them into peasant cooperatives in his attempt to redistribute income.. He printed currency to support unsupported government debt, resulting in stagnant production, decreased exports and private-sector investment, exhausted financial reserves, and rising inflation, food shortages and the elimination of foreign lines of credit from the United Sates and Europe.

At the same time, he forged alliances with Communist China and Cuba. Finally in 1973, the Chilean military overthrew him in a coup. Since then, Chile has returned to functioning as a democratic republic that has become the most prosperous state in Latin America and a model for the world in general.

America must learn from history and realize that Barack Hussein Obama has placed us on the same unsustainable path that Allende did in Chile.



Members of the House of Representatives tonight approved President Obama’s health care agenda, the biggest expansion of government power since the Great Society. The Obama health care legislation is universal in scope and will profoundly impact the personal lives of more than 300 million Americans. It will restrict our personal freedom while undercutting the independence and authority of the several states.

This unprecedented congressional action will give Washington control over the content of health benefits packages; the kind of health insurance available to Americans and the organization and regulation of health insurance markets. This has been accompanied by one of the most shocking Congressional exhibition of arrogance and special interest deal-making in memory.

In 1774, in response to the first Tea Party, the British Parliament issued a series of acts designed to control the colonists, stop their protests and restrict their liberty. The Americans called these “The Intolerable Acts.”

Obamacare is today’s Intolerable Act. In poll after poll, in town hall meetings, in popular protests and in special elections, ordinary Americans have declared their firm opposition to this scheme, only to be derisively dismissed.

This imposition of legislation is intolerable for two reasons:

•Process: The outrageous way in which this massive restructuring of one six of the economy has been pushed through.

•Substance: Huge obligation shifted to future generations, a huge lurch toward European-style welfare states.

The Heritage Foundation will have a full answer to Congress’ action tomorrow and in the days and weeks and months to come. We will do all within our power to recommend, and make the intellectual case for, the repeal of these acts. We will help marshal the full resources of the conservative movement for this cause. You can join the fight to keep America the Land of the Free today

Fortunately, there are no permanent victories or defeats in Washington. For millions of Americans and for Heritage, Round One of this fight is over. Tomorrow morning, we are answering the bell.


Sunday, March 21, 2010



A video has surfaced this evening of the incident today involving civil rights icon Comrade John Lewis (D-GA) and Tea Party protesters on Capitol Hill.

Comrade Lewis has alleged that he was called a "NIGGER" by the protesters.

Comrade Andre Carson (D-IN), who was walking with Comrade Lewis, says he heard the word "NIGGER" fifteen times.

Comrade Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) claims "It was a chorus" of people yelling "NIGGER."

Comrades Chaka Fattah (D-PA) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) are also walking behind Comrade Lewis in the video

Since this video was first posted. Comrade Lewis and the Congressional Black Caucus have claimed they were called racial slurs by Tea Party members opposed to Obamacare. The truth is that Comrade Lewis is a racist, liar and a socialist pig like most Democrats.

As you can see in this video, there is no evidence of the so-called "NIGGER" or any other slur being used, despite the claims of the CBC and their lapdogs at CNN, NBC, MSNBC, See BS.

Will the media ignore the fact that among the Tea Partiers were people of all races? Probably not.

Here's the proof of yet more lies by the Racist Socialist Democrat Party - The party of slavery, segregation and socialism who are the scum of the earth and traitors to the American Republic.



Will it soon be the U.S.S.A. – the United Socialist States of America?

Tens of thousands of people descended on Washington today, lining up in circles around the Capitol, in protest of a pending vote Sunday on President Obama's trillion dollar plan that would take over health care across America. That's some $500 billion in cuts from funding for U.S. seniors and another nearly like amount in new taxes.

Promoters of the bill have touted the millions who will be added to health-care rolls and claimed it will lead to deficit "reduction," although opponents say supporters have used accounting tricks to keep hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses out of the fine print of the bill.

The clowns in Washington obviously have no clue about our founding document. Send them copies of the Constitution today!

Critics of the reform bill cite the abortion financing the government would require, massive fines, especially against married couples, for whatever a government health czar would decide is unsatisfactory, and the general principle that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution – which sets limits on the federal government's powers – is there an authorization to force people to buy the health-insurance program a federal bureaucrat picks out.



By Alan Caruba

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

-- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963)

Jeffrey T. Kuhner, president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a columnist at The Washington Times, might as well have rolled a grenade down the main aisle of the House of Representatives chamber. On March 19 he wrote a column titled, “Impeach the President?”

It is a bold proposal and would end much of the agony that President Obama has inflicted on Americans. In lesser developed nations a leader as unpopular as Obama would risk being seized by a mob and dragged through the streets before being hung.

Of course, we don’t do that kind of thing and, truth be told, impeachment proceedings have been rare in American history and both have failed.

Only two presidents have faced impeachment. One was Andrew Johnson who became president upon the assassination of Lincoln. Taking power in the wake of the Civil War, he was deemed to be too friendly to the defeated South. His removal from office in 1868 was defeated by a single vote.

The other president to be impeached was Bill Clinton in 1998. The charges brought against him included perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance in office. He was no doubt guilty of all three, but the proceeding was initiated primarily as the result of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and a lawsuit brought by Paula Jones.

It was the considered judgment of the Senate that his failure to keep his penis in his pants did not rise to the punishment of losing his job. In hindsight, the senators might have been mindful that they would be installing Al Gore, the vice president, if they removed Clinton.

I cite this to demonstrate that impeaching Barack Obama—while probably the right thing to do—would be an impossibility in a Senate and House controlled by Democrats.

Not to go all legal on you, but Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and, Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Constitutional lawyers deem “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” as acts of criminality in which a law was broken; abuses of power; and something called a “violation of public trust” as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. The definition of this is, for all intents and purposes, whatever the House of Representatives say it is. These are, after all, folks who can’t even kick Charlie Rangel out on his kiester.

The two acts of impeachment issued in the past cited exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office of president; behavior that is considered grossly incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and using the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

Being fellated in the Oval Office by a White House intern did not turn out to be sufficiently grossly incompatible in 1998. Clinton finished his second term, pardoned a lot of felons, and probably had to be restrained from leaving with the White House silver and chinaware.

Kuhner, however, made a very strong case for impeaching Obama. He accused the president of “imposing a leftist revolution” with the de facto nationalization of “key sectors of American life—the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico” were cited as examples.

The ugliness concerning the healthcare “reform” legislation and the proposed Cap-and-Trade legislation was cited as Obama’s willingness “to devour his presidency, his party’s congressional majority and—most disturbing—our democratic institutional safeguards to enact” both pieces of legislation.

“He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country’s stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.”

That is, in fact, what both Stalin did in Russia and Mao did in China. Both inflicted death in the millions and economic ruin on both societies.

The question, however, is whether the process of impeachment can be initiated and, once commenced, whether a case could be made to depose Obama. That is not likely to happen. It has nothing to do with whether a just case can be made, but because of the vast corruption of the political process and the moral decay Americans are witnessing in the Democrat Party.

We are now living in a state of constant crisis in America. That is precisely the way the White House likes it. Such conditions could lead to a complete seizure of power in the name of protecting the Republic.

It worked in Nazi Germany in the last century. It worked in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. It worked in Cuba. And it is at work today in Venezuela.

Despotism never sleeps.

Alan Caruba Lives in New Jersey

Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs.

His latest book is Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy.

Alan can be reached at




Storming the Bastille. 40,000 are massing on the Mall for the Code Red rally at Noon, March 20, 2010, West Lawn of The Capitol...

Americans takes to the streets in opposition to the $2.5 trillion government takeover of health care.




Congress is about to become completely irrelevant, not that we want Progressives communists, who have infiltrated and taken over the Democrat Party and are now the majority voting block in the House...

Saturday, March 20, 2010


It looks like Sunday is the day for the climactic vote on the health care bill. Or rather, thanks to the "deem-and-pass" gymnastics, it's not supposed to be a vote directly on the health care bill. But who do they think they're fooling? We all know that this is really a vote on the Senate version of the health care bill.

The good news is that, despite Democratic claims that they have been building "momentum" toward a 216-vote majority, two votes that they picked up yesterday were cancelled out by two votes that they lost. So the "whip count" still doesn't show that the Democrats have the votes.

Dick Morris—who I trust on these horse-race issues—confirms the enormous risk that Democrats are taking by scheduling a vote:

From a top level source in the House comes the news that the Democrats are still short of the 216 votes they need to pass Obamacare. They have decided, however, to go for broke on Sunday and attempt to pass it whether or not they have enough support. They feel that only by forcing a vote can the force members off the fence. They hope that by employing all means at their disposal, they can round up enough votes for passage. But, if they don't have the votes, they will allow the measure to be defeated. One source called it a "suicide run."

Well, if they want to commit political suicide, we'll be happy to assist.

The term "whip count" is based on the position of a "whip," a leader in a congressional caucus whose job is to "whip" his own members into line so that they will vote for a bill. In this case, we're going to have to be our own "whips," bringing down the lash on any congressman who is wavering toward voting for this bill.

It is important that we once again flood the nation's capitol with a mass of humanity marching in opposition to the bill. A giant rally is planned for tomorrow, Saturday, at noon. I'm currently making plans to go up there with some people from the local tea party group.

If you can't get to DC, then you can light up the phones of your representatives. Dick Morris provides a helpful list of phone numbers for congressmen who are considered health care "swing" votes.

I know it's hard to get the momentum going for one more trip or one more day spent on the phones. But we can at least hope that this will be the last time we'll have to do it, because Obama is already teetering on the brink of becoming a lame duck president.

I was struck by this when I was listening to the radio this morning and caught a snippet from President Obama's Fox News interview with Bret Baier—the first journalist for a long time to ask Obama some really tough questions—and from a briefing given by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Both were asked about the constitutionality of the "deem-and-pass" maneuver, and I have never heard such a collection of um and ahhs before. Neither one provided an actual answer to the question.

Part of what we can take from this is that the Democratic political establishment is indifferent to the Constitution. They rallied behind "deem-and-pass" because it was expedient, and it didn't even appear to them that they ought to think seriously about whether it was constitutional.

But even if they don't personally care about the constitutionality of the procedure, they had to know they would be asked questions about it—yet they were totally unprepared. How could they be that politically incompetent?

When I was thinking about this, I was reminded of a scene from a movie that came out a number of years ago based on the "Miracle on Ice," the US hockey team's unexpected victory over the Soviets at the 1980 Winter Olympics. There is a scene toward the end of the game, as the Americans are clearly on the verge of winning, when the US coach and assistant coach are watching their Soviet counterpart and trying to figure out what his strategy is. Finally, the US coach realizes that the Soviet coach doesn't have a strategy. His team is losing, and he doesn't know what to do.

I think that explains a lot of the helpless flailing that's going on in Washington right now. The Democrats lost the health care vote six months ago, but they have refused to acknowledge it. Instead, they keep trying to win somehow, but they don't know what to do.

So they've resorted to the most outrageous dishonesty and the most transparent bribery.

They've issued a hasty Congressional Budget Office report which claims that a massive new multi-trillion dollar entitlement will reduce the deficit. How did they get that result? By double counting half a trillion dollars in funds diverted from Social Security.

Then there's the latest ObamaCare bribery scandal: two California Democrats who suddenly switched their votes to a "yes"—just as the Department of the Interior announced that it would increase the amount of irrigation water sent to the farms in their districts.

And then there are the Democrats who are retiring from Congress and may hope the administration rewards them with an appointment to a cushy federal job. This has prompted one Republican senator to vow to block the appointments of any congressmen who vote for ObamaCare.

Coburn just told reporters he'll use his senatorial prerogative to block the nominations of any lawmakers who change their votes from "no" to "yes" on health care should the president subsequently tap them for a federal post. Just in case any of them are considering that [as] an option should things not work out for them in the November elections.

Peggy Noonan, who can be good at capturing the sense-of-life aspect of politics, describes the whole debacle this way:

Excuse me, but it is embarrassing—really, embarrassing to our country—that the president of the United States has again put off a state visit to Australia and Indonesia because he's having trouble passing a piece of domestic legislation he's been promising for a year will be passed next week. What an air of chaos this signals to the world. And to do this to Australia of all countries, a nation that has always had America's back and been America's friend.
How bush league, how undisciplined, how kid's stuff.

You could see the startled looks on the faces of reporters as Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who had the grace to look embarrassed, made the announcement on Thursday afternoon. The president "regrets the delay"—the trip is rescheduled for June—but "passage of the health insurance reform is of paramount importance." Indonesia must be glad to know it's not.

The reporters didn't even provoke or needle in their questions. They seemed hushed. They looked like people who were absorbing the information that we all seem to be absorbing, which is that the wheels seem to be coming off this thing, the administration is wobbling—so early, so painfully and dangerously soon.

Astonishingly, President Obama is actually encouraging lawmakers to view this as the last gasp of his presidency. According to The Politico:

President Barack Obama had exhausted most of his health care reform arguments with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus during a White House meeting last Thursday when he made a more personal pitch that resonated with many skeptics in the room.

One caucus member told Politico that Obama won him over by "essentially [saying] that the fate of his presidency" hinged on this week's health reform vote in the House….

Another caucus member, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), said, "We went in there already knowing his presidency would be weakened if this thing went down, but the president clearly reinforced the impression the presidency would be damaged by a loss."

Added Serrano: "He was subtle, but that was the underlying theme of the meeting—the importance of passing this for the health of the presidency."

[T]here's an unmistakable sense that the health care debate is fast moving past a discussion of the bill's merits, beyond the all-consuming anxieties of incumbents and into an existential battle to preserve Obama's presidency.

But it's really too late for that. President Obama hasn't moved forward a major item in his domestic agenda for more than six months, and his public approval ratings have been falling steadily since last summer. Earlier today, after months of lingering just below 50%, the average of his approval ratings hit another key psychological breaking point: for the first time, more people disapprove than approve of how he is doing his job.

What will be decided this weekend is not the success or failure of Barack Obama's presidency. It has already failed. What will be decided is how much damage the Democrats will do to the nation on their way to political oblivion. With one last push, we can make sure that the damage does not include the destruction of the American medical system.—RWT

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

Friday, March 19, 2010


Call to Arms: Join Me in DC Saturday to Stop ObamaCare

By John Voight

I am calling to all of you freedom-loving Americans to come once again to Washington D.C. to gather at upper Senate Park, across from the Capitol on Saturday, at 12 o’clock noon.

We must come by the thousands.

Speaker Pelosi will stop at nothing to fulfill her corrupt conquests. She will bring all of the corrupt ACORN liars to try to bully all the Democrats that may be having pangs of guilt knowing quite surely what their votes can and will do. If they’re bullied into saying “yes,” it will destroy America.

Join me and Rep. Michele Bachmann in Washington DC at 12 noon EST so we can give all the Democrats who know what the end result will be the courage to say: “No, do not pass this destructive bill.”

I’ll see you there.

Impeach the President Obama (Then Try Him For Treason)

THE FLAMING CONSITUTION (To the tune of Blazing Saddles)

He flamed the Constitution
He followed a Crescent-Star
He claimed he had solutions
To problems near and far

He offered Hope and
He offered Change
Pretended dark night was day
He made the Constitution
A torch to light his way

When outlaws ruled in Washington
Corruption filled the land
A cry went out for an honest man
To take the place in hand.
Instead they got Faux-Bama
Destruction was his aim

Yes, out of Chicago
There came a Thug
Faux-bama was his name
Yes, Faux-Bama was his name

He flamed the Constitution
He followed a Crescent-Star
He claimed he had solutions
To problems near and far

He offered Hope and
He offered Change
Pretended dark night was day
He made the Constitution
A torch to light his way

The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.

Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.

This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.

Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.

Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.

Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.

Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.

Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.

Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM ( from noon until 3 p.m.


Thursday, March 18, 2010


By Alan Caruba

If Barack Obama had been engaged in an ordinary job interview on Wednesday evening, he would not have been hired. Any experienced interviewer would have instantly picked up on his avoidance of straight answers and body language that revealed deceptive behavior.

During the course of his interview with Fox News reporter and anchor, Brett Baier, the President did more damage to himself and to his alleged health care "reform" than in the entire period of time leading up to now.

Inaugurated in January 2009, Obama has largely ignored the financial crisis he inherited from the very end of George W. Bush’s last term. After an “apology tour” and media blitz lasting several months, most of his energy has been devoted to taking over the nation’s healthcare system.

Early on he paused to throw billions at the failed General Motors and Chrysler. He made the American people their owners instead of letting an ordinary bankruptcy proceeding restructure the companies. At the same time, his Secretary of the Treasury continued his predecessor’s policy of parceling out billions in bailouts to the very Wall Street firms that had caused the financial meltdown.

While that was occurring, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (an independent central bank, not really part of the federal government) was busy running the printing presses night and day to create fiat money.

During his first year, as millions of Americans found themselves unemployed, instead of concentrating on measures that would jump-start economic growth such as tax cuts and other incentives, Obama’s sole domestic policy concern was healthcare “reform.”

Desperate to get a vote on it, despite Democrat majorities in both the Senate and the House, Obama turned finally to Fox News in yet another effort to make his case. What he did not anticipate was the relentless questioning of a reporter who wanted real answers about the ugly process by which the Senate and House bills have reached this point.

The President’s body language said as much as his efforts to filibuster his answers to Baier. The obvious effort was to run out the clock and end the hammering he took.

His hands were always gesticulating a plea that Baier stop asking why the bill was filled with horrendous provisions such as the “Louisiana purchase” or the gift of a $100 million hospital in Connecticut.

What Obama wanted to do was repeat his stale talking points for the Fox audience of viewers, stressing his attack on insurance company’s profits. Those profits, however, are a mere 6% at most, far less than other industries. For both the insurance companies and consumers, the lack of free market competition is the real problem.

Following the interview, Fox commentator Charles Krauthammer called Obama’s answers “a very clever rope-a-dope”, noting that “He did not have a lot of answers.” His colleague, commentator Steve Hayes, called the president “simply dishonest."

Anyone watching and listening would have come to the same conclusion.

The interview showed a man who discovered that the sheer power of the office of president and the automatic respect it engenders was not enough to protect him from an intense and long overdue grilling.

The particulars of a plan—-which he refused to discuss—-would dramatically change the relationship of every American to their physician and the ability of their physician to prescribe the procedures necessary to overcome an illness or injury.

To casually explain a vote on Obamacare as “the right thing to do” looked and sounded lame.

The vast majority of Americans of all political persuasions want this bill killed. Obama is spectacularly indifferent to public opinion.

Even Fox commentator, Juan Williams, a liberal voice, noted that the failure to get his healthcare “reform” bill passed would leave Obama “mortally damaged” as the leader of the Democrat Party and as president in general.

The simple fact is that, from the day he entered the office, Obama has damaged his credibility and confidence in his judgment. In just over a year he has gone from polling around 70% approval of his performance in office to the mid-40% percentile and it just keeps getting worse.

The interview may, indeed, turn out to be a turning point because, if I was a member of the House of Representatives, a Democrat, and up for reelection in November, I would conclude that this president was not worth following off the cliff.


Alan Caruba Lives in New Jersey

Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs.

His latest book is Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy.

Alan can be reached at

"Alas Poor Deem, I Knew Him"

All eyes are on the "whip count" of yes and no votes for the health care bill in the House.

The latest news is the flip-flop of Dennis Kucinich, who will now vote "yes" after previously strongly opposing the bill because it didn't go far enough toward socialism—or rather, because it moved toward the wrong variant of socialism: the fascist model.

But my impression is that Kucinich doesn't really change the count. I don't remember seeing him on anyone's list of potential swing votes against the bill. Most vote counters have already factored in the likelihood that the far left will go along with the bill simply because it's a step toward a government takeover.

So the whip count now stands at about 205 "yes" votes, 11 votes short of passage, and it's not clear that the Democrats will be able to add much to that total. As Jack Wakeland noted to me: "The original House bill passed 220-215. The election of Republican Scott Brown to be the new Senator from Massachusetts, as well as continued tea party and other grassroots opposition, has cost at least 15 votes in the House—and possibly as many as 25."

If things go well, that could be the real significance of the vote: it will allow us to measure the exact political impact—so far—of the tea party movement.

What also gives me cause for hope is the general air of pathetic desperation in the House leadership's machination to get a health care bill rammed through somehow.

Since many House Democrats had problems with the Senate version of the bill, and they didn't trust the Senate to be able or willing to make those changes later, Democrats first proposed passage of the bill in the House simultaneously with the Senate's passage of revisions demanded by the House. But then the Senate parliamentarian shot that down, quite sensibly pointing out that the Senate can't vote on revisions to a law that doesn't exist yet.

So their latest attempt is a "self-executing rule," also called the "Slaughter Rule" after House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, in which the House would pass its preferred changes to the Senate bill, and in passing those changes would "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. But this doesn't actually change the outcome. Once the Senate bill is "deemed" to be passed, it would go on to the president to be signed—while the changes to the bill could still be forgotten and abandoned by the Senate.

So the whole idea of this parliamentary pretzel is to allow House Democrats to say that they never really voted for the Senate bill, that they just voted for the corrections—while actually having them vote for the Senate bill. Or rather, its goal is to have them vote for the Senate bill without actually voting for it.

This is pretty clearly unconstitutional, violating the procedure set out in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution for the passage of a bill into law. The Constitution states that both Houses must have an official vote for a bill with the exact same wording—precisely the situation the House's "self-executing" maneuver is intended to avoid.

Such constitutional provisions are rarely enforced by the Supreme Court—though they did so in the case of this rule's most immediate precedent, the line-item veto, which was struck down for a similar reason. Still, the Supreme Court is generally very reluctant to insert itself into the procedural rules that Congress sets for itself. That is precisely why these constitutional rules must be internalized by Congress. It should be the rulebook they follow because they themselves believe it is the right thing to do—and not just because they are afraid of being slapped down by the Supreme Court.

But the left regards the Constitution as an irrelevant obstacle. As President Obama just put in an interview with Fox News, he doesn't "spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are." Or as the left used to say, in defending Communist dictatorships, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Except that it wasn't eggs they were breaking; it was skulls.

But I think the Democrats are deluding themselves if they think anyone is going to be fooled by any parliamentary maneuvers. Saying that they voted for the health care bill without voting for the health care bill is going to go over about as well as John Kerry saying that he voted for the bill before he voted against it. The American people have a lot of experience with dishonest politicians, and they can spot a cheap evasion when they see it.

The article below describes some of the controversy over the Slaughter Rule and describes some good Republican tactics to flush Democrats out into the open, including forcing them to hold a vote on whether they are going to vote on the Senate bill. Can you imagine having to defend voting "no" on that one?

This is going to be hair-raisingly close, but I still stand by my earlier prediction. In trying to shove this bill through, the left had to choose between legislative defeat and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will get defeat—and not just in this vote.

Legal blogger William Jacobson describes what the Democrats are doing as "slaughter by self-execution," meaning that this vote may be "self-executing" for the Democrats' political careers.

Or as TIA Daily reader Ron Chandler puts it: "Nancy Pelosi wants the House to say the Senate bill is 'deemed passed,' so they can pass the bill without voting on it. Can the American people then say that Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid are 'deemed impeached'?"

"'Deem and pass': Democrats' New Tactic for Healthcare Reform Bill," Gail Russell Chaddock, Christian Science Monitor, March 16

With 178 seats in the House–and four of 13 seats on the powerful Rules Committee–Republicans don't have the votes to defeat this strategy, but they aim to make it as costly to Democrats as possible, especially those in tough races in 2010.

"Make no mistake, this will be a career-defining and a Congress-defining vote," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday. "Anyone who endorses this strategy will be forever remembered for trying to claim they didn't vote for something they did. It will go down as one of the most extraordinary legislative sleights of hand in history."

The procedure of one vote to both adopt a resolution and concur on a Senate amendment to a bill has been around since 1933…. But all sides agree that it's never been used on a measure this significant.

"It's a procedure typically used on very routine matters," says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ….

GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio announced today that Republicans plan to force a vote on a resolution requiring an up-or-down vote on the Senate health care bill. Even if the resolution fails, it will put Democrats on record in a way that can be used in 2010 election campaigns….

Meanwhile, Rep. David Dreier (R) of California, the top Republican on the House Rules Committee, is calling for the Rules Committee debate on this issue to be televised. "With the Democratic majority poised to turn the rules of the House on their head just to get their government takeover of healthcare through, we need cameras there to record it," he said in a statement on Tuesday.

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