Friday, December 31, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
I found this article by Adam Bitely at getliberty.org to be compelling.
By Adam Bitely
“No Labels” launched on Monday morning with a conference in New York City featuring a “who’s who” of failed closet-liberal politicians attempting to create a fabricated movement in an attempt to make their agenda relevant. The “No Labels” agenda — which appears to be to campaign that voters are irrational for not electing Big Government politicians — has already failed to gain traction amongst the electorate around the nation. The election results on November 2nd, 2010 indicate just that.
The “No Labels” roll out featured politician has-beens such as Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), Rep. Bob Inglis (D-SC), former Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), and exiting Governor Charlie Crist (I-FL). All of these politicians have been tossed out by the electorate or read polling data that indicated they were rather unpopular in their districts or state and decided to save themselves from the embarrassment of losing at the voting booth. Mike Castle specifically, who lost his bid for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate in Delaware this past September, indicated that the voters in his state were irrational to go against his support of Big Government projects like Obama’s “stimulus” and the bailouts.
The politicians at the “No Labels” launch spoke much too frequently about “hyper partisanship” that is spiraling out of control while failing to acknowledge that it is they that have led to the problem that they plan to tackle. The nation is too divided they argue, and “No Labels” will allow the “radical center” to have a voice at the table of government.
The folks behind “No Labels” must have missed the fact that a solid majority of independent voters sided with tea party movement influenced candidates in November that promised to put an end to the political establishment that runs the government. Independent voters rejected the politicians that are the very symbol of the Washington political establishment that “No Labels” is comprised of.
While the use of the words “hyper partisanship” (it felt like every speaker mentioned this at least three times a minute) and “starting the conversation” ran wild throughout the “No Labels” launch conference, fiction and myth ran even wilder.
For instance, one of the speakers in the evening program at the “No Labels” launch referenced a “hyper partisan gridlock” that is allegedly out of control in D.C. This person was obviously asleep for the past two years while Democrats ran Congress with solid majorities while simultaneously controlling the White House. No such gridlock existed. But don’t expect the folks at “No Labels” to correct the record.
Further, the politicians that were showcased throughout the event have been running the government in DC that they were critical of throughout the event. These politicians are the problem, and definitely are not the solution.
At one point, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg criticized the Founding Fathers for being wealthy landowners while attempting to make a point that there is a severe problem that only the wealthy have access to government power. Mayor Bloomberg must have forgotten the size of his own bank account, being a billionaire and the wealthiest politician in America. He must have also forgotten that he had the law changed that would have prevented him from running for a third term, which would have allowed a new, fresh voice to run the city.
While it is nice to think that politicians will come together in Washington to fix America’s problems while setting aside political differences, it is naïve to believe that “No Labels” will achieve any meaningful successes. If the establishment politicians that pranced around the “No Labels” conference were truly serious, they could show us by first removing any party labels they use and then actually focus on getting the nation back in fiscal order.
Such organizations like “No Labels” are just another tool in the D.C. political establishment’s shed of political tactics used to deceive voters in to believing the myth that they are doing the work of the people. The politicians behind “No Labels” are the same politicians that have run the nation into the ground.
If Americans fall for this front group, the nation will be in serious trouble.
Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Originally found at Getliberty.org and reproduced here because eminent domain abuses run rampant.
By Rebekah Rast
The Singh/Kaur family came to America from India in hopes of a better life and increased opportunity.
The family settled in New York and has since run two gas stations in the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattanville. For 25 years the family worked around the clock to maintain its stations and even installed a car wash on one of them.
The business is all the family has.
“This is their official business,” says David L. Smith, attorney for the Singh/Kaur family. “It’s what they do, it’s what they own — this is their livelihood.”
If you go to the family’s gas station now, you will notice that the car wash is no longer working. Why? The Singh/Kaur family can’t take out a loan to have it fixed.
It’s not because they have bad credit or wouldn’t be able to pay the loan off, it’s because they are being threatened with eminent domain. No bank will finance property that might be taken away.
In the same neighborhood, Nick Sprayregen owns his storage facility, Tuck-It-Away Associates, LP. He houses items for about 2,000 local families and small businesses within his four-building operation.
Sprayregen’s business has taken a hit. Possibly due to the economy, but mostly because of the same threat of eminent domain that is trying to take the land of the Singh/Kaur family.
Neither property owner is giving up their land without a fight.
The entity attempting to seize the land from these property owners is Columbia University, a private school. The university wants to build a new 17-acre campus in the neighborhood of Manhattanville.
Current New York law considers property in “blight” conditions, a condition of disrepair, to be able to be seized by eminent domain procedures. With a loose definition of what “blight” conditions look like, many corporations and cities have seized on opportunities to takeover properties they justify as “blighted.”
Columbia University partnered with Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), a quasi-government authority, to take over the land.
As previously reported by Americans for Limited Government (ALG), Manhattanville business owners’ attorney Smith and former New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Norman Siegel were able to prove that Columbia and ESDC conspired together to produce the conditions of “blight” that would then allow the ESDC to seize the property wanted by the university. They also found that many of the “blighted” buildings were already owned by Columbia and it was the university’s responsibility to clean them up. Because the university was not keeping the buildings and spaces up to code, many of the businesses in the area were forced to move out. Constant threats of eminent domain also caused them to leave.
In December 2009, a state appellate court struck down the ESDC’s actions as illegal. The case was then heard by the Court of Appeals on June 1st, 2010.
The decision from the Court of Appeals, as reported by The New York Times, overturned the appellate court’s ruling that barred the state from using its power of eminent domain to take private property.
A disappointing loss for the Singh/Kaur family and for Sprayregen.
“It is ethically reprehensible that a private entity should partner with a government agency to take private land,” Sprayregen says.
The Singh/Kaur family’s attorney went onto say that this battle of Columbia trying to take their private property has been going on for eight years. “Over eight years of pushing and Columbia has only made one financial offer to the family for the land. It was very low and completely inadequate.”
The only option left for the property owners is the United States Supreme Court. Papers have already been filed. Now they must wait with their fingers crossed in hopes that the Supreme Court will hear the case.
Smith believes they have a chance.
About five years ago the Supreme Court made a questionable ruling in another eminent domain case, Kelo vs. City of New London. Susette Kelo was a property owner in New London, Connecticut, when pharmaceutical company Pfizer decided it wanted a new corporate facility in her neighborhood. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the pharmaceutical giant and an entire neighborhood was stripped down for its new facility, shops, restaurants and hotels.
The rest of the story is even more devastating. Four years after the Supreme Court ruling, Pfizer moved out. Land that once provided families with a home was now empty and barren.
The case received national attention and since then, many states have reformed their eminent domain laws to protect the rights of property owners.
New York has not.
The eminent domain laws in some states are skewed such that if you have more money, more power, friends in the right places and partner with the right agencies, then whatever land you want can be yours.
Eminent domain was never supposed to look like that.
The laws established by America’s Founding Fathers were a way for the country to grow and prosper for the benefit of all mankind. Eminent domain was primarily in place to be used for roads and other public services.
Part of what makes America great is that its citizens have the right to own their own property. It gives them a place of their own, makes them feel established and gives them a sense of pride.
It is the American Dream, after all.
“No matter how big a business, private entity, corporation or even the government, the rights of a property owner should stand even bigger and stronger,” says Bill Wilson, president of ALG. “Their voice should be heard the loudest and their property valued the highest.”
The Supreme Court has another chance to right a past wrong in the case of eminent domain.
“This would be the perfect case for the Supreme Court to do some tweaking,” Smith says, in regards to the outrage over the Kelo case ruling. “We are keeping our fingers and toes crossed.”
Thursday, September 30, 2010
By Bill Wilson
Raw, brute force — that is the preferred campaign tactic of Obama and his allies in the Congress.
On September 28th, 2010, Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) urging the agency to investigate 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations for “engaging in political activity”, as reported by Politico’s Ben Smith.
Senator Baucus cited the 501(c) section of the tax code, writing, “The law requires that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4), (c)(5) or (c)(6) entity must not be the primary purpose of the organization.” That is technically true. It is unconstitutional, however, and Senator Baucus’ letter demonstrates exactly why.
Not only has the tax code under section 501(c) been used to limit the types of speech that certain organizations can engage in — which on its face violates the First Amendment — now Baucus wants to use the IRS to intimidate groups and threaten their tax-exempt statuses “[e]ven if political campaign activity is not the primary purpose” of the group. This is designed purely to have a chilling effect on the speech of any organizations that are otherwise lawfully exercising their rights to freedom of speech.
The issue for Baucus boils down to disclosure. These groups are not required to publicly disclose their donors like political parties and candidates, although they must be disclosed to the IRS. For Baucus, that means they are not allowed to fully exercise their free speech rights under the First Amendment, even though the First Amendment provides for no such conditional exercise of the right.
Baucus is inviting the IRS to reinterpret the 501(c) section of the law, apparently to even rein in activities previously allowed for under that section. For example, he complains about the activities of Americans for Job Security in Alaska for promoting a referendum campaign, even though these groups are legally allowed to engage in referenda processes without any public disclosure requirements.
Under Baucus’ interpretation of the law, the Federalist Papers, which advocated for the adoption of the Federal Constitution via referendum, would be illegal because they were published anonymously under pseudonyms.
Justice Clarence Thomas had the same problem with the recently decided Citizens United decision, which upheld disclosure requirements of groups engaged in electioneering. In justifying his partial dissent of that decision, he wrote of the “the fallacy in the Court’s conclusion that ‘[d]isclaimer and disclosure requirements . . . impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities, and do not prevent anyone from speaking.’”
“Of course they do,” Thomas wrote, citing “real-world, recent examples” of intimidation: citizens receiving death threats for supporting a referendum, losing their jobs for appearing on a donor list, declining to donate to a candidate’s campaign for fear of reciprocity from a sitting attorney general, having their property defaced and damaged, and other clear examples of disclosure rules being used to silence speech.
“Disclaimer and disclosure requirements enable private citizens and elected officials to implement political strategies specifically calculated to curtail campaign-related activity and prevent the lawful, peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights,” Thomas explained.
“I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in ‘core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection,’’” Thomas concluded.
While Baucus and other members of Congress are concerned about legally-constituted groups openly expressing their views, they apparently have no problem with fraudulent voting. FOX News recently reported on massive voter registration fraud in Texas, where a group called “Houston Votes” registered some 25,000 people to vote — but only 1,793 of them turned out to be valid.
This follows widespread efforts by groups like ACORN to submit phony voter registrations in several swing states, including Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Missouri. ACORN had a long history of such fraud in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Mexico.
If Baucus had a commitment to fair and open elections, he would be investigating a clear pattern of voter fraud by shady ACORN-like groups; not deputizing the IRS to be his thugs to shut down legitimate debate. In the least, Baucus’ efforts to silence that debate show how little he and his ilk have to say in defense of the disastrous policies of the Obama Administration.
Individuals speaking out, whether publicly or anonymously, for or against candidates standing for public office, attempting to influence the outcome of legislation, or promoting ballot initiatives are no threat to “elections that are the constitutional bedrock of our democracy,” in Baucus’ words. Phony voters showing up at the polls are.
Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government, a 501(c)(4) organization.
Friday, September 17, 2010
I was amazed at the numbskullery by Karl Rove on the Eve of O'Donnel's win.
He could have just shut up.
But no, his words will be used against the Republican candidate in November. Probably to no avail, as we intend on winning that seat, but his posture is one that was seemingly meant to demoralize the troops, those tea partiers who are proving the conventional wisdom folks wrong at each turn.
The cartoon, stories and others like it are taken from GetLiberty.ORG. Enjoy
Thursday, August 19, 2010
By Howard Rich
There’s a disturbing hypocrisy emerging from within the “establishment” wing of the Republican Party lately — a belief that it’s okay to work against fiscal conservatives who garner the support of the vast majority of GOP voters, just not fiscal liberals.
On the one hand it is clearly permissible for establishment Republicans to endorse Democratic opponents — even work on their campaigns — in the event the GOP nominee is not to their liking. Yet on the other hand fiscally conservative, pro-liberty Republicans who offer anything less than their full-throated support of liberal GOP candidates are routinely accused of “destroying the party.” Also many of these fiscal conservatives — who happen to be advancing the very limited government ideals the GOP is supposed to stand for — are mocked by establishment Republican politicians and told that their movement will “die out.”
Frankly, the fiscal recklessness of Bush-era Republicans is what nearly killed the GOP — and it is only the socialist overreaching of Barack Obama and his Congressional allies that has afforded the Republican Party an opportunity to become relevant again. But can America afford another aborted “Republican Revolution?” Particularly if the party’s default setting is to put its own political interests (i.e. Washington’s special interests) ahead of the core beliefs it is supposed to be fighting for?
Along with its abysmal fiscal record during the prior decade, this dangerous proclivity for protecting fiscal liberals (while ostracizing fiscal conservatives) is the latest evidence that the GOP — or at least its establishment wing — is still every bit as dangerous to our pocketbooks and personal liberties as Obama and his army of socialists.
Perhaps the most glaring example of this trend took place in New York’s special Congressional election last fall, when liberal Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava — a supporter of the failed Obama “stimulus” — saw the vast majority of GOP voters in the 23rd Congressional District defect to the ranks of conservative candidate Doug Hoffman.
With her support slipping into single digits, Scozzafava pulled out of the race — but rather than endorsing Hoffman, she chose to back Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who won the race by a narrow margin. Amazingly, in spite of his huge lead over Scozzafava, some Republicans still blamed Hoffman for “handing the seat to a Democrat,” a storyline that the national media eagerly lapped up.
In Utah last week, another “Republican” demonstrated his definition of loyalty to the party.
Jim Bennett, the son and campaign manager of soon-to-be-former U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, announced recently that he was working for the campaign of Democrat Sam Granato. In doing so, he declared that Granato’s beliefs were “more consistent with the values of mainstream Utah than Mike Lee,” the conservative Republican nominee who defeated his father for the GOP nomination.
Once again, these establishment Republicans apparently believe that anyone who takes the ideals of limited government, individual liberty and lower taxes seriously is some sort of fringe ideological kook — despite the fact that these values form the basis not only of the Republican Party, but of the American Republic itself. Fortunately, contrary to the wishes of GOP politicians like Dede Scozzafava and Jim Bennett — it is becoming increasingly clear that Republican voters prefer candidates who support these values.
The vision of government articulated by our Founding Fathers is not going to “die out.” Nor is common sense fiscal policy that upholds a constitutional view of government’s role in our free market economy and our individual lives. If the Republican Party wishes to regain the trust of the people it betrayed during the Bush years, then it should think long and hard about reversing its current “default setting” with respect to party purity.
Otherwise, its ideological impurity will continue to shine through.
The author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce... I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and Hollywood . We will keep Fox and talk radio.
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. But we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon and Volvo (now owed by the Chinese) you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.
We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.
P. S. S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Birthers.. really.. Watch it through to the end.. this is a big deal.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Originally posted at GetLiberty.org
By Robert Romano
This rule by an iron fist.
Yesterday, the Senate had an opportunity to overturn a tyrannical usurpation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifying carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as harmful pollutants under the terms of the Clean Air Act. Sadly, Senator Lisa Murkowski’s resolution failed by a vote of 47-53, leaving the agency in the command-and-control position to set the nation’s energy policy with arbitrary limits on carbon emissions.
This basically means that the EPA is now free and clear to set as draconian restrictions on energy usage as it wants. Which will mean higher energy prices, lost jobs, lost business, and the blind imposition of a radical, environmentalist agenda upon an unwilling American populace.
In short, the Senate has affirmed the EPA’s singular authority to turn out the lights.
The White House is perfectly comfortable using the threat of unilateral EPA regulation against carbon emissions as an ongoing threat to bully Congress into enacting its own restrictions. That threat was echoed by Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) who said recently, “We need a comprehensive energy plan and if this keeps the fire under these guys to get something major done, I'm all for it.”
Even Senator Murkowski’s very reasonable, if not constitutional, proposition that Congress should retain the option set up carbon limits was rejected. Senate Democrats are cleaving to their back-up plan.
In case Democrats’ punitive carbon energy tax is blocked this session, and Congress does not put the U.S. economy back into Stone Age, then the EPA will.
So much for the consent of the governed.
Instead, Senate Democrats are affirming — not one Republican voted against the Murkowski resolution — that they believe that government derives its powers from the intimidation of the executive. This is an incredibly dangerous proposition.
This is turning the constitutional principles of the separation of powers, the rule of law and limited government on their head, saying that even the most basic limits to the exercise of power — that a law be passed and signed by the President — no longer apply.
Moreover, Congress is basically codifying the controversial, disputed science behind the man-made global warming hypothesis. As outlined in a recent summary by Americans for Limited Government, scientists cannot account for the lack of warming in the past decade despite increased carbon emissions.
It is that question that vexed Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research) of Climategate fame in his infamous email to Michael Mann Oct 12th, 2009: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate."
Nonetheless, the Senate has now voted to accept — on faith — the EPA’s apocalyptic finding that CO2, a biological gas necessary for the existence of life, actually “threaten[s] the public health and welfare of current and future generations”. The EPA promises extreme hurricanes, floods, sea levels to rise, erosion, heat-waves, droughts, wildfires, reductions in food production, deforestation, population dislocation, and even more pathogens and allergens if carbon emissions are not reduced.
This is a tyrannical rule of the executive by fear, not settled science. Rule by an iron fist. And unless the American people now stand against it, government will get away with it — and more.
Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of ALG News Bureau.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
By Chris Slavens - Originally posted at GetLiberty.org
Cinco de Mayo is a minor holiday in Mexico, first marketed to Americans by Corona (yes, the beer company) in the 1980s for the express purpose of selling, well, beer. That it has been turned into a celebration of Mexican heritage is bizarre, and indicative of ignorance on the part of those who take it seriously. So why were five California students sent home from school on May 5 after showing up wearing American flag t-shirts?
One of the students (who happens to be half-Hispanic) claims that Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez called the shirts “incendiary.” Yet, on the next day, about 200 Hispanic students staged an illegal walk-out in the Morgan Hill Unified School District, shouting “Sí se puede” (which translates to “yes, it is possible” or “yes, we can”) and disrupting traffic. They were not disciplined by the school district, which begs the question, was Rodriguez’s decision to send the American-flag wearing students home racially motivated?
The First Amendment recognizes the God-given (or natural) right to free speech, which includes symbolic speech, or expression, a fact supported by numerous court decisions over the years. It applies, without exception, whether one is in a private residence, religious building, city park, or public school.
The administrators’ decision to punish students for expressing their patriotism on a Mexican drinking holiday is beyond absurd — it is flagrantly unconstitutional.
Students are free to wear what they choose to school; whether a shirt depicts an American flag, a Mexican flag, an anti-war slogan, or the face of Hitler, it is neither the duty nor the right of a school administrator to decide that certain expressions are permissible, while others are not.
And, no public official has the right to punish a citizen for wearing or displaying the American flag in the United States of America. Ever.
Fortunately, the school district seems to have gotten the message from outraged parents and patriots across the nation, and is responding correctly. Superintendent Wesley Smith wrote, in a statement released shortly after the incident occurred, that “students should not, and will not, be disciplined for wearing patriotic clothing. This matter is under investigation and appropriate action will be taken.” Some parents have called for the administrators in question to be fired.
Do Hispanic students have the right to display pride in their country of origin? Of course. The First Amendment does not choose sides; it protects all Americans equally. They have the right to do this, not only on May 5, but any other day of the year.
Yet, in this nation, America comes first. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. Our many ethnic backgrounds take second place to our pride in being, simply, Americans.
While Cinco de Mayo is an unofficial holiday enjoyed by many Americans, its hijacking by racist Mexican groups like La Raza—the members of which dare to be offended by the precious flag of the nation in which they live—shows that there are some who, even in the land of opportunity, enjoy stirring up trouble without the slightest provocation.
Five patriots wore American flag t-shirts to school. Two hundred anti-patriots walked out of school and marched on the streets. Which group’s expression was more “incendiary?”
Chris Slavens, former contributor to the Wilmington News Journal, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer for Americans for Limited Government.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
By Howard Rich - Originally found at GetLiberty.org
America’s Founding Fathers envisioned a limited government in which laws were fairly and evenly enforced and justice was blind. Yet as government’s lust for additional power and its appetite for new spending have both exploded in recent years, so too has Washington’s apparent willingness to play politics with prosecutions and government leaks.
We saw this trend at work in the recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit against Goldman Sachs, which even a kindergartner could tell was timed to coincide with President Barack Obama’s “War on Wall Street” and the perpetuation of his failed bailout method of financial reform. We also saw it at work in the Florida U.S. Senate race, where an organized effort is underway to smear conservative candidate Marco Rubio.
In both cases these underhanded tactics worked – at least from public relations standpoint.
“Goldman case boosts financial reform efforts” one headline screamed. “Goldman charges bolster case for bank reform,” trumpeted another. “Goldman Sachs case could help Obama shift voter anger,” still another opined.
Of course Obama “categorically” denied that his administration had any involvement in the charges against Goldman – or any advance knowledge that the charges were being filed. In fact, he told reporters that his administration first heard of the lawsuit on television.
“We found out about it from CNBC,” Obama said.
That explanation strains credulity – particularly when you consider that Obama’s political machine, Organizing for America, purchased Google advertisements linked to the keywords “SEC” and “Goldman Sachs” just prior to the SEC announcing its lawsuit against the company. This was clearly a calculated move, which begs the question: What did Obama’s campaign team know that the White House (ostensibly) didn’t?
The Rubio case is every bit as suspicious. On the eve of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s decision to bolt the Republican Party and run for the U.S. Senate as an “independent” – headlines in the Sunshine State screamed of another curiously-timed scandal. Citing “sources familiar (with) the probe,” the anonymous allegation was made that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was investigating Rubio.
Rubio has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and maintains that no one from the IRS has contacted him. In fact, he has said that he “welcomes” any investigation into his finances. But the smears have damaged his campaign, as polls taken just prior to the leak showed Rubio leading Crist in a three-way race by seven points while two weeks later Rubio trails Crist by four percent.
It’s no secret why Rubio is being targeted. Months ago Crist was a shoe-in for the GOP nomination, but his Senate campaign collapsed when he began to embrace Obama and his failed economic policies. Could it be that Obama is now using the IRS as an “IOU” to bail out Crist’s flagging candidacy?
Internal Revenue Code prohibits the disclosure of confidential tax information or releasing details of an ongoing investigation – not only by the IRS but by any government employee at any agency, including the President. In fact, it’s a felony punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to five years in prison. In the interests of uncovering the source of this illegal leak, Americans for Limited Government (ALG) has filed requests with the Inspectors General at the IRS and the Justice Department asking both agencies to investigate. Additionally, we are asking members of Congress and the Obama administration to support this investigation as well as the prosecution of the perpetrator.
Only then can we be sure that this wasn’t a taxpayer-funded hit job.
In a broader sense, though, Obama’s allies need to be mindful that the executive branch of government exists for the purpose of administering our laws, not violating them. Their job is to conduct the people’s business, not engage in political espionage. America has already survived one administration full of taxpayer-funded “plumbers.” We cannot afford another.
The author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.
Monday, May 10, 2010
By Rick Manning
Could the Democrats in Congress actually be considering confiscating all 401(k), SEP and IRA accounts in exchange for offering Americans a “guaranteed annuity”?
The subject almost seems too far out there to even write about. While it is something that I had heard rumors of, I just couldn’t believe this type of proposal would ever be considered in America. Let alone become part of an active public policy debate.
But when the Wall Street Journal writes on the subject, and the House Republicans on the committee that oversees our nation’s pension system send a letter expressing concern to both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis expressing concern, and then issue a press release on it, it is time to get concerned.
The least damaging scenario is that the Democrats are considering changes to the retirement security system that takes away the tax deductibility of retirement savings in exchange for using those dollars to create a new “guaranteed annuity” that will provide workers with a fixed amount each month. Sounding eerily like the insolvent Social Security system, these accounts would ensure that all people living in America had some small fixed amount of income each month in retirement.
However, this doesn’t really solve the biggest problem facing the Democrats. Their largest donors, organized labor, have a huge pension insolvency problem. Labor unions, both private and public, have severely mismanaged their pension funds. In fact, Moody’s considers many private funds to be in “critical condition”.
Believe it or not, public employee pension funds are in even worse shape. California’s public employee pension fund alone is reported to be underfunded by a whopping $500 billion (that’s half a trillion bucks or $500,000,000,000.00).
So, who has the money to make these colossal failures whole and keep union leaders and their members happy?
That’s right, you guessed it. The poor slob who doesn’t have a guaranteed pension, but has been putting off vacations and eating burger rather than steak for his/her whole career to put 5% of his income into a tax deferred retirement account is the one with the money. Right in his/her tax deferred retirement accounts.
According to the Investment Company Institute, in 2008, $2.4 trillion was invested by private citizens in 401(k) accounts.
Quite a tempting morsel of money if the Democrats in Congress can just convince the American public that they will be getting the security of a GUARANTEED payment every month, rather than dealing with the nasty ups and downs of the market.
As stated at the beginning of this piece, this isn’t yet a proposed law, but is merely a twinkle in the eye of those in the Obama Administration and in Congress who are desperate for cash to fill big labors pension black hole. But every bad idea starts as the twinkle in someone’s eye, and no bad idea seems to be too extreme for this gang of looters who have temporarily been given the keys to the nation.
So beware readers, when you start hearing about the need to avoid retirement risk coming from those who brought you government health care, and are in the process of putting into law a system that would monitor every single one of your financial transactions all under the guise of economic security.
Realize, that if you have been putting money away for your future, that these same jackals are eyeing your nest egg, to feather the nests of their political supporters.
Remember, forewarned is forearmed. So stay vigilant.
Rick Manning is the Director of Communications for Americans for Limited Government, and the former Chief of Staff of the Public Affairs Office at the U.S. Department of Labor that oversees the 401(k) system.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Found at: GetLiberty.Org
By Michael Swartz
April presents both the onset of spring for most of a winter-ravaged nation and the odd calendar quirk of tax filing day being followed one week later by Earth Day. Both days affect one’s financial situation, but for different reasons.
Undoubtedly there’s an entire industry which profits from the annual taxation ritual, but the arrival of Earth Day always gives its own set of groups and industries their opportunity to seize the spotlight in an attempt to burnish their “green” bonafides – one of the most prominent and in-your-face examples being the NBC-Universal family of television networks (which includes the Weather Channel) going wall-to-wall with specifically themed episodes and constant reminders to reduce, reuse, and recycle for the good of Mother Earth. The Earth Day celebration has surely blossomed since the first one in 1970.
Despite what those on the Left seem to believe, in that forty year period we’ve come a long way in reducing the impact of pollution. Yet all this has come at great cost, and it’s a toll which is borne by those very people they were trying to help.
For example, the price at the pump or to heat your home is impacted by the $12 billion or so energy companies spend to conform with environmental regulations. On a larger scale, compliance with the byzantine layers of red tape in the environmental arena cost Americans over $220 billion annually according to a 2004 study by the Small Business Administration, and these numbers are sure to increase with legislation like the so-called “cap and trade” bill pending in Congress.
These hidden taxes add up, but rarely get mentioned when politicians tout a bill to clean the air or address global warming by adding a few thousand more pages of regulations to the volumes already in place.
At times these products of bureaucracy can produce ironic results. One would think that BP Solar of Frederick, Maryland would be well-positioned to profit from the push toward more renewable energy. Instead, the manufacturing plant and its 320 jobs are being phased out because solar panels can be made more cheaply overseas. Similarly, do-gooders promoting the creation of green jobs through building wind farms are surprised when they find a large percentage of wind turbines are produced abroad as well.
Environmental advocates may argue all the overseas manufacturing is because those markets are more mature than ours, and they have a point. Europe in particular is bedeviled by a lack of oil and natural gas resources for their population, a shortage which forced them to find other means of energy production sooner. While Europe has a reasonably decent standard of living, it’s clear that having a larger percentage of their energy consumption come from clean sources hasn’t advanced their status beyond that which we enjoy here in the United States.
For an economy to thrive while maintaining a decent quality of life there needs to be a balance. Certainly we’ve learned over the years that our planet doesn’t have infinite resources and we can’t be wasteful with that we’ve been blessed with.
But there’s a danger with shifting the balance too far the other way; it’s a cost measured in the loss of freedom. Being too restrictive can have the same harmful effects on us as unfettered polluting once did. Before the pendulum swings too far in the wrong direction, we need to consider what the Earth Day zealots are doing to our wallets before we give in to their demands.
Michael Swartz, an architect and writer who lives in rural Maryland, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Army doctor Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin yesterday was read his miranda rights by his brigade commander, Col. Gordon R. Roberts.
Because he had decided he could not take orders from the president.
Is this not news? Is this not worthy of note, that a highly decorated officer would throw away a career of exemplary service to ask the question; Is our commander in chief truly a US citizen?
Whatever your opinion on the merits of asking the question, or the challenge that has one side calling the other side "birthers," it would be dishonest to consider this story non newsworthy.
Where are you CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and FOX? How about it major news outlets?
No wonder the country is starting to rely on blogs and email to find out what is happening. Sadly, those sources have an equal amount of BS, but IMO a little of the truth is better than none.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
To Whom it May Concern,
Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)
“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, and it cannot be too often repeated, that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”
Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.
A Citizen of the United States of America
Friday, March 12, 2010
By Bill Wilson
Politics and policy has become surreal. Webster’s defines the term as “bizarre or dreamlike”. No word better describes the current state of affairs.
For yet another example of the “dreamlike” suspension of reality that is everyday Washington, D.C. consider the recent announcement from union-toady, Congressman George Miller. Miller is proposing to spend $100 billion on a bailout of local governments. That is $100 billion we will have to get from China or the Federal Reserve’s printing press to allow local governments to pretend a little while longer that they can act like spoiled children without consequence.
The Miller proposal would funnel the massive sum of borrowed money to local governments so they can “save or create” jobs. Boil it all down and the Miller scam is exposed as a temporary fix for the junkies who are attempting to avoid withdrawal at all costs. But cold-turkey withdrawal is exactly what they and America need.
The facts are well known. Government at all levels has grown faster than any other segment of the economy. Government, also, pays far more than corresponding workers in the private sector and has lavish benefit packages unmatched by any private worker. As the Cato Institute detailed in their January, 2010 Tax & Budget Bulletin # 59, the compensation scales and benefits of government are simply unsustainable. They cannot continue, there must be an adjustment.
But blocking that “adjustment” is the primary goal of labor unions. And whatever Big Labor wants, George Miller will try to deliver. So, the $100 billion bailout is meant for one thing and one thing only; paying off the unions and avoiding for even a little while the inevitable downsizing of government. Since the largest expenditure any government makes is on personnel, that downsizing means one thing – firing tens of thousands of unionized public employees.
Think for a second what Miller and his cronies are asking of American families, taxpayers and businesses. They want us to go deeper into debt, to the tune of another $100 billion, to pay employees we don’t need to do things that are of marginal value. We are eating our seed corn. This money will not be spent on things that will allow future growth and production or future prosperity. It is to be squandered on consumption. Like the raging alcoholic, full of bravado, we are maxing out the American credit card to buy lunch for everyone in the barroom.
The situation we confront is basic. We all know the nature of the choice. All of us were taught this choice as small children. We should all remember the story of the grasshopper and the ant. The grasshopper frittered away the summer, eating and having a great time. The ant, on the other hand, worked and saved and did without, so that he would have provisions for the winter. When winter arrived, the ant is secure and prepared while the grasshopper froze, starving from lack of food.
George Miller and his union masters are the grasshoppers of our time. They eat and drink and live in a dreamlike state where the bill never comes due. The only problem, of course, is that they do have a plan. They plan to stick all of us with the bill for their reckless behavior.
Its time we ants took matters into our own hands. The credit card needs to be cut into pieces. Local governments, as well as states and the Federal behemoth, need to face the facts. They have to live within the means of the people that fund them. The insane, surreal politics of spending and debt must come to a stop.
Any member of Congress, regardless of party, who opposes the Miller scheme should be praised and supported. Any local government that does the right thing and cuts its functions and personnel needs backing. Conversely, those who embrace the bizarre world of George Miller need to be shown the door. They are simply too sick to be in a position of authority.
Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
MIDLAND — The Mackinac Center for Public Policy will host a climate change forum at noon on March 16 at Oakland University. The scientific case for man-made global warming has been seriously damaged by shoddy science and political interference, as evidenced by the recent Climategate scandal. As the science behind anthropomorphic climate change is undermined, the future of cap-and-trade and other “green” energy legislation is uncertain. The panel will be moderated by Russ Harding, senior environmental policy analyst for the Mackinac Center and former director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
The speakers will be:
• Paul Chesser, special correspondent at the Heartland Institute and director of Climate Strategies Watch; Chesser is considered a top authority on climate change policy development at the state level.
• Shikha Dalmia, senior policy analyst at the Reason Foundation; Dalmia has written on environmental and other policies for Forbes, Reason magazine, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and numerous other publications.
• Henry Payne, editorial writer and cartoonist for The Detroit News; Payne writes regularly on climate science and energy policies for The News and National Review Online.
Call 989-631-0900 by 5 p.m. on March 12 to make your reservation. A free lunch is included with reservation. The forum takes place in Banquet Room B in the Oakland Center,
Oakland University, 2200 N. Squirrel Road, Rochester, Mich.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Written by respected, Lou Pritchett, formerly of Proctor and Gamble. Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Friday, February 12, 2010
By Michael Graham
When Scott Brown stunned the Massachusetts establishment, some state Democrats said it was time to hit the panic button. But I didn’t know they meant that literally.
According to yesterday’s Herald, Boston City Hall has been testing ePanicButton software. “[City] workers would be able to hit a button on their computer or push a pedal on the floor to summon help if an angry taxpayer storms into City Hall or if someone arguing a parking ticket gets out of hand,” the Herald reported.
“Angry taxpayers”? Aren’t those the people who showed up at those dangerous Tea Party rallies, too? I bet the Department of Homeland Security has a file on them!
Are we sure a panic-button protection is enough? Maybe we should equip every government office with a panic room. How about a trap door or even a moat? You can’t take chances with these crazed taxpayers. I say that if someone heads to City Hall with a “Palin 2012” button on their lapel, we should release the Rottweilers!
The good news is that for the moment, wronged taxpayers can still fight City Hall without worry that they’ll be tackled by security guards. The $5 million ePanic system is cost prohibitive. But the government’s interest in it is revealing.
Consider the thousands of businesses around New England that provide customer service or take customer complaints. Now consider how few of them fear their customers to the point of emergency panic systems.
Fox News just broke the story that the largest government workers’ union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), has contributed $9.9 million to fight the Tea Parties. They’re helping fund TheTeaPartyIsOver.org, which opposes the movement’s “dangerous” and “radical” ideas. When you take time from your private-sector job to show up at a rally demanding fiscal sanity, isn’t it nice to know part of some government hack’s tax-funded paycheck is being used against you?
As Jennifer Rubin points out for Commentary magazine, “The Tea Party movement, once defamed and derided, now poses a threat to the liberal establishment, so much so that they are collecting millions to undermine it.”
Remember when the idea of public service was to solve problems for the taxpayers? Now we’ve got unionized hacks who think the problem is the taxpayers.
Last week the Associated Press reported that the Department of Homeland Security had “conducted a threat assessment” on abortion protesters in Wisconsin despite the fact that, according to DHS, “they did not pose a threat.” Why would the Obama administration gather intelligence on American citizens merely expressing their political beliefs?
Why would government workers want trap doors at the RMV? Why would their unions be attacking citizens worried about spending and debt?
Because the liberal, pro-government establishment has seen the enemy and they think it’s us. And they’re right.
A new Rasmussen poll shows that 63 percent of likely voters think America would be better off if we threw out our incumbent congressmen. Interestingly, the group of voters Rasmussen identifies as the “Political Class” - supporters of big government and collective actions - wants incumbents to stay right where they are.
Like it or not, taxpayers, the fight is on.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
ALG Condemns House for Voting to Buy $50 Million Beach in St. Croix
February 9th, 2010—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today condemned the House of Representatives for voting to purchase a beach on the island of St. Croix for $50 million as "an irresponsible handout to the owners who were not likely to be able to sell in this environment."
"How can anything Congress says about cutting the deficit or improving economic conditions be taken seriously?" Wilson demanded, adding, "If they're willing to waste $50 million buying a beach in the Virgin Islands, is there nothing too ridiculous for them to waste our money on?"
The final vote in Congress was 240-175. Not a single Republican voted to buy the beach.
The land includes 2,900-plus acres of beachfront property that, according to the report, "the Gasperi family maintains it wants to sell the land to the U.S. government in order to protect it from developers. Critics in Congress say there is nothing stopping them from doing that. They don't have to sell, or the family could impose a conservation easement on the land, preventing development forever."
"This Congress has lost all credibility," said Wilson, concluding, "It has broken faith with the American people and no longer even pretends to have the public interest in mind. They are looting, pure and simple."
Monday, January 18, 2010
By Robert Romano - Originally posted HERE
January 18th, 2010, Woburn, MA—116, 483 registered Massachusetts voters are dead, according to an analysis conducted by Aristotle International, Inc. a software and digital database developer.
As reported by CNS News, “In Massachusetts, 116,483 registered voters are dead, 3.38 percent of the state’s total of registered voters. Another 538,567, or 15.6 percent, had moved to an area outside of where they are registered to vote.”
Americans for Limited Government Foundation’s project leader, Dan Tripp, is on the ground in Massachusetts monitoring the special election, and said that “for fraudsters, it’s a numbers game. It only takes a few hundred people voting at multiple locations to change the outcome of any statewide election, including Massachusetts’ special senatorial election.”
Generally, in Massachusetts, voters need to provide a name and address associated with the voting list at the polling location in order to vote. There is no voter ID requirement unless a voter registered after 2003 by mail and is a first-time voter.
According to Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson, “The implication of dead people showing up at the polls means that it’s no longer sufficient to win an election with a simple majority. Now, candidates need a 4 or 5 point swing just to pad against potential fraud.”
“And that undermines our free form of government at its very core,” Wilson concluded.
Robert Romano is the Washington News Alert Bureau Chief.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Dogs are indeed different. Loyalty is easily gained from a dog, and sometimes even given in a way a little too sloppy. The dog will crap anywhere, eat nearly anything, but is ultimately trainable. Dogs sometimes will try to hump anything, chase their own tail, eat garbage, lick themselves and lick your face, and sometimes roll in fish, but that's OK, because they are dogs, and are excused because of it. Yes, there are smart dogs, but even some of those get hit by a car once in a while.
Dogs seek an alpha, cats ARE the alpha.
Oh.. Cats are Conservative, and Dogs are Liberal.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
By Robert Romano
There is a “good chance” that Obama Administration special counsel John Durham will recommend prosecuting Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Bush Administration officials for torture and other war crimes, as he concludes an inquiry Attorney General Eric Holder appointed him to undertake.
So says the Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz. Last week on FOX News’ "The Journal Editorial Report," Wall Street Journal editors discussed predictions for the New Year. Paul Gigot noted that Durham is due to make his recommendations on whether “CIA and Bush administration officials should be indicted for their antiterror policies.”
Replied Rabinowitz, “There's a good chance he'll make that recommendation.” If he does, it will open an unprecedented Pandora’s Box of political prosecutions against outgoing administration officials for perceived political grievances. And a political bloodbath will be the result.
It is a process that, once unleashed, will be nearly impossible to stop. And it may ultimately lead to subsequent prosecutions made by future administrations. Reciprocity will be invoked on both sides of the political aisle.
In short, what were once mere political disagreements for the people to decide at large when electing their representatives could quickly escalate into a political war. One in which the executive branch unleashes law enforcement against government and military officials who thought they were doing their jobs in enforcing administration policies and prosecuting a war.
In this case, CIA officials who, acting in good faith, waterboarded the mastermind of the September 11th terrorist attacks and extracted information that thwarted another catastrophic attack by al Qaeda will be prosecuted like Nuremberg war criminals — by an American administration.
Deputy U.S. Attorney John Durham was originally chosen by the Bush Administration to investigate the destruction of CIA tapes. Attorney General Eric Holder recently expanded his role to include the investigation of Bush-Era interrogation techniques.
Ultimately, though, the prosecutions will not stop there. Even if that is the limit of what Barack Obama and Eric Holder are able to get away with immediately, it will set a dangerous precedent. Namely, the conduct of war by U.S. personnel will become a prosecutable offense in civilian courts. And politics will never be the same.
As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson stated yesterday, “Not since the fall of the Roman Republic has a free nation sought to aggressively prosecute outgoing administrations for political grievances. This is a lethal threat to the Constitution. Barack Obama is playing with fire.”
He’s right, of course. If America goes down the rarely-traveled road of political prosecutions, it will change the rules of politics forever. And winning or losing will become a life or death struggle.
In short, it is a path that will almost certainly to tyranny and the loss of liberty.
But, believe it or not, it gets worse. The danger here is also a threat to the very sovereignty of the American nation.
As noted by Americans for Limited Government Assistant Research Director Richard McCarty, even if the Justice Department does not pursue prosecutions of CIA and Bush Administration officials, “it appears that [Barack Obama]’s enabling the international community to pursue [the] indictments. Obama just quietly signed an executive order giving INTERPOL even more immunity.”
Pursuant to the executive order, INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization), which works closely with the International Criminal Court, will no longer have to answer to the U.S. courts or be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. In addition, Interpol officers will now have some immunity for crimes they commit on U.S. soil.
According to National Review’s Andy McCarthy, “This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.”
McCarthy asks, “Why would we elevate an international police force above American law?” Good question.
Probably to prosecute without any restraint whomever INTERPOL deems to have violated international law. According to an analysis done by ThreatsWatch.org’s Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton: “[T]his immunity and protection — and elevation above the US Constitution — afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.”
Predicted Schippert and Middleton, “[T]he next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.”
As McCarthy, McCarty, et al, make clear, it is a tragedy in the making. Barack Obama is prepared to push America to the brink of political civil war to pursue a radical agenda that forbids the exercise of the national right to self-defense by the American people. Unfortunately, the consequences will not be his alone to bear.
For, as John Adams wrote in 1775, “a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.”
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Never had much respect for folks who call this buffoon a "conservative." But he really whips up his frenetic leftist angst when writing about the tea party successes. Idiotic tendencies he demonstrates by making incredibly vapid remarks in his recent column.
When he says:
"The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.
The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.
The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply."
What the hell are you talking about? Perhaps... you miss the undeniable truth here? Perhaps the "educated class" you describe is not so much so.
David further calls it the ruin of the Republican party. Perhaps in his strange relativistic view of the world...
God bless the tea partiers out there.