Pat Condell on Ground Zero mosque: “Is it possible to be astonished, but not surprised?”
Pat Condell ably articulates everything that’s wrong about the mosque at Ground Zero.
Click here for the short video.
|
||||||
 |
In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained: “passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it.” I can’t add anything to this. The arrogance of these people continue to amaze me. Impatiently waiting until November 2010 Last week the Senate was so eager to hand out another $26 billion in bailouts that it forgot to name the bill it passed to provide that funding. The version of the bill that was passed, H.R. 1586, can be seen at Thomas, Congress’s legislation tracking site, with the title “_______Act of______.” Apparently, in the process of amending the bill, placeholder text was used for a new title and was never fixed before the Senate voted on the bill. As noted by WashingtonWatch.com, which first reported the oversight on Sunday, in order to rename the bill, the Senate would have to return from its break and vote on an amended version. And if the House passes the same bill but includes a title, then the Senate will have to vote again on that version. Under the Constitution, the Senate and the House have to pass identical versions of a bill before it can be presented to the President for signing into law. So the country may well have a law titled the “_______Act of______.” These are the folks spending your money.
As mentioned yesterday, here is the Congressional Progressive Caucus Member List as of Wednesday June 02, 2010 The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) consists of 83 members and is the largest caucus within the Democratic Caucus. I would suggest that you make a copy of this list and refer to it often when reading or listening to the news. This will give you some insight to the reasoning behind these Progressive Congressmen. You can also use it when you go to the voting booth. Co-Chairs Vice Chairs Senate Members House Members Let’s make Obama a one term president! Up for election this year are 435 House seats and a third of the Senate seats. For the GOP to gain control of the House there would have to be a shift of 45 seats. For Republicans to gain control of the Senate, 6 seats would have to shift. The 2010 elections are only a few months away and it’s only proper that you know what politicians in your State are avowed Socialists. Below is a list of those politicians that are members of the DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA as of October 10, 2009. For more information about the Democratic Socialists of America, you can go to their web site and find out for yourself what it is all about. The URL is (http://www.dsausa.org) At one time, the following list of members could be located on the DSA web site. However, Once this list was made public, The DSA removed the link and the Web page. This list was obtained from www.resistnet.com. Review the list very carefully and note those in your State and vote them out of office. Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also
members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)? Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary
Committee? Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress? Co-Chairs Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07) Vice Chairs Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33) Arizona California Connecticut District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Iowa Illinois Indiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Mississippi North Carolina New Jersey New Mexico New York Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Wisconsin Check back tomorrow for a list of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. by Walter E. Williams Let’s think about President Obama’s failed economic stimulus program. Before getting to the nitty-gritty of why stimulus packages fail, let’s look at the failed stimulus program of Obama’s hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, wrote in his diary: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!” Morgenthau was being a bit gracious. The unemployment figures for FDR’s first eight years were: 18 percent in 1935; 14 percent in 1936; by 1938, unemployment was back to 20 percent. The stock market fell nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938. Columnist Walter Lippmann wrote, “With almost no important exception every measure he (Roosevelt) has been interested in for the past five months has been to reduce or discourage the production of wealth.” The last year of the Herbert Hoover administration, the top marginal income tax rate was raised from 24 to 63 percent. During the Roosevelt administration, the top rate was raised at first to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent. Hillsdale College economic historian Professor Burton Folsom notes that in 1941, Roosevelt even proposed a whopping 99.5 percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. Much more of the Hoover/FDR fiasco can be found in “Great Myths of the Great Depression”. The Great Depression did not end until after WWII. Why it lasted so long went unanswered until Harold L. Cole, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian, professor of economics at UCLA, published their research project “How Government Prolonged the Depression” in the Journal of Political Economy (August 2004). Professor Cole explained, “The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.” Professors Cole and Ohanian argue that FDR’s economic policies added at least seven years to the depression. Where do the trillion-plus dollars come from that Congress and Obama are spending in an effort to stimulate the economy? How about Santa Claus, or maybe the Tooth Fairy? If you said, “Come on, Williams, you’re being silly! The only way government can spend a dollar is to tax or borrow it,” go to the head of the class. In the case of a tax, one should ask what would that taxpayer have done with the dollar had it not been taxed away. He would have spent it on something that would have created a job for someone. If the government hadn’t borrowed the dollar, it might have been invested in some project that would have created a job. When government taxes, borrows and spends, it shifts unemployment from one sector to another. Of course, the sector that benefits tends to be a political favorite of the shifter. Between 1787 and 1930, our nation has seen both mild and severe economic downturns, sometimes called panics, that have ranged from one to seven years. During that interval, no one considered it to be the business of the federal government to try to get the economy out of a depression because there was no constitutional authority to do so. It took Hoover, FDR and a frightened and derelict U.S. Supreme Court to turn what might have been a three- or four-year sharp downturn into a 15-year meltdown. Walter E. Williams’s Biography – Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well. If your not aware of it, there are plans to build a huge Mosque at ground zero. Take a look at the videos below for an eye-opening disertation. No mosque at Ground Zero – A must see video about Islam in America. Of Mosques and Men – Reflections on the Ground Zero AND MUSLIM IDIOLOGY Draw your own conclusions. Inside the House chamber in Washington D.C., the upper wall is surrounded by the cameos of all the world’s great lawgivers. Moses, as the greatest lawgiver, is the only one with a full face. The others are all side views. The only Americans included are Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, and, ironically, neither signed the Constitution. Mason was actually one of three men who stayed for the entire Constitutional Convention and then refused his assent to the finished product. When I taught high school, I insisted my kids know why Mason refused to sign. He objected to the document because it did not contain a Bill of Rights. I always hoped, in vain, that some bright student would ask the more pertinent question. The better question would have been not why Mason refused to sign, but why such patriots as Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Dickinson, Wilson, etc., objected to Mason’s request? While George Mason insisted on a written list of prohibited practices (a Bill of Rights) to protect citizens, the rest of the Constitutional Convention chose the structural concept of federalism and separation of powers as the means to ensure citizens’ liberty was protected. “The U.S. style of federalism and balance of power were two complementary strands of power separation—one horizontal and one vertical.” The U.S. style of federalism and balance of power were two complementary strands of power separation—one horizontal and one vertical. The purpose of both horizontal and vertical power balance was to protect individual liberty, the goal the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. They believed the only way to preserve individual liberty was to check government power. Each branch would check the other branch of the new national government. However, since a national government might not check itself, the national government must also be checked by the states. The 50 states were to be a counterbalance to the national government. Federalism/separation of powers was the vehicle designed to protect people. Madison, in Federalist 45, envisioned how the vertical separation of powers (federalism) was to operate. He wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution …are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite….The Powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which…concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…” “While largely a new political concept, American-style federalism had roots in the Old Testament. Moses developed the concept of federalism in Exodus 18:13-26.” While largely a new political concept, American-style federalism had roots in the Old Testament. Moses developed the concept of federalism in Exodus 18:13-26. As Moses worked to exhaustion dealing with all the issues brought by the children of Israel, his father-in-law insisted he delegate authority to captains over groups of thousands, hundreds and tens. Only the most unusual issues were to be brought before Moses. This new system of administration divided authority among manageable units. It allowed problems to be solved on the level where the problem originated—in other words, government closest to the people governed best. That was essentially federalism. The vertical balance of power between the national government and state governments was the critical component of our constitutional system of government. Over time, however, Congress and the courts slowly chipped away at the vertical separation of powers. Beginning with the Progressive Era, the American system changed and the principle safeguards of federalism were weakened. Today, most people are unfamiliar with the meaning of federalism, or of its foundational role in our system of governance. Sadly, this benign neglect includes many of our national leaders. Our country is at a crossroads. Americans are fed up. They’re frightened by an exploding debt and frustrated with an unresponsive federal government. They’re tired of a sagging economy and unelected bureaucrats who believe Washington always knows what’s best. A recent poll found that four out of five Americans don’t trust Washington. Another poll found that eighty-six percent of Americans think the federal government is “broken.” Americans are ready for change—real change that gives them, not Washington, greater control over their own lives. They don’t want new leaders in Washington running a slightly less intrusive government. Instead, Americans of all political stripes want more choice, greater accountability, and a more flexible and responsive government. That is precisely what federalism can deliver. I am convinced the best way to demonstrate commitment to real change is by embracing federalism. Only by pursuing a federalist agenda can we disperse power from Washington, promote liberty and limited government, provide greater choice and deliver a more effective and responsive governance to the people. Leaders in Washington need to show the American people that we have a comprehensive plan that doesn’t impose a certain ideology or party platform on them. Instead, we need to tell them that decisions should be made locally, by individuals living in their communities, not by politicians in Washington. “Federalism is not a concept of either the right or the left. It is not a Republican or a Democrat idea. Both sides have something to gain under a federalist revival.” Federalism is not a concept of either the right or the left. It is not a Republican or a Democrat idea. Both sides have something to gain under a federalist revival. We may disagree with some of the decisions some states ultimately make, but we must stand firm to the belief that the Constitution was designed in such a way that gives the people the power to make those choices. Many advocates of national solutions do not believe federalism can work today. They believe that today’s complex modern society can only function properly when the national government establishes the rules. They’re wrong. As LaVarr Webb of Utah Policy Daily has said: “Most breakthroughs in governance are already coming from the states. Could such innovation, creativity and energy ever be spawned by the top-down, mainframe dinosaur that is Washington? Federalism can actually perform better in the age of Google and Facebook than it did 200 years ago.”” “It is precisely the Information Age, the Internet Age, that could enable a new, golden age of federalism. Today, states and local governments can operate in an intelligent network, collaborating, cooperating, adopting “best practices,” creating an upward spiral in competency, improved management and delivery of services. They can adopt standards and pass model legislation to provide needed consistency for multistate businesses. With the amazing power of networking and advanced tools of technology, states can fulfill Justice Louis Brandeis’s vision as laboratories of democracy. Most breakthroughs in governance are already coming from the states. Could such innovation, creativity and energy ever be spawned by the top-down, mainframe dinosaur that is Washington? Federalism can actually perform better in the age of Google and Facebook than it did 200 years ago.” We are a nation of creativity, of diversity, of freedom. We need innovators and a new generation of ideas. Let us learn from the successes and the failures of one another. This nation is too great, too broad, and too diverse for one set of ideas to rule from sea to sea. California is not Kansas. Alabama is not Alaska. And Massachusetts is not Utah. Federalism is the answer. Federalism gives people choice and options. Federalism keeps government within the reach of the individual, and keeps government in its place. Today, the people have no control over the vast federal bureaucracies. Federalism is the mechanism by which power can be returned to the people. I am convinced that now is the time for a federalist agenda because federalism is simply the best, and the constitutionally based bastion for limited government, choice, and individual liberty. Congressman Rob Bishop has represented Utah since 2003, and is the co-founder of the Congressional 10th Amendment Task Force. View The Source.
The New York Times reports this morning, "Politicians like nothing more than a convenient foil, and Democrats locked in a stubborn impasse with Republicans over new rules to govern Wall Street believe they have found a gold-plated one in Goldman Sachs. Democrats say the convergence of their push for an overhaul of financial regulation and a prominent federal securities case against the prestigious investment firm is a matter of coincidence, not planning." Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) added: "If the disclosures at these hearings are not the final nail that persuades the American people to demand this be done now, I don’t know what would be." But the big problem for the leftist majorities in Congress is that the American people just don’t believe that Washington has any idea about why the financial crisis happened or how to regulate our financial system. According to Rasmussen Reports, 64% of Americans are not confident that policymakers in Washington know what they’re doing when addressing the current economic problems on Wall Street. Intent on proving his ignorance of how finance works, Dorgan went on to say: "To bet against your clients, to bet against your country, all for the sake of big profits. The timing is serendipitous but it should increase the pressure on Republicans." Is Dorgan for real? Does he really believe that anyone who did not blindly keep inflating the housing bubble was "betting against your country"? Is it now unpatriotic to believe that housing prices cannot infinitely rise? The left would have us believe that the 2008 financial crisis was all the fault of greedy Wall Street bankers like those at Goldman Sachs who dared to change their investment strategy on the belief that housing prices were inflated. To protect against future financial meltdowns, the left wants to give more power to the same federal regulators who failed to recognize the systemic risk caused by the very bubble Goldman and others correctly identified. In fact, one of the main reasons for yesterday’s hearing was to deflect attention away from Washington’s role in creating the 2008 financial crisis. It was the government-created and subsidized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that played leading roles in the markets at the center of the housing storm. But the left prioritized their political goals over financial reality. Rep. Barney Frank told the House Financial Services Committee: "These two entities–Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–are not facing any kind of financial crisis," and "[t]he more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." And the author of thevery financial reform bill currently being debated in the Senate, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) , told CNN in July of 2008: "To suggest somehow that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are in trouble is simply not accurate." Just two months later, completely overrun by bad debt, both companies were placed in conservatorship. So unable to acknowledge the government’s role in the last crisis, not only were Fannie and Freddie not mentioned at yesterday’s hearing, they are not included in Dodd’s financial regulation bill at all. Hence the need for a villain like Goldman. And what does Goldman think of the actual legislation the left is using them to pass? They are for it, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein confirmed yesterday. Go figure. by John Hawkins The government of our country has become increasingly incompetent, corrupt, and dysfunctional. Although Barack Obama has certainly hastened our government’s slide toward mediocrity, the problems didn’t begin with him, nor are they likely to end on the very happy day when he leaves office. Moreover, many of the issues that prevent our government from operating at even the sub-optimal quasi-effectiveness of the Feds at their best are very difficult to solve. Still, until you identify the problems, it’s difficult to come up with the solutions. So, let’s talk about some of the reasons why government in this country no longer works for the benefit of the American people. Earmarks: When earmarks first became a hot issue during the Bush years, I have to admit that I was one of the people who shrugged my shoulders and said something like, “Sure, that’s something we should work on, but is it really all that important compared to the money we spend on entitlement programs?” Let me tell you why I was wrong: Earmarks have become a means of legalized bribery. We get all upset about politicians who are tied in any way, shape, or form to Jack Abramoff — but what Abramoff did goes on every day of the week. Where Abramoff blew it was by explicitly saying, “I’ll get you this much money and you’ll do this for me.” Yet, lobbyists do the exact same thing all the time, but they just don’t say it out loud. They give money to congressmen and expect to get earmarks in return. They do, in fact, get the earmarks they paid for — and it’s perfectly legal. Keep in mind that although you can find earmarks stretching way back until the earliest days of the country, using them as a form of congressional payola is relatively new. Just to give you one example, courtesy of Americans for Prosperity:
As earmarks have proliferated, Abramoff-style government has gone from being the exception to the rule in Congress. Political Polarization Unprecedented Since The Civil War: One of the most remarkable things you’ll notice when you read about politics in say, the late 1800s, is that despite the fact that both parties fought like cats and dogs, they also had a very similar approach to governance. Setting aside a handful of differences on things like tariffs, both parties agreed on the overwhelming majority of issues. Even in this country 40-50 years ago, the parties were much more similar than they are today. John F. Kennedy is an overrated Democratic President, but he was serious about defending America, he was an ardent anti-Communist, he believed in tax cuts — and on social issues, like most Democrats of his day, he’d have far more in common with Jim DeMint than he would with Democrats like Barney Frank. On the other hand, look at Richard Nixon, the man Kennedy defeated in 1960. Nixon was a left-of-center, pro-choice Republican who pushed price controls, tax increases, and created the EPA. So, whether voters chose a man like Kennedy or Nixon, they still weren’t usually getting too far from the center. However, after the radical left wing completely took over the Democratic Party in the late sixties, the Dems became completely dominated by liberals. On the other side, Reagan’s election and success managed to shift the Republican Party to the right, although regrettably, not as far as the Dems went left. In other words, the average Democrat in Congress now has more in common ideologically with Trotsky and Lenin than he does Washington and Jefferson. Meanwhile, Republicans idealize Reagan, who opposed everything the liberal left stands for. When both parties start that far apart, it’s hard to work together on almost any issue. A Far Left Wing Media: For a long time, the mainstream media in this country could fairly be classified as center-left. However, over time it has drifted from center-left to far-left and it has affected the way our politicians behave. Politicians on the Right know they can’t get a fair shake from the media; so they tend to be overly cautious, even though the populace leans to the Right. On the other hand, politicians on the Left have been emboldened by the unwavering support of the media. Liberal politicians know that their every act will be cast in the most favorable light, their lies will be ignored, and their political enemies will be smeared at every turn. Happily, this has not gone unnoticed by the public and it’s had consequences. The mainstream media’s credibility has cratered, it’s losing marketshare to the alternative media, and many of these left-wing propaganda outlets masquerading as newspapers are going out of business. Every time one of these liberal mainstream media reporters loses his job, this country becomes a little better place. The Permanent Campaign: Over time, as politics has become more professionalized, interest groups have become more powerful, YouTube and the blogosphere have begun capturing every detail, and a 24 hour news cycle has become the norm, political campaigns have ceased to end. When every vote, every quip, and every campaign stop is going to be noticed, catalogued, and may turn up in your opponent’s campaign commercial or infuriate a group you’ll be counting on come election time, the latitude politicians have is severely curtailed. If you’re a Republican, are you going to cross the NRA? The Club for Growth? The Christian Coalition? If you’re liberal, are you going to tell Planned Parenthood to shove it on a big issue? How about the SEIU? What about MoveOn? On every issue, in every situation, most politicians in both parties have very little room to maneuver outside whatever the party line happens to be. Politics As A Profession: As America has become more polarized, the advantages of incumbency have become more pronounced, and gerrymandering has become more prevalent, politics has become a lifetime job for many members of Congress. In large swathes of the country, if you get elected once, don’t get caught with any bribe money in your freezer, and adhere to the party line, you will be in Congress until your aides are dragging you in off your deathbed to vote for a pig farm earmark for your district. The problem with that is simple: A lot of these career politicians in Congress no longer have to pay any attention to the other side, their own constituents, or to anyone other than extremist interest groups who could potentially back a primary challenger. That’s not good for this country. The 17th Amendment: Almost all Americans have grown up with the idea of senators being popularly elected, but it wasn’t always that way. Up until 1913, senators were elected by state legislatures and in all honesty, despite the fact that there were some problems with that process, it was far better for the country. Why? Because senators elected by state legislatures zealously guarded the power of the states. That was good for the country because as a general rule, the more localized the government, the better it can know the needs of its citizens and the better able it is to serve them. Once senators no longer had to answer to state legislatures, they were incentivized to concentrate more power in their own hands, in D.C. Despite the fact that there are still a few people on the “repeal the 17th Amendment” bandwagon, that horse has long since left the barn and isn’t likely to be coaxed back inside. The Tenth Amendment Doesn’t Exist In The Real World: Our Founding Fathers would be shocked and appalled by the way we openly disregard our Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution clearly limits the powers of Congress and the 10th Amendment reads,
Since that’s the case, how is it that our government has gone so out of control that the health care legislation that was just passed actually requires people to buy health insurance as a condition of citizenship? How long and hard do you have to torture the plain language of the Constitution to conclude that Congress can force you to buy any product it so desires: health care, condos from Nancy Pelosi, union cars, Barack Obama’s biography or anything else it wants? Why do you think we so seldom pass constitutional amendments any more? In all honesty, it’s because Congress and even many of the judges in our court system pay so little attention to the Constitution that they just do anything they want. That’s the biggest reason why our government does so many things slowly, stupidly, and inefficiently: it’s because our system of government was supposed to preclude the government from doing those things in the first place. Visit the Source. |
 |
||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Bud Hunt Site - All Rights Reserved |
||||||