Sunday Fun

Last week's answer: The French and Indian War.

How did a war that happened in 1754 lead to our Revolutionary War in 1775?

Money.

When the French and Indian War ended in 1763 with the Treaty of Paris, King George in England was hugely in debt. Not only had this war been fought on North American soil, it had been fought in Europe -- where it war known as the Seven Years War. King George had spent tons of money--and without much result, except for gaining Canada from the French--but that was so far away from England, and was so sparsely settled.

So, King George and the British Parliament felt they had defended the colonists, with success, from the threat of the the French. They also felt that the American colonists hadn't contributed very much, either militarily or financially. And the people of England were on the verge of riot because of their high taxes.

So, the answer? Tax the colonies.

And a few other unpopular changes. The American colonists couldn't move westward--it was way too expensive to fight the American native Indians. Put more British soldiers on American soil--those Americans couldn't fight very well (or at least England thought). Tax sugar, cloth, wine, certains foods and molasses were taxed. Exports from the colonies were taxed. America's currency system of paper money was abolished--only 'hard' currency could be used. And the Stamp Act taxed legal documents and newspapers. On top of all this, the tax collectors were installed in America (they had previously done their work from London) and the British Navy was sent to make all these taxes got collected properly.

The result of all this? Devastation of America's economy.

So that's how the French and Indian War could be said to result in the Revolutionary War.

Next question: What does the above picture depict? Hint: It's in Boston!

A Very Poor Response to Terrorist Threats

Well, finally.
Someone admitted that it was the decision of the Justice Department to end the FBI interrogation of the underwear bomber on Christmas Day, to give him Miranda rights, and to place him in the US legal system--with his own lawyer. Paid for of course by you, the American taxpayer.
And not surprisingly, when the terrorist was given rights reserved for US citizens--rights not to be given to terrorist enemy combatants--he then of course stopped talking. Even though he had admitted that other terrorists were heading our way.
And no one--not Defense, Homeland Security, the Directors of National Intelligence or National Counterterrorism--was invited to be part of this decision.
President Obama had specifically set up a system to interrogate suspected terrorists. It wasn't invoked.
Listen to Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine): "President Obama recently used the phrase that ‘we are at war’ with terrorists. But unfortunately his rhetoric does not match the actions of his administration. This charade must stop. Foreign terrorists are enemy combatants and they must be treated as such.....The safety of the American people depends on it."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/weekly-remarks-why-stop-interrogating-terrorists.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+topoftheticket+%28Top+of+the+Ticket%29

A Grain of Salt

Yesterday, the Commerce Department estimated that fourth quarter GDP went up a wonderful 5.7%---the biggest increase in six years.

But let's take this with a grain of salt.

Third quarter GDP estimates initially were of an increase of 3.5%. Subsequently, this estimate was revised twice, in a downward direction, ending in a very modest 2.2% increase. Which was attributed to government intervention in the market place because of car and housing tax rebates.

These fourth quarter estimates are also expected to be revised to lower levels of growth, because the supporting data just isn't there.

Personal buying in fact decreased. Interestingly, auto sales fared worst of all and actually worked to decrease the GDP. Which is what happens when you mess with the free market.

Good news is that private investing increased and that exports were actually a tiny bit on the positive side instead of on the negative side where they've been.

http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://business.theatlantic.com/2010/01/us_gdp_grew_by_57_in_the_4th_quarter.php

Also to note is that even taking into account the 5.7% increase (which may, of course, turn out to be too high) the overall GDP for the year is a negative 2.4%. As in a decrease--for the whole year.

http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D9DHELNG0&show_article=1

We shall have to wait and see.

OK, Let's Talk About Jobs....

...Or lack thereof.
First, one must understand that the government--federal or state--cannot create jobs that add to our economy. Government "jobs" just keep our taxes within the government. That money isn't even spent on stuff that government should do--like build highways and protect us from evildoers (of all sorts, including terrorists). Government cannot create jobs in the private sector. That's the definition of "private sector".
So all that stimulus money that went to prop up bankrupt state government is just that--letting bloated government entities continue paying people whose jobs are not adding to the country's economic welfare.
You could indeed argue that (most) of those government jobs are hurting our economy. Big government is forever the enemy of a robust and healthy private sector.
So President Obama's declaration that the "true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses” is quite true--a fact that makes his demand for a jobs bill utterly astounding. What do you believe, Mr. Obama?
And his continued contention that the stimulus bill created 2 million jobs is pure fabrication. So much so that the White House doesn't even use the moniker "jobs created and saved" anymore. So much of the stimulus money has just disappeared down rat holes --and to non-existent congressional districts and zipcodes. Mr. President, we've lost 3.4 million jobs--and 2.7 million jobs since the stimulus bill was passed.
And he wants another stimulus bill, plus a jobs bill?
Mr. President, we can't afford it, in more ways than one.

Promises, promises...

Last night President Obama promised that he cut taxes for 95% of American families.

Which is, patently, a lie.

Because, for most of us, taxes are going up. This year.

Which is NOT a cut in taxes--however you parse it. Letting taxes increase is--well--an INCREASE!

And for 40% of Americans that do not pay taxes--of course they don't have a change iin taxes! Zero is zero.

And today EVERY single Democrat in the Senate voted to raise Congress' debt limit to 14.3 trillion dollars.

That's $45,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the United States.

And this is after just raising the debt limit in December.

Where will this money come from?

Well, there's only place a government can get money.

It's spelled --T--A--X--E--S--

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/01/28/us/politics/politics-us-usa-congress-debt.html?_r=1

I Won't Bother to Watch Tonight's SOTU address, but Here's Something to Watch Saturday!

I don't expect much from President Obama's speech tonight except "I" and "It was their fault", whomever "they"--Bush, Congress, we the people--might be.

But on Saturday, there's something worthwhile watching!

Hillsdale College is sponsoring a Constitution Town Hall this Saturday. You can sign up for it and watch it live over the internet, or at your convenience sometime in the future.

Here's your chance to learn about the law of our land, the Constitution, and what it really says and means.

Go to http://www.hillsdale.edu/KirbyCenter/programs/townhall/default.asp and register!

Oops, Sorry, We're Not Spending Money to Look Into the Deficit

Mr. Obama, it's really simple.

There's a deficit because Congress is spending too much money.

We don't need a special commission to figure this out, as President Obama proposed.

We elect a congress whose job is to do this. Thank you, Senators, for rejecting this absurb idea!

And while we're at it, the economy needs more than a few measly dollars cut from the budget to solve the deficit spending woes, as Mr. Obama is slated to propose in his State of the Union Address.

Please don't give us a token decrease in spending. A few percent won't do the job. Cut spending, cut taxes, cut government--THAT is what will jump-start our economy. And will increase the tax revenues overall--as Americans go back to work and start spending again.

A Preview: al-Qaeda on Trial

MIT- trained scientist Aafia Siddiqui, from Pakistan, is now on trial in New York city in our federal courts. Married to the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (organizer of the 9-11 attacks), Siddiqui was taken into custody in Afghanistan because she was suspiciously carrying chemicals and instructions on how to make chemical weapons. She is believed to be part of al-Qaeda. When American soldiers and FBI agents went to question Siddiqui, she reportedly grabbed and gun and, yelling "Allah Akbar" starting shooting. Fortunately, she was shot before hitting anyone else.

Now, she's on trial. With all the rights of an American citizen. The trial has not gone so very well--Siddiqui has demanded that no Jews be allowed to sit on her jury (denied by the judge), refused to assist her defense lawyers (paid in part by the Pakistani government--that seems sorta weird to me--what do they know about our judicial system?), and has been throw out of court twice for her rantings and ravings against America.

Two jurors were dismissed after being threatened by a man in the courtroom, who pointed his finger at them (like a gun) and cursed at the jury.

And her lawyers are now demanding a mistrial for Siddiqui.

So, Mr. Attorney General Holder, how's that idea of citizen trials for terrorists going for ya?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6988777.ece

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/world/asia/05detain.html?_r=1&ref=world

Five Questions for Mr. Obama

Five good questions for President Obama as he starts his second year of office:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/five_easy_questions_for_obama.html

Terrorism Redux

Unusually high numbers of people on the "no-fly" list have been attempting to board planes to fly to the United States, according to British security folks.

I guess after Mr. Gibbs said no one paid attention to the "watch" list, maybe terrorists are hoping no one pays attention to the "no-fly" list.

Sunday Fun

What event did last week's picture portray?

The Boston Tea Party!

The Boston Tea Party occurred in December of 1763 after the repeal of the hated Townsend taxes. Even though these taxes were gone, the British government kept a very, very tiny tax on tea, just to remind the American colonies that they could be taxed.

The Americans didn't like this. Even if the official tea, even with a tax, cost less than smuggled tea, the colonists weren't going for taxation without representation.

So, when ships filled with Darjeeling tea arrived in Boston harbor, the British governor insisted that the ships be unloaded and taxes collected. The colonists insisted otherwise. The ships actually agreed to leave, tea still in their holds, and return to London in order to curtail the disagreements. The Brits refused to let the ships leave the Boston port for London. The colonists refused to unload the ships. The end of the story? Salt-water tea!

Next question:

What's another event that led to the American Revolution?

Hint: I suppose you could say it's an indirect cause----look at the picture for a huge hint!

The State of the Union--A Report Card

Much will be written soon about President Obama's State of the Union speech.

Shall we thus explore the state of our United States after one year of Mr. Obama's presidency?

Let's look to Heritage Foundation (mostly) for help with this endeavor.

By catagory, let's first explore the state of our:

1. Economy

Well, Mr. Obama has furthered the spending spree of Mr. Bush into unprecendented deficits. Why, the Congress will soon ask again to raise their debt level! After just voting themselves, in a midnight Christmas vacation vote, an increase in debt spending--less than a month ago!

Jobs continue to be lost from businesses--businesses which add revenues to our economy (and taxes to the government) while Mr. Obama's bailouts have neither created nor saved jobs--except in the government sector--and those government jobs don't add to our economy.

Speaking of job, Mr. Obama has just quit talking about jobs "saved" or "created", since the stimulus money is doing neither (in fact, lots of money went to bogus zip codes--who knows where and for who know what) and is just flabbergasted over the "unexpected" job losses. Mr. Obama pledged to create 3.5 million new jobs. We've lost 3.4 million jobs in the last year.

And to top it all off, the stock market is losing money again--because Mr. Obama is threatening our financial institutions with unknown taxes and restrictions.

He has raised taxes in a recession, and we the people now own a car company. And our economy freedom ranking has dropped to the "not-so-free" range.

What do you think, folks? Is this a passing grade on economy? I think not.

2. The War on Terror

Terrorists tried in our courts (due to Attorney General Eric Holder, who wasn't sure if this had ever been done before--hint, the answer is "no"), Homeland Security Secretary Napalitano surprised at the tenacity of terrorists, putting terrorists on US soil, and no real plans to increase our security against these thugs. Mr. Obama just states that our security system failed--the same system that thwarted 26 other terrorist attempts during the previous administration. Exactly what--or whom--failed. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/02/pop-quiz-mr-president-why-did-you-fail/

So, war on terror (or is it man-made disasters?)--Flunk.

3. Foreign Relations

Africa:

President Obama has observed, I think correctly, that African countries need to take responsibility for their own welfare and solve their own problems. However, no real solutions are being offered. Instead, the continues Bush and Clinton assistance programs are still in place, although studies have shown that these incredible amounts of money have not helped African countries. While this administration has decided to stop aid to three countries where "democracy has broken down", there is still lots of money going to corrupt, dependent governments. So far Africa has not been adequately prodded to work on its own problems.http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/20/one-year-later-president-obama-and-u-s-policy-in-africa/#more-24296

Europe:

Well, the good news is that (most of) Europe loves Mr. Obama. However, his good ratings in Europe haven't helped the U.S. He has embarressed the Brits (with poor choices of gifts to the Queen and the Prime Minister, and with his return of a gift from Britain of a bust of Winston Churchhill--what's with this total lack of manners?), denied missile defenses to Poland and the Czech Republic, made everyone mad about his talks with Russia, and probably worst of all--according to Europe--Mr. Obama didn't get a world agreement on climate change. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/19/obama-popular-in-europe-but-hes-not-doing-much-for-u-s-interests-abroad/#more-24157

Iran:

Well, this has gone nowhere. In fact, less than nowhere. Iran has continued to thwart the world's intentions to stop its nuclear program, and continued to support terrorists around the world. Currently, Iran holds several Americans hostage, and continues to brutally suppress its own people protesting against the fake election and the ruthless regime. Playing nicey-nice with Iran just hasn't worked well for President Obama. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/20/obama-and-iran-good-intentions-are-not-enough/#more-24267

Russia:

Again, bad news. The Russians have gained concessions from the US (regarding the abandonment of the missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic) and the US has gotten nothing in return. We haven't gotten a START (Strategic Arms Reduction) Treaty nor help in stopping Iran's nuclear program. According to Heritage Foundation, Russia views Mr. Obama as naive and weak--not good for our side. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/19/obamas-russia-policy-a-disappointing-first-year/#more-24184

I haven't covered the whole world, but so far--I wouldn't give Mr. Obama a passing grade.

4. National Security

In short, the administration has failed us. Terrorists are being tried in US courts, instead of being interrogated and tried as enemy combatants. And no one even knows who, what or why these decisions were made. Defense cuts are rampant--and the Pentagon continues to be underfunded --and also this White House is inadequately addressing arms control with Russia. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/14/arms-control-folly/#more-23932

And as for Afghanistan? Lots of muddling around by Mr. Obama, without a really good idea of what he wants to do.

Enuf for now.

And Other Crazy Stuff

HeadStart, the program for underpriviledged pre-school children, is designed to help those children be competitive once they reach first grade.

We, the people, spend over NINE BILLION dollars a year on HeadStart programs. While several studies have looked at HeadStart, the first really rigorous, really scientific study has just been released.

So what does our money do? Nothing. Nada. Zip. No effect on helping these kids.

And on an even more dreary note of I-just-can't-believe-the-government-did-this, did you know that our federal government is spending over 1 BILLION dollars this year on cell phones for welfare recipients?

Yep, you heard it right--of the 800 billion dollars we, the people, spend on welfare each year, over ONE BILLION will be spent on cell phones.

Have a great weekend!

And Who's Watching Out for the Terrorists?

No one knows.

The Underwear Bomber was given his Miranda rights (to remain silent, so the bomber unfortunately did so, squelching interrogation as to how this all happened) by unknown people at the airport, who made the a priori decision to put the terrorist into the criminal courts instead of the military courts.

No one knows who made these decisions.

A year ago, President Obama decided the CIA couldn't question terrorists anymore--it had to be a special Interrogation Group for terrorists. But where were they?

Where was Janet Nepolitano, Homeland Secretary when this all happened?

No one knows.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mcconnell-who-gave-christmas-day-bombr-right-remain-silent

President Obama Continues Assault on Banks

First, an extra tax on banks, whether they took bailout money OR NOT, just because banks (at least some) took bailout money--and now that most banks have paid the money back. This proposed tax would be on financial companies with over $50 billion in assets.
Except this tax would leave out those entities that took most of the bailout money--such as General Motors, big labor union companies who will not be expected to pay back their money to we, the people.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/15/morning-bell-bank-tax-misses-the-real-bailout-deadbeats-in-detroit-and-dc/
Special interests, anyone?

Now Mr. Obama is proposing new regulations that would limit banks' investments as well as limit the size of banks.
Mr. Obama asserts that this would prevent near-meltdowns such as happened with the subprime mortgage crisis.
Several problems here:
1. The federal government itself caused the mortgage crisis by insisting that banks give these bad loans to people who could not afford said loans. In fact, Mr. Obama lobbied for these bad loans while a member of ACORN. http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Sept-+25-+2009%20&id=3703361
2. Limiting the size of banks and their investments will only hurt banks in the world-wide financial markets. They won't be able to compete, which will in turn only harm our economy further.
3. The President doesn't have the power constitutionally to propose taxes.
4. Wall Street is in a complete tailspin not knowing what the White House is going to do next to harm them. Bye, bye birdie to our hard earned retirement funds.
5. And, not least, banks will just pass on the tax costs to us, the consumers--which will further hurt our economy. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/22/president-obama-and-the-war-on-banks/#more-24473

Basically, it all goes back to the premise that the government should get out of business. If the government didn't insist on bad loans, and also didn't prop up banks with TARP money, banks could act responsibly. Or fail, if the bank acts irresponsibly. Let's hear it for free markets!

Ring the Claxons! The Democrats are planning Reconciliation!

According to Representative Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin, the Democrats are really planning to use reconciliation (attaching Obamacare to a budget bill in order to pass it by only a simple majority instead of the 60 votes needed to pass this according to the Constitution) to pass health care reform.

Illegally, IMHO.

“I’ve spoken with many Democrats and the message is this: They’re not ready to give up. They’ve waited their entire adult lives for this moment and they aren’t ready to let 100,000 pesky votes in Massachusetts get in the way of fulfilling their destiny. They’ll look at every option and spend the next four or five days figuring it out,” says Mr. Ryan.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTIxZmJiOGUwMTViYjYxODVjOGYzNGUxOTkzNDcyYWU=

My suggestion?

Call, write, email your representative and senators, and any other elected employees (representatives and senators) that you care to write, and tell them "Just Say No"--we, the people, do not want this.

Remind them that we, the people, can and will vote them out of office.

And Speaking of the Economy....

Guess what? It's worse!
Can you believe it? It's so ..... UNEXPECTED!
At least according to the White House.
Job claims rose in December. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/23/new-jobless-claims-rise-unexpected-million-seek-benefits/
It would be nice if someone would look into these things and not be so surprised by the economy. We, the people, do pay employees to look into these things.

President Obama Wants to Restrict Banks

Mr. Obama announced today announced plans to restrict the size of banks and to limit their investments which he deems to be risky.

Essentially, banks may be forced to separate their investment and their banking businesses. And banks are to be restricted to using their customers' funds for investing, and not be allowed to use their own funds, called "hedge" funds.

This is because the "hedge" fund investments became extremely shaky with the sub-prime mortgage debacle. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31769_Page2.html

Frankly, I must look into this more. This is my question: the federal government is responsible for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco. The banks didn't want to make bad loans!

So what is this REALLY all about?

Oh, and by the way, this announcement sent the stock market into a tailspin. Oh, goody....

Huzzah for the Bill of Rights!!! Or, Beware of RINO's bearing gifts....

Today, the US Supreme Court upheld the Constitution.
It struck down the McCain-Feingold laws forbidding corporations and unions to advertise for their chosen candidates during certain periods--30 days before--elections. Penalties included jail time for exercising free speech during that 30 days.

As Justice Kennedy explained, since the First Amendment is to protect us, THE PEOPLE, from the government, the First Amendment prohibits jailing citizens for free speech.

Justice Stevens disagreed, employing the red herring (remember those) that the appellent could have had its "free" speech outside the 30 day period. He doesn't seem to address the problem that restricting speech means that the speech is no longer free.

Hurrah for the Constitution!!

As for RINO's--please note the name "McCain".....

No Longer "Land of the Free" -- at least, Economically

For the first time in its history, the United States of America has dropped in its economic rating from "Free" to "Mostly Free".

Oh, My.

The Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal have evaluated countries' economic freedom for over ten years based on ten catagories:

Business Freedom

Trade Freedom
Fiscal Freedom

Government Spending

Monetary Freedom

Investment Freedom

Property Rights

Freedom from Corruption

and Labor Freedom

The USA had the largest drop in economic freedom of the top 20 economies in the world. The most losses were suffered in financial freedom, property rights and monetary rights. Note that we don't fare so well on "corruption" either. Perhaps due to all the deals made on health care reform by Senate Democrats?

According to Heritage.org, "Driving it all were the federal government’s interventionist responses to the financial and economic crises of the last two years, which have included politically influenced regulatory changes, protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed “too big to fail.” These policies have resulted in job losses, discouraged entrepreneurship, and saddled America with unprecedented government deficits."

And, according to the Heritage Foundation, our loss of economic freedom is directly tied to our loss of prosperity.
See http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/20/the-u-s-isnt-as-free-as-it-used-to-be/#more-24256

Getting Rid of the TSA Appointee

In a nice way, of course.

Mr. Erroll Southers has withdrawn his nomination for chief of the Transportation Security Agency. Because of "politics".

Mr. Southers, a former FBI agent nominated by the White House, has been accused of innapropriately and illegally using his access to FBI files spy on his wife's boyfriend. Unfortunately, he appeared to lie under oath about this incident to Congress. He first admitted that he asked someone to help him "spy" on his wife; when confronted, he changed his story. The White House apparently would not answer further questions about Mr. Southers.

Mr. Southers furthermore refused to answer questions about his position on the unionization of TSA employees (which many feel could possibly endanger our safety) and said that the war on terror was no more important than global warming or the economy. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59986

Senator Harry Reid D-Nevada had vowed that he would ram the nomination through come January 20th. Now Mr. Reid won't get the chance.

For Senator DeMint's (R-South Carolina) press release on this, see:

http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=4c1b856a-092f-aaa1-f409-41f9001892ab

Congratulations, Senator Brown!

A lesson on fighting for conservative principles should be learned here--conservatives (--note--I did not say Republicans) can win these elections.

Use your money, time and talent to help win elections AROUND the country.

And now for the lighter side:

The response to this amazing election. First, President Obama: "People are angry, people are frustrated," Mr. Obama explained the election results. He also went on to blame President Bush for Mr. Brown's election to the Senate. Really and truly he did--I'm not kidding. Tho' that statement is just a bit, well, inane.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_el_se/us_massachusetts_senate

Representative Barney Frank D-Massachusetts called for changing the Senate filibuster rules so that health care reform could be passed despite Mr. Brown's election.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/barney-frank-god-didnt-cr_n_428408.html

House Majority leader Representative Hoyer D-Maryland says the election is due to the people's "opposition for opposition's sake".

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/76803-hoyer-voters-upset-about-gop-obstructionism-not-dem-agenda

My interpretation of all this:

You see, We The People are just of bunch of disgruntled voters who elected a Republican because we're mad at Republicans.

What Will Happen to Health Care Reform?

Now that Mr. Scott Brown will soon be Senator Brown.

Last week, President Obama vowed that he would "fight hard" if Mr. Brown were elected to the Senate seat previously occupied by Ted Kennedy. Words like "defiant" (of whom? One must wonder!) and "combative" (again, against whom? It's just the majority of America that does NOT want health care) and "fighting" are being used. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=43D62D3D-18FE-70B2-A8A2DB2551E7FCD1

And House Speaker Pelosi has vowed that a health care bill will be passed, one way or the other. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=55482

One plan is for the Senate to ask House Democrats to sign the Senate bill (with no public--ie, government--option, no ban on tax funds for abortion, no big labor union tax-free exemption for their "Cadillac" insurance plans {uh-oh, the labor unions might have to pay taxes on their health care plans like the rest of us!}, and no way for illegal aliens AKA voters to get government health care).

If the House Democrats sign up for the Senate bill, then the health care reform bill would go straight to the President for signing. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/health/policy/19health.html?hp

Another option being touted is the dreaded "R" word--reconciliation. This is where the Democrats package the health care reform bill into a spending/budget bill and pass it, without the constitutional, legal necessity of sixty votes. Only a simple majority is needed for reconciliation.

Other thoughts from the Democratic camp include postponing Mr. Brown's seating in the Senate until after getting a health care bill passed.

Desperate measures for desperate times, eh??

Sunday Fun

First--Last Week's Answer:
The Battle of Lexington!
This battle also goes by the moniker "The Shot heard 'round the World". This first battle of the Revolutionary War occurred on April 19th, 1775 when Redcoats marched on the tiny village of Lexington. The British Army believed that the patriots were storing powder and shot (ammunition)--which was true--and had discovered that John Hancock and Samuel Adams, both wanted by the British, were hiding there. Captain John Parker instructed his militia, or "minutemen", waiting to see if the British troops actually marched to Lexington, to "Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
For more information on this important skirmish, see:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h654.html

Next, what event do these two pictures portray?
Hint--this happened before the Revolutionary War!





All quite apropos, don't you think?

Mr. Scott Brown for US Senate from Massachusetts

Mr. Brown has a very good chance of winning this race in Massachusetts, especially after the gaffs by his opponent, Democrat Martha Coakley.
And whose election would put health care on the skids.
So please consider contributing, even just a few dollars! We did!
http://brownforussenate.com

My Take on Those Evil Bankers

Do Wall Street money-lenders and bankers get paid too much?

Probably.

I say this because banks are not doing very well in lending money--stating that they aren't financially healthy enough--but have enough money to pay out big bonuses.

However, there are many, many problems with President Obama's proposed bank tax, which he calls euphemistically a "fee".

First of all is that this tax is patently illegal and unconstitutional. The Executive Branch--the President--cannot propose taxes. Says so right in the Constitution--http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8.

Second of all, it's precisely the federal government that has propped up and allowed these banks to be in the position to pay these bonuses. If the government hadn't decided that these banks HAD to have money to stay open, the banks would have suffered the consequences of their bad decisions and would have closed (so what? that's the free market system--you goof up, you close up shop) or would have not been in a position to pay these bonuses.

Thirdly, these banks have, for the most part, paid back their loans with interest!! Why, then, are they being punished?

Even more unfair is that banks that did not borrow a dime from the federal government are being taxed. Why?

And who loses in the long run?

We the people. If these bankers get paid the big bucks--it's not hurting you. In fact, these bankers will pay big taxes on their big bucks. Which helps buoy up tax revenues.

But now we will feel the effects of this tax. Of course, these "fees" will trickle down to us, the people.

And these taxes will further dampen the economy by reducing the already-small-amounts of money that are available to loan.

Oh, and by the way--who gets exempt from these "fees"? Curiously, it's Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, whose CEO's will get up to six million dollars in bonuses the next 2 years. My, that's does seem a lot of money not being taxed!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTMwMDlhNmJhMTk4ZTk1YjkwYzZmOGVhYWM2ZGU5ZTM=

More Backroom Deals for Obamacare

The House and Senate Democrats have been meeting in secret to get the Obamacare done. No Republicans or C-Span allowed.

And to continue in the deals (see SOME of the previous deals here: http://politicopolitico.blogspot.com/2009/12/obamacare-and-bribes.html

The latest deal?

A billions-upon-billions dollar deal with labor unions. Unlike the rest of us American citizens, labor unions will be exempt from a 40% (yes, that's forty!!) tax on the higher-priced health care premiums.

My question, besides the obvious one of "How in the world is this constitutional?" is "What is a high cost health care premium?"

I shudder to ask. Since the answer is probably any health care premium NOT handed out by the federal government. Sorry, getting cynical here.

And the labor unions have gotten even MORE deals out of the Democrats, such as:

1. Government subsidized health care for early labor union employees. Funny, no other early retirees get their health care subsidized.

2. Labor unions got the exemptions for small businesses slashed. Small businesses will now be at the mercy of horrendous taxes on their health care premiums for their employees.

(BTW, the labor unions have admitted to trying to run small, non-union employees out of business. Mr. Obama is just trying to help).

3. Any new taxes on union health care plans will be delayed until after 2013.

TA-DAA! Honesty and transparency in action.

What Can You Do?

If you are conservative and wondering how to help get this country on the right track.
May I suggest helping out Mr. Scott Brown in his campaign to gain a senate seat in Massachusetts?
Today, Mr. Ed and I donated money to this campaign. Mr. Brown is fiscally conservative and for limited government.
And he is running about even in the polls against the Democratic candidate who is pro-big government and pro-taxes, but not pro-life.
AND, if Mr. Brown wins this seat against his much better funded opponent, he will break the filibuster proof Senate!!
This is truly a chance to put the United States on the course back to its roots.
http://www.brownforussenate.com/

The Economy....Again Not Doing so Very Well

The newest unemployment numbers display a steady rate of 10%.

However, these numbers, upon further inspection, reveal a very disturbing trend: the continued loss of job creation, the huge drop in the labor force (by over 600,000) and the increase in the "under"-employed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

Back at the White House, employers are now told they don't have to report that "jobs saved, jobs created" stuff.

Instead, those that receive stimulus funds just have to report that the funds are used for jobs--whether those jobs are already in existence or not. Or whatever. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/farewell-saved-or-created-obama-administration-changes-the-counting-of-stimulus-jobs.html

Your taxes at work.

Doing something, maybe, whatever?

Sunday Fun

Something New for a New Year: The History of our Country

Okay, this battle was the first in our war for independence. Where was it?

Answer later this week!

Back from Williamsburg VA

What a wonderful trip!

We got to visit with good friends who live on the East Coast, ate wonderful food, and had a great time visiting the Yorktown Battlefied and Williamsburg.
This visit really made me think about the origins of our country. Those brave men and women who carved out an existence and then had time to educate themselves and fight for their rights from the government of King George--which, of course, ultimately led to the creation of the United States of America.

Which is the first experiment in a representative democracy. And a very successful experiment. And one we need to appreciate, study, and fight for again.

'Nuff said.

The President on Terrorism

Recently, President Obama spoke about the terrorist attack on Christmas Day.
He stated that he accepted the responsibility for the failure to protect our nation.
And President Obama stated (finally) that we are at war with al-Qaeda. However, I might suggest that we Americans also need to be careful of other terrorist groups. Such as the suicide bomber who came to us via our "friends", the Taliban.
At Cato Institute, Mr. Obama's low key response to the would-be underwear bomber is applauded. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/30/talking-about-terrorism/ Well, maybe. Yet, his low-key response was woefully late. And, I would moreover suggest that the Homeland Security Secretary's response was a total "failure". Mr. Obama needs to accept responsibility for her idiotic response.
In the end, however, the issue is security. In Afghanistan and in our airplanes, and everywhere in the world, Americans need to be as safe as possible.
Perhaps the answer isn't to chastise our intelligence community, but to aid it. Despite Secretary Napolitano's assertion that the underwear bomber had nothing suspicious about him, this has been shown to be patently false. And the State Department needs to investigate how this person obtained a visa. Heritage has several proposals for the issuance of visas, including more cooperation between the State Department and Homeland Security, and expanding the Visa Waiver program, which increases information for our intelligence gathering agencies.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/wm2749.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/wm2743.cfm
President Obama should also reconsider releasing terrorists back to their home countries. At present, the release of Yemenis back to Yemen has been suspended--but not stopped or even investigated for the safety of this action. And terrorists need to be tried by military tribunal so that they can interrogated and charged and punished appropriately. The underwear bomber is not even charged with a capitol offense. His charge of attempted murder with a weapon of mass destruction carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.
That just doesn't seem quite just to me!

Health Care Bill Transparency

C-Span has asked to televise the final health care debates. As promised by President Obama.

The answer from the White House--NO.

Instead, the Senate and House Democrats are planning to completely bypass normal conference meetings to work out differences in their respective bills. This will keep all negotiations away from the public--and away from Republicans, who won't be invited.

This is called "ping-ponging", something which has increased leaps and bounds under Democratic control of Congress.

Transparency, indeed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2010/01/ping_pong_method_increased_under_democrats.html

Medicare Revisited...The Mayo Clinic

The Mayo Clinic will no longer see Medicare patients.

Why? They are losing money.

And yet the health care reforms proposed by Democrats would cut almost half a trillion dollars from this program.

As the President's own advisors warned:

"It is important to note that the estimated savings shown in this memorandum for one category of Medicare proposals may be unrealistic. … providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)." http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/04/obamacare-will-only-make-health-care-worse-mayo-drops-medicare/