American Thinker: Showing How Government Fails

By Bruce Walker, January 4, 2014

The debacle of ObamaCare may do what conservatives have been trying to do for a long time: show ordinary Americans the depth of government incompetence.  Businesses have grasped since FDR the sting of the quip "I'm from the government -- I'm here to help you."  The hyper-regulation by the federal government of nearly every aspect of commerce and industry through an ever-growing leviathan of laws, regulations, judicial decisions, and executive actions has stunted and even crippled huge swaths of private enterprise in America.  Almost any small business can recount at least one horror story that cost our nation productive activity, reduced meaningful employment, and closed off areas of potential growth in our economy.

Many Americans, however, have generally been shown only the sunny side of the federal government.  Those who do not run or manage businesses, who do not pay federal taxes, and who do not have to deal with the profound inanity of government bureaucrats may live their lives seeing only "goodies" like Social Security, welfare-state entitlements, and countless "feel good" advocacy programs notionally on their behalf.  Read more.

Why State Government Elections Matter

AMERICAN THINKER, AUGUST 16. 2013

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the AFL-CIO is going to using the lion's share of its political resources in the 2014 midterm to elect Democrats at the state government level rather than in congressional elections.  Republicans, without ignoring federal elections, ought to be just as concerned about winning state government elections.

Washington is a mess -- perhaps an incurable mess.  Since George H. Bush was elected president twenty years ago, conservatives have found almost nothing encouraging at the federal level.  Himalayan federal debt, surreally stupid energy policies, Marx Brothers-like national security policies, deconstruction of the finest health care system in the world, and an endless stream of weary rhetoric connected to a campaign cycle which never stops -- all this means that the best we can hope for in winning federal elections is to stop or slow down leftist mischief.

State government is very different: actual reforms can be implemented -- and, under Republican governments, have been implemented.  The new voter ID law in North Carolina is an excellent example.  Because Republican Pat McCrory won the gubernatorial race last year and Republicans maintained control of both houses of the North Carolina Legislature, serious new provisions to reduce voter fraud are now state law.

Two years ago, Scott Walker, who was swept into office with Republican majorities in the Wisconsin Legislature, enacted public employee union reforms over the howls and hisses of established leftism.  The left tried everything to defeat this -- Democrat legislators fled to Chicago to prevent a quorum; public employee union operatives flooded the capitol; the left tried to defeat Judge Prosser in his retention election; and Democrats tried to recall the governor, the lieutenant governor, and several state senators. 

The reforms enacted by Walker and his Republicans worked, and the left faced humiliating defeats which extended even into November 2012.  Although Obama carried Wisconsin and Republicans lost the Senate election there, Republicans at the state level did just fine: they actually gained seats in both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature. 

What happened in Wisconsin happened in other states in which Republicans held enough power to move their agenda.  While Obama carried Ohio, for example, and Democrats won the Senate race, Republicans actually strengthened the hold of the Ohio Legislature.  Perhaps most interesting is what is happening in North Carolina right now.  Republicans in 2012 -- an "Obama" election year -- captured the governorship and strengthened their control of both houses of the North Carolina Legislature.

North Carolina Republicans are now showing just what Wisconsin Republicans showed two years ago: courage to make big changes and the will to do that very fast.  North Carolina has just adopted a voter fraud prevention law which is very easy to defend, and these Republicans are quite properly ignoring the threats and howls of establishment leftism.  Two weeks ago, North Carolina Republicans enacted sweeping education reforms which end teacher tenure, provide means-tested voucher programs, and deconstruct some of the education bureaucracy.  One week before that, North Carolina Republicans passed the first major overhaul of the state tax system in eighty years.

What has happened in Wisconsin and North Carolina has happened in other Republican-run sates since the 2010 landslide.  If Republicans are able to dominate state government elections again in 2014, then American government and politics could truly be transformed, for several reasons:

These reforms are enacted quickly, and the results of the reforms can be seen easily and soon.  One reason Scott Walker survived recall was that Wisconsin voters saw his reforms working. 

States also provide the chance to really experiment to see which of several paths leads to the best state education system, the optimum growth-generating tax system, and the most effective voter fraud measure.  Conservatives across America can show not only one or two ways to reform broken systems, but perhaps dozens of ways. 

CONTINUED:  Why State Government Elections Matter

Clowning the Os

American Thinker, August 15, 2013

Who has not heard about the "iniquitous", white (and therefore guilty -- like Zimmerman, who of course is not white, but never mind) rodeo clown who donned an Obama mask?

Who has not gotten wind of the Ruling Aristocrat Oprah Winfrey's manufacture of a "racist victimization incident" with a Swiss sales clerk?

In consideration of the content of many conservative articles and comments on the subjects, I am going to be so bold as to suggest that many conservatives still do not want to come to grips with the true function of racial discourse in this country.

As a consequence, many conservative responses are as naïve as they are myopic.

Protestations of the form "look at the Bush masks; look all the Bush hate; the sales clerk wasn't a racist after all and Oprah should apologize" are fruitless, and will continue to be fruitless until matters are set right.

Matters are not going to be set right until Americans take fully on board the brute fact that the "dialogue" on race in this country is, quite literally, psychotic.

That this is so is easily seen by reflection that, for example, the racial "dialogue" we've been hectored about for several decades is in reality no "dialogue" at all; it is a monologue imposed by the powerful in order to decimate the values and individuality of the powerless.

READ MORE:  Clowning the Os

Democrats and Phantom Voter Discrimination

American Thinker

July 31, 2013

Eric Holder looked Texas dead in the eye, and has drawn the proverbial line in the sand. He is demanding a federal court order which will require Texas to submit to federal "preclearance" for any potential changes to voting laws, despite the Supreme Court's ruling last month which deemed any such requirements by the federal government unconstitutional.  

Texas, Holder insists, is still racist place (seemingly evidenced by nothing more than a predominantly Republican makeup), and if left to its own devices, minorities will suffer disenfranchisement today, just as they did in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed.

While there is the obvious problem that this is a move to circumvent the Supreme Court decision, there is a more fundamental problem with this assumption. Not only is voter discrimination in Texas not a problem that warrants federal oversight today, as the Court correctly surmises, but voter discrimination in Texas wasn't a significant problem that warranted federal correction in 1965. Don't take my word for it. Take it from the horse's mouth. The most influential backer of the Voting Rights Act said precisely this, way back then.

Lyndon Baines Johnson's relationship with civil rights prior to 1960 was markedly different than the man Democrats remember as the bold challenger of discriminatory social conventions like segregation. When Harry Truman pushed for civil rights in 1947 and '48, for example, LBJ was one of his biggest opponents. Yet as the tide of public opinion turned against the historically held Democrat touchstone of segregation in the following years, LBJ eventually saw the writing on the wall.

So when Eisenhower offered his dedication to civil rights legislation in 1957, LBJ found himself conflicted, caught between his devotion to segregation and his ambition to become president. In the end, he remained loyal to both in that year, outwardly supporting the '57 civil rights bill while colluding with other Democrats like Richard Russell of Georgia in amending the bill "so as to minimize its impact," which ultimately watered it down enough that the bill evaporated in a heated legislative process.

But by the time LBJ had become president, he recognized that efforts to desegregate the South were gaining popularity with unstoppable steam, so he seized the opportunity to outwardly champion civil rights. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which journalist Ronald Kessler recalls LBJ saying would ensure that "those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years," LBJ continued his courtship of the minority vote by embracing calls for voter's rights legislation.

CONTINUED: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/democrats_and_phantom_voter_discrimination.html?utm_source=07-31-13&utm_campaign=AT+Newsletter+07-31-13&utm_medium=email#ixzz2acz7jzu1

American Thinker: Hey Cowards, Let's Have a Conversation

I have worked with many couples in distress.  Initially, the work involves preventing conversation until the rhetoric of the relationship can be improved.  Happy couples mainly talk about their lives; unhappy couples mainly talk about each other.  In doomed relationships, couples use words to humiliate each other.  And as the doomed relationship collapses, the partners become more desperate to spew insults and make the other hear them.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder stand their ground together upon a framing of race so false and degrading that it would inevitably tear the American people apart.  

Attorney General Holder used an utmost humiliating term in calling Americans cowards. He did this with the approval of President Obama, who fully stands by his man each time Holder's wrecking ball takes a swing at the Constitution.  Holder's purpose in shaming Americans was to demonstrate his power as untouchable.  But Holder's abusive language, and the contempt it shows, bore within it the seeds of doom for blame-and-shame race rhetoric.

Social science research uses a model called frame analysis to understand social movements:

"Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner. Frames operate in four key ways: they define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments and suggest remedies. Frames are often found within a narrative account of an issue or event, and are generally the central organizing idea."  - Jim A. Kuypers, Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action
Since the end of legalized racial segregation in the 1960s, the central organizing idea of race relations in America has been that white people are still racist and black people are still victims.  This rhetorical frame operates as follows:

1) The problem: the greatest problem in America is that black Americans have lower incomes and poorer health, and are generally less successful than white people.

2) The cause: white racism, which is the primary moral evil in America.  All white people enjoy white privilege, and all black people are victims of white racism, regardless of individual circumstances.

3) Moral judgment: black Americans are not morally responsible for their generally lower achievements and drastically higher criminality because these problems can be traced to white racism.

4) The remedies: keep the focus on white racism; maintain permanent special rights, including affirmative action, racial preferences, and lowered performance standards.  Accept that white racism causes disproportionately high numbers of black people to depend on the government for basic necessities such as food and medical care.  Maintain a "national conversation" about white racism.

The Obama administration exists because of this framing.  No one suggests that Barack Obama would have been nominated by the Democratic Party for the presidency based on his record alone if he had been white.  But still, the framing of race rhetoric that the government advances is breaking down from the weight of its own falseness.

CONTINUED: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/hey_cowards_lets_have_a_conversation.html?utm_source=07-29-13&utm_campaign=AT+Newsletter+07-29-13&utm_medium=email#ixzz2aRdm68kh 

American Thinker: The Victims of Immigration Reform

June 27, 2013


The Victims of Immigration Reform

By Steve McCann

In virtually all recent polls the overriding concern facing the people of the United States is the moribund economy. Per the Rasmussen survey out of 15 issues 80% of all respondents listed the economy as the most important followed by: 2) health care, 3) job creation, 4) government ethics and corruption and, 5) government spending. The least important were: 1) war in Afghanistan, 2) environment, 3) energy, 4) national security and, 5) immigration. ()


Naturally the thrust of the administration and its allies in Congress is so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform, and for the Obama regime it is to impose by fiat onerous regulations on energy production and usage as a sop to the radical environmental movement. Both drastically and negatively impact the top issue on the list: the economy.

The American people, unlike those in the well-heeled bubble that is Washington D.C., have and are still experiencing under Barack Obama the worst period of economic growth since the Great Depression. Additionally, not since then have the American people experienced more difficulty in finding work.

There are fewer people employed today than there were seven years ago. By May of 2006, George W. Bush had coped with a recession already begun upon his assuming office in January of 2001, the devastation of September 11, 2001, and in September of 2005, the overwhelming economic impact of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. Despite those factors the unemployment rate was 4.6%, thanks to policies polar opposite to those pursued by Obama.


In May of 2006 144.0 million Americans were employed; in May of 2013 there are143.9 million. Yet in 2006, 228.4 million people were counted in the civilian noninstitutional population; in 2013, 245.4 -- or a growth in the working age population of 17 million with 100 thousand fewer jobs. Never, over any seven year period since the Great Depression era, has this nation experienced such a dramatic and devastating economic track record.

[For those determined to blame Bush for all of Obama's failures: in December of 2008, 143.3 million were employed as compared to 143.9 today after nearly four and half years of the Obama presidency.]

Into this landscape the Congress and the President propose to dump up to 20 million illegal immigrants into the labor force, thus allowing them to compete for whatever jobs are available. Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the impact of undocumented immigrants on their statistics:

It is likely that both surveys [household and establishment] include at least some undocumented immigrants. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how many are counted in either survey.


Assuming there are 15 million illegal immigrants in the country and 80% (12 million) would be a net of of working age and that 20% of that group are currently counted in the BLS statistics, therefore, 9.6 million more people would be added to the published working age population -- if the current legislation is signed into law. The overall current working age population of 245.4 million would therefore increase to 255.0 potential job seekers available for 143.9 million jobs. (a shortfall of 111.1 million). Per the current method of calculating the unemployment rate the current published rate of 7.6% would immediately increase to 9.1%.

CONTINUED:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/the_victims_of_immigration_reform.html?utm_source=06-27-13&utm_campaign=AT+Newsletter+06-27-13&utm_medium=email#ixzz2XTUJXLa5

American Thinker: Obama's Tyranny: Petty or Something More Sinister?

March 25, 2013

Last week, headlines informed us that, because of the Sequester, the FAA will be reducing the number of Air Traffic Controllers and closing 149 control towers completely. Earlier, the Department of Homeland Security released hundreds of illegal aliens awaiting deportation because they could not afford to hold them because of cuts mandated by the Sequester, they said.

Head Start is to face cuts due to Sequestration. Native American children are being sacrificed to Sequestration according to Slate Magazine. The Marine Corps faces massive reductions in manpower reports the Wall Street Journal. The U.S.S. Harry Truman and its escorts are sitting idle in Norfolk, VA because of the Sequester when they should be on their way to the other side of the world.

The TSA is threatening cuts that will push airport security lines out onto the street, while the government had been threatening to cut meat inspections until Congress pushed back. In other words the Administration is holding a gun to the head of almost every single American in its quest to inflict the maximum pain possible on each of us to achieve its political objectives.

When has this occurred in our country's history? When has a president orchestrated such a symphony of hardship for party politics? When has a president gone to such lengths for such a small amount of money?


The Sequester represents $85 Billion out of a budget of $3.5 Trillion, or just a 2.42% reduction in federal spending. On year on year basis, spending is still increasing by over 2% over last year. The math used by the Administration to generate this pain is simply crazy.

But this is the same Administration that decided at the outset to assault conventional energy in order to raise prices so that green energy could compete. I was in some of the meetings where the Green Lobby advocated this, and was stunned at their audacity. So now gasoline is at all time high levels; natural gas is being stymied; coal is in the Most Wanted list and nuclear has been sidelined.

We have a Department of Homeland Security that has become one of the largest bureaucracies in the history of our government in the space of 11 years. There is very little accountability and DHS has extraordinary powers to infringe the constitutional rights of our citizenry. Drones, computer monitoring, and wiretaps are all allowed under the Obama Administration's overwhelming control of the mechanisms of state. Just the other day, DHS announced plans to scan even more private e mail traffic.

There is a simple word for all of this; tyranny.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/obamas_tyranny_petty_or_something_more_sinister.html#.UVApLYcEPBc.facebook#ixzz2OYmnUeBU

American Thinker: Jews and American Conservatism

Last year, when voters in the Queens-Brooklyn Ninth Congressional District of New York elected Bob Turner, a solid Republican conservative, to the seat abandoned by disgraced Anthony Weiner, it marked a watershed moment in American Jewish history, as Orthodox Jews finally flexed some muscle alongside Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union. That seat had not left the Democrats since 1923, and it seems that Jewish voters have been liberal Democrat as long, if not longer.


Alongside African-Americans, Jewish Americans traditionally have been the Democrats' most reliable voting bloc. In that way, rather than advancing legitimate interests, Jews effectively throw away their voting influence, year after year, as do African-Americans. Democrats know that African-American votes mostly are in the bag, as are Jewish votes, so Democrats need not vie seriously for support. Contrary to increasing their influence by such group voting, they dilute by signaling to one party that they will be there no-matter-what, while signaling to the other party that virtually nothing will influence their voting.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/jews_and_american_conservatism.html#.UAbJva7LKMc.mailto#ixzz20zBfSS9E

AMERICAN THINKER: The Executive Order Controversy

On Friday, 3/16/2012, President Obama issued an executive order called "National Defense Resources Preparedness" (NDRP), posting it on the White House's official website. Almost immediately, the blogosphere exploded with the news. Citizens began calling their TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers, demanding coverage. At the time of this writing, the furor has yet to abate.


The NDRP traces its origin to the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, which attempted to establish a framework for placing the nation on a "war footing" as quickly and in as efficient a manner as possible should events warrant. In an age of highly industrialized warfare, the basic building blocks of military success are composed of mundane elements such as supply chains, resource availability, parts, access to raw materials, and skilled labor.

Over the years, the DPA has seen many revisions, and the executive orders issued to implement those revisions presupposed an imminent threat of war. In 1994, then-President Clinton issued Executive Order 12919, which expanded the provisions of the DPA rather dramatically, declaring its applicability to peacetime.

The need for the DPA is legitimate. A great deal of our energy infrastructure, utilities, and financial system are in fact entirely private enterprises, not public/government entities. Getting the government running again in the event of a catastrophic attack is one thing, but not providing the same reconstitution effort for the privately owned elements of the nation's infrastructure would still leave us without electric power generation, food distribution, etc.

In the event of cataclysmic war or a natural disaster of similar scope, we could not afford to wait on the private sector to recover at an ordinary pace with purely private funds. Under such circumstances, the need would be urgent and the resources few.

The issue is how to balance the necessity of granting sufficient power to the only entity large enough to do the job -- government -- while still maintaining the private ownership and control of the means of production and the economy as a whole.

The Executive order issued by Obama on 3/16 is largely a restatement of the 1994 Clinton order with a few functional changes. It moves the authority for implementing the provisions of the DPA from the director of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not exist at the time of Clinton's presidency. There have been pedestrian additions of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, to the purview of the secretary of energy (as well as a curiously specific redefinition of bottled water as a "food resource" rather than a water resource), but nothing is particularly out of step with the order Obama's EO supersedes.

So what is the problem? Well, considering that the authority of the DPA has never been meaningfully exercised, and that the pre-emption of authority claimed by the Clinton-era EO 12919 has been similarly dormant, why would the Obama administration choose this particular time to update an obscure and unused authority? It is this question many believe must be asked and answered, and sooner rather than later.

In an attempt to provide that answer, allow me to don an appropriately stylish tinfoil hat before I present a plausible scenario.

1) In early March 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it is the position of this administration that international organizations such as NATO or the United Nations have at least as much, if not more authority to deploy U.S. troops, with or without congressional notice or permission.

2) A week later, the NAACP petitioned the U.N. Human Rights Council to involve themselves in our election process -- specifically our November presidential election, in order to monitor the vote for instances of voter suppression. It is the fantasy of the NAACP that laws requiring presentation of a photo ID to cast a ballot are in actuality thinly veiled efforts to keep the poor, elderly, and non-white populations from voting, presumably for Obama.

3) Attorney General Eric Holder has spent his tenure creating a hair-trigger system of race-conscious prosecutions, most notably in reference to cases involving voter fraud. His previous employee, J. Christian Adams, has built a second career from simply exposing the injustice of Holder's Department of Justice.

4) Most recently, Holder struck another blow against the concept of verifiable voting by forestalling Texas's proposed Voter ID law, saying it "goes against the arc of history." Aside from the attorney general basing his decisions on perceived "historical arcs" rather than clear and established law, the end result is the same: the creation of an air of uncertainty surrounding the upcoming election.

Now (as I adjust my tinfoil hat to a jauntier angle), let me tie these points together.

By employing repetitive reporting of "uncertainty about the reliability of the presidential election tally" by the major media, compounded by expressions of the same uncertainty by administration officials, the left could install that narrative amongst the segments of the population that pay little or no attention to the day-to-day practice of politics.

Could the NAACP then, with support from the Department of Justice and the administration, make the case to the U.N. that the election was in fact tainted, and subsequently persuade the member nations of the U.N. to declare the election invalid? It is possible, and such a declaration is certain to bring chaos to the streets of every major city in our country, as well as a great deal of smaller ones. To restore order, the president might need to deploy troops. Should the Congress resist the move, the administration might simply appeal to the U.N., which could request/order the deployment of troops by a willing and complicit Secretary Panetta.

And of course, President Obama would simply continue in office, for the sake of stability, until this could all be sorted out.

CONTINUED:http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/03/the_executive_order_controversy.html

Liberty Counsel Action Alert!

See the important message below!

Mathew Staver, Chairman

Liberty Counsel Action
September 16, 2011

Last Thursday, President Obama announced the creation of his so-called "jobs bill" called The American Jobs Act of 2011. Since then, in his public statements, the President has called on Congress to "Pass this
Bill Now" over 100 times! We are rallying tens of thousands of Liberty Counsel Action team members to counteract this bullying and to tell Congress, "Pass this Bill - Never!" Please take a moment to read my urgent message below - Mat.

What has changed since the abysmal failure of President Obama's first two stimulus packages - spending over a trillion dollars and plunging America into almost $15 trillion dollars in debt?

The answer is - much has changed, but not for the better!

In an insightful article published by "American Thinker" author Chad Stafko reveals some very disturbing statistics:

"In less than 1,000 days as chief executive of the United States, President Obama's failed policies and initiatives have resulted in a dizzying array of dismal economic statistics...

Government dependence, which is defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is at a staggering 47%, its highest level in American history, while 21 million households are reliant on food stamps. In fact, government spending on food stamps in 2010 ($68 billion) was double what it was in 2007, with the 2011 figure likely to be even higher.

According to the August employment report from the Department of Labor, the nation's unemployment rate remained at 9.1% with a total of zero jobs added to the economy during the month. Those are the official unemployment rates. The real unemployment rate, as it is sometimes referred to, rose to a seasonally adjusted 16.2% in August.

These woeful economic figures have come during a time in which we have experienced the most government involvement in the economy since the days of FDR and government spending without parallel in our nation's history.

Now, President Obama has said he wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more to stimulate the economy.  The American people can't take much more."

No thinking American can endorse Obama's "jobs bill."  Mr. President, we have already seen you spend, and spend, and spend...and plummet our country into insurmountable debt without ANY verifiable economic or jobs recovery.

That's why Liberty Counsel Action is calling on every concerned American to sign our "Pass this Bill - Never!" petition to Congress. We are also calling for a step in the right direction to reign in government spending, exercise fiscal restraint, and create more accountability!

I believe this petition will rally many tens of thousands of concerned citizens who are fed up with the state of the American economy...while incompetent (and one has to wonder if they're not willfully destructive) leaders and presidential appointees steer this country closer to a colossal financial meltdown with yet another $447 billion stimulus plan!

I urge you to join us in telling Congress, "Pass this Bill - Never!"

Click here to read and sign the petition:  http://www.lcaction.org/r.asp?u=50317&RID=32614761

In less than three years, President Obama, his leftist administration, and collaborators in Congress have turned our nation from an economic "super power" with an AAA credit rating into a socialist state with a rapidly declining middle class.

That is not an overstatement!

Remember the "shovel ready" jobs that the earlier stimulus was intended to fund? Then you probably also remember that the President later smirked about that phrase and recanted in an economic forum, saying, "Shovel-ready was not as...uh... shovel-ready as we expected."

Do you recall that the $787 billion "Stimulus One" was partially earmarked for repairs to bridges, roads, and infrastructure?

President Obama has said repeatedly his latest jobs bill is needed for bridges, roads and infrastructure! Does he actually think we can't remember what he said just two years ago?

The plain fact is, this bill does nothing to address the major obstacle to American employment - government
bureaucracy, regulation, and intrusion in the private sector.

In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation, 75 major new regulations that have cost U.S. businesses more than 40 billion dollars have been passed since Barack Obama first took office!

President Obama's plan does nothing to prevent jobs from going overseas into cheaper labor markets...

It does nothing to address unfair trade practices, which hamper American business from competing in global markets...

And it does nothing to address the mountains of regulations imposed by overzealous government agencies that are killing American business!

NOW is the time to stand for REAL change!  Right now, fiscal conservatives in Congress are in position
to bring about economic policy changes with lasting effects.

Liberty Counsel Action believes that rejecting Obama's latest jobs/stimulus plan is putting another crucial
piece of the fiscal restraint puzzle into place.

We want to deliver tens and tens of thousands of these petitions to our elected officials in Congress as soon
as possible. In fact, I believe we can assemble 50,000 signed petitions within the next week if you and other concerned Americans will forward this message to as many of your like-minded friends as possible!

Click here now to read and sign the "Pass this Bill - Never!" petition that will be sent to Congress on behalf of tens of thousands of Americans:  http://www.lcaction.org/r.asp?u=50317&RID=32614761

We MUST continue to be a strong voice for fiscal conservatism and stop Congress and the President from turning this ill-advised stimulus package into yet another liberal fiscal disaster!

Please help put America on sound financial footing so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy the liberty our forefathers fought, bled, and died to provide to their progeny!

God bless you,
Mathew Staver, Chairman
Liberty Counsel Action

P.S. There is no doubt that President Obama has brought economic "change" to our nation. But after two and a half years of out-of-control spending, we all now realize that it has been a horribly undesirable kind of change! The fiscal insanity of his proposed American Jobs Act of 2011 must be stopped! Click here to sign the "Pass this Bill - Never!" petition:  http://www.lcaction.org/r.asp?u=50317&RID=32614761

AMERICAN THINKER: LLOYD MARCUS-- Refuting Obama's Attack on Small Business

Our favorite restaurant fell by the wayside and closed. Mary and I saw a new sign on the building and pulled our car at the entrance to see if they were open for business. The new owner, a middle aged Asian gentleman, rushed outside to greet us.


He said his grand opening was three weeks away. He then enthusiastically began promoting his new restaurant; explaining how it was going to be so much better than the previous restaurant. His passion was infectious. Mary and I left excited about giving his new venture a try.

I thought, this guy is what America is all about. Obamanomics has wreaked havoc on small business. Still, this man is willing to take the risk and go for it.

Folks, I cannot begin to tell you how much it frosts me that Obama uses class envy to portray small business owners such as this restaurateur as selfish greedy bad guys.

The liberal mindset reasoning that the boss is always the bad guy baffles me. Approximately half of new small businesses fail within the first two years. With all of the silly and outrageous nanny government cost incurring regulations, the failure rate is rapidly increasing.

So, when a small business owner survives the maze of control freak intrusive regulations, meets payroll and all of the other challenges which come with being the boss, Obama believes it is evil for the business owner to take home a check much larger than his workers.

Well excuse me Mr. President, but the boss took the risk, providing employment for employees who can simply punch out at five o'clock and forget about the business until the next day. The boss, perceived by liberals to be selfish, greedy and evil, is mentally, physically or emotionally engaged with his business 24/7.

A liberal posted on my Facebook wall, "You conservative Christians forget that Jesus was a socialist." Apparently, this person is unfamiliar with Jesus' Parable of the Talents.

CONTINUED:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/refuting_obamas_attack_on_small_business.html

BEST OF THE DAY!

AMERICAN THINKER:  Liberalism's Ugly Face


Please take time to read this article in its entirety! http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/liberalisms_ugly_face.html

American Thinker

A Bright Idea: Rescue the Incandescents

By Ken Blackwell
google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
Why is Paris known as the City of Lights ? Is it because the U.S. Congress banned Thomas Edison's incandescent light bulbs, so he had to take his invention offshore?
Well, not actually. Thomas Edison was an honoree at the 1889 Paris Universal Exposition and he did go up in the Eiffel Tower. The Italian government conferred a knighthood at that event on the man who gave the world a brighter idea.

No, Congress in the 1880s would not have been so foolish as to extinguish Edison 's light bulb. But the liberal Congress in 2007 was so foolish. They passed (and, regrettably, President George W. Bush signed) the BULB Act. That cutesy acronym stood for the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act. By that act, incandescent light bulbs were to have been phased out by 2014.


READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/a_bright_idea_rescue_the_incan.html

American Thinker

Rule of Law in the Age of Obama


January 02, 2011


By Scott Strzelczyk

Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. While a significant ruling in context of expansive federal powers under the commerce clause, of paramount importance is the underlying fundamental principle of the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is often overlooked and misunderstood when constitutional issues arise. A general misconception is a law is constitutional if Congress passes a bill and the president signs the bill into law, or the Supreme Court of the United States upholds a laws constitutionality. Not only is this wrong, but it is inherently dangerous to our constitutional republic, limited government and federalism, and the protection of man's natural rights and liberty.

The Rule of Law is defined as follows: "Individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or group of individuals" [i]. In other words, nobody is above the law, nor can anybody act outside the constraints established under the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.

The Rule of Law embodies certain indispensable characteristics which are necessary and proper in a government of laws (as opposed to a government of men). Those indispensable characteristics are the supremacy of law and justice. The absence of either supremacy of law or justice represents a fatal flaw in our form of government.

Supremacy of Law

Supremacy of Law requires both citizens and government to be subject to known and standing laws. By subjugating government to a set of known and standing laws, the Rule of Law constrains government bureaucrats and political rulers' arbitrary power over the citizenry. Today, political expediency and ideology result in a myriad of laws subjugating citizens to political will, which ultimately violates the Rule of Law.

People conflate the supremacy clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, with Supremacy of Law. Many people believe the supremacy clause states that the federal government is supreme in all matters of law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Such wishful thinking is the rational basis used to usurp power otherwise not granted to the federal government in the Constitution. The key provision of the supremacy clause is "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof."

Limitations on arbitrary power were incorporated into the Constitution under Article I, Section VIII. This section enumerated the powers ceded by the several states to the federal government. The Constitution established a federal government with limited powers. The several states created the Constitution, ratified the Constitution, and are the ultimate authority required to amend the Constitution.

After years of despotic rule under the British Crown and fighting a war of independence, it is inconceivable that the framers would create and establish a system of government under the Constitution which granted unlimited power and authority to the federal government. For the federal government to be supreme in all matters of law raises the following questions:

Why did the framers labor to define and enumerate the powers ceded to Congress under Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution?

By default, all acts of Congress would be supreme, therefore rendering most of the Constitution meaningless. There would be absolutely no limits on congressional power and authority. Why would the colonies fight a war of independence to establish a new system of government capable of subjugating the people to laws under a new tyrant?

Supremacy of Law doesn't support any conclusion as to whether the federal government is supreme over state governments or vice-versa. The proper interpretation is that those powers reserved to the states and those powers delegated to the federal government must be adhered to because it is stated in the Constitution, and the Rule of Law embodies supremacy of law.

Likewise, the supremacy clause is applicable only to those powers ceded to the federal government. If Congress passes an act within the limited powers ceded to it, then the law is binding and supreme over any state law or state constitution. This is what "shall be made in Pursuance thereof" means. Otherwise, the law is not binding and, therefore, not supreme law.

Justice

Justice is another indispensable characteristic of the Rule of Law. In the state of nature, man possesses certain rights as a matter of being -- the right to associate, to contract, to self-defense, etc. These are referred to as natural rights. In the Declaration of Independence, natural rights are stated as certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness conferred upon man by his Creator. These natural rights cannot be conferred by man unto man. That is, government does not confer natural rights, nor can government deny or abridge natural rights. The Constitution protects man's natural rights and liberty from government.

In a state of nature, a formal justice system doesn't exist. One man steals property from another man, and the aggrieved man seeks retribution for his loss of property. The aggrieved man enacts his own form of justice to compensate for his loss. That retribution may be excessive or unjustly applied in the mind of a disinterested third party. For instance, a man steals food from another man. The aggrieved man seeks retribution and kills the man that stole from him. Most would conclude that the aggrieved man's action was excessively unjust.

One of the primary reasons man enters into civil society is the resolution of conflicts between individuals. To ensure that government treats citizens fairly when resolving conflicts, certain protections are necessary to preclude government's arbitrarily taking action against its citizens.

Personal liberty must be protected. That is, man must be safe and secure in knowing he cannot be arrested without cause, and his private belongings and things cannot be seized or searched without probable cause. Man must violate the law for the government to justify encroaching upon his personal liberty.

Lastly, due process under the law is paramount to the protection of personal liberty, natural rights, and private property. Laws regarding procedural and evidentiary rules, jury trials, and the presumption of innocence are necessary safeguards under the Rule of Law.

A quick glance at the constitutional amendments illustrates the importance of justice under the Rule of Law, particularly on the limitation of arbitrary and discretionary government powers. Amendments IV through VIII all deal with some aspect of justice. The fourteenth amendment is frequently referenced in regards to justice and due process under the law. Amendments I, II, IX, and X are restrictions on government infringing upon man's rights and liberty.

Coercive Government

Whenever government violates the Rule of Law, government becomes coercive. Regardless of the government's rationale, citizens' popular opinion, or intended outcomes, any government action which violates the Rule of Law is coercive, unconstitutional, and unjust. The Rule of Law and coercive government are of utmost concern to the survival of our constitutional republic.

In many cases, elected officials or government bureaucrats use humanitarian reasons to justify their actions. We are doing this for the children. We are doing this to protect you from some harm. We are compassionate and must help those who are disadvantaged. All are attempts to justify the use of arbitrary power to achieve political or ideological outcomes that often abridge individual rights, property rights, or liberty.

How does government usurp powers and act arbitrarily in violation of the Rule of Law?

First and foremost, the federal government usurps powers that were intended to be reserved by the states. Consider a traditional power like local police. If Congress were to pass a bill taking control of all local police powers, the president to sign the bill into law, and the Supreme Court to rule that the law is constitutional, then state powers would be usurped by the federal government [ii].

The Supreme Court has presumed powers not otherwise granted to it by the Constitution and established itself as the final and ultimate word on all constitutional matters. The framers did not intend to vest the Supreme Court with this ultimate authority. It is akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Furthermore, constitutional interpretation exacerbates the problem of authority, as it affords judges the opportunity to institute distributive and social justice rather than commutative and legal justice. The framers did not intend to vest nine people in black robes with the power to change the meaning of the Constitution [iii]. Only a properly ratified constitutional amendment can change the Constitution.

Congress established numerous federal agencies and programs administered by the executive branch. Legislation often grants agencies broad general powers to implement and regulate programs. Unelected government bureaucrats establish rules and regulations which are considered equivalent to statutory law. These rules and regulations may run afoul of the Constitution, be used to redistribute private property, take control of private industries, or further an administration's political ideology. Dozens of czars were appointed without the consent of the people. The Declaration of Independence states, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Regulations are another method used by government to arbitrarily exercise power over the citizenry.

Those who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution are stating that they will uphold the Rule of Law.  In the next breath, the same people say the Constitution is a living and breathing document, the Constitution is stale and doesn't reflect modern realities, or the federal government has the power to do whatever it wants under the Constitution.

Expansive views and interpretations of the commerce clause, general welfare clause, necessary and proper clause, etc. are referenced by elected officials as their constitutional authority to enact legislation, institute rules and regulations, and usurp powers otherwise reserved to the states.

These are arguments of tyrants and ideologues. A person either reveres the Rule of Law or rejects the Rule of Law. There is no middle ground. There is no cafeteria plan where certain aspects of the Rule of Law can be followed or ignored as one pleases.

Those who revere the Rule of Law understand it is meant to constrain government against arbitrary use of power. Those who reject the Rule of Law use government power arbitrarily to constrain the people.

The founding fathers and framers revered the Rule of Law. The Tea Party and the 2010 elections are about the Rule of Law. The next two election cycles are critical to the country's future and the Rule of Law. Nothing less than our constitutional republic is at stake.

[i] Several definitions exist for the rule of law. The definition I chose for this article is here.

[ii] Federalism was established under the Constitution. All powers originated as states' powers, and certain limited powers were ceded to the federal government by the states. James Madison addresses the question of state and federal powers in Federalist 45. The second and third paragraphs from the end of the paper encapsulate the framers' thinking regarding state and federal powers.

[iii] The current Supreme Court has nine judges. This has varied over time from as few as six to as many as ten. The Supreme Court has remained at nine judges since 1869.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/rule_of_law_in_the_age_of_obam.html at January 02, 2011 - 05:51:25 PM CST