Kirk on key homeland security, armed services panels

Kirk on key homeland security, armed services panels; The Boston Globe

...After a series of meetings yesterday, top Senate Democrats placed Kirk on two committees with jurisdiction over issues crucial to the Bay State: the Armed Services Committee, which supervises the military and plays a role in defense spending, and the Homeland Security Committee, responsible for supervising the nation’s defenses against terrorism. ...

Today, Kirk, a longtime aide to Kennedy, will participate in his first hearing of the Homeland Security Committee, “Eight Years After 9/11: Confronting the Terrorist Threat to the Homeland,’’ where Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and FBI Director Robert Mueller III are scheduled to testify.

Later today, Kirk is expected to vote on a defense appropriations bill that would provide nearly $630 billion for the military over the next fiscal year - including nearly $3 billion in controversial projects that the Obama administration didn’t request.

One of those earmarks is $20 million for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, to be established at the University of Massachusetts campus in Boston, next to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.

Comment: So much for the democracy created by the 17th Amendment...but the voters of Massachusetts got the person they wanted, a lackey for special interest and pork. This 70 something will also be there to propel the agenda of the military defense establishment well into the next war...battlefield America.

Udall, other senators unveil carbon-control measure

Udall, other senators unveil carbon-control measure; Denver Business Journal

U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., was joining with Sens. John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and others Wednesday to announce legislation that he said would "reduce carbon pollution and fight global warming."

"Senator Udall, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, believes it is critical for Congress to pass a bill that combines job-creating support for clean energy development with limits on carbon pollution," Udall's office said in an advisory.

Comment: While I have to reiterate, there is no such thing as "man made global warming," I also know that Udall and the oligarchs will, through this "cap and trade" nonsense, kill what remains of any industry, and much of the energy production sector, while lining the pockets of a few.

Federal Resources Used to Attack Political Enemies

Andrew Breitbart, writing in the Washington Times, challenges the Obama administration's use of Chicago-machine thug tactics:

Mr. Obama, under siege by a video-a-day expose that was exposing the Democratic Party to an avalanche of consequences (ACORN defunded in the House and Senate, ACORN delinked from the census, etc.), needed advice from the last president to navigate through a major political scandal.

On this day, neither the president or the former president, nor the media knew how many more videos were coming.

The next day, Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, the Democratic Party's top fix-it guy with control over much of the left's well-funded vast attack machinery (think George Soros, the Tides Foundation, et al.), was among a small advisory group placed in charge of investigating the matter.

With the mainstream media continuing to ignore the evidence on the tapes, Mr. Podesta is now clearly in charge of feeding them information about his well-structured investigation into the investigators. The ACORN internal probe is a "war room" aimed at destroying the messengers and is not meant to clean up major corruption.

Since Mr. Podesta was appointed to investigate ACORN, the only thing investigated has been the investigators, Mr. O'Keefe, Ms. Giles and the publisher of the journalism behind it, yours truly.

A government that uses its resources to eliminate its political enemies is a danger to everyone. The use of these thug tactics discredits the legitimacy of the government. With a media devoted to protecting it at all costs, how can people even be made aware of what's happening.

Corruption is a result of centralization of power. Until the federal government is forced to return power to the states, this problem will continue to get worse.

The administration is transparent all right. It's easy to see who's pulling the puppet strings. But these people will not give up their power easily.

Marilyn vos Savant Reforms Health Care

A short excerpt from her book Of Course I'm for Monogamy (1996):

What went wrong with health care? With too much government involvement and too little consumer education, we've disconnected this vibrant industry from the free market. If this is the case, there is a relatively simple solution that not only would achieve much of the political goal; it would help health care blossom. In no other industry would we complain about virtually unlimited sales expansion combined with equally-unlimited product potential. This is a boom scenario.

Does the health-care industry profit at our expense? Yes. And so does just about every other industry, including farming (food), garment manufacture (clothing), and building (shelter). As we earn money and then spend it, everyone profits at the expense of everyone else. That's what capitalism is all about.

Following is a ten-point outline for health-care reform:

- Deregulate insurance companies so they can sell policies with much higher deductibles, and educate consumers to understand why low-deductible policies are actually budget plans instead of the simple safeguards against unforeseen catastrophe that all policies once were. Paperwork, administrative costs, and profits for insurance companies may constitute 25 percent of health-care costs overall.

- Deregulate health-care forces that are competitive. For example, Certificate-of-Need regulations require that no more goods or services be provided in an area unless proved to be absolutely necessary. (So physicians can't perform, say, too many expensive CAT scans when machine time is strictly limited.) But this contradicts all free-market experience. Scarcity creates high prices that will even increase according to demand. It is abundance that lowers prices. Radios, videocassette recorders, and computers all plummeted in price - and became increasingly sophisticated - as they became plentiful and manufacturers competed with each other. (So when CAT scanners become s plentiful, everyone will be able to afford CAT scans whether they need them or not.) That is, competition drives quality up and prices down.

- Deregulate insurance companies so they can sell a variety of customized policies ranging from no-frills coverage to luxury coverage, all tailored to individual and family desires, much in the same way that food, clothing, and shelter are on the market. People who don't want coverage for acupuncture, herbal medicine, hairpieces, drug abuse, and marriage counseling wouldn't have to pay for it the way so many do now. Even important categories such as childbirth and AIDS coverage could become optional.

- Provide incentives for health-care professionals (such as hospitals) to advertise so they can market plain-to-fancy goods and services both to insurance companies and directly to the consumer who has no insurance. We can have both perfectly acceptable (and lower-cost) medicine and highly sophisticated medicine, the way we have both fast food and fine food. In other words, highly sophisticated medicine costs far more for little additional value and people would be free to choose it if that's the way they want to spend their money (via expensive insurance or their own wallets), but it would be wasteful to provide it as a matter of course.

- Reform Medicaid and Medicare so that the government must reimburse individuals for expenses and change the tax laws so companies can once again sell policies that are guaranteed to be renewable, regardless of health or employer, like health insurance policies in the 1950s.

- Deregulate insurance companies and change the tax laws so companies can offer "coverage from conception" or "coverage from birth" as options - which would effectively cover every individual with all conditions if the mother chose it - and begin a campaign to educate future parents about why this expense should come before any other expense that is not a necessity for life. The great majority of children would likely be covered (as they are now). Of the minority that were not, nearly all would be healthy enough to be insurable at a later date. The remaining few who are uninsured and uninsurable could be covered by subsidized high-risk pools; twenty-eight states currently have them.

- Deregulate insurance companies so they can reject a new applicant for health-related reasons, freeing the companies for cost-competition. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, these people (who have been rejected for insurance for medical reasons) currently total only 900,000 - fewer than one-half of 1 percent of the population [in 1996 - JohnJ]. These individuals would also be covered by subsidized high-risk pools.
In the future, elective unborn- and newborn-coverage combined with guaranteed-renewable coverage has the potential to eliminate individuals who are otherwise uninsurable. But before that, if health care is allowed to become a free market, the price of goods and services may fall like the prices of cameras and televisions, putting ample care within reach of nearly everyone. In the meantime, however, a special government program could be piggybacked onto Medicaid for the rest of their lives only (no new individuals would be added after enactment of the law), serving as a temporary bridge to the new system.

- Educate consumers about why the purchase and maintenance of medical insurance should come before even nonessential purchase. (Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured have incomes over $30,000. [Again, 1996 - JohnJ]) Social disapproval could be directed toward those who buy goods and services like cable television, restaurant meals, and vacations, but fail to purchase and maintain health-care insurance for themselves and their dependents.

- Allow American citizens to choose to be uninsured and spend their money on other things, if they wish. (There is a large young-and-healthy group already doing just that - nearly 60 percent of the uninsured are below the age of thirty.) For the vast majority of people, this will be perfectly acceptable. (About half of all health-care spending is on medical bills of $5,000 or less.) Also, hospitals are already required by law to treat emergencies regardless of ability to pay.

- And finally, numerous studies have shown that although people consume about 50 percent more medical care when it is totally free, as opposed to people who have a deductible of about $2,000, this additional spending has no noticeable effect on health. Apparently, much of our health-care spending is a complete waste of time and money. This suggests that if the federal government expands "free" care, we will have even more waste than we do now and with no improvement in health. After all, we must remember that there is a distinct limit to how much we can improve our health with current technology, no matter how much money we spend on ourselves. If we have a head cold, spending a million dollars won't help us get better any faster, and if we have terminal cancer, neither will a million dollars prevent us from dying.

All emphases in original.

Compare her plan to, say, Cato's. Needless to say, Marilyn vos Savant's many books are highly recommended.

A Series of Untoward Events

Letter to Albert Gallatin, Dec. 13, 1803. ME 10:437

From a passage in the letter of the President, I observe an idea of establishing a branch bank of the United States in New Orleans. This institution is one of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. The nation is at this time so strong and united in its sentiments that it cannot be shaken at this moment. But suppose a series of untoward events should occur sufficient to bring into doubt the competency of a republican government to meet a crisis of great danger, or to unhinge the confidence of the people in the public functionaries; an institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the union, acting by command and in phalanx may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this Bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war!

Emphasis mine.

I've always been amazed at Jefferson's foresight.

Mob Rule and the Welfare Tipping Point

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

Scott Hodge and Neil Cavuto:



Jefferson also remarked, “Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.”

The government uses welfare to buy enough votes from the poor in order to take from the middle class and give to the rich. The government also divides people into identity groups in order to make promises to each group instead of promoting equality for all.

The immoral system is feeding on itself now. All we can do is try to protect ourselves as best we can. The system has to be allowed to fail on its own.

How to Disappear

Might be good to know.

The Three Keys to Disappearing
1. Misinformation -- "There is so much information about people out there. We need to locate what is known about people and deviate the located information. I don't mean credit or social security information. More so the information gathered by big business, like contact information on your cell, utility, cable, various marketing information people give up too freely."

2. Disinformation -- "We create bogus trails for the stalker to follow. It might look like our client went to Boston, but he's really tucked away in Chicago. The other purpose of disinformation is to make the search costly for the aggressor."

3. Reformation -- "This is getting my client from point A to point B and not leaving any trails. We also teach our clients how to communicate with family and friends securely by use of prepaid cell phones, prepaid calling cards and internet cafés."

Also good to know: Cato's Economic Freedom of the World Report

Hat tip: Lew Rockwell

US senator: China climate move may help pass bill

US senator: China climate move may help pass bill; AFP

China's pledge to curb the growth of its carbon dioxide emissions may help rally support in the US Senate for legislation to battle climate change, a US lawmaker said Tuesday.

"That's a very significant and encouraging step," Independent Senator Joe Lieberman said of Chinese President Hu Jintao's offer to reduce emissions growth by a "notable margin" by 2020 from their 2005 levels.

Lieberman said he hoped "it'll make it a little bit easier for us here as we try to pass climate change legislation," by answering critics who reject US action absent similar reductions by developing economies like China or India.

"There's no question there's a certain number of people here who will not take on some of the responsibility that we have to take on to do things to deal with climate change unless China also does," he told reporters. ...

Nations are due to meet in December in Copenhagen to lay the framework for the successor to the landmark Kyoto Protocol, whose obligations on wealthy nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions expire in 2012.

Murkowski Muddles Toward Climate Regulations

Senator Murkowski mulls stopping EPA climate moves; Reuters

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would be prohibited for one year from clamping down on some new carbon dioxide pollution under legislation being crafted on Tuesday by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski.

The "time out" would stop EPA from issuing regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from utilities and factories, the Republican senator said.

The Obama administration is urging Congress to pass a bill that would reduce smokestack emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming.

The U.S. legislation is designed to be part of a global effort aimed at climate control steps to be discussed in Copenhagen in December.

More than 30 environmental groups wrote to senators urging them to oppose Murkowski's amendment if she offers it. The measure, they said, "would delay America's progress toward a clean energy economy that would create jobs, increase America's energy security, and cut pollution."

The Alaska senator said that she had not yet made a final decision on whether to pursue such an amendment to a bill now being debated by the Senate, which would fund EPA activities in the fiscal year starting October 1.

Murkowski said that she would not try to stand in the way of new EPA rules to reduce automobile emissions or collect information on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

In remarks to reporters, Murkowski said that problems related to climate change needed to be addressed, but not through EPA regulation.

"Congress does need to act on climate change," Murkowski said, adding that EPA regulations could "poison" attempts to pass legislation.

While the House of Representatives passed a carbon emissions bill in June, similar efforts have bogged down in the Senate.

If Congress cannot pass comprehensive legislation because of opposition from conservative lawmakers, President Barack Obama's EPA has the authority to go ahead with carbon dioxide reduction efforts, in a more narrow way, possibly as early as next March.

While Murkowski said climate control legislation was necessary, she did not voice support for the "cap and trade" legislation passed by the House and being crafted in the Senate. Those would reduce carbon emissions over the next few decades and establish a trading system for companies to sell pollution permits to each other.

Instead, Murkowski has worked for narrower legislation encouraging the use of more alternative energy.

Comment: Using my best Marlon Brando voice, "the lie...the lie..."

US senator introduces bill to regulate derivatives

US senator introduces bill to regulate derivatives; Reuters

US Senator Jack Reed on Tuesday introduced legislation to regulate derivatives such as credit default swaps that have been ...

Kennedys want ex-DNC chairman in Senate

Confidant: Kennedys want ex-DNC chairman in Senate; AP

The sons of the late Edward M. Kennedy have urged the governor to pick Paul G. Kirk Jr., the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to temporarily replace their father in the U.S. Senate.

A family confidant said Wednesday both Edward Kennedy Jr. and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., had endorsed Kirk in separate phone calls. ...

Comment: So much for democracy...but didn't the 17th Amendment remove the influence of the fat cat rich?

Senators spar on health bill's effect on seniors

Senators spar on health bill's effect on seniors: AP

Republicans argued health legislation would hurt seniors and Democrats said it would do nothing of the sort as the Senate Finance Committee resumed debate Wednesday on a bill to remake the nation's health care system. ...

Republicans are raising a slew of questions, from the legislation's cost to its basic constitutionality, and only a few amendments out of 564 pending have been dealt with. ...

Baucus announced $50 billion in changes Tuesday to address that issue. The most significant would sweeten the subsidies for individuals and families with incomes up to four times the government's poverty level — which would work out to be $43,320 for individuals and $88,200 for a family of four. Baucus also decided to reduce the penalty for families who defy a proposed requirement to purchase coverage, from $3,800 to $1,900.

Comment: Wow it's great to see that Republicans are concerned with the constitutionality, maybe they should have considered it while they were in power. But real and authentic constitutionality concern will come when the States demand their rightful place within the Constitution framework as it was for the first 140 years of our nation's history. Repeal the 17th!

Leno's ACORN Joke

Not a lot of Senate-related stuff going on right now, so I thought I'd share this joke Leno told last week:



Laugh while you can. With a government this eager to squelch criticism and control the public debate, free speech won't last much longer.

Pennsylvania Considers Nullification

Pennsylvania State Representative Sam Rohrer has introduced the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB1988) for consideration in the state legislature. The bill is “An Act prohibiting certain firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition from being subject to Federal law or Federal regulation.”

HB1988 currently has 48 additional co-sponsors, and according to FirearmsFreedomAct.com, is similar to bills recently enacted into law in both Montana and Tennessee.While the bill seems to focus solely on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.

The article goes on to claim that state nullification of the REAL ID Act can serve as a blueprint for responding to other federal laws. This won't work for the very simple reason that the REAL ID Act was written with such careful considerations for federalism that states did not have to implement it. That's why Congress will pass the PASS ID Act.

Many libertarians allowed themselves to be played for fools over REAL ID. REAL ID was never the threat its critics said it was, and the record has shown this to be true.

However, the fight to limit the federal government continues. Nullification may be an option to explore until the 17th Amendment is finally repealed.

Centralization of Power Is the Real Danger

Jim Harper of Cato on federal regulation of texting while driving:

Senators, who were once chosen by state legislatures, now believe it is their role to tell state legislatures what to do.

Federal command over our lives, in ever more intricate detail. It’s the product of exalting democracy — in this case, direct election of senators — over liberty and over the governmental structure originally established in the constitution.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Noah Webster

National Service Includes Jobs to Support Obama's Platform

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. - Thomas Jefferson

Becoming "Health Care Activist" for ObamaCare = "National Service"

At least, that's what the Serve.gov website job...er, "volunteer," listings are suggesting.

They're compensating "progressive activists" spouting White House talking points and propaganda with taxpayer funds. And guess who's intimately tied up with all of this?

A C O R N.

Words fail me. The government is forcing taxpayers to pay people to encourage the growth of government, which can only result in higher taxes, which will require more tax dollars to be spent encouraging more government growth, which will...

This is unsustainable.

Penn and Teller on Taxes

Politicians are like stage magicians. They rely on not only on deceit and tricks, but also on the audience's willing suspension of disbelief.

Everyone knows that you can't really saw a person in half and put them back together again. Everyone knows that you can't make something free by passing a law declaring it to be so. Everyone knows that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Politicians could not get away with this if the people didn't let them. The biggest problem with the American government isn't with the politicians; the biggest problem is the people.

The people know the government is corrupt and unresponsive. The people know that Obama is lying about his health care plan. They just don't care.

Dems unhappy with proposed tax in health care bill

Dems unhappy with proposed tax in health care bill; AP

Unhappy Senate Democrats on Thursday found plenty to complain about in the fine print of the latest health overhaul bill, particularly a tax provision they fear would hit hard at middle-class Americans, from coal miners in West Virginia to firefighters in New York.

The opposition sprang up a day after Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., unveiled long-delayed legislation that would transform the nation's health care system, requiring almost everyone to buy insurance, making insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions and reining in spiraling health care costs.

The bill has given fresh momentum to President Barack Obama's top domestic priority of extending health coverage and controlling costs.

To pay for the 10-year, $856 billion bill Baucus wants to tax high-value insurance plans, those worth $21,000 for a family and $8,000 for an individual. Baucus says those are "Cadillac plans" enjoyed by a small minority of Americans. Aides said about 10 percent of plans and 8 percent of taxpayers could be affected.

But other Democratic senators fear that the tax would reach deep into middle-class pocketbooks, and labor unions are upset. Two Democrats on the Finance Committee, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, along with other senators, say they want to limit the tax before signing off on the bill. ...

A Republic, if You Can Keep It

A Republic, if You Can Keep It; Town Hall

In 1913, the Congress of the United States passed the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment then went to the legislatures of the ...

Specter Makes his Final Betrayal Official

Specter makes his final betrayal official; By Michelle Malkin

He is one of two representatives-at-large for Philadelphia, thanks to the 17th amendment. The only way U.S. senators can truely represent the entire state, would be to elect them by county. Each county gets one vote. ...

Senate to consider limits on carbon dioxide emissions

Senate to consider limits on carbon dioxide emissions; Los Angeles Times

While healthcare dominates the headlines, the Senate is preparing to consider a bill that could dramatically ...

Spector, the Happy Little Liar

Specter Unveils Revised EFCA Bill; The Washington Post

Sen. Arlen Specter, long the most closely-watched man in America when it comes to labor law reform, today embraced his latest role: as a passionate Democrat declaring that a rejiggered Employee Free Choice Act will pass this year.

An hour before President Obama appeared at the AFL-CIO convention here to reaffirm his support for bill, Specter told hundreds of cheering union officials that by year's end Congress would pass labor law legislation that "will be totally satisfactory to labor."

After his speech, Specter detailed the revised bill he has been crafting with Senate Democrats, the rough outlines of which have been trickling out for weeks. The revised measure would not include the most controversial provision -- allowing workers to organize by getting their co-workers to sign pro-union cards, instead of having to hold secret-ballot elections in the workplace. Unions argue that such elections are unfairly dominated by employer threats and intimidation, but the provision to drop the secret-ballot election has proved highly unpopular with conservative Senate Democrats. ...

Specter tells AFL-CIO he backs organizing bill: AP

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter took another step in his political transformation on Tuesday, telling hundreds of labor activists that he will support legislation that would make it easier to form unions.

In a speech to the AFL-CIO convention, Specter also boldly predicted a compromise version of the bill would be passed in Congress this year. The bill has been stalled for months under withering attack from business groups and a lack of support from several moderate Democrats.

"We have pounded out an employees' choice bill which will meet labor's objectives," Specter told cheering union delegates.

Specter's assurance was a reversal from his stance earlier this year, when he declared on the Senate floor that he could not vote for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Since then, Specter switched from the GOP to the Democratic Party, giving Democrats a 60-vote majority in the Senate.

Facing a strong primary challenge from Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak, Specter is counting on union support to help him hold onto his seat. Sestak is not speaking at the convention.

Specter spoke just hours before President Barack Obama addressed the delegates. Later Tuesday, Obama was to attend a fundraiser for Specter in Philadelphia, where he was expected to tell donors how crucial Specter is for pushing through the White House agenda. ...

Comment: Well he was against labor while he was a Republican, but now that he's a Democrat he's for labor...sure...I believe you... both Specter and Labor have done wonders for the Pennsylvania economy.

Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

Health-Care Reform and the Constitution; WSJ; By ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"

Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted in the Constitution.

One of those powers—the power "to regulate" interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.

Unfortunately, a notoriously tendentious New Deal-era Supreme Court decision has given Congress a green light to use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommercial, and even purely local, private behavior. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison's understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept "regular."

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

Applying these principles to President Barack Obama's health-care proposal, it's clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one's health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.

The same Congress that wants to tell family farmers what to grow in their backyards has declined "to keep regular" the commercial sale of insurance policies. It has permitted all 50 states to erect the type of barriers that the Commerce Clause was written precisely to tear down. Insurers are barred from selling policies to people in another state.

That's right: Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person's appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.

What we have here is raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes. The president and his colleagues want to reward their supporters with "free" health care that the rest of us will end up paying for. Their only restraint on their exercise of Commerce Clause power is whatever they can get away with. They aren't upholding the Constitution—they are evading it.

Read the rest here.

Comment: Slightly off topic, but I am a big fan of the Judge.

Ah, raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes...it sounds like the US Senate too.

Schiff: It's Worse Than You Think

And it's going to get even worse before it gets better, if it gets better at all.



Schiff announced that he's running for Senator in Connecticut this morning. That would be a small step in the right direction.

Hat tip: Below the Beltway

Sen. Grassley Bravely Runs Away

Brave Chuck Grassley ran away, bravely ran away, away. When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Chuck Grassley turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Chuck Grassley.

Original video provided for your amusement:



Sen. Grassley (R-Iowa), one of a hundred reasons to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Joe Wilson and the Cult of Personality

From Wikipedia:

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example, in the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, the image of Pol Pot himself was rarely seen. On the other hand, in North Korea there exists a very successful cult of personality, which includes actual semi-worship of both the father (Kim Il-sung) and son (Kim Jong-il).

Comment: What Joe Wilson shouted is mild in comparison to what the Founding Fathers endured. But what is going on with this latest "non-story" is the furthering of the Presidential Cult of Personality. And while this all started with Roosevelt, Republicans have been right there doing the same thing building up their guy like he's some sort of god.

We need to wake up, the president is only a man. In actually and in all reality he isn't really the kind of person we simple folks would want to be friends with...and that goes for Reagan too in my humble opinion. We need to remember the Executive Branch is and should always be subservient to the Legislative Branch. That's what the Founders intended by God! This might be tough for the neo-cons and leftist to understand, but it's all true.

Unless we turn back the train that keeps building up steam and bringing power to DC, we are going to see a whole new wave of flack directed at those who criticize the power elites. And I would be willing to bet some jail time is on the way for those in the near future if we aren't watchful.

I'm not going to say one way or the other what I think about Mr. Wilson's remark. Right now I am glad he did, because that lets me know there is still some freedom remaining. Rather than attacking Wilson, let's relish this for one moment.

And let's remember that the person he ridiculed broke throw a barrier, a huge barrier. I may not agree with the President's politics and I won't vote him, but I proud to know he could become President of these United States. We have come along way, this I am proud of my fellow citizens.

You might say I have one oar in the water, but for me this whole "non-story" lets me know I still live in a free country...at least this week.

Comment 2: And you know how to turn back that train...repeal the 17th Amendment!

Michael G. Morris: Cap and trade

Michael G. Morris: Cap and trade; The Charleston Gazette

The arguments for and against climate action haven't abated with the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by the U.S. House of Representatives. Both sides are sharpening their messages in preparation for Senate action on the issue.

The public hears the rhetoric and must weigh the choices. Cleaner energy? That's good. Higher energy costs? That's bad.

But a key fact that is critical for everyone to understand has been lost in the debate. One way or another, there will be climate action.

If climate change legislation dies in Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency intends to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that EPA has that authority if the agency concludes that CO2 qualifies as an endangerment issue. EPA has provided notice that it is pursuing the development of its endangerment finding.

Climate action by EPA isn't equivalent to climate action by Congress and, in our view, is in no one's best interests.

For instance, members of the U.S. House of Representatives spent countless hours debating legislation that, if crafted correctly, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create a cleaner energy supply. Of equal importance, steps were taken to preserve jobs for American workers by ensuring that international trade counterparts are taking comparable actions. House members also included measures to minimize the cost impact on consumers and to protect the economy by allocating free credits to the utilities for the benefit of their customers.

Action by the EPA would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, potentially, create a cleaner energy supply. But that's the end to the comparability. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA actions must be taken on a source-by-source or sector-by-sector basis, with little or no consideration of impacts on employment, consumer costs or the economy, and would impose permitting requirements for the first time on hundreds of thousands of additional facilities.

So the choice is simple:

# A comprehensive legislative approach that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions while introducing measures to address jobs, costs and the economy; or

# Single-focus regulation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without regard to jobs, costs and the economy.

There are no other options.

American Electric Power supported the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. No legislation is perfect - particularly one that seeks to overhaul the way our nation uses energy - but we believe this climate bill will work and it represents the best of the available options.

There are constructive improvements that the Senate should make to this legislation. For instance, since the costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions initially will be concentrated on customers of electric utilities, the House version of this legislation appropriately provides emission allowances free to the utilities for the benefit of their customers. Allocating, rather than auctioning, emission allowances will substantially reduce electricity cost increases, while still achieving the same environmental benefits. We encourage the Senate to expand the percentage of allowances given to the electric sector and provide the free allowances over a longer period of time. As free allowances are eliminated, the revenue raised from auctioning allowances should be reinvested to accelerate development and deployment of new clean-energy technologies.

For coal-reliant states, investment in clean-energy technologies, including carbon capture and storage, will support continued use of America's most abundant energy source. Preserving coal for electricity production while expanding other available energy sources reduces dependence on foreign fuels and ensures a reliable supply of electricity to power the American economy. Renewable energy and energy efficiency also need to play a growing role, and the House legislation appropriately emphasizes both. The Senate should add federal siting authority for new transmission lines to support significant expansion of wind and other renewables as well as strengthen and improve the efficiency and reliability of our nation's aging electric grid.

The start date of the legislation should be moved forward from 2012 to a later year to allow sufficient time for regulations to be developed by EPA under parameters established by the legislation and to help reduce some of the up-front costs. Again, American consumers and companies benefit.

Lastly, there are concerns over the international trade provisions built into Waxman-Markey to address the global nature of climate change. International trade provisions must be maintained and strengthened in the Senate to ensure that U.S. action becomes part of a meaningful global solution to this problem. It is global warming, not U.S. warming.

Climate action is inevitable. The only choice is whether to encourage the Senate to pass comprehensive, well-crafted climate legislation or to wait for the EPA to enact regulations under the Clean Air Act.

We're pulling for the Senate.

Morris is chairman, president and chief executive officer of AEP

Comment: This article hit home on a number of fronts for me; first I live in AEP electric coverage area and in the coal producing area AEP owns. Second, the issue is one of major proportion which in reality is not a problem but a manufactured Information Operation (IO) meant to do a number of things, one of which is to further subject this country to the growing threat and dominance of the centralized government. And lastly, for now, it is an excellent example of how a corporation will get in bed and collude with government to benefit their aims over the citizenry, and look who will usher this in...the US Senate.

There is far too much to refute and oppose in this letter for my limited free time, but I can only say this is pure rubbish and we are being screwed as nation by these power hungry oligarchs; there is absolutely no climate change other than what goes on in nature.

This why the 17th must be repealed; we must remove the power vested in a few and return it, in real republican terms, to to the people, to the local communities, to the states. This nothing but pure BS! Wake up America, you are about to be intercoursed.

John Stossel Moving to FOX

Stossel, best known for his work as co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20," will anchor "Stossel," [sic] a weekly program on FOX Business Network, and make regular appearances on FOX News Channel, it was announced Thursday.

The one-hour program will feature in-depth reports on domestic and international libertarian issues and will debut during the fourth quarter of this year in FBN's primetime lineup. Stossel and a panel of experts will explore a wide range of topics including civil liberties, the business of health care and Social Security.

He will also host a series of one-hour specials on FOX News Channel and write a blog called "Stossel's Take."

John Stossel will have a larger audience on FOX, but he'll likely be preaching to the choir. As he's noted himself time and again, conservatives will at least listen to him, but liberals are the ones who engage in more hateful attacks. Undoubtedly, FOX News will also see their ratings rise as faithful Stossel fans tune in each week to see what the most famous libertarian in network news is up to.

Video courtesy of Minnesota Chris

Forming the 'Leave Me Alone' Party

Forming the 'Leave Me Alone' Party; Big Hollywood - Venice Beach

And while you're at it, repeal the 17th Amendment so that Senators are once again chosen by the State legislatures instead of by statewide vote. ...

Coalition Launches Campaign to Pass Climate Bill

Coalition Launches Campaign to Pass Climate Bill; Washington Post

... groups formally launched a national lobbying campaign Tuesday aimed at mobilizing grass-roots support for passage of a Senate climate bill this fall. ...

Senate Considers International Tourism Tax

Senate considers international tourism boost; The Associated Press

A bid to boost the number of international tourists in the United States could mean that many of those same visitors will soon pay extra to finance travel promotion campaigns abroad. ...

Comment: Remember what George Harrison of the Beatles wrote,

Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman. ...

The Greatest Senators Came Before 1913 And Popular Election

The Greatest Senators Came Before 1913 And Popular Election; Wall Street Journal

It is interesting that all of the great senators mentioned in Jay Winik's "Kennedy for the Ages" (op-ed, Aug. 28) served prior to 1913 and the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. That amendment changed the selection of senators from the state legislatures to popular election (superceding Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution.)

Maybe our founders did know something about the need to temper the democratic tendencies of the House with a more republican Senate. Alexis de Tocqueville, that astute French observer of our nation, certainly thought they had the right idea.

Chris Daly
Yucaipa, Calif.

Comment: Great comment Chris!

Census Cuts Ties to ACORN

There is simply too much power in Washington, especially in the Executive branch. The simplest way to eliminate much of the corruption in Washington, and the Executive branch, is to strip it of much of its power. The powers in a Republic are supposed to be separated into three branches, but the Executive has authority over all.

Moving the Census into the Executive branch obviously politicizes the process and will lead to the entrenchment of the powers-that-be.

Health Care Plan is on the Way: Senate Acts on Own Accord

Wilson's rallying cry; Politico

...Added Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.): "I sat there tonight wondering what the purpose of this evening was. I was hoping to hear the president flesh out a middle ground, but instead we heard platitudes and campaign rhetoric."

But Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of Obama's most consistent critics, saw some room for compromise. "It was a good speech, the problem is that what he wants and what they've written are two totally different things," said Coburn, an OB-GYN. "I'm willing to compromise to get things fixed. But I'm not willing to put the government in charge because we don't have a good track record." ...

Comment: These comments are not from men that stand for liberty, as their constituents do, they are footmen doing the work for the socialists.

Elections for sale?

HT: jbrent at the Repeal the 17th Discussion Board

Elections for sale? LA Times
If the Supreme Court lifts restrictions on corporate campaign contributions, watch out.

...Since the nation's founding, our constitutional story has been one of democratic progress, moving toward broader enfranchisement and more meaningful political participation for individual Americans. Regulation of corporate influence in elections has helped make this progress possible. Indeed, one of the animating concerns of the 17th Amendment, which secured direct election of senators by the people, was the outsized influence corporations were having on the selection of senators by state legislatures. ...

Comment: Aside from the writer's lack of concern about the 1st Amendment, he lacks knowledge about the 17th. The "special interest" argument was propaganda but forward by the progressives, and current research supports this as well; it just isn't the case.

Does anyone in his or her right mind really believe there is less influence in the US Senate today than 100 years ago?

What Can Obama's Czars Legally Do?

What Can Obama's Czars Legally Do? Judge Andrew Napolitano; FOXNews

...The czars are really presidential assistants; and never mind that the Constitution grants no power to the federal government on matters such as green jobs, automobiles, or manufacturing. The Constitution is rarely an impediment for modern White Houses which seek to regulate areas of personal and group behavior that the Founding Fathers could never have imagined. The czars may be hired without FBI background checks or Senate confirmations and they serve at the pleasure of the president. Because they work in the West Wing and directly for the president, they enjoy almost total immunity from any accountability to Congress. Supreme Court decisions even immunize presidential assistants from replying to subpoenas from Congress for documents or testimony, under the claim of executive privilege. ...

...The president cannot assign a czar to do the work of a cabinet secretary or delegate to a czar his own powers without violating the Constitution and federal law. But if the czars are not asked questions under oath, we may never learn just what it is that they do.

Comment: I believe the case can be made that the 17th Amendment contributed to this problem, the growth of the czars, followed by the growth of the Executive Branch, which the good Judge doesn't discuss. Undoubtedly there is no longer a "check" made by the Legislative Branch to the Executive. The 17th Amendment broke this check, meaning the States are blocked from preventing the growth of a centralized government massed in the Executive Branch, while the Congress is no longer focused on the same, but is now co-partner in growing the central government at the expense of the States and their rights by abdicating power to the Executive Branch.

Schilling for Senate?

Schilling for Senate? Laugh at your own risk; Contra Costa Times

Because Curt Schilling is unfamiliar with the concept of an unexpressed thought, it has come to light that he is toying with the idea of running for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy.

"Many things would have to align themselves for that to truly happen," he said last weekend. "I am not going to comment further on the matter since at this point it would be speculation on top of speculation."

Naturally, a few days later Schilling discussed the idea at length on a Boston radio show.

"It's just gone nuts," the retired pitcher said of the frenzy his announcement has inspired.

We now pause to allow the laughter to subside.

Schilling, a rip-roaring Republican who has never run for elected office, succeeding the liberal lion in the U.S. Senate? Schilling, Mr. Ego-Centric, Mr. Full-of-Himself? Schilling, who was forced to beat a hasty retreat in the summer of 2007 after blogging (inaccurately) that Barry Bonds had "admitted using steroids. There's no gray area"?

Schilling, of whom Phillies general manager Ed Wade once said, "He's a horse every fifth day, and a horse's (hind end) the other four"?

Yeah, that guy. The borderline Hall of Fame candidate. The guy who, for the past couple years, has been operating a video gaming company.

Read the rest here.

Comment: Whether Schilling has the necessary experience is one thing, and this is highlighted by the writer well enough; but the bottom-line in light of Kennedy, Rockefeller, Boxer, and the litany of maroons over the last 90 years, is the single fact that because of the ratification of 17th Amendment, this very important position, the office of the US Senator, within our Federal Government has turned into seat of power for the highest taker at larger. And remember that the "progressives" said then, as well as now, in that this ruinous action would be stopped through the direct election process, yet look at the Senate today. The Senate has become a place of undemocratic libertine oppressive and morally bankrupt tyrants!

The fact of the matter is that only those legislators who served with distinction for their state and the citizenry in their respective state legislative body, who reside in their state, should represent their state in the US Senate; not some carpetbagger money bags. And only by repealing the 17th Amendment and restoring the State's rightful place within the parameters of the US Constitution as the founders intended will we expunge the cancer that inhabits the US Capitol.

One Party, One Health Care Plan

Time running out for bipartisan health compromise; AP

...Baucus would impose a fee on insurance companies to help finance coverage for uninsured Americans.

It's not clear whether that would win support of two key Republicans in the group, Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. The Baucus proposal reflected many of their priorities, chief among them the decision not to include the so-called public option to compete with private insurers. ...

Comment: When I converse with friends who are long time Republican Party members, the idea of any government run national or universal health care plan or system is not on the table; they view the issue in terms of socialism. Yet here we have one of a thousand news stories reporting how US Senators from the two dominate parties are working toward a health care compromise. What gives? No matter how we, the citizenry, view the political system, our US Senate and much of the House are beholden not to our ideals and norms, but to theirs, and those of the special interests they support.

You Republicans are going to wake up one day and read how this slice of socialism has been supplanted into our free society and not realize you just got "intercoursed" by your Republican elected Representative.

We have to understand this one central point; our US Senators do not represent the citizenry, because if they did this whole health care issue would be a non-starter. The vast majority of the citizenry doesn't want it, yet here we are and it's on the table.

We must repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the rightful place of the States within the body of the Federal Government, as the founders intended. Otherwise our we will continue to march toward this new amalgamated social-fascist state that will strangle our very being.

The Power of Freedom

Paul Romer's idea of 'charter cities' is starting to gain some acceptance.

Romer, an economist, is a leading expert on the dynamics of economic growth...

He sees charter cities as beachheads where laws and institutions and habits that have worked in the wealthy world can take root, and as civic laboratories where new ways of doing business and hybrids of local and imported customs can emerge. Unemployed workers and frustrated entrepreneurs from the host country would flock there for the opportunities; international firms would be drawn by the combination of First World stability and cheap labor. And from these nodes, money and expertise, laws and norms would spread throughout the rest of the country and, potentially, the developing world. Ultimately, their work done, the cities would revert to local control.

“The upshot of this,” Romer says, “would be a radically different and more effective way to help poor people throughout the world catch up more rapidly with the standards of living we take for granted in rich countries.”

...

Rather than give people bed nets or heifers or wells or composting toilets, he sees an opportunity to set off a contagion of fast and lasting growth in the world’s poorest nations, with all the choices and opportunities that come with it.

“In a sense,” he said in a recent talk, “Britain, inadvertently, through its actions in Hong Kong, did more to reduce world poverty than all of the aid programs that we’ve undertaken in the last century.”

The belief that exemplary cities can change the world has long fired the imagination of prophets and reformers. Boston itself was born out of such a faith: sailing across the Atlantic to establish the Massachusetts Bay colony, John Winthrop announced to his fellow Puritans that their new community would be “as a city on a hill{hellip} we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.”

Romer’s project comes from a similar desire to start afresh. Like many development specialists, he argues that the principal reason some countries lag behind others is not talent or ambition or technology (even in sub-Saharan Africa cellphones are becoming commonplace). Instead, it’s the rules, formal and informal, that govern their economies. If companies wonder whether the government will seize their assets or capriciously remake the regulatory code, if they fear that competitors will make off with their intellectual property, if every transaction is weighed down by the cost of bribes and kickbacks, all of that slows and eventually strangles economic growth.

...

The rules in the cities’ governing charters would be, Romer argues, “pretty basic stuff”: he mentions reliable law enforcement, an impartial judiciary to enforce contracts, and laws forbidding wasteful subsidies for energy and other vital resources. As for the details, different cities could try different approaches, experimentation that would help separate good strategies from bad.

...

Romer strongly objects to the idea that he’s peddling a new colonialism. Charter cities would not rely on coercion, he insists, and no one would be forced to live in them. “Is it an evil imperialistic thing if we let someone from Haiti move to the United States, even if we don’t let them vote immediately?” he asks. “This is someone who would rather live under the rules in the United States than the rules in Haiti.”

As he sees it, the accusations of colonialism betray not only a lack of ambition, but a tragically patronizing attitude of their own.

I might be skirting the limits of fair use, but I wanted to give enough to demonstrate the idea.

The United States became a great power using similar principles. Our founding charter and first organic law states that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Consent isn't the ability to dissent, but the freedom to ope out. The growth in the size and scope of the federal government since abandoning this simple principle illustrates the truth of it. Government responds to people's actions, just as a business will do what it takes to keep customers, by giving people what they want. Over time, this principle produces progressively superior products than when consumers are denied a choice.

And if people were given the freedom to live under socialism until they tired of it, socialism would soon perish from the earth. That's why socialist work so hard to deny others this freedom. The freedom to consent to government produced the most capitalist nation in history. The structural protection of that freedom was removed by the 17th Amendment, and since then socialism has grown and will continue to do so.

It's amazing what freedom can do, and those who believe that they have the right to deny others a life of freedom live in fear of what free people can do.

Hat tip: Let a Thousand Nations Bloom

The Immorality of Government Welfare

Liberals make excuses for taking people's money through force by downplaying the role of force. Another Townhall protester exposes that deceit by challenging her representative to take her money in broad daylight instead of the dark of night.



Liberals try to make the moral case for government welfare by claiming that majority rule makes something moral. Why would it have been wrong for the politician to take her money by force but moral for him to vote to make the IRS threaten to throw her in jail if she didn't give it up? As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people."

His point is that claiming that some law is the result of "the sovereignty of the people" does not make it moral. This country was not founded on the principle that legislative acts are moral by their nature, but rather that "government derives its just powers by the consent of the governed." The only way that people can consent to being governed is if they have a choice. A truly liberty-inspired individual wants all people to have a choice as to what kind of government they prefer.

While perfect choices are rarely offered, the market place does not offer goods perfectly tailor-made to exact, individual specifications. It instead creates progressively superior products due to the competitive nature of free choice. This principle works for government too. Subjecting government to the limiting power of free competition can make it work for people instead of subjecting people to its whims.

The accelerated centralization of government after the ratification of the 17th Amendment is evidence that such a drastic change in the Constitutional structure severely damaged the system which protected people from the tyranny of centralized government. While it's odd that those who fear monopolies of business believe there is security in the monopoly of the most dangerous bureaucracy in the world, their ability to see government as a cuddly big brother poses a danger to us all. If they cannot be persuaded by logic, they will just have to suffer under their own misguided ideas.

If only they didn't have to take the rest of us down with them.

Hat tip: Hot Air

TownHall Updates

Just a reminder, if you get a chance to speak at a townhall meeting, get the video and upload it. Great moments like these need to be preserved:

Lecturing Senator Warner on Constitutional limits:



Speaking on common-sense health care reform:



The unconstitutionality of the czars:



Hat tip: Hot Air

McCain and McConnell Jointly Attend Semi-Town Halls

The Early Word: The Close of Summer; The New York Times

But in this last week of summer before the holiday, lawmakers and others are busily traveling and meeting with various constituencies as the health care debate continues to simmer. Leading Republican senators like John McCain and Mitch McConnell will jointly attend semi-town halls — they appear together in Kansas City with Senator Kit Bond on Monday, and are said to be heading to other states later this week. The Times’s Katharine Q. Seelye profiles the efforts by another Republican, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, to influence voters to oppose health care initiatives in Congress. ...

Comment: If I am not mistaken Senator John McCain was to the right of Teddy Kennedy by a mere separation of .00003 centimeters. So I am supposed to believe that with McConnell, McCain is going to rally the troops against this piece of socialism concealed as health care reform? Right; get ready for the bait and switch folks. The US Senate is going to continue their steady march to even greater federal centralization and enlargement of their power along the way. Mark my word; McCain and McConnell’s actions speak a hell of a lot louder than their hollow words.

Get beyond the party politics; there is only one party in Washington and it’s called Hubris. Repeal the 17th and take the power away from these 100 99 oligarchs.

Van Jones Calls Capitlaism a System of Exploitation

Calls for 'complete revolution':



So is it now okay to acknowledge that Obama is a socialist?

Hat tip: Hot Air

Freedom Is Slavery

It takes a special kind of obfuscation to proclaim infringing on individual liberties as a protection of rights. Todd Zywicki discusses the coming infringements on consumer rights:



Obama's oratory isn't anything awesome. Nobody believes it who doesn't force themselves to believe it.

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Enough is enough, Harry

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Enough is enough, Harry; Review-Journal.Com

Stop the childish bullying

This newspaper traces its roots to before Las Vegas was Las Vegas.

We've seen cattle ranches give way to railroads. We chronicled the construction of Hoover Dam. We reported on the first day of legalized gambling. The first hospital. The first school. The first church. We survived the mob, Howard Hughes, the Great Depression, several recessions, two world wars, dozens of news competitors and any number of two-bit politicians who couldn't stand scrutiny, much less criticism.

We're still here doing what we do for the people of Las Vegas and Nevada. So, let me assure you, if we weathered all of that, we can damn sure outlast the bully threats of Sen. Harry Reid.

On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.

Such behavior cannot go unchallenged.

You could call Reid's remark ugly and be right. It certainly was boorish. Asinine? That goes without saying.

But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid's remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was -- a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down.

No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term.

If he thinks he can push the state's largest newspaper around by exacting some kind of economic punishment in retaliation for not seeing eye to eye with him on matters of politics, I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don't have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal.

For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can't let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he'll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he's tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.

We won't allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first.

That's a promise, not a threat.

And it's a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid.

Comment: I am not a long time “Senate watcher,” but since I have started this weblog and became involved with the movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, I have witnessed the unmitigated and steady stream of pure arrogance ooze from those serving in the US Senate. To be frank it happens at every level of government, but nowhere does it radiate more than from our US Senators.

We have the power to stop this through a strong mandate to return the rightful power these 100 have vested upon their selves and return it to the states by calling upon our local elected state official to demand the 17th Amendment is repealed.

These senators are an arrogant lot and ruining the Republic. It’s time we stepped up and took the reins from these clowns and set this country right again. Understand, Reid is the symptom; the virus is the 17th Amendment. It’s time to radiate the virus.