Ballots uncounted in Alaska GOP Senate race

Ballots uncounted in Alaska GOP Senate race: CNN

One day before vote counting resumes in Alaska's Republican Senate primary, election officials say more than 25,000 ballots remain
uncounted.

According to unofficial results from last Tuesday's primary, Sen. Lisa Murkowski trails attorney Joe Miller by 1,668 votes, in what could turn out to be the biggest upset so far this cycle. Absentee ballots had 10 days domestically and 15 days internationally to arrive through the mail as long as they were postmarked August 24, the day of the primary.

Read the rest here.

Alvin Greene Mocks White House Staff As 'Harvard Rich Kids'

Alvin Greene Mocks White House Staff As 'Harvard Rich Kids;' Huffington Post

Alvin Greene, South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate, may seem to defy many classic stereotypes of aspiring politicians, but when it comes to confidence -- a must for most political contenders -- a new op-ed written by Greene in The Guardian shows that the enigmatic unemployed Senate hopeful has no shortage.

"I'll save your house. I'll save your job," Greene loftily promises in the editorial. "I'm unemployed, and, if elected, I can teach the Harvard rich kids in the White House and the senate a thing or two."

"Do any of these fat cats know what it's like to be unemployed? To not know how you will feed your children and pay your mortgage?" Greene continues. "I will vote for any law and propose any measure to keep jobs in my state of South Carolina. I will vote for huge tariffs, and, if necessary, vote to ban imports of foreign goods. Millionaire egghead politicians in the pocket of big business talk about "free trade" - and let all of your jobs get shipped overseas. No more free trade. Your job is not going to Indonesia."

Comment: I'm amazed at the amount of attention the South Carolina election mini-drama is getting in the press, but this guy hits a number of nails straight on the head. Namely, this country is being run by Harvard, Yale and Princeton, with Harvard having the greatest numbers in more positions of governmental influence than any other university. This doesn't say much for "diversity of thought."

The Dodd-Frank Act: Creative Destruction, Destroyed

From Cafe Hayek this morning: "The Europeanization of America’s Economy"

Here’s the truest yet saddest paper title that I’ve seen in a long, long time: “The Dodd-Frank Act: Creative Destruction, Destroyed.” (It’s a new paper by Peter Wallison).

Here's a short snippet from the paper by Peter Wallison:

The dominant theme of the 2,300-page Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is fear of instability and change, which the act suppresses by subjecting the largest financial firms to banklike regulation. The competitiveness, innovativeness, and risk taking that have always characterized U.S. financial firms will, under this new structure, inevitably be subordinated to supervisory judgments about what these firms can safely be allowed to do. But the worst element of this system is that the extraordinary power given to regulators--and particularly the Federal Reserve--is likely to change the nature of the U.S. financial system. Where financial firms once focused on beating their competitors, they will now focus on currying favor with their regulator, which will have the power to control their every move. What may ultimately emerge is a partnership between the largest financial firms and the Federal Reserve--a partnership in which the Fed protects them from failure and excessive competition and they in turn curb their competitive instincts to carry out the government's policies and directions. In addition, with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the act abandons a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress retains the power to control the agencies of the executive branch. These wholesale changes in traditional relationships are hard to explain except as the triumph of a fundamentally different view--a corporatist political model more characteristic of Europe--of the government's role in the U.S. economy.

Key points in this Outlook:

* The Dodd-Frank Act gives the Federal Reserve, under light supervision by a council of regulators, unprecedented control over the largest firms in the U.S. financial system.
* The result may be a public-private partnership, in which the Fed protects the largest firms from excessive competition and failure and they in turn follow the government's directions.
* In the interest of protecting consumers, the act sacrifices the basic protections built into the U.S. Constitution, creating an agency--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--that is answerable to no one.
* Ultimately, the act's effort to suppress risk taking will result in a decline in U.S. competitiveness, innovation, and economic growth.

My mother always told me that what's done is done, and there's no sense worrying about decisions that cannot be changed. Still, it is useful to put down some markers about the recently adopted Dodd-Frank Act (DFA), which looks to be the most troubling--maybe even destructive--single piece of financial legislation ever adopted. The reason markers are useful is that they alert observers--especially those in Congress with the power to do something about it--to the problems they should be looking for in the future. And they might even alert regulators--charged with implementing the legislation--to the dangers of taking full advantage of what Congress has offered them. Given these objectives, this Outlook will discuss the most serious policy problems implicit in the DFA.

Senator Gregg goes 'On The Record' with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren

Sen. Gregg says this is a "fiscal calamity." I say it's suicide.



Comment: Some folks tell me that repealing the 17th Amendment won't change anything in Washington; basically politicians are politicians. But can we afford the mounting trillions of dollars on our deficit? Can three generations forward afford this tremendous debt? Can we sit back and think that voting the politician out or switching parties is going to save our country? I don't think so.

The founders knew we needed checks and balances in our form of government and that balance was violated when the 17th Amendment was passed and then the elimination of the 9th and 10th Amendments began. By repealing the 17th Amendment we are not turning the hands of the clock back to the 19th century, that's a foolish hyperbole: but what we are doing is restoring the framework of our government that ensured the recklessness described by Gregg stops.

If these 100 continue to act irresponsibly (a mild term) and we haven't stopped them yet, what makes you think we can...ever? The time is now to repeal the 17th Amendment and restore limited government to our nation. We must repeal the 17th Amendment before it is too late...and that's not an exaggeration folks.

Farmers Call Possible EPA Crack Down on Farm Dust 'Ridiculous'

Who governs this country the people or the bureaucrats?

Inhofe: Democrat Senate Energy Bill Bad For North Dakota

This is about three weeks old but it contains some good information.

Sen. Inhofe is interviewed by guest host Ed Schafer, Former US Agriculture Secretary and Governor of North Dakota, on the Scott Hennen Show. 1100 AM

Senate stall to blame for slow egg recall?

Senate stall to blame for slow egg recall? POLITICO

The Senate’s yearlong failure to pass a food safety overhaul has hampered the ability of the Obama administration to quickly recall the 600 million eggs connected to a salmonella outbreak that has sickened nearly 2,000 people, experts and lawmakers say.

The House approved its version of the food safety bill in July 2009 — that was more than 60 recalls of Food and Drug Administration regulated products ago, according to a report by the Make Our Food Safe coalition. But the Senate has continued to drag its feet.

The pressure is now on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has consistently pushed the bill to the back burner. Lawmakers, aides and analysts say Reid must bring the bill to the floor when the Senate returns in September in light of the major deficiencies in a nearly century-old regulatory system —- and one of the worst food-related outbreaks yet. ...

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg made the network news rounds Monday morning, primarily to give advice on how to avoid sickness, but also to offer a plug for the bill that would greatly increase her bureau’s power.

“We are very anxious to see a piece of important legislation currently being considered by Congress be passed,” Hamburg told ABC News. “There is an opportunity through this legislation to extend our authority, resources and other important tools to do trace-back of products, to make sure the companies have the appropriate preventive measures in place and to enable us to review records in a routine way.”

Comment: Why expect Congress and the FDA to look out for the food we eat when they can't even look out for the public when Goldman Sachs fleeces our banks or when the private Federal Reserve secretly gives untold billions to European banks during the banker bailout, and yet the American public still doesn't know where it went.

All this is is a power grab and further government meddling that will cause greater oligarchic consolidation of the food sector. If the banker bailout, cap and trade and the BP oil spill crisis, to name a few, have taught us anything it is that behind every great government plan to protect the public there is always some mega-corporation working behind the scenes to write the legislation and to use the power of government to corner their market.

Competition and the free market is the best measure we can enact to ensure food safety. A level playing feild where small and mid size farms can compete with the large is needed.

Check out Cafe Hajek on the egg recall issue.

The Commerce Clause

Reason TV explains how the Constitution's commerce clause was corrupted:



It's no coincidence that the Supreme Court corrupted the commerce clause only after a majority of justices were confirmed by a post-17th Amendment Senate. This is even more evidence that the 17th Amendment destroyed the Constitution's delicate balance of power between the three branches.

OTB: Repeal the 17th Amendment?

Repeal the 17th Amendment? Steven L. Taylor; Outside the Beltway

With the amount of press the 17th Amendment has been receiving lately, I try to post opposition articles to the repeal when I come across the better posts. Here is one such by Professor Steven Taylor: here are his points against:

In all truth, I find the whole notion to be a bizarre one. Here are some reasons why.

1) The notion that somehow having the state legislatures choose Senators is more representative of the state’s interest than having the voters of the state choose the Senator is odd on its face. It assumes that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens. Since the former is a non-random sample of the latter, it is rather unclear to me why this would be the case. Further, since the state legislature is chosen by the citizens of the state I am wholly unclear on why giving them the power to choose Senators makes that selection better for the state than allowing the citizens to select the Senators. Why the addition of a group of middle-men/women would improve the quality of selection is beyond me.

Why would this:

Citizens—>State Legislature—>Senators

be superior to this?

Citizens—>Senators.

The logic is strange insofar as it assumes that voters should be the fount of power for the legislature, which is the key power of state government, but the voters can’t be trusted to choose Senators.

Further, it assumes that politicians (i.e, state legislators) actually deserve more trust than voters.

This especially odd, as most citizens don’t pay all that much attention to their state legislators so ceding the power to that body to select Senators is like tossing it into a black box.

2) A corollary to the above: how can we say that there is a “state interest” that is separable from the interests of the people in a given state? There is a weird fetish here that reifies the state as though it is an entity at least in part separate from the people that live within its borders. If all the people left the state of Texas, then so, too, would Texas lose any “interests” as a state. It would just then be a lot of land.

3) It is wholly unclear (despite what “The Campaign to Restore Federalism” argues here) that Senators selected by state legislatures would behave all that differently in terms of things like pork barrel spending and the basic behavior of the federal government than one elected by the citizens. What, state legislatures don’t like highway and education funding?

4) There is no reason to associate the nature of selection of Senators with the quality or existence of federalism. Despite what some argue, the states still maintain a great deal of policy autonomy in a number of areas (the same ones they have for a long time now, like criminal justice and education) and the very nature of the Senate, with co-equal representation further solidifies federalism. The way those Senators are selected really have very little to do with any of that.

Comment: I just spotted this post this morning and will have more time this evening to reply. I'll post in the comments section of the web-log and please comment here or on Mr. Taylor's web-log as well.

Ex-Nebraska senator Hagel backing Sestak

Ex-Nebraska senator Hagel backing Sestak; Daily Times and the AP

U.S. Rep. Joseph Sestak, D-7, of Edgmont, will receive the backing of former Republican Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel today, the second out-of-state, other-party politician to support Sestak in a week.

Sestak said after a speaking engagement Monday in Philadelphia that Hagel’s endorsement meant a lot to him because he views the former two-term senator as a man of principle.

“The best three days I spent in Congress were on a trip to Iraq with him,” said Sestak. “I found him honest, very competent and willing to be accountable. We’re not going to agree … on everything, no Americans do, but I’m really honored by this. I believe we have problems to solve (and) it’s going to take all ideas on the table.”

“I think he’s exactly what our country needs more of,” said Hagel, who retired from the Senate in 2008. “I think he’s what the Senate needs more of — courageous, independent thinking. That’s what the job is about. You are supposed to use your judgment.”

Read the rest here.

Comment: Reading between the lines of Mr. Hagel's comment, we can understand that he views the role of US Senator not as one who represents his or her state, or for that matter the citizenry of that state, but for his own personal agenda...that's what "independent thinking" really means. Again, another consequence of the 17th Amendment, where senators act like mini-presidents rather than "representatives."

How about that "party" unity? So tell please tell me there are two major parties with two different agendas struggling to gain control of the rudder that steers our course. It's all one party folks once you cross the I-495 beltway.

The Grinch Who Stole Conservatism

The Grinch Who Stole Conservatism; Chuck Baldwin; Campaign for Liberty

This dovetails into the first post of the day.

The GOP is frantically searching for the person who will lead them to the Promised Land (translate: White House) in 2012. Barack Obama is leaving a death stench so heavy that even most of the political allies in his own party are asking him to stay away from their reelection campaigns. You gotta give it to Obama: he has done in one term what most Presidents cannot accomplish until their second (lame duck) term. The problem is, the GOP just can't seem to find their Moses (or even their Ronald Reagan). That means, as far fetched as it sounds now, Obama has a good chance of being reelected. And, once again, when any Democrat candidate for President wins, the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves. 2012 could be another example.

You see, the GOP (including their lackeys at Fox News) either really don't know what a constitutional conservative looks like, or they do know what he or she looks like and don't want them leading the party. I believe the answer is the latter, but in either case, the GOP continually does nothing to groom constitutionalist conservatives for leadership. Just the opposite: such people are routinely ignored, shunned, besmirched, or impugned. (Can anyone say, "Ron Paul"?) Is it any wonder that by the time the general election comes around, the GOP candidate for President is usually nothing more than a Democrat-lite, or a "Democrat in Drag" to borrow from Steve Farrell.

That brings me to one of the people that the talking heads at Fox News and other GOP propaganda centers are routinely discussing as their 2012 Presidential hopeful: former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

According to Reuters News, "Republican former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday [July 25th] he will decide after November's congressional elections whether he will make a run for the White House in 2012."

Here's what Gingrich is looking at: he wants to see if the GOP makes significant gains in both houses of Congress in the November elections. If the GOP wins one house (especially if enough real conservatives win), I predict Gingrich will enter the race. So he can ride a conservative wave into the White House in 2012? No! So he can derail any potential conservative momentum that the Tea Parties might be able to create in this year's November elections. You see, Newt Gingrich is the Grinch Who Stole Conservatism from the GOP. ...

Read the rest of the very good editorial here.

Comment: If we stand any chance of repealing the 17th it has to come amidst the break up of the two (one) main parties. Setting one's hopes on resurrecting the GOP is useless. The time is now to move toward a new political party that represents liberty and freedom, limited government and noninterventionism. These are the norms and ideals needed for our nation's future: repealing the 17th Amendment is the mechanism that will safeguard them.

Rasmussen: Tea Party Sweeping US, Anger at GOP

Rasmussen: Tea Party Sweeping US, Anger at GOP; Newsmax.com

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund writes about "America's Insurgent Pollster," Scott Rasmussen.

Key points:

Rasmussen says "that only 23 percent of the people in this country believe today's federal government has the consent of the governed.

"Americans don't want to be governed from the left or the right," Scott Rasmussen tells the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conference of 1,500 conservative and moderate legislators. "They want, like the Founding Fathers, to largely govern themselves with Washington in a supporting — but not dominant — role. The tea party movement is today's updated expression of that sentiment."

Mr. Rasmussen tells the crowd gathered around him after his speech that the political and media elites have misread the tea party. He believes this strongly enough that he's teamed up with Doug Schoen — a pollster for both President Bill Clinton and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg — to publish a new book that will seek to explain the movement's significance. "Mad as Hell" will be out early next month. ...

Read the rest here.

Comment: Breaking the strangle hold the two (one) main parties have on this country is the first step and righting the country; breaking the strangle hold the two (one) main parties have on the legislative process will be the most significant step at a national level to repeal the 17th Amendment.

The case for repealing the 17th Amendment

The case for repealing the 17th Amendment; Jeff Stucker's Office Livespace

In terms of structural impact to our government, the 17th Amendment was the worst amendment to the US Constitution, and should be repealed.

Currently, there is no power structure in Washington DC which represents the states. I'm not speaking of the people in the states, I'm talking about the states themselves.

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing in setting up checks and balances in our government, and the 17th Amendment destroyed one of the most valuable -- that is, a check on the centralization of power from the states to the federal government.

I've held this position for years but had little hope of its actual repeal because it seemed too esoteric for the average person. Now it's quite refreshing to see a movement of people -- everyday, salt of the earth people -- who know their Constitutional history well enough to understand the consequences at stake in this debate.

Representing the people of the state is different than representing the government of the state.

We all know why we have three branches of government -- separation of powers. The federal system was based on a similarly motivated separation of powers. You embed into the system checks and balances. Those checks and balances are designed to go far beyond the power of an individual's vote in a general election, to structurally and explicitly prevent consolidation of power.

If the federal government takes a dollar instead of the state government taking a dollar, the individual does not feel the difference right away. But the state government knows immediately when it loses power to the federal government. That is why the senators were initially accountable to the state governments, so they would have a natural check on consolidating their power into Washington DC.

Right now, in Washington DC, the president is accountable to the legislature and judiciary through risk of impeachment; the legislature is accountable to the executive through veto and the judiciary through court rulings, and the judiciary is accountable to the legislature and executive through new legislation. This accountability is built into the structure of the system and exert continuous force even in between the elections; however, with the repeal of the 17th Amendment, no power structure in Washington DC is accountable to state governments. Without this accountability, aka check and balance, consolidation of power is inevitable because unchecked power always grows.

Power is a necessary feature of government, in order to prevent anarchy and an “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” system of personal revenge that happens without government. So the power that comes from the people is delegated, consolidating the right to use force. Yet power corrupts, and consolidation of power hastens corruption, so the American founding fathers were careful in how they designed a system of accountability to prevent the unchecked authority that leads to totalitarianism. One of their concerns – and ours today -- is the federal balance of power between distributed states and centralized national government.

Before the 17th Amendment, power delegated to the state governments was then delegated to the Senate. In other words, the Senators not only answered to the people directly, they answered to the state governments as the intermediate source of their power. With all power in Washington DC coming directly from the people, now there is no overt force to keep power distributed to the states. ...

Read the rest here.

Senate Landscape Shifts Farther in Favor of GOP; So What!

Senate Landscape Shifts Farther in Favor of GOP; CQ Politics

It’s hit that point in the election cycle where the competitive nature of Congressional races are shifting rapidly. Unfortunately for Democrats, the overwhelming majority of those shifts are in favor of Republicans.

The latest Senate race rating changes by CQ Politics includes five changes — in California, Washington, Wisconsin, Georgia and Iowa — that benefit Republican candidates. And Democrats can’t even catch a break on the sixth change, which moves Florida’s Senate race from Leans Republican to the more competitive Tossup category based solely of the strength of the Independent campaign run by Gov. Charlie Crist. ...

Read the rest here.

Comment: Whether it shifts from the Democrats to the Republicans has little impact upon the American people. The wars in the Middle and Near East, record unemployment, a depression, the end of the US dollar, and a federal government that is growing exponentially are all signs and symptoms of our dying country. As it stands it has been one agenda orchestrated by supposedly two different political parties. So what does it matter if it shifts back to the Republicans; there will be no change.

Until we break the strangle hold the two major political parties have on this country and end their pandering to special interest over the citizen's interest we can expect a worsening of problems in all of our lives...except of course, for the few.

Senate Candidate Freilich on a Cow

Things that make you go hummm...

Boxer Says Support Small Business If Reelected

Senator Boxer Singles out Local Company; Santa Barbara Independent

As part of her campaign for reelection, Senator Barbara Boxer stopped by Santa Barbara Adventure Company’s headquarters on Wednesday and spoke to media members about her plans for the Golden State should voters decide to usher her back into office.

Choosing the site because of its alignment with her campaign platform — Boxer promises to help small business stay in the black during these financially trying times, and says she wants to preserve California’s ecologically sensitive coastline — the senator’s team chose Santa Barbara Adventure Company because it’s growing despite the downturn economy, and is in the business of allowing everyday folks to enjoy the coast’s natural beauty. She made the stop as part of a statewide tour, and visited Vandenberg later in the afternoon.

During her previous campaign stop in Santa Barbara, Boxer — who’s running for a fourth term — said she’d back policies to develop the green energy industry, increase government spending on transportation, and place sanctions against companies that export jobs.

Read the rest here.

Comment: After four terms the best Boxer can come up with is to develop "green" industries, I'm not sure there is a definition for that other than lining the pockets of a few companies with taxpayers money; increasing government spending on transportation, meaning more money spent on antiquated rail systems and cars too small to put a passenger and suitcase in; and placing sanction against companies that moved out of this country in order to cut costs on overhead. Wow, now that's innovation.

Maybe Senator (we should never forget her aristocratic title, should we) Boxer might want to examine the thousands of laws and regulations that are strangling not only the large businesses that have left this country, but the small as well that simply go out of business everyday. This is the real problem.

Boxer and crew created the mess we have today, and only getting rid of her will allow for a reprieve to our ailing country's economy. But on another note, it would be so much better if we repealed the 17th Amendment...

Fraudster Ken Buck; Fake Limited Government Defender

The Great Buck Backpedal: 17th Amendment Actually Okay! Post Politics; The Washington Post

I caught this story a couple of days ago and I expect this sort of back peddling will become commonplace with many Republican Party candidates that either have been pandering to the liberty movement or are sympathetic to the ideals of limited government, but haven't a developed spine. Either way, when confronted by the main stream news media complex, which is 98 percent socialist/fascist oriented, the fraudsters are exposed just like Ken Buck.

Colorado Republican Senate nominee Ken Buck, who upset establishment favorite Jane Norton in last week's primary, last year expressed support for repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows for the direct election of Senators by popular vote...

Video recently unearthed by The Huffington Post shows Buck responding to a question at a campaign event last year by saying that the 17th Amendment "has taken us down the wrong path."

"I don't know that we get [repeal] tomorrow, but I think we get there in the very near future when people understand just what a horrendous effect the 17th Amendment has been on the federal government's spending."

Friday, Buck clarified his past statement to The Huffington Post: "It is not a position I still hold and it wasn't a position I held a day later when I called back the guy who asked the question and talked to him about the issue and reflected more on it."

The wholesale reversals are coming fast and furious now: Ken Buck abandoned his prior view that Social Security is a "horrible policy" that the private sector should be in charge of practically the day after his primary victory. This weekend, it was the wacky 17th Amendment stuff. ...


Read the whole post here.

Comment: I'm glad this fraudster Buck was exposed by the leftist media because he'll most likely do far more damage to the limited government effort, and our government, than any leftist. I'm also happy to see that the 17th Amendment is in the spot light because people are actually looking into the history of the amendment and realizing the consequences of its passage.

Once a person gets beyond the ad hominem attacks used by the left and media about the need to repeal the 17th, one begins to see the facts and how separating the states from their original place within the Legislative Branch, as framers intended, has resulted in the deficit and spending to rise, how we've become tyrannical imperial power around the world, and how US Senators represent their own agenda and that of the special interest groups rather than the people and their state; yes, the people are seeing the necessity to repeal the 17th Amendment.

That goes for these issues as well:

• 16th Amendment; not only is it immoral to tax a person's work and wages, but having unlimited access to our money has allowed the Legislative and Executive Branches to spend our money so reckless that we really have no idea where the money goes in each budget and how it has contributed to the exponential growth of the federal and national goevernment.
• The War Powers Act; Congress abdicated its role to decide when and where our country should go to war. Reflect upon what the two main parties have done since it was enacted; they have kept us in a continual state of war and fear.
• The Federal Reserve Act; Congress abdicated its role to control our currency and turned it over to a cartel of private bankers, many who are from foreign countries, who have steadily robbed this country of countless billions. As scary as it seems they continue to increase their power to control all of our banking and financial transactions because a stupid congress continues to increase their power.
• The Social Security Act, which was unconstitutional when it was enacted, today is as worthless as those private federal reserve notes you have in your bank account. Yes, it is a horrible policy when you consider how little people get on the return of their money, the way it has been mismanaged all these years and most compelling fact that Americans who are 50 and younger are unlikely to get anything!
  

I could go on for weeks writing about the failures of the Leviathan government, but these are facts and there are loads more. If folks like Ken Buck can't stand up to the leftist media with facts then good ridden; the liberty movement doesn't need them, and that goes for the Republican (RINO) Party as well.

We aren't fanatics and we don't want to go back to the way things were in the 19th Century. We simply want to rein in an out-of-control federal government that has quickly become despotic and tyrannical. The facts are there folks, like it or not.

Memorial Service Planned For Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens

Memorial Service Planned For Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens; AHN News

A memorial Mass for Ted Stevens, the former Alaska senator who died in a plane crash last week, will be held Monday at the Holy Family Cathedral in Anchorage, according to reports.

The funeral itself will be held Wednesday at the Anchorage Baptist Temple.

Stevens, along with four others died August 9 when their plane flew into the side of a mountain just north of Dillingham, reports stated. The group was on its way to a fishing trip.

Kerry Still Playing the Role of Mini-President

Senator Kerry to visit flood-affected areas in Pakistan; Dawn.com

Senator John Kerry, who heads the Foreign Relations Committee and co-authored a major multi-year $7.5 billion aid bill for Pakistan, said the United States has immediately accepted Islamabad's proposal for the international meeting, which is due to take place on Thursday.

He said Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had asked for a meeting at the UN later in the week.

“Secretary (of State) Hillary Clinton has quickly accepted to be there in person as will (Special Representative) Ambassador (Richard) Holbrooke, and they are going to try to rally other people to the cause,” Kerry said.

The legislator told Washington-based Pakistani journalists before leaving for the South Asian country that he would have a first -hand assessment of the worst natural disaster to hit the country as well determine its impact on the region, where the US has high-stakes engagement for a successful outcome of nine-year old Afghan conflict.

The Democratic senator, who is due to meet top Pakistani political and military leaders during his visit, said the upcoming UN meeting is not specifically a donors conference but an “effort to try to really mobilize people to understand what is at stake.”

Read the rest here.

Reid breaks with Obama, opposes mosque near Ground Zero

Reid breaks with Obama, opposes mosque near Ground Zero: CNN

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is breaking ranks with President Obama over the issue of the proposed construction of a controversial Islamic center and mosque just blocks away from Ground Zero.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement. "Sen. Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else. If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation."

Bill Clinton stumps for Fla. Senate candidate Meek

Bill Clinton stumps for Fla. Senate candidate Meek; The Associated Press

Former President Bill Clinton is making three stops in Florida to campaign for U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who's in a tight battle with billionaire Jeff Greene for the Democratic Senate nomination.

Clinton has already done five private fundraisers for Meek, whom he's known since he was the Arkansas governor and Meek was a Florida Highway Patrol trooper assigned to protect his state's lieutenant governor.

Read the rest here.

Comment: Repealing the 17th Amendment would take the money and celebrities out of senatorial races.

Update: In another senatorial race, Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestek will get the glowing endorsement from New York City's Mayor Bloomberg.

Stealth Energy Tax Hike on Senate Agenda for September

Stealth Energy Tax Hike on Senate Agenda for September; Capitol Confidential; Big Government

In a little remarked upon move earlier this month, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) put forward a legislative proposal to raise taxes on energy companies by stripping them of the ability to claim a key tax deduction.

Known as Section 199 relief, the deduction in question has been available to companies engaged in energy production, as well as manufacturing, for several years as an incentive to encourage operations and employment.

However, under an amendment introduced by Baucus, which could be voted on in the Senate next month, that deduction would be eliminated for certain players in the energy industry.

According to a memo obtained by Capitol Confidential and written by Senate Finance Committee staffers Scott Mulhauser and Erin Shields, the Baucus amendment is intended as a substitute to another introduced by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). The Johanns amendment is itself intended to modify the Small Business Jobs Act.

The memo states that “the Democratic alternative… would repeal Section 199 of the tax code, which currently allows these corporations to deduct six percent of their income from oil and gas production from their tax liability, effective December 31, 2010.”

While the amendment is aimed at the biggest energy producers, opponents say that the amendment is still dangerous.

LSU business professor Joseph R. Mason, who has been studying the effects of the Obama administration’s moratorium on drilling on the Gulf Coast community, recently wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that according to some research, “this repeal would cause the U.S. to increase its reliance on imported oil from politically unstable nations, cost the economy 637,000 jobs, and reduce household earnings by nearly $35 billion over the next decade.” Dr. Mason further noted that according to the Congressional Research Service, repeal would “adversely affect domestic production and increase imports.”

The Institute for Liberty, known to comment on misperceptions of energy industry profitability and subsidization similarly noted in earlier in July— when tax hikes including this one were first being mooted— that such changes would “increase taxes on energy companies and consumers.”

Read the rest here.

Comment: Does anyone in their right mind in Montana let alone the US believe this legislation would help them? The end result will surely be continued profits for the oil companies, greater economic growth for foreign countries, and the increased burden placed on the backs of the US citizenry.

Unless we take the power away from the 100 in the US Senate and return it to the states we'll continue to witness these deceptive acts by people like Baucus. It's time to repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the balance of power and the checks and balances in this country.

Prominent Democrats want Kennedy's widow to run for his Senate seat

Prominent Democrats want Kennedy's widow to run for his Senate seat; The Washington Post

Nearly one year after Edward M. Kennedy's death, prominent Democrats in Washington and Massachusetts are promoting his widow as the party's best shot at winning back the Senate seat he held for nearly five decades.

Though she has seemed to bat down the idea of challenging Sen. Scott Brown (R) in 2012, Victoria Reggie Kennedy has been in some ways acting the part of a candidate. She has raised her public profile by campaigning for other politicians and appearing at events across the country.

The prospect of her candidacy is fast becoming a source of family tension, according to several Kennedy intimates. Some relatives fear that a campaign against Brown -- a popular figure even in liberal Massachusetts -- would distract Kennedy from promoting her late husband's legacy, they said.

Vicki Kennedy, a lawyer from a powerful political family in Louisiana who married into the Kennedy dynasty in 1992, declined to be interviewed for this article. She passed up the chance to run for the seat last year, and several confidants said she has told them that she has no plans to run this time.
ad_icon

But some party leaders have been quietly promoting her as their preferred candidate. They believe her stature and the goodwill she earned after her husband's death on Aug. 25 put her in a uniquely strong position. ...

Gerry Harrington, a Kennedy family friend and Washington consultant with ties to Boston, said he thinks it will take a "Herculean effort" to defeat Brown. "I would think it would take a Kennedy to beat him," Harrington said. "Logic would dictate Vicki would be it."

She is not the only family member viewed as a potential candidate. Former Massachusetts congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II, a son of the late Robert F. Kennedy, had considered running for the seat; family friends said he has all but ruled it out, however, in part because of Brown's popularity and the money required to run a competitive race. The same goes for his son Joseph P. Kennedy III, who is viewed as a political up-and-comer in the family.

Read the whole article here.

Comment: As if the seat from Massachusetts is the exclusive property of the Kennedy Family rather than the State of Massachusetts.

Earmarks a central theme in Washington state's U.S. Senate race

Earmarks a central theme in Washington state's U.S. Senate race; McClatchy Newspapers

As he runs for the U.S. Senate from Washington state, Republican Dino Rossi loudly criticizes his opponent, incumbent Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, for earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars for the state in federal spending bills.

Yet while he's calling for an outright ban on them now, Rossi was no stranger to Olympia's version of earmarks — or, as lawmakers euphemistically call them, "locally targeted investments" — during his two terms in the state Senate.

They were known as "bacon bits," little pieces of pork for their districts that even Rossi lobbied influential committee chairmen to include in the state budget.

State Sen. Darlene Fairley, a Democrat, recalls that Rossi sent her a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts after she inserted one of his funding requests in the capital budget she was writing in 2002.

"The only Krispy Kreme store in the state, at the time, was in his district," Fairley recalled.

Though there are other issues as well, Rossi has made earmarks a central theme in the Washington state U.S. Senate race, which polls find is tight. At first glance, the battle lines are clear.

Over the past two years alone, Murray has secured more than $500 million in earmarks for her state. They've covered everything from DNA testing kits in rape cases to increased security along the Canadian border. One congressional watchdog group has called her the "queen of pork."

Read the rest here.

Comment: While I think earmarks are as bad as stealing from your neighbor, because after all when Murray gets something for her state the rest of the country has to pay for it with no say in the matter, which is after all stealing.

But it's not earmarks that are driving the deficit to new records; it's the enlargement of the federal government that is! It's spending on education, the war and the military, health care, the environmental agenda, the welfare, and most of all, the exponential growth in the federal bureaucracy compounded through every single federal government agency. This is where the real problem is, not earmarks.

Mr. Rossi should focus on the real problem; the unprecedented growth of the centralized US federal and national government; and not only the spending, but the unprecedented number of laws and regulations created everyday in Washington that strangle this country and our productivity.

H-NET Discussion: 17th Amendment

H-Net (Humanities and Social Science Online) has a small discussion concerning the 17th Amendment and it's worth a look. You can view the thread here by typing in the key words "Seventeenth Amendment" in the search engine. You may have to jump around a little to follow the thread, but it contains some good information for those wanting to dig deeper into the issue.

Chickens, Sheep, Goats, Hay, and Homesteading

My wife and I bought a small farm a few years ago and have been slowly moving toward the homesteading life. Since the beginning of the summer we have been working at full throttle in the garden, maintaining and caring for our livestock, cutting fields, and taking care of quite of bit of repair work on our outbuildings. With all this work there has been very little time for blogging and staying abreast of the shenanigans in the US Senate.

Still that doesn’t mean the need isn’t there; it is. So as soon as I can get ahead of the work curve, and with a few rainy days, I should be able to return to a normal number of postings. It will be light for me though for the remainder of the summer, but I am sure I’ll pick back up in the beginning of fall. Please be patient with me as I make this career transition.

Thanks for your support.

BD

Judge Napolitano At Mises

This is just too good to not post. Judge Napolitano teaches Constitutional Law at Mises University:

Can the UN Protect American Children Better?

Senator Boxer thinks so!

The U.N. adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child on Nov. 20, 1989. By Sept. 2, 1990, 20 nations signed on to enforce the treaty. Currently, with the exception of the United States and Somalia, 193 nations have signed on to enforce it.

Nations that ratify U.N. treaties are bound to adhere to them by international law.

The convention established an 18-member panel to oversee children’s rights in nations that are part of the treaty. If approved by the Senate, the United States would fall under the jurisdiction of this panel...

“It submits our federal laws, our national laws to this treaty,” [Senator] DeMint told CNSNews.com. “And the fact is that we don’t know exactly how it’s going to run, but we know how bureaucracy works. Once a precedent is established and we have yielded control, we know that it will continue to grow. So the precedent is almost worse than the immediate details.”

DeMint also said that the treaty is superfluous because there are laws already that safeguard abused children in the United States...

While DeMint is in the forefront of opposition to the convention, liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is leading the charge for its adoption.

During the Senate confirmation hearing of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, held in January of 2009, Boxer told Rice the treaty would protect "the most vulnerable people of society."

"Children deserve basic human rights,” Boxer said at the time, “and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected."

Boxer also labeled the fact that only the United States and Somalia are non-participants to the treaty as a “shame.”

Boxer has urged the Obama administration to review the treaty for the purpose of adopting it. The United States is already a part of two optional provisions in the treaty, namely relating to child prostitution and child soldiers. Boxer, however, is pushing for full participation in the treaty.

Senator Boxer thinks that kids don't have basic human rights in America.

International treaties: yet another reason to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Senate Approves Aid Package to States by Raising Taxes

Senate Approves Aid Package to States; Wall Street Journal

The Senate voted Thursday to approve a package of $26 billion in aid for state and local governments, funded partly by an $11 billion tax increase on U.S. multinational corporations.

In what was one of the final moves by the Senate before lawmakers depart Washington for the summer recess, Democrats were able to score a significant victory for a core constituency of their party: labor unions and public-sector workers.

But at the same time, they handed a hefty tax bill to U.S. companies with units overseas that have been able to pay a lower corporate income tax rate on profits derived from their foreign businesses.

The Senate voted 61-39 to approve the measure, with just two Republicans joining with every single Democrat to vote in favor of the legislation. ...

The legislation would provide $16 billion in aid to help states pay rising Medicaid costs. ...

The majority of Republicans were critical of the legislation, arguing it was handing U.S. corporations—which they say are proven job creators—another reason to move more of their operations to other countries. At the same time, they said, it was essentially rewarding traditional Democratic supporters at the expense of large firms.

Comment: In the last line of the article the writer from the WSJ finally acknowledged what should have been the lead line if the WSJ was concerned about free markets. Anyway back to the Senate, but free markets are the point aren't they and that is what is missing in the senate?

If the Senate was truly concerned with the economic conditions of this country they would move to remove the federal regulations and laws that are causing our state and local governments to spend money on unfunded mandates and the other associated burdens place on them, and those items that drive business away from our shores all created by Congress and the regulatory agencies. Why would anyone in their right mind think that taxing multinational corporations helps our failing economy.

The writing is on the wall folks; low taxes, small government, and removing the regulations that impede business is the surest way to turn our country around, and I might add our states. However due to the welfare socialist mentality fostered in this country, due in part by the two main parties, our future is dismal. The only way we can break this is to break the two main parties that really have one agenda, which is more centralization of power within Washington, no matter the cost.

Repealing the 17th Amendment does just that. It breaks the power of those that leech upon the hard work (taxes) and liberty of every American citizen in this country. The repeal will take power away from the parties, special interest groups and most of all the narcissistic popularly elected Senators and return to the states where it will be controlled and metered.

Kagan Confirmed

63-37

Another reason to repeal the 17th Amendment is to get politics out of the judiciary. Not only are Senators beholden to the party system, but judges are as well, due to the confirmation process. Politicians both oppose and support candidates based on party affiliation instead of qualifications. This is a disgraceful process.

What Is The Senate's Job?

David Boaz:

Some people believe that the Senate is “broken” when it doesn’t pass new government programs promptly and without extended debate. But we have two houses of Congress for a reason. The Founders expected the House to be subject to momentary passions, and they intended the Senate to be more cautious, prudent, and resistant to “rushing to judgment.” As George Washington supposedly said, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.” When the Senate deliberates at length, when it resists the pressure of the White House, the House, and even public opinion, it isn’t “broken”; it is fulfilling its intended function.

Of course, pre-17th Amendment, the Senate's job was to protect federalism. Post-17th Amendment, the Senate's job is to protect The Party System.

Thomas DiLorenzo: The Revolution of 1913

He talks about the 17th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve, and describes how those ideas started with Alexander Hamilton and evolved through Lincoln and the War for Southern Independence.