Mitt Romney - Stand with those who voted NO

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is targeting 12 House Republicans who voted against the $800 billion wasteful stimulus bill. They stood their ground and voted no - and they were absolutely right. Now, the Democrats are mounting a major grassroots campaign against them. I want to do everything I can to help these courageous representatives and other candidates like them.

Yesterday, I announced that my Free and Strong America PAC will be sending $1,000 checks to each of these congressmen who are running for re-election in 2010  with a promise to do whatever we can to help them fend off political attacks from the liberals.

What conservatives wanted in the stimulus debate was a bill to strengthen the economy. The Democrats couldn't restrain themselves from throwing in tens of billions of tax dollars for their political friends and special interest groups. What we ended up with was a bill that stimulates the government!

For the last several years, liberals have been griping about the $700 billion that was spent over the last six years to win freedom in Iraq. They have now spent more than that in 30 days. And with a government almost $12 trillion in debt, they are putting at risk the creditworthiness of the United States.

Support our fellow conservatives in standing firm against wasteful spending and excessive borrowing by making a contribution to my PAC today.  

Sincerely,

Mitt Romney
Honorary Chairman

Where is the Outrage - $700+ Billion Stimulus?

The Congress has just passed the largest spending bill in our history. Let’s see what we get for our money, yes our money. However, I must digress to make sure we must understand how this system works. The basic premise is that if you borrow money, you have to pay it back. If you do not pay it back, someone who holds your collateral will call the debt. If you can’t pay it back the collateral is sized. OK, now that we have established the ground rules, we need to examine who is the borrower; who is the lender; who are the guarantors; how is this loan going to be repaid.

Who is the borrower? This one is fairly simple; it is the United States Congress and the President of the United States. Just as an aside, what are they borrowing money for? The stated purpose of the loan is to revitalize the United States economy and get people working again. Therefore, we need to examine the loan document to see where the money is going to be spent. Since the loan papers exceed 800 pages, I am not going to try to enumerate the whole package but rather give some representative examples.

$88 million to move the Public Health Service into a new building (what happened to Two Men and A Truck?)

$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters

$1 BILLION (yes with a B) for the Census Bureau (which is now going to fall directly under the president’s chief-of-staff)

$89 BILLION for Medicaid

$2.4 BILLION for “neighborhood stabilization” activities (read ACORN bailout/beef-up)

1.2 BILLION for a summer youth program

36 BILLION to expand unemployment (don’t we already have enough people out of work?)

Ok, you should get the picture by now. This short list of just over $130 BILLION shows me no examples of getting our economy out of the doldrums and putting people back to work. Instead, it shows me a gross expansion of our government “nanny state” mentality, Keynesian economics at its absolute worse (but I think that is redundant).

Who is the lender? That is fairly easy when you examine who is buying all of our paper. It is mostly being bought by foreign entities that do not necessarily have the United States’ best interest at heart; in other words, potential enemies such as the Peoples’ Republic of China, and Saudi Arabia. These are not benevolent regimes. At some point they are going to call the note and force the United States to “pony-up the cash.” What has President Obama promised these folks? What sweet deals has he promised for these loans? Or is he so inept and naïve as to think these lenders are just out for our benefit?

Who are the guarantors of this loan and how is it going to be repaid? That one is easy too. The guarantors are you, me, our children, our grandchildren, and their grandchildren. The obligations that this congress and administration have made exceed the GDP of the United States for decades to come. All of this money can be paid back in 10 or 20 years if the federal government stops spending at the end of 2009 and only pays back the loan (yup, that is going to happen). Our federal government is worse than a herd of pigs that have just come off a 10 mile hike and discovered a new slop trough. They have the arrogance to believe that we are stupid and will never understand that this program is part of the president’s plan for redistribution of wealth. It is his plan to punish individualism, entrepreneurship, and initiative.

My question is “Where is the outrage, where is the righteous indignation from those rugged American individualists?” We hear from bloggers and Conservative commentators about how bad this “Stimulus Package” is for America but where is the indignation coming from our congressmen and senators? We see unanimous negative votes from Republican congressmen, and that is laudable, but where is the screaming and shouting from the highest buildings across this land calling for a popular campaign against this federal government gorging?

The only way we are going to take back our country is for grassroots organizations such as the Coalition for a Conservative Majority to grow and work from the bottom up to change the mindset that has become prevalent in Washington. If the average citizen does not stand up for our rights then we will get what we deserve.

I urge everyone reading this to pass it along and go to www.ccmajority.org to see what you can do.

As always I welcome your comments and discussion.

Daniel C. Lanotte

States "PUSH BACK" against Federal Over Reach !

It seems that there are some states that are saying “enough is enough” to the federal government. In a resolution introduced last week, the New Hampshire legislature has taken the nearly unprecedented step to remind the federal government

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; . . . . . therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force….

What crimes may we be talking about? Anything that does not fall under those listed above such as drug laws, gun control laws, and kidnapping laws to name a few. Many of the crimes Congress has identified are, indeed, crimes that need to be punished. However, I have been able to find no place in the Constitution where Congress and the president are given authorization to make such declarations. Under the 10^th Amendment, these determinations are left up to the states and therefore their citizens.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Looking at Article I. §8, there are numerous areas of control given to Congress such as; borrowing money; regulating commerce between the US and foreign nations, and the states; establishing citizenship requirements, etc., but none of the specific crimes that have been set down by Congress and signed by the presidents appear. My Constitutional Guru, Mr. Ric Morgan, Esq. has informed me that most of these laws are justified under the Commerce Clause, Art I §8(3) which states that the Congress shall have the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes….” I have to tell you that I have twisted my head every which way and the connection with many of the laws passed still seems pretty thin. Quoting Mr. Morgan:

Under the Commerce Clause, since the mid-1930's, federal power has incrementally extended to reach a myriad of far-flung issues that are only vaguely connected to interstate commerce by the most tendentious logic.   Prior to the 1930's, all of those issues had been firmly within the States' control under Constitutional interpretations of the previous hundred and forty years.

These current standards defining the federal reach under the Commerce Clause are set forth in the 1995 Supreme Court case of Lopez v US, which was the first case in over sixty years to set any limits on the exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause.

 In Lopez, an eighteen year-old miscreant and high school senior was caught carrying a .38 cal handgun on school grounds in San Antonio, Texas.  He was tried and convicted under the federal "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990", which banned guns within 1000 feet of a school. 

 Lopez challenged the federal law on constitutional grounds, claiming that there is no federal authority to reach so far into the realm properly belonging to the States.  The federal government defended on Commerce Clause grounds, claiming that carrying of firearms in a school zone would 1) lead to crime, which 2) frighten citizens, which would 3) inhibit travel, which 4) would lead to a weaker economy, and 5) was therefore related to interstate commerce and subject to the Commerce Clause. In the 1995 Lopez decision delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the court held that government's logic was too strained, the association to interstate commerce was unsupported by any facts, and "there must always be an outer limit to federal power".  

But the government lost in Lopez based on the same tenuous logic that serves to justify thousands of other federal laws.  

Since I started working on this Discourse an article in World Net Daily has been brought to my attention.  In the article they point to eight states, including New Hampshire, that have introduced similar resolutions and the potential for 20 more states to follow suit. Many of these states are pointing to the “stimulus” package and are putting their collective feet down on unfunded government mandates.

As many of you know, I have a deep concern for any abuse or subversion of the 2^nd Amendment but there is an ever growing body of evidence of the systematic subversion of all of our rights by the federal government. Over the years, there have been steady steps, some large and some small, by various factions at the federal level to take our freedoms. However, the recent election cycle has emboldened numerous disparate groups to work together and put together what is being touted as a “stimulus” package. For many states, this is the last straw.  We may be seeing the start of a significant push-back to this ever increasing trend of the federal government.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan 

The Impending Obama Meltdown

The Impending Obama Meltdown  By Victor Davis Hanson

 

Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.

We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.

First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?).

Second, was the "stimulus" (the euphemism for "borrow/print money") that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constituencies with cash.

Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censored Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims—apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred; and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on).

Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution—FISA, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.—followed by "all that for now stays the same" inasmuch as we haven't ben hit in over seven years and can't risk another attack.

Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won't go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama's calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn't work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright's undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.

Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he's ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it's only been two weeks.

And the result of all this?

At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.

Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama's world view of "Bush did it/but I am the world": The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say "shut up" about Kashmir and the Euros order no more "buy American").

This is quite serious. I can't recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton's initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar

Today I am going to look into our own former senator from Colorado, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. When I started researching Secretary Salazar to see what his stances were on different issues, I had both good and bad fortune. First, I have a lot of emails from him in the form of newsletters and replies to concerns about which I have emailed him. The not-so-good part about this is that he said very little of substance in any of them.

In June of 2007, I contacted him concerning the illegal immigration reform act that was being debated in the Senate. This act provided an amnesty path for illegals. I pointed out that the first part of the salutation for these people was “illegal.” If I fail to pay my taxes, where is the bill before Congress to allow me to get off Scott-free? However, Senator Salazar advocated passage of this deeply flawed piece of legislation, masking the amnesty issue with platitudes like “secure the borders, strengthen and enforce our immigration laws” and the best one “provide a realistic solution for the 12 million undocumented workers in our country.” An undocumented worker is a euphemism for illegal aliens. Fortunately, the cry raised from the American public was so loud that they had no choice but to defeat the bill. In an email a couple of days later (5 Jul 2007) he stated that he was “disappointed that the immigration reform legislation failed to pass the U.S. Senate….” This is just one example of how Mr. Salazar is on the wrong side of America.

Moving on, in his newsletter of 27 July 2007, he proudly announced his pleasure at the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) from the Senate Finance Committee. Please do not misunderstand me on this issue. With six grandchildren and one on the way, I want to see every child healthy and have access to health care whenever needed. However, in my extensive look through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I was unable to find anything like “any or all segments of American society shall have government supplied access to health care.” In fact, I was so concerned about this issue I went to the Founders’ writings to see what they said about the issue. The closest I could find was in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The key word here is “pursuit” of happiness, presuming that if you are healthy, you are happy, or at least closer to it than if you are unhealthy. I was able to find no provision in the Constitution for the U.S. Government to pay for social programs. I contend that the more hand-outs are given, the more the recipients will want. We have already begun down this slippery slope and stopping this descent should be a priority if we are going to survive as a nation. However, I digress. The issue at hand is Mr. Salazar.

In another email I received from him, Senator Salazar noted his support for the DREAM Act. This act would have offered a path of legalization for illegal children who had been going to U.S. schools and progressing well in their studies. Once again, Mr. Salazar was on the wrong side of the American public and the Constitution. Fortunately, this bill was defeated under the leadership of Senator Sessions of Alabama. The problem is that this fight should have been led by a dynamic leader from Colorado. My guess is that there are more illegals in Colorado than Alabama.

In his 23 October 2007 newsletter, Senator Salazar notes his support for the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. Personally, I support any effort to advance technology in alternative fuels. The more we work and study on technologies such as solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. the more efficient and inexpensive they will become. (I do not support growing crops for fuel; but that is another discussion.) This is just the natural progression. I also advocate the reduction in the use of dependence on all petroleum products; however it must be done in an intelligent way. Colorado has a huge repository of oil shale and other petroleum products. At a time (2007) when energy prices were skyrocketing, it was time to begin “Drill Now, Drill Here, Pay Less” as Newt Gingrich would say. In fact it was 10 years past time, but the Democrats refused to allow that to happen. The result was witnessed last year when we were pumping $4.00+ gas.

I have only gone through about one year’s worth of Mr. Salazar’s communications with me and have just barely scratched the surface. Suffice it to say that President Obama has certainly chosen another Cabinet officer who is unfit to serve the American public. Looks like the president’s choices are living down to his track record.

As always, I welcome your discussion and comments.

Dan