Tea Party Blog

The road to serfdom

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:45:00 -0400

The administration is paving a road to utter serfdom and destruction right now. Just being a tea party member is not enough. The courts are persecuting Christians right and left, for speaking in public. The Federal government has seized all rights formerly reserved to the states, and is forcing everyone to buy something they don't want or need. The illegal immigrant community has more rights and protections than American citizens, and so do prisoners, a third of which ( a million or more ) don't belong here either. A million! A million crimes worthy of imprisonment. It takes an average 7 felonies for a court to give jail time. You can only imagine what we are housing.

Black panthers openly threaten voters. Property seized without warrant or compensation. Gun owernship threatened. Free speech curtailed at will. Cities giving away your tax dollars to non-citizens and massive welfare, housing, food stamp and medicare fraud. Over one billion dollars annually in medicaid/medicare fraud in North Carolina!

A kill switch for the internet and all communications in the hands of a future dictator in the White House.

A Congress that cares nothing for anyone.

Children taken from parents without reason.

Private businesses confiscated without compensation or reason.

New invisible laws passed by the thousand that no one has read.

The removal of Freedom of information requests of the SEC and all financial dealings so no one can follow the money.

When one complains one is labeled a racist, or terrorist, while the real terrorists kill our children around the world.

A traitor in warfare releases confidential documents that endanger everyone who ever helped us in Afghanistan.

An environmental disaster of epic proportions unaddressed for months.

Camps being built to house??? who?

Reprogramming recommended for a Christian graduate student because she doesn't believe how the state wants her to believe.

And what does the President do during these crises?

Vacations. Golfs. And meets with the ladies of the view, while ignoring the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts gathering in Virginia.

The administration is sick. The communists are in power.

The world economy is devolving and around us the forces of evil are lining up to institute another Holocaust and who speaks out?

Vote this November, donate, and work hard to get those into Congress needed to turn this tide back. You have one chance, then it's over.

I fear there will be blood in the streets if this is not resolved soon.

The perfect society: A land without wealth?

Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:17:00 -0400

Utopia! It’s the holy grail of egalitarian busybodies far and wide. If only outcomes were equal, as defined by the egalitarians themselves, the world would become a place of balanced chi and seamless harmony. These societal engineers have long believed in their unique intellects and superlative abilities, which qualify them to distribute wealth and contentment to a longing world. Sadly, there’s no shortage of these do-gooders.

A New York State Assemblyman envisions an increased millionaire tax. If passed, high income earners--who already bear a disproportionate share of New York’s tax burden--will pitch in an additional 11-percent. The broken record known as Hillary Clinton still laments how “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes. Oregon, too, has joined the chorus.

Earlier this year Oregon voters passed Measures 66 and 67, raising taxes on individuals and businesses that wealth redistributors, in their profundity, have deemed excessive winners in life’s lottery. Typical class envy tactics preceded that electoral outcome. Proponents argued that education, public safety and health would suffer if the initiatives failed. The poor, naturally, would take it on the chin.

The entire premise of a perceived “fair share” is ambiguous at best. Would the egalitarian consider taxation equitable if the “rich” surrender, say, 75-percent of their income to government? Hillary Clinton, Oregon voters and New York assemblymen might think so. But anyone with a toehold on reality understands that productive people shoulder the tax burden now. The top one-percent of earners pays 28-percent of federal income taxes. Additionally, over the last 30 years the taxation on incomes above $75,000 has steadily increased while declining on incomes below that threshold.

Arguing that wealthier Americans pay little or no taxes is misleading. No, make that an outright lie. And that’s not the only mischaracterization offered by the “soak the rich” crowd.

In promoting Measures 66 and 67 the Oregon Center for Public Policy claimed that “asking” Oregonians to “contribute” more in taxes would improve the state’s fiscal structure. Certainly some taxation is necessary for governments to execute legitimate functions. But referring to tax increases as “asking” people to “contribute” is unadulterated spin, sufficient to strain even the strongest gastronomical constitution. And it’s so typical of the egalitarian social engineer.

Charitable organizations solicit contributions, and contributors alone determine their level of participation. No such choice exists with taxation. Tax levies aren’t a request on government’s part, and taxes aren’t contributed sans duress. Taxes are compulsory and their collection is ultimately a matter of force.

Sadly, there’s little to be achieved in arguing taxation with egalitarians. Redistributionists are so devoted to equalizing all incomes and imposing their Marxist vision on society that debate has become futile. Equally futile are the protests of the productive, whose incomes are sacrificed upon the perverse altar of egalitarianism. The producer’s right to their production will never match the needs of the oppressed when it comes to conjuring empathy. Therefore the “rich” are safely marginalized, demonized and dismissed.

What would happen if busybodies like Hillary Clinton, New York legislators and Oregon voters fulfill their collectivist dreams? If there were no private wealth the economy would become void of capital investment. Innovation and production would decelerate, with a corresponding decline in employment and living standards. The resulting misery would create greater demand on government, which puts the do-gooders in position to distribute the remaining wealth as they so determine. They will achieve their socialist dreams, but only for a season.

Such idealism has no foundation upon which to build. Since government produces little, and that which is produced is a case study in inefficiency, the egalitarian society is doomed to failure. Only the most influential busybodies will benefit from their societal and economic transformation. The rank and file do-gooder will be destined to impoverished servitude alongside their once-wealthy neighbors, whose property they helped confiscate.

So goes the nation without private wealth. Utopia? I think not.

This column originally appeared at American Thinker.

Statehouses are the key to restoring constitutional government

Tue, 11 May 2010 18:41:00 -0400

It’s true that a change in federal administration will prompt a disgruntled few to dream of revolutionary immortality. Equally true, opponents will use any questionable statement or action to paint the “revolutionaries” as violent, half-witted zealots. Welcome to America.

There’s no shortage of such right-wing resentment toward government, most of it justified. Also in large supply are opinionated leftists armed with word processors, a penchant for misinformation and a desire to mischaracterize any opinion with which they disagree.

Last year the decidedly left-wing blog Crooks and Liars reported a “million man militia” march on Washington. Typically, the writer belittled the event as a gathering of paranoid right-wing lunatics determined to shoot something.

If this march occurred it must have went off without a hitch. In fact, reality has spoken and the pro-freedom rallies that have taken place have been entirely peaceful, contrary to the leftist’s dire warnings. No one has invaded the Capital or tarred and feathered a congressman, as much as they may deserve it.

So the question isn’t whether America’s revolutionary spark should be revived but in what manner. We are a people born of rebellion and nurtured on revolution. In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote that the people have the right to abolish any government that’s hostile to basic liberty. Several states are taking Jefferson’s words to heart, including a group of Oklahoma legislators who are mulling the creation of a state militia to resist federal encroachments on their sovereignty.

The usefulness of such militias is debatable, and will surely draw howls of protest from the left. But the idea of using state legislatures to counter the federal government’s fiscal irresponsibility and blatant disregard for constitutional limitations is workable.

The Founders themselves would be pleased, as evidenced in the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth recognizes federal authority but explicitly denies overt power to the central government in all areas not specifically delegated. The Tenth declares that all powers not expressly granted to the United States, or prohibited to the states, remain with the states and the people.

Our forefathers obviously intended a federal government that served the states and the people, not one that ruled over both. For the states to “delegate” any powers to the central government, via the constitution, they must retain all powers not granted to the United States.

States have previously exercised this option. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions (1798) decried what was viewed as the central government’s unconstitutional assumption of power. Jefferson noted that any federal adventure into areas not authorized was an assault on state sovereignty. Therefore, the states had every right to declare those extensions “void and of no force.”

For example, commenting on the over-extension of federal authority, Mr. Jefferson wrote in the Eight Resolution:

Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy . . . every State has a natural right . . . to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.

This is the outlet for our revolutionary fervor. No less than our third president endorsed state nullification of federal excursions into unauthorized areas. The left’s portrayal of limited government activists as lunatics is nullified as well and talk of armed revolt is at best premature.

Flippant references to armed resistance momentarily soothe the soul. However, it also fuels the left-wing cranks and propagandists--like Crooks and Liars--who love to paint limited government proponents as violent nutcases. We owe it to the Founders and their experiment in self government to exhaust all prudent options before considering drastic and uncertain steps.

The return of constitutional government begins in the Statehouses. State legislatures can draft resolutions rendering unconstitutional federal intrusions upon personal liberty and state sovereignty “void, and of no force.” States can refuse to enforce unconstitutional measures within their borders.

Nullification is a worthwhile, peaceful alternative to revolutionary rhetoric. Let’s see what it produces before storming Congress with torches and pitchforks, shall we?

http://www.therightslant.com/

http://anthonywhager.blogspot.com/

http://pundithouse.com/category/houseguests/anthonyhager/

Glenn Beck is missing!

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:39:00 -0400

Read this article at:

PunditHouse.com

Please support this LOCAL conservative website.

Thanks

Neil

Obama's supporters and alliances tell us who he is

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:33:00 -0400

No one should be surprised with President Obama’s rush toward bigger, more powerful government. Politicians win support from people with like minds and the President is no exception. His supporters and associates tell us much about his political ideology.

Joe Sims is impressed with the Obama presidency. Mr. Sims wrote of Obama’s swearing in as the “people’s inaugural”, the dawn of a new American era. Sam Webb shared that exuberance. In January, 2009 Mr. Webb praised Obama’s victory as the end of “30 years of right-wing extremist rule.” He wasn’t so bold as to declare the election a national referendum for socialism. But he did claim it signaled America’s willingness to experiment with socialist ideas. Thus Webb wrote of the Obama administration, “Yes, this is a socialist moment.”

Both Sam Webb and Joe Sims write for the People’s Weekly World, a Communist Party (CPUSA) publication. Webb himself serves as the national chair of the CPUSA, which publicly declared Obama’s election a triumph for their agenda.

The President has drawn international communist allies as well. Fidel Castro compared Obamacare to his own communist nation’s medical system. Unfortunately, that’s not all. The old guard communist dictator admires Obama’s position on global warming and his charismatic personality. China has also joined the act. The Chinese commemorated Obama’s visit with “Oba Mao” t-shirts depicting the President wearing a Red Guard uniform. Artist Liu Bolin honored the occasion with a statue similar to one previously created for Chairman Mao himself.

Obama’s inner circle is filled with questionable liaisons and appointees. The administration’s communications director, Anita Dunn, counts Mao Tse-tung among her greatest political influences. Ron Bloom is Obama’s car and manufacturing czar. Yet he has contempt for free markets, pals around with the SEIU and has worked with the leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America. Van Jones resigned an environmental post appointment because of his declared commitment to communism. And Obama’s idea of a fair-minded judge, Goodwin Liu, considers free enterprise, property rights and limited government to be radical ideas.

None of these associations flatter Obama. But the worst alliance may be his “safe school’s czar” Kevin Jennings. Jennings supports indoctrinating teenagers with a radical sexual agenda, having gone so far as to conceal and condone child molestation. Jennings also defended the late Harry Hay, who dedicated his life to mainstreaming intimate relations between men and boys. And yes, Hay also had a little communism in his closet.

Is Barack Obama America’s first Bolshevik-in-Chief? He has certainly drawn support from staunch communists, apparent sympathizers and assorted oddballs. His policies thus far have done nothing to betray their faith and support.

http://www.therightslant.com/

http://www.anthonywhager.blogspot.com/

http://pundithouse.com/category/houseguests/anthonyhager/

Pelosi's analogy is all too clear

Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:40:00 -0400

For an analogy to be worthwhile it must achieve the desired result. For example, one might illustrate a poor decision by comparing it to benching Payton Manning in favor of a rookie quarterback. Conversely, no one wanting to praise a military campaign will say it was as successful as Hitler’s siege of Stalingrad.

Such a short lesson in analogies. Yet for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi it is a lesson unlearned. During the pro-healthcare speech she delivered just prior to the House vote she made a terrible analogy. Madame Speaker said, “We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, healthcare for all Americans.”

Pelosi’s comparison was wholly illogical. Why would a supporter of the healthcare legislation compare the bill to two bankrupt behemoths? That’s like bragging on your team’s chances to win the 2010 World Series by comparing them to the Chicago Cubs. To promote the healthcare bill Pelosi should’ve compared it to something, anything, besides Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security isn’t exactly the model for sound financial management. The New York Times reported in 2004 that Social Security would be in the red by 2018 and the trust fund depleted by 2044. That’s not a healthy financial outlook, and even the Times’ dour forecast is overly optimistic.

Last year, Heritage Foundation analyst David John painted a far gloomier portrait of Social Security. According to Mr. John, Social Security is running a deficit right now with little to no chance of reversal. He predicts that the trust fund will go broke in 2037, seven years earlier than the 2004 report projected. Furthermore, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says Social Security’s unfunded liability exceeds $17.5 trillion.

Medicare is no more secure than Social Security. In fact, Medicare’s future is far bleaker. The NCPA places Medicare’s unfunded liability at more than $89 trillion. That’s a big number. Let’s put it in its proper perspective. There are roughly 31.5 million seconds in one calendar year. If you earn one dollar for each of those seconds ($3,600 per hour) it would take 2.82 million years to satisfy Medicare’s future benefit obligations. In astral terms, 89 trillion is 15 light years away, or about three times the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri.

By 2054 the combined Social Security/Medicare payroll tax burden will rise from today’s 15.3-percent to 37-percent. Half of all general revenues collected will be transferred to those programs in 2030, rising to nearly 75-percent in 2060. And these expenditures will be required of a government that consistently outspends its annual receipts.

One has to wonder if Speaker Pelosi realized what she was saying when she beamed about joining the creators of Social Security and Medicare. According to her own analogy Congress and the Obama administration have imposed upon America a program destined for high taxation, inadequate service, saucy bureaucrats, fraud, waste and future insolvency. If she was trying to boost public confidence in the healthcare bill she should’ve exercised greater care in picking her comparisons.

Pelosi’s words did nothing to confirm the legitimacy of her argument. However, through sheer chance, she couldn’t have been more on target. We’re a nation of enormous debt, a bloated budget and a growing sense of entitlement. Now we have a healthcare program that a third-grader wouldn’t believe will reduce any of the three.

Pelosi is correct; she and her party joined those who established Social Security and Medicare, and all the red ink that goes with them. That’s no accomplishment of which a reasonable person would boast. No wonder her favorable rating is 11-percent.

Originally published on American Thinker.

Visit Anthony W. Hager at http://www.therightslant.com/ and http://anthonywhager.blogspot.com/.

This is far from over.

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:33:00 -0400

This morning, I was trying to write a blog about the experiences I had in DC, and all of the work that so many people put into fighting this battle for our healthcare - and our freedom. I wanted to find a way to tell the story in a way that would put it in perspective and try to inspire - this is no time to give up.

The blogs were either too long, too sappy, or I would struggle with the "bloggers block" that has attacked my brain since this healthcare bill passed.

I thought that the best way to tell the story would be to share everything that I have seen.

The "Flash" player is a little moody when it comes to posting to blogs, so if the flash player doesn't enable on this post, please go to http://animoto.com/play/pdgtg5RxDkhyxbUGgTLlJQ to view the video.

This battle is far from over...this is just the beginning.

First shots fired

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:06:00 -0400

Well Congress finally fired the first shot in the new Civil War. What form the war takes depends on the attitudes of the participants. It could be a legal battle, it could be a political battle, or if the government decides to confiscate bank accounts, force the implantation of microchips and erects death panels to deny you any medical care, it will be a blood bath.

I can honestly see the first person diagnosed with a curable cancer get told they aren't getting treated.

When they have nothing left to live for they might decide to go after those who denied them in the first place. Every seriously medically ill person will have nothing holding them back from lashing out. After all, what can the government do to someone they give a death sentence?

We live in dangerous times.

If 38 states can form a lawsuit, maybe they ought to look at a Constitutional amendment on term limits and overturning any unfunded mandates, and one on no forced purchase of anything by government. Only 34 needed to create a Constitutional amendment. Now wouldn't that bypass Congress?

God help them all.

Texting ban is unauthorized, unnecessary and misguided

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:11:00 -0500

Driving is dangerous. That’s easy to forget because we do it daily. It’s common and completely comfortable. But comfort breeds distraction, even under ideal conditions. Insert text messaging and distracted driving increases exponentially.

To lessen that distraction Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced the Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act (ALERT). The proposal will coerce states to adopt laws banning drivers from texting while behind the wheel.

It’s hard to argue that texting doesn’t distract drivers from more pressing matters. Most of us have seen it happen. On the surface, ALERT sounds like a fine idea. However, to determine if Sen. Schumer’s proposal is legitimate we must dig below the surface.

Do we need the central government enacting anti-texting laws? Does Congress even have that authority? The answer is no to both questions.

Twenty-five states already have some form of ban on texting while driving. Those laws passed without federal prodding. Additionally, Schumer cites the regulation of interstate commerce as authority for his bill. He reasons that texting devices are produced, conveyed and used in interstate commerce; therefore Congress can take action under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. However, Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to regulate commerce only, not personal acts or the private use of products.

Under Schumer’s reasoning Congress could ban anything. Ready for a federal ban on applying make-up while driving? How about federal bans on tuning radios or changing CDs? Should Congress prohibit conversation with passengers, or traveling with children? All can be distracting and all can be considered interstate commerce under Schumer’s misapplication of Article 1, Section 8. In fact, Congress can claim authority over anything with such an interpretation.

Let’s also consider Washington’s bully tactics. If Congress has constitutional authority to enact ALERT it should do so outright. But no! Congress prefers to force state compliance by withholding highway funds, which is how ALERT accomplishes the texting ban. It is an authoritarian act and the antithesis of Congress’ enumerated powers.

Frankly, it’s inconceivable that free people need Sen. Schumer to pass a law to prevent them from doing what they can quit on their own. Anyone who knows they shouldn’t be texting is smart enough to stop without Schumer’s assistance. Additionally, legislating to prevent drivers from texting ignores the basic function of law.

Laws don’t stop bad behavior, they identify it. There are laws against theft, rape and murder. Yet theft, rape and murder occur daily. The existence of laws does not prevent lawlessness, nor does law prevent people not inclined toward lawlessness from committing crime. Honorable people won’t steal, rape, or murder even if those acts aren’t criminalized.

Punishment after the fact, not prevention, is all we can reasonably expect from the law. Sen. Schumer isn’t so stupid as to believe his bill will prevent texting while driving, but he thinks we are that stupid.

Laws simply determine acceptable social behavior. To legislate for the punishment of texting while driving is one thing. To pretend laws will prevent acts that are easily self-regulated is slavish and immature.

A ban on texting while driving is sensible. Leave it to Charles Schumer to expand, corrupt and spin the idea until it makes no sense at all.

This column originally appeared on American Thinker.

Anthony W. Hager's columns can be found at:

TheRightSlant.com and Pundit House.

The President is no team player

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:31:00 -0500

The following article was read by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show.

(Feb. 4, 2010 - See Story #7)

After losing a close game, the coach put his arm around the young rookie quarterback who came off the bench to try to spark a comeback for his team. In an unsettling retort to his coach’s encouragement, Tom Brady said, “I gave it my best shot coach, but remember, I inherited that situation.”

A young relief pitcher was called in with the game tied in the bottom of the 9th inning with a runner on third and no outs. As he takes the ball from the manager, Mariano Rivera looks into the manager’s eyes and says, “I’ll give it my best coach, but remember, I inherited this situation.”

These two scenarios seem unimaginable in the world of sports. In fact, if they had really happened, you may not have expected these two players would have ever become superstars.

Any player with that attitude would be toxic to a team. And that kind of attitude would not be tolerated for an instant from any coach, teammate, or fan for that matter. Their selfishness and egotism would always upset the balance and continuity of team play, making it very difficult to win. As a detriment to the team, they would be eliminated as soon as possible. (Contracts not withstanding)

However, there have been instances of players like this. Take Terrell Owens for example. He never took responsibility for a loss and always made sure any blame landed on someone else. He was shuffled from team to team and always with the same result – he didn’t last. Owens has great talent, but because he’s not a team player, he’ll always exit early.

I preface my political point with all of this because it is painfully relevant to our situation in America today. After playing for a full year and no longer considered a rookie, it seems obvious that America has recruited a President who continues to exhibit these same toxic characteristics.

For years Barack Obama wanted to play on the team. No, he begged to play on the team. He asked over and over to be put in the game. He was adamant and confident that only he could win. He even promised the team and fans that he would win. Yes, Barack Obama made it abundantly clear to the whole world that he was the one the team had been waiting for and he wanted the ball - in a big way!

So with great hope and anticipation for a game changer, America gave the ball to Barack Obama late in the fourth quarter when things weren’t looking so good.

The rookie took the ball and began to swell with pride as he reminded team America in the face of this great adversity -- they could count on him -- but he also made it very clear to the team that he inherited this whole situation.

With three years left on Obama’s contract, how is America’s franchise player working out for the team now?

Neil Braithwaite writes political commentary and satire and is a regular contributor to Americanthinker.com and PoliticalDerby.com.