Legislature should reject local governments’ demand for new taxes

Statement by Justin Keener, Vice President of Policy and Communications

“In these tough economic times, local governments need to prioritize their spending the same way that Texas families and businesses are. This is not the time – and House Bill 300 is not the way – to create an even greater tax burden on Texas motorists, especially when the current state budget continues to divert well over $1 billion of our gas taxes to non-transportation purposes.

“Local governments already have considerable resources available to address this problem. Our research has shown that their spending has grown much faster than population growth and inflation, and that many communities have chosen to use the transportation penny of sales tax authority on other uses.

“If transportation is in such a crisis condition that the local governments claim it is, they should first put their available resources toward transportation. The evidence is clear that they are not. Our legislators should not let them off the hook for their unwillingness to set priorities.”

Justin Keener is Vice President of Policy and Communications for the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. More information can be found on the transportation research page of the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Another Open Letter to Senator John Cornyn

Will Malven
5/29/2009

Upon reading the Politico article, "Cornyn: Leave Sotomayor alone," in which Ben Smith quotes Senator Cornyn as having called the criticisms of Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor by Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich as "racist" and then commenting that:

"Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials."

a comment which implies that one must be an elected official to offer an opinion about a perspective Supreme Court nominee, I have been motivated once more to write to Senator Cornyn and criticize his choice of words and his crass political motives for said criticism.

I do not see pandering to minorities for votes as one of the duties of a U.S. Senator.

As I promised Senator Cornyn, here is the complete letter:

Dear Senator Cornyn,

I have been a long time supporter of you in your career representing we Texans in the Senate.

You have long fought well and hard against those in the Democrat Party who sought to tear down this great nation.

You have been a champion of our Constitution and the preservation of our rights and liberties.

It is for that reason that I am angered and puzzled that you felt the need to attack those who oppose Judge Sonia Sotomayor as "racists."

According to Politico's Ben Smith, yesterday during your appearance on "All Things Considered" you said:

"I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent."

You then went on to state that:

"Neither one of these men [Limbaugh and Gingrich] are elected Republican officials. I just don't think it's appropriate and I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong."

Since when are "elected Republican officials" the only people qualified to comment on judicial nominees. Since when is quoting a judicial nominee and commenting on those statements "racist?"

Sonia Sotomayor stands convicted of reverse racism, not by anything that Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich said, but by her own words.

The woman is the most radical Liberal I have ever seen nominated for the Supreme Court. Her view on the right to keep and bear arms stands in direct oppostition of the recent Heller decision.

Her views on judicial activism are an anathema to any who love our Constitution and our national heritage, and the cavalier manner in which she laughed off the assumption that judges don't make law instantly renders her unsuitable to occupy the most powerful judicial seat in the nation.

Her expressed belief that:

"a Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

is as racist a comment as any made by any white supremacist during the civil rights battles of the sixties and seventies.

Apparently you are more concerned with your political career and getting the Latino vote than you are in preserving the integrity of our Constitution and insuring that only qualified people occupy seats on the highest court in the land.

I am disgusted in your crass political attitude. I realize that you have only recently been re-elected and therefore feel free to alienate those who supported your campaign, but I and many other Conservative Texans will remember this betrayal of trust.

It is time for all Americans to rise above the kind of knee-jerk cry of "racist" of which you are now guilty.

Perhaps it is time for us Conservatives to abandon the Republican Party for a new more vigorous party filled with people who believe principles out weigh political expedience.

As a life-long Republican the thought of doing so saddens me, but the more I see men and women I thought were conservatives abandon their principles for their chances of being reelected, the more necessary such a move seems.

It is men like you who are destroying the party of Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes.

We Conservative will no longer be taken for granted while cowards like you pander to those who do not believe in the principles for which our Founding Fathers gave the lives, their careers and their fortunes to see come into fruition.

Perhaps a political animal such as you is incapable of conceiving of the kind of sacrifices the signers of the Declaration of Independence made for the sake of their fellow citizens.

Conservative principles are good principles. They espouse the essence of what built this great nation and the ideals for which so many were willing to give their lives.

They are the principles of many, like Limbaugh and Gingrich, who are not "elected Republican officials."

It is time for men like you to remember that "elected Republican officials" work for the people. They are not our rulers, but our employees.

You owe Messrs. Limbaugh and Gingrich as well as your constituents who supported you an apology and a pledge to work for the Constitution rather than your own callow political ends.

I am very disappointed in you sir, and I am disappointed that I have been fooled by you in the past. Rest assured that I will no longer allow you to deceive me with your "I'm a Conservative" act.

You may rest assured that I will remember your every action when you once more are forced to go back to the people a lie about your agenda so that you can be reelected.

Sincerely,

Will Malven
houstonconservative.com

P.S. A copy of this entire e-mail will be posted on my website.

To say that I am disappointed in Senator Cornyn of late would be an understatement.

Apparently ascending to a position of leadership within the Republican Party requires one to leave his courage, his principles, and his sense of duty to the American people and to his constituents at the door and don the robes of cynicism and hypocrisy.

It is truly saddening when I see so many formerly courageous Conservative voices grow so fat and lazy at the public trough that they feel the need to pander for votes. It is saddening to see them become so isolated from their constituents that they forget who and what sent them to Congress in the first place.

It is disturbing to see so many former Conservative lions evolve into weak, spineless old men who are more concerned about the possibility of losing their ride on the taxpayer's gravy train than they are about doing that which is right and principled.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Nancy Pelosi: The Most Frightening Woman In America

Nancy Pelosi is rapidly becoming the most dangerous person in America. She is endangering our national security by impugning the integrity of our personnel in the CIA and by in conjunction with her Democrat allies suggesting the criminalization of actions taken by them under the Bush Administration, thereby discouraging agents from engaging in investigatory actions which might later be called into question by some member of Congress for callow political purposes.

This is bad enough to call into question Madame Speaker's qualifications to sit in the third most powerful chair in our government. Now she has upped the ante in her speech given to students at Tsinghua University in Beijing yesterday by calling for "every aspect of our lives" to be "subjected to inventory."

I hope you understand what she is saying here. She is calling for every single decision you make and every action you take to be subject to governmental review. This sort of suggestion makes even the former Soviet Union or the East German Republic with their Stasi begin to look tame.

According to the report by AP, the Speaker made the following statements:

"I do see this opportunity for climate change to be ... a game-changer. It's a place where human rights — looking out for the needs of the poor in terms of climate change and healthy environment — are a human right."

A human right? Really? She said this in a nation that has one of the worst records on human rights in history while she glibly avoided any reference to China's abysmal record.

She added that governments would have to be guided in their decisions by science and that:

"They also have to do it with openness, transparency and accountability to the people. Everyone has to have their situation improved by it."

Then she dropped the big bomb. When she was asked how she would get the American people to go along with cutting emissions, she responded that it would be done by "educating children" on energy conservation [indoctrination anyone?] and adults [reeducation camps?] to build more efficient houses and finally she said:

"We have so much room for improvement. Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." [Emphasis added]

If those words don't scare you to death, then you are naive beyond help. What Madame Pelosi is contemplating is the direct intervention of some governmental bureaucrat in "every aspect of" you life.

How much energy are you using? How many television sets do you have? How many hours do you spend watching television? How many radios, stereos, IPods, computers, telephones or any other electrical devise do you have? Do you drive a car? What kind of car do you have? What are your driving habits? Do you carpool? Do you make "unnecessary trips" in your vehicle? The possibilities for intrusion are endless, and the desire of radical Liberals like Pelosi to interfere in your life is very real.

Not very distant from these sorts of questions lay the very real possibilities of restrictions on your choices and freedom. You may only drive a compact car because you are single or you only have one child. You may only have one child. You may only expend so many kilowatt hours of electricity before you are fined. You have too powerful a computer for the things you typically do. Again, the possibilities for control are endless and the desire by some in government is very real.

I never really expected to see this kind of language and attitude coming from an American citizen, let alone from the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Nancy Pelosi has thoroughly exposed herself as one of the most extreme radical leftists in America today. Her proposal of governmental intervention into the details of how we live our lives are as radical as any adopted by any government in history including the Nazi Regime, the Soviet Union, and Mao Tse Tung's Red China.

Nancy Pelosi is so far out of the mainstream of American beliefs that she now poses a very real threat to every freedom-loving American and she must be relieved of her position and her authority before she has a chance to impose these radical ideas on the rest of America.

Absolutely frightening!!!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Did You Hear? Judge Sonia Sotomayor “Has a Compelling Life Story”

So…Judge and Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor has a “compelling life story.” I know this because I have been told this ad nauseum by the groveling mainstream media as they fawn over President Obama’s new pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter. As usual, the parrots who pose as “journalists” have received their talking points from the Democrat Party and are dutifully reciting those assigned talking points.

So then if having a “compelling life story” is reason enough to sit on the Supreme Court, then Justice Clarence Thomas should be beatified by these same chattering parrots. Far from praising him though, these same parrots who so loudly adore Sonia Sotomayor’s “compelling story, made every effort to destroy Clarence Thomas. What was Justice Thomas’ sin? He is a Conservative jurist who believes in making judgments based on the original meaning of the Constitution rather than placing his personal imprimatur on the law. Rather than serving as one of the Left wing’s “kept boys,” Clarence Thomas, who also graduated from Yale School of Law chose to serve his conscience and obligation as a jurist, blind to the individual appearing in the court.

For this crime, the crime of not being a Liberal, Thomas was the victim of one of the most vicious witch hunts and lynchings in the history of Congressional hearings. Rather than coming to his defense, the mainstream media chose to join in this witch hunt. Rather than endlessly repeating what a compelling life story Thomas had, they indulged in a hateful campaign which invoked every classic stereo-type of a black man which they had historically decried.

Beyond the point of Liberal hypocrisy-which is so common as to be almost not worth mentioning, what becomes apparent is that a “compelling life story” is not sufficient grounds for Republicans and Conservatives to acquiesce to Judge Sotomayor’s appointment.

The difficulty for Republicans and Conservatives who oppose Judge Sotomayor for very legitimate reasons is that Liberals and Democrats in general control the media. Any criticism of Sotomayor instantly becomes an anti-Latino attack in the press. When Alberto Gonzales was mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee by the Bush Administration, he received none of the support which has been thrown to Sonia Sotomayor. Attacks on him were considered fair game by these same Liberal parrots.

Calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist, based on her very racist comment:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

is enough to make you the target of attack by the Leftist press and the Democrat attack machine for whom they speak. The fact remains that the above comment is as racist as any comment made by any white man in the height of the civil rights campaigns of the 1950’s. If you fail to perceive the racism in this statement, simply reverse it:

I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a Latina woman.

Any white male jurist who made that statement would be drawn and quartered by the national press rather than lauded by them. He would face public ridicule and be forced to withdraw his name from consideration in abject humiliation.

So here we see the Liberal double standard. A liberal can say pretty much anything he or she wishes and get away with it; possibly even be praised for it, as long as the target isn’t one of the Left’s protected special interest groups.

Still, my concern isn’t that Judge Sotomayor is a racist, since all Liberals are racists at heart I would have assumed that, my concern is that she would use that “richness of experience” to color her decisions. As I stated in my previous commentary “Obama Picks Sotomayor For Supreme Court: Worst Possible Choice” the primary obligation of a Supreme Court Justice-as it is for a Circuit Court Judge-is to be an impartial jurist. Lady Justice is blind, not sympathetic, not empathetic, but an objective evaluator of law.

Even the oath of office for a Supreme Court Justice as laid out by Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code states that principle in unambiguous terms:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."[Emphasis added]

“…without respect to persons…” dictates that the judge is charged to do precisely the opposite of what Judge Sotomayor has said she would do and precisely the opposite of what President Obama said he was looking for in a Supreme Court nominee.

In his speech before Planned Parenthood in July of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“…we need somebody who's got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges.”

In what way does that description comport with the Oath of Office requirement that justice be administered without regard to person and impartially?

It becomes readily apparent that all of those Supreme Court Justices who use their own personal agenda, empathy and feelings to render their judgment do so not only to the detriment of all Americans and our system of government, but they also violate their oaths of office.

It is highly probable given the current make up of the Senate and the general cowardice of the Republican minority, who seem more concerned with not alienating Hispanic voters than with adhering to their principles and the Constitution, Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice regardless of her lack of qualifications.

There are many who argue that he presence on the court will carry little impact as she is a Liberal replacing a Liberal, but her approval in spite of her admitted belief in creating law by judicial fiat and her arrogant and cynical rejection of the principles of “originalism” sets up a bad paradigm for a Supreme Court Justice. Apparently a good justice in the eyes of the Left is someone who creates law based on their own wishes and has little to do with interpreting the Constitution. Perhaps those justices on the Right who adhere so slavishly to the letter of the law as laid out by our Constitution should take that to heart and begin creating Conservative law based on their personal beliefs.

I can only imagine the reaction from the press and from the Democrats in Congress if Justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy suddenly began creating law. Liberals heads would be exploding all across America. Unfortunately (well actually fortunately) this will never happen because men like Scalia and Thomas are true adherents to the law of our nation.

If only our Liberal brethren were as dedicated to the rule of law.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Obama Picks Sotomayor For Supreme Court: Worst Possible Choice

Will Malven
5/26/2009

If you had any doubts as to how bad President Obama could be, his latest move is dead solid proof.

Sonia Sotomayor is the worst sort of activist judge. She has been caught on film making the appalling statement that the "court of appeals is where policy is made." She then compounds her guilt by acknowledging that she made a mistake in admitting that belief on film and thus by inference that she knows her assertion is wrong, but doesn’t care. This alone is enough to disqualify her for the post to which she has been nominated.

Here is the clip in which she makes that statement:

This film clip clearly shows that, not only does she have contempt for the intent of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution they wrote, but she finds her contempt for the Constitution to be humorous. Such arrogance is breathtaking.

Anyone holding such a radical belief is unsuited to hold such a powerful position in our government. After all, even the President can be voted out after four years; the position of Supreme Court Justice is a lifetime appointment.

The position of Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be an interpretive position, not a legislative position. A Supreme Court Justice is like an umpire in a baseball game; either a pitch is in, in which case it is a strike or the pitch is out and it's a ball. The umpire is not supposed to care who the batter is or who the pitcher is; he is not there to make up rules. He is supposed to call the pitches according to the rules as they are written.

The Founding Fathers set up a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" by placing all law-making powers in the hands of our democratically elected Legislative Branch.

The Judiciary Branch's sole responsibility with respect to our laws is to determine whether or not those laws passed by Congress comport with the Constitution as it was written. Sotomayor and her ilk would expand that mandate and their authority into the realm of law-making thus taking that power out of the hands of the people and placing it in the hands of an unelected oligarchy.

That President Obama would appoint such a person is no surprise; Liberals like him know they cannot get their social agenda through the legislature so they want to bypass Constitutional safeguards and have a court that will make law through judicial fiat (proclamation).

That there are many justices so inclined is no surprise either, it is just surprising to encounter one so cavalier in her attitude about doing so and so dismissive of even her own admission that doing so is anti-constitutional.

It may be that Obama plans to use Sotomayor as a stalking horse for his real choice to be announced after she has taken the heat in a bitter Senate showdown. This would enable him to get his genuine nominee passed with far less opposition than they would normally encounter. It would not be the first time that a President has made such a cynical move.

Whether or not this is the case, no one with such a high degree of contempt for our Constitution can be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Sonia Sotomayor must be made a non-starter by Republican Senators and no effort (up to and including a filibuster) can be spared in blocking her or any other similarly inclined nominee.

Republican Senators must be willing to "fade the heat" regardless of how uncomfortable Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media attempt to make it.
Sotomayor poses a direct threat to the very foundation of our nation and our form of government.

“Stop Sotomayor at any and all costs!” This must be the rallying cry of any American who values his Constitutional rights, freedoms, and liberties.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

New York Terror Plot Shows Flaw In Obama Plans for GITMO

Will Malven
5/22/2009

President Obama has been making slow progress in his views on the handling of inmates being held in the detention facility at Guantanamo as his understanding of the facts grows.

His first, ill-conceived, decision to close the facility at GITMO was made without any consideration of what America should do with the inmates being housed there.

That decision was a leap to pander; an action to keep a promise he made to the most radical of his constituents and it was made before he had even informed himself on the sort of men being housed there.

Since that decision, he has been forced to deal with the unpleasant reality that the individuals being kept at GITMO are "really bad eggs." The "easy vetting" of those detainees has already been done by the Bush Administration and their best efforts still allowed as many as 61 "sleepers" to slip through.

Those who remain are more problematic. They are hard core Islamic Fundamentalist who are determined to attack America and who pose a genuine threat to our national security.

Though he still likes to throw the "Bush/Cheney" boogeyman out to his adoring public as his favorite excuse/whipping boys, as he has gradually become informed about the inmates of the GITMO facility, Barack Obama has been forced to the understanding that President Bush and Vice President Cheney didn't create GITMO just because they are sadistic SOB's and wanted to mistreat a bunch of innocent bystanders. They had a real and legitimate reason for building that facility.

This enlightenment, belated as it is, must come with some personal discomfort as now he is the man in the hot seat and it is he who is forced to make the very tough decisions about how to handle these same enemy combatants.

The most disturbing proposal President Obama has made is his expressed desire to house some of these same inmates in our own "supermax" federal prisons. We are again confronted by the painful realization that this man is clueless about our enemies and why they continue to pose a threat to Americans.

In yesterday's (interminably long) speech, President Obama made reference to the above "supermax" prisons saying,

"Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal, supermax prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists."

This comment illustrates the naïveté of those on the Left about our enemies.

The primary concern over housing these terrorists in our own supermax prisons isn't that they might escape and cause havoc; it is that they may recruit other prisoners to their cause. This is not an artificial concern nor is it the paranoid imaginings of a fearful mind, this is based on the very real knowledge our intelligence agencies have acquired about the way in which al Qaeda operates.

In an article on the New York terrorists today's New York Post discusses this threat:

"PATH TO RADICAL ISLAM BEGAN IN JAILS

By PERRY CHIARAMONTE, LORENA MONGELLI in Newburgh, NY and DOUGLAS MONTERO and LUKAS I. ALPERT in New York

May 22, 2009

They were like a million other petty criminals -- until they embraced radical Islam behind bars, launching a terrifying march to a planned mass murder that ended only when authorities sabotaged their sinister plot.

"He was not born Muslim. He's an institutional Muslim," said Richard Williams, uncle of Onta Williams, one of the four Bronx terror suspects.

"He wasn't raised that way."

Richard Williams said that his 32-year-old nephew fell under the sway of dangerously radical Islamo-fascists while serving time on drug charges -- and that he became "brainwashed" after his mother died and his ex-wife fought him for custody of their child."

Beyond this guy, we also have Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber." who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight Christmas of 2001 became a radical Islamist in a British Prison and Jose Padilla who was convicted on August 16, 2007 by a federal jury, of charges against him that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism was a Chicago, Ill. gang member who became a radical Islamist in prison.

We also have the example of Terry Holdbrooks who was a guard at GITMO and was convinced to convert to Islam by these very same inmates.

FBI Director Robert Mueller testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2005 stated that:

"prisons continue to be fertile ground for extremists who exploit both a prisoner's conversion to Islam while still in prison, as well as their socioeconomic status and placement in the community upon their release."

The men about whom we are talking are trained terrorists. They have been trained in an al Qaeda training camp, not just on how to blow things up or fight a guerrilla war, but they are also deeply steeped in Wahabi Islam and trained to recruit others to their radical view of the Muslim faith.

Another falsehood being promulgated by the President and his supporters is that GITMO serves as a symbol for the recruitment of terrorists.

If I remember correctly, GITMO didn't exist in 1993 when Blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and his team bombed the World Trade Center, it didn't exist when the Khobar Towers were bombed, it didn't exist when the American Embassy was bombed in Saudi Arabia and it didn't exist when the USS Cole was bombed.

The fact is that there is no evidence of any increase in the recruitment of terrorists for al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization due to the existence of the detainment center in Guantanamo. What there is a great deal of conjecture and projection being done by the President and those who wish to close GITMO.

What I found most objectionable about President Obama's speech yesterday was his almost continuous blaming of the Bush Administration for the problems he created. This President appears to be congenitally incapable of admitting his own failures.

His problems surrounding the facilities at GITMO are not the fault of President Bush and his administration; they are the direct result of his precipitous, ill-conceived actions upon taking office and his irresponsible promises on the campaign trail.

What Obama is learning that it is easy to stand outside of an administration and take pot-shots at the policy decisions that administration is making when you are ignorant of the facts just to further you political ambitions. It is far tougher to deal with the problems you face as President once you are apprised of the details associated with the policies you attacked so eagerly.

To quote Obama's favorite minister, "The chickens are coming home to roost." His problem is he is not man enough to take responsibility for his own mistakes.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Obama's New CAFE Standards: Dictatorial Government

Will Malven
5/20/09

What kind of car or truck do you want to drive? Well, Emperor Obama doesn't care. He has decided that he and the loonies from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club will tell you what you can or cannot drive.

The arrogance of those on the Left, while no surprise, is still breathtaking in its scope. For over two hundred years Americans have enjoyed the prosperity and freedom that come from a free market economy. It has always been the will of the consumer which dictated which products would succeed or fail.

As far as I can tell, that system has worked pretty well; giving America the strongest, most vital economy in the world. Americans have enjoyed the highest standard of living, the broadest selection of products, and the greatest freedom of any consumer in the world, but this has gradually been changing as Liberal fringe groups that hold a special cache with our political caste have exercised increasing influence over domestic policies.

With this Obama administration this gradual erosion of the free market system and we consumer's power of choice has been markedly accelerated. We now have an administration in the White House who feels no compunction in dictating to the American consumer what he may and may not buy. Apparently "choice" is only good when it comes to murdering the unborn.

We are told that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is no longer to be questioned; that it is "settled science" even as a growing number of scientists are finding their long silenced voices and expressing skepticism over the conclusions drawn in the IPCC/UN report on Global Climate Change-they were forced to change the name from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change" because, for the past decade the average global temperatures have ceased to rise and now show signs of cooling.

But dogma doesn't allow for dissent. In the lofty realms of our government the dogma of global climate change gives the meddlers and "do-gooders" (the people we used to call "our Representatives") who dwell there new, undreamed of powers to legislate and mold our lives and our society into their own peculiar concept of an "ideal society."

People like Obama and Pelosi no longer see the American people as their constituents, they see us as their subjects; subjects to whom they can dictate policy "for our own good."

These new CAFE standards are a perfect example of their arrogant, dictatorial paradigm. "For our own good" they will set fuel efficiency standards at such a high level that, should you wish to drive an SUV, or a high performance vehicle, you will not have that choice...or if you do, you will have to pay an prohibitive price for that luxury.

Have a large family (shame on you, you are consuming more than your "fare share")? Well then you will be forced to squeeze your spouse, your four kids and your dog into a tin-box that is both less comfortable and less safe...but then what would you expect from a society that places no value on the life of the unborn. If your family gets wiped out in an accident, you can always make more kids, right?

The problem with lofty Liberal ideals is that they place no value on the individual. As a person you have no worth unless you are a member of one of the Liberals select minorities or special interests.

Liberalism reduces everything to its lowest common trait. Liberal Education caters to the least of us, rather than demanding the best from us. Liberal Economics seeks to share the misery rather than offer the opportunity to excel. Liberal policy offers the individual the least amount of freedom he will tolerate rather than allowing him maximum freedom possible for him.

If, in spite of their best efforts, the Liberals who now control our government are unable to convince you to drive the vehicle they believe you should drive, they will force you to by making it economically unfeasible for you to drive the vehicle you wish.

When gasoline prices spiked at over $4.00/gallon, Obama's reaction wasn't "This is bad for Americans," it was (paraphrasing here) "The prices rose too fast for the economy to adapt."

Here's the exact comment he made in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood:

CNBC Exclusive: CNBC's Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood Sits Down with Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama

HARWOOD: As difficult as this is for consumers right now, is, in fact, high gas prices what we need to let the market work, a line incentive so that we do shift to alternative means of energy?

BARACK OBAMA: "Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So..."

HARWOOD: "So could these high prices help us?"

BARACK OBAMA: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now."

Al Gore and his cabal of AGW profiteers believe that the best policy on oil is to force gasoline prices to go so high that you are forced to "economize." They aren't interested in what the American people want; they are interested in what the people "need" (in their opinion).

They are not interested in encouraging increased exploration and production of domestic oil and gas to alleviate our fuel shortage; they are perfectly happy to create an artificial price on gasoline so high that you will be forced to buy these little soap-boxes they have directed the now newly nationalized automobile manufacturers to build.

Obama's plans for our automobile industry and his recent and disastrous handling of our economy should give all freedom loving Americans pause when they begin looking at our nation's healthcare industry.

His ultimate goal is to force all Americans into a European style socialized healthcare system. He plans to drive the cost of private health insurance so high that the individual will be forced to buy into his government run "alternative plan."

We are witnessing the rapid dismantling of an economic/social system which has worked extraordinarily well for the past two centuries (not counting what occurred prior to the establishment of our nation) in favor of a system which has failed in every nation in which it has been instituted.

For those who still deny that Obama is a Socialist or a Marxist I can only point out that the Obama administration now controls the (formerly private) banking system, a vast majority of our automotive industry (with the upcoming GM bankruptcy settlement), and now has its sights set on the healthcare system. Add to that the upcoming "green revolution" now being touted by useful idiots like Henry Waxman (D-CA) and we are looking at government control of close to half of what was formerly a private economy.

This nation is headed for some seriously rough waters ahead and whether or not we can survive it will depend on how Americans react as their rights are gradually eroded by the elite in our government and our society. George Soros and his Democrat Party want you to be their vassals; they want you to be a subject of the state rather than the state subject to your will.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!! [I have my doubts]

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President Obama Mystified by His Own Policies

Will Malven
5/19/2009

As if we needed any further proof (than his non-existent resume) of President Obama's lack of qualifications for the office he holds, the recent spate of reversals in policy by his administration should allay any doubts.

In quick succession, he has reversed himself on releasing the Abu Graihb photos, the use of military tribunals to try the inmates of the Guantanamo Detainment Facility, troop surges (this time in Afghanistan), and most recently his own economic policies.

On Thursday, President Obama proclaimed the growth in long term debt "unsustainable" and likely to cause rampant inflation...isn't that what Republicans have been saying since day one?

Breitbart reports the following:

Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’ (Update2)

By Roger Runningen and Hans Nichols

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

While it's nice to see a President so willing to re-evaluate his long held beliefs, wouldn't it have been better for voters to have known about this pathetic lack of grasp of the most important issues of the day before he was elected?

While this openness about his shortcomings is nice, it would be better still if he had the personal integrity to accept responsibility for those failures.

In his all too accurate evaluation of his economic policies he has chosen to attribute the blame for the upcoming economic collapse variously on the Bush Administration (some substantial truth there), the health industry, private enterprise (those evil capitalists) and the American people (we are just too greedy for our own good).

Accompanying his statement Thursday on the failing health of our economy-due largely to profligate spending in his and the Democrat Party's budget plan, Obama said the following:

“Most of what is driving us into debt is health care, so we have to drive down costs.”

Excuse me? I would venture to suggest that most of what is driving us into debt is his $3.6 Trillion budget and his $Trillion deficits as far as the eye can see. In his short five months as President, Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats have doubled the national debt. Doubled it! The entire national debt. Debt previously accumulated from the beginning of our nation to the end of President Bush's administration...let me tell you that is no mean accomplishment.

It took serious effort for him and his fellow Dems to achieve that perilous height.

But...have no fear...he is going to offset that $3.6 Trillion in spending by his proposal to slash $17 Billion in spending. This is like a bad joke (or more aptly, a bad nightmare). $17 Billion? The amount is sadly laughable.

Well, unfortunately a majority of Americans, wrapped up in a cult of personality, bought this pig in a poke and now all of us are going to have to pay for it.

It's nice to see that three months after he and his fellow Democrats passed this $3.6 Trillion budget, they have awakened to the concerns that Republicans expressed before they passed this bloated albatross. China is very likely going to stop financing our national debt and when that shoe falls, inflation in America is going to explode.

Revisiting Obama's words:

"We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt."

I am experiencing déjà vu here. It's as though I have heard these words before...like from the Republicans back in January when this hog-farm was first proposed.

It's all very well, this late awakening, but it would have been nice if these concerns, very clearly expressed by Republicans before the budget became law, had been seen and understood before Democrats acted.

Just as President Bush acted precipitously and ill-advisedly to force through the TARP program without any safeguards on how the money would be distributed or used, on the advice of Hank "Danger Will Robinson" Paulson...and against the advice of most in his own party, the entire Democrat controlled Congress acted without thought.

Legislation passed while congress is in panic mode is rarely well thought out, measured, or effective. The sheer level of incompetence and lack of understanding evinced by their actions doesn't bode well for our nation's economy.

It's what happens when neophytes are allowed to take the helm of the ship of state.

Now these same lemmings are struggling to deal with the mess they created. This crisis cannot legitimately be laid at the feet of the Bush Administration; it is the sole result of unwarranted, heedless actions taken in the heat of the moment without regard to the ultimate consequences of such actions.

Compounding these problems, we have a President that is doing his damndest to destroy the very same private enterprise system which created our (formerly) booming economy and supplant the same with a bloated, incompetent government run system which has failed in every nation which has attempted it.

As I warned when Obama was elected as President:

Fasten your seatbelts folks; this is going to be one hell of a bumpy ride. [Brought to you by your "friends" in the Democrat Party.]

The adolescents are in control of our government and are rapidly destroying the very institutions that built this great nation...it's time to send in the Republican adults to attempt to salvage this increasingly dire situation.

This is what happens when the unprepared, inexperienced and incompetent are elected as "leaders," they invariably lead us into disaster.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Pelosi's Presser Performance: Petulant, Puerile, and Pathetic

Will Malven
5/18/2009

If anyone had a doubt as to Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) unsuitability for the post she currently holds, the past couple of weeks should allay any doubts.

One would expect that, being third in line for the Presidency, a Speaker of the House would be measured, honest (at least honest for a politician), and respectful of those who work diligently to ensure our national security. Yet, in her bizarre performance at Thursday's "Press Briefing" (I would be more inclined to call it a public nervous breakdown), Madame Speaker displayed the antithesis of those three minimal character traits.

Her over-the-top claim that the CIA "lied" about having briefed her on the techniques they were using and had used to interrogate known terrorists, was anything but measured, honest or respectful.

She lied when she said Congress was told by President Bush that Saddam was an "imminent threat" (his exact words were "before he becomes an imminent threat") the exact opposite of her assertion. She lied when she accused President Bush of lying to get us into a war...providing information you have every reason to believe to be true but which later proves to be false is not "lying" it is not even "misleading," it is being in error.

According to the current head of the CIA, her former congressional colleague Leon Panetta, she lied when she denied having been briefed by the CIA.

According to the Washington Post (hardly a bastion of Conservative sentiment):

"...intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him." [Emphasis added]

Fox news reports that there were over 30 meetings and briefings held by the CIA to inform members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees since the first one which Pelosi attended on September 11, 2002. The CIA briefed all of the four top members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, including (at various times) Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL), Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KA), and Sen. Richard Shelby, (R-AL).

Yep, Ms. Pelosi exhibited every sign of someone suffering from a nervous breakdown, she was shaking, agitated, confused, nervous, and defensive in a manner that shouted "I'm guilty!" "I'm lying!" When a politician is forced to parse their words as carefully as Pelosi was attempting, it is clear they are lying.

It is time for her to step down from her speakership or for the Congressional Democrat Caucus to remove her. Anyone as unstable as she demonstrated herself to be last week must not be allowed to remain in a place of such potentially great responsibility.

Madame Pelosi must be kept as far away from the Oval Office as she can be kept...in fact she probably shouldn't even be allowed to visit the place in her current state of mind...what little she has.

Face it folks, Democrats made a huge mistake when they initially elected her Speaker of the House over Steny Hoyer. I'm no great fan of a Liberal like Mr. Hoyer (D-MD), but at least he is mentally sound and could be depended on not to destroy the nation through mental incompetence.

It's time for the Wicked Witch of the Left to go home and enjoy her and her husband's ill-gotten $Millions.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Public Universities Belong to the Public, Not the Faculty

By Jeff Sandefer

In the May 1 Austin American-Statesman, University of Texas professor Thomas Palaima asks us to “thank” tenured professors for improving “what they (have) rightly come to view as ‘their’ colleges and universities.” According to Professor Palaima, tenured professors believe that our colleges and universities belong to them.

When workers and managers believe an organization exists to serve them, and not its customers or its rightful owners, it begins a terminal decline. General Motors serves as a grim reminder of the end result.

As a successful entrepreneur and a longtime university teacher, my years inside academia have taken me to places where parents, donors, and taxpayers aren’t welcome. I have seen firsthand what happens when tenured faculties act as if the universities belong to them.

For starters, interest in teaching declines. According to the federal government’s National Center for Education Statistics:

• The average tenured professor now teaches fewer than three classes per year, and often no more than a handful of students at a time, despite the fact that tenured and tenure-track faculty account for the bulk of college costs.
• For so little work, the average full professor receives more than $150,000 annually in salary and benefits.
• As a result, the cost of instruction for some tenured faculty members exceeds $20,000 per student.

So who teaches our children, if not the tenured faculty? An underclass of teaching assistants, adjuncts, and other non-tenured faculty – many of whom are paid $10 per hour or less. According to the New York Times, 70 percent of the faculties at American universities are made up of non-tenured, non-tenure track faculty.

Don’t misunderstand. Inside our universities are some wonderful teachers, tenured and non-tenured still dedicated to serving students. These teachers are my friends and heroes – but there are far too few of them, and they pay a heavy price because of perverse institutional incentives.

How does the tenured faculty spend its time? Writing academic journal articles that few people read. Since the tenured faculty answers only to itself, prestige and promotion rests on publishing in these journals; graduate students who desire tenure slave away to serve the tenured priesthood, often “co-authoring” articles for those already in power.

But doesn’t academic research drive the economy? The Texas Legislature seems to think so. It continues to support higher education’s thirst for unlimited research funding and more “Tier One” universities, never stopping to inquire whether the esoteric research designed to serve the faculty’s interest is worth what it costs.

• Academic research, properly accounted for, consumes two-thirds of every dollar we spend in American universities.
• Over the last decade, Texas taxpayers have spent more than $20 billion on scientific academic research – reportedly the most economically productive academic research – to generate less than $14 million a year in net patent income. That’s less than a 1 percent rate of return.
• That same money invested in college scholarships would have allowed us to double the number of Texas students who attend college.

Work done by University of Ohio professor Richard Vedder goes one step further: the waste in our universities is so great that more spending on higher education in a state leads to lower economic growth. California is an example of what happens when runaway higher education spending leads to higher taxes that cripple a state economy.

Palaima is right that tenured faculties do believe that our colleges and universities belong to them. And they might go on strike if pushed too hard. But then the joke might be on them: college costs would plummet, most students would continue to be well served by non-tenured faculty, and the state economy would prosper.

It’s time for the Texas Legislature to stop writing “blank checks” to our state colleges and universities for tenured professors to spend as they please. Instead, all state higher education funding should be directed to scholarships, so universities once again will have to answer to the people who pay the bills. That’s the only way students, parents, and taxpayers will ever regain control of our universities.

Jeff Sandefer is a member of the Texas Public Policy Foundation board of directors and a longtime teacher at the graduate level, first at the University of Texas and now at the Acton School of Business. His numerous teaching awards include being named by BusinessWeek as one of the top entrepreneurship professors in America.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Legislature should maintain current Medicaid eligibility period

Extending eligibility to 12 months would cost taxpayers now, magnify budget problems later

AUSTIN – The Texas Legislature should resist calls to expand the Medicaid program by extending the continuous eligibility period from six months to 12, the Texas Public Policy Foundation said today.

“Medicaid was intended to provide health care to our poorest citizens,” said Andrea Whitman, health care policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. “Having a six-month eligibility period ensures that those services are provided on a temporary basis to those citizens who are truly needy, and not as a long-term welfare program for those who are now financially able to pick up their own health care expenses.”

Whitman noted that the 12-month eligibility proposal – as contained in House Bill 1541 – would increase the number of Medicaid recipients by more than 250,000 and cost taxpayers almost $300 million in state funds over the next two years.

“Given recent forecasts of a sizable budget shortfall next session, the state needs to tighten its belt now and preserve as much cash as it can,” Whitman said. “Expanding Medicaid would be a double-whammy on next session’s budget – increasing the size of that budget hole while leaving us with fewer resources to fill it.”

“Medicaid costs every man, woman, and child in Texas more than $800 per year,” Whitman said. “Requiring recipients to apply every six months is not an unreasonable burden, given the value of the taxpayer-funded services they receive.”

Andrea Whitman is a health care policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. More information can be found on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Arlen Specter Cynical Politician Returns to the Fold

Will Malven
4/31/2009

The other day one of my more moderate friends came up to me as I was talking to several others and said, "Wanna see Will's head explode? I'll just mention Arlen Specter."

Now while it is true that I can, at time, be somewhat enthusiastic in my defense of Conservative principle, my head rarely explodes. The truth is my friend was somewhat disappointed to hear me laugh and say, "Good riddance, I wish he'd take Collins and Snowe with him."

The truth is I am a believer in principles. I believe that adhering to one's principles is more important than winning an election, which puts me in stark contrast to Arlen Specter and most Democrats (and far too many Republicans unfortunately).

Facing a twenty point deficit against his Republican primary opponent, former Congressman Pat Toomey, Senator Specter chose politics over principle and jumped back to his natural environment, the Democrat Party. Had he made the move some years back, one might say he made the move out of personal principle, but making such a move only when he was facing certain defeat within his own party leads one to only one possible conclusion, it was a choice of convenience over conscience.

In his departing statement, Arlen Specter made it abundantly clear that he valued winning over any deeply held convictions (if he has any) and his voting record confirms it. After all, when he left the Democrat Party in 1966, it was because he saw an opportunity to position himself for election to public office, so why would anyone be surprised that he would do so again?

Specter's comments serve as a perfect example of the self-serving attitude which appears to now dominate Congress. First he lied about the party and where it has been headed:

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right...On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."

What a cynical, self-serving statement; the Senator is unwilling to have his record judged by the very people who elected him to office. Talk about having an ego

As far as his claim that the Party has moved to the Right since his election in 1980, the bulk of the Republican Party's move to the right occurred prior to or during President Reagan's first term in office. Since that time and especially since the 1994 Republican Revolution there has been a constant effort by the Republican Party elite, who were always uncomfortable with "Reagan Republicans" to move the party back to the Left.

Over the past eight years under President George W. Bush the Republican Party has moved considerably to the Left of where it has been traditionally and is now at least as far left as it was under Presidents Nixon and Ford.

Specter then revealed his true sentiments about principles versus electability when he stated in his press conference held Tuesday:

"They [Conservative Republicans] don’t make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don’t understand it, but that’s what they say."

How dare Republicans choose their core values over winning an election? Why the next thing you know they will be talking about what they believe and what they think America should stand for.

Talk about a clueless and cynical politician. In Arlen Specter we see the embodiment of the unprincipled politician; the sort of person that has led this nation into the depths of the morass in which we currently find ourselves and whose cynicism and political expedience has relegated the Republican Party to second class status and left us with the unprincipled and corrupt leader currently occupying the White House.

If you have no core values, no moral compass, how can you claim to stand for anything but the self-serving policies now being touted by the Democrats and the Empty Suit in Chief?

You wonder why President Obama has become known as the "Teleprompter in Chief?" It's because if you have no core principles, you have to rely on external resources for your thoughts and ideals. Obama uses a teleprompter because he cannot search deep within himself for answers and solutions to the problems which now confront him.

So to Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) I say "Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you...and take your fellow RINO's with you."

A man without principles is a man corrupted.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below