Big Government

VICTORY! Senator Corker Calls Off Deal With Dodd

Grassroots conservatives were rightly up in arms over Senator Corker’s game of footsie with far left Democrat Chris Dodd. The two worked together on President Obama’s effort to impose a massive new regulatory scheme on the American economy. Dodd, of course, is one of the architects of the current financial crisis. His decades long support of ACORN, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act should have disqualified him from these negotiations in the first place.

The word from the halls of the Capital last week was that Corker was still trying to cut a deal with democrats… a bad deal.

But, it looks like Corker bailed after the constant pressure from conservatives this past week…
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) just backed out of a deal with Dodd and democrats to establish a new federal bureaucracy to regulate the financial industry.
Congress Daily reported:

Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd said today he will unveil legislation to revamp the nation’s financial regulatory system without the support of Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., with whom he had been working to strike a bipartisan deal.

“Over the last few months, Banking Committee members have worked together to try and produce a consensus package. Together we have made significant progress and resolved a many of the items, but a few outstanding issues remain,” Dodd said in a statement.

Dodd said he intends to unveil the bill Monday and hold a markup during the week of March 22 to move the bill out of committee.

“I have been fortunate to have a strong partner in Senator Corker, and my new proposal will reflect his input and the good work done by many of our colleagues as well,” Dodd added. “Our talks will continue, and it is still our hope to come to agreement on a strong bill all of the Senate can be proud to support very soon.”

Corker is scheduled to hold a news conference at 11 a.m. to give his version of the breakdown of the talks.

We look forward to his press conference.

Senator Corker better have a good excuse for turning his back on conservatives.

Breaking: House GOP Adopts Unilateral Ban on All Earmarks

This morning, the House GOP Caucus adopted a unilateral ban on all earmarks.

For millions of Americans, the earmark process in Congress has become a symbol of a broken Washington. Today House Republicans took an important step toward showing the American people we’re serious about reform by adopting an immediate, unilateral ban on all earmarks. But the more difficult battle lies ahead, and that’s stopping the spending spree in Washington that is saddling our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars in debt. Only then will we have succeeded in bringing fundamental change to the way Congress spends taxpayers’ money.

The Constitutional Case Against Progressives

[Do not read this article without a copy of the Constitution, and if you do not have one handy, shame on you (link here).]

A line is being drawn in the sand between the statists and Americans, and I use the term American in the grandest sense.  The United States of America represents one of the last bastions of traditional liberalism, which is why the Left should no longer be identified as liberal, but rather we should continue to identify its members as progressive statists.  The Left believes the precepts of our Constitution have failed society, and thus, we must look towards the “enlightened democracies” of socialized Europe for guidance in the progression of American society.

We hear the mantra of rights professed daily by the progressives: education, work, social security, health care, etc.  And since we do not live in a state of nature, the guarantor of those rights must be the government.  This is the definition of a statist, and adherence to these beliefs is inherently in opposition to the Constitution.  The Founders recognized that government could NEVER be the guarantor of rights which is why so much of the Constitution is written in terms of limiting powers conferred upon the government.

Take for example Article I § 1:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives (emphasis added).

Congress has no power outside the enumerated powers identified in the Constitution, and furthermore, Congress may not exercise any power that is not inherently legislative in nature.  Article I § 9 lists specific power limitations upon Congress, and Article I § 10 lists legislative power limitations upon the States.  Article III identifies the judicial power of the United States and limits it in much the same manner as in Article I.

Article II is a little different, but can only be understood in the context of the framing of the Constitution.  Article II § 1 begins:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

On its face, Article II seems to grant rather broad powers to the President.  One of the main reasons the Constitution was created was because of the impotence of the Articles of Confederation without a federal executive.  But even the President is confined to the boundaries identified in the Constitution through his Constitutional Oath as written in Article II § 1 cl. 8:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (emphasis added).

All other Constitutional officers are “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,” in Article VI cl. 3, but the President is beholden to specific duties.

The only time “right” is mentioned in the original articles of the Constitution is in Congress’s duty to promote the ownership of Authors and Inventors to their respective creations (Article I § 8 cl. 8), but even that was only to be secured for a limited time.  The Bill of Rights is written in negative terms to prevent the government from infringing upon certain recognized rights of the people.  The only positive rights are identified in the 6th Amendment, but should really be read in the negative since the government prosecutes for alleged crimes committed.  In fact, the entire Constitution, articles and amendments, is written in terms of limiting government infringement upon existing rights, not creating rights.  For a discussion of this you must check out Federalist No. 84. Furthermore, many of the amendments to the Constitution forbade government infringement upon the people’s rights (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th).

Some would argue that “privileges and immunities,” as discussed in Article IV § 2, indicates positive rights, but rights are not privileges because privileges may be revoked.  Article I § 9 cl. 2 recognizes the “privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,” but also recognizes that it may be revoked under certain circumstances.  Privileges are allowances granted to specified individuals in areas where government power prevails, which is limited to the powers granted by the Constitution.

Let us turn our attention to the most under-utilized provision of the Constitution as it exists today; the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (emphasis added).

Essentially, any right not identified by the Constitution is retained by the people, not the government (state or national).  This is where progressive statists run astray of the Constitution.  Government cannot grant us the “right” to work or receive health care because government does not have that power, nor the power to force us to exercise any right (imagine the outcry if the government forced every person to exercise their 2nd Amendment right).  And the government does not equal “the people” because our government is only representative of an illusory majority.

Herein lays the danger of the progressive statist utopia.  It envisions a permanent government entity, exemplified in the bureaucracy.  People may come and go, but the government will always remain.  And our rights are beholden to that permanent entity.

Americans recognize that government is only an extension of the individuals that comprise it, and thus ethereal.  Bureaucracies are invasive upon the rights of the people.  And unless the people are vigilant in protecting their rights, all governments will attempt to seize them.

The United States of America was the first country to create a government wholly in terms of limitation.  This is what makes it the first and last bastion of traditional liberalism.  We often identify ourselves as conservatives or libertarians, but we are only as much because we understand the context of the Constitution striving to create a liberal utopia within the boundaries of our nation.  We understand and have fought against the horrors of the statist utopia, so we must not allow the progressive statists to hide behind concepts like liberalism.

And for those who espouse certain liberal social rights, you will not find salvation within the progressive statist agenda.  You will only find regulation and marginalization; at least until the government deems you oppressive to the progress of the state.

The Constitution cannot be a living, breathing document.  If it is then government can arbitrarily grant and take-away the people’s rights.  If it is then the government can arbitrarily create and seize powers.

Read your Constitution.  Study your Constitution.  Defend your Constitution.

The Constitution is your only protection from the progressive statist utopia.

Stimulus Dollars Buy Greyhound Buses in Missouri

I’ve never had the kind of fun enjoyed by passengers in this 1980 Greyhound commercial, but I’m thinking about taking a ride on the commercial bus line soon. Why? Because, as a taxpayer, I’m paying for it.

I came across this news after reading a release on the White House web site that listed the Missouri Department of Transportation as the recipient of $4.9 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a.k.a., “stimulus”) funds for use in “construction of two facilities and purchase of two intercity vehicles.” Curious as to the specifics of the spending, I placed a phone call to MoDOT and reached spokesperson Jorma Durant.

During the first conversation, he explained that his agency would be spending the money on construction of buildings for two nonprofit transportation agencies — one each in Poplar Bluffs and Macon, Mo. — as well as on the purchase of two Greyhound buses.

Somewhat surprised, I asked him to explain why the MoDOT was buying Greyhound buses. Durant’s reply was open and honest.

“You have a great question,” he said. “You have an amazing question. Why are we dealing with Greyhound bus? Actually, it kind of surprised me as well. And I’m probably not going to have the right answer for you.”

Rather than concoct answers for me on the fly, Durant told me he would dig for more details and call me back. About five minutes later, he did.

During our second conversation, the MoDOT spokesperson confirmed that, in order to meet the federal mandate that 15 percent of ARRA funds provided to states be spent on intercity bus transportation, the State of Missouri will use $945,210 of federal taxpayer monies to reimburse Greyhound Bus Lines for the addition of two new buses to the company’s fleet. In other words, Greyhound is getting a federal subsidy and the Show-Me State is acting as a laundromat of sorts. But I digress.

As for the rest of the $4.9 million, Durant said, the remainder will be spent on construction of facilities for two nonprofit transportation programs in Poplar Bluffs and Macon that exist, primarily, to serve older adults and people with disabilities in multi-county rural areas. In Poplar Bluffs, $1.2 million will be spent to construct a facility for OATS, Inc. In Macon, $2.65 million will go to SMTS, Inc.

If you’re old enough, you might remember the Greyhound slogan, “Leave the driving to us.” Now, you know who “us” really is — the taxpayers.

Heads Up Talk Radio: The President’s Foot Soldiers Have Your Number

Newsmax first reported that Organizing for America, the community organizing outfit under the auspices of the Democratic National Committee, has launched a plan to inundate talk radio shows with callers.  The action will occur when a particular radio show is discussing ObamaCare.

This is an extension of OFA’s and Health Care for America Now’s campaign to flood last summer’s town hall meetings with union members and left-wing activists supporting Obama’s government takeover of health care.

The intent then, just as it is now, was to drown out average taxpayers showing up  to voice their concerns or vent their frustrations.  The intent is also to run out the clock on real debate and take a vote on health reform with as little resistance as possible.

HCAN and ACORN were busing non-constituents, some from as far as 200 miles away, to fill the seats and skew the crowd.  It was to give the false impression that constituents really wanted ObamaCare.

But the result was even worse.  HCAN and union members, particularly SEIU, were filling the seats which would have otherwise been occupied by the average person just getting out of work.

So, the campaign now is geared toward achieving the same result: flood different talk radio shows with left-wing activists and ObamaCare apologists.  The OFA’s website has a talk radio du jour with a call-in number and “discussion points” – talking points for the latest version of the Democrats’ plan.

Be aware and be prepared, Talk Radio: The president’s got your number and his foot soldiers are coming for you.

If Pelosi Has the Votes, Then Why Does the House Need the Slaughter Solution to Pass ObamaCare

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bluffing here when she says:

“Yes,” Pelosi said when asked if she believed the House would end up having the votes to approve healthcare.

“If we took it up today, yes,” the speaker quickly added.

The speaker still cautioned, though, that the timing and actual vote count on the bill couldn’t be entirely set in stone until the final legislative language was finalized and until the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivers its score of the bill’s impact.

There is no chance Pelosi has the votes to pass ObamaCare and she knows it. If she did have the votes, she would have already had the vote and wouldn’t need the “Slaughter Solution.”

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version. Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. “Once the CBO gives us the score we’ll spring right on it,” she said.

The Slaughter Solution has one very large obstacle–the Constitution Article I, Section 7–which states:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.  Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Clearly, this Congress is so desperate to pass ObamaCare, despite the American people’s utter hatred of the bill and everything it represents–including the path to socialism and government control of the people. However, if this Congress continues down this path of violating the Constitution, the “people” will have a viable case, class-action or otherwise, in the US courts because it is going to be extremely difficult for a judge to ignore that the 111th Democrat-Progressive led Congress violated Article I, Section 7 to the most obscene extent.

If Guantánamo Closes, use ADAK!

I have to say, I did not agree with Sen. McCain during the 2008 campaign when he took the Guantánamo issue off the table by endorsing candidate Obama’s call to close it. The U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is an ideal place to hold military tribunals for jihadists captured on the battlefield. And it would still be the ideal place to hold Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year old Nigerian jihadist, who tried to blow up his inbound jet in Detroit on Christmas Day.

Claims that detainees were being mistreated there were false. Capt. Pete Hegseth of Veterans for Freedom served at Guantánamo during the time that Newsweek and other liberal sources were spreading false claims that U.S. guards had “defiled” copies of the Koran. These false reports circulated throughout the world and sparked riots among Muslims.

Capt. Hegseth served a year at “Gitmo” with the New Jersey National Guard. He supervised guards at the detention facilities. He set the record straight. The only time their Korans were besmirched was when the detainees themselves threw human waste on their guards. Gitmo was never Abu Ghraib. No photos of abuse by guards ever came out of Gitmo, because there was none.

But if, after all is said and done, sensible voices in Congress do not prevail, then I have a recommendation for where the detainees should be held and tried. Adak was an important naval installation throughout the Cold War. It’s an island in the central Aleutians, that thousand-mile chain off Alaska.

Adak has many facilities that were in use by the Navy that could be retrofitted now for detainee trials and long-term detention. Adak’s climate is severe. It’s cold. It’s overcast much of the time. During some snowstorms, “whiteout” conditions prevail. Then, it’s dangerous for any personnel to venture outside of buildings unescorted.

A number of U.S. Senators are pressing the administration for the names of political appointees to the U.S. Justice Department who previously served as counsel to the Guantánamo detainees. We deserve to know who those public officials are. We deserve to be assured that none of these lawyers are involved in the decision to close Gitmo or to give civilian trials to jihadists.

This is not suggested in spite. As Lincoln said, “I shall do nothing in malice.” The business he was in was too weighty for that. That should be our watchword, too.

For our military guards and their families, there is this consolation. Many of the Navy families who spent two-year tours on Adak recall their time there with fondness. The severe weather conditions and the remoteness of the island station bred a real fellowship among the hardy folk who called Adak home. We owe these self-sacrificing Americans our respect and our gratitude. Adak would not be a punishment assignment for them.

Adak’s primary virtue is its remoteness. As with Gitmo, the American people would not have to worry about any escapes. It’s five hours behind Washington. One of the most pressing concerns is that jihadists whom we are holding should not be permitted to inflame other prisoners among our U.S. prisoner population.

Finally, we do not want any jihadists to attack U.S. prisons, even on a suicide mission, because this administration unwisely brought them to the mainland. Adak, like Gitmo, could be secured from such attacks.

Once again, we should not close Gitmo. But, if the Obama administration takes this unnecessary and expensive step, Adak, would be a good alternative.