DelawarePolitics.net

  Today in Missouri, in front of an audience of working class citizens, Pres. Obama demonstrated his courage. He showed the world exactly what he is made of. He did not back away from throwing the gauntlet down.

  No Pres. Obama didn’t draw a line in the sand about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

  And no he didn’t tell the terrorist to,”bring it on”.

 But what he did do must have taken an immense amount of will.

  Today , on that stage in Missouri, our President had the courage to state without doubt the he is against waste and inefficiency in the government’s health care system. I only hope that someone in that audience began a chant of “hurrah,hurrah” for our brave courageous leader. 

 But wait, for this tale does not end there. Not only did our fearless President denounce waste and inefficiencies in the health care system, oh no not just that. He also, with a singal slash  of his executive pen , directed his Cabinet secretaries and agency heads to intensify their use of private auditors to root out fraud within the system.

  Does our brave leader not know the danger that he puts himself in by pitting himself against the axis of evil, waste, inefficiency and fraud.

  We can only hope that if he can survive this battle, that he has the strength to denounce people who kick puppies.

by Derek Baker

Less than one week ago, President Obama stood before an assembled audience of hand- picked sympathizers on healthcare reform at the White House and called on Congress to pass his healthcare reform package into law… again.

Having spent his entire year long presidency singularly focused on passing a massive, trillion dollar, federal government takeover of the healthcare industry in America, and failed — Obama had a couple of choices going forward. With an American public now solidly against his healthcare proposal, and his Democrat margins in both houses of Congress now a wee bit slimmer, Obama was forced to choose between either a) substantially altering his healthcare proposal to make it more palatable and bipartisan as he claims is his goal, or b) forging ahead with virtually the same heavy-handed government takeover package and hope to woo skeptical Americans and Democratic lawmakers by the sheer force of his personality.

In Obama’s speech – a rather short one for him of only 21 minutes – he made it clear that he is opting for Plan B. Obama stated: “No matter which approach you favor, I believe the U.S. Congress owes the American people a final vote on healthcare reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly. Not just for the past year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a super-majority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the children’s health insurance program, that was used for cobra health coverage for the unemployed, and by the way for both Bush tax cuts, all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.”

In other words, he plans to utilize budget reconciliation to pass ObamaCare, which requires only a simple majority in both chambers. And Obama appealed to history, citing five specific examples of major legislation that was passed using reconciliation.

Here’s the only problem with Obama’s appeal: every bill he cited was passed with bipartisan support. This is, of course, precisely the opposite of what is occurring on ObamaCare, where the minority party is unanimously opposed to the entire package. In fact, reconciliation has been used nearly 20 times since it’s origination in 1981, but never once in a completely partisan fashion to pass major social legislation. Not once.

A quick review of the actual legislation Obama cited shows example after example of bipartisan support. Both Bush tax cuts were passed with Democrat votes in both chambers. Cobra was enacted in 1986 with a Republican controlled White House and Senate and a Democrat controlled House. Landmark welfare reform was passed by a Republican controlled Congress (with 125 Democrat votes from both chambers) and signed into law by President Clinton, as was the Children’s Health Program in 1997 within the Balanced Budget Act.

Republican claims that Obama’s intended use of reconciliation to pass his version of healthcare reform is unprecedented (what the word really means, not how Obama uses it) and hyper partisan is absolutely true. It would be complimenting Obama to say he was being merely disingenuous in his stated reason for using reconciliation.

In the same speech noted above, Obama portended to take the high road by maintaining “I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right” and saying he would “provide the leadership” the American people so desperately want on healthcare reform. Perhaps Obama is genuine in stating he does not know how this will play politically, but Americans seem to know instinctively, and they are not calling it leadership, they’re calling it a lie.

Derek Baker is a contributor to ALG News

“My name is Christine O’Donnell, and I’m here today to officially announce my candidacy in the 2010 Special Election for the US Senate seat vacated by Joe Biden.  I’m running for US Senate to help change the direction of our country and because I sense like you the America we knew and grew up with is being threatened in the most serious way.  I’m running because our nation’s founding principles of individual liberty and free enterprise are no longer viewed by our leaders as indispensable.  I’m running because the people of Delaware deserve a representative who will stand up to the Washington elites and fight back against a Congress and White House intent on saddling us with their reckless spending, unbearable taxes and unfair policies that stifle our freedom and weigh down future generations with a debt that will shackle them for the rest of their lives.
The focus of my campaign will be on jobs and our economy, with a continued defense of the first principles of life and liberty. It doesn’t take an expert to figure out that our county is going broke. And if you want someone who embraces what the Founding Fathers envisioned a straight shooting, qualified citizen-politician to go to Washington and serve, then I hope to earn your support.  We, you and I, view over-spending and over-regulation by Washington as the problem and not the solution to our economic challenges.  At this pivotal time in our nation’s history this, along with the security of our homeland, should be the focus of our attention and energy. The voters deserve a candidate who believes deficits are wrong, and that deficits destroy nations just as surely as they do families.  Voting to spend money you don’t have has become an appealing option for too many politicians and common sense men and women of America know this is not sustainable.
The Delaware voters deserve a candidate who understands that governments can’t spend their way to recovery and they cannot tax the country into prosperity.  That is why I have made the decision to run for US Senate.  I’m one of six children raised by parents who taught me that while life can be hard, hard work will also make life better.  During my campaign, I’ve been touched and motivated by the support of Delawareans and other Americans, optimistic like you,  that our country can recover from the economic hole we’re in and that we can do better than the so-called “leaders” we have in Washington. 
The problem is we don’t have enough elected leaders who understand that, far too often, the actions of Congress kill job growth and lead to higher taxes and bigger deficits.  Politicians who vote to spend money we do not have are just as guilty as the politicians who then vote for the higher taxes needed to pay for over-spending.  Suffocating government regulations and red tape stifle businesses and kill jobs. We can begin the effort to turn this country around and give to future generations the same opportunities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we were given, but only if we limit and roll back the damage wrought by liberal arrogance and career politicians in Washington.

Supporters and media filled the room when Christine O’Donnell lauched her campaign of O’Donnell vs. Career Politicians.  She proclaimed that she will champion the fight for “less spending, shrinking the deficit, and lower taxes”.   In her strongest language that I have heard to date, she condemned “the lords of the backroom deals (that) have an obnoxious sense of entitlement to promote one of their own….”   The text of her address will be posted  in the future.

The buzz afterward was enthusiastic among her supporters and friends.   Comments were to the effect that she struck the right tone.  If the faith in the room could be translated to the electorate, she would win in a landslide.  The problem is making the connection with the larger electorate.  Will her ability to connect with the faithful be enough to win over the good will earned by the Congressman over the years?   That is the question.

The majority of D.C. is having same sex marriage rammed down their throats by the liberal elite. The nuptials have begun. According to the constitution, D. C. is subject to Congressional oversight. I urge Congress to repeal this national disgrace and affront to traditional values in the nation’s capitol. Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R) is a leading voice in repeal of the law. I urge others to join him, particularly Delaware’s delegation. Repeal of this attack on the family will be an important issue in my voting this year for Congress. I hope you will join me.

Multi-millionaire Greenville resident Michelle Rollins is exploring a run for Delaware’s lone congressional seat. She is an attorney and widow of businessman John Rollins. No one can say that she has not earned the right to be considered by the party. She has been active for many years in the party and has helped a variety of candidates. Her thought of entering the race has already awakened a split within the wings of the party. “I’m the conservative candidate,” Urquhart said. “Michele represents liberal values. I welcome her into the race. I stand for the conservative traditional values that are sweeping this country like a tidal wave.” It should be an interesting convention.

A bipartisan group of legislators is working to ban sex selection abortions and targeting racial groups for abortion. Planned Barrenhood is organized genocide. From the very beginning, racist Magaret Sanger planned to target the groups that did not meet her standard for population control.

From The Citizen

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger’s other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “scientific” and “humanitarian.” And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America’s human “breeding stock” and purging America’s “bad strains.” These “strains” included the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.”

Thanks in part to the leadership of Dr. Martin L. King Jr.’s niece, Dr. Alveda C. King, this bill may get passed. It would provide a most interesting test case to challenge Roe. I welcome it.

    Let me begin this post by apologizing to all of you who have been faithful followers of my post ,both here at Delaware Politics and also on my own site  www.politicallyfrank.wordpress.com . I realize that it has been quite some time since I last posted an article. For those of you who are unaware, my paying job is as a propane delivery driver. As you can guess, due to the recent spat of winter weather we have experienced here in Delaware, I have been busier than a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest.

  Thanks to a lot of hard work on my part and that of two other hard-working drivers at my company we have been able to get caught  up, and with a minimum of out of gas calls.  Let me just say to those guys and they know who they are, thanks guys, it was a team effort.

  Now, let me get right to the point of this post. Since I have been so busy at work I have had little time to even keep up with much of what has been going on in the world of politics, local or national. What I was able to witness was a lot of snow and the effect that it had on our state.

  For those of you who live in Delaware and especially Sussex County, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that the recent snow storms had a crippling effect . It has been described as being a once in thirty year event.

  During the storms and after I heard a lot of people, both inside government and ordinary citizens giving high praise to Del DOT and the guys driving the plow trucks.

  Let me join in with my praise for the plow drivers. They worked long hours, in difficult conditions. I can relate to this , as my job requires the same of me. As for the way Del DOT handled the event , well let me just say that in my opinion, it was lacking. This is no reflection on the individual employees. I feel that there is a systemic flaw in the planning for , and the implementation of the states snow emergency strategy .

  Now some may ask, why must we plan for an event that may only happen once in thirty years ? Well your house may only catch fire once in thirty years, but you don’t wait until it is on fire to go out and buy a fire extinguisher. And personally as someone who drives for a living I have to say that Delaware falls short in removing snow , no matter the amount.

  I have been driving for the same company for over twenty-nine years, both in Delaware and Maryland. The difference in the way that the two states are able to handle an event such as we experienced is dramatic.

  Let me relate to you what I experienced three days after the storm that brought close to two feet of snow to the Bridgeville and Seaford areas.  I had to make a delivery over the Maryland state line out past Reliance. I had been fighting conditions on the Delaware side that ranged from solid packed snow and ice , to what can only be described as a washboard of ice and bare road. In some spots the road was a single lane. In many places there was no shoulder for an emergency such as a flat tire or a break down. Either of which could have completely choked up the road. Let me be clear, I am not talking about some back county road, but Rt. 20 out of Seaford. This was typical of most of the main routes that I had been driving on during this same day, such as Rt.24 between Millsboro and Rehoboth, Rt.9 between Bridgeville and Georgetown, Rt.113 a dual highway no less from Georgetown to Millsboro. Again, this was two to three days after the storm.

  Now some have defended Del DOT by saying that no one could have anticipated such a storm. Well apparently someone in Maryland did. That night as I drove from Seaford on what I describe as dangerous Delaware roads I passed into Maryland. What I experienced was shocking. The road was cleared from shoulder to shoulder, down to bare pavement, not a spot of snow or ice . Now, so no one thinks this was some sort of anomaly, let me tell you that I also drove from Reliance over to Federalsburge and then back into Delaware on Rt.18 in Delaware. All together I drove around twenty miles in Maryland. Every road I was on was the same, completely clear. But as soon as I crossed the Delaware state line , again the difference was shocking. I was back to a washboard surface , no shoulders and often a single snow-covered lane of travel.

  I voiced my disappointment with the way Delaware handled the situation as compared to our regional neighbor. One notable person who responded, was 41st Dist. Representative John Atkins. Mr. Atkins stated that he felt that Maryland was able to do a better job of clearing the roads because the citizens of Maryland pay higher taxes. That because of the way that Maryland breaks down the job by county and state, give them an advantage . I also heard a news spot with 35th Dist. Representative Dave Wilson giving praise for the way Del DOT handled the situation.

  I won’t argue that Maryland pays higher taxes, I do contend that Maryland pays higher taxes and does a better job of clearing the roads after a snow event for the same reason that Delaware pays lower taxes and does a lousy job of clearing the roads. Because government has lost it’s focus of what it’s role is supposed to be.

  Now I’m not sure whether Del DOT needs to purchase more equipment or if they need better training in plowing, or maybe think of contracting more outside help when the need arrives. I do know that we need to look at our strategy and work at being prepared for such events.

  As for the need of paying higher taxes to accomplish this, well I don’t think that is necessary. The problem isn’t that government needs more money to do that which is the purpose of government, the question is , is government spending our tax dollars in the manner that best serves the people of the state?

  I contend that until the state and local governments are able to accomplish the basic obligations of their offices, then we should see no spending on things best left to the private sector. If our state cannot afford to clear our roads after a snow event, then tell me why we are paying for needles for junkies? Maybe the counties should take on the responsibility of clearing the back county roads, but of course this might mean that the county council would be unable to donate thousands of dollars to Little League organizations and other private groups.

  Government should have a narrowly defined role in our lives. This should not include government funding of programs that can only encourage drug use. It should not include the funding of groups that can raise funds privately. It should not include mandated health care. Why do our state Representatives and Senators have funds for discretionary spending ? Could these funds not be put to better use clearing roads after snow events, rather than being used to buy votes ?

  Our state can’t adequately clear the snow from the roads, yet we spend millions to increase the role of government through ever-expanding government programs.

 Let us get back to basics, clear the roads and keep the peace.

I have nothing against Lindsay Lohan, she is a troubled but talented individual who I hope finds her way. I do have a larger problem with the attorney or attorneys who are feeding her (and others) delusional paranoia. She is suing E-Trade for 100 million dollars because baby Lindsay is a milkaholic and she is an alcoholic. The baby Lindsay stole boys. She steals boyfriends. She says the ad was modeled on her and used her first name therefore she should be paid. She claims Lindsay is so associated with her that when the name is mentioned she is the person that is thought about. It is like Oprah or Madonna.

Leaving aside her grandeur, what attorney did not explain to her that the High Court has ruled that parody is a free speech. People are allowed to poke fun at you without paying off to you.

E-trade is laughing this off. It just revives the buzz around the commercial.

The larger issue of frivolous lawsuits is not laughing matter. They are estimated to cost the American business community $865 billion. That is like taking away 6% of our economy from productive uses such as research and development, new energy investments, plant investment, expansion, marketing, and new product launches. It is money that could be used to help make America more competitive in the global economy. Instead, it is like a tying ankle weights to a runner who is ready to compete in a big race. Look at the lawsuits against Toyota. Are they to force the car maker to take safety precautions? No, they are already doing it themselves. It is for alleged devaluing of the resale value of the cars. Since when was that an entitlement?

I support the right to sue for injury and damages. I support the right to get paid well and the attorneys to get paid handsomely. I do not support nonsense multibillion dollar class action suits designed to get consumers coupons and make lawyer’s billionaires. I do not support the sword of Damocles hanging over every business for every decision. Every ad, every label, every recall to protect their costumers should not be a potential pitfall. Peanuts should not have to carry labels which say warning contains nuts.

Let’s restore a culture of common sense by no longer winking at frivolity.

That is my opinion. I welcome yours.

Who: Christine O’Donnell, Candidate, United States Senate (R-DE)
2010 Special Election.

What: Christine O’Donnell officially announces her candidacy for the November 2010 Special Election for the United States Senate.

When: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 10:30 am (please arrive early, as the Press Conference will begin promptly at 10:30 am)

Where: University of Delaware, Wilmington Campus
Academy of Lifelong Learning
Goodstay House, Gold room
2700 Pennsylvania Ave
Wilmington, DE 19806
(302)573-4417

–
-Vincent Martorano

Vincent@Christine2010.com

It appears that the second time is a winner. President Obama’s first Transportation Security Administration choice went down in flames. His second choice, General Robert Harding seems to be of the highest quality. Very good choice, Mr. President.

Sandra Bullock is one of the greatest modern actresses not to have won an Academy Award. The Blind Side changed that. Any one who saw Love and War knew that she deserved to be on that stage. Bullock has always had a connection with Red America. Her kissing of Ms. Meryl Streep likely helped take that red state edge off for the voting crowd. I applaud the result.

The Hurt Locker has upset a number of Veterans, combat journalists, and even the Department of Defense.  It did not upset Hollywood. Hollywood has a way of finding an obscure film to stick us in the eye.  That I boo. I also boo the fact that Bea Arthur and Farah Faucet did not get a mention in the Memoriam clip. They made most of their success in Television, but they also did have motion pictures. It appears that the Oscar Crowd doesn’t regard the Television counter parts that much. They did like Music sensation Michael Jackson.

Governor Markell has issued a letter opposing HB 357 the right of law abiding citizens to maintain firearms in public housing. The more law abiding citizens have access to fire arms, the safer society is. Is Switzerland a crime capitol? Did right to carry make 33 states more dangerous?

I support the right of people to be safe in when they travel on DART buses or go to a park. A person who is being stalked for instance, does not give up their right to be safe because they choose to take a bus to work or can’t afford a nice house. I urge the governor to reconsider his position.

Republicans propose limiting the size of government to balance the budget. The difference between the party of government and the party of the people couldn’t be clearer.

Written by Glen Asbury
Friday, 05 March 2010 16:14
Can anything possibly be written about health care that hasn’t already been hashed out ad nauseum? Since this time a year ago, we’ve been discussing why socialized medicine is disastrous, why America’s government can’t afford to finance all of the health care coverage a bill like this would require, why it couldn’t pass, why it nonetheless did, why it seemed to die and now has resurrected and why it may make it through the Senate, but run aground in the House…

The head swims.

I don’t claim to have anything new to contribute; I’m sure somewhere, either in cyberspace or on the printed page, similar concerns have probably been voiced. But as a husband and a father of three daughters, one with severe special needs, here is what I fear at this moment, if the bill passes:

The bottom line:

Fewer people will choose to make a career of medicine, which will cause untold ripple effects.

I have rarely been as troubled as I was when I read a Facebook conversation, probably 8 months ago now, about socialized medicine. One of the participants opined that it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to downplay the profit motive in the health care industry. You might assert that such an ivory towered notion could only emerge from the hallowed halls of academia and sadly, you would be right in this instance.

Our family doctor’s HMO already is refusing to take many patients with Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shields insurance because Anthem will only pay the Medicare baseline. (He consented to continue accepting us as patients in spite of our Anthem coverage, because of our relationship with him, which now spans a good number of years.) What will transpire when insurance companies go out of business because they can’t compete with government undercutting their prices under all of the enhanced powers government accrues as the price negotiator of first resort? Or alternatively, when more insurance companies begin to adopt Anthem’s tactics?

The profit incentive is central to the human condition. People excel when there is accomplishment for which to strive. Such achievement is codified in the possession of private property, of which money in the bank account is a key component. This is not to say that motivated workers cannot also be charitable. America’s record of voluntary local giving and worldwide monetary assistance is second to none, as all statistics show. But can anyone truly give from the heart if the donation is not voluntarily rendered? Indeed, is it not, in the end, forceful taxation if the dollars that are forfeited are done so on other than a wholeheartedly willing basis?

Why should doctors be any different, simply because they practice healing the sick? Most medical professionals, after all, spend around 10 years of their lives in arduous and expensive academic programs before they earn their first penny. What fool will continue to do this if not assured a comfortable income and standard of living upon graduation that will remunerate all of the costs absorbed in transit? (I’m fairly sure that the academic I observed making the comment about the “profit motive in healthcare” makes a high 5-figure salary, with a lush package of perks and didn’t have to go to an Ivy League-level school to obtain his/her current job.)

If fewer doctors practice medicine, costs will not only rise (and don’t kid yourself; they will), but treatment will have to be rationed. And yes, call it what you will, but death panels will result. Does anyone really believe that if the government is financing health care for an increasing percentage of the population, with a finite money supply, it will not decide what will be paid for and who will reap the benefits? It is simple economics: Tinker with the supply curve of anything and demand is always impacted.

(This reminds me of a discussion I had with an economist a couple of years ago when I expressed bewilderment at the inability of many politicians to grasp basic economic concepts. His reply? “Look at the industry most of them come from. The vast majority are attorneys.”)

If the President, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi really wanted to reform health care, they would implement measures that would increase competition on every conceivable front. Malpractice lawsuit reform and freedom to purchase insurance across state lines are great places to start.

But if this were really about reform, the President would have listened to the ever-growing majority by now and either forged a legitimate consensus of some kind or started over. With statists like Barack Obama, it is always about further government control, a far more apt description that the chameleonic term “reform” which can be imbued with any meaning with which the user determines to endow it.

One final question: If (pray God, it is so!) this monstrosity of a bill does not pass, how soon will we forget, in our bleary fatigue, that we have waged this fight and that we must continue to explain, with clarity and detail, to the next generation why we did it? One hopes that the residual memory lingers. Unfortunately, the lesson of history teaches that the reality should rather lead us to expect otherwise.

Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV) Has the Right Idea on the EPA
Written by ALG News
Friday, 05 March 2010 16:31
Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today praised Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) for introducing legislation that would place a two-year moratorium on any decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cap by regulation carbon emissions.

“Senator Jay Rockefeller has watched as the EPA is moving at lightning speed to issue regulation by fiat to cap carbon emissions, a cap that will devastate the U.S. economy, and is acting quickly to put the brakes on,” said Wilson.

“Given a choice between representing his constituents, many of whom work in the coal industry, and the radical bureaucracy of the EPA, who cater to a cult of ‘man-made’ global warming, Senator Rockefeller has chosen his constituents and the American people at large who oppose carbon caps,” Wilson added.

Wilson called for bipartisan support for Rockefeller’s bill, potentially merging it with Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) legislation that would overturn the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare.

According to the Washington Post, Democratic Senators Blanche Lincoln (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ben Nelson (NE) are co-sponsoring Murkowksi’s resolution. And according to Rockefeller’s release, Congressmen Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) are introducing companion legislation.

“The real threat to the U.S. is the EPA enacting by dictate regulations that, in effect, puts the agency in charge of the entire nation’s economy. Members of both political parties must stand together before it is too late to stand up to this tyranny by the EPA,” Wilson declared.

“The economy, every facet of which runs on energy, mustn’t be in the hands of the radical EPA bureaucracy who place primacy on appeasing the false science of radical environmentalism over the rights and best interests of all Americans,” Wilson concluded.

Ron Paul’s son leads big if he wins the primary in Kentucky.

Just a reminder that the candidate’s night originally postponed is on for tonight at the Newark Senior Center.  I invite Evan to post details in the comments, but I understand that they are the same as in the link to the old post.

The state has this major concern, power or money.  The school based wellness centers allow the state to give certain services and referrals to kids without those nosy parents getting in the way.  Now they want to recoup insurance money from parents.  The change could net them up to 3 million dollars.  The problem is that they would lose the ability to go behind the back of many parents.  

What a delima for the left, your children or your cash.

NY Democrat Governor Patterson’s spokesperson resigned.Considering that he is the source of the emails, it is a wonder that he waited so long. He must have been looking for another job. That leaves 3 openings so far. Astrazeneca may not be hiring, but it seems Patterson has some openings.

Madison would roll over in his grave if he saw President Obama nominate a judge who believes in a Constitutional right to welfare. Goodwin H. Liu was nominated on Feb. 24 for the 9th U.S. Circus Court of Appeals.

From the Wahington Times

Now, let’s move beyond theory. For what practical purpose was Mr. Liu laying out his complicated and risky scheme of judging? Here’s where things get even worse. As repeated many times in his essay, Mr. Liu’s goal was to create a judicially enforceable, constitutional right to welfare. He hastened to add that such a revolution would only be pushed in an “evolutionary” way - not immediately - by “cue[ing] the policymaking process toward greater deliberation and rationality.”

This is a dangerous mentality to future of the nation. Why? While it is a matter of debate, it has been settled public policy that we have a right to give charity through our taxes to those we decide are in need. Jefferson’s and Madison’s point of view that charity and welfare is not the purview of the federal government which held sway the first 120 years of America has long ago become a minority opinion. However, we have the right to budget the amount that we feel is good policy. We have the right to set eligibility. We have the right to make certain requirements such as disability, attending school, or trying to find work. We have a right to kick drug dealers out of housing that we pay for.

If the so called entitlement becomes a constitutional right, then we lose the ability to determine what limitations exist through the representative process. The right of property becomes flipped upside down. The taxpayer no longer has a right to her property, rather the tax receiver has the right to determine what the taxpayer has left.

Don’t believe it. New Jersey and Missouri have in their state constitutions that children have a right to a free and appropriate education. That sounded good to say. However when children’s advocates where unhappy with certain budget issues they found friendly courts which demanded that taxpayers pay more. In Kansas City, the court actually raised taxes in defiance of the the people’s wishes. In New Jersey, the court reserves the right to approve funding formulas for schools that the legislature passes. Budget considerations were already difficult without unelected judges stepping in.

The Saul Alinsky doctrine of trying to overwhelm the system with demands so that it collapses can not take place as long as the taxpayers control the budget. If radicals like this get into place, we will never be able to address entitlement reform and will bankrupt the nation. One of Saul Alinsky’s students will have done from inside what the man who wrote Rules for Radicals could only dream of doing from the outside.

This inexperienced 30 something nominee to the appeals court must be opposed. The very heart of our rights of property and self governance depend upon it.

By Robert Romano

How hard is it to cut $10 billion out of the $3.6 trillion federal budget? That’s what Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) wanted to know. It’s a good question: Can the U.S. Senate cut anything at all to pay for new spending?

With the national debt now reaching the uncanny heights of $12.4 trillion, soaring towards 100 percent of the GDP within a few short years, it is a question that may come to haunt lawmakers. And sooner rather than later.

Controversy ensued last week when Bunning objected to unanimous consent on H.R. 4691, forcing a floor debate on the issue of whether or not to pay for an unfunded $10 billion extension in unemployment benefits. At first, Bunning proposed paying for it out of a portion of the unspent $787 billion “stimulus.”

Monday, on the floor of the Senate, Bunning explained his stand, “If we can’t find $10 billion to pay for it, we’re not going to pay for anything. We will not pay for anything fully on the floor of the U.S. Senate.” He’s right. If the Senate cannot bring itself to cut $10 billion to pay for unemployment benefits, how will it ever balance a budget that is $1.56 trillion in deficit?

To offer some perspective, that $10 billion less than one percent of the total budget — 0.27 percent to be exact. Congress’ pathetic display in the face of Bunning’s challenge to cut something — anything — to pay for the bill tells the American people everything they need to know about Washington’s commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Instead, the American people will be forced to pay interest on this unemployment extension — and all other deficit-spending. By 2020, interest owed on the national debt will total $840 billion. That’s 38.79 percent of present day revenue, just to pay interest on the debt.

Despite pressure from Democrats, the media, and even members of his own party, Bunning stood his ground, demanding a debate on how to fund the $10 billion without borrowing money from Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia.

Finally, last night, it appeared that Bunning had prevailed when he accepted a deal that would have allowed an up-or-down vote on the amendment that would have funded the deal. In the lead-up, Bunning made the case for the very pay-go rules that had just been enacted into law by the Democrat majorities of Congress.

Bunning relished the opportunity, and in a statement after the deal was reached, he said, “I hope Senate Democrats tonight vote for their own pay-fors and show Americans that they are committed to fiscal discipline. I will be watching them closely and checking off the hypocrites one by one.”

Obviously concerned about the prospects of Bunning’s up-or-down vote actually succeeding, and Bunning walking away victorious, Democrats sought to deny Bunning his opportunity to hold Congress to its word. At the eleventh hour, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) broke the deal, raising a point of order against the consideration of Bunning’s amendment, which would have paid for the unemployment benefits and other programs by repealing a $24 billion “black liquor” tax credit subsidy.

Bunning at first looked like a deer caught in headlights, but quickly recovered, requesting that the Senate waive Boxer’s objection by a Yay or Nay vote. The amendment was then defeated by a vote of 53 to 43, upholding the Boxer objection. Senate Republicans rallied to Bunning’s defense (not one of them voted to uphold the objection), and were joined by Democrat Senators Russ Feingold, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Joe Lieberman.

Even Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who earlier had accused Bunning of “hurting the American people” for his stand voted to waive the objection so that Bunning would get his up-or-down vote on his amendment.

The American people will undoubtedly treat this roll call as an up-or-down vote on the principle of the Bunning Amendment, which is that new government spending should be paid for, and not borrowed.

After being betrayed on the floor of the Senate, Bunning issued a statement, saying, “Democrats tonight showed their true colors by going back on their word on the agreement I had reached with Majority Leader Reid to have an up-or-down vote on my amendment to fully pay for the unemployment extension and other federal programs. Instead, Senate Democrats used a procedural gimmick so they would not have to vote on my pay-for amendment. What are they so afraid of?” Indeed. Probably that his amendment was about to pass.

Bunning continued, “I support the underlying [unemployment extension] legislation and support those who are out of work and need a helping hand. What I do not support is the hypocrisy displayed by Senate Democrats. Just over a month ago Democrats passed pay-go legislation and then turned around and waived it for the next two major pieces of legislation that were considered by the Senate. What was the point of passing pay-go legislation? If Democrats continue to ignore their own rules I will oppose future legislation that is not paid for.”

For his courage in taking a principled stand in defense of American taxpayers, Bunning deserves praise. With the nation’s ability to pay back its debts being diminished by the day by an out-of-control federal Leviathan, now is the time for the GOP to hunker down and oppose deficit-spending on every front.

Congressional Republicans have also learned a lesson that no deal made with the Democrat leadership can now be trusted. The knife in Bunning’s back on the floor of the Senate is ample evidence of that. There can be no compromise where there is no basis for trust.

So, to answer the question: How hard is it to cut $10 billion out of the $3.6 trillion federal budget to pay for new spending? Next to impossible. Ultimately, the unemployment extension did pass 78 to 19. And sadly, it was not paid for.

Robert Romano is ALG News Senior Editor

Taxpayer advocate and 31st district Representative candidate, Ronald Poliquin has a new viral commercial.

Ron Poliquin Intro

Written by David Bozeman
Tuesday, 02 March 2010 13:37
Columnist Kathleen Parker recently called tea partiers “the noisiest sector of the GOP.” She chided members of the movement for attacking newly elected Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, who voted with Democrats in supporting a cloture motion on their $15 billion jobs bill. Brown, who conceded that the bill was imperfect, added that he hoped his vote would be “a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington.”

Parker did kindly note that most tea partiers are “not weird.” Kathleen, you are too kind. Such obligatory politeness softens the blow to come (and preserves her stature — such as it is — as a conservative columnist). She proceeds with: “But some are at risk of flying off into the blood-red zone of wing nuttery” and “the growing libertarian strain [within the party] combined with an anti-RINO (Republican In Name Only) attitude is making life increasingly difficult for moderates such as Brown.”

We can only hope!

Most tea partiers are reserving judgment on Senator Brown, but there are a few points about the Tea Party Movement that Ms. Parker and the senator should bear in mind.

First, this is not a top-down movement, fueled by charismatic personality and silky baritone oration, a la Barack Obama. Most tea partiers are motivated by their adherence to such principles as smaller government, less spending and lower taxes. While leadership, particularly in government, certainly matters, leaders tend, as often as not, to disappoint, so their actions are viewed somewhat skeptically. Still, most activists are confident that the right leader will present his or her self in due course for 2012. Until then, the real fun, a guiltier pleasure than a reality TV drama, is watching the growing fissure between President Obama and Democrats running for re-election in moderate and conservative districts.

Second, tea partiers do not send leaders to Washington to achieve bipartisanship. To Democrats who want to support any plank of the conservative agenda — welcome aboard. To the rest, tea partiers seek your defeat. Since liberals have grown their power incrementally, bipartisanship usually works to their advantage. Conservatism advances by holding to principle, thus tea partiers shun such banal fashion statements as ‘civility’ and the current already-worn-to-death ‘reconciliation.’

Finally, tea partiers do not do nuance. Not to sound anti-intellectual, but big-government elites have granted themselves enough rhetorical wiggle room to near effortlessly increase spending (called ‘investing’) and raise taxes on middle-income earners and business owners (i.e., ‘the rich’). While tea partiers need not be confrontational, they are at least direct. While the movement may have attracted some “wing nuts,” maybe Ms. Parker would like to detail how the GOP has been served by the nauseatingly conciliatory tones of John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and George W. Bush.

David Bozeman, former Libertarian Party Chairman, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

UPDATE: Senator Kaye Bailey Hutchison concedes. Perry may avoid runoff.
Who will win the Texas Governor’s primary? Your predictions please.

My question is will Perry have a run off or not. I think he wins and in a run off he is set. Medina’s votes go to him not Bailey and Bailey’s voters would rather see him than Medina. Who ever thought Rick Perry would be the guy in the political center?

The fashion industry became disconnected from the real world some time ago. Its insistence on trying to redefine beauty as a step above starvation has fallen flat, but it is just now beginning to come to grips with that reality. In Europe, it is now becoming cool to use “real women” in ad campaigns. These women are quite frankly much hotter to most heterosexual males than ones with boyish figures perfered by the gays who dominated the fashion industry. This is why the cultural icons of beauty have moved from the fashion industry to music and Hollywood. Carrie Underwood is more recognized as beautiful than 9 of the top 10 models for example. Sarah Evans, Jennifer Hudson, or Jennifer Lopez would never make in the modeling industry, but they have certainly found their place in pop culture.

I believe that the disconnect with the fashion industry was that it became dominated by the gay culture when it was trying to appeal to the larger culture. Don’t misinterpret my politically incorrect statement to be anti-gay. I am just saying that the tastes of gay men and straight men differ concerning women. Many gays are on the creative side hence their tendency to fields that value that characteristic. I am also saying that lack of diversity has hurt women because young women have bought into a view of beauty that the majority of men have not. The truth is men are not as picky as some women think. An average wife who is ready for you is better than a dream girl any day who is not. Beauty enhanced by relationship according to many studies. The woman in your arms is more beautiful than the one who won’t give you the time of day. The obsession of some young women that leads to eating disorders will never get them the relationship they want. If they put half of that energy into building a loving and mutually respectful relationship, they would be less depressed and more fulfilled.

That’s my view of the cultural currents. I look forward to yours.

For a limited time economic expert Dan Kennedy, who was one of the early voices predicting the mortgage and real estate meltdown,  has some new insights that are available free of charge in advance of his new book.  Once his book is out the free video is planned to go away.  Check it out. If you have any problems with the link, email depolitics@gmail.com

Filing deadlines are Friday in many districts. We need conservatives to bring more common sense to the process.

As a joke, I posted on Delaware Liberal that I was running and I will touch base with them for their support. I said that I wanted prayer, creationism, school choice, and abolition of school property taxes. I just wanted to see if I could smell any fried brains over on the other side. May GOD forgive my deception, it was only a joke.

What is no joke is that we need people who will check out textbooks, learn the budgetary rules then ask tough questions, evaluate spending before any tax increases, ensure that religious liberty is protected based upon Mergens and Lamb’s Chapel (Supreme Court Rulings), and ensure that the new computer based testing with closer to real time results doesn’t get cut back or shelved.

Best wishes, contact depolitics@gmail.com and I will put you in touch with the right people.

AREA BUSINESS LEADERS TO GATHER MARCH 10 FOR
FREE CAREER BUSINESS NETWORKING EVENT
Top Executives and Area Business Owners to Offer Career Guidance and Job Search Counsel at Wilmington Riverfront

WILMINGTON (March 1, 2009) - Some of the Wilmington area’s most successful business people from a broad range of industries and professions will participate in a unique career networking event on Wednesday, March 10, from 5:30-7:30 p.m., at 1054 -1072 Justison Street, located in the former Vanity Fair store in the Shipyard Shops at the Wilmington Riverfront. The event is free and open to the public.

Sponsored by the Community Matters Networking Group, the Hispanic Business Association of Delaware, Delawareblack.com and the New Castle County Republican Committee, this is not a job fair, but rather a networking event geared toward providing valuable career advice and professional connections. It will provide a forum for job seekers, those in career transition and the underemployed to interact directly with area business leaders and entrepreneurs to learn how current economic conditions are affecting business hiring objectives and ask how best to navigate the difficult job market.

Advance registration (recommended but not required) and more information is available at www.nccgop.com.

“This career networking event will help attendees understand first-hand what local employers are looking for and understand what specific things they can do to advance their careers when hiring is down,” said Michael Fleming, chairman of the New Castle County Republican Committee. “Our goal is to present a unique opportunity for members of the community to meet and speak with business leaders who have been successful in a diverse range of fields and businesses or non-profits, and learn how they have adapted to succeed in the face of difficult challenges. We hope this will inspire attendees in job transition in addition to educating the public on how area businesses are coping in the current economic climate.”

Participants include senior executives from Wilmington Trust and Christiana Care, executive recruiters from Lee Hecht Harris, D.W. Schaefer & Co. and Cover and Associates. The owners, presidents and senior managers of AGS Printing, Union Park Automotive Group, Synchrogenix, Acorn Energy and the Speakman Company, and leaders from fields as diverse as retail sales, restaurant management, marketing/advertising/social media, health and fitness, insurance, legal, financial management and the non-profit sector will also be on hand. Other successful, mid-sized area businesses and career counselors will also be available to attending networkers.

What: Career Networking Event with Area Business Leaders
When: Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Time: 5:30-8:00pm
Where: The Shipyard Shops, 1054-1072 Justison St. (in the former Vanity Fair store)

Follow us on Twitter @NCCGOP!