DOJ on Record Wanting to F**k the Fast Furious Whistleblowers

The Ulsterman Report alerts us of a letter from Senator Grassley and Congressman Issa to the DOJ that begins:

Following yesterday's vote to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress, we are now concerned that the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) may be even more motivated to engage in acts of retaliation against the whistleblowers who brought this matter to light. We just learned that ATF senior management placed two of the main whistleblowers who have testified before Congress about Fast and Furious under the supervision of someone who vowed to retaliate against them.

Then Chief of ATF's Public Affairs Division - Scot Thomasson -  said, "We need to get whatever dirt we can on these guys [the whistleblowersl and take them down," according to a direct eyewitness account.  Thomasson was also allegedly heard to have said, "All these whistleblowers have axes to grind. ATF needs to f-k these guys."

When asked if the whistleblower allegations were true, Thomasson purportedly said he didn't know and didn't care.

How many more stories do we need to convince the mainstream CONSERVATIVE media (MSCM) that these people are not just “politically” motivated – but they are outright Marxist saboteurs intent on crippling the United States?  There was a good sign today that the often good-sometimes RINO Human Events ran an article called, “TOP 10 OBAMA POWER GRABS.”  Even with all the doublespeak and wimpy disclaimers, the publishing of Obama’s literary agent’s Kenyan nationality was a huge breaking of the MSCM.

But instead of treating this like an aggressive cancer that could kill the patient in months, our “conservatives” are treating this like obesity, or at best, an early STD.

You would think it would be enough to realize that the moves of Obama isn’t just “liberal business as usual” by observing:

• The US House of Representatives referred a citation of contempt against a significant member of the administration and not only did the Department of Justice announce they were REFUSING to investigate OR prosecute, the President made no call for his own administration to follow the law.
• A 5 year attempt by Democrats to legislatively change the Constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen,” PROVING even they don’t believe that a citizen born to only one US citizen or less is eligible to be President.
• A six month law enforcement investigation that concludes Obama’s long form birth certificate and selective service registration card are both forgeries.
• The Obama Whitehouse invites no-fly list Muslim Brotherhood terrorists to the White House and then refuse to turn over documents THE WHITE HOUSE GAVE TO THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD for over one year.
• An Obama campaign group that is shutting down conservative blogs that are giving whistleblower testimonies on plans inside the Department of Homeland Security.
• The report by 9 state Attorney Generals that the Obama Administration has broken 21 laws.
• Obama is personally selecting “assassinations by drone” without the normal military or Constitutional authority or procedures in place.  Combined with the unchallenged unconstitutional directive to kill a US citizen (except by Ron Paul) OVER THE PROTEST OF A FEDERAL JUDGE, the Executive Orders allowing Obama and our military to engage citizen “combatants,” the putative President has given himself the authority to unilaterally take over the internet, banking, any “essential” business and institute martial law only with an order of “National Emergency” which he did Monday, June 25th.

To show you how naive I am, I thought Congress, if not the GOP candidates, would have been foaming at the mouth in every debate, interview and campaign ad over the illegal destruction of the entire Gulf Oil industry by forging the findings and writing of the committee named to advise the President on the drilling matter.

I deeply appreciate Senator Grassley and Issa for locking on to Fast and Furious like junkyard pit bulls.  Where are the REST of our elected officials demanding that President Obama and his entire cabinet resign?  How about our candidates like Bachman and Gingrich?  How about the Tea Party superstars like Palin?  And the conservative media leaders like Malkin, Hannity, Levin and Limbaugh?

Sure, they express outrage in moments but why this “let’s wait til November” while he continues to dismantle EVERY form of safeguard we thought we had against tyranny.

Even on ObamaCare you have Gingrich and Hugh Hewitt saying “we will have to wait and see” whether Roberts was a traitor or a genius.  WHAT?  How does the precedent of a judge REWRITING the bill leave any room for withholding judgment?  How can you say setting a precedent to tax BEHAVIOR (or the lack thereof) is anything BUT treason against the Constitution?

Especially, Speaker Gingrich who was the foundation of our article on how to enforce a Constitutional check on the Supreme Court?  I’ll cut him some slack since he is in Italy and possibly hasn’t digested the finding, but truly… WTH!??

Dorothy, this isn’t Kansas anymore.  You don’t bring a stick to a gun fight.  And conservatives at every level had better wake up that these people are using EVERY power available to them while in office to hold justice at bay while decimating the Constitution and our economy.

The PDF of the Grassley/Issa Letter to the DOJ, with emails and other evidence,  can be downloaded here.

Read More

The Solutions to a Judiciary Out of Control

 

It is one thing to overturn ObamaCare should we be fortunate enough to A) Have an election (yeah, you heard me), B) Get a GOP President, C) Get a CONSERVATIVE House that will hold Boehner accountable as Speaker to not cave as he did on the budget ceiling debate, and D) get at least 51 votes in the Senate.

But how do we rectify the insane “precedent” set out by Roberts that the judiciary has the right to reclassify – even create – a “tax” that was never written in the original law?   Or that you can now be “taxed” for a behavior instead of an economic activity.  A current or future liberal congress would tax you going to church or NOT going to a “diversity” class.

We continue to expose just how disconnected the conservative elite are from the rest of us.  Supposed “conservatives,” George Will and Charles Krauthammer, try to explain how this makes political sense - either for the future Court or for the GOP.  Krauthammer goes as far to call it “the great constitutional finesses of all time.”  Sure, if by giving government the right to tax behavior instead of economic transactions “constitutional” I suppose it is ‘great.’  So would “finessing” the lack of ANY documentation for a member of the Marxist New Party to stay unchallenged as being Constitutionally eligible to be President would be.  And don’t get me started on the ability of a “conservative” judge to see the word “tax” where it isn’t even written, debated or passed into law by the representatives of the American people when they would have had a chance to stop it as such.

By the logic of King George and King Charles, we should now all be liberals and do what is political expedient instead of what is correct and constitutional.  No wonder they hated Gingrich who wanted to actually TRUST the mechanisms of moral law and trust God in their outcome.

Allen Raymond and Kathy Amidon shared a link that is a valuable understand of how the Founders foresaw these challenges and how THEY wanted us to address it.  (And those who think we had ANY CANDIDATE more equipped for what has just happened – and what is in front of us – than the former Speaker are blinded by their own bias.)

Newt Gingrich makes 5 key points:

First:  The Judiciary is designed to be the LEAST powerful branch of government , and the Legislative was to be the strongest.  Not until the 1958 Warren Court was their ANY thought that the Supreme Court had the “last say” in what was and was not Constitutional.  Jefferson said (of a Judiciary being “Supreme” over the others), that it “would be an absurdity.  That would be an oligarchy.”

In Abraham Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural speech, responding to the Dred Scott decision which declared slavery a Constitutional fact and there was nothing anyone could further do about it, he said, “To believe that 9 people could dictate to the entire nation, the meaning of the Constitution, would be the end of our liberties.”

Second:  It is ok for Presidents – on occasion - to ignore the court as Andrew Jackson did over the attempt to institute a Second Bank of the United States.  Of course, this means that you have a President that understands the Constitution, and that he or she has a super-heated titanium spine necessary to do what is right, rather than what is politically convenient.  (It would be a Constitutionalists wet dream for the GOP Convention in Tampa to rethink Romney and put someone who has demonstrated a walking into fire track record like Gingrich or Palin.  Second best would be a VP slot allowing Romney to hide and let them battle it in public opinion.)

Knowing that Roosevelt would not accept a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the right to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment) from the Supreme Court regarding German saboteurs, should give nightmares to us all given the inclinations and actions thus far of this current President.  The Constitution reads:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No problemo, for us law abiding, Constitution loving, Tea Partiers, right?  Don’t forget that alongside the Neo-Nazi's and the Black Separatists, the Department of Homeland Security
defines “terrorists” as including:

…the “tax resistance movement” – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified.”

Don’t tell me that our putative President, current choice of the US Communist party, and former member of the Marxist New Party now tied to Cloward and Piven by that same socialist organization - hadn’t planned to ratchet up taxes beyond comprehension.  Or that he and his treasonous Trotskyist tribe weren’t preparing for the inevitable conflict with a people whose DNA was created over the same tax issues in 1776.  The PP Affordable Care Act proves it.  As Limbaugh pointed out yesterday, it is designed for people to pay a very cheap penalty for not going with ObamaCare, robbing the insurance trust of funds needed to run it.  It also makes it impossible for a business to compete by paying for more expensive health care plans and dumping employees on the ObamaTaxCare plan.  Later, when most insurance companies are out of business or struggling, the penalty dramatically increases as do the stresses on the entire health care industry pressure points.  Essentially, you get Greece.  I guess those Grecian columns at his inauguration WERE appropriate.

I am no longer timid about tin foil accusations that Obama would suspend Habeas Corpus on arrested Tea Party members, since he is already going back on a pledge to not abuse Executive Orders, a pledge not to raise taxes on the Middle class, and – according to the Attorney General’s of nine states – he has also broken 21 laws and/or Constitutional protections.  And that isn’t even including not complying with Congressional subpoena’s, forging committee findings on the Gulf Oil disaster or bypassing Congress on appointments and regulations or law executively.  Even the ACLU is now suspecting Obama is abusing his powers.

But a true Constitution-loving President has a Constitutional right to simply protect it and defend it just as the 9 justices do.

Third:  As Jefferson did in the Judicial Reform Act of 1802, Congress can write legislation that can not be appealed.   It can be REPEALED with either 51 or 60 votes in the Senate.  Even the assurance of a Constitutional Amendment isn’t set in stone as we learned in Prohibition.  That’s a good thing considering how whimsical our populace has been when it comes to matters of responsibility and morality.  But it does make it more difficult to undo both good and bad law.

Fourth:  The Congress can attempt to pass a law that defines the meaning of Constitutional concepts such as “Natural Born Citizen” or “Personhood” (as in the case of the 14th Amendment by extending it to unborn children).  This of course is what this embedded video to the right suggests when the Democrats attempted to redefine “Natural Born Citizen” between 2003 to 2008.  (What it also proves, in my opinion, is that the even the Democrats already KNEW that a natural born citizen had to have two US citizen parents.  Ironically, people like Byron York and other CONSERVATIVE NBC naysayers are willing accomplices of this fraud and have no explanation why this would be necessary if it were inherent “fact.”)

We have to regain the view of the Founders that NO law, no interpretation of the law by either court or Congress changes what are “inalienable truths.”  The Congress can attempt to define “all men are created equal” to mean “dolphins and monkey’s” but that congressional act wouldn’t make it so.  This is why the John Adams said (emphasis mine):

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

There IS empirical truth.  Regulating American’s consumption of alcohol might have been thought unconstitutional – which is why they pushed for not just a law – but a Constitutional Amendment.  The PEOPLE ROSE UP and decided that it was not “constitutional” and repealed it.  The PEOPLE were the Constitution.  Not the courts, not the President, and not the Congress.

Monroe, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson and the like clearly understood that unless a majority of Americans were people of good faith – that is grounded in a common understanding of what “morality” is – no “system” would work since it would create conflict, chaos and confusion.  And those elements ALWAYS invite corruption.  If a “lie” is not universally held as wrong, then nothing can be counted on as “truth.”  And you are back to the whims of King George or King Barack or King “whoever that sits on the court bench.”

This is why we fought the Revolutionary War.  And it is why the precedent of the Great Awakening was so critical as our fore-countrymen were retrenched in the fear (holy worship) of God.

So it seems the legislative and Constitutional efforts, as well as the balance of powers, are more of a consensus or barometer of what we agree as a people to be true rather than a specific “writing” or rule that can never be interpreted another way.  The Founders left it possible to challenge even the original intent of the Constitution with Amendments.  But they were designed to be very difficult so that they couldn’t passed by a corrupt Congress that didn’t reflect the will of the people as ObamaCare did.  And this is also why they discussed the need for the President to be born on US soil to two US Citizens.  There is an “American” way of freedom that comes from understanding our history, our culture and our responsibility to run our own show.

The power was ALWAYS intended to be with “WE” the people.  And this is Gingrich’s point that by challenging those interpretations and directly challenging the court’s definitions, you are re-emphasizing that the ultimate decision rests with the people, not just 9 unelected people.

It also means that, as Jefferson said (paraphrased), that a little revolution every now and then is good for our country.  I expect the REASON he thought that, wais, not that conflict itself is good – but it forces those in power to not feel safe in controverting the will of the people and that it helps to re-educate ALL of us on what values we truly want to stand and fight for.

Fifth:  The wonderful notion of simply “firing” the 9th Circuit court excites every Christian patriot that was incensed by their ruling that Buddha could be in the class room but Jesus couldn’t.  Gingrich admits he isn’t quite this extreme but WOULD shut down the court of the San Antonio judge the said he would arrest anyone using the words “benediction,” “invocation,” “prayer,” or “God,” and put the 9th Circuit on notice.  

ALL OF THESE POINTS ARE UNDERLINED WITH ONE SINGLE THEME:  We have to quit encouraging the notion that the Supreme Court has the last word on anything.

The Heritage Foundation has a great summation of what was good and bad in the SCOTUS ObamaCare ruling and what to do next.  Essentially we all know.  Getting Romney elected IS NOT ENOUGH.

EPILOGUE

I pray that if Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination and is elected President he reverses his historical inclination to manage his politics by popularity, and has a reawakening of Constitutional values as Newt Gingrich put forth in his speech.  I will take every chance to replace Mitt Romney with a Gingrich or Palin should the Lawyers for Ron Paul unlikely succeed in their efforts by Tampa time.

But even were Ronald Reagan’s resurrected spirit to become President, there is so much corruption at EVERY LEVEL of government that we need a CONSERVATIVE (not just Republican) House and Senate, and a leader who will fearlessly press these reforms with prudence.

We don’t just have to remove Barack Obama, but also the hordes of regulations, regulation makers, entrenched bureaucrats, entrenched bureaucratic processes and policies that will still be in place when our nominee is in office.

And only Gingrich has been open about this Herculean task in the primary, admitting that eight years might not be enough.  Oddly, many conservatives let the conservative elites dissuade them from one of the only people in our history who was equipped to take this challenge on.  Let’s not allow our movement to be saddled with a George Bush 41 repeat for Vice President, that will continue to leave power in the hands of the GOP, corporate and political powers that continue to play the people like peasants – rather than fearing the power the Constitution gave us.

Read More

It’s One Battle: STEP UP!

From Alan Vera of True the Vote:

I majored in political science and minored in military science. I’ve served this country as an Army Airborne Ranger in special operations.
In modern history there has never been a war settled by a single battle. In modern history there has never been a military force that won each and every single battle. In our own Revolutionary War the Patriot Heroes suffered nothing but defeat for the first year. Yet they won our freedom through perseverance and determination.
Yesterday we lost a battle. It stings because we were betrayed by someone in whom we previously had confidence. It stings because the enemy is gloating over their “victory.” BUT IT IS ONLY ONE BATTLE.
We bear the blame for allowing the Communists 40 years to infiltrate our government, our media, our schools and our courts. We have given them an enormous short-term advantage. And we’ve lately paid the price for our passivity.

1. We know Congress is corrupt and spineless.
2. We know the White House is filled with Chicago Communists.
3. Now we know the Supreme Court will NOT protect the Constitution.

With all three branches of government now out of touch with the constitution, it’s time for all of us to realize that the burden of preserving the republic rests directly on our shoulders.

Yesterday’s setback is not the end of the conflict. It doesn’t matter how many times we’re hit and stumble. All that matters is who is left standing at the end.  NOBODY ELSE is going to do it for us. It’s time to STEP UP.

God, and every Patriot gone before, stands with us in this fight. We are not alone.  So now we must make a decision. Do we stay behind our computers complaining? Or do we stride confidently into the fray to make a difference?

When Paul Revere rode through the Massachusetts countryside warning of the approaching British soldiers, the Minutemen of the day did not rush to their quill pens and blog about the injustices of King George III. They took IMMEDIATE and EFFECTIVE ACTION, individually and collectively. And they changed the course of history.

Will you be a “commentator” or will you be a modern day Minuteman? Will you watch and complain or will you put on the Armor of God and FIGHT?

Elections are the primary constitutional vehicle through which WE the People drive the direction of government at every level. But elections DO NOT belong to the government, local, state or federal. Elections DO NOT belong to the parties, red or blue and both hopelessly corrupt. Elections DO NOT belong to the unions, however well- funded these Neanderthals may be.

November may well be our last chance to take back our republic peacefully. Don’t miss this chance. After that the cost will be exponentially higher.  Elections belong to the American People. It’s TIME TO TAKE THEM BACK. This November may well be our last chance to restore the constitutional republic peacefully. DON’T BLOW THIS CHANCE.

They’re already trying to steal this election through every means possible. DON’T LET THEM. STAND UP. STEP UP. TAKE BACK WHAT’S RIGHTFULLY YOURS BY THE GRACE OF GOD ALMIGHTY. HOOAH!

MAKE A DIFFERENCE NOW.  And STEP UP.

http://www.truethevote.org/

---

PolitiJim note:

Our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, knowing it quite possible they were risking it all for a better future for freedom for their children – and ours.

Isn’t it worth a few hours a month or a couple of hours a week to help ensure that the corrupt and evil political forces don’t steal the elections, and that the BEST conservative is elected in your school district, precinct, district and state?

You can do it from home or meet other patriots nearby – but it doesn’t take much from just thinking about it – to doing it.  Click on the True The Vote logo below.

Read More

You Too Can Help Deflate the Liberal ObamaTax Delusions

I had fun last night and went out to the liberal blogs.  YOU CAN TOO!  Just copy all or parts of the response I left below to every liberal blog you find.  I’ve left the url sources (mostly CBO estimates) in long form so it will paste when you visit them.  (H/T Senator Jim DeMint for the references and links.)

Here is a sample of how “horrible” those mean, nasty Republicans are (especially Romney) to stop the caring compassionate One who cares for all.

Their whine about Romney calling ObamaCare “bad” with my own [emphasis] that will give you a laugh:

NOBODY HAS ANY EXCUSE FOR SUPPORITING DANGEROUS CLOWN MITT ROMNEY

Likewise, the law doesn’t add “trillions to our deficits.” By most accounts, the law reduces the deficit over the next decade and works to reduce the overall rate of health care spending by the federal government. [HA!] And on the claims that the law will cause “up to 20 million Americans” to lose their insurance, and make it harder for businesses to hire, Romney is simply lying. [Then so is the CBO] Under the law, you can maintain your current health insurance if you like it. As for small businesses, since the Affordable Care Act hasn’t actually been implemented, there’s no way that it can be responsible for sluggish hiring. [I guess CNBC reports don’t ever make it over to MSNBC?]

The fact that Romney has decided to fabricate knocks against the Affordable Care Act is a sure sign that this ruling was bad for his campaign. The focus is no longer on whether the law is constitutional, but on whether the policy is good, and on a provision-by-provision basis, the Affordable Care Act is fairly popular with the public. [If by “popular” you mean “unpopular” then of course you are right]  Indeed, the Supreme Court’s ruling gives the Obama campaign a chance to reframe the law, and highlight its benefits for ordinary Americans. [Like a new tax on 9 million people that currently don’t want or have health insurance] If this works, then the focus will be on what people might lose if Republicans are elected in November. This is terrible ground for a challenger to fight on.

Of course, if Romney can muddy the waters, then he might keep Obama from capitalizing on any post-SCOTUS boost. So his best bet is to lie constantly about what’s actually in the bill.

That was astounding.  But also brought a little joy into my John Roberts-betrayed life.  So I responded with the following.  (I urge you to copy any portions you need to post on liberal blogs at HuffPo, DailyKos, ThinkProgress or FireDogLake.)

My response:

Wow - you all are in denial.  Using the CBO and Obama Admin's OWN numbers.

First - the CBO itself finally rescored the faked numbers the Democrats gave them (remember - no one actually READ the bill before it was passed) and the CBO revised the plan from 940B to 1.7T (CBO doc - http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf) (and for those of you too lazy here is the Yahoo News version - http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html)

This isn't even HALF of the financial shortfalls of ObamaCare - that NOW WILL BE WORSE SINCE THE COURTS CAN NOT FORCE STATES TO PARTICIPATE.

CBO -  Imposes $800 billion in tax increases, including no fewer than 12 separate provisions breaking candidate Obama's "firm pledge" during his campaign that he would not raise "any of your taxes" (Sections 9001-9016) (CBO report here - http://cbo.gov/publication/22027)

ACA - Creates a board of 15 unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to make binding rulings on how to reduce Medicare spending (Section 3403)

CBO - Requires all individuals to buy government-approved health insurance plans, imposing new mandates that will raise individual insurance premiums by an average of $2,100 per family (Section 1302)  (CBO report here - http://cbo.gov/publication/41792)

ACA - Forces seniors to lose their current health care, by enacting Medicare Advantage cuts that by 2017 will cut enrollment in half, and cut plan choices by two-thirds (Section 3201)

ACA - Imposes a 40 percent tax on health benefits, a direct contradiction of Barack Obama’s campaign promises (Section 9001)

HHS - Imposes reductions in Medicare spending that, according to the program’s non-partisan actuary, would cause 40 percent of all Medicare providers to become unprofitable, and could lead to their exit from the program (Section 3401) (HHS Actuary  - http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/2011TRAlternativeScenario.pdf)

CBO - Raises premiums on more than 17 million seniors participating in Medicare Part D, so that Big Pharma can benefit from its "rock-solid deal" struck behind closed doors with President Obama and Congressional Democrats (Section 3301) (CBO doc - http://cbo.gov/publication/21351)

ACA - Creates an institute to undertake research that, according to one draft Committee report prepared by Democrats, could mean that "more expensive [treatments] will no longer be prescribed" (Section 6301)

ACA - Empowers bureaucrats on a board that has ruled against mammograms and against prostate cancer screenings to make binding determinations about what types of preventive services should be covered (Sections 2713 and 4104) (Mammogram report - http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm)

ACA - Precludes poor individuals from having a choice of health care plans by automatically dumping them in the Medicaid program (Section 1413(a))

White House -  Creates a new entitlement program that one Democrat called "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of" -- a scheme so unsustainable even the Administration was forced to admit it would not work (Section 8002) (HHS admission of failure - http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/Reports/2011/class/index.shtml)

Yeah - those rascally Republicans.  Using CBO and Administration reports to try and "scare" people.  The only thing more shameful than that - is those of you who aren't doing your own homework on this.

See?  Finding Holder in contempt wasn’t the only bright spot of an otherwise dreary day.

Here are good Fact Sheets from the Alliance Defense Fund (Download the ObamaCare Fact Sheet) and the Heritage Foundation (The Case Against ObamaCare.)

Read More

America is Now Even Closer to Fiscal Doom

Today is just an awful day. If Bush-appointed Justice Roberts had only voted with the rest of the conservatives, we would have been rid of all of Obamacare, not just the mandate, as their dissenting opinion implies. Once again, decisions that George W. Bush are turning out to be disastrous for those of us who believe in individual liberty and limited government.  Let's just do a quick run down shall we?

1. Appointed Ben Bernanke to be Fed Chair.  How he could appoint the guy who actually hired Paul Krugman at Princeton to run our money supply is beyond me.  Bernanke has done almost nothing but debase our currency and fund Obama's deficit spending through his debt monetization (QE) programs.  Also, let's not forget what role that QE had on commodity inflation worldwide, causing riots in much of the developing world and probably leading to the US friendly Egyptian government to be overthrown.
2.  Enacted Medicare Part D.  By actually expanding an entitlement while President, W made many Republican voters say "what exactly is the point of voting Republican if they act like Democrats"  and stay home.  The routs that were the 2006 and 2008 elections enabled  the passage of Obamacare by razor thin margins in both Houses of Congress
3. He chose Justice Roberts, who has singlehandedly allowed a monstrous piece of legislation that does nothing but increase government largesse and hurt our long term fiscal health, to be enacted.

I guess I've found something to agree with Obama on, it is Bush's fault!

Now let's get back to Obamacare.  You would think that an economy that continues to grow feebly, with unemployment rising again would not need the additional taxes and regulations that is Obamacare.  Let's just take a look at the taxes that Obamacare increases:

• Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
• Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
• 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion
• Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
• Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
• Raise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
• Limit contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
• All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion

And then there is the biggest tax increase of all, the individual mandate, which is also a regressive tax.  I remember when I was first out of college, there is no way I could have afforded to pay for my own health insurance, nor would I have been able to qualify for medicaid.  The need to rend an apartment and lease a car sucked much of the money out of my pocket.  Where would I have found the money to get health insurance on top of that?  I never got sick at that age, so why would I have wanted to piss away thousands of dollars on something I wouldn't use (I didn't even go to the doctor for the first 3 years after college)?  Jay Cost has a great description of what the individual mandate actually does:

The individual mandate represents an enormous transfer of wealth, completely independent of income or social status. It transfers resources from the healthy to the sick, from the young to the old, without regard to who has more money to begin with. Democrats typically rail against supposedly regressive GOP tax proposals, but nothing the Republicans have ever cooked up compares to the individual mandate.

For all the talk about taxing the rich and giving the poor the break, the mandate actually seems to do the exact opposite as:

The mandate itself is the method by which the Democrats have delivered literally billions of dollars worth of patronage to the key interests groups that lined up with them during the health care debate. The party sought to apply new layers of regulations upon doctors, nurses, hospitals, retirement care facilities, etc., and they rightfully feared a rebuke from these key “stakeholders,” as the Obama White House called them. What better way to buy their silence than to require 30 million Americans become their customers, whether they want to or not! All it took was a flip-flop on the part of the president – who conveniently disavowed his campaign opposition to a mandate – and suddenly all those opponents turned in to lusty supporters, eager to get their hands on all that new revenue.

As soon as the mandate comes into force, suddenly there will be millions of Americans with reduced disposable incomes, forcing them either to go deeper into debt or cut spending on things they would rather spend their hard earned money on (like food other than Ramen noodles and macaroni & cheese).  There is no way this is good for the economy.

And the last thing we need is for the economy to get any weaker, especially with our annual deficit at about 8.5% of GDP, our debt to GDP at about 100% and 35 cents of every dollar of federal spending having to be borrowed from countries that aren't exactly friendly to American interests like China.

Let's also not forget that even without Obamacare, our fiscal health is severely compromised.  Here is a nifty graph from Mary Meeker's USA,Inc. presentation on how just our entitlement and interest expenditures will soon be well over 20% of GDP alone.  And that is before paying for things like the military or the patent office or just about every government agency outside of the SSA and CMS:

As this chart indicates, even before Obamacare, entitlement spending has grown at a rate that is 5 times faster than REAL GDP!

As you can see, it's not defense spending or other discretionary programs that are bankrupting us, it's entitlements, and now we have another major one, which will undoubtedly blow the bank.  I know the liberals keep saying that the CBO score showed it was deficit neutral, but as we know that is just unrealistic.  Medicare ended up being 10x greater than estimated by the government.  That is definitely NOT reassuring.

So what now?  Are we doomed?  I'd say "probably but not necessarily".  As long as we have people like Obama in the White House and Bernanke in the Fed, we are doomed.  As long as we keep spending like we are and adding more and more entitlements, we are doomed.  If you think these countries will perpetually be buying more and more US debt at anywhere near today's interest rates, you have another thing coming.  Eventually we will have a treasury debt crisis and the game will be over.

The first step is to kick both out of their current positions (and as far away from this country as possible would also be nice).  Also, something to at least consider would be to refuse to increase the debt ceiling.  I know the mainstream media thinks this means the US would default, it actually wouldn't.  We would still make interest and principal payments on debt without an increased debt ceiling, we would just be FORCED to balance the budget.  That is probably the fastest 1way to limit the size of the government, though given the way the world's financial system is going right now, a shock to the system like that might be too much (though it might be necessary regardless).

Anyway, I have some other things that I would favor right now, but I am still a bit pissed by this decision so should probably stop typing before I say something I shouldn't.

Read More

Are YOUR Tweets or Posts maliciously harmful to individuals in the government?

Douglas Hagmann, CEO of Hagmann Investigative Services, Inc., runs a private investigative agency serving a roster of Fortune 500 clients.  THIS IS NOT A WEIRD GUY IN HIS BASEMENT.  He also has been running explosive reports about the Obama administration from within the Department of Homeland Security. 

A group affiliated with the Obama Campaign, forced his service provider (GoDaddy) to delete it.  JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU GOT THAT: An Obama campaign group intentionally squelched free speech and got damning information about Obama’s plans deleted from GoDaddy.  With the help of Canada Free Press, he was able to move it just prior to the deletion.

This is far worse than a deranged liberal using the courts against a conservative blogger.  This is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES INTENTIONALLY ATTEMPTING TO STOP FREE SPEECH.

The DHS Insider posts from Douglas Hagmann have been carried also on Canada Free Press and have alluded to a number of stunning revelations going on at DHS including:

• The DHS is preparing for MASSIVE CIVIL UNREST (remember Soros said the same thing months ago, and MSM published reports show that DHS recently purchased 400 million rounds of ammo).
  
• Not only is the Obama Administration predicting it, they are FACILITATING it.  (NDAA, and other Executive Orders circumstantially fit this narrative as does the expansion of TSA to middle America and the broad DHS directive on those that believe the Bible, the 2nd Amendment and speak out against the government.)
  
• There is discussion of “delaying” the elections – perhaps indefinitely – due to civil violence.  (Remember the Obama Administration flakey who wrote an op-ed to this effect last year followed by NC Governor Purdue’s suggestion of the same?)
  
• The Obama team is planning a carefully orchestrated a “false flag” attempt against Obama or his family - not to actually put him at harm - but to play into the chaos and help inflame race riots. (The Ulsterman Report’s Washington Insider has been disclosing this for OVER a year.)

Why is this so hard to fathom when not only was Obama himself a member of the radical, communist revolutionary New Party, but almost EVERY Obama advisor from Jarrett to SEIU and ACORN leaders all are all affiliated with those who haven’t stopped talking about a “people’s revolution?”  When the Department of Homeland Security removes ALL REFERENCES to Islamic Jihad terrorists and downplays Fort Hood, Times Square attacks as “isolated incidents” but declares conservative, gun owning, Christians and even Global Warming are the real terror threats – WHY is this notion so fantastic?

And why are so many conservatives still living in this fantasy world that EVERY Obama “conspiracy” story doesn’t deserve serious investigation?  Even when you have sworn testimony of Larry Sinclair who was threatened by disclosing Obama’s gay playmates first contacted him and then were killed?

Certainly Breitbart, HotAir, FOXNews and every MSCM - “Mainstream Conservative Media” - that (rightfully) rallies all around Aaron Walker from the Brent Kimberlin attacks, would be TRUMPTING this warning right?  Nope.  Not even a “chirp” regarding activities directly attributable to President Obama or his campaign that are clear totalitarian or fascist suppression of free speech.

GoDaddy Shuts Down Conservative News Site

And who has the story?  Tinfoil hat wearing Alex Jones of Infowars.com.  The mainstream media laughed when the DrudgeReport broke the Monica Lewinsky story.  The DrudgeReport laughed with the National Enquirer got John Edwards love child and Rush Limbaugh’s addiction.  And 'Putin and Mikhail Gorbachev are laughing that butts off that only THEY (and to a very limited extent the Washington Times) have covered Obama’s fraudulent past from birth certificates and social security numbers to Chicago kickbacks and strange assassinations. 

Breitbart Editor Claims Birth Certificate is Real

Sean Hannity has often said that journalism has died, but it seems that even CONSERVATIVE media won’t get their head out of their ink blotters to realize that we aren’t in Kansas anymore, Toto!  I’ve covered how Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro decided that ‘it’s just too preposterous to think of the people that would have to be involved for the birth certificate to have been forged.’  (He also told us that Breitbart staff told him there was “nothing there” despite numerous copies of Photoshop in their offices that could have verified this about 5 minutes.)

Can anyone tell me how yesterday, Breitbart broke the story about a New York Times reporter who told his wife the night before his dead, “If I die on this trip, the New York Times did it,” but couldn’t be bothered to report the likely poisoning of a LA Coroner who might have performed the autoposy on Andrew Breitbart?  A search of “Andrew” and “Coroner” revels 4 hits – none of them are this story.

So surely the parent site to that watch dog of journalism - “Big Journalism” – would think an Obama campaign group that is shutting down free speech worthy of at least a blurb, right?   Breitbart.com, Michelle Malkin, NONE of the major voices of the battle against Obama have even a peep about this latest bombshell as of this posting (6/27/12 – 8:39 am CT). It seems Glenn Beck and acolytes can’t admit he has huge blind spots from truth when threatening the Tea Party with racism charges or declaring Gingrich a “progressive” because he acknowledges admiration for Ronald Reagan’s favorite President.  Everyone jumped on Ann Coulter, when she began to defend Romney, but now some of those same organizations refuse to cover the enormous evidence of vote fraud by the Romney campaign.  Drudge has been proven a partisan shill and even Rush Limbaugh is becoming a laughing stock of his former self misrepresenting facts and going forward with claims that make him look like the lying tool of the GOP the left always accuses him of being.  (His most recent is a claim from AFP or AEI that 87% of all government back solar loans fail.  They don’t – it’s 17%.  You don’t need to LIE about FACTS to make your point that the government should be out of the business of loan guarantees and, in fact, hurts your cause because you are caught distorting the truth.  It’s even worse that NONE of these people retract their errors.) 

You want to know why the liberals are getting away with so much?  It’s because OUR side plays just as much  - albeit a different form – of politics with the truth.

They deeps speak the words of liberals like: “As long as it helps MY VIEW of an issue, or a conservative pop star (like Rubio) I’ll either NOT COVER or spin the information to help.”

It’s so frustrating.  It’s like our own fellow troops not only don’t protect our rear flank, they often open fire on us while we are fighting the REAL enemy.

If conservatives don’t claim the “truth” as their guiding principle, how the hell can we separate ourselves from the mainstream liberal media in the eyes of middle America that NEEDS to know they can trust us?

It’s the same reason why we got stuck with Mitt Romney (pending a miracle by the Lawyers for Ron Paul before the GOP convention).  So many people were sharing unvetted versions of the “truth” in minutes of hearing it from someone else without doing their OWN homework.  There were some very good conservative bloggers, and even talk show radio hosts, regurgitating the lies of Romney shill (Elliot Abrams) that Newt Gingrich actually HURT Reagan against conservatives.  Eventually, people saw the truth, but not before a man (whom we owe a great deal of the success of the Reagan and conservative movement years to), was wrongly libeled and slandered.  It was an Alinsky tactic and most, to this day, have still not apologized or retracted.  Are these the “conservatives” we want to be our most vocal media representatives?

Most of these EXACT SAME PEOPLE DID NOTHING to document the clear efforts where Santorum actually DID hurt the conservative movement from Sotomayor (twice) to ProLife movement (seven times) or trying to sabotaging the campaign of Jim DeMint who was trying to STOP earmarks.  Let me be clear: There is no character or virtue if you are a conservative media news, blogger, tweeter or Facebook poster in shading the truth to your advantage.   And you have no integrity if you ONLY print that which fits with your own viewpoint, rather than facts.

It’s the same game played by Hollywood every weekend.  BE THE FIRST TO PUSH YOUR SPIN OF THE NEWS because that is what people will remember whether it was the truth or not.  A studio will often pad their box office results to be able to declare the #1 Movie of the weekend.  When it is found a day or two later that it was #2, it was after a million other media outlets already gave them free publicity that this was the “top” movie.  It’s dishonest (and lacks integrity) but they know you can’t put but a little of the toothpaste back in the tube and it works to their advantage – at least in the short run.

It’s why Obama keeps publishing false unemployment and economic data EVERY month.  People never hear about the revisions, but the emotion of the first (false) news still gives them goodwill.  Remember Romney saying that Gingrich didn’t do much of anything to help Ronald Reagan – something that now is embarrassingly false?  Remember when Mitt declared he was winner of Iowa?  The air goes out of the room and great attention is always paid to the FIRST news, but the REAL facts that may controvert it are almost always greeted with a “ho hum” and never have the same impact.  Obama uses it EVERY WEEK to keep his real shenanigans out of the news.

Sorry, conservatives and conservative media – truth counts.  If we play THEIR game and don’t abide by a form of moral code, we will end up having the SAME credibility (and problems) that they do.

People are chastising me for declaring I will not vote for Rubio if he is nominated Vice President because he (and Jindal) are NOT Constitutional eligible.  Byron York (whom I have genuine affection and subscribe to by RSS feed) wrote a column claiming that a US law had the right to define what the Constitution meant by “natural born citizen.”  He obviously got NO authoritative counterpoint source for his article but took the word of one professor who somehow thinks that the US Constitution was subjugated to definitions of laws passed by Congress, rather than the other way around.  (We just saw Scalia argue against the same insanity on the Arizona SCOTUS ruling.)  Byron York never addresses the more compelling counter arguments.  In fact the ONLY definitions for Constitutional interpretation are from a) historical evidence showing Founder’s intent (ie. Federalist papers), b) Federal court rulings and c) Supreme Court rulings.  And even THOSE aren’t always correct as Dredd Scott showed.  (And hopefully some day Roe vs Wade and the Eminent Domain ruling.)  The fact is that natural born citizen was defined in correspondence between Monroe and Washington, in Vattel’s Law of the Nations (which the Founders claimed foundational to their work), in first 3 immigration laws (acts) passed by MANY OF THOSE THAT HELPED WRITE THE CONSTITUTION, and was upheld in Minor v. Happerset in 1875.  Otherwise, it would be possible for an anchor baby to be born in the United States – be completely raised under an anti-American regime in Iran or Venezula, and then return when he was 35 to run for President.  Byron even notes that the law he cites doesn’t even USE the word “natural,” astoundingly ignorant that the very fact the Founders wrangled over Article II and used only “citizen” in other places meant that it had a DIFFERENT and specific meaning.  The worst part about York’s piece is that he uncharacteristically uses a tone of condescension in both his title and throughout his article.

But it proves that even GREAT writers (of which I count Byron York one) can be either lazy or biased in their own efforts.  I don’t think George Will is a Marxist despite his insane declaration that the architect of the conservative moment achievements of GOP control of Congress, Welfare Reform and 4 consecutive balanced budgets one.

But let’s face it.  We were not unified due to a lack of political and journalistic integrity on the part of our own.  And these false ideas were allowed to take root because MOST of us didn’t do our homework and just want to “go with” whatever our favorite columnist thinks.  When you make a judgment and embrace a cause you haven’t fully vetted - (not only are you an idiot but) you play directly into the game that Liberals and Mitt Romney have mastered. 

The mainstream media, moreover the Obama administration and it’s minions, KNOW how to manipulate popular opinion with emotion and timing.  IT CAN BE COMBATTED WITH UNIFICATION AROUND TRUTH and they can be shamed, but not without those on our side strongly counterbalancing their arguments at the beginning to keep a sizeable number of the audience from drawing any final conclusions.  For instance, had Rush, Levin, Malkin and Ingraham STRONGLY come out with evidence that Obama’s new long form birth certificate was an obvious forgery proven by numerous ex-FBI and ex-CIA agents within 24 hours of it’s release, we likely had invigorated a much stronger conservative in the GOP primary and kept Congress from passing NDAA and other tragic pieces of legislation.

But everyone just shut up, afraid to say anything and attract the mainstream media’s wrath.  Wow.  Talent on loan from Barney Fife right there.

My Point Is

My point is that this attack to shut down sites exposing Obama’s internal plans is only a “tip” of the iceberg.  If Ben Shapiro is unwilling to let facts change his views that it is inconceivable to imagine a sitting President forging a birth certificate despite a six month law enforcement investigation concluding otherwise – Breitbart is no longer anything more than a faded tombstone to a once great patriotic journalist.  And, frankly, not only will Obama continue to succeed in crimes against our constitution, we will never get the ear of the American people to explain the REAL issues that will turn this country around.

Our guys (both conservative politicians and media) are playing Nerf darts while our liberal opponents are using advanced biological tipped nuclear warheads by playing on our “civility” and “balance.” 

What happened to Mr. Hagmann is only a tiny piece of what is happening and being planned.  Yes, cover SWATing all you want.  It’s important.  But just as most of conservatives would think it impossible for Hillary, Barack, Eric and Janet to “plan” the deaths of hundreds of innocent people to have a political weapon to implement gun control – you are blind if you can’t already see that these people will stop at NOTHING to gain, stay in power and implement a socialistic tyranny.

And your complicit silence only emboldens them, and makes it harder to counter in the future.

Or did you forget that in 2008 these SAME FORCES began to use Law Enforcement to suppress free speech, even BEFORE Obama had power?

We speculated on “the Obama crime plan” last fall, and documented only a little of the insane corruption and crime Obama used to get INTO office.  The Hagmann and Ulsterman Insiders have only continued to predict with stunning accuracy – things thought impossible even by open minded conservatives just months ago.

When Obama has the ability to pardon anyone – including the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT official of the United States, and that Chief has committed numerous crimes himself including manipulating the process to get FALN terrorists pardoned by Bill Clinton – what is the MSCM waiting for in connecting the dots?  You’re afraid you won’t be thought of as “intellectual” or worse, be derided by Alex Jones?

And when the National Enquirer, Pravda and many foreign papers like the Globe are consistently more accurate than Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and most of the MSCM, something is seriously wrong with our “movement” with relativistic morals only printing what keeps them safe.

I’m certain there are some 1930’s German media that found “safe” still wouldn’t protect them from a political leader intent on fascist tyranny.

As for me – I will not be silent.  I AM Breitbart even if their namesake no longer is.  You be one too, will you?

Read More

Fiscally Sound NUTTS for Santorum Part 4

 

With the upcoming GOP convention and talk of Vice Presidential candidates I thought it prudent to post this last part of our Rick Santorum series that I withheld following the “suspension” of his campaign.  He shouldn’t even be considered without showing proof of Aldo’s citizenship at the time of his birth which he – unlike every other GOP candidate – has steadfastly refused to show.  Oddly, many Santorum supporters still believe his false hype despite warnings from Christian broadcasters who have intimately known him for 22 years. (And for my Santorum supporting friends, I’m releasing it on a Tuesday – the slowest PolitiJim readership day - without promotion.)

Nescients Under The Trance of Santorum series:

Part 1: The Pennsylvania Prevaricator
Part 2: Rick’s Unprincipled Pro-Life Record
Part 3: Rick’s UnChristian Lack of Principles and Scruples

In a break from our series, I recounted a friend’s lunch with a Santorum supporter and their ensuing deprogramming.  It resulted in this rather elegant defense of Saint Rick from one of his supporters:

Never let it be said Santorum supporters don’t have a way with words or that he can’t attract the either the heathen or religious hypocrite vote.  But Pasta does make a point.  How Rick rates on pecuniary resources is relevant to our analysis.  (We will go through all the specifics of his ACTUAL economic plan below.) 

All (smart) men know women like financial security.  (How else do you explain smoking hot babes and bald billionaires?)  WHY WOMEN WANT RICK has this to say:

He is every businesswoman’s handy banker. He is every school girl’s slightly geeky, but deliciously smart favorite math teacher.   Women feel the financial strain created by this administration’s $1 trillion  per year spending habit more than our sexier counterparts.  We are the ones who have to abandon our choices and go to work.  We have to clip coupons, stretch dollars, walk the tightrope between what our kids want and what our struggling budget allows, and we know we couldn’t do it without our spiritual strength.

For a complete view of Santorum the Spendthrift, we must intelligently evaluate:

• How did Rick vote on financial issues?
• How did Rick manage finances where he was an executive?
• How does his current economic plan stack up against others?
• What OBJECTIVE evidence is there to assume he can implement any sweeping plan?

Santorum Votes Liberal When It’s Politically Helpful.

I mentioned at the top of this post that a Pennsylvania Christian Broadcaster who was intimately familiar with Santorum and his staff for over 22 years, couldn’t take the “fake” conservative hype Rick and his Religious zealots were pushing.  Here is just one excerpt where this broadcaster DEBATED Santorum on air, over Rick’s support of using tax payer money to build a new sports stadium.

I debated Santorum several times on TV and in person on this topic. He, and his team, asserted the typical Keynesian arguments about public works projects. They trotted out studies from local groups which used Keynesian multiplier models to argue that this government spending would more than pay for itself in economic development. They argued, much like the supporters of Obama’s government stimulus programs do, that this spending program would be a jobs generator.

Rick’s most frequent claim was that there was, and could not possibly be any Plan B; that if we voted down this tax hike, no new stadiums could be constructed and the Pirates and the Steelers would leave Pittsburgh. I remember one particular televised debate on a show which I hosted, called Pennsylvania Newsmakers, in which Santorum wagged his finger in my face and shouted that he had looked into the matter and that I should look into the matter and that if we voted this down, we would lose the franchises. Now much of the U.S.  is familiar with the famous Santorum finger wagging bravado, but it took me by surprise that a man who claimed to be some kind of principled conservative had suddenly become a champion of a Keynesian tax hike government stimulus program, and was angry at me for not joining him.

What happened next is indicative of other research I uncovered early in the primary and what caused this citizen journo to go from possibly making Rick my pick – to realizing he was a deceptive and unbalanced Trojan horse unworthy of not just the “conservative” label, but of a “Christian” example:

Despite Rick’s best efforts (he actually had gone door to door with Mayor Murphy promoting the program) the initiative was completely repudiated. Not long after that I was summoned to Rick’s office for an alleged reconciliation meeting, where I was lectured about how he really was a true conservative and that people like me should not be ‘sore winners’ and should line up in support of him again. I offered to work with him to find private ways of funding the stadium projects, but he did not accept that offer. Instead, he and his team worked behind the scenes to do what they said they would not do: Go ahead and use tax dollars to fund the stadiums anyway.

Not long after denying even the possibility of the existence of a Plan B, they unveiled one which was almost completely dependent on government funding. After a massive lobbying effort, they succeeded in getting the bills through the State Legislature. Rick dutifully provided federal tax support, most conspicuously including a half a billion dollars for a tunnel connecting downtown with the stadium complex despite the existence of four bridges nearby. Of course, it didn’t work, and a few years later the city of Pittsburgh entered the municipal equivalent of bankruptcy and Mayor Murphy retired in disgrace.

Rick never acknowledged the error of his oft-made guarantees that voting down the tax would mean the inevitable loss of the teams, nor of his broken promises to abide by the will of the people. Nor has he addressed the tension between his claims to be a Tea Party kind of a guy and his arrogant dismissal of anti-tax activists who opposed the massively funded campaign in David vs. Goliath fashion. Nor has he explained to the conservative base of his party how he supported a plan which involved numerous high-profile takings of private property under the guise of eminent domain for the purpose of private economic development projects.

Now, Rick Santorum is not the Pennsylvania equivalent of Pelosi.  With a lifetime American Conservative Union score of 88% – he had to have SOME conservative principles in play.  Santorum supporters like TheRightScoop (subscribe to TRS here) have recently taken Romney and Paul supporters to task for even QUESTIONING the conservative credentials of the Catholic congressman.  The Right Scoop went so far as to entitle their piece, Dear Santorum Bashers. Read this and weep. Weekly Standard highlighted Rick’s National Tax Union score which placed him in the top 5 (out of 50) senators for his tenure.

So he MUST be spiritual love child of Milton Friedman, Jim DeMint and Ronald Reagan right?  Well….not so fast Sherlock.  NTU doesn’t score EVERY piece of legislation that has a financial impact on government.  PolitiJim lays out quite a few of them here including Rick’s decision to undercut a true conservative in favor for guaranteeing the election of a liberal RINO with a 46 ACU score that was the 60th vote nationalizing 1/6 of the economy.

And True Pennsylvania Tea Partiers might actually make Scoopy weep if he reads this excerpt from a Pittsburgh Tribune article from the year of his election loss:

The highly rated and eminently fair National Journal analysis gave Santorum a perfect conservative voter rating for 2003. He was one of 13 "perfect" Senate Republicans.

But last year, Santorum was rated slightly left of center. Thirty-two GOP Senate brethren had more conservative voting records. A trend has emerged.

As political gurus Terry Madonna and Michael Young noted in a recent column -- slicing and dicing the same National Journal numbers -- Santorum "consistently shifts toward the center in those years just before his re-election. Santorum may continue to talk like a conservative, but he's voting like a pragmatist."

Translation: The first thing Rick Santorum sees in his bathroom mirror every morning is Arlen Specter. And if liberaling up his pedigree in advance of an election year is required, well, Karen, pass me some more of that L'berelShave.

Some argue that the National Journal rankings are akin to painting a fine detail on a rich canvas with a flat shovel. You can't call Santorum a latent or emerging liberal just because of a few votes for, say, mandatory gun locks or restricting U.S. government contracts to U.S. companies, folks like Horsham, Pa., blogger Bill Fitzpatrick put it last month.

But Santorum's problem has grown deeper than his spotty voting record. It's a problem that suggests a wholly oxymoronic principled relativism. It's that other "P"-word, the one Messrs. Madonna and Young certainly don't use as a pejorative: It's "pragmatism," the new choice moniker of liberals and socialists -- a synonym for unprincipled.

• His charity gave away so little of the money he collected, it wouldn’t even pass the Better Business Bureau.
  
• He lied about where his children lived so that the State of Pennsylvania could pay $100,000 for his children’s homeschooling in Virginia.
  
• HIS OWN RE-ELECTION BROCUHRE gave these qualifications of how he was a good conservative money manager for the country:
  • Sponsoring FAIR CAIR act to force companies to pay benefits to laid-off workers.
  • Working with John McCain on campaign finance reform.
  • Bragging about bringing home federal tax money for clean energy projects.
  • Working with Bono to spend tax money on poverty in the third world.
  • Working with Bono to spend tax money on AIDS.
  • Sponsoring legislation to regulate gas prices.
  • Authoring the Pet Animal Welfare State Bill. (Huh.)
  • Voting for record tax funding of Pennsylvania public schools
  • Authoring The Care Act: funding for Non Profits
  • Working with Joe Lieberman on Working Families Act
  • Supported increased tax funding for Chesapeake Bay

HOW MANY TIMES has Rick told us that we should elect him because he knew how to get elected in a blue state as a strong conservative?

And how did that “strong conservative” come across to Pennsylvania?

Apparently WHY WOMEN WANT RICK is because he pretends to be fiscally conservative and principled.

For all the screaming Rick does over the individual mandate, you would assume he never supported it himself.  He did.

Allentown, PA’s Morning Call from May 2, 1994:

Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits. Both oppose abortion services and support limits on malpractice awards. Santorum says non-economic damages should not exceed $ 250,000, adjusted annually for inflation, and lawyers’ contingency fees should be capped at 25 percent. [...]

Santorum introduced the idea of a medical savings account, called Medisave, which has become part of the Gramm bill. Under it, workers would buy major medical insurance and could make tax-free contributions to a Medisave account, from which they would pay for preventive services.

To Rick’s credit he discontinued his support of this before HillaryCare, disagreeing with MANY conservatives including the Heritage Foundation, that a “mandate” was a more conservative alternative to a public that seemed to DEMAND universal healthcare and thus would stop HillaryCare which Gingrich and the Republicans did.  There is a FAR CRY difference from mandating you buy health insurance from a private company as the conservatives originally proposed – to taking over the entire health care pricing, regulations, insurance companies, R&D, as ObamaCare does.  It is DISINGENIOUS to accuse BOTH Romney and Gingrich of being for something for which he claims he NEVER was.

From American Freedom by Barbara, a quick highlight of his fiscal voting record:

Taxes
Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.

Welfare
Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000.  Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

Waste
Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA)
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million
Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL)
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%
Voted against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.

Health Care
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against a allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

Education
Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.

 

EARMARKS

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a deficit-cutting public advocacy group," estimated Mr. Santorum helped secure more than $1 billion in earmarks during his Senate career," the New York Times reported last month.  That’s bad enough.  But as he did MULTIPLE TIMES on the Abortion issue, he turned on conservatives TRYING to be fiscally responsible.  Including Jim DeMint:

In the 104th Congress Sen. Santorum joined all Democrats and a minority of Republicans in voting to filibuster the bill S. 1788, the National Right to Work Act of 1995. (“On the Cloture Motion (motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to consider S.1788),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 188, www.senate.gov, 7/10/1996)

During that same congressional session, Santorum also voted to retain the 1930s-era Davis-Bacon Act that forces taxpayers to pay union wages in government-funded construction and gives Big Labor an unfair advantage over non-union companies and workers (“On the Motion to Table (motion to table Kennedy Amendment No. 4031 to S.Amdt. 4000 to S.Con.Res. 57),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 134, www.senate.gov, 5/22/1996)

Santorum supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004 helping Specter secure the nomination. Specter went on to cast the 60th vote for Obamacare and then lost, in 2010, to Pat Toomey. Toomey, now in the Senate, is con-sponsoring Jim DeMint’s National Right to Work legislation — the very legislation Rick Santorum filibustered.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Santorum actually went to South Carolina two weeks before Jim DeMint’s reelection and tried to sabotage his campaign.

One of the gifts of Rick is that he can speak so forcefully on things that we learn later are NOT his long held convictions.  THIS, in my opinion, is why so many Social Conservatives have been suckered since he puts so much emotion behind whatever his opinion is …at that moment.  When he rose in the polls he spoke out adamantly against earmarks.  But at the beginning of the rise, he revealed his TRUE sentiments.

h/t The Gateway Pundit

The Club for Growth puts it this way:

His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006.  Some of those high profile votes include his support for No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education.   He supported the massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003  that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.   He voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere.   In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed, Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress.    Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum finally reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to them , but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity.  As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

And while Santorum voted against the Farm Bill in 2002, he sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005,   which he claimed he did to “save countless Pennsylvania dairy farmers.”

His local paper’s internet site – Philly.com – added more including this one:

Santorum isn't above big government-funded boondoggles -- when they're linked to his allies and campaign contributors. Consider the type of project that the Tea Party loves to hate, a $750 million energy plant in Schuylkill County, Pa., that was to convert coal to liquids but needed massive subsidies. Santorum boasted of his rule in securing an $100 million federal loan for the project -- which had hired Pennsylvania's top Republican Party power broker of the 2000s, Bob Asher, as a lobbyist and paid him at least $900,000. Despite Santorum's efforts, the plant has not been built.

Rick Santorum’s record proves that he represents EVERYTHING that went bad with the GOP during the George Bush years.

LOBBYING

Nothing to me reeks more of RINO stench than not just voting away taxpayer dollars – but CHANGING your conservative vote to accommodate your Senate sugar daddy crony.  PolitiJim has an entire post on this here where you can read the documented proof.  A summary includes:

• Many suspect the reason Santorum didn’t go to jail like Tom DeLay did for the K-Street project, (which Rick himself admitted was a “cause” of his in 2004 and 2005), was because it was he who provided evidence to the prosecutor in exchange for immunity.  There is no way the man that Big Pharma Glaxo called “their guy in the Senate” could otherwise escape the net cast against the Abramhoff lobbying scandal.
  
• There are two clear instances where Santorum cast extremely anti-conservative votes following direct donations by a Saipan sweatshop millionaire and the second was when he attempted to enrich his donor Accuweather by prohibiting the National Weather Service to collect essential data.  The former had widely publicized rapes and forced abortions, the former would have literally killed Americans.
  
• Santorum was literally the king of special interest money and continued to receive almost a million dollars after leaving the Senate from the health care industry for essentially doing nothing.

From the 2006 Senate race:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Summation of Santorum’s Fiscal Fallacies

As mentioned earlier in the series, Rick Santorum’s PAC and Charity are PRIME examples of why he can not be trusted to uphold fiscal (or Christian) conservative values as a leader.  Philly.com encapsulates the charity issue this way:

This compassionate Christian conservative founded a charity that was actually a bit of a scam. In 2001, following up on a faith-based urban charity initiative around the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, Santorum launched a charitable foundation called the Operation Good Neighbor Foundation. While in its first few years the charity cut checks to community groups for $474,000, Operation Good Neighbor Foundation had actually raised more than $1 million, from donors who overlapped with Santorum’s political fund raising. Where did the majority of the charity’s money go? In salary and consulting fees to a network of politically connected lobbyists, aides and fundraisers, including rent and office payments to Santorum’s finance director Rob Bickhart, later finance chair of the Republican National Committee. When I reported on Santorum’s charity for The American Prospect in 2006, experts told me a responsible charity doles out at least 75 percent of its income in grants, and they were shocked to learn the figure for Operation Good Neighbor Fund was less than 36 percent. The charity – which didn’t register with the state of Pennsylvania as required under the law --- was finally disbanded in 2007.

The Scriptures give us a very clear measuring stick of someone’s REAL convictions.  Jesus said, “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”  Perhaps the biggest indictment against Rick in this area, isn’t his personal misuse of Pennsylvania tax money for his homeschooling kids, but his propensity to lie and not be held accountable.  This was also noted by the Pennsylvania Christian Broadcaster on his lack of giving:

So, when confronted with an extremely low charitable giving record, Santorum blames the size of his family and the health problems of his youngest daughter, except that his return for 2007, before his daughter was born, is no better than the others. Rick gave 1.97 percent of his income to charity that year according to his tax return. So the claim that he gave so little because of the need for an around-the-clock nurse was a lie. And an interesting side note on his contributions is that of his $13,000 dollars in contributions, $4,000 were for donations to Goodwill, which leaves only $9,000 dollars in cash contributions which comes to a measly 1.36 percent in charitable giving.

That is a strangely high deduction for giving clothes to Goodwill. I also have seven children and we give all our old stuff away to Goodwill and the Salvation Army, but have never had a charitable deduction for more than a thousand dollars from that. Any thrift store shopper, and the Bowyers are thrift store shoppers, knows that the market value of second hand clothes is extremely low. Is that deduction another lie, or did the Santorums really give away, say 400 articles of clothing at a value of roughly 10 dollars each?

I’m all for people being rich and living in big two million dollar houses, but I’m not all for people who live in a house which is almost ten times the national average value saying they are too poor to give away a significant portion of their income. This is especially hard to take from someone who wears his religion so prominently on his sleeve, announcing in one of his speeches that we ‘need a Jesus candidate’ with reference to his own candidacy. The Scriptures which Santorum purports to believe tell us that almsgiving in particular (not public acts of piety, nor references to God in political speeches, nor stances on issues) are the test of the genuineness of faith.

From James chapter 2:

“14What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: 16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.”

How could a candidate who believes that it is his role as a candidate to lecture American couples on the evils of contraception, not reasonably have expected that we would take an interest in his family’s finances?

In finishing this column started back in March, I came across some replies to comments I had posted on other websites like Townhall.com.

It is fascinating to me that NEVER are the actually charges addressed either in dispute or in apology.  Instead it is the Saul Alinsky method of distraction, diversion and counter-attack the messenger.  It also comes from the human condition as we see in our 6 to 8 year olds.  Rather than “own up” to the transgression, blame someone else or argue how bad “everyone else” is. 

There are some who believe that Romney is NOT inevitable as the nominee even now.  But he certainly still could be considered as a VP prospect, so I’ll answer this whether it be for this ticket or for 2016.

Fake conservatives who hang around long enough, loose their RINO stink over time.  Romney, although he hasn’t actually EVER governed conservatively – was able to get selected because the old RINO charges are old.  They loose they outrageousness over time.  I want to make sure that Rick Santorum is not EVER trusted again until he has been in a lower office (like Governor) and has proven that his Zebra stripes have reversed.

And yes.  I believe Rick Santorum is WORSE than Romney.  Both are big government, hypocritical liars.  Santorum however has a bigger bulleseye due to his sleeve-wearing Christian Catholicism hypocrisies that don’t just hurt the GOP, but the Kingdom of God in my opinion.

I also see ZERO evidence of executive leadership which is ESPECIALLY necessary in the times we live.  Romney at least was very fiscally conservative in his first two years as Governor.  Personally, I don’t care WHAT the politics are for Romney in selecting a Hispanic, Woman, Southerner or Homosexual for VP.  The VP position isn’t only important as who will run the country in the event of the President’s death, but since so many VP’s like George Bush one END UP in that office, it is important to whom all that good political will is accruing.

If I can’t have a direct say over the 2012 GOP Presidential nominee, then I will work damn hard NOW to start getting a TRUE conservative with the experience and charisma to lead us out of this mess, reform government and educate the American people on why we can no longer allow socialism to get this close again.

Read More