Dream Act Lite

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So the other day, while I was a work, a young man broke into my house.

He was still there, eating a sandwich and watching MSNBC when I got home.

Needless to say, I was rather surprised to find this interloper sprawled out on my couch.

Since he looked as if he belonged, I made him a deal. He could stay in my home if he either went to college or joined the military. Stunning I know, but I am nothing if not generous.

Well, that didn’t really happen, but that is exactly what a couple of moderate Republican senators are proposing with the introduction of their own version of the “Dream Act”, granting young illegals, legal status.

Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas claim they “have to get the ball rolling”.

Really. Why is that? Why again do we have to curry favor with those who broke into our country?

The two also claimed, “We have to have a discussion that is sensible, that is calm”.

Again, really? With whom will we have this calm and sensible discussion; the Democrats, La Raza?

The proposal is said not to be as far reaching as the democrat bill.  Well that’s fabulous. Once again, democrat-lite is supposed to be palatable.

They would reward those earning a college degree or completing military service, a fast track to a permanent visa, but claim that wouldn’t put them on the citizenship fast track. I believe them, don’t you? After all, they are politicians.

As an aside, how does one get into college without a social security number? I recall having to have one. Certainly one may not enter the military without one. That I also know. If that is the case, where do they obtain them and who’s not checking to see they are either bogus or stolen? Just asking.

However, with this administration running things, I doubt either of those cases would be a problem.

And what of the thousand upon thousands of immigrants who decide to do the right thing and come through the front door? These are the real victims. Naturally they will be swept aside in order for the politicians to pander to the law-breakers. Sounds fair.

Why not fast track the legal immigrants and deport the criminals? Somehow, and I’m not sure how, that would be seen as heartless.

Both senators went on to claim their intention is not to have the illegals access welfare or other government handouts. May I see a show of hands for those who buy that statement? None? I thought not.

I’m sure that is not their intention, but when it happens, and you know it will…oh well.

The two moderates say they have been working on the bill with everyone’s favorite conservative and maverick, John McCain, as well as the new poster boy of Hispanic bridge building, Marco Rubio.

Although Rubio is working on his own illegal give away bill, he is supportive of the Kyl/Hutchison legislation.

So what is the point of this republican bill? What are they trying to prove by trotting out this farce?

Do they really believe the increasingly monolithic voting block of Latinos will jump off the democrat gravy train and board the GOP express? Could they really be that naïve?

The polls from the last election told them, clearly no. Latinos didn’t vote democrat for anything but the giveaways. It’s not the republican family or religious values, nor is it the supposed Hispanic work ethic.

Hispanics, like most other minority groups in this country are becoming victims; victims of an ever-increasing entitlement society.

Back before LBJ’s failed experiment, his “Great Society”, minorities, particularly blacks had a great work ethic, but thanks to generations of liberal democrat and progressive republican policy, that pride has been bled out of them, and it’s a damn shame.  They now no nothing but entitlement.

Sadly this country’s Hispanic population is fast traveling down the same road and now the Republicans are helping push the cart.

Attribution:  Stephen Dinan, Washington Times

Run Republicans Run

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Run away from the truth! Start throwing your own under the bus. That’s what Republicans do. If anyone in the party dares to convey even the slightest controversial viewpoint – they are immediately ostracized.

Such is the fate of Mitt Romney. Romney had the unmitigated gall to speak the truth after his recent loss to “The One”.

What’s worse is that national pariah Rush Limbaugh shares his viewpoint, as well as most every right thinking conservative. Perish the thought.

So what was said?

It was the rehashing of the 47% argument presented by Romney. As you recall during the campaign, Romney said correctly, that it’s difficult to attract 47% of Americans, as they are effectively takers of government largesse.

Then we have Rush Limbaugh effectively reiterating that viewpoint with his now famous, or infamous statement.

In a nutshell, Limbaugh said that it’s hard to compete against Santa Claus or as El Rushbo calls him, Barackoclaus. Evidently, this truism is somehow controversial.

Paul Rosenberg writes in that well-known right-wing journal, Al Jazeera, that Rush is lying about Barackoclaus. Rosenberg wrote, “We are not a country of children – what Democrats are offering is not something for nothing, and alternative or opposition to work, but a fairer system overall.”

Well Paul, that is exactly what they are offering. The Dems do, in fact, treat their constituents like children and they most certainly offer, not something but everything for nothing. And as for an alternative or opposition to work, you may recall Obama recently rescinded the work requirements for receiving welfare. I guess not having to work is just part of the Democrats “fairer system”.

Republicans, not wanting to be left out of the pander parade, joined the fray, ganging up on Limbaugh and Romney.

Bobby Jindal, who is thought by many to be a rising star in the Republican Party said, “In order for the GOP to be competitive, it has to go after 100% of the vote, not 53%. We need to go after every single vote.”

There’s the politician coming out, not the conservative. People are not people, just votes to be manipulated.

Newt Gingrich who is thought to be a stalwart conservative (he’s not, but many consider him as such) stated, “You have to start with the idea of inclusion, and I draw a distinction between outreach and inclusion. Outreach is when 5 white guys have a meeting and call you. Inclusion is when you’re in the meeting.”

I suppose white guys are the only guys who have meetings. Rather racist I’d say.

Marco Rubio said effectively the same in rebuking Limbaugh’s Santa Claus comments.

Well, I’m sorry for all the Republican politicians who refuse to see Limbaugh’s comments for what they are. Santa Claus simply represents redistribution. It’s as simple as that and you are either for it or against.

The Democrats have been portraying themselves as Santa Claus for decades and evidently they are doing quite well.

When the majority of younger voters, 18 to 29-year-olds, prefer socialism over capitalism, there is a serious education problem.

The only option for Republicans is education, but first the Republicans have to believe in capitalism. But the fact is, many big government progressive Republicans don’t fully buy into capitalism. Socialism-lite won’t peel people away from the Santacrats.

We need real world conservatives that are willing to just go out, exclaim their conservative views, explain them in plain English and defend them without worrying about offending anyone and pandering to everyone.

If a majority of voters don’t want to hear the truth or be educated, then we lose. But at least then we have our answer. People do in fact prefer Santa Claus.

For every point made by conservative one must have a real world explanation. Don’t speak of the economy in general; speak in specifics which ordinary people can understand.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating – liberals can do and say anything without repercussion or question. They are able to say things like, “I’m for the middle class”, knowing full well that means absolutely nothing to anyone. But then it doesn’t matter, does it. They know they will never be questioned. That’s just the way it is. They’ll promise any group anything. Whether they deliver or not is simply never to be examined.

Here’s just one example that is easy for virtually anyone to understand.

Undocumented workers come to this country to do the jobs that Americans just won’t do. What do you say to that?

Well, the statement is a nonstarter. Illegally sneaking across the border has nothing to do with a job an American won’t do.

It’s like a guy that steals your car and the police catch him. Rather than arresting him, they pick you up and take you to his house where they explain, “Look, he is utilizing your car better than you did. He is taking food to the elderly and winter coats to the homeless”. Would you then say, okay, then, he can just keep my car. Of course not. You would demand your car back and that he be arrested.

It used to be that politicians, even Ronald Reagan, could paint in broad-brush strokes. Not anymore. The education of our population is so woefully lacking that we no longer have that luxury. If we hope to win anything anymore, nationally, we must educate the public.

Is This Our Destiny?

Is Demography Destiny?

by: Thomas Sowell

Some media pundits see in the growing proportion of non-white groups in the population, a growing opposition to the Republican Party that will sooner or later make it virtually impossible for Republicans to win presidential elections or even to control either house of Congress.  But is demography destiny?

Conventional wisdom in the Republican establishment is that what the GOP needs to do, in order to win black votes or Hispanic votes, is to craft policies specifically targeting these groups. In other words, Republicans need to become more like Democrats.

Whether in a racial context or in other contexts, the supposed need for Republicans to become more like Democrats has long been a recurring theme of the moderate Republican establishment, going back more than half a century.

Yet the most successful Republican presidential candidate during that long period was a man who went completely counter to that conventional wisdom– namely, Ronald Reagan, who won back to back landslide election victories.

Meanwhile, moderate Republican presidential candidate after moderate Republican presidential candidate has gone down to defeat, even against Democratic presidential candidates who were unpopular (Harry Truman), previously unknown (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) or who had a terrible economic track record (Barack Obama).

None of this seems to have caused any second thoughts in the Republican establishment.  So long as that remains the case, demography may indeed be destiny– and that destiny could be Democratic administrations as far out as the eye can see.

If non-white voters can only be gotten by pandering to them with goodies earmarked for them, then Republicans are doomed, even if they choose to go that route.  Why should anyone who wants racially earmarked goodies vote for Republicans, when the Democrats already have a track record of delivering such goodies?

An alternative way to make inroads into the overwhelming majority of minority votes for Democrats would be for the Republicans to articulate a coherent case for their principles and the benefits that those principles offer to all Americans.

But the Republicans’ greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles– and the track record of those principles– to either white or non-white voters.

Very few people know, for example, that the gap between black and white incomes narrowed during the Reagan administration and widened during the Obama administration.  This was not because of Republican policies designed specifically for blacks, but because free market policies create an economy in which all people can improve their economic situation.

Conversely, few policies have had such a devastating effect on the job opportunities of minority youths as minimum wage laws, which are usually pushed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.  But these facts do not “speak for themselves.”  Somebody has to cite the facts and take the trouble to show why unemployment among minority youths skyrocketed when minimum wage increases priced them out of jobs.

The loss of income from an entry-level job is only part of the loss sustained by minority young people.  Work experience at even an entry-level job is a valuable asset, as a stepping stone to progressively higher level jobs.  Moreover, nobody gains from having a huge number of idle youths hanging out on the streets, least of all minority communities.

Labor unions push minimum wage laws to insulate their members from the competition of younger workers, and Democratic politicians are heavily dependent on union support.  For the same reason, Democrats have to go along with teachers’ unions that treat schools as places to guarantee their members jobs, rather than to provide the quality education so much needed to rise out of poverty.

What Democrats cannot say under these conditions is what Republicans are free to say– even if Republicans have seldom taken advantage of that freedom to make inroads into minority voting blocs.  Inroads are all they need.  If the black vote for Democrats falls to 70 percent, the Democrats are in deep trouble.

But if Republicans continue inarticulate, then it is they who are in big trouble. More important, so is the country.

Citizenship for All

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So have we officially moved into a new American era; the era of gloves off, minority pandering?

According to our Speaker of the House, the Honorable John Boehner, one of the reasons the Republicans lost, Mitt Romney lost, is due to not speaking to all Americans.

Boehner was recently interviewed by the Queen of recycling, Diane Sawyer. In the interview she quoted Al Cárdenas saying the Republican Party has gotten, “two old, too white and to male”.

Boehner’s response was predictably milquetoast. “Well, I think what Republicans need to learn is how do we speak to all Americans. You know, not just the people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans.”

Yep, you read that correctly. Good old John Boehner, acting as the, go along to get along, moderate he is.

I guess that’s us. I’m two out of three anyway; too white and too male. Maybe I just need a tan a sex change.

As I see it, we as conservative outcasts, have two problems. They are illegal immigration and giveaways. (Racism is a given, so I’m not including it).

By now, we who haven’t tuned out yet, have started to hear the growing cacophony of cries from Republican “know-it-alls”, to be more inclusive.

Of course, by more inclusive they mean we must agree to a “Comprehensive Immigration Policy”.

Now, what exactly is “Comprehensive Immigration Policy”? Simply said, it is, let them all in and grant them instant citizenship, which gives them the right to vote (Democrat of course).

That’s fairly comprehensive, I’d say.

You might ask yourself why the Democrats are so hot to legalize all the illegals. Is it as they claim? Are they the true party of inclusion and the big tent? Are they actually just looking out for the poor and disenfranchised illegals?

I say we put it to the test and Rush Limbaugh has devised a perfect one. It’s genius, if I do say.

His idea is to have the Republicans compromise with the dems. This is what the moderates in our party want, is it not? Do they not want us to be Democrat light?

Yes, let us compromise, with one proviso. The Republicans, the party of no, will become the new party of yes.

This is Limbaugh’s proposal. The Republicans will allow all illegal aliens to become citizens of the United States immediately. That’s the yes part of the new Republican.

The proviso is that said “new citizens” will relinquish the right to vote for 25 years.

Why would we conservatives ever agree to such thing? Just think about it for a moment.

Think of why the dishonest, devious Democrats really want to legalize the criminal aliens. Is it their big hearts? Hell no! It’s the vote. That’s all it is and that’s all it’s ever been.

Hispanics increasingly vote Democrat, not for their solidarity regarding immigration, but for the freebies they know the Democrats will provide. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it’s a fact.

Republicans think that Hispanics might come over from the Democrat side because of Latinos purported similarly strong family and religious values. They’d be wrong. It’s the welfare they are after, the free stuff.

For example, in California, US-born Hispanics use welfare programs at twice the rate of non-Hispanics. Nearly 7 out of 10 poor children are Hispanic.

With that statistic, do we really think they care about immigration? Of course not. They’re voting for a continuation an escalation of the welfare state.

And that is the reason why the Democrats provide the giveaways. It’s for votes, that’s it!

I learned a long time ago that when selling a product or an idea, one has to be unique, set yourself apart from the rest. You must also educate your customer, so he fully understands just what he’s buying and why he should jump ship and purchase from you.

None of these “voters” will leave the Democrats for the Republicans just because we go along. We are, in effect, just offering them a “me too” product.

So let’s develop some backbone and call them out for what they really are – vote pimps.

It’s time we went on the attack.

Put the Limbaugh immigration offer on the table and watch the Dems squirm and make any excuse possible not to agree with it. Let them, for once, have to show their hand.

Where Did All the Voters Go?

When I am wrong, I’ll be the first to admit it. Well, I was wrong. Not that Romney wasn’t and isn’t a good man, but that I thought it was the one thing we needed; the thing the country craved. I believed more people would come to learn what I know of president Obama; that he’s not a good man.

I convinced myself that it was okay that Mitt wasn’t a true conservative, that being a good, honest man was enough. He is both those things. Probably a better man than I will ever be.

I bought in and am the worse for it.

Well, it wasn’t enough and I, for one, will try to never again make that mistake. I will try to never compromise again. I will resist allowing my gut instinct to be swayed.

I have preached to others for years that compromise is the easy path. Once you’ve compromised the first time, it just blurs the line you didn’t wish to cross. The line keeps advancing, leading you further away from your core and what you knew was right and just.

I am a conservative and I will only support conservative candidates and will only promote those with similar views.

As I discover and uncover more of why we lost this election, I am becoming convinced, going forward, to trust my original instincts and block out the noise. If I go down in flames, so be it.

Many republican wizards of smart have tried to explain that Romney and the republicans were just not sensitive enough to groups like Hispanics, women and homosexuals.

The problem we have is not a changing demographic, it is and has always been the countryclub, moderate wing of the republican party; insiders that choose our candidates for us. Those who believe the more moderate “electable” candidate is the only way to win were wrong and will continue to be wrong.

Our job as conservatives is to educate and try to rest control of the GOP from the moderates. Let’s please get away from the “Next man up” syndrome.

What Major Demographic Shift?

By: Tara Servatius

Conservatives need to take a collective breath and look closer at the numbers before they buy into the idea that GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s defeat was due to some kind of national demographic shift that now makes Democrat presidential candidates’ armor impenetrable.  Before you give in to the hysteria, here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, Barack Obama’s re-election showing was actually pretty unimpressive for a guy whose philosophies voters have supposedly adopted.  As of this writing on Wednesday, Obama’s vote total stood at an unimpressive 60,119,958.  That’s about what John Kerry got in 2004 (59,028,444).  President George W. Bush actually did far better than Obama in his 2004 reelection quest, posting a vote total that was about 2 million higher (62,040,610) than what Obama got on Tuesday.  That’s hardly a remarkable finish in a country with a population that has increased.  In fact, it’s a decline of 9 million votes from Obama’s 2008 total.

Had Romney (57,425,441) done as well as McCain did in 2008 (59,934,814), he and Obama would have run neck and neck, virtually matching each other’s vote totals.  That’s hardly the stuff of demographic ruin.

The question Republicans and conservatives need to ask is not why voters showed up for Obama, whose turnout wasn’t exactly extraordinary, but why millions of their own voters, people who had pulled the lever for Bush and McCain, didn’t do the same for Romney or simply stayed home.

Why did Romney get a full 2 million fewer votes than McCain did?  Why did those voters pull the lever for McCain, but not for Romney?  Who were they, and where did they go?  That is what Republican and conservative strategists need to find out.

Is it possible that Republicans and conservative-leaning independents just weren’t that wild about the guy?

Romney, you’ll remember, was not exactly popular with the GOP base through two primaries — the first of which he lost outright, and the second of which he won because, quite frankly, all the other candidates were largely unpresentable on the national stage.  Remember, Romney won just 52 percent of the votes cast in the primary — hardly a resounding send-off from his own party. Worse yet, Romney carried just 3 out of 43 states with 70-plus percent of the vote, compared to an average of more than 15 states by previous presumptive GOP nominees.

Evangelicals have always been suspicious of Romney’s Mormonism.  In fact, just days before the election, Paul Ryan had a phone teleconference with Evangelical leaders to rally them.  And the exasperation with Romney’s flip-flopping habit originated on the right, not on the left, and was well-known.  What’s more, the GOP’s anti-abortion wing has never been entirely comfortable with him the way they were with George W. Bush.  And some of the party’s base has wandered into the Tea Party and Ron Paul camps, where Romney was never fully welcomed, if embraced at all.

To understand Romney’s loss, we need to look not just at what Obama’s voters are doing, but what ours are up to as well.

New Additions to The Republican Platform

by:  and the Common Constitutionalist

Last week, the tea-party-supporting group Freedom Works declared victory when it saw the platform content – asserting that 11.5 of its 12 proposals had been included. (The platform calls for a tax system that is “flatter,” but not the “flat tax” FreedomWorks and other conservatives wanted.)

The human-life amendment was in the 2008 platform. In the 2012 platform, adopted and released Tuesday, there are many new planks. Here’s a sample:

A call to audit the Federal Reserve

“Audit the Fed” is a rallying cry for Ron Paul supporters and the tea party. As the Fed considers a third round of monetary stimulus, known as “quantitative easing,” the calls for more transparency in Fed decision-making have become part of the larger conversation about how to strengthen the economic recovery without sparking inflation.

The Republican Party will “work to advance substantive legislation” that brings transparency and accountability to the Federal Reserve, the platform says. The first step is through “an annual audit of the Federal Reserve’s activities.”

Romney has said that he would replace Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman, but hasn’t floated replacements, nor commented on the monetary policy planks of the platform.

A return to the gold standard?

Alongside “Audit the Fed,” this is another long-standing proposal by Congressman Paul on monetary policy. In fact, the platform does not contain the phrase “gold standard.” It refers to a commission established shortly after the inauguration of President Reagan in 1981 to “consider the feasibility of a metallic basis for US currency.”

The panel advised against such a move. “Now, three decades later, as we face the task of cleaning up the wreckage of the current administration’s policies, we propose a similar commission to investigate possible ways to set a fixed value for the dollar,” the platform says.

Protecting access to ammunition

In the wake of recent shooting rampages, calls have increased for legislation to ban high-capacity gun magazines, which allow dozens of bullets to be loaded at a time. In contrast with the 2008 Republican platform, the 2012 document stakes a position on access to ammunition.

“We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban,” the platform states.

The Clinton-era ban on assault weapons, enacted in 1994, included a ban on “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” The law expired in 2004.

Reinventing Medicare and Medicaid

The Romney-Ryan proposal to reform the twin federal health-care entitlements for seniors, the poor, and the disabled is now in black and white in the 2012 platform.

“The first step is to move the two programs away from their current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined-contribution model,” the platform says. “This is the only way to limit costs and restore consumer choice for patients and introduce competition.”

Medicare moves to a “premium-support” model, a voucher-like system in which seniors use their government subsidy to purchase private health insurance or traditional Medicare. Medicaid becomes a block-grant program, in which the federal government gives a defined amount to each state, which then uses the money as it sees fit toward insuring the poor and disabled.

The platform also hints at an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, currently 65.

“Without disadvantaging retirees or those nearing retirement, the age [of] eligibility for Medicare must be made more realistic in terms of today’s longer life span,” it says.

No more “leaks for political purposes”

In some places, the platform reads like a primal scream against the Obama administration. Exhibit A is the killing of Osama bin Laden, a huge, undisputed victory for the president that Republicans have been trying to diminish. Bin Laden is not mentioned explicitly in the platform, but information leaks surrounding the operation that left him dead have given Republicans the hook they need.

“The current administration’s leaks of classified information have imperiled intelligence assets which are vital to American security,” the platform states.

Let’s not stand up and cheer our, at least, partial victory just yet. After all, these are just words on paper and are easily manipulated and disregarded after the election, but it appears to be a step in the right direction.

Even if the election goes our way, we all know the work has just started. Those who pledge the reforms must be held to account.

Won’t Back Down

Bachmann: A Woman Among Spineless Men

Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann has taken heat and ridicule lately due to her adamant claims that the Muslim Brotherhood is and has been infiltrating the halls of American government. And while Bachmann is not alone in her claims (four other Republican representatives have made similar accusations), she is taking the largest portion of the backlash. Never one to back down from a fight, Bachmann continues to encourage others to follow the same paper trail that she did by simply reading the documentation. She, of all people, should know that Americans don’t read, especially once they are elected to political office.

Turning Reagan’s famous phrase, “Trust, but verify,” on its head, most modern congressmen—including the consistently disappointing John McCain—have adopted a “Don’t Trust, Don’t Verify” philosophy when it comes to potentially controversial topics. Bachmann should be credited as one of the few willing to take the road less travelled and stand her ground on this and many other hot-button political issues. Why does it take a woman to show the men how to do their jobs? If what she is claiming is so demonstrably false, why can’t one of these congressional seat-fillers show the evidence to back up their claims, rather than simply trying to dismiss Bachmann with a wave of their magical (and limp-wristed) hand?

One of the few to actually respond to Bachmann, albeit ineffectively, was fellow Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison. Ellison has the distinction of being one of only two (professing) Muslim congressmen, gaining infamy years ago by swearing into office on a Koran instead of a Bible. Ellison’s response to Bachmann deliberately added words to a State Department letter in order to water down the force of Bachmann’s argument. Bachmann’s response, which was apparently read only by her own staff, doesn’t allow Ellison’s wordplay to stand. However, political correctness demands that Bachmann must be wrong, so facts really have nothing to do with the “truth” of the situation.

What is distressing about this whole affair is not the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood may be gaining access to American government thanks to the State Department. Let’s face it; this has been happening for years, well before Hillary Clinton took charge. What is really disturbing is that 530 congressmen out of 535 are unwilling to investigate the claims. What this means is that the Republican majority in the House (not to mention the whole of Republican senators) is, in reality, meaningless.

This is a presidential election year and conservatives are foaming at the mouth and doing everything they can to get rid of Obama, meanwhile the vast majority of Republican congressmen are unmoved by documented claims that people with connections to a known terrorist organization are receiving high-level access and security clearance. Apparently Obama isn’t the only threat to America. Conservatives should be putting just as much effort into vacating 530 chairs in Congress as they have been putting into replacing Obama. It will matter little to have removed Obama from office without also removing every other congressman who values political correctness over political truth.

Attribution:

Bill of Goods

During every election cycle, virtually every Republican candidate affirms his or her support for limited government, free markets, and balanced budgets.  They all tout their conservative credentials on the flashy flag-waving issues of the day in an effort to ingratiate themselves with Republican primary voters.  However, it is the “inside baseball” issues such as the farm bill that expose many of them as frauds.

Put simply, the farm bill is anathema to free enterprise, limited government, and individual responsibility.  The House version (H.R. 6083) authorizes $957 billion in spending over 10 years, 80% of which will go towards food stamps.  Despite erroneous claims in the media regarding severe cuts to food stamps, this bill actually consummates the Obama-era baseline into our entitlement empire forever.

Furthermore, this bill adds an additional 3 crop insurance and price support programs that distort the market, encourage risky behavior, protect parochial interests, and are tendentious towards large farms.  This bill also continues the egregious coddling of rich sugar farmers and the dairy supply regulations that you so aptly referred to as “Soviet style.”

Unfortunately, a bipartisan group of 38 Republicans and 24 Democrats, led by Reps. Kristi Noem (R-SD) and Peter Welch (D-VT), have sent all of congress a letter requesting floor consideration for this big-government, budget-busting monstrosity.  If Republicans allow this bill to pass the House and become law under Republican-control of Congress, they will essentially be abrogating all their campaign promises to limit government, terminate special interest politics, decrease dependency and welfare, and balance the budget.  In one fell swoop, they will blur the distinction between the two parties to the extent that they are virtually indistinguishable.

This is not the message we need to telegraph to loyal Republican voters ahead of a crucial election.  Moreover, if we are going to continue the bond between urban and rural special interests, we will never wean dependency from the broad populace – even among those in conservative states.  If we are going to continue imposing Soviet-style intervention in red states, and elect representatives from those localities who support such odious policies, where are we going to implement free market policies and elect conservatives?  From blue America?

Let’s win this election decisively by standing on the bold free market, limited government principles that buoyed the Republican majority into power in 2010.  Then, after assuming control of all branches of government, we can pursue new policies from a position of strength.

Let’s begin by decoupling food stamp spending from agriculture programs so we can break the indissoluble bond between multiple special interest groups.  We understand that food stamps and agriculture programs will not disappear overnight, but we must recognize their deleterious effects on our economy, free markets, and self respect.  And it must be our ultimate goal to phase out and wind down these programs in an effort to restore our Constitutional Republic to the entity that it was when originally conceived.

Please reject all calls to bring this bill to the floor during this Congress.  Now is the time for us to stand on principle.

***Here are the members who took a leadership role in pushing the Speaker to radically expand the size of government:***

Kristi Noem (R-S.D.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Robert Schilling (R-Ill.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), Bill Owens (D-N.Y.), Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), Tim Walz (D-Minn.), Austin Scott (R-Ga.), Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.), Steve King (R-Iowa), Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), David Loebsack (D-Iowa), Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Rick Berg (R-N.D.), Larry Kissell (D-N.C.), Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), Gregorio Sablan (D-MP), Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.), Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), Sam Graves (R-Ga.), Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), Jeff Landry (R-La.), Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.), Martha Roby (R-Ala.), Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), Tom Latham (R-Iowa), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Sanford Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Dan Benishek (R-Mich.), Billy Long (R-Mo.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), Aaron Schock (R-Ill.), Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), Charles Boustany Jr. (R-La), Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), Candice Miller (RMich).

Attribution: Unknown

Who Needs Enemies…

Republican Surrenderists for Obamacare

by: Michelle Malkin

During the summer of 2009, conservative activists turned up the heat on Democratic politicians to protest the innovation-destroying, liberty-usurping Obamacare mandate. In the summer of 2012, it’s squishy Republican politicians who deserve the grassroots flames.

In case you hadn’t heard, even if the Supreme Court overturns the progressives’ federal health care juggernaut, prominent GOP leaders vow to preserve its most “popular” provisions. These big-government Republicans show appalling indifference to the dire market disruptions and culture of dependency that Obamacare schemes have wrought.

GOP Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, told a St. Louis radio station two weeks ago that he supports keeping at least three Obamacare regulatory pillars: federally imposed coverage of “children” up to age 26 on their parents’ health insurance policies (the infamous, unfunded “slacker mandate”), federally mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue,” which leads to an adverse-selection death spiral) and closure of the coverage gap in the massive Bush-backed Medicare drug entitlement (the “donut hole fix” that will obliterate the program’s cost-controls).

Some Republicans are even trying to out-Obama Obamacare. GOP Rep. Steve Stivers of Ohio is pushing a proposal to increase the mandatory coverage age for dependents to age 31. And once a fire-breathing dragon for repeal, GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee hem-hawed when asked by the liberal Talking Points Memo website whether Republicans would be introducing specific bills to preserve the guaranteed issue and slacker mandate provisions.

“Well, I think we need to be prepared,” Alexander told TPM. “And we will be prepared.”

How about getting informed? As I reported while the Obamacare backroom wheeling-dealing was going on, some 20 states already had passed legislation requiring insurers to cover adult children before the federal rule was imposed, and nearly 20 others were already on the expensive path toward doing so. In New Jersey, Wisconsin and elsewhere, these top-down benefits mandates were among key factors driving up the cost of insurance and limiting access instead of expanding it.

Fortunately for fiscal conservatives, GOP Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina still has his head screwed on straight. Last week, he blasted GOP enablers of the welfare state. He notes that “multiple studies have suggested that every 1 percent increase in premiums increases the number of uninsured by approximately 200,000 to 300,000 individuals nationwide.” The slacker mandate has raised premiums by at least 1 percent since it was enacted, DeMint adds, meaning “that hundreds of thousands of individuals have lost coverage — because they were priced out of the individual market, or because their employers decided to stop offering coverage — as a result of the new requirements.”

This is no textbook hypothetical. No less than the Service Employees International Union Local 1199 — one of Obamacare’s biggest cheerleaders — dropped health care coverage for children in late 2010 because of costly mandates, including, you guessed it, the slacker mandate. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible,” the SEIU 1199 benefits managers wrote in a letter to more than 30,000 families, “and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

Chris Jacobs, senior analyst for the Senate Joint Economic Committee, points to a new study by the left-leaning Commonwealth Fund that reveals that the benefits of the slacker provision have “disproportionately accrued to affluent and wealthy families.” Moreover, this unfunded mandate is fostering greater dependency — and providing employment disincentives — by encouraging high numbers of young adults to reject other forms of insurance in order to take advantage of “free” parental coverage.

Where does presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney stand? Despite repeated assurances that he will abandon Obamacare in its entirety, Romney is surrounded by GOP socialized medicine helpmates. In January, Romney adviser Norm Coleman said, “(We’re) not going to repeal the act in its entirety … you can’t whole cloth throw it out.”

Earlier this month, Romney named former Utah GOP Gov. Mike Leavitt his transition leader. Leavitt supports and has profited handsomely from Obamacare’s health care exchange mandate. Then there’s the Romneycare mandate in Massachusetts, conceived by Obamacare architect and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, which includes the very same slacker mandate provision enshrined in the Democrats’ law.

Who needs enemies when you’ve got Republican Surrenderists for Obamacare waiting in the wings?

We Must be LOST

by:  

Just like a horror movie series, evil-minded Soviet-era treaties just keep coming back to life, aided by their acolytes in the United States Senate.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and mate of the Heinz ketchup fortune, last week decided to revisit the aptly named Law of the Sea Treaty — or LOST.

This treaty was originally rejected by President Reagan, but the LOST agenda has been lurking around the corridors of the United Nations ever since.

The treaty, which was endorsed by the former Soviet Union, would reduce our military power, rob us of rights over our own coastal resources, subject U.S. actions in international waters to the authority of foreign countries and submit our country to an international taxing agency that would “redistribute” our wealth to other nations, including some of our enemies.

Naturally, the liberals like it. And by liberals I mean not just Democrats but some of the RINOs hiding in the GOP camp, such as the five living Republican secretaries of state, from Kissinger to Rice.

The best reasons conjured for approving LOST include joining the international community in regulating the seas, “having a seat at the table” to negotiate rights over resources and having legal recourse should other nations violate our rights. Most incredibly, promoters of this treaty seem to think we’ll believe it increases our national security.

First, joining the international community to regulate the seas: We can already do that without the United Nations being given authority over us. It’s called diplomacy and negotiation.

Having a seat at the table: Unless you’re talking about an invitation to a gourmet feast or at least Thanksgiving dinner, a seat at the table isn’t worth much. Easy marks have a seat at the table, then they get taken for everything they’re worth and dumped in a back alley for their trouble.

Legal recourse against other nations that violate our rights: We have that already, again without the U.N. It’s called the United States military –and it’s a lot more effective than a pronouncement from some international courtroom.

As for increasing our national security, only a liberal could think that joining a treaty that requires us to give away secrets and our best technology to foreign nations that may use it against us is a way to secure the country.

The biggest stupidity of this treaty, however, is its granting of taxing authority to a Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority, especially at a time when the U.S. economy is suffering under its third year of recession. To raise taxes now would drive a stake through American businesses and the middle class.

The LOST convention represents a complete violation of the trust voters put in their representatives. Naturally, President Obama is already on board. Conservative voters need to tell their Senators to vote against it and keep LOST from being ratified.