District 9 candidate Ann Yarko

**Informed-Dissent does not endorse partisan candidates. The following is the opinion of the author, and does not reflect the official position of this site**

Ann Yarko the Only Real Conservative Option for FL State House 9

It may sound cliché, but this November’s elections are among the most pivotal in America’s history. As it stands, the nation is governed almost completely by dogmatic leftists who subscribe to the secular religion of philosophical materialism and functional atheism. On the federal level, the executive and legislative branches are dominated by a political party (the Democrats) whose leaders openly embrace the quality-of-life ethic of culture-of-death liberalism, while most of our nation’s Supreme Court Justices are “living documentarians” who believe they are authorized to substitute their private moral intuitions for the Constitution’s original public meaning.

And with Democrats controlling the executive branches of 26 of 50 states, things are not looking much brighter at the local level. The nation at all tiers is governed by welfare statists who have bankrupted the economy with entitlements that cannot possibly be paid for, and who still believe the silly superstition that the economy can be “stimulated” by spending money the nation doesn’t have, or by printing more of it and inflating the currency.

I’ve lived in Florida nearly all my life, and am presently studying in the state capital, Tallahassee. Two years ago, I volunteered my time to work on the Peter Boulware campaign for State House District 9. Running in an historically Democratic district, Mr. Boulware was the true anti-Obama: Republican, a successful African-American small-business owner, devoutly Christian, pro-life, and fiscally commonsensical (i.e., conservative). He lost the race to the Democrat, one Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda, by just over half a percentage point.

Though the race was lost, its direction represented just how far the local GOP had come in bridging the gap between Republicans and the “Blue Dog” center-right Democratic grassroots. But rather than build on that progress and continue running articulate, principled conservative candidates, the Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) has taken sides in the current primaries, funding the campaign of Ms. Kirk Headley-Perdue to the tune of about $30,000, thereby giving its de facto endorsement to her, and not to her opponent Ms. Ann Yarko.

The RPOF apparently hasn’t learned the lessons of the Crist/Rubio Senate primary. Rather than staying neutral in a battle between two of its own, the establishment intelligentsia has chosen its side—and most disturbingly, it seems to be one that does not serve the commonsense conservative interests of the Republican Party, or the District’s constituents.

I have contacts in the Perdue campaign, but they declined to go on the official record for this article. This reticence confirmed my resolution to make public my personal endorsement of Ann Yarko for State House District 9. I am a registered independent, but as an active member, and then President, of the local chapter of the nation’s premier fellowship of conservative and libertarian law students, over the last two years I have taken a keen interest in local conservative politics. I have been active in the local tea party movement, where from the get-go I met with Yarko’s grassroots activism. She and I have become well-acquainted since then, and I can testify to her abilities as an effective mobilizer and her principled, no-nonsense stance on the issues most important to Republican voters. She was one of the principle orchestrators of one of Tallahassee’s anti-Obamacare rallies and the American Liberty Alliance Bus Tour Stop for Tallahassee, and her face is a staple at any major conservative function in the city.

Her opponent in the race, Kirk Perdue, is not without her talents and her community involvement, but I can think of no contribution she has ever made toward advancing conservatism in the district. Her many years of social work are commendable, but going through her political platform, and her political history, one wonders what there is to substantially distinguish her from the likes of Ms Vasilinda, or for that matter RINO-turned-“Independent” Charlie Crist.

The first red flag should have been Kirk’s recent endorsement by the local leftist rag, The Tallahassee Democrat (not named for the political party, though it might as well be). It’s a safe bet the Democrat doesn’t exactly have the best interests of the Republican agenda in mind, and one wonders whether its promotion is something a conservative candidate would really want to tout.

Perdue’s campaign website presents her as a “non-traditional candidate with traditional values,” but one is hard-pressed to find any concrete policy proposals anywhere on her site: the “issues” section is a litany of empty platitudes, and the closest thing we get to a policy prescription is a declaration that she “oppose[s] raising taxes.”

To be fair, Yarko’s website isn’t much better, but better it is: Yarko not only opposes raising taxes, but she pledges to fight to lower taxes, not simply keep existing ones from increasing:  “Leon and Jefferson County residents shouldn’t have to pay the same rates as those in coastal areas.” She also pledges to fight against any kind of Obamacare-like scheme in the state, and to champion tort reform in the pursuit of lower healthcare costs.

Quite frankly, both these websites are pitiful; neither gives voters much to work with when forming an opinion on either candidate. It reminds one of the popularity contests that pass for “elections” in high school and undergraduate student councils. One hopes more substance will be forthcoming when the winner campaigns in the general election.

One glaring omission from their sites is any reference whatsoever to the hot-button social issues that interest the Florida electorate. Nothing whatsoever on abortion, homosexual “marriage,” euthanasia, embryo-destructive research, or human cloning.

And for good reason, as far as Perdue is concerned. For while her campaign has maintained a prudent public silence on the matter, when questioned they will concede that Perdue is “pro-choice” on all these questions, which is to say she supports the legality of both infanticide and the mockery of marriage that an overwhelming majority of Floridians rejected at the polls during the ’08 election (this in a state and district that gave its electoral votes to the far-left Barack Obama and Joe Biden). Perdue’s campaign was not clear on whether she also endorses tax-payer funding for these offenses against the sanctity of life and marriage. When asked on a local radio show whether she supported homosexual adoptions, she wouldn’t answer the question.

On all of the conservative hot-buttons, the Ann Yarko difference couldn’t be starker. I interviewed Yarko, and asked her for her candid position statements on these issues. She’s a proud Catholic Christian, and staunchly opposes abortion for any reason other than to save the life of the mother. She also supports wholeheartedly the consensus of her would-be constituents that marriage is, and ought to remain, between a man and a woman. On stem cell research, she shared with me her struggles on the matter: she has a relative with Alzheimer’s, but is increasingly impressed with the developments that have occurred with adult cell therapy, and less and less enthusiastic about stem cell research that takes the lives of excess embryos. She definitely does not support the cloning of human embryos, and opposes taxpayer funding for such controversial and divisive endeavors.

Ms. Yarko might not be the poster-child for Florida Right to Life, but she’s a lot closer to her district’s Republican base (and probably the Floridian mainstream) than is her establishment-supported opponent.

Yarko’s position on the economic issues is so well-known to even her detractors, that they almost don’t bear repeating. She’s been a visible presence at every Tea Party rally over the last year and a half, at which Perdue was conspicuous only by her absence. Yarko’s opposition to socialized medicine couldn’t be clearer:

There aren’t enough words to tell you how wrong Obamacare is, how dreadful it will be for our nation, our doctors’ ability to provide care, for health care costs and quality. It is the piece of legislation that has put us on a collision course with socialism and bankruptcy all done at the hands of special interests and dependency theology. It is a main priority of mine to do all I can to stop the negative ramifications of this bill. I have publicly appealed to voters to support Amendment 9 [Florida Health Care Freedom] and will work tirelessly to make sure that we have good free market solutions to health care.

Yarko supports Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s spearheading of a multi state party lawsuit against the Obamacare legislation, has always opposed the failed stimulus legislation of Bush and the Democrats, and is a card-carrying NRA member who pledges to uphold Floridians’ right to keep and bear arms. She is also supporting (morally and financially) conservative Marco Rubio in the Senate race, against former RINO Charlie Crist. She also endorses the Florida legislature’s recent petition to Congress to call for an Amendments Convention that would present a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification.

It’s hard for me to speak definitively of Kirk Perdue’s stances on any of these issues, given her campaign’s apparent reticence to get back to me on them. I wish to do justice to her positions. To my knowledge, Perdue also opposes the Democrats’ health-care legislation and the stimulus packages. I also understand that she supports the petition for a Balanced Budget Amendment.

District 9 voters might also be interested to know that Perdue’s only political contribution over the last five years is to the campaign of Ms. Loranne Ausley for state Chief Financial Officer. Ausley is a leftist Democrat, and is running for the position against conservative Republican Jeff Atwater, the popular Florida Senate President. Perdue’s campaign would not respond to my query as to why she would donate some $250 to a welfare-statist Democrat. This certainly does not speak well to Perdue’s credentials as a fiscal conservative.

What comes out of one’s pocketbook speaks much louder than what comes out of one’s mouth.

Ann Yarko is certainly not the ideal Republican candidate for this race. Few would contest the judgment of the Tallassee Democrat, that 26 year-old Yarko “needs some seasoning.” But what she doesn’t have in experience, she more than makes up for in passion, organizational skills, and (most importantly) a firm grasp of the worldview that makes conservatism and fiscal libertarianism possible.

For the popular protests against big government and welfare statism to make any sense, they must be rooted in a profoundly moral understanding of the universe and man’s place within it. The libertarian argument is inherently ethical: it presupposes the inalienable dignity of the human person, from which follows the idea that his property is sacrosanct, and that the most legitimate government is that which is closest to those who will be affected by its policies. When we lose sight of conservatism’s metaphysics, the Right’s economic policies remain open to caricature as just so much selfishness. A woman whose moral compass is not firmly rooted in such ethical basics as the sanctity of all innocent human life (from conception until natural death) and the sanctity of the natural family (society’s most basic political unit) may not be the best person to entrust the public welfare to, nor the public dime.

Florida District 9 voters deserve a real choice this November. They will only get that if Republican constituents put their heads on straight, and vote for conservative Ann Yarko.

As it turns out, California’s Penal Code, Section 834b is eerily similar to the controversial new Arizona law regarding illegal immigration. You’d think that Los Angeles and San Francisco officials would have thought their cunning plan through before calling for an all-out boycott of Arizona business.

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.

(Source: Washington Times)

Whoopsies. It’s starting to look like all that talk of boycotting Arizona for its draconian, human-rights-violating hate law is political grandstanding, after all. Either California officials are clueless about their own state’s laws, or they’re intentionally lying about Arizona’s law to score political points and widen the racial divide. I’ll give California the benefit of the doubt and say that they’re probably just ignorant.

This is just the latest in a onslaught of facts that are proving correct what Arizona argued all along – there’s nothing racist about the law, it’s no more harsh than existing federal law, so quit whining, you all didn’t read the law anyway.

Megyn Kelly, host of Fox’s “America Live” and an established attorney, took a closer look at the law on the “O’Reilly Factor” this Thursday. After researching case law, including the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the subject, she found that that the Arizona law is not only constitutional, but less stringent than federal law.

“Did you know that the Supreme Court already ruled a few years ago that under federal law, cops can pull you over for no reason and demand to see your immigration papers? For no reason. They don’t have to have reasonable suspicion,” she said, referring to the 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Muller v. Menia.

“Under Arizona law, they do.”

In a previous article, I had described earlier case law dealing with the Fourth Amendment and how it applied to the situation in Arizona. I won’t repeat those arguments here, but I will emphasize that, legally speaking, the opponents of the bill don’t have a leg to stand on. Their arguments about racial profiling and human rights violations are not grounded in reality, and can mostly be attributed to the media frenzy on the subject rather than a close study of the law itself.

It seems people would rather take Shakira’s word for it than research standing case law, including, so it seems, our own Attorney General, Eric Holder. When asked by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) if he had read the bill, Holder admitted that he had not.

“I have not had a chance to. I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it,” he said.

“It’s ten pages. It’s a lot shorter than the health care bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it, if you would like to have a copy,” replied Poe.

While you’re at it, Congressman, go ahead and forward a copy to the mainstream media. Apparently they haven’t read it, either.

Charlie, of course, had previously denied the rumors that he would leave the GOP. He recently appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to have an on-air debate with his Republican opponent, Marco Rubio, where he seemed quite firm on his stance:

WALLACE: …have been persistent rumors in Florida that you are so far behind, at least currently, in the polls…that you may run instead as an independent. Here is your chance to dispel all the rumors. Are you willing to pledge right here, right now that you will run in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate and not run as an independent?

CRIST: I’m running as a Republican…

WALLACE: So are you ruling out that you will file as an independent by the April 30th deadline?

CRIST: That’s right. That’s right. I’m running as a Republican.

WALLACE: You will run not for a governor — you’ll run for Senate, and you will run as a — in the Republican primary.

CRIST: …I’m running as a Republican…

WALLACE: Will you support the winner of the GOP primary, whether it’s you or Marco Rubio?

CRIST: Of course I will…

WALLACE: Well, I’m going to get — I’m going to — I’ll give you an opportunity for a final statement. I just want to say, though, you are saying you are going to run in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. You will not run on the no party affiliation line.

CRIST: That’s right. That’s right. That’s what I’m saying.

Well, so much for that. It certainly begs the question – if Charlie can’t be trusted to stick to his word on something as simple as party affiliation, why exactly would anyone trust him to live up to any of his campaign promises? Why would anyone trust him, as a U.S. Senator, to represent the people?

The move to independent status is nothing more than Charlie playing the game of “If-I-Can’t-Win-Nobody-Can”. It demonstrates a lack of commitment to any set of values, and proves what everybody already suspected: Crist is nothing more than a superficial populist more concerned with his career prospects than actually serving the people.

Up here in the state capitol, a similar situation is taking place in the 2nd Congressional District race. I had previously reported that there was a three-way battle between Democrat incumbent Allen Boyd, Republican challenger Steve Southerland, and Independent candidate Paul McKain. In a recent straw poll, it was clear that Southerland was dominating the GOP primary. Now, Republican candidate Diane Berryhill has dropped the affiliation and decided to run as an independent.

Berryhill, of course, had recently made an appearance on the 100.7 WFLA Morning Show, where she attacked Independent Paul McKain for splitting the votes.

“…hopefully people, when they walk into that voting booth, will realize that the Independent will not win the race and…if they vote for an Independent then they’re basically voting for the [Democrat] candidate whether it be Allen Boyd or Al Lawson.”

The McKain campaign certainly recognized the hypocrisy, and issued a prompt response.

“Mrs. Berryhill, a life long, red-letter Republican, clearly decided it was in her own political best interest to run as an Independent, as she knew she would not win the GOP primary in August… Per Mrs. Berryhill’s own website: ‘Your word is your bond’,” read the press release.

“Clearly, her ‘word’ is only her bond as long as it benefits her.”

Well, Charlie, at least you aren’t alone; there are political opportunists from all walks of life.

The talking heads on CBS, NBC, CNN and the like have been blasting the new law for days. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow named her new segment on the subject “Papers, Please”, a carefully crafted reference to the Nazi secret police.

But is all this really true? Is the new Arizona law going to create mass discrimination and the violation of civil rights for Latinos? After all, if we’re to believe the media, anybody with brown skin is subject to a police investigation. And considering that Latin Americans comprise as much as a third of the Arizona population, that’s a pretty significant infringement on civil liberties. Right?

Well, sort of. But not really. The issue of police requiring an individual to provide identification was solved decades ago in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Texas (1979). The case surrounded the appellant, Brown, who was stopped by police after walking away from an alley in a high-crime area. Brown was arrested by two officers and charged with a violation of a Texas statute that required citizens to identify themselves if requested by a law enforcement officer. Sound familiar?

The Supreme Court held that the statute violated the Fourth Amendment protection against search and seizure, due to the fact that the officers lacked “reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct”.

“The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society’s legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers,” wrote Chief Justice Burger in the opinion, “Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant’s right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.”

Considering that the Arizona law must operate within the restrictions outlined by the Supreme Court, it is wholly unlikely that any individual, brown skin or not, will have their rights abused by law enforcement arbitrarily. In order for identification to be required, the officers must establish probable cause, the prerequisite for which is the test of reasonable suspicion. If the officer fails to establish reasonable suspicion, and thus probable cause, it is an illegal search.

The Court has already established a formula for reasonable suspicion, and the new law itself forbids police from investigating individuals based solely on race or ethnicity. How, then, will police enforce the law? How can they search individuals suspected of being illegal if such a search is not based on race?

Mark Spencer, head of the Arizona Law Enforcement Association and supporter of the law, dismissed such questions. He firmly maintained that the enforcement of the law will be based, as always, on whether the individual is engaged in suspicious activity. If a person is stopped for a traffic violation and fails to provide a valid driver’s license, it may be reasonable suspicion. If the officer searches for warrants based on a name and address, and no record of such a person exists, it may be reasonable suspicion. In the end, the question that must be answered is “Are they engaged in suspicious activity?”.

Simply being of Hispanic origin does not, and has never, constituted reasonable suspicion. Nothing will change in this regard. It will be no more difficult or easier to establish probable cause than before, and law enforcement is quite aware of their outer boundaries. Obviously, there is always a possibility for abuse. There’s abuse by police all the time, and not just directed towards minorities. But a mechanism for accountability is always in place to deal with the outliers.

It is easy to see how the media can characterize the law as a gross violation of civil rights. Indeed, on the surface, it would appear to be the case. But examining the issue at depth provides a different picture altogether. Being an illegal immigrant, after all, is already a federal crime. The only thing this law does is make it a state crime, too.

Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times declared “Breathing while undocumented, without a civil liberties lawyer at hand, is now a perilous activity anywhere in Arizona.”

“This has less to do with breathing in Arizona,” Fox News contributor Brit Hume fired back, “and more to do with hyperventilating in Washington.”

Tom Bortnyk is a columnist for the political blog Informed-Dissent.

On the other side of the country, a Boston group called Corporate Accountability International, the same group that put Joe Camel into exile, is fighting to ban Ronald McDonald from advertising. A kid-friendly character tempts young children into consuming all that greasy food.

In New York, an effort is underway by State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz to ban salt from restaurants. “It’s time for us to take a giant step,” said Ortiz. “We need to talk about two ingredients of salt: health care costs and deaths.” The salt-ban is a logical follow-up to the ban on trans-fats, which many states have already put into place. Or, for that matter, smoking in private establishments.

Personally, I think it’s fantastic that we’re finally putting a stop to all those bad choices. Freedom and liberty to choose how to live our own life is a fundamental right – as long as the choice you’re making is one that the majority of society agrees with. We must protect our children, at any cost.

My complaint with the situation is that it doesn’t really address the root of the problem. Sure, happy meals and clown mascots are a good start, but even absent these reprehensible detriments to a healthy lifestyle, there is still a possibility for children to make unhealthy choices.

I think the solution is clear – we need to ban children.

Think about it. If there are no children, then we can’t have unhealthy children. We can’t have childhood obesity if we outlaw the possibility of childhood. This also addresses several other key issues – underage drinking, pornography, obscenity, child abuse – the list goes on!

Banning children would also instantly fix the education system. Poor performance in schools will be a thing of the past, because there won’t be any children to perform poorly! There is also immense cost savings as well; between federal, state, and local expenditures, the U.S. spends nearly $430 billion annually on education. Imagine how many social programs we can fund with the savings!

There are other considerations, as well: Now that the government is calling the shots on healthcare, it’s important that we embrace a healthy lifestyle. Without having to worry about the health of children (since children would not exist), we could focus all of our efforts on providing free healthcare to everyone else! Imagine the environmental impact on a child-free world: the carbon footprint of families would be greatly reduced, and our energy needs would sharply decline. My estimates show that if we banned children today, our average carbon output would drop 100% over the next century!

The benefits are clear and obvious. After all, the best way to protect children is to never have them. I know many people, especially parents, would be skeptical of such a measure. And that’s completely understandable. I’d of course be willing to compromise – perhaps a less radical approach would be to simply ban happiness.

It’s time the government took the initiative to shield society from all undesirable things. Who’s with me?

Tom Bortnyk is a columnist for the political blog Informed-Dissent.

The analysts and social commentators (God bless their hearts) with the best interests, the American interest, in mind, have always done their very best to keep the national conversation on racial disparities focused and centered on the best decisions that blacks can make to lift themselves from poverty to prosperity.

In terms of educational, economic and social success, there have always been at least two schools of thought within the black American community. The first of which:

What can we do for ourselves and what are we waiting for?

This perspective, I believe, is beautifully illustrated by the words of Frederick Douglass given in a speech in Boston in 1865:

“[I]n regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us…I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall!…And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!…[Y]our interference is doing him positive injury.”

Douglass’ sentiment here cares not to be judged on the basis of his race but by his character, his intelligence, interests, physical attributes and abilities, skill levels and his motivation to succeed.

Thankfully, American history is mired in examples of enormous black achievement amid the most racially pernicious time periods. History, that is often—purposefully I think—dismissed, omitted and outright lied about.

Politics

As early as the 1850’s blacks had a win, win attitude towards the interests of public service and took full advantage of what was an inherent embrace from a welcoming Republican Party.

1867- John F. Cook, a black Washingtonian, is named Chair of the Republican Party.

1870- Of the 23 blacks elected to the United States Congress, 13 were former slaves and all were Republican. Please allow me: 1865, you are a slave, 1870, you are a sitting U.S Congressmen: http://www1.law.nyu.edu/davisp/neglectedvoices/index2.html

Education Public and Armed Service

In the area of educational excellence, there exists—arguably—no greater American educational legacy than that of Dunbar High School and Thomas Sowell a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University has chronicled that story: “From 1870 to 1955, most of Dunbar High School, (Washington D.C.’s first public school for blacks) graduates went off to college, earning degrees from Harvard, Princeton, Williams, Wesleyan and others. As early as 1899, Dunbar students had higher scores on citywide tests, than students at any of the District’s white schools. Dunbar’s attendance records were generally better than those of white schools and its rate of tardiness was lower. Latin was taught throughout the period from 1870 to 1955 and in the early decades, Greek was taught as well. Large classes were the norm, 40 students per teacher. It was more than 40 years before Dunbar had a lunchroom, which was then so small that many children had to eat lunch on the street. Blackboards were old and cracked. It was 1950 before the school had a public address system. Most of the parents of Dunbar students worked in unskilled and semiskilled occupations. White-collar and professional parents totaled 17 percent. http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html

“Yet the dogma marches on that a middle-class background is necessary for academic success,” Sowell opines.

These and many other “black success stories” aren’t isolated incidents of academic and political accomplishment, that led to upper-class living standards but to the contrary, these occurrences were the norm and more importantly the culturally expected standard for our grandparents and great grandparents.

The second school of thought did not take root until the onset and coupling of the “social engineering of the 1960’s.” and the eroding of personal responsibility within the black community. The message that blacks should “not work, don’t save and not get married,” was baked in and permeated black neighborhoods and soon enough, the aforementioned successes of blacks began to become over shadowed by what were alarming and distressing statistical rates within the black community.

The second school of thought is more an “article of faith” than anything else:

What can the government, “the man,” “whitie,” or the “system,” do for me and why is it taking so damn long?

All too often intellectuals and second-hand intellectuals, for that matter, make the case that the existential threat to black achievement and the overwhelming reason for black underachievement is the “system.” As I stated in “part one:” “because of America’s racist past the system is forever rigged, most blacks are poor, there is a racist at the heart of all whites, and that because of these things, regardless of class or opportunity, no black American should be held to mainstream, (white) standards of morality or ‘academic achievement.’”

This “I am forever a victim” way of thinking and its cultural acceptance has doomed us all.

Nonetheless, numbers don’t lie:

Abortion

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. According to the U.S. Centers for Dieses Control, blacks make up 12% of the population (36 million), but 35% of the abortions in America. The CDC reports that since 1973 there have been approximately more than 13 million aborted black fetuses in America. Blackgenocide.org

Black on Black Crime Rates

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 94 percent of all blacks killed nationally between 1976 and 1999 were killed by other blacks.

On October 17th 2007 Chicago tribune columnist Clarence Paige reported that “Today’s young black males kill more young black males in a year than the Ku Klux Klan killed in its entire history. Paige chronicles that between 1882 and 1968, historians have documented more than 4,700 lynching of African Americans, mostly in the South. In 2005, the latest full year of FBI statistics concludes, “almost 8,000 black Americans were murdered, mostly by other black Americans.”

Black Dropout Rates

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics shows that black students drop out of high school 11 percentage points fewer than they did in 1980, but still maintain a national average of 8.4 percent, 3 percentage points higher than their white counterparts.

Pregnant Unwed and Out of Control

The National Center for Health Statistics reports that in 2007 nearly 72 percent of the births to black women were out of wedlock. Mothers were unmarried in about 51 percent of Hispanic births and 28 percent of non-Hispanic white births.

A 70 percent illegitimacy rate among blacks (90 percent in some inner cities) easily makes the point that there is a serious lack of accountability and responsibility. And the notion of blacks killing each other, whether by gun or by abortion doctor appointed visit, at a higher rate than the Ku Klux Klan could have ever dreamed of accomplishing is beyond disgraceful. And to know these facts, as many “civil rights leaders” and intellectuals and blacks in general do or to pretend that it is not truth (as ugly as it is) “or that “systemic” forces are more responsible than blacks themselves is knowingly to lie to oneself.”

From the moment of emancipation our forefathers and mothers accomplished and secured for themselves the very best education, the highest positions in politics, armed services and the private sector, through hard work and an unflagging spirit of determination.

But their successes or shortfalls for that matter were not contingent upon some “black agenda.”

“Black America,” can we please stop wasting everyone’s time and end the loud debates and arguments based in denial and perpetual falseness?
Let us simple have an agenda, wherein we remove ourselves from the “table,” get up and go to work.

Read more:
Why a ‘Black Agenda’ is Wrong
Why a ‘Black Agenda’ is Wrong, Part II

Before Coulter even set foot in the country, the University of Ottawa’s representative sent her a letter stating, “Canadian law puts reasonable limits on freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against identifiable groups would not only be considered in appropriate, but could, in fact, lead to criminal charges.”

He wasn’t kidding.

Under Canadian law, “Section 319(2) defines the additional offense of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.”

It’s no slap on the wrist, either. Bob Unruh at WorldNet Daily reports, “A Canadian administrative judge’s demand for a $5,000 penalty and a written apology from a man who criticized homosexuality in a letter to his local newspaper has been overturned on appeal, but experts on such ‘hate speech’ disputes say the case is not a complete victory for free speech.”

The stupidity of hate crime laws and of what appeared to be a mob of pot-addled zombies chanting in protest of Ann Coulter’s speech aside, this particular case speaks volumes to the left’s typically selective regard for freedom of speech. Some no-talent hack comes up with a crucifix dipped in urine and liberals call for federal funding for it. Ann Coulter makes a joke that Muslim would-be airline passengers “take a camel,” and you have liberals calling for her head.

Just as an example, is it hate speech when Mike Malloy snarls, “You rat bastards are going to cause another Murrah federal building explosion. Maybe at that point Beck will do the honorable thing and blow his brains out. Maybe at that point, Limbaugh will do the honorable thing and just gobble up enough Viagra that he becomes absolutely rigid and keels over dead. Maybe then O’Reilly will just drink a vat of that poison he spews out on America every night and choke to death.”?

Do you hear conservatives shrilling for Mike Malloy’s show to be cancelled, or for him to be punished for his moronic views? Do you see conservatives protesting loudly and obnoxiously every time Keith Olbermann says something stupid? The answer is no, simply because if they did, it would have to be a full-time occupation and conservatives tend to work and contribute to society a bit more than empty-headed leftist teenagers — or people in their 20s with the mentality of a spoiled teenager.

Short of advocating the violent overthrow of the government, yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater or exposing children to pornography, people should be able to say whatever they want, whether it sits comfortably with liberals or not. College campuses, especially, should feature speakers from liberal and conservative backgrounds, in order to foster the “diversity” that liberals are always crowing about. It’s just that when conservatives talk about diversity, we mean mentally, without regard to skin color and the like, whereas liberals just want a multi-ethnic panoply of leftists.

As Tyler Dosaj of UCLA’s Daily Bruin writes, on Ann Coulter’s upcoming speech there, “Contrary opinions, especially when they espouse the idea that Muslim countries should be invaded and made to bow before Jesus, are part of a complete political discourse breakfast. A volatile right-wing polemicist will keep us from becoming too comfortable and too sedate in the liberal bubble that is, sans OC, Southern California.”

We should be able to have a speaker who advocates more intensive screening of Muslim passengers on airlines right alongside one who feels that if we just bend over far enough for them — they’ll learn to love us and respect our cultural differences and we can weave baskets together. Canadians who aren’t completely brainwashed by liberal groupthink should unite and demand that a guarantee of free speech be drafted and codified as fundamental to Canadian law, and that asinine “hate speech” laws be eradicated.

The African American experience is one of great tragedy and immense triumph. But, for more than half a century, far too many journalists, priests, preachers, television and radio personalities, public school teachers, columnists and many more, have focused more on the tragedy and have all too often ignored the triumph.

The Origins of the “Black Agenda”

“Losing the Race: Self-sabotage in Black America” author, Dr, John McWhoter writes, “when the process of bringing blacks to equality with whites began, the concept of blacks as a race of victims was logical and appropriate, for the simple reason that it corresponded with reality.” Contextually put, in fact, this was a time wherein many blacks were poor, undereducated, and underemployed and had to live with and often times accept brutal racism and segregation from most public services, in many parts of America almost exclusively because of the shade of their skin.

The harsh realities of that turbulent time period, reluctant societal transformations, all coupled with a legislatively mandated and culturally susceptible moral authority shift, created a uniquely human dichotomy during and after the civil rights era. As Dr. Shelby Steele, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford University has written:

“Whites in America (during the 60’s and 70’s) were fearful of being considered racists in one hand and in the other hand, blacks were fearful of being considered inferior.”

These dueling de facto and de jure conflicts generated outgrowths that have helped shaped the political, economic and social paradigm of our generation.

Here are the two most visible catalysts.

We Whites Are Guilty, Equals the Welfare State

As public tensions over the civil rights movement began to dissipate and more blacks began to take full advantage of job and educational opportunities, while saving their money, raising their families and owning more and more homes and businesses, there was also a growing body of blacks accepting more and more government assistance.

Lyndon B. Johnson and the Great Society established Aid to Families with Dependent Children for “women unwilling to get jobs”, Medicaid, for doctors bills that “weighed too heavily”, Rent Supplement Programs for those “having trouble paying the landlord”, and the first permanent Food Stamps Programs for “people unwilling to buy their own groceries.” Eventually though, as “WWI ended Woodrow Wilson’s “New Freedom” and WWII brought FDR’s “New Deal” to a close, “the Vietnam War crushed the loftiest ambitions of the Great Society” but not before it successfully turned Aid to Families with Dependent Children recipients from 3 million in 1960 to 8.4 million in 1970; when Uncle Sam in effect, became the ‘babies’ daddy.’

These and other innumerable statistics are a direct affront to the many who marched, died, bled, and sacrificed for blacks to have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty.

But the do-gooders who suffer from “White Guilt,” (which is also the title of Dr. Steels 2006 publication), and must “make things right” through the “power of government,” would soon receive some help from an emerging industry of “poverty pimps.”

Whitie Owes Me, Equals the Industry of the Victimhood Vendor

Decades after the ink had dried on the pieces of much needed civil rights acts; legislation which helped produce a culture where even the most subtle instances of racial discrimination ended in class action law suits, we still don’t have to go far to find a “civil rights activist” fighting tirelessly for the “little man.”

For years the good Rev. Jackson and Sharpton, Julian Bond, Maxine Waters and the ‘crew’ have all cashed in greatly from political usury and are all CEO’s of the Liberal Exploitation Political Action Group.”

Their mission: “To keep 90 percent of blacks voting Democratic, thereby rolling up huge wins for the liberal exploitation agenda.” What’s more, “if you vote for ‘us’ we will supply you with more cookies, cake and ice cream than you can handle.”

Simply put, many blacks fell for the lines pushed by theses race hustlers who constantly reminded America that “the white man owes us and we won’t stop reminding him of that until his debt is paid.”

The sad irony and the political paradox behind the unholy alliance between the race baiters and the Democratic Party—in which I can’t wait to chronicle in future posts—is that; why after more than four decades of voting 90 percent Democratic, do we still need a…well, “Black Agenda?”

Read More:
Why a ‘Black Agenda’ is Wrong

Critics of this decision, including Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, accuse the GOP of political posturing, hoping to continue their obstructionist stance against the Obama agenda, or using the lawsuit to further their careers. AG Bill McCollum certainly stands to gain – the bill is unpopular here in Florida, and his position in the polls for the Gubernatorial race is moving in a promising direction.

But underlying the typical partisan bickering is a very interesting legal question: Do the states have a case? Is the healthcare legislation unconstitutional, and how will the courts rule?

This isn’t an easy question to answer, and it’s much deeper than the superficial political questions of the government’s role in healthcare. There are far-reaching implications of a decision on one key issue: the individual mandate. The President often refers to his reform effort as unprecedented, and for once, conservatives agree; literally, there is no legal precedent for this type of mandate.

To begin, it is important to understand the powers enumerated in the Constitution by the Commerce Clause, and perhaps more importantly, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the subject.

“[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”

The Supreme Court, historically, has given Congress considerable flexibility when it comes to this provision, particularly during the industrialization and modernization of the US, when trade and commerce between states expanded. Early considerations of direct versus indirect commerce were abandoned in favor of a broader interpretation, which essentially gave the federal government complete control over the economy. This was the case with New Deal-era case law, such as Wickard v. Fillburn (1942), which held that Congress could regulate agricultural products, even those that are grown only for personal consumption.

This precedent held firm and many considered the Commerce Clause to be “settled law”. However, the issue was re-opened in United States v. Lopez (1995). Here, three specific powers were identified and outlined:

1. Congress may regulate the use of channels of interstate commerce.
2. Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce.
3. Congress has the power to regulate activities that have substantial relation to interstate commerce.

The test outlined in (1) is the power of Congress to manage and regulate roads, ports, highways, etc. Part (2) refers to the power to manage things like regulatory agencies, unions, trade commissions, and place restrictions on industries and businesses engaged in commerce. The most pressing issue arises from (3), which gives Congress the ability to regulate any and all economic activities that are deemed have a “substantial” impact on the national economy. It is here that the healthcare bill proponents find their most promising ally. There is no denying that healthcare represents a truly substantial portion of our economy, and most certainly passes the test outlined in the Lopez case.

Be that as it may, there is a notable distinction – the individual mandate attempts to regulate commerce that citizens are not engaged in; that is, citizens are not participating in economic activity when they do not purchase health insurance. As with Lopez, and the later case of United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause does not extend to “noneconomic activity”. Economic activity has been defined as “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities” [Gonzales v. Raich (2005)]. With the mandate, it is not the activity which penalizes them, but the inactivity.

It is on these grounds that the 14 attorneys general are claiming that the bill is beyond the scope of the powers enumerated by the Commerce Clause. How can Congress regulate commerce that citizens are not engaged in? President Obama is right – this is unprecedented. There is nothing in existing case law that applies to the particulars of this situation, and it is certain to be a contentious debate if brought before the Supreme Court.

Proponents of the reform bill must tread carefully, for a precedent that allows this type of mandate has far reaching implications that go well beyond the arguments over fixing the healthcare system and providing coverage for the uninsured. At stake here is a question of federal power, which many agree is already overreaching and excessive.

“We pause to consider the implications…” wrote Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the majority opinion of Lopez, “…[under a broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause] Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens: family law (including marriage, divorce, and child custody) for example”.

“The concern we expressed in Lopez,” Rehnquist wrote in the Morrison opinion, “that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority, seems well founded.”

Or, picture a Congressional White Caucus in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate whose political agenda centered solely on the advancement of “white America.”

Imagine “Historically White Colleges and Universities,” or the “National Association for the Advancement of White People” (both organizations receiving federal grants).

Or more pointedly, think about the political and cultural fallout that would ensue if prominent academic, religious and political leaders, business executives and entertainment moguls, etc. met at George Washington University to discuss the “White Agenda” and when the President was going to take said “agenda” more seriously?

Now of course these scenarios are all hypothetical but what if they were all-of-a-sudden the reality of today, in 2010? There would certainly be social conflicts and disorder everywhere.

Meanwhile – in totally unrelated news – Tavis Smiley’s “Black Agenda Summit” was held at Chicago State University recently. The conference featured a panel of distinguished guests such as Minister Louis Farrakhan, Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson, Jesse Jackson and Princeton University professor Cornel West, to name a few.

Although the controversial event was overshadowed by coverage of the healthcare reform debate, Smiley said he was still “motivated to host this panel because of the reluctance of Black leaders to hold President Obama accountable for problems that specifically or disproportionately affect Blacks.”

Really?

The reason why blacks continue to statistically produce unemployment numbers that are twice as high – and academic success rates that are almost twice as low – as our white counterparts is because for more than fifty years blacks in America have sold out and bought into the notion that because of America’s racist past the system is forever rigged. There are meritless perceptions amongst the black community that “most blacks are poor,” “there is a racist at the heart of all whites,” and that because of these things, regardless of class or opportunity, “no black American should be held to mainstream, (white) standards of morality or academic achievement.”

Farrakhan, West, Dyson, Jesse Jackson and Tavis Smiley are just a few of the members in an unnamable league of so-called “black leaders” that are not willing to hold any meaningful dialogue on what the real threats to achievement and excellence in the black community actually are.

And even with the best intentions in mind, and the most media coverage possible, the motivation needed to “uplift” and “advance” “Black America” has, and always will, begin with blacks in America – not self-serving politicians and emotive policies.

But unfortunately, America is constantly reminded by today’s “black leaders” (who are ironically a disproportionately influential and affluent contingent) that blacks cannot possibly be expected to succeed in the face of such obvious systemic inadequacies.

Excuse me, but I beg to differ!

There are numerous factors to take into account when considering the general and specific shortfalls in the “black community.” Among them are the following few:

1. Since 1940, rates of divorce and non-marriage have soared among black adults, and, as a result, the percentage of black children born to unmarried mothers has risen from 17 percent to 70 percent.

2. Father absence has risen greatly in the last four decades. Between 1960 and 2006, the number of children living in single-mother families went from 8 percent to 23.3 percent – and 34 percent of children currently live absent their biological father.

3. Father absence clearly contributes to family poverty. In 2003, 39.3 percent of single-mother families lived in poverty, but only 8.8 percent of father-present families lived in poverty.

4. The Pew Research Center has concluded that 7.32 million American adults were in prison, on parole or on probation in 2007, a tripling over the last 25 years. That makes, on average, 1 in every 31 American adults in prison, on parole or on probation. For Blacks, the numbers are a depressing 1 in 11.

5. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, blacks make up 12% of the population (36 million), but 35% of the abortions in America.
(All statistics coming for: www.fatherhood.org)

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see the elephant in the room – there is a clear lack of a real dialogue on the choices that blacks have made in regards to self improvement and empowerment in the last several decades.

And until questions are asked, relevant to the real ailments in the “black community,” no President or panel will be able to lift the plight of an afflicted minority.

But healthcare isn’t the only issue concerning voters; rising deficits, out-of-control debt, and rampant corruption has sparked a popular movement against Washington insiders.

Here in Florida, candidates running against big government are finding themselves in favorable positions. Currently, both Marco Rubio and Gov. Charlie Crist hold a comfortable lead over Democrat Kendrick Meek in the Florida Senate race. As of now, Rubio holds a double-digit lead over the Governor for the Republican nomination, which many attribute to Crist’s support of President Obama’s stimulus plan.

Rubio, once considered the underdog against the popular governor, has seen a rise in popularity from the conservative base. His renegade candidacy garnered him some powerful endorsements, including those from Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Jim DeMint, and his keynote speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) propelled him into the mainstream.

In my neck of the woods, Rep. Allen Boyd (D- FL 2), is feeling the backlash from constituents who disapprove of his decision to support the healthcare legislation. Boyd, a Blue Dog Democrat, had previously voted against the bill. His flip-flop on the issue has no doubt contributed to his 38% approval rating (OpenCongress.org). Other sources, such as Visible Vote, show even lower numbers.

Boyd’s growing opposition in District 2 has lead to a surge in popularity for his challengers. A recent straw poll by Tallahassee radio station 100.7 WFLA shows Boyd in a dead-heat for last place among all the candidates, with only Democratic challenger Al Lawson ranking lower (obviously, the poll is not scientific, and suffers from a considerable selection bias merely from the fact that it was conducted by a conservative talk radio station).

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the poll is the victory by candidate Paul C. McKain. I had previously covered McKain’s campaign last October in my article, The new threat to party politics. Since then, McKain has dropped the Florida Whig Party affiliation to run as a straight Independent.

The decision has apparently paid off; McKain received over 42% of the vote in the WFLA straw poll, with Republican Steve Southerland placing second with just over 24%. Republicans challengers Eddie Hendry, Charles Ranson, and Dianne Berryhill were not so successful, and none managed to break into double-digit numbers.

McKain’s popularity will no doubt put to rest any skepticism about his viability as a candidate. Independent candidates like McKain stand to gain the most from Boyd’s departure from his Blue Dog ideals. It appears as though he has appeal not just among disillusioned Republicans, but conservative Democrats hesitant to give their vote to the GOP.

Most political strategists agree that the Republican Party has a strong chance of regaining control of the House in the 2010 mid-terms. Some, including Dick Morris, even go as far to say that the GOP will take both houses of Congress. In any case, it seems the American people, in general, are rejecting the Democrat agenda, which has thus far failed to achieve the economic recovery promised during the 2008 election.

As our economy wobbles in an effort to get back to its feet, Democrats continue to insist that the government provide a crutch. Eventually, however, it’ll have to stand up on its own. In the meantime, Republicans and Independent candidates will surely capitalize on Americans’ discontent, and use it to fight the Democrats’ big government agenda.

Once again, it seems, Americans want change. This time, however, the kind they want is change in the other direction.

*EDIT 3/19/2010, 11:37AM*

Evidently, I the poll results shown to the left were premature. The final results have McKain at 42.55% and Southerland at 24.51%. Other candidates saw no significant change. Also, I had previously identified Southerland as an independent candidate; he is actually affiliated with the Republican Party. -T. Bortnyk

Today, though, something else from Texas has been in the news — a much-needed reaction against the trend toward liberal indoctrination in public school textbooks. The New York Times’ James McKinley reported last week, “The Texas school board was (…) holding hearings on changes to its social studies curriculum that would portray conservatives in a more positive light, emphasize the role of Christianity in American history and include Republican political philosophies in textbooks.”

The Houston Chronicle’s Gary Scherrer wrote, “The State Board of Education tentatively approved new standards for social studies Friday with members divided along party lines — some blasting them as a fraud and conservative whitewash, others praising them as a tribute to the Founding Fathers that rightly portrays America as an exceptional country.”

Of course, denial of America as an exceptional country is a hallmark of modern liberalism. The left feels guilty that, despite its imperfections, the United States stands light-years above other nations in terms of freedom and opportunity for self-advancement. They degrade our Founding Fathers as little more than land-owning slave masters, while saying little, if anything, about the slavery that still exists in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

The conservatives in Texas simply asked — rightly so — why programs like the Great Society that led to skyrocketing crime, illegitimacy and dependence on government are hailed as a red-letter milestone in America’s history while the right’s efforts to control the size of our bloated federal government are either marginalized or cast as an attack by the rich on the poor.

Isn’t it great when liberals accuse conservatives of “fear-mongering,” yet half their foundation rests upon convincing voters that Republicans are in bed with moneyed interests and out to drain the poor of their last dime?

It’s not that they want to lower taxes in order to help businesses expand and create jobs; the little Karls of the world simply refuse to grasp basic economics, for some reason.

This Texas case is nothing new. An entry on Conservapedia, complete with relevant citations, says: “Textbooks used in schools of all ages have also been exposed as promoting a decidedly liberal bias against the nation of Israel. A landmark book called The Trouble with Textbooks, by Dr. Gary A. Tobin and Dennis R. Ybarra described results of a comprehensive study they conducted of the 28 most widely used Social Studies textbooks in the United States. The researchers found that U.S. textbooks often contain ‘repeated misrepresentations that cross the line into bigotry.’ Examples included Jesus being called a Palestinian, Islam being ‘treated with a devotional tone in some textbooks, less detached and analytical than it ought to be. Muslim beliefs are described in several instances as fact, without any clear qualifier such as Muslims believe…’ The Islamic empire of the Middle Ages was presented as ‘a time of unqualified glory without blemishes,’ while various aspects of the wars of Arab states against Israel were misrepresented. (In) the glossary of one book, World History: Continuity and Change, the entry on the Ten Commandments skeptically describes them as ‘Moral laws Moses claimed to have received from the Hebrew G-d Y-hweh on Mount Sinai,’ while the very same glossary states the Qu’ran is a ‘Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from G-d.’”

One textbook publisher, Teachers Curriculum Institute, has agreed to rewrite its unit on the Middle East after being challenged and consulting many scholars.

The San Fransisco-based Jewish Community Relations Council found that the textbooks were so filled with inaccuracies and bias that they should not be used.

Professor Larry Schweikart noted that most textbooks tend to come from New York, Boston, Washington and Philadelphia, all liberal bastions. As concerns American history, Schweikart sees the “Reagan test” as a consistent indicator of whether a book is politically slanted. The majority of books he has examined credit former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev with ending the Cold War, while marginalizing Reagan.

One need not make an extensive case study of books like Queering Elementary Education to realize that there has been, for some time, a leftist agenda among many educators, textbook authors and publishers.

Somewhere along the line, academia lost sight of the fact that the job of a public school teacher is to equip his or her students with the necessary skills to be functional, self-sufficient, productive members of society. How to read and write, to develop a fair amount of proficiency in mathematics, an appreciation for genuine science and an understanding of American history, the Constitution and our system of government — these are the things that most of us want for our kids when they go to school.

I’d say it’s a safe bet that — even outside of Texas — most parents aren’t too concerned with whether or not their kids can parrot ACLU Marxists in empty denunciations of their country.

American students’ performance in math and science has plummeted relative to other countries over the years, probably in part due to other countries’ teachers not being fixated on leftist indoctrination strategies and actually doing their jobs.

This decision in Texas is cause for an optimistic appraisal of the state of affairs in American education. In a time in which the left is making one shamble after another in Washington, and people are becoming ever more discontented with them, it seems a less-than-prudent time for aging hippies to continue using the public schools as a venue to spew their long-discredited baloney.

At a recent health care rally in Strongsville, OH President Obama stated “[Under our proposal] it’s estimated that your employers would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise.” The President went on to say “Those aren’t my numbers. Those are the numbers determined by the Congressional Budget Office.”

Well, I sure hope not. The CBO should be aware, as most of us are, that the most one could possibly save on any given expenditure is 100 percent (provided it was given away for free). A 3,000 percent reduction would result in one helluva raise (a refund worth approximately 30 times the amount of the initial insurance premium)! My sense is that President Obama isn’t exactly being honest with his audience.

For the record, I’m probably right.

On March 10th, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin told his fellow members of Congress “Anyone who would stand before you and say ‘Well, if you pass health care reform now, next year’s health care premiums are going down.’ I don’t think is telling the truth. In fact I think it’s likely that they will go up, but what we’re trying to do is slow the rate of increase.”

I could make a joke or something here, but I’m not going to. Instead I’m just going to point out that the statements made by President Obama and Senator Durbin (ostensibly regarding the same reform package) are wholly and completely incompatible.

While I’m on the subject, pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak recently told a local Michigan radio station about a private conversation he’d had with influential liberal Congressman Henry Waxman. The two purportedly discussed whether or not federal abortion funding should be included in the new health care proposal. When Stupak handed Waxman an amendment that would unequivocally deny women the right to receive federal funding for abortions, Waxman demurred, saying “But we want to pay for abortions. We think we should.”

This conversation is disturbing primarily because just days before it transpired House Speaker Nancy Pelosi assured the American people that “there is no federal funding for abortion in these bills.”

Stupak’s revision has yet to be implemented.

Finally, consider this statement from December 2005; wherein then-Senator Obama denounces the exact same legislative procedure he is now relying on to pass health care reform:
“Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes (…) The reconciliation process seems to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.”

Wow, I honestly couldn’t have said it better myself (although I’m going to try anyways).

It really is an extraordinary state of affairs when a political party that dominates 2/3 of our political system needs to resort to lies, deceit and misdirection in order to get a “wildly popular” bill signed into law. After a year of debate, Americans have made up their minds. They do not want this bill to pass and it’s no wonder. The bill itself is amorphous. Not one embodiment has been in circulation long enough for any honest Congressman to become sufficiently familiar with its contents. The bill is also unpaid for.

In February of 2010, while President Obama was preaching fiscal responsibility during a televised health care summit, his administration was running a 220 billion dollar budget deficit (the largest in American history). Forget the fact that the CBO refused to score Obama’s initial health care bill (because the administration failed to provide sufficient information), the fact that the 371 billion dollar “doc-fix” is not included in any cost estimates and the fact that the current approximation is based on 10 years of taxes that finance only 6 years of benefits… the plan still costs 1 trillion dollars!

Needless to say, it’s going to take a lot more than a spoonful of sugar to make this (bad) medicine go down. It might take a syringe.

Despite being an irrelevant, overrated, arrogant, and generally obnoxious nitwit, Penn has stood firm on his beliefs. On a recent episode of Bill Maher’s “Real Time”, Penn defended his questionable relationship with the brutal, free-speech suppressing socialist dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

“Every day, this elected leader [Chavez] is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it,” said Penn.

Indeed, Mr. Penn. I wonder why people would call him a dictator?

Not to give you the old “I told you so” speech, but it seems the Democrats in the Senate are already making plans to a abandon the pay-as-you-go provision in order to pass their jobs bill. If you recall, the legislation, which passed on Feb. 4th, was (on the surface) an effort to get the deficit under control; Democrats implored Congress to make the fiscally responsible choice and work to control our spending.

Of course, beneath the fancy rhetoric was the real motivation for the legislation: raising the debt ceiling. The legislation increased the debt limit to $14 trillion – larger than the entire U.S. economy. But fear not, the Democrats insisted, for this was only a necessary evil! Sure, the debt ceiling was being raised, but as long as we pay-as-we-go, as was done in the Clinton years, we’ll be back to a budget surplus in no time at all!

Well, that’s what they told us. But actions speak louder than words – and loud the Senate’s actions are.

The Washington Times reported on Wednesday that the Senate voted to waive the new spending rules – 62-43 (six Republicans voted for the bill) – to pass their new jobs bill, which is estimated to raise the deficit by an additional $12 billion in the first five years.

Let’s review: a bill is sponsored to require legislation be paid for by reducing spending elsewhere (PAYGO). Inside that bill is a provision to raise the debt limit by over $2 trillion. Just two weeks after this goes into effect, the Senate votes to end PAYGO as they prepare to pass a new bill that will raise the deficit. What are we left with? An even larger deficit with no mechanism in place to curb spending or do anything financially responsible in the least.

Of course, it’s silly of me to criticize the Democrats for ending PAYGO. Afterall, the original legislation didn’t do much to reduce deficit spending – as I reported earlier this month, over 40% of spending was exempt from the rules, anyway. Color me surprised!

All of this is missing the big picture – Stack’s motivation had nothing to do with Obama or the Tea Party Movement. In his own words, Stack described his issues with the complexity of the IRS tax code and the loopholes that allow corporations and “the rich” to avoid paying their fair share, while the little man is oppressed.

I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t exactly sound too much like your typical anti-Obama rhetoric. A casual observer might even find more common ground with your average liberal. Especially considering that the final words of Stack’s blog were as follows:

“The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010″

Now I don’t want to jump to conclusions before all the facts are in, but it doesn’t seem likely that someone identifying with the tea parties would quote Marx while simultaneously denouncing capitalism.

AMERICAblog News reported that a Facebook group, allegedily started by a member of the Tea Party Movement, was started to honor Stack. Sporting a Gadsden Flag as its default image, featuring an onslaught of anti-Obama response, and making a point to quote Thomas Jefferson, the group certainly fits the profile. A little too well, in fact. Considering all the facts of the incident, it would be a pretty smart idea for the Left to group Stack in with the tea partiers in order to discredit President Obama’s opposition.

It would be a dirty trick, no doubt, but hey, it’s politics. The tea partiers should be doing anything and everything to denounce Stack as a terrorist and make sure that everybody knows that he’s an anti-capitalist and a communist, not a conservative.

As of February 18^th, seventeen Democratic Senators had signed on to a new petition that would place a government-run insurance plan back into existing health care legislation. Intent on making history regardless of the consequences, representatives like Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, Roland Burris and John Kerry are trying hard to reinvigorate the abhorrent Frankenstein monster that is HR3590 (a.k.a. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). They have appealed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass the bill via reconciliation with a “strong public option.”

When asked last Thursday on the Rachel Maddow Show whether or not the Obama administration would endorse such an amendment, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius confirmed that they would approve of the public option if it was “the will of the Senate leadership.”

That’s nice; but what happened to respecting the will of the people?

Collective bargaining has taken its toll on the American electorate. The unsightly methods with which this administration has chosen to pass health care reform have led many Americans to doubt whether or not President Obama is actually exhibiting real leadership. The tone of American politics has not improved during Obama’s tenure in office and many representatives, including Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, actually believe the situation has gotten worse.

During his resignation speech last Monday, Bayh noted “For some time, I’ve had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress, too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people’s business is not getting done (…) I value my independence. I am not motivated by strident partisanship or ideology. These traits may be useful in many walks of life, but unfortunately they are not highly valued in Congress.”

I agree with Senator Bayh’s remarks. This administration redistributes blame like it redistributes income. There is no accountability, there is no transparency and there is no honesty. Americans are pleading for appropriate representation, but Congress refuses to listen.

Americans are decisively rejecting the collectivist worldview being forced upon them by the political left.  They realize that the welfare state is nothing more than a broken promise; an illusion of safety designed to bring solace to impressionable voters unwilling to think for themselves. Not everyone needs the government to protect them from misfortune; in fact most people do not. Most people would rather fail as a result of their independence than succeed at the hands of a pretentious bureaucracy.

Nevertheless, Washington remains in denial. Liberal representatives are still fixed on passing a domineering health care overhaul despite overwhelming public disapproval. Democratic Congress members are using their free will to restrict that of their constituents, abusing the very power they were entrusted to restrict. Universal health care should be universally accepted, not universally afflicted.

Early on in the game, it would have been more fair to merely call it crude; it was a quasi-libertarian uprising that was organic and flawed, but powerful in its message. In truth, the early days, before the National Tea Party Convention, before Sarah Palin’s book tour and before Michelle Bachmann started trying to be Sarah Palin, the movement was real. People who had never been activists before were looking for ways to get involved with the public discourse, and used the tea parties to network and organize.

But somewhere between then and now, the message became distorted and the humanity was drained; at some point along the way, the message had gotten lost. It became just another special interest, and a base of support to be exploited by whoever looks good and tells the masses what they want to hear.

Ron Paul's guerrilla presidential campaign was the blueprint for the Tea Party Movement

Let’s review history for a moment:

Think back to the Ron Paul campaign in 2008, where a platform of minimal government and personal liberty seemed to resonate with people.  It would be safe to say that the Tea Party Movement of today filled the vacuum left by Paul after he ended his bid for the Presidency. The loose network of conservative-libertarians in support of Ron Paul would be the framework for the tea parties, which also utilized social networking to organize and demonstrate.

The Tea Party Movement of today unofficially began with the stimulus bill, which was signed into law on February 17th, 2009. Two days later, CNBC on-air editor Rick Santelli accused the federal government of promoting “bad behavior”, and called for the organization of a “Chicago Tea Party”. The video went viral, and tea parties began popping up all over the country.

The protests reached critical mass on April 15th with the Tax Day Tea Party. Protests occurred in 750 cities across the country and drew anywhere from a dozen people to 15,000, as the case with the protest in Atlanta. The next major event occurred on September 12th, 2009, when thousands marched on Washington, D.C., making it the largest conservative protest ever held in D.C.

There are countless organizations, many of them competiting for market share, that make up the Tea Party Movement as a whole: The Tea Party Patriots is run by FreedomWorks, an advocacy group run by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey. The Tea Party Express is a bus-tour managed by a GOP consulting firm in Sacramento. The Tea Party Nation is the organization behind the recent National Tea Party Convention,featuring Sarah Palin as a keynote speaker. Last but far from least is Glenn Beck’s 9-12 Project – the most popular and widespread of the Tea Party groups – which was the primary sponsor of the September 12th D.C. march.

The September 12th march on Washington, D.C.

Now, the movement has evolved, and is no longer limited to just sign-waving and protest rallies. These days, it’s hardcore political activism. The Convention, which charged over $500 to attend, is evidence enough; this isn’t individualism anymore – it’s a machine in its own right.

If it continues to evolve, many fear what it has the potential to become – a third-party that would compete against both Democrats and Republicans, lead by Palin or Scott Brown or whoever steps up and exploits the situation first. And if the tea partiers suffer from enough groupthink, it’s possible that they’ll go rogue and destroy the chances for conservatism to rebound. Activists beware – that tea can be just as dangerous as the Kool-Aid. There’s nothing inherently wrong with third-parties or independent candidates; the danger lies not in the concept, but in the possibility for power-hungry opportunists to take advantage of a movement in desperate need of leadership.

The Tea Party Movement is no longer what it started as – a grassroots movement. It has been hijacked by the usual suspects of Washington political operatives, opportunists like Bachmann and Palin, and pundits who are all-too willing to exploit public discontent for higher ratings a few more New York Times best-sellers. And it is no surprise that the Republican Party has latched on, with involvement from lip service to outright funding, in the hopes that anti-Obama attitudes will propel them back into the majority come election season.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the overall theme of these protests; freedom should be cherished, and as we go through difficult economic times, there is legitimate concern about the direction in which we are headed and the courses of action to be taken. But the tea partiers should tread carefully, and consider the implications of their actions. They should consider long-term strategy, and pick their battles carefully; the last thing the conservative movement needs is a radical movement ousting Republicans just for the sake of being anti-establishment. It certainly doesn’t help that Michael Steele and the RNC continue to be embarrassingly out of touch and largely useless.

Short term thinking also carries a risk of having conflicting agendas of competing groups damaging and discrediting each other. The disorganization and inconsistencies of the movement, largely due to the myriad of influences and loyalties, practically encourages the media to pick up on less desirable qualities of the outliers and extrapolate their craziness onto the whole movement. They’ve already done enough. The characterization of the tea parties as racist, bigoted right-wingers isn’t an honest portrayal; most of these activists are good people voicing their concerns. It is unfortunate that these voices, which often carry with them intelligent arguments and solid policy solutions, are drowned out by those who make the most noise.

They should also wise-up and not allow opportunists to use the organizational structure to further their own interests. They ought not to be so easily persuaded by a wink and a smile and a speech about “common sense solutions”; they need to recognize the need for tactical brilliance and practical policy making, and look to experienced minds to articulate a platform that appeals to both the partisans and the tea partiers.

I would hope that people would not get the impression that I am opposed to activism; on the contrary, I view developments in conservative political organization to be a positive thing. But I approach it with a healthy dose of skepticism and and caution, and remind myself that in order to fix our problems, we can’t just pat ourselves on the back; we actually have to win elections.

“To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”

Um, did the president just drop the “N” bomb?

In the past, President Obama has always approached the discussion of nuclear energy with a notable degree of ambiguity. But in light of recent economic circumstances, he seems to be more than willing to add “nuclear” into his vernacular (try saying that 10 times fast). Quite frankly it’s about time our president stopped fighting for Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy and started fighting for our own.

Nuclear power is without question the most efficient source of energy in the world. It is also the safest. With the exception of the Chernobyl incident (that occurred over 20 years ago and resulted in less than 50 total deaths), nuclear power plants have not caused a single casualty as a result of their widespread use. Furthermore, nuclear power plants emit no carbon dioxide or sulfur oxides into the atmosphere. This means that they neither contribute to acid rain nor global warming (if you believe in that sort of thing) – two of the most important environmental concerns associated with energy production.

In fact, nuclear power plants actually emit less radiation than their coal-burning counterparts. As an added bonus, nuclear power plants releases no unsightly smoke or particulates into the air.

The economic benefits of nuclear power are even more widespread. The establishment of one nuclear power plant can provide as many as 2,400 construction jobs and 700 full-time careers. The average nuclear facility can create an incredible 430 million dollars in total economic output and provide energy for over 800,000 homes. Overall, every dollar spent by a nuclear power plant generates $1.13 for the local economy in which it is situated. Nuclear power can also be exported in large amounts to neighboring countries. Just ask France, who gets 77% of its energy from nuclear resources, of which it exports 3 Billion Euros worth of electricity.

Regardless of these advantages, the “n” word is still taboo amongst many of the president’s liberal supporters. A recent poll of 10,000 members of the notoriously left-leaning blog, MoveOn.org, revealed that the majority of its readers felt Obama’s call for nuclear power was the “worst moment” of his 71 minute speech.

I have to admit that watching President Obama ask Congress to enact the same policies he vehemently opposed during his campaign is slightly amusing. Tax cuts, deficit reduction, nuclear power, offshore drilling… was Sarah Palin right all along?

I guess I wouldn’t go that far.

But dig a little deeper and you’ll find that nothing about this bill address fiscal restraint. In fact, the opposite is true; underneath the smoke and mirrors is a provision to raise the debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion. Dig a little deeper, and you’ll uncover the troubling fact that the bill also includes exemptions for nearly 40% of all spending – over 160 spending programs. That’s right…  it’s a pay-as-you-go policy, but on almost half of all expenditures, it’s all go and no pay.

It can also be assumed, based on the massive increase in the debt limit, that the Democrats fully intend to use the exemptions to increase spending. After all, they already have; following the reinstatement of PAYGO in 2007, the Democrats have ballooned the deficit from$161 billion to $1.6 trillion – a tenfold increase. This is the fifth increase in the debt limit in the past year and a half. The debt ceiling now exceeds $14 trillion – rougly the size of the entire U.S. economy (Source).

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), ranking member of the budget committee, argued that the debt increase is larger than “the entire GDP of Canada”. For the record, it also exceeds the GDP of all but the top seven economies in the world.

“To sustain our current spending, without this increase, taxes for the lowest income brackets, by the time my children are my age, will be raised to 25%. For middle Americans, it would go to 66%. Income tax for small businesses will go to 88%” added Ryan.

The Democrats seemed to be making a different argument altogether – nearly every argument was in regard to the merits of PAYGO (with a large portion dedicated to the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush years – evidently, two wrongs make a right), rather than the inherent problem with raising the deficit.

Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) made sure to champion the virtue of controlling the debt, while simultaneously supporting a bill that would not only fail to do so, but actively work against it. It’s difficult to tell if the Democrats are completely and utterly dense, or if they know full well what they are doing and are trying to destroy our economy on purpose. Either way, it’s a frightening prospect, and it’s difficult to believe that anyone, on any side of the spectrum, would support such lunacy.

And it’ll be the ruin of many Americans, and God, I know I’m one.

According to the ad’s critics, it is an assault on a woman’s rights, despite the fact that it is, indeed, a television advertisement, and is absolutely unrelated to abortion legality. Evidently, these leftist groups are fully supportive of a woman’s right to choose – unless they choose NOT to get an abortion. The irony has apparently been lost on them (much like the Muslim protesters who firebombed churches and Western establishments to protest the unfair portrayal of Islam as a violent religion. Doh!)

In my mind, this is a textbook case of a non-issue; Tebow has a right to free speech, and can express any opinion he wants. The leftist groups have a right to free speech, and can criticize it all they want. I wasn’t planning on addressing this issue at all (like I said, it’s a non-issue. Besides, I never go out of my way to defend a Gator). That is, until today, when I read an article by the Huffington Post challenging the legality of the ad.

That’s right, the legality. Prominent lawyer Glorida Allred has claimed she will file a complaint with the FCC and FTC over the ad, which she claims violates federal law because it contains “falsehoods”. Pam Tebow, while pregnant, was visiting the Philippines when she fell ill. The doctors recommended she abort the pregnancy, which she declined. Apparently, abortion is illegal in the Philippines, and it is therefore unlikely (though not necessarily impossible, mind you) that a doctor would recommend an abortion. Failure to disclose this tidbit might make it a legal case.

To me, this is just a case of liberals trying to protect their monopoly on propaganda. It’s perfectly okay for leftist groups to launch pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-global warming ads, but the minute a conservative group runs an ad, it becomes a personal affront to every woman in America and their right to choose. The “falsehood” of the ad has no bearing on its message – Mrs. Tebow still chose to keep the baby, and chose not to get an abortion. Whether or not the question arose during a trip to the Phillippines is irrelevant.

In a free society, you have to tolerate all speech, not just the speech you agree with. That’s how free speech works.

I wonder what the ACLU thinks about this?

From McKain’s campaign website:

In keeping with his philosophy of “Principles Above Party”, Paul McKain has ended his affiliation with the Florida Whig Party and will now run as an independent candidate for Florida’s Second District Congressional seat currently held by Allen Boyd.

McKain chose to end his affiliation with the Florida Whig Party for one important reason: accountability to the voters. Says McKain, “I do not want to have to adopt any party’s platform or answer to any party’s leader. Unfortunately, that is the direction we were going with the Whigs. I didn’t like it and my supporters didn’t like it. Each congressional district is unique and cannot be handled with a one size fits all platform approach. When elected, I will answer to and be accountable to the voters of District 2 and the voters of District 2 alone. Principles above party. That is what this election is about.”

Check out McKain’s interview on “The Morning Show” with Preston Scott on 100.7 WFLA.

Last week, MSNBC lard bucket Ed Schultz opined that if he were a resident of Massachusetts, he would try to vote repeatedly in the Senatorial election between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley, and that, “Yeah, that’s right; I’d cheat to keep these bastards out (…) ’Cause that’s exactly what they are.”

That must be an example of the “civil discourse” we always hear the left whining for, except that all Republicans are bastards. Well, at least Schultz purports to be an honest cheater.

As Brown has begun to edge out Coakley in the polls, probably owing in part to Democrats’ repeated references to the Senate seat as “Kennedy’s seat,” as opposed to what Brown correctly and piquantly called “the people’s seat,” nationwide attention has been brought to this election. Both parties are pontificating on the potential implications for President Obama’s disaster of a health care bill, should Brown ascend to the Senate.

Predictably, Schultz is not the lone voice of dishonesty in the Democratic Party. Inter-racial boy-crusher Chris Matthews mewed last week, “You know in the old days (…) if the Democrats faced this kind of a disaster in the works, you’d go back to your ones, the people you were sure are going to vote Democrat, and you’d make sure they got to the polling place (…) You’d get them lunch; you’d get them a car. You’d make sure they got there, and in some cases, you’d be buying people to get them.”

What do you expect? This is the same party that doesn’t want voter intimidation investigated. As Connie Hair of Human Events reported on the House Judiciary Committee’s party-line vote on the “Black Panther” voter intimidation issue in Pennsylvania, “The measure, H. Res. 994, was defeated 15-14 on a straight party-line vote. Rep. Daniel Maffei (D-N.Y.) originally ‘passed’ on his vote, but then changed to ‘no’ to bring about the resolution’s defeat. Had the resolution gone through, it would have moved to the full House for a vote.”

This is the leftist mentality of today: An Al Gore schlockumentary is lionized as the new New Testament in the face of lies and distortions, but videotaped voter intimidation can’t be prosecuted because the miscreants involved were in favor of the Democrats.

Wherever you may stand on fiscal or social issue — even if you are an extreme Marxist — you have to be able to see the supreme arrogance and contempt for the will of the American people personified by today’s Democrats.

Obama promises something like eight times to open the health care debate to C-SPAN so that the citizens may see the process in action, and when he reneges, we have Nancy Pelosi telling us, in her infinite wisdom and regard for the democratic process, “There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.”

The sense of entitlement is a recurring theme with the Democrats. Most of the country doesn’t want this ridiculous insurance company giveaway that is touted as a health care bill, but screw it; we know what’s best for you, so we are going to fight tooth and nail to shove it down your throats. People are tired of the Democrat Party’s fiscal incompetence; let’s cheat to get the Democrat in if it looks like she might lose.

P.T. Barnum famously asserted that one could never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Hope, change, lies, distortions, hypocrisy and arrogance — you can keep them, because come November, a few hundred people in Washington will be facing long-overdue unemployment, no matter how much the mental microbes at MSNBC cheat.

Facing dwindling poll numbers following the Obama-care fiasco, President Obama is now attempting to fool Americans into believing his Number One concern is jobs and the economy – as opposed to socialism and a government take-over of 1/5th of our economy. O-say-anything-Bama is also touting his concern over the federal debt – which is the Number One peril facing America’s future and its children.

Suddenly, Obama thinks fiscal stewardship, responsible government, and controlled spending are a bright idea. Of course, he’s full of the stuff that line a baby’s diaper, but hey, he’s giving it a shot – which is more than George W. Bush ever did (to my Bush defending friends please send hate mail to: openyoureyesandpayattentiontorealityandquitdrinkingtheRNCkool-aid@biteme.org)

Anyhow, Obama the spending-slayer is now going to tame the $13 trillion federal debt. WooHoo! Change I can believe in! And just how do you think he is going to do this? Take a guess (the real Obama solution as proposed this week is really here – among one of the choices below):

Obama/Reid/Pelosi propose solving the deficit/debt problem by:

A) Raising taxes
B) Cutting government spending across the board by 45%
C) Capping Executive branch staff salaries
D) Appointing Bert and Ernie of Sesame Street fame to a deficit reduction commission

If you said “c” you’re right!

While symbolically this is a great way to get headlines in the NY Times and the nightly network newscasts, it’s about as effective as dropping Rosie O’Donnell off at Burger King and telling her to lose weight by limiting her consumption of Whoppers to seventeen. Capping Executive Branch salaries will save all of about a hundred million bucks or so this year. Meanwhile, our federal debt increases by 2 million dollars every minute!

So what?, says you.

Well think about this: your kids and grandkids (and theirs – who will probably be speaking Mandarin by then as that will be the official language of the Chinese People’s Republic of the Americas) are the ones who get the bill.

So as you sit by and enjoy your Social Security check, and watch Florida Governor Charlie Crist embrace Obama and his support for “light rail” across Florida, and cash your government check to subsidize your costs of removing Chinese drywall, or whatever other government spending program you love and think you are entitled to, just remember, your kids’ lives are going to suck because they are the ones who are going to have to pay the bill for all this shit so many Americans think they are entitled to.

Excuse my French, but I’m a little disgusted right now.

The most significant law on the subject, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, placed strict limitations on campaign contributions. Lower courts have upheld campaign finance regulation in two seperate cases, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which relied on the precedent set by Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. These decisions held that corporate donations to influence candidates and the electoral process did not constitute speech, and could thus be regulated by the government.

The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, involved the production of Hillary: The Movie, a documentary produced by a conservative group opposed to Senator Clinton’s 2008 bid for the presidency. The dispute regarded the financing of the film, and whether or not it violated federal law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion. “The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.” Non-profit and for-profit groups are now free from the restrictions of McCain-Feingold, and can more easily produce advertisements and media operations for or against particular candidates or initiatives.

“”Our nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights,” Justice Kennedy continued.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion, with Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor concurring in part. “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”

This decision will no doubt have a tremendous impact on future elections. It also comes at a particularly important time, as the 2010 midterm elections are just around the corner.