Photo by Luke M. Schierholz

In a recent interview on Piers Morgan Tonight, Academy Award winning actor Morgan Freeman, once again, laid down the charge that has no proof, that the Tea Party is racist. I like Morgan Freeman. I think he is a great actor. But with this display, I also think that he needs to get out of the Hollywood bubble that includes such deep thinkers as Michael Moore and Janeane Garofolo, and actually visit a Tea Party gathering, (they are very safe places to go to). Here is his thinking. The Tea Party is opposed to Barack Obama, therefore the Tea Party is racist. Game. Set. Match. Gee, that was easy. Does Morgan Freeman know who Herman Cain is? How does he explain that one?

Here is Morgan Freeman in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSbjRElWv5I

It is simply because he is a black man. It has nothing to do with 9+% unemployment; it has nothing to do with an additional $5 trillion in debt; it has nothing about having a health care program that the majority of Americans have consistently opposed crammed down our throats; it has nothing to do with our abandonment of Israel; it has nothing to do with Obama now being less popular in the Arab world than President Bush was in 2008, despite President Obama grovelling to every dictator in that part of the world after taking office. No, it can only be racism. Talk about being stuck on stupid.

Meet Frederick Douglass

Maybe Freeman is desperately trying to salvage the historic moment of having the first real black president (apologies to Bill Clinton, the self-proclaimed first black president) being elected by 53% of the American people and in three short years, destined to go down as one of the worst presidents in American history, alongside James Buchanan and Jimmy Carter. Perhaps Mr. Freeman should study Frederick Douglass, a former slave, who led the abolitionist movement and helped bring an end to slavery.

In a book by K. Carl Smith, Mr. Smith lays it out and shows how far we have come from our founding principles, principles that were embraced by Douglass. He calls them Douglass’ four principles;

1. Value #1 — Respect for the Constitution
2. Value #2 — Respect for Life
3. Value #3 — Limited Government
4. Value #4 — Personal Responsiblity

Based on that list of values Frederick Douglass would fit comfortably within the Tea Party. According to Morgan Freeman, Frederick Douglass is a racist, because he too would disagree with Barack Obama.

Respect for the Constitution

“About four years ago I became convinced that it was not necessary to dissolve the union between the states, and that the Constitution of the United States not only does not favor slavery, but is is, in letter and in spirit, an anti-slavery document which demands the abolition of slavery. This radical change in my opinions logically resulted in my actions as well.” — Frederick Douglass, “My Bondage and My Freedom (1855)

Where does Obama stand on the Constitution? Since coming to office Obama installed czars for almost everything. By calling them presidential advisers he could avoid Senate confirmation.Here is what Democrat Senator Robert Byrd had to say about Obama’s use of czars.

Before passing away last summer [2010] Byrd, a nine-term senator who twice chaired the powerful Appropriations Committee, blasted the president’s czar appointments as unconstitutional and a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. He referred to Obama’s “czar strategy” as an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House.

Obama is also of the school of thought that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that fluidly changes with the times. In other words, it means nothing to him other than what he wants it to mean to support his objectives. He believes that it is perfectly constitutional to force every American to buy health care insurance as a condition of being an American, whether or not you want it.

Respect for Life

Frederick Douglass held life as being precious. He wrote:

“When I was treated exceedingly ill; when my back was being scourged daily; when I was whipped within an inch of my life — life was all I cared for. ‘Spare my life.’ was my continual prayer.’” – Frederick Douglas, “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave & Other Writings, p. 125

While an Illinois Senator, Barack Obama helped kill a law that would have required medical treatment to any child born alive, even if the procedure being performed was an abortion. Life was important to Douglass, life is a choice to Obama and not the choice of the individual who will live or die.

Limited Government

Frederick Douglass was also a strong believer in limited government. After all, wasn’t it government that enforced his enslavement. He had this to say about the relationship between government and the freed slave:

“Let him alone and mind your own business. If you see him plowing in the open field. leveling the forest, at work with a spade, a rake, a hoe, a pick-axe, or a bill — let him alone; he has a right to work. If you seem him on his way to school, with spelling book, geography and arithmetic in his hands — let him alone. Don’t shut the door in his face, nor bolt your gates against him; he has a right to learn — let him alone. Don’t pass laws to degrade him.” {emphasis added} — Frederick Douglass: Selections from his Writings

But where does our government stand with regard to a Right to Work? Obama appoints far left progressives to the National Labor Relations Board and they try to block Boeing from opening a factory in South Carolina. Laws such as Davis-Bacon were passed as a result of a contractor bringing black laborers to Long Island to build a VA hospital in the 1930s. Although changes have been made to reduce the impact on minorities, the law has continued to make federal constructions projects more expensive than they otherwise would be. With regard to education, again, the government gets in the way. While Obama sends his daughters to a prestigious private school in Washington, D.C. he fought against a voucher program that could rescue other black children from failing schools in the District. The Tea Party fully supports such vouchers. Tell us again about who is racist, Mr. Freeman.

Douglass also wrote about government power.

“I was now getting, as I have said, one dollar and fifty cents per day. I contracted for it; I earned it; it was paid to me; it was rightfully my own; yet, upon returning each Saturday night, I was compelled to deliver every cent of that money to Master Hugh. And why? Not because he earned it, –not because he had any hand in earning it, — not because I owed it to him, — not because he possessed the slightest shadow of a right to it; but solely because he had the power to compel me to give it up.” – Frederick Douglas, “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave & Other Writings, p. 85

How much does this sound like the government and President Obama’s insistence that he is entitled to take more. In Obama’s view and in his language he treats all earnings as belonging to the government except what the government allows you to keep. That’s why he says tax cuts “have to be paid for.” Never mind that the government is spending our money for $16 muffins; $500 million for failed solar companies; $60-$100 billion a year stolen from Medicare and Medicaid; $1 trillion for failed stimulus programs, but his solution to the budget crisis is not to spend less, but to take more.

Personal Responsibility

“….And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is to give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!…your interference is doing him positive injury” –Frederick Douglass, What the Black Man Wants (1865)

Douglass did not call for the Great Society programs that have destroyed the black nuclear family. He did not call for spreading the wealth around, because it is good for everyone. Barack Obama wants to grow government bigger and bigger, to do more and more, whether we want it or not. And if we don’t want it, we are racists; if we object to it, we are greedy; if we look at the economic wreckage that surround us and we say enough, leave us alone and we’ll right this ship, we are called Nazis. Here is what Frederick Douglass accomplished without a government program:

• Taught himself to read and write — self-taught homeschooling program
• Taught himself to play the violin
• Escaped from slavery at age twenty
• Delayed his escape from slavery for one year in order to learn how to read and write as well as read
• He wrote his first book at age twenty-seven
• Became the face of the Abolitionist Movement and served as the catalyst within the movement that gave birth to the Republican Party
• In 1847, started a newspaper, The North Star
• Assisted Harriet Tubman in the Underground Railroad Movement through the use of his home in Rochester, NY
• Became an ordained minister in the AME Zion Church
• Served as an adviser to five U.S. Presidents (Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, and Benjamin Harrison)
• in 1863, served as a recruiter for the Massachusetts 54th Infantry Regiment
• in 1870, became the owner and editor of The New National Era,  a weekly newspaper in Washington, D.C.
• Without his knowledge, in 1872 Douglass became the first black American to be nominated as a Vice-Presidential candidate — Victoria Woodhull’s running mate on the Equal Rights Party ticket
• Douglass earned $50-$105 per speech during his public speaking career.

All accomplished without a government program.

“I am a Republican, a black dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. — Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

So, Mr. Freeman, are you prepared to call Frederick Douglass a racist, because his views are far closer to those of the Tea Party, than to Barack Obama? We’ll wait for your next interview to find out.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Note: a shout out to K. Carl Smith and his book Frederick Douglass Republicans: The Movement to Re-Ignite Americas’s Passion for Liberty (Author House: Birmingham, AL) 2011

Compare the address below in honor of our wounded heroes with Michelle Obama’s famous statement that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life after her husband was nominated as the Democrat party presidential candidate.

First, watch Mrs. Obama’s address and then compare and contrast it with that of Herman Cain.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw

Here’s Mr. Cain’s address

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVuoarEQelY

How long will it be before Herman Cain is smeared as being an Uncle Tom, traitor to his race, etc., etc.? Start the clock.

(a hat tip to www.secularstupidest.com)

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

The common themes in each presidential race turn on a hope and dream for the future, defining a common purpose and a call to action. Candidates usually win on the success of their ability to marshal these themes into a cohesive series of arguments for their nomination and eventually election to office. Few were as effective as Ronald Reagan at recruiting the support of the average listener. If he could get your ear, he could get your vote. Candidate Barack Obama frequently compared himself with Ronald Reagan during his campaign. His media cohorts happily aligned themselves with this maladapted relationship, with the centrist and even right leaning (business friendly and low/fair taxes) themes hinted by Obama’s vague comparisons.

He then has compared the first half of his first term to Ronald Reagan, again with the support of an eager media. They both inherited a terrible economy, with high unemployment, handed to them by unpopular presidents, and a world on the brink of disaster. That is basically where the comparisons end in real life and thus spurring a misunderstanding in comparing the two I call The Great Reagan Mistake. When Ronald Reagan was elected, interest rates were double digits, as a result of years of an economic condition known as “stagflation”, a term rarely used because Reagan’s economic policies essentially made the condition obsolete. Or so we thought. A couple more years of this recovery, especially if interest rates rise as they are predicted by many economists to do, and the term will come back into vogue sooner than one may think.

After a year and a half of the Barack Obama recovery (2009-2010), the results of his economic policies could not be more divergent from the results of the first 18 months of the Reagan recovery (1983-84). Unemployment is chronically high, even though interest rates are historically low and we are told to expect 8% unemployment as the “new normal”. We are also told to expect trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

According to Larry Kudlow, an economist in the Reagan administration, we have anemic 3% growth in GDP and a microscopic 121,000 new jobs created in the Obama recovery. Get ready for this: in the Reagan recovery, 5.3 million jobs were created by 7.7% GDP during the same period of recovery. Mr. Obama’s government centric high tax and suffocating business climate marked by presidentially led animosity for business in America, has stunted the very growth for which he longs, the absence of which is causing increasing frustration among the administration as well as the American people. Contrast that with the economic launch pad created by the then maligned “Reaganomics”. While his clueless Vice President Bush called it “Voodoo economics” to the howling delight of the liberal media, the business community knew better, and jumped on the rocket and rode it into unparalleled prosperity for the next twenty years. Reagan was the first president to shatter then accepted economic theory that low unemployment, low inflation and high GDP could NEVER exist at the same time. After the Reagan recovery began, those conditions coexisted continuously until 2008. Mr. Obama is turning back the clock, printing money and driving up inflation, while telling us to get used to high unemployment, leading us back into the “stagflation” era of Jimmy Carter.

While Reagan was accused of being an actor who was empty of substance and only made people feel good, this is the sadly unfolding truth about the Obama presidency. While they both had/have a gift for the rhetorical flourish, calling upon Americans to get in touch with their internal longing for a new vision for America, a dream and an awakening spirit, Mr. Reagan’s words were a separate and distinct tool for inspiration of the American people, guiding them through very tough times, while he took decisive action based on sound economic theory, with courage and conviction. Mr. Obama’s need to latch onto that legacy is resulting in the truly hollow rhetoric, lacking the substance so badly needed in the American domestic agenda today. Why can’t liberals just admit they were wrong and go back to what Reagan showed us worked? I always said it was the single most important thing Bill Clinton did to insure his presidential popularity: he didn’t mess with Reaganomics. He kept that his dirty little secret only supply side devotees like me would recognize. He never had to explain it to his liberal base because they were living in such nonchalant prosperity most Americans took for granted by then. He knew better than to make the Great Reagan Mistake. Mr. Obama is losing his window of opportunity to turn the tide and make actual changes. In two years, he will follow Jimmy Carter into oblivion. Hopefully the next President will not make the same mistake.

Please share your thoughts below.

The Democrats are currently trying to roll out that old war horse, “class warfare” in a desperate attempt to arrest their freefall in the polls.  The myth is that they are for the little guy when they are the party of big government.  Businesses, once they get big, are hardly fans of the free market as they would much prefer to settle into a profitable market niche and not have to keep battling against upstarts.

Show Me the Money

An organization known as OpenSecrets.org, has a website that has information on contributions to the 2008 presidential campaign.  The list of top contributors is not a list of contributions by corporations but by contributions from those company’s Political Action Committees, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families, but it does give you a sense of where the people who make up these companies see their bread buttered.

If you look at the top 20 donors to Obama compared to the top 20 donors to McCain, the 20th donor on Obama’s list gave 32% more to Obama than the top donor to McCain.  As with any large organization there will be individuals who support Republicans and individuals who support Democrats, as well as their PACs wanting hedge bets by giving to both.  But the amounts are telling.

What is particularly illuminating is with regard to Wall Street and the Banks.  The Democrats are latching onto the sound bite that they want more regulation to protect the little guy, while the Republicans want less regulation so that Wall Street and the banks can get rich at the expense of the little guy.

Who’s Dumber Wall Street or the Democrats?

Does anyone believe that the leaders of Wall Street would give money to a candidate or party without expecting their point of view to be heard?  Does anyone believe that the Democrats would take contributions and then turn around and burn those who contributed so generously, particularly before a very tough election?  Okay, now that we have that settled let’s look at the numbers.

The top Wall Street and Bank Contributors to Obama’s election were as follows:

1. Goldman Sachs — $994,795
2. Citigroup — $701,290
3. JP Morgan Chase — $695,132
4. UBS AG — $543,219
5. Morgan Stanley — $514,881

The top Wall Street and Bank Contributors to McCain’s election were as follows:

1. Merrill Lynch — $373, 595 (subsequently sold to Bank of America)
2. Citigroup — $322,051
3. Morgan Stanley — $273,452
4. Goldman Sachs — $230,095
5. JP Morgan Chase — $228,107
6. Wachovia — $195,063 (acquired by Wells Fargo)
7. UBS AG — $192,493
8. Credit Suisse — $183,353
9. Bank of America — $166,026
10. Bear Stearns — $117,498 (subsequently sold to JP Morgan Chase in a fire sale)
11. Lehman Brothers — $114,357 (Bankrupt)

It looks like four of the companies with people who gave to McCain didn’t survive the meltdown and either disappeared or were swallowed up by the winners.  If you look as people from companies that gave to both candidates, the amounts are significantly different:

1. Goldman Sachs associates gave $764,700 more to Obama than McCain
2. Citigroup associates gave $379,239 more to Obama than McCain
3. JP Morgan associates gave $467,025 more to Obama than McCain
4. UBS associates gave $350,726 more to Obama than McCain
5. Morgan Stanley gave $241,429 more to Obama than McCain

I am not suggesting any quid pro quo for the contributions, but people do things for a reason.  Who do you think will be more sensitive to the needs of Wall Street, Obama or the Republicans? 

So look for a Financial Reform package that is a lot of smoke and mirrors that actually does nothing constructive.  Republicans will oppose it, and Democrats will try to flog them as being for Wall Street and the Banks and against the little guy, but facts are facts.  Remember, after passing ObamaCare Democrats tried to paint the picture that they stood up to the insurance companies, when they passed a law that will compel millions of Americans to become customers of those same insurance companies.  Do you think that is why the opposition from the insurance companies was muted?

It’s time to drive home the point that this Administration is allied with Wall Street, GE, health insurance companies against us.  It should not be hard to do.  People are listening closely like never before.

When you are waiting for someone an hour can seem like a long time, but when you really want to accomplish something an hour is really not that long.  Here are some things you can’t do in an hour:

1. Run a marathon
2. Watch a feature length movie
3. Read a novel
4. Watch a baseball or football game
5. Make a good batch of chili

However there are some things that you can accomplish in less than an hour, such as:

1. Eat a doughnut
2. Watch a M*A*S*H re-run
3. Walk a mile
4. Take a shower
5. Brush your teeth
6. Take out the garbage
7. Change the oil in your car
8. Order and pick up a pizza
9. Check your e-mail
10. Complete the interrogation of someone named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a plane using a bomb in his underwear

That’s right #10 was completed in 50 minutes before the FBI decided to read him his Miranda rights and put him into the criminal justice system.  You will probably not be surprised to find out that he soon had a lawyer who advised him to stop speaking to the FBI.  So now if they want him to divulge any information they will have to go the plea bargain route up to and including setting him free.  Aren’t you glad we got rid of Bush and Cheney?  I mean, seriously, don’t you feel safer?

What Did He Know?

Does anyone believe what the Obama administration is telling us that they got everything they could out of this 23 year old novice in 50 minutes.  The kid was definitely talking, so why stop him?  He just got back from Yemen and probably had a wealth of information to give up.  He belongs in Guantanamo.  Are we not, as Obama finally admitted, at war?  Or are we at war, but just not with this guy?  (And by the way, Obama has been in office a year now so why hasn’t he captured Osama bin Laden?  During the campaign he snorted that McCain wouldn’t even follow him to his cave, as if Obama had the address).

Regardless of your position on “enhanced interrogation techniques” and let’s just say you put those aside.  You want to keep this guy where you can interrogate him again and again.  Where you can work to gain his trust, and where you can corroborate other information you find until he has been in your custody so long his information is stale and no longer of use.  Here’s a little secret for the Obama administration… it takes longer than 50 minutes.

An Embarrassment of Incompetence

Close on the heels of Janet Napolitano’s blundering at the helm of the Department of Homeland Security we have this astonishing exchange between Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, as reported in the Washington Examiner by Byron York:

On “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs whether President Obama was informed of the decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights before or after it was done. Gibbs avoided the question, saying, “That decision was made by the Justice Department and the FBI, with experienced FBI interrogators.” Gibbs stressed that “Abdulmutallab was interrogated and valuable intelligence was gotten as a result of that interrogation.”

Wallace pressed. “But we now find out he was interrogated for 50 minutes,” he said to Gibbs. “When they came back, he was read his Miranda rights and he clammed up.”

“No,” Gibbs answered. “Again, he was interrogated. Valuable intelligence was gotten based on those interrogations. And I think the Department of Justice and the — made the right decision, as did those FBI agents.”

“Let me just press one last question,” Wallace said. “You really don’t think that if you’d interrogated him longer that you might have gotten more information, since we now know that Al Qaeda in Yemen — ”

“Well, FBI interrogators believe they got valuable intelligence and were able to get all that they could out of him,” Gibbs said.

“All they could?” Wallace asked.

“Yeah,” Gibbs said.”

The Joke is on You

Joe Biden just held a press event to reveal how he was going to help the middle class.  The man who has a hard time reaching into his own pocket for more than $1 a day in charity to give to his fellow man, has no problem reaching into your pocket and give the fruit of your labor to someone else.  It’s a win-win.  It doesn’t cost Joe Biden and it helps him keep getting elected and drawing a salary that you pay for.

Here is what he revealed:

1. Nearly Doubling the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit — in an economy that has over 10% unemployment this administration is focusing on helping those who already have a job and income.  I’m all for tax cuts, but not targeted cuts.  Cut income tax rates and jobs will be created.  I don’t believe this administration knows how to aim anything well enough to hit a target
2. Limiting a student’s federal loan payments to 10 percent of his/her income above a basic living allowance — the administration is concerned about how much debt students leave college with.  Does it have any concern about how much debt they are piling on everyone, not just college graduates?  Biden pointed to the average indebtedness of around $25,000 for college graduates.  The federal debt is about $35,000 for every man, woman and child in America, not just college graduates and this administration shows no signs of stopping it.
3. Creating a system of automatic workplace IRAs — government first got involved in retirement with Social Security.  That system is bankrupt and this administration has no interest in fixing it.  When Republicans floated the idea of taking a portion of the Social Security payroll tax and diverting it to higher return private savings, the Democrats savaged them.  So the Democrat solution is to ignore the bankrupt Social Security system and start telling business what to do.
4. Expanding tax credits to match retirement savings and enacting new safeguards to protect retirement savings — again with Social Security bankrupt, they want to put more tax dollars into retirement.  How different is this than the Republican plan to take what exists and allow it to get better returns than the paltry rate it currently gets within the Social Security system? The difference is that the Republican plan wouldn’t cost anything extra.  The Democrat plan will either increase payroll taxes or increase the deficit.  Surprise!!!
5. Expanding support for families balancing work with caring for elderly relatives –I thought the Democrats had fixed this with “end of life counseling” in their health care plan, coupled with bringing back the Death Tax next year.

Fumbling and Stumbling

The way to create jobs is to let the job creators keep their money to invest in their business and expand.  Small business owners are stuck waiting to learn how much all of Obama’s social re-engineering is going to cost them and until they know that, hiring is the last thing they will do.  The only thing this administration seems to know how to do is bash business and spend money and the more they spend the longer the recover will take.  They are now planning another stimulus plan to follow the last stimulus plan that didn’t work, and the deficit continues to grow and grow and grow.

President Obama wants to create a bipartisan panel to recommend how to reduce the deficit.  He gives the back of his hand to bipartisanship when it comes to workable solutions to real problems, but he loves bipartisanship when it gives him political cover to make unpopular decisions.  All of his supporters love to say that experience doesn’t matter and that President Obama is the smartest guy in the room.  If that is true, he should not be afraid to propose bold spending cuts and shrinking government and be smart enough to explain it to Congress on his own.  If he does so, I am sure many Republicans would support him and vote for it (and almost all Democrats vote against it).  But he wants it both ways, he wants Republicans to yield to tie spending cuts to tax increases and put the package to an up or down vote.  He will then take that on the campaign trail to tell the world how Republicans voted for tax increases.  If you don’t believe me, look to history.  George Herbert Walker Bush, of the “no new taxes” pledge, got Congress to agree with spending cuts in return for a tax increase.  Bill Clinton clubbed him to death, like a baby seal, with that pledge and then enjoyed Bush’s restraint upon Congress on the spending side to generate budget surpluses.  Let President Obama take the lead.  Wasn’t that why he was elected?  Because he was a different kind of leader?  So, lead away.

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  – Presidential Oath of Office,  Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.” — NY Times, January 25, 2010

Last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that prohibited “electioneering communication”, that is, broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election.  It is what I and many others dub the “Incumbent Protection Act”, because it tips the scales heavily in favor of incumbents who have the name recognition, and the communication power of their office as an advantage in an election.  In addition, the 30 days or 60 days are when many voters really start paying attention.  Our elected representatives love to talk tough about reform, but that reform typically ends up making it harder to replace them.

Obama Weighs In

As the above quotes demonstrate, President Obama’s job is to uphold the Constitution.  The Constitution protects free speech.  So why is President Obama attacking a Supreme Court ruling that protects Free Speech?  Is that what he is supposed to be doing?  Instead he says it “strikes at democracy itself.”  He doesn’t mention that it also lifts restrictions on the speech of unions that typically favor the positions of his party.  Perhaps that is because with the Obama administration unions have extraordinary access to the White House. From January to July, White House logs show that Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) visited the White House 22 times, more than anyone else in the visitor logs.

If President Obama is truly concerned about the influence of lobbyists, it does no good to drive them out of advertising on TV into personal visits to the White House.  Of course, the president would be selective in who has an audience with him.  If you really want to reduce the number of lobbyists, then reduce the reasons for them to lobby.  If, for example, you want to reduce the lobbying effort of the giant agricultural corporation Archer Daniels Midland, then get the government out of the business of ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, and shut down the federal Department of Agriculture.   Lobbyists will call on Washington less, if they have less to call about.  Shrinking the federal government will reduce the number of lobbyists and their influence, reduce the deficit, help balance the budget, and make the government more manageable so that we can reduce or eliminate waste and fraud.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision saying that the ruling is not grounded in the writings of the Founding Fathers.  His argument being that certain groups could have their speech curtailed and only individuals had their speech protected.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion to address Stevens argument.  In part:

“I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”… This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored….

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.” – Antonin Scalia, concurring opinion in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Newly seated Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted against free speech.  I always marvel when people who succeed against tough odds attack the very principles of this country that allowed them to succeed.  The Bill of Rights was designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority by defining certain rights of every individual that could not be infringed upon.  It is one reason why people around the world fight to come here for a chance to succeed.  Because they know that these principles will allow them to do so if they have the drive to succeed.

We all must have heard it a thousand times or more “Bush Lied!”   The reality is that Bush made a judgment based on information that he received and that many Democrats agreed with that ultimately turned out to be wrong.  Somehow that is lying.  In my lexicon, lying is when you say something is true when you know it to be false.  It’s not when you honestly think it is true and you find out later that you were wrong.

We’re Gonna Debate This on C-Span

There is no lack of video clips where Obama spoke to the voters and told them straight up that if he is elected the debate on health care would be open.  So open, it would be carried on C-Span.  I have not heard the speech from Obama where he says that he has demanded others in his party (Reid and Pelosi) to put this on C-Span but they flat out refused.  If you can say that Bush lied, certainly what Obama did is a whopper of a lie.  So where is the vanguard of veracity, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews of the leg tingle, Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, the Daily Kos, et al?  Can anyone say, fair and balanced?

The White House released a list the other day of visitors.  Topping the list, in terms of frequency of visits was Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).  If the name of that union is not familiar to you, it is often closely linked to ACORN, the discredited group of community organizers.  So how many visits did Mr. Stern make?  Twenty-two (22).  That’s about once every other week, give or take.

Unions Decline

From a peak, as a percentage of employed workers, of 28.3% in 1954 to a level of 11.5% in 2003, the importance of unions in American life is not what it used to be.  In his recent book, What Americans Really want…Really, Frank Luntz asked this question, which of the following institutions are most important for America’s future? He then gave them a list to choose from.  When he combined their first and second choice percentages here is how it came out:

1. Schools – 51%
2. The Church – 26%
3. Federal Government – 24%
4. The Military – 23%
5. Business – 22%
6. Local Government – 13%
7. The Courts – 12%
8. Financial Institutions – 11%
9. Hospitals – 9%
10. The Media – 4%
11. Police – 3%
12. Unions – 3%

So let’s see…unions are at about 1/3 of their peak membership numbers;  Americans think they are unimportant to America’s future and yet, the president of SEIU is at the White House just about every other week, far more than any other visitor.  How is that for being in touch?  It is hope.  It is change.  But it certainly seems like the wrong direction for America.  Do you feel like President Obama is leading America to greatness, or plotting against it?

In his Sunday column Frank Rich described Republican candidate for New York’s 23rd Congressional District a “mainstream conservative by New York standards.”  So what did Dede Scozzafava do after falling so far behind the Democratic and Conservative candidates that she decided to drop out?  Well, naturally, she endorsed the Democrat!  Why would a conservative endorse the Conservative, rather than the Democrat?  Because, perhaps, she was a RINO?  That is, a Republican In Name Only.

Party On

What frightens the statists more than anything else is that the Tea Party people know how to walk and chew gum at the same time.  They know that protesting is one thing, but it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t bring about results.  What was demonstrated in New York’s 23rd District is that just like the Minutemen back in Revolutionary times, conservatives could rally, join the fight, and win.  The lock the left had on the media is gone.  The statists no longer control the information game, putting their spin on the news.  If this were 20 years ago, Doug Hoffman the Conservative candidate in the race, would have been, at best, a footnote in history.  His story would not have gotten off the local newspapers in that rural part of New York State.  In today’s world, he quickly got on television, talk radio, and the blogs, got his message out and the rest is history.

What’s the Lesson?

Despite Frank Rich’s hand wringing and Dede Scozzafava’s backing the Democratic candidate, how has the race changed?  From neck and neck between the Conservative Hoffman and the Democrat Owens, recent polls show Hoffman surging into the lead with one poll showing a 5% lead and another showing a 17% lead.  The lesson is that if you give Republicans good conservative candidates, they will vote for them.  If you instead go for weak, moderates, then the Republican base stays home, and the independents choose between the professional statist (Democrat) and the amateur statist (moderate Republican) and as I like to say…in a contest like that why wouldn’t you pick the pro over the amateur?