As a policy, having the federal government pick winners and losers is a failure. The federal government has no business nor any constitutional authority, and finally no clue on how to decide which businesses should succeed. The bankruptcy of Solyndra is the latest example of this failed ideology. As the crown jewel of the Obama administration’s green jobs program, the policy providing federal loans to Solyndra, operated under the failed belief that the government can buy its way into prosperity and create a market where none exists. Beyond that however, is the reality that Obama used this policy as a means to award his donors at taxpayer’s expense. Much like the first stimulus bill, most of the dollars spent in the green jobs gamut were funneled directly to democratic supporters. With the stimulus bill, the money was spent to keep unionized government workers employed, up to 75% of the stimulus funds were spent for this purpose in certain states, these workers are forced to pay union dues who in turn fund the democrat party. In Solyndra’s case, $535 million in loans were made to a venture being privately funded by George Kaiser an Obama campaign contribution bundler. In the months leading up to the government funding the loan for Solyndra, Kaiser made multiple trips to the white house. Further, the government made the loan despite Solyndra’s poor financial position, significant quarterly losses since inception, and its apparent inability to turn things around. Most significantly, the government restructured the loan putting the tax payers in second position behind Kaiser’s firm despite the fact that, according to currently released memos, the government knew the company was teetering on bankruptcy. All this is coupled with the fact that up to 18 Obama campaign donors are or were in position to profit from Obama’s agenda. Apparently political graft is alive and well in D.C.

While Solyndra is an obvious waste of taxpayer dollars for political gain, Fast and Furious borders on criminal. The government deliberately allowed assault rifles and other weapons to be funneled into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in an apparent attempt to drum up support for increased gun control in the U.S.. While the violence at the border could hardly be orchestrated, the actions carried out under this policy certainly aided the escalation of that violence and ultimately realized the death of American Border Patrol agents with guns provided by the ATF under this program. When initially questioned about the program Attorney General Eric Holder denied any knowledge of its existence or its purpose and Obama backed him on that claim. Yet, recently, memos have been uncovered revealing Mr. Holder not only had knowledge of the program but was regularly briefed on it up to a year before things went bad. Holder’s apparent perjury is a serious infraction by anybody, but especially the Attorney General of the United States. However, rather than call on Mr. Holder to resign, Obama obstinately backs his political ally. The administration desperately wants the growing attention to this scandal to diminish, so much so the White House has placed multiple phone calls to ABC news to voice their anger that the news outlet would dare report on the newly uncovered evidence of corruption. Apparently, the Obama white house’s definition of a free press differs from those of the founding fathers.

Perhaps most disturbing is the precedent set by the recent killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki. A U.S. born terrorist, Awlaki was executed by a drone attack in Yemen. The decision to kill Awlaki rested on the shoulders of a panel of bureaucrats within the Obama white house. It is notable that the president of the United States authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen without due process and without any formal declaration of war. As if Obama’s duplicitous nature was not already unmistakable, it is patently obvious now that the same man that criticized the Bush administration for enhanced interrogation has now one upped that policy by moving straight to execution; and applied that policy to a U.S. citizen! The same man that fought for due process and a jury trial at ground zero for a non-citizen terrorist, has now ordered the execution of a U.S. citizen without any hint of due process. Where is the left’s moral outrage now? It seems as though water-boarding of foreign terrorists warrants war crimes charges yet the execution of a U.S. citizen merits applause. These actions follow in a long list of actions based simply on the white house’s perception of their potential political gain. By killing Awlaki Obama believed it would demonstrate his willingness to defend America and his tough stance on terrorism, instead it demonstrates his willingness to do whatever he perceives to be politically expedient. The 180 degree turn Obama has made on the abuse of executive authority again demonstrates his lack of principled positions and his dangerous lack of integrity.

With election season ramping up it is more important than ever that the ideas of liberty and limited government make their way into the forefront of political thought in this country. The past few months have given rise to more public outrage at the abuses perpetrated by the bloated federal government and an executive willing to abuse and grab power unchecked. It is becoming even more evident now that if the U.S. is to survive, as founded, it will require a president willing to go on the offense for liberty in the same way Obama is on the offense for tyranny. It is no longer acceptable to sit back and fight to keep the status quo. The status quo is far from acceptable in the eyes of the founders and it is time to find someone who will fight to restore their vision of freedom. While Obama’s actions are appalling to those that value liberty, individual responsibility, and free markets, they have served the purpose of opening the eyes of a complacent populace. It is the duty of all Americans to spread the word, stay informed, and above all protect freedom first!

The flaw in this logic is evident immediately to anyone asking the question at the beginning of this piece.  If the only prerequisite for the installation and implementation of a radically invasive procedure is that it is alleged to enhance safety, then why stop at full body scanners?  In fact, using that logic, it would be irresponsible to stop at anything short of full body cavity searches, requiring passengers to fly fully unclothed, and mandating that passengers be restrained at their seats with shackles during all flights.  After all, all three of the aforementioned measures would certainly limit terrorists’ abilities to kill air travelers, so why not go all the way? You do want to be safer don’t you? 

It seems that any question of whether or not this technology is A) effective and B) reasonable will immediately illicit one of several predictable responses.  By questioning your government’s actions in this matter you are either: self absorbed, worrying too much about your naked body; ignorant of what’s required to keep American air passengers safe; or simply have something to hide because otherwise why would you care?  The problem for those in favor of strip searching and sexually assaulting American citizens is that neither of these arguments have any merit.    

It does not require being self absorbed to worry about privacy when the technology in question is capable of producing images in sufficient detail that a screener can detect the color of a woman’s nipple or how you groom the hair around your genitalia.  The images floated by TSA are inverted and blurred to intentionally mislead the public about the capability of this technology.  Furthermore, whether or not you are self absorbed is irrelevant.   The fourth amendment provides Americans with the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure” without a warrant and probable cause.   What does it say about the effect terrorists have on our freedom when we are willing to violate the document our freedoms are founded on in order to stop them?  The TSA is adamant that these images will not be stored or shared.  Apparently, Americans are to believe that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to not bring explosives on planes, despite the major consequences. Yet, ordinary people in blue TSA uniforms can be trusted to not disseminate these sensitive and potentially profitable images (in the case of celebrities) simply because its TSA policy?  Not the most reassuring response.   Make no mistake possession of the images produced by these machines of underage children is a felony and executing the “enhanced pat down” on a child would have you arrested.  That is of course unless you a member of the government. 

The jury is still out on whether or not these new procedures actually do keep anybody safer.  It takes less than a gram of many explosive substances to inflict major damage on a modern day airplane.  A substance of this amount could easily be smuggled within a committed terrorist’s body cavities.  Second of all, there is no consensus on whether or not these machines would have caught the underwear bomber, which was reported to be the major impetus behind their widespread use.  In actuality the American people are being asked to believe that we should be subjected to a potentially hazardous, invasive procedure because it may or may not have thwarted a single terrorist attack.   What is more startling about the underwear bombing incident is the major failure of government to use the tools it had at its disposal.  The underwear bomber was on the “No Fly List”, he booked a ticket to Detroit in December and did not bring a jacket or luggage, and his dad reported him to the CIA prior to him ever boarding that plane.  Better communication between agencies, actually using the “No Fly List” as described by its name, and agents that are trained to identify body language and profile passengers in line would all have stopped this attempt and neither of these involves the complete subjugation of 4th amendment.  

The TSA has also insisted that pilots be subjected to these same screening procedures.  Two pilots have already been grounded as a result of their refusal to participate.  How preposterous?  So, the TSA believes that if a pilot had the desire to bring down his aircraft, that preventing him from bringing explosives and weapons on board would solve the problem?  Pilots control the aircraft! Pilots are trusted with everyone’s lives.  A naked, cavity searched, and bald pilot could bring the plane down simply by choosing to do so!  What idiocracy.  The Government Accountability Office has released report after report stating that the TSA is employing expensive and invasive technology with no documented advantage and yet, the TSA marches on.

“I don’t have anything to hide, so why should I care?” This is perhaps the most dangerous of the arguments used in favor of eradicating American freedom.  It reveals an apathetic, uneducated viewpoint about the idea of freedom and why this country values it.  The premise behind this argument assumes that those exercising the power would never do so maliciously or for personal gain.  However this is the opposite of what history teaches us.   As the saying goes “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Currently, people are being threatened with fines as a result of refusing to submit.  As the power over our lives is yielded, the extent to which that power can be used for coercion is increased.  As it stands now American’s ability to fly on a private air carrier is determined by a government agent spouting gems such as “if you don’t like it, don’t fly”. It won’t be long before this type of police state mentality is applied to all forms of transportation in the name of safety and not long after that when the option of opting out is no longer offered.  You do want to be safe don’t you?

The welcomed outrage against the full body imaging is inspiring.  The fact that many Americans realize something is wrong gives hope that this country is not so far gone as to forget its roots.  The mortality rate as a result of terrorism is miniscule.  There is no need for many of these fear induced policies that simply serve to limit the freedom of “innocent until proven guilty” American citizens.  For those willing to trade freedom for security keep a couple things in mind.  First, it wasn’t government that stopped the terrorists on Flight 93, it was American citizens. Second, it wasn’t the “No Fly List”, being reported to the CIA, or not acting suspicious that stopped the underwear bomber, it was a faulty fuse.  Government has not been a good steward of the responsibilities and tools granted, or better yet, taken from the American people.  It is important as Americans to protect the liberty bestowed upon us. Stopping the use of these scanners is an excellent opportunity prevent further abuse of our precious liberty. 

As always, Protect Freedom First!

This is the beginning of Obama’s takeover of our healthcare system.  Anybody who thought that universal healthcare would someday suddenly appear and kill our current private system was sadly mistaken.  Instead our current system will endure a slow and painful death all the while the media and Obama will try to sell it to us as an improvement.  The link to the story is attached at the end of this post but before reading it keep a few things in mind. 

First, Obama has no constitutional authority to issue “rules” that private industry must follow.  These rules are entirely unconstitutional, even though congress seemingly gave the administration that power with the Obama care law, the supreme court has ruled in the past that Congress cannot yield its authority.  A recent example would be Bill Clinton’s attempt to obtain the line item veto.  The court ruled that giving the president the power to alter legislation in this manner violated the presentment clause of the U.S. constitution and that congress can not give this power away.  What warped America do we now live in where the president can snap his fingers and make “rules”?

Second, the story claims these services will be provided for free, yet finally reveals that the rules will result in an estimated 1.5% premium increase for all rate payers.  So the whitehouse has basically just shifted the cost to the entire rate paying pool.  This is something Obama seems to be rather good at.   Instead of solving a problem he just shifts the responsibility.  He promised to close Guantanamo bay.  His solution was simply moving the prisoners somewhere else.  He has still failed to accomplish this but what would he have achieved anyway?  His Obama care legislation promised to provide insurance to millions.  All it really did was force the states to pay for it by increasing Medicaid.  His so called solutions are like trying to solve unemployment in California by shipping all of the unemployed to Arizona.   Back to the point.

Third, the only way you can get these new “goodies” is if you change plans.  Plans that were grandfathered in won’t see any change except for the rate hike.  What was that Obama said when promoting healthcare?  Oh yes, he said “if you like your plan you can keep it, no one will make you switch” I guess this is true, he is just going to continue driving your premiums up so you can pay for benefits that are only available to those who switch.  While he’s at it, he will quietly bankrupt the insurance industry by making “rules” that require them to give more services away without reimbursement and restricting the increases in premiums.  Let’s get this straight; force businesses to give stuff away, prevent them from collecting revenue, and when they go bankrupt blame the market.   Apparantly Obama has never had a business or a real job, but neither has the majority of the wizards in his cabinet.  They have all lived the good life by skimming off the top of the private sector while simultaneously condemning its existence.  Back to the point.

Fourth, exactly what demographic is it that will be effected by this rate increase?  Most likely the majority are people making under 250,000 dollars a year.  I guess this is not technically a tax but the effect is the same.  Private citizens keep less of their hard earned dollars as a result of the government.    Hope and change, too bad Obama and his cronies can’t fill their heads with something more substantial than generic slogans.  Who knows how long the insurance companies will hang on. 

Oh, here’s the article.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/health/policy/15health.html?_r=1  This is sure to be just the begninning.  Keep a skeptical eye out and remember – Protect Freedom First!

“Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.”

“The Founders all saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, ‘No man is allowed to judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.’  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food…”

“In the 1800′s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faced crises.  Sometimes, of course, Congress was tempted to play politics with relief.  In 1887, for example, several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops.  Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas.  After the bill passed the Senate and House, President Grover Cleveland vetoed it.  ‘I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution,’ Cleveland said.  Such aid would ‘destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.’  He added, ‘Federal aid in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.’  As for Texas, Cleveland noted, ‘the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune.’”

“Cleveland was prophetic.  Voluntary contributions flowed into Texas from all over the nation, finally exceeding $100,000, more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers.  The Founders’ view of charity, which was not always consistently applied, was vindicated by Cleveland’s veto and the nation’s generosity.” -Quoted from “New Deal or Raw Deal” by Burton Folsom Jr.

If only our leaders had the integrity to actually uphold the constitution in the manner which President Cleveland did.  The dichotomy between today’s leaders and the principled leadership characterized in this excerpt is amazing.  This story correctly frames the ideas the Founders’ of our country had when drafting the Constitution.  There is no authority vested in the federal government for the actions of today or the even many of the actions taken since Roosevelt and the New Deal.   

It is up to us to shake the vision of what is “normal” when it comes to government and remember that the government handed down to us is far from what “normal” would have been even one hundred years ago.  Liberty was the principle behind the success of this country and it will take a return to liberty for it to succeed in the future.  Share these ideas with those around you and remember protect freedom first!

In large part the issue of illegal immigration has not been solved because politicians in Washington either fail to realize or choose to ignore what the problem really is – a welfare problem.   The issues Arizona, California, Texas, and other border states are facing have little to do with immigration and more to do with the burden the citizens of those states bear.  These border state citizens are forced to support a substantial distribution of their dollars to a large portion of the population that pay no taxes and ship the money to another country’s economy.  To solve this issue the U.S. does not need fences, civilian ID checks, a national ID card or deportation.  The solution is simply to end the flood of entitlements and other programs currently bleeding the American People dry.

Support for a bill that contributes to handing over more civil liberty, to accomplish yet another solution to a problem government created, will be hard to come by, especially by freedom loving individuals.  However, the left’s criticisms of the bill are generally unfounded.  Do they forget that it was Bill Clinton who passed immigration reform in the 90′s, authorizing partnerships with State authorities to enforce immigration laws?  The intent of those provisions sounds eerily similar to the current Arizona legislation, yet there was no outcry at its inception.  Do they forget that the tenth amendment to the constitution reserves powers not explicitly given to the federal government to the states or the people respectively? Which effectively allows people to show support or dissent by voting with their feet.  Do they understand that we currently bear the burden of providing proof of citizenship when applying for jobs as a result of U.S. social programs?  And, that burden will only increase as more and more of our lives are taken over in the form of socialized medicine? 

Currently, most individuals are required to provide their social security number whenever applying for or accepting a job, while there are many reasons for this, the result is the same;  “Are you a US citizen?” Whenever you are stopped by law enforcement the first question always involves identification.  Most enforcement actions currently involve the notion of reasonable suspicion and congressional democrats went as far as requiring Americans to provide proof of citizenship in order to attend recent town hall events.  Yet none of those things have created the supposed outrage now exhibited by the media and their liberal comrades.  Obama called the bill misguided, poorly conceived, and went as far as to ask how a Hispanic person would feel knowing that their “great-great-grandpa was [here] before Arizona was even a State.”  Is the president insinuating that Mexico, as a sovereign nation, should not take responsibility for the choices it made which resulted in it relinquishing control of a territory to another sovereign nation?  A more uneducated and incorrect view on this situation would be hard to come by.  Apparently the abdication of responsibility, preached by democrats, extends to foreign nations as well.   

The Left’s power grab mentality was predominately displayed by the ever arrogant mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, who issued a ban on travel to Arizona by all San Francisco city employees.  Where is the outrage associated with this action?  Are we now to assume that mayors of US cities have the power to limit where a free people may travel within their own free nation, or the world for that matter, simply because he finds something distasteful?  City employees should rise up and announce their intention to vacation in Phoenix this weekend simply to prove the point.  Funny that Mr. Newsom does not find running his city into a half billion dollar deficit more distasteful.  Maybe, he should limit his employees access to himself in an effort to promote responsibility.

Government is constantly encroaching on liberty as a means to solve problems it created.  The current Arizona law and other measures aimed at immigration, such as proposed national ID cards, are examples of this.  But this phony outrage, in the media and the Left, is complete hypocrisy and politically motivated.  The law does not promote racial profiling anymore than the screenings performed by TSA employees at airports, also supposedly based on “reasonable suspicion.”  The law does not force citizens to “show their papers” anymore than the other checks and rechecks citizens are currently subjected to. 

The bottom line is , none of these things are needed.  The country our founders envisioned was one where people came and made their own way and birthright citizenship did not exist.  Under this system, free immigration would not offend or upset any US citizen, simply because they would not be on the hook for the costs of supporting another nation’s people.  The current law will not solve the problem, it’s simply a Band-Aid for a larger problem, and it will lead to further erosion of Liberty.  However, that is not the reason for the recent outrage.  If the critics of the measure want to solve the issue, where laws like this aren’t needed,  we simply need to stop meddling in American’s lives.  The democrats and other politicians need to return this country to the time when people were responsible for themselves and not living off money and programs taken from taxpayers at the point of a gun.  The sad reality is the Left , or many other politicians for that matter, won’t do these things.  The liberal agenda is interested in maintaining and growing a permanent underclass of voters dependent on them.  Which, is one thing entitlements, welfare, and amnesty bills are really good at while laws leading to deportation are not.  Apparently , the mystery of their outrage is not really a mystery at all.

When the president vows, in his state of the Union address, to have a laser like focus on jobs and then proceeds to do nothing about the economy and instead focuses on passing a bill that will further burden the economy and reduce the quantity of labor demanded by employers, why does no one ask about the blatant misrepresentation of the his true goals to the American people?

Why, when the president decides terrorists need civilian trials, does no one in the media point out the hypocrisy in Obama ordering Anwar Al-Awlaki to be killed simply by labeling him a “proven threat”?  Are the terrorists already detained not threats? Or is it because Al-Awlaki is a US Citizen?  And, therefore wont offend anyone if he is killed?  Without advocating either way for terrorists trials, its a scary thought when a president advocates trials for foreign terrorists and death, without due process, for a US Citizen simply because he orders it.

Why, when the president holds a Nuke Summit and fails to invite our allies, pretends China is on board with sanctions against Iran, accomplishes nothing but disarming our friendly neighbors, is this heralded as a success in the American Media?

Why, when Pelosi and Barney Frank and other congressional democrats take the unusual step of going through a crowd of protestors to get to the capital to make their healthcare votes, are the reports of racial slurs, spitting, and other behavior still reported in the media when no evidence can be found to substantiate the claims and anything that is revealed points to the incidences never occuring?  Wouldnt a better report be on why Congressional democrats went through the crowd to get to the capital when most other days they use underground tunnels? 

Again, maybe its shortsightedness, but I think when the founders created a free press they intended that right to be excercised a little more rigorously then it is currently.  It just shows that it is up to the citizens to stay informed and spread the message-however we can.

Protect Freedom First!

This bill will increase all insurance rate payers premiums.. This bill effectively enables people to buy insurance after calamity strikes. This is like requiring auto insurance companies to pay for your accident when you signed up for insurance after the accident took place… This will bankrupt the insurance industry, which, I believe is by design.. 

Its laughable that so so much attention is being paid to the GOP’s supposed aversion to bipartisanship.. yet the bipartisanship so many seek exists – in opposition to this bill.  The republicans have nothing to do with this debate.. Obama had a majority in the house and a supermajority in the Senate and could not get the bill passed.. The bipartisan effort people are looking for was the effort to block this legislation.

Government created the health insurance price spiral we are experiencing with the introduction of managed care in the 60′s. The left’s beloved Ted Kennedy created the now demonized HMO.  Only in government can a problem created by the government be solved with more of the government. Get Government OUT of HealthCare.. put the consumer back into the equation and prices will come down. By removing the consumer, through its manipulations, the government has altered the market forces in play.  Currently, the government plans to place 37 million additional consumers into the position where, from their prospective, healthcare is free.  With basic supply and demand as our guide our only conclusion can be an increase in the quantity of medical care demanded.  At the same the time the government is now deciding the ”value” of those services by artificially trying to limit the price paid for those services.  Again, we can expect a decrease in the quantity of care supplied.  The end result of all of this is Healthcare rationing, eventual collapse of our system,  and a proclaimation by the government in the near future that “the free market failed and we must now naitionalize.”   A very sick joke played upon the American people.  This seems to be government’s M.O.; create a problem, demonize the problem, claim they are the answer.  Today, the left demonizes the employer based system yet this is the system they created.

Health Savings Accounts controlled by the individual, regardless of where they are employed, Tort reform, and increased competition are all much better directions than this ridiculous piece of legislation… quit forcing Hospitals to care for illegals without recourse for the debt, quit preventing consumers (aka the market) from limiting prices and direct costs will decrease.. IT is government’s manipulations to the market which have caused the distortions that lead the left to inexplicably call for more government.

Many have claimed the path we were on was unsustainable.  What a hilarious statement to make in support of this bill.  I ask, what do these people call this bill? Social Security and Medicare are both insolvent, yet we are supposed to believe creating another monster bureaucracy will be sustainable? We are supposed to believe our current system is unsustainable, but a bill that requires collecting taxes over ten years, only paying benefits for six years, and hijacking the interest from student loans in order to have CBO score it as budget neutral over a ten year period is sustainable? Hilarious.  The idea that the CBO says it, so it must be so, is also flawed.  The CBO scores what it gets.  In this case, its a piece of legislation full of accounting gimmicks.

For all those who would demonize private insurance, guess which insurance company led the nation in rejected claims? Was it Blue Shield, Aetna, or Kaiser? NO, it was Medicare.. Why? Because nothing is free.  When people say they will get free healthcare they are mistaken.  It is not free, it has to be paid for.  Another fallacy is the repeated demonizing of the insurance companies profits.  I guess if a 3% profit margin is raking it in, this country is in worse shape than I thought.  When did profit become a bad thing anyway?  This country should celebrate profit.  Its profit and people’s desire of it that brought this country to where it is today.  Capitalism is built on profit and this country was built on capitalism.  Why is it whenever the left has  a new cause célèbre it involves demonizing all the profit gleaned in related industries?  

Healthcare is a service, performed by people who acquired skills to perform it. No one has a RIGHT to Healthcare.. Your rights end where they infringe on others.. YOU have no more right to demand A doctor to fix you than you do to demand a mechanic fix your car… If you disagree, try forcing a doctor to provide his SERVICE.. if he refuses what will you do? Throw him in jail? You cannot force another to work for you.. That is not democracy, it is Slavery..