Tennessee Conservative Watch

Roy Herron effectively supports Obamacare‏

2010-04-08T20:58:00.001-04:00

Rep. Mike McIntyre, a Blue Dog Democrat from North Carolina, supports repealing Obama’s healthcare takeover:

“One of the Democrats who voted against health care reform in Washington D.C. lent his support Monday to the discussion of repealing the legislation. U.S. Congressman Mike McIntyre (D-NC) says he would favor repealing the entire health care bill that President Obama recently signed into law.” (Gavin Johnson, “McIntyre supports repeal of health care bill,” WECT-TV, 3/29/10)

So do most Americans:

“Currently, two weeks after passage, 54% of the nation's likely voters still favor repealing the new law.” (“54% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill,” Rasmussen Reports press release, 4/5/10)

But not liberal politician Roy Herron – he wants the president’s package of Medicare cuts, tax hikes, abortion funding and budget-busting government handouts to remain law:

“Dr. Lee Carter questioned if Herron will help clean-up the recently approved health care reform…Herron said he would work to keep the good and change the problematic areas.” (Joel Washburn, “Herron brings jobs tour to Carroll County,” The McKenzie Banner, 4/6/10)

He also defended the bill last month, claiming it’s not as bad as Americans are making it out to be:

“…[Herron] added that the legislation is not as terrifyingly bad as the GOP has painted it…” (Nicholas Beadle, “Fincher, Herron talk health care reform in early morning campaign stops in Jackson,” Jackson Sun “Motion Carried,” 3/22/10)

And no wonder: Roy has a long record of supporting government-run healthcare.

In 1993 – when President Bill Clinton and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) offered up similar government healthcare takeover plans – he supported their efforts:

“‘Do not give up on universal coverage,’ asked Clinton. Cooper followed Clinton and said his approach was much closer to Clinton's bill than either the single-payer plan proposed by liberal Democrats or the moderate Republican plan. ‘We are also committed to achieving universal coverage, and I think it should be on the President's timetable of 1998,’ said Cooper…Tennesseans and Mississippians attending the DLC's annual conference said they believe Clinton is now on the right path after a rocky start…‘The big issue for a lot of us is health care reform,’ said Tennessee State Rep. Roy Herron of Dresden. ‘I hope he and Congressman Cooper would continue to talk and find a solution.’” (James Brosnan, “Clinton, DLC tout success; health care split looms,” Memphis Commercial Appeal, 12/4/93)

“‘Our bills are very similar,’ Cooper acknowledged last month. ‘(They) have a lot in common and we’re very proud of that’…Indeed, like Clinton, Cooper would turn over control of America's health care system to the government.” (Joseph Perkins, “Clinton Lite: `Rival' health reform plan is just as ill-advised,” San Diego Union Tribune, 3/11/94)

“Alternatives rising in Congress, as support for President Clinton's original health care reform plan dwindles, have flaws…One, called ‘Clinton-Lite’ because of its resemblance to Clinton's proposed Health Security Act…would force people into government-approved health care plans, severely limit health care options, make employees pay more, and limit choice of doctors and access to specialists…With other features similar to Clinton's plan, Cooper-Grandy would move relentlessly toward greater regulation and more taxes - things lawmakers claim they want to avoid.” (“Beware ‘Clinton Lite,’ Daily Oklahoman EDITORIAL, 4/19/94)

And Roy Herron was a vocal supporter of TennCare, a disastrous state-level precursor to Obamacare:

“Tennessee in a year has done what Washington talks about doing in a decade. Washington aims for 95 percent of our citizens to have health insurance in the next millennium. Tennessee will achieve it next month.” (Roy Herron, “A ‘Tennessee Treasure,’ Memphis Commercial Appeal, 12/25/94)

“Sen. Herron said that TennCare has been beneficial to the state in a number of ways.” (Michael Finn, “Legislator Cites Difficulty In Obtaining Tenncare Info,” Chattanooga Times Free Press, 10/10/97)

“In 1994, Tennessee launched an ambitious public insurance program to cover its uninsured. The plan, TennCare, fulfilled that mission but nearly bankrupted the state in the process. As originally envisioned, the Tennessee plan expanded Medicaid, the government health-care program for the poor, to cover people who couldn't afford insurance or who had been denied coverage by an insurance company. With an initial budget of $2.6 billion, TennCare quickly extended coverage to an additional 500,000 people by making access to its plans easy and affordable. But the program became so expensive that Tennessee was forced to scale it back in 2005. Now, as Congress debates a national health-care overhaul, state experiments like Tennessee’s are informing the discussion.” (Avery Johnson, “Tennessee Experiment's High Cost Fuels Health-Care Debate,” Wall Street Journal, 8/17/09)

“Years ago Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, called it a ‘disaster.’ Today President Obama calls the same idea ‘reform.’ Both the president's prescription for the uninsured and Tennessee's TennCare program are premised on the same sugar pill: a vast expansion of health insurance coverage without affecting cost or quality…Given Tennessee's predictable experience, one wonders what ObamaCare cheerleaders have been smoking. No wonder attorneys general in so many states have gone to court.” (“The TennCare lesson: A national disaster,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review EDITORIAL, 3/27/10)

Indeed, Roy campaigned on universal healthcare while running for state Senate in 1996:

“He also stressed support for ‘better schools for our children, better jobs for adult, and affordable health care for all citizens’…‘Every citizen should have access to affordable, life-saving health care.’” (“Representative Roy Herron announces for Senate,” Dresden Enterprise, 7/24/96)

------

Andy Seré

Regional Press Secretary

National Republican Congressional Committee

Census used as 'gay gimmick'

2010-04-07T15:09:00.000-04:00

Jim Brown and Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 4/7/2010 6:00:00 AM

Traditional marriage proponents are warning that homosexual activists and the Obama administration are once again working in concert to "manipulate" federal law.

The Associated Press reports that the Census Bureau plans to count same-sex couples who say they are married, regardless of whether they have a marriage license (see AP article). Even though only five states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex "marriages," the Census Bureau says same-sex couples should feel free to check the "husband" or "wife" boxes on the census form, rather than "unmarried partner."

Story continues below ...

Results from our related poll

Why would the Census Bureau be so bold about encouraging homosexuals

to lie about their marital status on their census forms?

Peter LaBarbera, executive director of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, argues that the Bureau is clearly violating the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does not recognize same-sex marriages.

"What they're obviously trying to do is magnify the numbers of homosexuals in the society," he suspects. "This dates way back in the gay movement. There was a time when homosexual activists just lied and said that ten percent of the public was gay -- that was a bald-faced lie. It took decades to finally disprove that lie, but here again we see them calling themselves married because they want to be called married. Well, that's not what the law says."

LaBarbera believes homosexual activists are using the census as their latest "gimmick" to seek affirmation of their lifestyle, and he challenges Congress to "step up" and prevent the Obama administration from promoting the "gay" agenda by dictate.

Marriage by opinion is not marriage by law

Similarly, Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, believes the source for the Bureau's instructions can perhaps be traced as far as the White House. (Listen to audio report)

"It's a shame that the Census Bureau, in tangent with radical homosexual activists, are choosing to use the census, which is supposed to provide objective, quantifiable information relative to varying demographics around the country, that they're using this as a tool for political activism," Barber laments.

He notes that just because a homosexual couple might call their relationship a marriage, that does not make it so. "It is directly contrary to probably the letter, at least the spirit, of the Defense of Marriage Act," he adds.

The federal law recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and the cultural affairs director believes the purpose in the census campaign is to "create an impression in the minds of the American people" that the movement for legalizing homosexual marriage has more steam behind it than it actually does.

Now that he’s running for Congress, liberal politician Roy Herron talks as if he’s an Independent – not a Democrat:

2010-03-23T15:00:00.001-04:00

“But Herron also seemed to try to distinguish himself this morning as a moderate…‘Republicans think you should cut taxes no matter how big the deficit is and Democrats think you should increase spending no matter how big the deficit is,’ Herron said. ‘Neither one is right in my opinion.’” (Nicholas Beadle, “Fincher, Herron talk health care reform in early morning campaign stops in Jackson,” Jackson Sun “Motion Carried,” 3/22/10)

But – as Roy reminded Democratic activists when he was running in a heated gubernatorial primary last year – he’s a Democrat, alright:

“‘I’m not just a little bit Democrat and I’m not just a new Democrat,’ candidate Roy Herron said. ‘I’m all way through Democrat.’” (Brad Hicks, “Candidates muster at Rocky Mount,” Johnson City Press, 7/12/09)

And a “partisan” one at that!

“…Herron has been a Democrat partisan.” (Tom Humphrey, “Lawmaker's book offers slices of life,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, 10/7/99)

“…if by partisanship you mean a commitment to a set of principles and values, and the determination to work to see them find expression in the real world, then I am all for partisanship.” (Roy Herron, God and Politics, p.115)

“Herron really threw out the red meat, basically tarring Republicans as racist retrogrades.” (Jeff Woods, “Who hates Republicans more? Kyle and Herron debate the question,” Nashville Scene “Pith in the Wind,” 6/18/09)

“Al Gore on Monday appointed state Sen. Roy Herron, a longtime friend from the same county where the vice president's mother was born, as state director of his presidential campaign.” (“State senator named state Gore campaign director,” Associated Press, 8/7/00)

“Senate Democrats also re-elected Sen. Jim Kyle, D-Memphis, as minority leader and chose Sen. Roy Herron, D-Dresden, as caucus chairman.” (“Berke tapped for Senate Democratic leadership post,” Chattanooga Times Free Press,” 11/26/08)

Democrats Make up Rules as they go along

2010-03-21T18:11:00.001-04:00

Blue Dog votes examined: exposed as total frauds

2009-04-09T19:03:00.001-04:00

Blue Dogs' Moment of Truth
Some Democrats claim they're fiscally conservative but don't vote that way.

By Michael G. Franc

Barely 100 days in, this session of Congress has already seen a number of consequential votes.

Some involve major changes in bankruptcy and labor law. For example, one would give bankruptcy judges unilateral authority to rewrite the terms of mortgage contracts, including the amount of principal and the interest rate. Another would give a new lease on life to the oft-discredited labor theory of "comparable worth"; the Paycheck Fairness Act would require employers to justify all pay disparities between their male and female workers.

But the real action has been on the spending front. As Bloomberg News reported, "In this crisis, the U.S. government and the Fed alone have spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion to try to prop up the banking industry and overall economy to stem the longest recession since the 1930s." The House has approved legislation to release an additional $350 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program; borrow $787 billion to "stimulate" the economy; borrow another $410 billion to expand domestic spending programs; expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program by tens of billons of dollars; and triple the level of government funding for volunteerism (even as the president proposed restricting deductions for private charitable giving).

Oh, and let's not forget that $3.5 trillion budget blueprint for next year. It increases spending, raises taxes, and incurs debt at a rate that even the most jaded Washington insiders would have thought impossible just a few months ago.

Where will it end? A top priority will be to refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden the debt places on them. The prospects for these goals will depend largely on the Blue Dogs, a coalition of 51 House Democrats.

According to the Blue Dogs' website, they have "been particularly active on fiscal issues, relentlessly pursuing a balanced budget and then protecting that achievement from politically popular 'raids' on the budget." But just how "relentlessly" have they pursued a balanced budget during this year's spending blitzkrieg?

To answer that question, I reviewed nine recent House votes related to the following issues: the release of the second half of the TARP funds, the expansion of SCHIP, the economic-stimulus package, the omnibus spending bill, the expansion of government funding for volunteer activities, and the FY2010 budget.

To determine whether each Blue Dog had voted in a fiscally conservative manner, I looked at whether they voted against Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), the poster child for the views and policy instincts of today's House Left. Frank missed the vote on the omnibus appropriations bill, so on that vote, lefty representative Barbara Lee (D., Calif.) took his place.

The extent to which members of the Blue Dog Coalition agree with Frank and Lee is nothing short of astounding. Eleven sided with them 100 percent of the time. Ten others stood with them all but once, eleven more all but twice. Bottom line: Two of every three of these self-proclaimed fiscal hawks voted pretty much in lock-step with the biggest spenders on the Left.

Frank-Lee's 100 percent clones include Reps. Leonard Boswell (Iowa), Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Dennis Moore (Kan.), Patrick Murphy (Penn.), and Earl Pomeroy (N. Dak.). Those who strayed from the Frank-Lee axis only once include Reps. Jason Altmire (Penn.), Melissa Bean (Ill.), Ben Chandler (Ky.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Mike Ross (Ark.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S. Dak.), and John Tanner (Tenn.). Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Gabriella Giffords (Ariz.), Baron Hill (Ind.), and Charles Melancon (La.), were among those who voted the big-government line all but twice.

Some of the most outspoken members of the Blue Dog Coalition also scored points with the big spenders, voting with Frank and Lee six out of nine times. They include Reps. John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), and Jim Matheson (Utah).

Only six Blue Dogs (four of them freshmen and all representing districts that John McCain carried in the 2008 presidential election) voted against this spending more than half the time. They are Bobby Bright (Ala.), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Colin Peterson (Minn.), and Gene Taylor (Miss.).

To be sure, the Blue Dogs include a disproportionate number of House Democratic dissenters. The two House Democrats who opposed the SCHIP expansion, for example, were Blue Dogs (Bright, and Jim Marshall of Georgia). Blue Dog Marion Berry of Arkansas was the sole Democratic dissenter on the bill to triple the federal government's role in subsidizing volunteerism. And all but one of the eleven Democrats who opposed the economic-stimulus bill hail from the Blue Dog Coalition.

But most of the time, the large majority of Blue Dogs have been enablers of the Big Government agenda. Ultimately, the extent of their alliance with House uber-liberals reflects the Democratic leadership's most remarkable and overlooked accomplishment: the use of a form of legislative triage. On the big issues, the Democrats quietly condone the loss of an "acceptable" number — but only an acceptable number — of Blue Dog votes. For example, Tennessee representative Jim Cooper recently said the White House had encouraged him to work against the stimulus bill. He claimed the encouragement came because the White House itself didn't like the bill, but changed his tune when the administration objected. The incident fits the Democrats' modus operandi of letting Blue Dogs demonstrate their fiscal austerity — so long as the votes don't affect the ultimate outcome.

Is there a limit to how often the Blue Dogs will trade their bib overalls for the trendy attire of their liberal House colleagues? We already have seen them blanch at the prospect of cap-and-trade legislation that would wreck havoc on the heavy concentration of manufacturing and agricultural jobs in their districts. The same trepidation may soon become apparent with respect to universal-health-care legislation.

As with any addiction, however, the first step to overcoming the obsession with bigger and bigger government is the recognition that, yes, there is a problem. If their votes are any indication, our Blue Dog friends are not there yet.

Obama says, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation"

2009-04-06T13:04:00.001-04:00

See for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIVd7YT0oWA&feature=player_embedded

With roughly 80% of Americans that identify themselves as Christian, President Obama tells the Turkish P.M.

that "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation." This after the President saying we will "never be at war with Islam."

I'm glad he clarified, the United States liberating 50 million muslims from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq,

and from the control of the Taliban in Afghanistan, they might have gotten confused.

Does anyone think that a leader from a muslim country would ever come to Washington D.C. and make a speech saying

"we don't consider ourselves a muslim nation?" What would be the response from his country?

This is what happens when you elect an untested, inexperienced man who had no problem being friend with a domestic

terrorist, and sat in the pews of a church with a hate filled pastor for 20 years.

Why not just say, America values freedom of religion for every citizen?

Elections have consequences....

Who is this guy? Has he ever studied history? Read anything from the Founding Fathers?

I understand "freedom of religion", but should he be saying this in a Muslim country?

Oh... that's right! This is Barack Obama who hates America, hates capitalism and wants to destroy us from within!

This is nice; now he's attacking religion and our Judeo-Christian value system this country was built upon.

Auditions for "The Women"

2009-03-07T10:20:00.001-05:00

A TCWatcher reports:

Auditions for "The Women" next Wednesday, March 11 from 6 - 8 p.m. at the Masquerade Theatre.

This play is set in the 30's not like the recent movie.

Google "1939 The Women" to see a b&w trailer of the old movie...it's a hoot!

There are 40+ parts for all levels of experience and even some non-speaking parts for those just wanting to just get their feet wet. Plus Johnny is so fun to work with!

All women are encouraged to come try out!

Blue Dogs Roll Over

2009-02-20T09:26:00.000-05:00

Toothless Blue Dogs Roll Over on Stimulus Bill
Donald Lambro
Friday, February 20, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The House's Blue Dog Democrats like to pretend they are the deficit tigers of Congress, determined to stop runaway spending and stamp out waste, fraud and abuse.

But when push came to shove, as it did in the pork-crammed $800 billion economic-stimulus bill, most of these tigers mewed like pussycats, voting in lock step with Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank for a bill they had not read.

One by one, they inserted their voting cards into the slot in front of their seats and charged the stimulus money to the taxpayers. The first payment will be due April 15. Brace your wallets.

"Toothless tigers is one way to describe them. They are more gums than teeth when it comes to putting a bite on deficits," said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union.

NTU's "bill tally" monitoring showed that Blue Dogs propose three-quarters less spending increases than the Democrats as a whole, but the majority of Blue Dogs still vote for most of the spending bills their party brings to the floor.

"The Blue Dogs can't say with a straight face that they have a moderate or conservative bone in their body. They're exposed as pawns of the most left-wing Democratic leadership in American history," says tax-cut crusader Grover Norquist.

There are about four-dozen Blue Dog Democrats who took their name about a dozen years ago from their Southern ancestry and who showed their party loyalty by saying they would vote for an old yellow dog before voting Republican.

At the start of the new Congress, they vowed that a "top priority will be to refocus Congress on truly balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden the national debt places on them."

In a Feb. 4 letter to Speaker Pelosi, Indiana Rep. Baron Hill and seven other Blue Dog leaders said they had "serious reservations" about the big stimulus bill then working its way through Congress.

But on final passage, only a half-dozen brave Blue Dogs voted against the bill that will, with interest, add $1 trillion-plus to the federal debt.

One of them was Democratic Rep. Walt Minnick of Idaho, who had offered a $200 billion alternative, but when it failed, he voted no on the stimulus put together by Democratic leaders and the White House.

Minnick soberly told his constituents: "We must be mindful of the legacy we leave for future generations. The consequences of this bill will be painful and possibly harsh for those tasked with the burden of paying for what has been passed today."

The only other Blue Dog no votes came from Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith, both of Alabama, Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.

Not all Blue Dogs are entirely honest or accurate in reporting what they voted for on Friday, Feb. 13. Rep. Allen Boyd of Florida issued a release that said "The final stimulus package includes $320 billion in spending initiatives, compared to $544 billion in the original House stimulus bill."

Actually, the bill he voted for contained $515 billion in spending and a whittled-down $275 billion in tax reductions.

But if some of the bill's questionable spending is a sign of things to come, the Blue Dogs and their colleagues will have a lot of explaining to do.

Go online to www.Propublica.org, a journalistic watchdog outfit that is shining some sunlight on the spending spree, and you will get an eyeful. The group boiled down the 1,000-plus-page bill to its separate appropriations. The list is a veritable who's who of all the major departments, agencies and programs in Washington. Everyone has his fingers in the pie.

There's $150 million for the Economic Development Administration, a tired Great Society holdover whose expenditures have wasted untold sums; $636 million for the Small Business Administration whose loans have never made a dent in new business development, affecting only a tiny fraction of start-ups; $1 billion for the Census Bureau for temporary census-taker jobs; and $2.5 billion for National Science Foundation grants to university academics who already have jobs.

Propublica also reported last week that, when it crunched the figures in the stimulus bill for about $100 billion in transportation and infrastructure projects, it "found that states with high unemployment are getting less money per-capita or even per-unemployed worker than states with low unemployment."

For example, Rhode Island, with 9.3 percent jobless, gets $193 million, while Virginia, with 4.8 percent unemployment, gets $890.6 million.

And www.StimulusWatch.org now lists all of the projects that are being funded under Obama's plan, many of which raise questions as to need.

In Lewiston, Maine, for instance, $2.6 million will be spent to build a bike and pedestrian path. In Portland, Maine, $2 million will go for a skateboard park; $1 million for a bike-pedestrian trail; $2.5 million to restore a pond; and $500,000 to replace the city's fleet of police cruisers and SUVs.

This is just a small sampling of what the Blue Dogs voted for, and no doubt there's more to come. Stay tuned.

"Conservative" Blue Dogs jet with wives to Paris on our dime.

2009-02-15T16:34:00.000-05:00

Tanner, Gordon Vote to Give You $13 a Week, Take Wives to Paris for Valentine's Day on Taxpayers' Tab

Congressmen John Tanner and Bart Gordon are headed to Paris for Valentine's Day at taxpayers' expense

NASHVILLE – What are you doing for Valentines Day? Tennessee Congressman John Tanner – who claims to be a fiscally conservative Democrat – is taking his wife to Paris, France – and you are paying for it.

This will be Rep. Tanner's second taxpayer-funded trip to Europe since the November election. He traveled with a Congressional delegation to Valencia, Spain, and Rome, Italy, in November. This weekend, he's leading another Congressional delegation – 13 Congress members and 10 spouses – on a nine-day trip to Europe include Brussels, Rome, Vienna, Paris on Valentine's Day, and a stop at a famed ski town in the Bavarian Alps.

While the average American in tough economic times looks for bargains when they travel, Tanner and the delegation will be flying with an entourage of spouses, staffers and military escorts on a military plane at huge expense.

"The estimated average tax cut that middle class Americans will receive for the last six months of the year as part of the bloated 'economic stimulus' package that John Tanner and the Democrats passed in Congress today is $13 a week," said Bill Hobbs, communications director for the Tennessee Republican Party.

"At $13 a week, it would take the average American several years to save up enough money to take their sweetie to Paris for Valentine's Day, but John Tanner and Bart Gordon aren't average Americans," Hobbs said. "They are Democrat congressmen who claim to be fiscal conservatives but are right now jetting off to Europe at taxpayers' expense instead of coming back to Tennessee to explain why they voted for billions of dollars in pork projects and payoffs to special interest groups but only $13 a week for the average middle class taxpayer."

The front page of Tanner's congressional website notes today that each American's share of America's $10.7 trillion national debt is $35,038.15. On Friday, before jetting off to Europe, Tanner and Gordon voted to add $787 billion dollars to the national debt. Your share of that – more than $2,600 - would be enough to pay for a weekend in Paris.

In December 2007, Tanner gave a speech on the House floor in which he criticized continued borrowing to pay for today's federal spending., calling a proposal to add $50 billion to the national debt "irresponsible."

Another reason to thank the "conservative" Blue Dogs for supporting "Porkulus"

2009-02-15T15:55:00.001-05:00

Fox News is on air now giving details of Porkulus.

According to Fox, the only part of the economy to be cut by Porkulus is our military -- 10% "to start," in the words of Barney Frank, for maintenance, training, and procurement

Other details include the Veterans Administration sharply cutting medical treatment for vets, and for military retirees, patient premiums and co-pays for TRICARE are being raised 100-400%, PLUS medical care for veterans and retirees will be the first to be rationed by the White House Office of Healthcare Coordination.

FEEL the love, tolerance, and bipartisanship...

Congress is voting on a bill they have not read or seen.

2009-02-13T14:54:00.001-05:00

Our Congress is voting on a 1,434-page bill that no one—repeat, no one—has had a chance to read in its entirety, much less digest and deliberate. More lobbyists have copies of the bill than congressmen.

*This bill has been advertised as an economic stimulus bill—despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will actually weaken our nation's long-term economic growth.

* The bill reverses the bipartisan and highly successful welfare reforms of 1996 and drastically expands the welfare state. For instance, it will start rewarding states for adding people to their welfare rolls, rather than for helping them find gainful employment. And contrary to long-established practice, it will entitle able-bodied adults without children to receive cash assistance.

* It does extreme violence to the concept of federalism—bailing out states that have spent irresponsibly at the expense of taxpayers in states that have been fiscally prudent

* It greatly shifts the responsibility and power over health care delivery and decision making from individuals to government. Among other things, it would create a new federal health board to decide which medical services are "effective" in America, paving the way for government effectively to overrule the clinical decisions of private physicians.

* It deliberately censors religious speech and worship on school campuses by prohibiting use of any "stimulus" funds for facilities that are used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school of divinity.

The list goes on. These and similar provisions will mean fundamental changes in our society. In many instances, the bill would establish policies that directly challenge widely held American values.

Both the President and the leaders of the House and Senate have violated their solemn promises that the bill would be available for several days of public review prior to voting, so that the American people might have a chance to learn what is in the bill and to make their views known to their elected officials.

Blue Dogs Give Mouse $30 Million Dollars

2009-02-12T20:00:00.001-05:00

Pelosi's mouse slated for $30M slice of cheese

Talk about a pet project. A tiny mouse with the longtime backing of a political giant may soon reap the benefits of the economic-stimulus package.

Lawmakers and administration officials divulged Wednesday that the $789 billion economic stimulus bill being finalized behind closed doors in Congress includes $30 million for wetlands restoration that the Obama administration intends to spend in the San Francisco Bay Area to protect, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area.

The revelation immediately became a political football, as Republicans accused Democrats of reneging on a promise to keep so-called earmarks that fund lawmakers' favorite projects out of the legislation. Democrats, including Mrs. Pelosi, countered that the accusations were fabricated.

Politics aside, the episode demonstrates that no matter how hard lawmakers argue that they technically lived up to their pledge to keep specific projects from being listed in the bill, there is little stopping the federal money from going to those projects after the legislation passes and federal and state agencies begin deciding where to spend their newfound dollars.

Programs for sexually transmitted diseases, smoking prevention, a clean-burning power plant and a computer center also appear ready to get infusions of money once the bill becomes law, congressional offices told The Washington Times.

"One of the proudest boasts of Democrats supporting their trillion-dollar spending plan is that it doesn't contain earmarks. But it seems like powerful Democrats will still find a way to bring home the bacon," said a frustrated Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, who took direct aim at the mouse.

"This certainly doesn't sound like it will create or save American jobs," Mr. Steel said. "So can Speaker Pelosi explain exactly how we will improve the American economy by helping the adorable little" critter?

A spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi said Republicans "fabricated" the claim.

"The speaker nor her staff have had any involvement in this initiative. This is yet another contrived partisan attack," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said. "Restoration is key to economic activity, including farming, fisheries, recreation and clean water."

Republican lawmakers said they learned of the marsh money when asking about how various agencies plan to spend stimulus money. The vitality of the mouse has been an issue for Mrs. Pelosi and other California Democrats since the early 1990s.

President Obama boasts that the stimulus plan contains no earmarks because Congress technically did not use the earmark process for lawmakers to request and drop in specific spending items. Congressional leaders were putting the finishing touches on a $789 billion final version of the bill Wednesday night. It was not clear how many of the programs criticized by Republicans remained in the package.

Some of those items that Republicans are calling earmarks include $200 million for a clean-burning power plant in Mattoon, Ill., and $750 million for the National Computer Center and $500 million for the National Institutes of Health offices, both located in Maryland.

Other spending questioned by Republicans -- but not considered on the chopping block -- are $275 million for flood prevention, $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries, and $650 million for the digital TV converter-box coupons.

The list goes on: $1 billion for administrative costs and construction of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration office buildings, $100 million for constructing U.S. Marshals office buildings, and $1.3 billion for NASA, including $450 million tagged for science.

Then there is the $300 million for hybrid and electric cars for the federal government. The funding includes golf carts for federal workers.

The "Change" brought to DC by 0bama

2009-02-09T12:47:00.000-05:00

The only Change Obama has brought to DC is now the corruption is bigger and bolder.

The List

First president not to attend The Inaugural Medal of Honor Ball
5 exectutive orders the first week in office. Including
* -allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States.
* - Scrapping the Mexico City Policy that protected taxpayers from involvement in overseas abortions for eight years. Obama will send hundreds of millions of dollars to groups that aggressively promote abortions on a worldwide scale.
Insults China
First interview, with foreign news outlet- for Muslims
Talks about his muslim family
Picks fight with Limbaugh
Won't take question from press
Allows to FDA approve first human embryonic stem cell safety trial (3 days after Pres. Bush left)
Excludes any compromise with GOP on Stimulus bill Massive pork in stimulus bill
5% of stimulus bill to actually go to infrastructure
Offers to negotiate directly with Iran
Puts 5 millionairs on his cabinet
Makes a tax cheat the Sec. of the Treasury
Bombs Pakistan
Argues with the Pope on abortion
Signed the SCHIP bill, that gives health care to illegals
Won't allow a video of his retaking of the oath of office
Ordered the closure of Gitmo
Halts all pending Bush regulations

Second week:

Appoints extremist Samantha Powers to head foreign policy team
Secret nuke talks with Iran/Syria
Appoints tax cheat for commerce secretary
Illegal alien aunt, granted a "stay" of deportation Daschle the tax cheat/lobbiest proposed as secretary for health care
Nancy Killefer for candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for federal government fails to pay household help taxes ...withdrawn
Obama brings the U.S. Census Bureau under White House jurisdiction under protest from Republican lawmakers
12 lobbyists (or more) appointed to high gov't positions within the first 14 days of his administration (up to 17 by another source)
Administration demands defense cuts of 10% during wartime
Obama envoy George Mitchell tells Palistinians " they believe can extract from Israel concessions reaching "much further" than during talks held under the previous administration
The European Union warns the US yesterday against plunging the world into depression by adopting Obama's "Buy American" policy, intensifying fears of a trade war Obama immediately backs down from policy
After stating her priority would be "mum-in-chief", Michelle Obama goes on listening tour and then makes political speeches with her husband not yet one month in office...
George Mitchell resigns from a Saudi Lobbying firm, two weeks into his appointment as "Special Middle East Envoy"
Obama administration says it will cancel 77 drilling leases near Utah parks
Ogden, President Obama's pick for deputy attorney general, used to represent Playboy
Steven Chu, Obama's secretary of energy (not a climatologist) states: California's farms and vineyards could vanish by the end of the century, and its major cities could be in jeopardy, if Americans do not act to slow the advance of global warming
Obama names "most fined" Washington State bureaucrat Ron Simms to the #2 position in HUD
Hilda Solis, Obama's pick for labor secretary's husband is found to be a tax cheat just before the confirmation vote
Directed military prosecutors to revoked charges pending against mastermind of USS Cole bombing: Al Nashiri
Adding insult to injury: speaks to families of USS Cole dead, after decision to free Al Nashiri- not before

Third week in office

Obama changes the setup of the National Security Councel by executive order
Shauna Daly, professional "dirt digger" hired as "White House councel research director"
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel got free housing from House rep (D) Rosa DeLauro for 5 years . DeLauro is married to Stan Greenberg; a pollster (Quinlin Rosner Research) with lucrative contracts from both that representatives.

Stay tuned for more "change"

Blue Sky for Obama - Nothing but Blue Sky

2009-02-03T20:57:00.001-05:00

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Media: Katrina crashes into New Orleans, FEMA responds feebly and President Bush is blamed for the loss of life and limb. Winter smacks middle America, killing 55, FEMA's late again, but President Obama gets a pass.

Last week's winter storm, paying no attention to Al Gore's warnings about global warming, has left a trail of dead and broken bodies and wrecked property from the Plains to the East Coast. Of the 55 deaths, 24 have been in hard-hit Kentucky.

Throughout the region, hundreds of thousands are still without power and some survivors have had to resort to using melted snow for their water supply. A shortage of gasoline and heating oil has made life miserable for many.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear called the ice storm "the biggest natural disaster that this state has ever experienced, at least in modern history." The Federal Emergency Management Agency, however, apparently didn't get the memo. Much as they did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, locals are complaining that FEMA has not been swift enough in delivering aid.

Nothing remarkable about that. FEMA, whose performance in the 2005 Katrina disaster wasn't exactly sterling, is a federal agency that supplements state and local authorities. It's not an on-site organization and can't respond instantly. That's the job of the city, county and state governments.

Sensing that the gloomy stories gushing out of New Orleans were the perfect platform from which to lash into the president, an opportunistic media-political-celebrity pack roundly accused Bush of negligence, incompetence and outright malice.

From rapper Kanye West's immediate charge that "George Bush doesn't care about black people" to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's blog entry from just over a month ago lamenting that Bush did a "terrible" job of handling of the disaster, smears rained down in a devastating storm of their own.

The bitter criticism achieved its intended effect. Many people believe that Bush's FEMA response — or more accurately the media's biased portrayal of it — was the moment he began to lose the public.

Meanwhile, Obama, whose administration on taking office vilified Bush on Katrina, has done no more for the victims of the winter storm. Yet no tirade has been forthcoming from either the media or the loopy orbit of Celebrity Planet.

The double standard is what we've come to expect, but it's not what we should continue to accept.

THOSE FOLKS IN KENTUCKY ARE MADE OF SOME PRETTY TOUGH STUFF! (Steve Gill)

An email from a person in Graves County, Kentucky who hasn't seen all those FEMA people that President Obama and the Governor have been touting. Keep these folks in your prayers, as they continue to be ignored by the mainstream media and their President.

"I am a resident of Graves County in Western Kentucky and live in an area that has been devastated by the Ice Storm. Members of my family have been without electricity since Tuesday Night Jan 27, 2009. We have been told that is will be up to 4 weeks before the power will be up and running.   I am very disappointed in President Obama for not showing any interest at all in my state. I did not vote for Obama because I felt his qualifications and lack of experience would lead this country in a downward spiral and cause great damage to our would status. I saw video and pictures of President Bush personally going to areas of devastation after Katrina, Rita, Tornado Damaged regions, etc. once the areas were secure and safe for travel. I find it hard to believe that Obama shows no interest in a state that has had a record number of people affected by the Ice Storm with no power. Is Obama afraid of the gun toting, God fearing, patriotic citizens of the Great State of Kentucky? Is it because Kentucky did not vote/support him in the election? Or is it because his handlers have not told him what to do yet? (i.e. Pelosi and Reid)

This being said, no one in my family has been contacted by FEMA/National Guard/County Sheriff's office/ etc. to check on our well being. We have 4 families that have been living in a house.   There are 5 children (ages 10 to 5) and 6 adults. We have a wood burning stove for heat and we use it to cook on. We had to buy a $1000.00 generator to provide electricity to run our well for water, our freeze/fridge, and to provide entertainment for our children. We have not relied on anyone to provide for our families and I am glad that we have not relied on any outside help. We live in the south end of Graves County and we are about 15 miles from the county seat of Mayfield. Our Gov., Steve Beashear, has been our end of the state a few times since the Ice Storm has ended and he has been praising the Pres for his help in sending FEMA and federal help to our area. Beashear is a democrat and I am sure he is afraid to speak out against Obama but we need to have leaders that show real interest in their people.

We have been told the things would be better with FEMA and that FEMA would help and provide assistance to the people of this area. The fact is FEMA will repay the State and Local Governments for their costs in the clean up and recovery, but that all of the money individual citizens have spent to take care of themselves and others will not be paid back or no assistance will be made available to them. Generators, Propane, and Kerosene have all been made available to the people affected with power outages, but is has come as a price. Water has been given out to people in need, if you can make it to the shelters and distribution centers. The government has provided MRE's to the shelters and center, however all of the Wal-Mart/Grocery Stores in our area had to throw out all of their frozen/refrigerated food, due to power outages, spoiled or not.

It would be nice to see the President in our area showing support to American Citizens in a time of need. He could make us a bunch of empty promises to help and assist us all, like he did during the campaign. Well this is not going to happen. So what I am trying to say is We are doing fine without the help and assistance that is being mentioned in the news and we will pray, comfort, and take care of each other on our own."

"Stimulus" Bailout Brilliant Politicial Move by Dems

2009-01-31T17:35:00.001-05:00

Republicans and Conservatives Will Pay For It!

It's halftime at a good basketball game, and I was sitting doing what I often do at halftime, when I had a giant epiphany.

The so-called "stimulus" bill and the literally hundreds of billions of dollars it will pump into the coffers of big time Dem supporters, such as ACORN, AIDS clinics, teachers' unions and the like, is a brilliant political move by the Dems. It's more big government/taxpayer money to pay big salaries to people running big, useless government programs, given to people who always vote Democratic!

But that's only half of it!

Not only will Dems get all the benefits, and all the cash, but Republicans and their political brethren will be the only ones pay all the bills! The Dems won't have to pay the extravagant repayment costs, because an overwhelming majority of Democrat voters don't pay federal income taxes! If they do pay income taxes, they often receive offsetting welfare benefits that more than compensate for the income tax they pay. Of course, if inflation hits us all, as it will, their "entitlements" will go up too!

This is a brilliant political move on the Dems part!

It's as if you and your school teacher-neighbor went out and bought a new Cadillac together. But you have to make all the payments, you pay for the insurance, gasoline and maintenance…. and your neighbor is the only one who gets to drive the car!

I know I am probably the last peerson on the block to comprehend the double whammy political and monetary benefits to the Democrats of this plan, but I marvel at Obama, Reid and Pelosi's brilliance. They make Nero, Evita and Al Capone look like rank amateurs!

Welfare class Dems get the gold mine…. and we get the shaft…. and they will keep electing Dems because of it!

The Coming Civil War!

2009-01-26T13:59:00.001-05:00

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7901

Government is the epitome of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption

By Ron Ewart Monday, January 26, 2009

If you are a hard-working, responsible, self-reliant and successful American, how do you like billions of your taxes paying for bank, business and ne'er-do-well homebuyer bailouts, homebuyers that were encouraged by government to buy homes they couldn't afford? How do you like your government using trillions of your tax dollars for ill advised stimulus packages that won't work and aren't working?

How do you like paying for education, health care, housing and safety-net benefits for illegal aliens that are streaming into America by the millions? How do you like our open border policy and the lack of enforcement of existing laws that have become the magnet for those millions to come here in the first place? And how do you like the fact that politicians in both parties purposely allow these things to happen, for the sole purpose of increasing their base of future voters? To make matters worse, under the current regime, (socialist administration) amnesty for illegals is coming our way very soon, no matter how most Americans will object. After all, these politicians know what is best for us, don't they?

How do you like individuals being appointed by the new president to become Secretary of the Treasury, who will oversee the IRS, when the appointee has cheated on his income tax, hired illegal aliens as house keepers and some other little misdeeds he was purported to have committed? How do you like an individual (Holder) with an avowed mindset against individual gun ownership, being appointed to the top American Justice official, attorney general of the United States?

How do you like your tax dollars being used in foreign aid, that is given to dictators, despots and other cretins who use our money for their own enrichment and trickle only a few of our dollars to their "subjects"? Did you know that your current socialist president is now pushing for 0.7% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP - $14 Trillion) to be paid out in foreign aid, because that is what the United Nations says is the fair amount for America? Did you know that 0.7% of GDP is just shy of $100,000,000,000 (billion) dollars of our tax money going offshore, and for what? This is nothing more than government forcing you to be charitable to the entire world, at the point of a gun. (Don't think so? Try not paying your taxes.)

National Health Care is coming whether we like it our not. Did you know that Obama's current stimulus package of almost $1 Trillion dollars, sets aside $600,000,000 to prepare for National Health Care? If they are spending this kind of money for preparation, you can bet we will get National Health Care.

How do you like government telling you what to eat, what to wear, where to live, where to work, what to drive, or being forced to not drive at all and paying for government mega-projects that always come with huge cost overruns, where they have to go back to the taxpayer for more money to finish the project? Happens every time. Government is the epitome of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption.

How do you like your government telling you that you have to get off of oil, drive your car less and decrease your carbon foot print to save us from the dire predictions of the fraud that is man-caused global warming? How will you like the cost of everything increasing because of government's headlong drive to decrease man-caused CO2 emissions and engage in the insanity of cap and trade policies? How do you like your government telling you that you have to subsidize highly inefficient wind and solar power, that is but a small fraction of what oil and coal produce? How do you like the fact that environmentalists and government have stood in the way of clean nuclear energy for 30 years?

How do you like government telling you what you can or cannot do with your land? And you rural landowners, how do you feel about being asked to bear almost the entire burden of environmental protection, while your city brethren get off virtually scot-free? These same city folks who have the majority votes to elect the politicians that pass the environmental laws that only affect rural landowners. That's fair, isn't it? No it isn't fair and in fact, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

How do you like your federal government sticking their fingers into local public schools and mandating, with federal law, socialism, radical environmentalism, multi-culturalism and the one-world-order being taught to your children in those schools? How do you like the fact that the federal government prints the books that teach our children about our form of government, but those books teach that our form of government is a Constitutional Democracy, not a Constitutional Republic? The distinctions between a Democracy and a Republic are a canyon wide. Does brainwashing and indoctrination come to mind?

How do you like the fact that the injustices that were being inflicted on the colonials in 1776, that caused them to revolt against the tyrannical rule of England, are now the very same injustices Americans are being accosted with, by their own government, for the last 80 to 100 years? How do you like the fact that under the current Obama administration and a very liberal congress, those injustices will increase at an accelerated rate?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The giant question is, how long will freedom-loving Americans take it? How long will the producers put up with paying for the non-producers and outright billion-dollar gifts in foreign aid? How long will those brave Americans who are embedded with the song of liberty, take the theft of their sweat, blood and tears, before they say, enough is enough? Which of the injustices we are now enduring, will be the trigger that will send a large percentage of these Americans over the edge and declare civil war against the non-producers, who leverage government with their majority vote, to fill their government-sponsored "pig trough"? Or, how long will it be before the producers of our society, either "check out", or declare war on their own government for these injustices?

The current direction of America will and is producing mediocrity, self-loathing and a decline in production and morality. These cultural maladies will only get worse on this path we take.

Predictions of future events is a dicey game. Many have tried but predictions, throughout history, turn out to be mostly inaccurate ..... the Mayans, Nostradamus and a few others have been given marginal credit. But we will take a stab at some general predictions. The hard truth is, we are headed for a civil war. Nevertheless, rest assured, this will not be the civil war of 1861, wherein brother rises up against brother and state declares war against another state or states. This war won't be fought with larger-than-life generals, unless nationwide anarchy ensues.

As the liberals in the current administration squeeze Americans with their socialist, radical environmental and one-world-order agenda, as they work towards dismantling American sovereignty, even more so than previous administrations have done, small armed revolts will begin to appear in isolated areas. These small revolts will be immediately squashed by local law enforcement. Even so, the small revolts will grow and become larger ones. There will be individual attacks on other individuals for perceived threats or revenge for acts of violence. Occasions of Hatfield and McCoy feuds will grow. There will be attacks by individuals on government institutions, as more and more folks let their growing frustrations morph into violent acts. There will be individual and multiple violent attacks on illegal aliens.

Still, other non-violent revolts will come in the form of silent and noisy protests. Some revolts will come in the form of disobeying the law and withholding taxes. These are already happening. Some will come in the form of increased lobbying of politicians and rising numbers of court cases to undo what the liberals have done and are doing. But even worse, some will come in the form of wholesale cheating. The prevailing attitude will be, if the government can cheat, abuse our trust and their power and corrupt our institutions, why should individual Americans be any different? A breakdown in morality, honesty, integrity and honor will accelerate. This breakdown is already well underway.

Large infusions of borrowed or printed dollars for government stimulus packages and outright handouts, will accelerate inflation and/or end up in hyper inflation. This will lead to rising hunger as it takes more dollars to buy the necessities of life. Rising hunger will trigger more government intervention and the requirement for more taxes. Taxes will rise accordingly. More banks will fail. A deep depression could be just around the corner.

In some of these occurrences, the government will declare martial law and they will suspend constitutional protections, like Habeas Corpus, as did President Lincoln during the Civil War.

All these things will come to pass in one form or another, because "We The People" have allowed government to become all powerful and corrupt and this corruption has infected a large percentage of the American population. Should we not return to the principles of our constitution, should we not re-claim our morality, and soon, as a country and as a free society we are doomed to fail and ultimate disintegration. If were trying to fail, we are doing an excellent job.

In spite of these dire predictions, there is still time to save America, if only the millions of Americans who cherish freedom, will rise up individually and collectively and get involved in the hard work of preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution and giving aid and comfort to those organizations that are working valiantly on their behalf. And to that end, have you GIVEN YOUR DOLLAR FOR FREEDOM today?

Sorry to be a party pooper

2009-01-20T22:23:00.001-05:00

Has everyone lost their marbles? The inauguration of President Obama is being treated like the Second Coming.

The coverage is so gushing we might all drown. Of course it's a great thing that America, with its history of slavery and segregation still a shockingly recent memory, now has a black President; the palpable joy of African-Americans is entirely understandable and deeply touching. And there's no doubt that Obama is a highly charismatic and attractive personality.

But what's more than a wee bit troubling is that the swooning hysteria reflects the fact that people appear to believe that as of today the world will be saved. Swords will be beaten into ploughshares, peace will be brought to the Middle East, Iran will be pacified, every American will have health insurance, poverty will be eliminated and utopia will have arrived.

Crowds: Thousands of people have been waiting through the night to gain access to the National Mall for the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama

Sorry to be a party pooper but I'm afraid I must register a small note of dissent. It's not just that people have projected onto the person of Obama expectations that - especially given the world financial crisis - cannot possibly be met.

I think that the desperate dangerousness and complexity of our world and a profound terror of what properly facing up to its problems would entail have led people to believe a cartoon version of why we're in such a state - and to have invested their hopes similarly in a fantasy figure of hope, to such an extent that they have shut their ears to some very loud warning bells ringing from his past history.

People believe that Obama represents a renunciation of an America that throws its weight around the world. And they think it's that 'war-mongering' characteristic, represented in particular by President Bush and the war in Iraq, which has caused so much global trouble and resentment.

I believe that's a dangerously false analysis which fails to grasp the extent to which western civilisation is under attack from a world-wide enemy that intends to destroy it, and which further fails to distinguish between true aggression and true self-defence.

Like the hydra, the enemy now waging war on the west has many heads - but it is one enemy, and it feeds in particular on the perception that the west is weak and is no longer willing to defend itself by military means.

The very reason that so many in the west are so entranced by Obama is thus the very reason why our enemies are today rubbing their hands in satisfaction.

Obama stands for 'soft power' - the replacement of military action in defence of his nation by talking, negotiation and compromise. But with people who have non-negotiable and unconscionable agendas - such as Iran's genocidal intention to wipe Israel off the map and destroy the west - such an approach merely plays into their hands while catastrophically undermining more moderate regimes and allies.

And there's a still more troubling aspect of America's new President. For his whole career has been solidly embedded in an ultra-radical tradition which believes in revolution from the grass-roots up - and which teaches that to gain power, an activist must pose as a centrist while pursuing his real agenda of radicalising the people and revolutionising society.

Cleverly drawing upon the little-observed fact that the appeasement-minded folk who took control in the second, terminally weakened stage of the Bush administration have an approach to the world's conflicts which is strikingly similar to anti-war left-wingers, he has neutralised concerns about his supposed radicalism by assembling a governmental team which appears to be so centrist it is merely carrying on much as before.

A more careful look at all his appointments, particularly those in the second tier, reveals however a rather different and more troubling picture.

But that's all for the future. Today, no-one can predict just how the Obama presidency will turn out. He may indeed be constrained not just by current difficulties but by events not yet forseen. He may change his mind about a lot of things as a result. He may on the other hand opt for expediency until an opportunity presents itself for the kind of 'change' he dreams of. He may even turn out to be well-intentioned but hampered by inexperience and naivety. Who knows? All we can do is watch and hope that this new President does not plunge us all into even greater peril yet.

Saul Alinsky, the immensely influential far-left ideologue who invented the role of grass-roots 'community organiser' that Obama filled for so many years, laid out in his book Rules for Radicals that the revolution could only be brought about by stealth politics.

This is what he wrote: 'This is the job for today's radical - to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight. To say, 'You cannot turn away - look at it - let us change it together!' 'Look at us. We are your children. Let us not abandon each other for then we are all lost. Together we can change it for what we want...it is a job first of bringing hope and doing what every organiser must do with all people, all classes, places and times - communicate the means or tactics whereby the people can feel that they have the power to do this and that and on

'Tactics must begin with the experience of the middle class, accepting their aversion to rudeness, vulgarity and conflict. Start them easy, don't scare them off...Tactics such as stock proxies and others are waiting to be hurled into the attack...'

'Change' and 'hope': does that strike a chord with anyone? Just bear this in mind when you hear today's soaring rhetoric as America's 44th president is sworn in.

Sleep soundly, Global Warming cure coming.

2009-01-16T09:20:00.000-05:00

Waxman promises quick action on climate

WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of a key House committee said Thursday he will move "quickly and decisively" to push legislation curbing greenhouse gases with a goal of passing climate legislation out of his committee before Memorial Day.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., opening the new Congress' first hearing on the threats from global warming, said inaction on the climate issue is causing uncertainties that make it more difficult to emerge from the recession.

"Our environment and our economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change and secure our energy independence," said Waxman. "U.S. industries want to invest in a clean energy future, but uncertainties about whether, when and how greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced is deterring these vital investments."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., another strong proponent of moving climate legislation, has given no indication how quickly House action might come.

But given the broad impact that regulating greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, would have, it is widely viewed that any legislation will require substantial bipartisan support, especially in the Senate.

To dramatize the business community's growing consensus that the climate issue must be confronted, Waxman invited to the first hearing 14 corporate executives and environmental leaders who have pressed for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.

The 14 executives and environmentalists sat shoulder to shoulder across at a witness table spanning two-thirds of the Energy and Commerce Committee hearing room.

Dealing with climate change "will not be cheap and not be easy," warned James Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy Corp. But he said coupling a short term stimulus package with a long-term climate plan, "we have the ability to stimulate greater confidence ...(and) put the recession in the rear view mirror."

Earlier the group, the 31-member United States Climate Action Partnership, outlined its blueprint for limiting greenhouse gases, calling for an 80 percent emission reduction by mid-century with half of that coming by 2030. It calls for a ramp up of 20 percent reduction as within a dozen years. Carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing about 1 percent a year since 1990.

The group endorsed a cap-and-trade system where greenhouse gas emissions would be limited, but pollution allowances would be provided by the government, especially for carbon intensive industries such as utilities with coal burning power plants. And it would provide incentives for coal plants that capture carbon dioxide.

The business group's plan does not go as far as what President-elect Barack Obama has proposed, nor one that Waxman has floated. Obama has called for an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels, meaning greater reductions would have to be made.

Obama also has opposed giving industry free emission allowances, saying that 100 percent should be auction and the proceeds used to promote clean energy, energy efficiency and carbon capture from power plants. The coalitions plan would phase in auctions.

But the proposal outlined by the business and environmental leaders is expected to be a starting point.

"This is the model to solve the problem," Rep. Jane Harmon, D-Calif., told the group.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who chairs the subcommittee that will write the initial legislation and chairs a separate committee on climate, said a consensus for mandatory emissions reductions is clear.

"Now the hard task of enacting global warming legislation is before us," said Markey.

That point was demonstrated by Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the committee's top Republican, who said the cap-and-trade plan threatens jobs. And he recounted how each of the companies represented by the witnesses had recently suffered dramatic declines in the value of their stock.

"You cannot tell me if we adopt mandatory cap-and-trade it's going to help your stock prices," said Barton.

Among the executives were the chairmen of ConocoPhillips, General Electric, DuPont and electric utilities Exelon, NRG Energy Inc. and Duke Energy. Environmental groups included Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Conservancy and World Resources Institute.

Dems won the battle but may have lost the war.

2009-01-15T09:16:00.001-05:00

The following is an editorial from the left leaning liberal Jackson Sun newspaper. They get it. Judy Barker doesn't.

When you are elected with some Obion County Republican support, your first official act shouldn't be a stick in the eye of the majority party.

Judy, remember the old adage, What goes around, comes around. When you place the State of Tennessee in the control of a man whose word means nothing, you jeopardise ALL citizens.

I'm sure your thug friend, Jimmy Naifeh, will reward you for voting for a trator to his own party.

-------------------

Tennessee House Democrats have won the battle for House Speaker on Tuesday, but they might have lost the legislative cooperation war in the process. By sabotaging plans to make heir-apparent Jason Mumpower the new speaker, replacing Jimmy Naifeh, they have undermined whatever fragile trust existed between the parties and may have ultimately derailed their agenda.

Democrats nominated Kent Williams, an Elizabethton Republican, as speaker to oppose Mumpower. Then, they banded together to support him. When Williams voted for himself, it gave him the votes needed to become the new speaker. Then, Lois Deberry, a Memphis Democrat, was re-elected as speaker pro-tem.

Clearly, Democrats pulled a fast one on the unsuspecting GOP majority. But while they may have gotten what they wanted in the short term - someone of their choice as speaker and favorable committee assignments - they likely have hurt themselves in the long run.

By sabotaging Republican plans, they have destroyed the already tenuous trust that existed between the parties. How does that help them when they have a legislative issue they care about and need Republican help to advance? It doesn't. How does it help manage the serious financial problems facing the state that need bipartisan cooperation? It doesn't.

Tennessee is facing a deficit of at least $800 million. Serious cuts have already been made, with more possibly on the way. Considering that the legislature's one responsibility each year is to balance and pass the budget, it will be a lot harder to do that when the parties don't trust each other.

With their political sleight of hand, Democrats have created hard feelings and opened the door to political get-backs. One thing they can count on is that the Republicans will retaliate somehow, somewhere. And so it goes, a tit-for-tat battle that didn't have to be.

The real losers in all this are the people of Tennessee who aren't being served by the partisan bickering and political gamesmanship. But then, the people were the furthest thing from the Democrats' mind in their rush to goad the Republicans. And it will be the people who will be hurt as this political drama plays itself out during the legislative year.

He's Got No Peeps

2009-01-07T11:57:00.001-05:00

http://modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=2748

By Mike Farquhar

Watching our President-elect attempt to put together a working cabinet, it finally dawned on me what he was struggling with. He's got no peeps!

Having sprung so suddenly and so successfully onto our national – even the world stage — he's been abruptly confronted with success he for which he is woefully unprepared. So he went on vacation.

In the course of a normal politician's life, he or she would have come up through the ranks, serving at local and state level—perhaps even in the military or in law enforcemen— before seeking national office. Then that candidate, with a full résumé of experience and accomplishments, would seek the presidency. That candidate would have a very big Rolodex of trusted friends who could be called upon for higher office when the candidate won.

But Mister Obama has no large Rolodex of friends, outside of the corrupt streets and back-alley dealings of the Chicago Democratic machine - and of course his very special group of preacher friends.

Now, with no actual experience with the inner workings of the Federal Government, he will be running it in just days. He is scrambling to find people who he can trust—and who are willing to work for him.

And that's a tough decision for many of the folks he's talking to, since with his zero leadership record, nobody out there has a clue what kind of a boss or commander-in-chief he'll actually be.

Many who have survived and even prospered after serving Carter and Clinton are reluctant to risk another thankless tour of government service in the ruthless spotlight of Washington today. And with the memory of how fast The Messiah reversed himself and flung Reverend Wright under the bus, anybody contemplating working for His administration knows they will always be just one hiccup or crisis away from becoming road kill.

With no peeps of his own, Mister Obama has resorted to the whisperings of the Clintons—and is picking and choosing from amongst their shopworn former retainers. Thus the selection of Governor "Pay to Play" Richardson to lead Commerce. As it turns out, some of his "commercial dealings" are being scrutinized by a grand jury. Ooops!

Would it be too cynical to suggest that ~ just maybe ~ the Clintons might misguide The Messiah enough to crack open the door to 2012? Naah, they wouldn't sink that low!

And with his well-known disdain for our military and intelligence services, it is little wonder that he picked retired Clinton budget wonk Leon Panetta to become his chief spymaster. Obama already believes he knows all the answers, and can resolve all disagreement by face-to-face negotiations. So what does he really need a functioning intelligence agency for anyway? Simply plug a proven old bureaucrat into General Hayden's empty chair, and everything will be just fine.

Now a callous or skeptical observer might conclude that this is really a plot to resume Jimmy Carter's dismantling of our intelligence services. I would never believe that of such a patriotic man as our President-elect, even if he doesn't render customary honors to our flag, and wants a new "less warlike" national anthem.

No, Obama's problem is that he and his Faithful Followers are just full of ideas about how things should be run, what laws need to be passed, and what our government should look like. But none of them have ever actually ever run anything of a serious nature.

Mrs. Clinton once worked as an attorney in Arkansas—but managed to lose her billing records in the move to Washington in 1993. And her legal assistant, Vince Foster, killed himself just six months later. Throughout her marriage, she was unaware or unmoved by her husband's serial philandering which led to his impeachment in 1998. Now, she will help formulate, direct, and deliver our nation's foreign policy, and oversee some 288 embassies and missions worldwide, always keeping tabs on subtle nuances in the positions of all of our friends and foes? She is just so well qualified!

Governor Richardson was once our high-profile ambassador to the UN—but no amount of diplomacy will get him out of his pending legal problems. His idea of Commerce is "Pay to play" with a list of his favorite projects delivered to contract bidders. His decision to "withdraw his nomination" will not end the scandal, or absolve Obama from the burden of another public display of poor judgement.

Even political wizard and campaign genius Rahm Emanuel is connected to too many Chicago politicians of questionable virtue, and who today knows for sure what US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has on tape? When before in history has a president-elect and his chief of staff been questioned by law enforcement weeks before taking the oath of office?

We could have seen this coming. When he picked the village idiot – Joe "Lying Lips" Biden to become his official stooge, we should have seen that The Messiah was preoccupied with getting elected, and hadn't given a moment's thought to actually governing. He certainly wasn't thinking about our country in the event he died in office.

Why doesn't Mister Obama have good people around him—qualified, trustworthy people?

The American press and the American voters should have been asking this throughout the election cycle. But the huge crowds of adoring worshipers, the Obama T-shirts, the bumper stickers, and the highly successful web-based campaign hid a fatal shortcoming—Obama doesn't make friends easily. He's not that kind of person. He doesn't need friends. He needs mirrors, microphones, admirers, worshipers, sycophants, fawning adulators, and supplicants . . . but not friends.

He is almost a textbook case of narcissism. His two books were about himself, planned packaging for his eventual presidential run. He wrote nothing about his vision of how to run the country, beyond the basics of Socialism. Was he keeping it a secret, or was there really no detailed vision?

Who are this man's close friends and buddies? Who are his wife's close friends and buddies? Is anybody close to this most unusual man? Nobody asked these questions throughout the campaign. They just felt chills running up their legs, they worshiped, and they voted.

And now we have a president-elect with no close trusted friends, and no people around him that he's known for years who are qualified for key high-level appointments. Since most of you reading this can think of at least one person far more qualified to be our next spymaster than "Save the Seals" Panetta, why couldn't Barack Hussein Obama?

Anybody worried yet?

/s/ Iron Mike
Old Soldier, - Still Good for Parts!

Predictions for the New Obama "Presidency"

2009-01-06T09:36:00.001-05:00

by Kit Lange

Now that America has shown us all that affirmative action even works in politics, I've compiled a list of things that you can probably expect to happen. These predictions are 80% gleaned from information all of us have access to, and 15% gut instinct based on many years of research, historical study, and being glued to current affairs. The other 5% is just anger at my countrymen's stupidity--I admit it.

Websites and mass emails offering "free grants," courtesy of the government and "Obama's wealth redistribution." Actually, this one's a freebie, because I have an email with a date and timestamp of literally minutes after Obama was declared the winner, offering exactly that.
Israel will understand this election was the end of any type of assistance, military or otherwise, from the U.S. , and will stop holding back their defense at the request of the American administration. Look for a first strike on Iran soon, as well as increased activity by the Israeli military in general. Israel is on her own now, and God help us all because of it.
Look for Iranian retaliation--against American targets. That goes doubly for other terrorist organizations. We just elected a man with the full endorsement of every major terrorist group in the world as leader of the free world. It's the political equivalent of hiring a child molester to babysit your kids while you leave for the weekend. Not only is HE going to have fun with your child, but he'll probably sit and watch while his friends come over and do it too.
Look for far-left justices appointed to the Supreme Court, effectively tying up the entire government in a trifecta of liberal humanism, the buzzwords of which remain empty platitudes like "hope and change," and the ultimate goal of which is socialism--and soon, sharia law.
Military cases of troops being tried and convicted for killing the enemy in combat will continue to rise--and the conviction/plea-bargain rate will stay at nearly 100%, as the government seeks to use the best men and women this country has to offer as sacrificial lambs on the altar of global appeasement. Those brave and honorable men who currently reside in prison cells across the country, stripped of their rank, their careers, families, and their good name, will not taste free air again for many years. Their sacrifices and their stories will be forgotten by the general public, remembered only by those of us who continue to fight for them.
Look for the slow but steady erosion of rights you have enjoyed for your entire lives--all the while being told it's "for your own good." Restrictions on gun ownership, home schooling, encouraged dependence on the ever-growing federal government. More nanny-state provisions will be put into place to protect the "disadvantaged" and the "poor," (read: lazy, uneducated, unwilling to better themselves) even while groups like the unborn, the mentally handicapped, elderly, and terminally ill are slowly pushed toward euthanasia. Of course, this will be done with feel-good phrases like "death with dignity," "not wanting to be a burden," and "merciful release from suffering," all of which ignore the basic fact that we are killing people without their consent for the "good of the people." Before you tell me I'm crazy, let's just remember that Barack Obama was the ONLY senator in the Illinois state senate to vote against providing medical care for babies who were inconsiderate enough to survive an abortion. Also, look for taxes to go up. Yes, they'll go up.
You think the economy is bad now? Just wait. You'll have the most expensive "free" health care ever. Bread lines aren't just for Russians anymore.
We have traded experience for color, freedom for slavery--and the irony is that the average American sheeple thinks their vote somehow righted an ancient wrong, somehow ENDED the spectre of slavery and ushered in some beautiful era of liberty. In reality, we are about to be less free than you ever thought possible.

I watched the faces of those crowded into the mob (excuse the pun) in Chicago. They stared at Obama like he was a god, an idol, a panacea to their every want and need. We have truly failed as a nation if we are at the point where we feel we must look to one man to take care of us all, to be our father figure and our sugar daddy. We have lost not only the "can-do" attitude of past generations, but the "MUST-do" attitude of our forefathers. We have allowed ourselves to become reduced from Patrick Henry's proud cry of "liberty or death" to the sniveling, whining idea that we are owed something. We have gone from being the honorable defenders of freedom, to being told we are the problem.

The eyes of Obama and McCain were also telling. McCain acted with class and grace in his concession speech , offering the most honorable response I've seen yet. I don't agree with all of McCain's positions, but it cannot be denied that the man has served his nation--at permanent and severe detriment to himself--for half a century.

His eyes were clear and sincere, honest. His speech underlined the very reasons why, of the two men offered, he was hands down the best choice.

On the other hand, Obama's eyes were cold, calculating. His manner was smug and still carried the arrogance he has always had. His facial expression was one of barely disguised disdain for everything people like me believe in. His body language was smooth, polished--too much so. He talked of patriotism as though it is a value he is familiar with--and yet, his horrifying attitude toward the country he now leads is as well-documented as his friendships with those who seek its demise. He is charismatic to those who don't know what to look for, and he is inspiring to those who cannot or will not think for themselves. However, too many who voted for him are guilty of the most dangerous kind of hypocrisy. You see, we are told daily that we must not see color, just mankind. (We are all family, you know--or so we're told.) And yet Barack Obama was handed the White House on a silver platter by a fawning media, a bevy of foreign donors (who, to this day and in violation of U.S. election laws, remain nameless and unaccounted for), and a populace who voted based on color instead of right and wrong--even in the face of the most damning evidence against a Presidential candidate in many years, perhaps ever.

It is said that the people receive the government they deserve. Sadly, I fear that's correct. We have become complacent, unwilling to see the writing on the wall, content to frolic in the warm water without bothering to notice that it's been getting hotter by the minute. We are two seconds from a rolling boil--and perhaps it is already too late.

So, liberals, enjoy your victory. Jump around. Have a party, file for your free grants. Scream "Gimme my handout!" and make fun of those of us who fought to make sure your "messiah" didn't get access to the most powerful position in the world. Just remember when it all comes crashing down: You own the White House, the Congress, and soon the Supreme Court. You have no one to blame but yourselves for the mess you just created.

As for me, I'm buying my handguns this week so I have an answer for those who will come try to take them.

Kit

Kit Lange is an Air Force veteran and military writer who specializes in investigating murder cases stemming from actions in combat. Her work was used as evidence in the Lt. Ilario Pantano case, and has been quoted extensively in other news publications for other cases. In 2005, she co-wrote a 10-part series disproving war crime allegations against an elite Army unit; her blog, EuphoricReality.com, was named as one of the top 10 milblogs of the year. She is also the National Web Coordinator for Gathering of Eagles, a nationally-recognized troop support organization. Kit holds a degree in Aircraft Maintenance Technology from Spartan College of Aeronautics, and is currently working on a second degree in Aviation Technology Management. She resides in Tulsa, Oklahom

Happy New Year from Tennessee Conservative Watch

2008-12-31T20:04:00.000-05:00

http://www.julescrittenden.com

Happy New Year

2008 is coming to an end. A wretched year overall, but you know me, eternal optimist, glass half full, all that. I'm coming out of it feeling pretty good.

Obama won. Like a buddy of mine said the day after that happened, it felt kind of good to let go. They wanted it, they got it. No more "Bush this, Bush that, blah blah blah Bush this and that." Who was the first person to put an end to that? Obama, George Bush's newest, biggest fan.

American elected a grossly underqualified candidate largely because he was charming, black, had good timing, and got a free ride from the national media. You know what would have happened if it went the other way. There would be no end to the "racist America" denunciations, the Palin-bashing, the McCain deathwatch. And however contradictory and complicated the racial aspect of the race ended up being, I'm glad we've crossed that threshold. Maybe we can start to move past race in this country. Obama, tear down that wall! An end to racial preferences. Make the dream real, and let us finanly in the country judge a man by the content of his character …

Speaking of which, still an enigma. How can we judge a man when we don't know what the content is?

But Obama appears to be largely adopting the Bush foreign policy, so there is something to look forward to in 2009. Iraq finally has been acknowledged as a win … not least by Obama, who now plans to listen to the generals … and the counter-insurgency advocate who presided over Iraq is now running the war in Afghanistan, too. Apparently he's been having some second thoughts about Guantanamo.

Terrorists are on the run everywhere. Gaza's feeling the heat and so is Pakistan. The Taliban has been all along and is about to feel more. Maybe Obama will back Israel's dismantling of terrorist infrastructure in Gaza. Maybe he'll take tough stands against Iran, Russia, China, al-Qaeda and other threats to world peace, stability, democracy and free enterprise. Obama ironically may yet prove to be the president who legitimizes George Bush and his tough stands in defense of our nation and our values in the world.

Maybe the new socialism both sides have adopted will work, and the world's economy won't go any farther down the toilet. Let's hope so. We're apparently stuck with it, anyway, the new socialism, so we might as well get used to it and focus on channeling it.

As tough as things are for many people, we're plugging on. Look on the bright side. Gas prices are way down and expected to stay there. And what are the chances Obama's going to pass any boondoggle socialized health-care mandates? Knock on wood. All the predictions conservatives made about Obama's unknowns and unreliability have turned out to be true … only for the so-called progressives, if not exactly as the cons predicted. But it's early yet, and hope as we might, there are no firm indicators of lasting, substantive change. All it's been good for so far are a few laughs and a couple sighs of relief.

Closer to home, my own business, newspapering, is coming apart at the seams. But like so much else that doesn't follow the script, my own newspaper, the much-maligned tabloid whose doom has been predicted for decades, is operating in the black, lean and mean, while the staid Boston Globe, bought for $1.1 billion by the New York Times 15 years ago, reportedly is now worth $20 million, loaded with overpaid do-nothings with job protections, and the absentee landlord has a cash-flow problem. We never know how these things are going to go, but maybe a white knight will step in to save the Boston Globe and keep this a healthy, two-newspaper town. I hope so. There will be shakeups large and small in my industry in the coming year, much as there will be in the automotive and other industries. They will not necessarily be bad things. If anything, we've learned in this decade, nothing follows the script.

2009 promises to be a wild ride, and the world could well look a lot different by this time next year. I'm staying optimistic.

OK, now I have to go drive 30 miles through white-out conditions because I'm lucky enough to still have a job. Happy New Year!

Our Friend Wally Speaks.

2008-12-19T15:46:00.000-05:00

I think the United States uses an economic model other than capitalist or interventionist. If one were to coin a descriptive word, it would probably be "corruptionalist," in which government uses tax policies and taxpayer dollars (subsidies, grants, etc.) to create competitive advantages for those that dole out the largest campaign contributions.

We've created a system where instead of having to bribe each individual in Congress, all you have to do is bribe the two parties and then they use soft money to keep the rank-and-file in line.

It's this corruption of the capitalist model more than the model itself that has caused the economic turmoil we now find ourselves embroiled in.

History has shown that the best system is one in which government defines the rules within which business operates and then leaves businesses alone as long as they stay within those rules.

Those rules should promote the nation's general welfare and should take into account that while competition is far better than regulation, in the absence of true competition, you'd better have regulation.

Regulation within the economy should be temporary, though the true goal being to restore rather than to replace a competitive environment.

Wally Garneau

Lowell, Michigan

Economy in Shambles, Congress gets a raise

2008-12-19T10:12:00.001-05:00

By Jordy Yager

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

"As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain," said Daniel O'Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. "This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter."

However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.

Still, Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Congress should have taken the rare step of freezing its pay, as lawmakers did in 2000.

"Look at the way the economy is and how most people aren't counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise — they're just happy to have gainful employment," said Ellis. "But you have the lawmakers who are set up and ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their way."

Member raises are often characterized as examples of wasteful spending, especially when many constituents and businesses in members' districts are in financial despair.

Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.

"They don't even go through the front door. They have it set up so that it's wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise rather than vote for a pay raise," Ellis said.

Freezing congressional salaries is hardly a new idea on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers have floated similar proposals in every year dating back to 1995, and long before that. Though the concept of forgoing a raise has attracted some support from more senior members, it is most popular with freshman lawmakers, who are often most vulnerable.

In 2006, after the Republican-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Democrats, who had just come to power in the House with a slew of freshmen, vowed to block their own pay raise until the wage increase was passed. The minimum wage was eventually increased and lawmakers received their automatic pay hike.

In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.

Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.

Ellis said that while freezing the pay increase would be a step in the right direction, it would be better to have it set up so that members would have to take action, and vote, for a pay raise and deal with the consequences, rather than get one automatically.

"It is probably never going to be politically popular to raise Congress's salary," he said. "I don't think you're going to find taxpayers saying, 'Yeah I think I should pay my congressman more'."

Value of 2008 Bailouts exceeds combined costs of ALL major US wars.

2008-12-18T14:19:00.001-05:00

Democrats took over Congress in 2007

Where's Tanner and the "Conservative" Blue Dogs when you need them???

Value of 2008 Bailouts Exceeds Combined Costs of All Major U.S. Wars
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

In this Sept. 23, 2008 file photo, the amount of U.S. national debt on Sept. 23 is shown on the National Debt Clock in New York. (AP Photos/Bebeto Matthews, file)

(CNSNews.com) – The total value of the bailouts undertaken by the federal government in 2008 now exceeds the combined cost of every major war the United States has ever engaged in, according to a comparison of war costs calculated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the value of the bailouts as calculated by Bloomberg News or Bianco Research.

According to CRS, all major U.S. wars (including such events as the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but not the invasion of Panama or the Kosovo War), cost a total of $7.2 trillion in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars.

According to Bloomberg, the federal government has made commitments worth a total of $8.5 trillion in the bailouts of 2008. That includes actual expenditures as well as loan and asset guarantees.

Bianco Research puts the total value of the bailouts at $8.7 trillion.

The $296 billion spent on World War II, America's most expensive war, would be $4.1 trillion adjusted to today's dollars, according to the CRS report from June.

The adjusted cost of the Civil War would be $60.4 billion for both the Union and the Confederacy combined. The inflation-adjusted cost of the Vietnam War would be $686 billion. The cost of the current Iraq war up to last June was $648 billion, while the adjusted cost for Afghanistan to that point was $171 billion.

The total cost of the American Revolution was a relatively inexpensive $1.8 billion.

"World War II was financed by savings, the American people's savings, when Americans bought war bonds," said Olivier Garret, CEO of Casey Research, who analyzed the value of the bailout compared to the major U.S. wars and other major historical government expenses. "Today, families are in debt and government is in debt."

In this Sept. 25, 2008 file photo, Dara Blumenthal, of Brooklyn, holds up a sign during a rally against Wall Street bailout in front of the New York Stock Exchange in New York. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, file)

A Bianco Research report cited in Politico puts the number for the total value of bailouts at $8.7 trillion and also affirms the value to be higher than the cost of all American wars and historic initiatives. A spokesman with Bianco Research could not be reached for comment as this story went to press.

The bailouts, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, were taken as emergency actions to keep U.S. companies from going under and to prevent a total financial markets meltdown in the United States. Similar bailouts were issued in other countries to address the global financial crisis.

The Bush administration is mulling whether to use some of the $700 billion in TARP funds approved by Congress to bailout the financial industry to bailout U.S. automakers.

The bailouts could put U.S. taxpayers in a tough spot in the future, said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union.

"I'm assuming the figures do not include the Cold War defense expenditures, which would probably amount to several trillion on their own," Sepp told CNSNews.com. "In any case, it's a stark illustration of just how quickly the federal government has gotten into a huge financial hole and dragged taxpayers into it in the process."

"We can only hope and pray that many of these liabilities and guarantees and commitments the government has made will not have to be made good on," Sepp said. "If we were to be responsible for paying out all of these obligations, even in the period of one or two years, it would be financially disastrous to the government's credit rating and our own as taxpayers."

Garret pointed to the cost that will be paid by Americans in the future. "Future generations of Americans are going to continue to finance the enormous amount of debt," he said.