We were so full of “hope” for “change.” No, I am not talking about the election of Barack Obama, one of the most effective Progressive presidents in American history. I am speaking of the excitement felt within the Conservative, Libertarian and Center Right and Left political communities after the 2010 election delivered the House and a non-filibuster proof Senate to the American people. Finally, most of us thought, some balance in the federal government. Maybe, just maybe, the Progressives and Liberal Democrats in federal government would be forced to the table of true and honest compromise; compromise fitting of a truly free people. But, as we look back over the year, what did we really get for all that so-called “compromise?”

With Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, the body where – by the mandate of the US Constitution – all legislation relating to revenue is to begin, many on the Right and in the Center believed that the reckless and spendthrift fiscal actions of the 111th Congress would be constrained if not reversed. With a sizable number of new members identifying with the oft demonized TEA Party, there was high hope for a glimmer of fiscal sanity to emerge from the halls of Congress. And while the TEA Party members of Congress are to be congratulated for doing exactly what their constituents sent them to Washington to do, in the end, they were thwarted by establishment, inside the beltway Republicans and the despotic obstructionism foisted upon them by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, (to be fair, Reid was aided by a less than reform-minded Republican leadership in the senate, led by Mitch McConnell, R-KY).

The Budget
In absolute defiance of the fact that it is law that Congress must pass an annual budget for the federal government, Senate Democrats – once again, led by the indignant political disgrace that is Harry Reid – refused to abide by said law in passing, reconciling and advancing to the President an annual budget. It has been over 900 days – almost three years – since the last budget has been presented to the President for his signature or veto.

(more…)

Since June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the required ninth state to ratify the US Constitution, the seventeen enumerated powers specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution have slowly expanded to allow central government involvement in virtually all aspects of life in America.  Thomas Jefferson, were he among us today, would call for a second insurance of the Declaration of Independence.  The expansion of those powers resulted from broad interpretation of the Constitution’s commerce clause and general welfare clause for the stated purpose of promoting societal good.  Jefferson warned us about this in his writings with, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

This gradual erosion of our liberty has only surfaced because of the unsustainable financial support necessary to fund an ever increasing role of government in our lives.  Newly elected Republicans in the 112^th Congress recognized that the financial structure of our nation is at the brink of collapsing under the weight of government that has grown too large for its citizens to support.  They are pressing for deep cuts in spending, but are getting pushed back from President Obama and Democrats whose ideology is rooted in central authority control.  Even if successful, the $100 billion in cuts for the remainder of the 2011 budget, called for by the Republicans, will do little when staring at a projected deficit for 2011 of $1.5 trillion.  This deficit will push our national debt to a level that will threaten our ability to fund our military.  It can spark an inflationary cycle that will spike the cost of food, energy and other commodities resulting in hardships for all citizens and for businesses, which would fail creating higher unemployment.

The Treasury Department is forecasting that our national debt will reach $19.6 trillion by 2015.  If our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grows at a respectable annual rate of 3.5% over that same period, it will reach $17.7 trillion by 2015, trailing the debt by almost $2 trillion.  Mr. Obama’s recent proposal to cut $1.1 trillion in deficit spending over the next ten years, while the debt is forecast to increase by more than $5 trillion in only five years, is laughable at best and a cruel diversion to mask the truth at worst.  Can you imagine running your family household by planning to spend more than you anticipate your income to grow for ten years?  You would be bankrupt and that is exactly where our nation is heading.

The clash between our federalist style of government (where the states and the people have the power) and an all powerful central government will drive the debate in the 2012 Presidential Election.  However, we need to deal with the financial crisis now.

(more…)

We now have a new Congress, the 112^th, or the “Tea Party Congress,” as it has been called, owing to the large number of conservative challengers who beat liberal incumbents on Election Day. This presents a tremendous opportunity to help Congress hold corrupt politicians — especially the out-of-control Obama administration — accountable to the rule of law.

After all, a large number of these new members of Congress focused their campaigns on the issue of cleaning up corruption in Washington. And so, to help these new members keep their campaign promises and abide by the dictates of American voters, Judicial Watch this week released its list of “investigative priorities” for the 112^th Congress.

Our list, in alphabetical order, includes:

• ACORN Corruption: Including, but not limited to, ACORN restructuring and rebranding; unethical activities by ACORN affiliates; incidents of voter registration fraud (Project Vote); and new Obama administration grants and funding for ACORN-linked groups.
• Financial Solvency: Including, but not limited to, the impact nationally if individual States should begin to default on their debt.
• Government Bailouts: Including, but not limited to, the government’s legal and constitutional justification for authorizing the bailouts of private financial institutions; government deliberations regarding which institutions received grants from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the decision by the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under “conservatorship;” and the government takeover of the American automotive industry.

(more…)

Progressives have been lining up against Speaker Boehner’s plan to open tomorrow’s House session with a reading of the United States Constitution. Their objections come even though the Democrats have been invited to participate in the ceremony.  Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s (R-Va.) office told the Washington Post that he would issue a letter advising Democrats they are welcome to take part.

But that is not good enough for the  progressive Congressman from New York Jerrold Nadler, he believes that the Constitution is not a document that should be treated with reverence.

As socialists progressives gear up to take on the filibuster, again, Jim Hoft shares some important filibuster myths that you’ll likely see parroted by many in the media as they struggle to carry Harry Reid’s increasingly heavy water pail.

I spoke with Brian Darling, who is a Big Government contributor, after the event yesterday at Heritage Foundation. He later sent me his “List of Myths” that the democrat-media complex will try to push on the American public this week as they go for their power grab in the US Senate.
With his permission, I am posting those “myths” here.

Four Myths about the Filibuster

There are four myths that you will hear over and over again about the filibuster. Don’t believe the left when they claim that the filibuster is unconstitutional and was an accident of history. Furthermore don’t believe it when you hear that the Senate is not a continuing body and therefore the Senate can only change rules in the first day of a new Congress. The explicit words of the Constitution, the Senate’s written rules and the history of the Senate show that the filibuster was created by design, it is constitutional and the Senate is a continuous body.

Myth: The Filibuster is Unconstitutional. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) argues that “When the authors of the Constitution believed a supermajority vote was necessary, they clearly said so. And while the Constitution states that we may determine our own rules, it makes no mention that it require a supermajority vote to do so. In addition, a longstanding common law principle, upheld in Supreme Court decisions, states that one legislature cannot bind its successors. To require a supermajority to change the rules, as is our current practice, is to allow a Senate rule to trump our U.S. Constitution and bind future Senates.”

Fact: The Filibuster is constitutional and efforts to restrict debate in the Senate may be unconstitutional. The Constitution empowers the House and Senate to establish rules of procedure. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that “each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.” This provision in the Constitution empowers the Senate to make rules governing debate. The Senate in 1917 established the cloture rule requiring a 2/3rds vote of all Senators present and voting to shut down debate after years of not having a means to shut down debate. Senate Rule 22 today states “invoking cloture on a proposal to amend the Senate’s standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.” The clear letter of the Senate’s rules mandate a supermajority vote to change the Senate’s rules.

(more…)