Who would have ever thought a philosopher from France (of all places) would support individual freedoms more than American political leaders? Not moi, but unfortunately we’re not making American political leaders like we used to!

Much has recently been made of Florida preacher Terry Jones’ burning of the Koran and the subsequent Afghanistan riots that resulted in the murders and beheadings of UN workers. What has been more repugnant, but not surprising, is the speed in which American political leaders have rushed in front of cameras to condemn Jones and even suggest restricting the First Amendment and freedom of speech!

South Carolina RINO Senator Lindsey Graham appeared on CBS Face The Nation yesterday. He stated:

“You know I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”

Senate Leader Harry Reid added on the same program:

“Ten to 20 people have been killed. We’ll take a look at this of course…as to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”

Shame on these lame excuses for Americans! Graham has the audacity to state “free speech is a great idea?” No, Senator Graham, free speech is one of the cornerstone liberties that separate America from the totalitarian controls in countries where citizens suffer with the oppression of communism or sharia law. It is America’s love and defense of individual freedoms and rights that serve as the backbone of our love and defense of liberty.

Yes, Senator Reid, 10 to 20 people have been killed, but they were killed by savage Muslim extremists in Afghanistan who made the decision to murder. Do you hold Jones accountable for the recent murders of 1,000 Christians by Muslims in the Ivory Coast? Murder seems to go hand-in-hand with radical Islam all over the world.

What Pastor Jones did no doubt offend many. But does it differ from William Ayers burning or trampling an American flag? Would Senators Graham and Reid have threatened to hold hearings or restrict the First Amendment if an American Muslim Imam were to burn a Bible? What if Jones burned a Torah? Would they condemn? Of course not! But Christians and Jews are not known to behead and murder innocents when their religion is insulted.  Appeasing savages with the worthless philosophy of ” maybe if we’re nice, they’ll go away” has been proven time and time again to lead to more violence and deaths of innocents.

I have heard many, other than Graham and Reid, state in the past few days that Pastor Jones is responsible for the murders in Afghanistan. Nothing is further from the truth and defending that argument is a great insult to Pastor Jones, the innocents murdered and the First Amendment. It is also a tremendous insult to Islam. Because stating that the burning of a Koran in America is the catalyst for mass murder in Afghanistan basically says that Muslims are not capable of responsible, civil behavior. Pastor Jones is guilty of nothing more than burning a Koran. Whether he was right or wrong is a matter of differing opinion. But every American, even our PC political class, should stand firm and state to the world that Jones, as a citizen of the United States, has every right to burn any book, flag or anything else other than the private property of others that he sees fit.

The predictable reaction from the politically correct, professional apologizers now leading America will do nothing but embolden radical Muslims murderers around the world. The correctly see America as a country that will quickly abandon its most cherished values if the acts committed in Afghanistan, Pakistan or some other Muslim dominated country are sufficiently brutal. What will Senator Graham say when radical Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq threaten to kill more American soldiers or UN employees unless American women are refused the right to drive or must wear burqas?

America’s individual liberties and Constitutional rights must be protected at all costs. Pastor Jones has the right to burn the Koran, Lindsey Graham has the right to say stupid things on television and I have the right to criticize them both. And that is what makes America great.

I think the critics are wrong, quite wrong – and for two reasons. First, those who drafted the Pledge took great care to ground everything that they had to say in first principles. They drew the attention of the nation to the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution. Then, they pointed to our departure from these principles in recent years, asserting that the Democrats bear prime responsibility for this, but acknowledging Republican failures as well.

And, finally, they spelled out the corrective measures that are most pressing – a repeal of Obamacare (not a collection of minor adjustments); a reduction of federal expenditures (apart from those devoted to national defense) back to the level of 2008; and an extension of the tax cuts introduced by George W. Bush.

Should they have gone further? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is a document devised for three purposes. It is aimed at winning an election, at preparing a party now in opposition for legislative hegemony, and at initiating an enduring partisan realignment. In such circumstances, two things are necessary. A simple straightforward set of principles needs to be announced, and the most pressing concerns need to be directly addressed.

The document does this. First, it points to fundamental principles, which is no small thing. The last Republican leader to recur repeatedly to the Founding Fathers was Ronald Reagan. Since the 1980s, to a considerable degree, Republicans have operated in such a manner as to suggest that that what the Founders had to say is out-of-date.

Second, the document singles out the three matters of greatest concern to voters who might be tempted to support the Republicans. Moreover, it binds Republican candidates and Senators not up for re-election to do what they have all promised to do. Repealing Obamacare, restoring a semblance of fiscal prudence, and extending the tax cuts would be no small thing – and these are the three items at the top of the Tea-Party list.

Should the Republicans have stressed entitlement reform? I think not. It needs doing without a doubt, and it will figure in debates to come. But had the Republicans at this time made it a major issue, they would have played into the hands of their opponents – who are already putting advertisements on television claiming that the Republicans are going to dump grandma into a ditch.

We must remember that this is 2010, not 2012, and that we must tackle first things first. The extent of our difficulties will become more and more evident to the American people as time goes on, and entitlement reform will be complicated and messy. We must as a nation honor our commitments to those who have for decades and decades paid into the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare. We must gradually wind down these programs. And we must fund the transition. One cannot reduce what needs to be done in this regard to a sound bite suited to an election campaign.

But Repeal Obamacare! No New Taxes! Take a Knife to the Budget! – These are slogans easily understood and the words have a nice ring.

Think about what happens after November – especially if, as I have argued in an analysis posted on Sunday morning, the Republicans take the Senate and, in the House, chalk up a gain of considerably more than 70 seats and perhaps as many as the 101 that the Democrats gained in 1932. Think about the next step, for, if my calculations are anywhere near correct, the Republics will have a resounding mandate for all three measures.

This will put tremendous pressure on the Democrats who survive the onslaught and, of course, on President Obama as well. If repeal passes the House, will the numerous Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2012 and 2014 block it? If it passes the House and the Senate, will the President veto the bill? If the bill is repealed, the Left will turn on the Democratic Party. If it is not, the voters will turn with a vengeance on those who thwarted their will.

After contemplating this prospect, consider what the Republicans will be able to do with taxes and the budget – where, thanks to the rules that govern the Senate, their leverage will be greater still.

If President Obama accepts defeat, the Left will not stick with him as they stuck with Bill Clinton in 1996. If he retains sufficient support in the House and the Senate and makes an effective use of his veto – his party will, in 2012, lose further ground in the House and suffer considerable carnage in the Senate, and he will have set up the Republican nominee for a decisive victory in that year.

The trick is to turn a rebellion into a rout. Our aim must be to put the Democrats on the spot and maneuver them into abandoning the Left or defying the popular will. We have the whip hand, and it is time to use the whip.

But one step at a time, my friends!

Which is not to say that you should not keep the pressure on. Otherwise, you can bet that folks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham will break ranks at the first opportunity, as they have so often done in the past. It is essential that the Tea-Party Movement continue to do what it has done in the course of the last eighteen months: it is essential that it purge the backsliders. The defeat of patronage Republicans like Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle has an effect on the officeholders whom they leave behind much like that which Samuel Johnson attributed to public hangings: it concentrates the mind wonderfully.

First, lets dismiss with a few of the challenges the GOP faced in the special election. The district, Pennsylvania 12, is a gerrymandered mess, designed to elect a Democrat. There are twice as many registered Democrats in the district as Republicans. Although the Presidential election in 2008 was close, in prior years the Democrat candidate won the district in a walk.

The special election was scheduled on the same day as a hotly-contested Democrat primary, guaranteeing a boost in the party’s turnout. There was a gadfly “tea party” candidate auditioning for the role of spoiler and a somewhat complicated voting process where supporters of the GOP candidate, Tim Burns, had to vote twice; once in the GOP primary and again in the actual special election. And, the Democrat candidate had the full support of the left’s political machine and an army of supporters from Big Labor, in one of the few remaining districts where that matters.

All of these dynamics pointed to a close race. They do not, however, add up to the blowout suffered by Burns on Tuesday. Remember, Burns’ opponent, Mark Critz, was a former staffer for John Murtha. He actually campaigned that he was the economic development director for the former Congressman. He negotiated the earmark deals that cast an ethical cloud above the Congressman and filled a grand jury docket. He said he was a pro-life Democrat, as if that means anything in a post-Stupak world. Oh, and he said he opposed ObamaCare but wouldn’t vote to repeal it. It seems he was against it before he was for it.

Critz may have been confused on policy, but he was laser-sharp focused on what it took to win an election. He launched a ferocious attack on Burns that defined him early as some kind of overly rich outsider. (Never mind that Burns was a native of the district and, as a successful entrepreneur, was the only politician for miles to have actually created a job.) Critz convinced voters that Burns was somehow “not them” and couldn’t possibly understand their concerns. More impressively, Critz convinced voters that he, a DC Congressional staffer in charge of cutting earmark deals, was most in-tune with their hopes, dreams and fears.

Critz pulled off this hat-trick because Burns never responded effectively. He let Critz’s attacks take hold without pushing back. He brought a rusty, dull knife to a gun fight with a sniper. I’ve heard that Burns is going to try again in November, but unless he completely overhauls his campaign, he shouldn’t bother.

I’m not armchair quarterbacking here. I got involved professionally in politics and campaigns almost twenty years ago. I cut my political teeth in Illinois and the streets of Chicago, where campaigning is a blood-sport. There is at least a truckload of politicians I’ve sent into early retirement. (That’s an unambiguous good; less clear is the legacy of the people I’ve put into office.) I can recognize a winning campaign.

People I trust went out to PA-12 in the final days of the campaign to help build a ground game for the election. Their reports from the field were not encouraging. Worse, they were all too typical of many GOP campaigns I’ve seen over the years. Consultant-heavy efforts that spend, and waste, buckets of money but don’t have the stomach for the political fight. They can expertly talk about politics, but don’t have the vaguest notion of the heavy-lifting needed to win. (Yes, I know the names of the people involved in navigating Burns to a blowout loss. I won’t reveal their names here.)

There is at least a small ray of hope here. Special elections are singular events where national GOP entities like the NRCC can have an outsized influence. They can swagger into the room with a bucket of money and provide nervous, often first-time candidates with at least a dollop of reassurance. It simply isn’t possible for them to do that in dozens of races this Fall. Plenty of races untouched by them will still have a chance of winning.  It is sad to say that one of the GOP’s best hopes for the Fall is the institutional limitations of it’s national party organizations, but it does give me some comfort.

No doubt, the national GOP is staffed by smart people. But, they live in a cocoon, and invariably try to apply a “one-size-fits-all” model onto every campaign. Worse, however, and almost never noted, is the short list of DC consultants they absolutely insist campaigns use in their race. (Consultants who will, of course, provide future employment to the GOP staffers.) I know these people. With a few exceptions I wouldn’t trust them to run my daughter’s campaign for class President, never mind an historic election where the direction of the country is at stake.

Campaigns DO matter. And the coming campaigns will matter more than most. I have no particular love for the GOP, but we simply have no choice but to help them win wherever possible this Fall. The current Democrat party is not the same party my grandparents supported. It has been co-opted by the far left and, left unchecked, will drive us into a fiscal ditch that would embarrass the Greeks.

And, so, it is left to us, the American public to right this ship. We rose up to oppose the far-left agenda of bailouts, stimulus and government health care, while the national GOP tried to ‘compromise’ their way into supporting them. We continue to oppose a financial “reform” bill full of sweet-heart deals for Wall Street while GOP Senators Corker, Snowe and Collins try to sell us out. We continue to fight against an oppressive cap-and-trade regulatory regime while GOP Senator Lindsey Graham tries to cut a deal and get into headlines. We continue to oppose a VAT tax, while former GOP Senator Alan Simpson tries to sweet talk us into accepting it.

We get the final lesson of PA-12. It is up to us. The coming elections are simply too important to leave in the hands of the GOP. We have to look to other groups, like Ensuring Liberty, Club for Growth and Freedomworks, among others, to lead us out of this mess. We have to find good candidates–and Burns WAS a good candidate–and support them and ensure they run the kind of campaigns we need to win. And, we have to remind the GOP that they did absolutely nothing to get us on the cusp of victory. We brought them to the dance, thank you very much. And, from here on out, we’ll call the tune.

Now, to work.

The most obvious reason is that GEN Petraeus himself has repeatedly and unequivocally rejected the idea of ever running for public office.  Cynical observers routinely discount such disclaimers, but there are several reasons to believe that he really means it.  As the commander of CENTCOM, responsible for both Iraq and Afghanistan, GEN Petraeus has a full plate and a mission he has not yet completed.  He is committed to the mission, and has worked for its success for nearly a decade (I have not worked for GEN Petraeus personally, but I have close friends who have worked directly for him – to the point of receiving emails from him at home at odd hours after their return to civilian life – and they uniformly deeply respect him).  He was also diagnosed with prostate cancer.  But the most powerful evidence against a possible run is that he has said he would not run.  Unlike many in the political arena, his word and a dollar are together worth more than 100 cents.

But assuming he could be enticed to run – say, if he was absolutely convinced that the good of the nation depended upon it – what then?  His storied military career and his ability to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq via “the Surge” have fueled speculationabout whether he can follow in Eisenhower’s footsteps from the command post to the White House.  Like Ike, GEN Petraeus would probably be most comfortable as a Republican.  He was registered in the GOP before 2002, when he stopped voting.  The American Enterprise Institute recently honored him.  And he doesn’t seem like he would have much use for defeatists and pacifists, social parasites or the unbelievably corrupt, so he couldn’t be a Democrat.

But lots of folks have adopted the “Republican” label and proceeded to govern as anything but committed conservatives.  It is very likely that GEN Petraeus would prove a major disappointment to the insurgent, activist conservatives currently ascendant in the GOP.  Simply put, there is zero evidence that GEN Petraeus fully embraces the aggressive limited government, low tax and pro-personal liberty agenda that is animating the burgeoning Tea Party movement.  In fact, his background as a long-serving general officer and the institutional forces that have shaped him make it highly unlikely that he would prove to be the aggressive advocate of modern conservative ideas and priorities we need in 2012 to undo the current administration’s damage.

One needs to understand the world that active duty general officers – particularly four-stars like GEN Petraeus – operate in.  As a combatant commander, he flies about the various capitals of the nations within CENTCOM meeting with heads of state and dignitaries.  Such a general is surrounded by an entourage that would make Puff Daddy envious – both in terms of size and armament.  Moreover, he makes a decision and his subordinates carry it out – there are no 535 bickering, preening senators and congressmen to mollify.  This hardly sounds like the background of someone who would enjoy spending months wandering through Iowa listening to poorly-expressed insights on ethanol policy from subsidy-craving corn farmers.

GEN Petraeus was a leader, not a rear echelon-type, and has spent enough time with soldiers himself that he could deal with interacting with the voters better than most actual politicians.  But still, a career in the active military creates a mindset that is at odds with the “Don’t tread on me” ethos of the Tea Party faction.  National Guard and Reserve generals are somewhat different, with most also having worked and succeeded in the civilian business world too, but senior active duty generals have spent their entire adult lives within a government bureaucracy that unapologetically regulates every detail of its members’ lives.  To them, a big government is the normal state of affairs, not a terrifying aberration.  My active duty friends sometimes gave me grief as a “weekend warrior,” but I enjoyed watching their reactions when I responded that at least I didn’t live 24/7 in a socialist wonderland, where the government tells me what to do, where to live, what to wear, and who my doctor will be.  Of course, that last one no longer applies.

The point is that after three or four decades of existing and succeeding within a bureaucracy, it is perfectly understandable if one accepts some of the basic premises of that bureaucracy.  One of those premises is that the collective interest as determined by the leadership always takes precedence over an individual’s interest – something that works well within in the military but which, within the civilian world, is precisely the opposite of the spirit and letter of the Constitution.  The messy, free-form vibrancy of entrepreneurial capitalism looks an awful lot like chaos to people who spent their lives in a very rigid hierarchy of well-defined ranks and positions.  Entrepreneurialism will naturally be viewed with some degree of suspicion by one whose whole career revolved around central planning.

Many people think generals are all cigar-chomping, tough-talking warriors like Robert Duvall’s Stetson-wearing cavalry commander in Apocalypse Now, but at the level of a David Petraeus it’s much different.  It is about achieving consensus.  Their job is building and maintaining coalitions not only among different nations but among different services.  Negotiation and compromise are the keys, not iconoclasm and flamboyance.  Further, institutionally senior military leaders distrust “ideology” – that is, well-formed, coherent sets of beliefs like modern American conservatism.  You find Clausewitz on military reading lists, not Mark Levin.  Instead, they embrace “pragmatic” and “reasonable” solutions based on the particular situation.  They seek to build consensus instead of taking rigid, controversial stands.  This is good, even essential, in coalition building, but in American domestic politics it would inevitably lead to RINO-esque, “us too, only less so,” compromises with the progressive agenda.

It was no surprise to see that the last general the Republican Party flirted with, Colin Powell, turned out to be a moderate if not a liberal.  Wesley Clark and Joe Sestak make no bones about it – they are actively progressive Democrats.  Note also that two of the most frequently frustrating Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both served as senior military officers, holding ranks one step below admiral and general.  Their willingness to flirt with “pragmatic compromises” on anathema issues like cap-and-tax and amnesty is well in line with their backgrounds.

This would likely manifest itself in 2012 in ways guaranteed to frustrate the active conservative base.  While GEN Petraeus’s exact personal political views are unclear – and properly so – it is safe to say that the policy positions of many active duty generals, in general, would be quite disappointing to conservatives.  Generals would be likely to accept the premise of the bailouts because of their natural inclination toward order and against the kind of “creative destruction” that capitalism requires to function.  They would likely embrace “common sense” gun control over individual rights.  On taxes and spending, they would likely be willing to “compromise” on both – meaning higher taxes and higher spending.

All this aside, the big selling point for a David Petraeus candidacy remains the unfocused idea of his potential to “unify” the county so that Americans can “work together” and “solve problems.”  Of course, the last thing America needs right now is unity – it needs debate and argument.  The fact is that the big domestic issues America faces – on the size and role of government, on taxes and spending – have notbeen decided, and the notion that some “post-partisan” leader will come along and erase the sharp divide is ridiculous.  We need conservative competition with progressive ideology, with powerful, committed advocates of conservative ideas leading the way.  We do not need a whitewash of real ideological conflicts in order not to offend the sensibilities of the weak-hearts who get woozy at the thought of people disagreeing.

The unspoken assumption is that David Petraeus is that leader, and that his amazing military record would somehow insulate him from the unseemliness of partisan politics as usual.  But those folks were not paying attention when Moveon.org labeled him “General Betray Us” in the New York Times.  The second GEN Petraeus tosses his beret into the ring, it becomes open season on the White Knight.

GEN Petraeus is clearly a great man and just as clearly the wrong man for the job of GOP standard bearer in 2012.  Now, that could change.  The world situation could be such in 2012 that suddenly GEN Petraeus is the obvious choice – say, perhaps, if Iran gets the Bomb and looks like it will use it.  And if he somehow runs and is somehow nominated by the GOP, I’ll vote for him.  So might a majority of Americans.

But today, the Petraeus bandwagon is nothing more than wishful thinking, much of it by moderates who fear a truly committed ideological conservative nominee.  These are the same peerless tacticians who brought us President McCain.  They’ve had their chance, and we’re still paying the price for their failure.

Republicans need to get real about 2012.  Assuming no huge change in the world situation – a big assumption – we need a truly conservative candidate who is fully and unambiguously committed to the free market, to traditional values, and to a small, limited government.  We need to work on leaders who will lead us where we want to go, and not pin our hopes for salvation on a true American hero who may not be quite as conservative as we imagine him to be.  And we need GEN Petraeus right where he is.

But since when has that stopped the Left from ramming what they want down people’s throats? And why do they want this? The same reason they want everything, to further entrench their power. Statehood would mean two new senators, six or seven new representatives, a whole slew of new voters and tons of opportunities to spend more of your money. As Examiner.com’s Robert Moon points out:

Due to its dense population of poverty-stricken minorities, Puerto Rico can be counted on to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and all their handouts, and their representation will also consequently outnumber that of 25 other existing U.S. states.

Meanwhile, with Puerto Ricans having an average income of less than half that of our poorest state, they will instantly become eligible for dozens of our welfare programs. Truckloads of taxpayer dollars will also have to be perpetually dumped into the territory, by federal law, to bring it up to American infrastructure and environmental standards.

Oh, and never mind us. We don’t get a say in this either. Puerto Rico, which doesn’t want statehood, is being forced to vote, while we American citizens, who have a vested interest in the outcome, will not be given the opportunity to vote! Simply incredible!

HR 2499, titled “A Bill, to provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico” follows a very devious, underhanded multi-step path to essentially force Puerto Rican voters to eventually adopt statehood. Here’s how.

The bill first authorizes Puerto Rico to hold a vote where they are given the following two choices only:

1. Puerto Rico should maintain its current political status.
2. Puerto Rico should have a different political status (Different political status. These vague words are exactly as in the bill.)

So citizens get to choose 1 or 2. Period, no ifs, ands or buts. Then the bill stipulates what comes next:

If the people pick option 1 – which they have chosen multiple times already – then the Puerto Rican government is directed to conduct more plebiscites every eight years for the foreseeable future. So in other words, Mr. Puerto Rican citizen, we are going to keep cramming this down your throat until a majority of you choose option 2.

Once the people choose option 2, then there will be a second vote with the following three options:

1. Full independence.
2. Sovereignty “in association with the United States…” not subject to the Constitution’s Territorial Clause.
3. Statehood.

For the record, the first two options will not get much support. So the entire structure of the bill is designed to funnel Puerto Rican voters into a predetermined outcome: Statehood. This despite the fact that Puerto Ricans have voted against statehood over and over again!

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a senior Democrat Congressman no less, just posted his views on this bill at Huffington Post. Here is what he has to say about it:

I am a senior Democratic Member of Congress, whose parents were born in Puerto Rico, and for whom Puerto Rico self-determination has been – and remains – a central issue of my congressional career. This statehood bill is the opposite of self-determination.

It is designed to craft an artificial majority for statehood where none exists now. Every time the people of Puerto Rico have been consulted on this issue through a plebiscite they’ve said NO to Statehood. NO to Statehood in 1967. NO to Statehood in 1993. NO to Statehood in 1998. This should be called the “Don’t you dare say NO to Statehood Bill”.

But he is just getting going. Listen to this:

When a similar Puerto Rico bill came up under Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Republican controlled Congress a decade ago, it was the product of lengthy and thorough hearings and an open and fair process. Then, I was given time to offer seven amendments. Then I was able to clarify the bill for the Puerto Rican people. Then, each of my seven amendments got 30 minutes of floor time for debate.

Flash forward to now. Now a Democratic Majority Congress is only allowing me two of the 16 amendments I offered in the Rules Committee on Wednesday. Now I only have 10 minutes to debate each one.

Now, under Democratic Leadership, we get one hearing, no forewarning, no companion Senate bill, and a debate only a few seconds longer than a NASCAR pit-stop…I get more time to debate renaming a Post Office than I will get to debate a bill that could make Puerto Rico the fifty-first state.

In my opinion, this bill is the political equivalent of a shady Goldman Sachs derivative: It’s secretive. It lacks transparency. It’s likely to blow up down the road and cause systemic risk to out democracy. And those who put this political derivative together don’t really tell you what this is really about and will play dumb when it explodes.

We all know now from the outrageous experience of Obamacare that leftists could care less what the will of the people is. For those of you who traditionally vote Democrat this should serve as a warning: that includes you! Even if it’s those poor, downtrodden Puerto Ricans the Left claims to want to help so much. Ram Obamacare down Americas’ throat; ram statehood down Puerto Rico’s throat.

Do I detect a pattern here?

This information needs to go viral. Congress needs to be shut down with phone calls and faxes starting first thing in the morning. That is today, April 29, 2010.

All this is going on while everyone is distracted by the monstrous financial bailout bill coming out of the Senate. The timing was deliberate! And we now hear that despite losing support from lone RINO Republican Lindsey Graham, the Democrats are going to go ahead with illegal immigrant amnesty.

So now we see a pretty comprehensive electoral strategy mapped out:

1. Naturalize 12 million illegal aliens to vote Democrat
2. Universal voter registration
3. Do away with Electoral College using state-by-state approach
4. Force Puerto Rican statehood
5. Soros-funded Secretary of State project to help steal close elections
6. Stimulus monies as political slush fund

If you’re not sufficiently angry and alarmed now, there is no hope for you. These people are demonstrating right to our faces their willingness to trample our rights and defy our will. If they are willing to do this now, what will they do if they get the permanent majorities they want?

Big Government readers are well aware of Corker’s repeated attempts to cut a deal with “Countrywide” Chris Dodd.  Despite signing a letter pledging to oppose the legislation, Corker is now taking to the airwaves denying the legislation contains a permanent bank bailout provision.

Neat trick Senator. Swear to your constituents that you oppose further bailouts and then push a bailout bill by simply saying it contains no bailouts.

Corker has become to Financial Reform what Sen. Lindsey Graham is to climate change legislation — a sucker.  And his words are being used by left-wing activists to deny there is a bailout in the legislation.

Corker took to the Senate floor and said ” this fund that’s been set up is anything but a bailout. It’s been set up to, in essence, provide upfront funding by the industry so that when these companies are seized, there’s money available to make payroll and to wind it down while the pieces are being sold off. Now, a lot of people have said this is a Republican idea. There’s no question that this is something Sheila Bair has proposed. The FDIC wants to see a ‘prefund.’ The Treasury would like to see a ‘postfund.’”

Isn’t that precious.  Corker is praising the fact that the legislation empowers the federal government to “provide upfront funding” for its seizure of banks and breakup by the feds.  Earth to Corker — conservatives support smaller government.

Senator Corkers Office Numbers

Nashville 615-279-8125

Knoxville 865-637-4180

Memphis 901-683-1910

Chattanooga 423-756-2757

Tri-Cities 423-323-1252

Jackson 731-424-9655

Washington DC 202-224-3344

Read this just out from Politico, explaining that the Senate’s committee process simply must be suspended to jam through Obama’s energy/cap-and-tax Power Grab, because it is so expansive that it would invoke the jurisdiction of six Senate committees. These include the tax-writing Finance Committee, because cap-and-trade and the new gas tax (styled by some cheerleaders who think you’re stupid as a “carbon-linked fee”).

So, again, Harry Reid is going to write a couple of thousand pages — and try to buy off the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with revenues taken from you — in closed-door, back room deals. The ability to do so is one reason the bill in its House version grew to 1,400 pages, bigger and bigger with each closed-door deal. There are so many ways to design this takeover and the wealth transfers and lost freedoms involved, and to hide and target the hurt.

If that sounds like the health care takeover, it should. It’s the same thing. As the perpetrators admit to Politico. So possibly C-SPAN might ask to be involved. Surely the White House can come up with a better response than last time.

I’ve mentioned that “Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America” was just published this week, right? That’s the only reason I can say something nice about these people and their tricks. They prove me right. So cause problems by reading what they don’t want you to know.

For example, although the popular discussion in Washington is now trending toward the likelihood of a European-style Value Added Tax (VAT), this is being rhetorically cushioned with the explanation that it is the only politically viable or even foreseeable way to raise the revenue that Obama’s Leviathan State requires. That’s untrue.

Team Obama is hiding its cap-and-tax cram-down behind closed doors because, as documents I obtained under the Freedom of Information Act — drafted within days of Obama’s victory in preparation for just such a moment — reveal, the bureaucrats believe they can  plunder an equivalent of the entire corporate income tax haul per year from cap-and-trade, designed the way Obama has called for it.

That is $400 billion per year. That’s several percentage points of GDP. That’s the biggest tax increase in American history in constant dollars, by far. All of which I detail in Power Grab.

Meanwhile, as Reid et al. plot to continue the hijacking of democracy, EPA is conducting a video contest soliciting public video entries that support growing the regulatory state, on the odd argument that regulations already touch almost every aspect of your life. Oh. Then surely more is better.

And responding by providing the requested video advocacy is just the sort of helpful grassroots activity that community organizing is all about. And probably just what the “stimulus” bill had in mind when it dedicated millions in wealth transfers to the same groups. As I also detail in Power Grab. You are taking my hard-earned money to pay people to speak out in favor of you taking more of my hard-earned money. I hate to be so Bob Dole but, where’s the outrage?

As you’ll see in Politico, the Democrats’/Lindsey Graham’s argument distilled is that such an enormous undertaking would overwhelm the poor dears, so Harry Reid and whomever he brings back into the room with him need to hammer the couple of thousand pages out. It’s for everyone’s own good.

I remind you, that’s their defense.

Maybe, instead, these perils are ones that our Founders would have read as indicating that you either a) do this with particular attention to the Constitution’s clear presumption of transparent and accountable policymaking, or b) you don’t do it at all.

So, we see here proof that they really are that radical. And they’re scared that their opportunity to “organize society” is short-lived and is creating a backlash, such that they’d better cram as much down now as they can.

This isn’t news. But this latest Power Grab is. So far the Republicans have raised eyebrows but not their voices. Will they shut down the Senate in protest, or at least to stall this and draw attention to the sleaze being employed to no media opprobrium — all of the proper people know that this is a very fashionable issue, so long as the windmills are placed out there next to the unwashed.

Will you let them get away with it? Or, as I hopefully note at the end of my book, will you have something to tell your kids and grandkids that you did in this war?