Allocation of Federal Expenditures

Defense and National Security – 5% GDP or 28% Total Federal Outlays
Entitlements – 5% GDP or 28% Total Federal Outlays
Remaining Departments – 5% GDP or 28% Total Federal Outlays
Debt Reduction – 3% GDP or 16% Total Federal Outlays**

Graduated Tax Structure

Personal – Business/Corporation – Capital Gains

Personal – Dependent Child and Mortgage Interest Deductions Only
Business/Corporation – Profit/Loss (By normal accounting practices.)
Capital Gains – Profit/Loss (By normal accounting practices.)
Payroll Tax, Inheritance Tax and Alternative Minimum Tax are eliminated.
Employer paid health and pension benefits are taxed as regular earnings.

Rate Structure

Earnings $100,000,000 and above – Are taxed at 24% – Minimum Liability $20,642,250
Earnings $10,000,000 – $99,999,999 – Are taxed at 21% – Maximum Liability $20,642,250
Earnings $1,000,000 – $9,999,999 – Are taxed at 18% – Maximum Liability $1,742,250
Earnings $500,000 – $999,999 – Are taxed at 15% – Maximum Liability $122,250
Earnings $250,000 – $499,999 – Are taxed at 12% – Maximum Liability $47,250
Earnings $100,000 – $249,999 – Are taxed at 9% – Maximum Liability $17,250
Earnings $50,000 – $99,999 – Are taxed at 6% – Maximum Liability $3,750
Earnings $25,000 – $49,999 – Are taxed at 3% – Maximum Liability $750
Earnings less than $25,000 – Exempt – No Tax Liability

Everyone “has skin in the game,” and everyone “pays their fair share.” Earnings less than $25,000 are exempted in a conscious effort to reduce dependency on government programs.

** — During a limited transition period established by statute, “Debt Reduction” funds shall be used in order to offset anticipated shortfalls in current/promised entitlements until they are replaced, and/or restructured and a viable path to solvency is established. From that point going forward, “Debt Reduction” funds shall be used to retire the public debt. Upon reaching surplus, a contingency fund is established, entitlements are enhanced, tax rates are restructured, and/or total federal outlays are reduced and restructured.

Note: The primary responsibility of the federal government is to “provide for the common defense.” Therefore, Defense and National Security deserve the lion’s share of total federal outlays. Federal Spending for Defense and National Security shall be at least 5% GDP or 28% Total Federal Outlays, except during time of war or catastrophic global event.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer she does not want to serve a second term as secretary of state or run for president of the United States.

Blitzer sat down with the former 2008 presidential candidate in Cairo.

Q- If the president is reelected, do you want to serve a second term as secretary of state?

No

Q- Would you like to serve as secretary of defense?

No

Q- Would you like to be vice president of the United States?

No

Q- Would you like to be president of the United States?

No

Q- Why not?

…This is a moment in history where it is almost hard to catch your breath. There are both the tragedies and disasters that we have seen from Haiti to Japan and there are the extraordinary opportunities and challenges that we see right here in Egypt and in the rest of the region…

Q- President of the United States?

You know, I had a wonderful experience running and I am very proud of the support I had and very grateful for the opportunity, but I’m going to be, you know, moving on.

What? No mention of Gaddafi and the ‘cleansing’ taking place in Libya?

Clinton obviously knows that President Obama’s foreign policy is an abject failure, and there’s absolutely no chance she would ever be picked for vice president, secretary of defense or secretary of state under the new Republican administration when it takes hold of the reigns in 2013.

What about a Clinton Presidency?

Putting aside the economic disaster and energy crisis manufactured by the Democrats and their fellow progressive travelers, see “Why not?” above.

Just 22% of Likely U.S. Voters say the country is heading in the right direction, the lowest level of confidence found since before President Obama’s inauguration in January 2009.

According to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, March 13, 72% of voters now say the country is heading down the wrong track, also at its highest level since before the inauguration…

And it only gets worse among those highly ballyhooed Independents.

…Confidence that the country is moving in the right direction is at just 40% among Democrats, down from 59% the week before Election Day. Only 10% of Republicans and 17% of voters not affiliated with either major political party share that view.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Democrats feel the country is heading down the wrong track, compared to 88% of GOP voters and 75% of unaffiliateds…

(Snip)

…Sixty-one percent (61%) of Political Class voters believe the United States is heading in the right direction. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Mainstream voters think the country is going down the wrong track.

A plurality (46%) of black voters are confident in the nation’s current course, a view shared by just 19% of whites and 26% of voters of other races.

What does this downward spiral portend for President Obama’s reelection chances?

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 20% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21.

Only 39% of Democrats Strongly Approve while 72% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 16% Strongly Approve and 39% Strongly Disapprove…

(Snip)

…Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. That’s just one point above the lowest level of approval ever recorded for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance.

President Obama’s complete absence of leadership and his propensity to vote ‘Present’ on all of the critical issues facing this great nation are rapidly destroying what little is left of his presidency.

JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Hall concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Lampkin dissented, with opinion.

…This history tells us that, for purposes of the “business of the United States” residency exception, this State has for over 150 years recognized a distinction between voters and candidates and has retained the exception only for voters. That revelation, combined with our interpretation of the language of section 3-2 and its interrelation with subsection 3.1-10-5(d) of the Municipal Code, convinces us that section 3-2′s “business of the United States” exception applies only to voters, not to candidates. Accordingly, it cannot avail the candidate here.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the candidate neither meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have “resided in” Chicago for the year preceding the election in which he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the requirement. Accordingly, we disagree with the Board’s conclusion that he is eligible to run for the office of Mayor of the City of Chicago. We reverse the circuit court’s judgment confirming the Board’s decision, set aside the Board’s decision, and, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994)), order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or, if necessary, removed) from the ballot for the February 22, 2011, Chicago mayoral election.

Reversed.

Rahm, how does it feel to be subjected to, and rejected by, “Clear the Field,” an election ploy frequently used by the left to subdue or eliminate the opposition?

Update:

Attorneys for Rahm Emanuel will ask the Illinois Supreme Court to reject over 150 years of legal precedent.

Attorneys for Rahm Emanuel late today asked the Illinois Supreme Court to prevent Chicago elections officials from printing ballots for the Feb. 22 mayor’s election without his name.

Emanuel’s legal team also said they will ask the state’s highest court on Tuesday to hear their appeal of a decision by an appellate court today to knock him off the ballot on the grounds he doesn’t meet residency requirements.

Chicago elections officials said today they have to begin printing the 2 million or so ballots needed for the election as well as preparing electronic voting machines for early voting that begins next Monday.

(Snip…)

During a conference call, elections officials said they would send the ballots to the printer tonight and printing would begin Tuesday.

“We’ve basically hit the go button,” elections spokesman Jim Allen said. “We needed to do this on the 18th, we were waiting for this decision. We going to press now, we have to.”

“A candidate who is removed from the ballots by the court’s has until Feb. 15 to file as a write-in,” Allen said.

Clearly, the bloom is off the rose.

Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House, according to a new national poll.

And a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday also indicates in the battle for Congress, Republicans hold large advantages over the Democrats among independents, men and blue-collar whites. The poll also indicates that Republicans are much more enthusiastic than Democrats to vote.

By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.

“Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush’s name while campaigning this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

But, there is some good news for Democrats.

“There are plenty of people who support the Democratic candidate, but many of them are probably not going to actually cast a ballot. In fact, if you look at “unlikely voters” – people who are registered to vote but unlikely to cast a ballot – the Democrats have a six-point edge on the generic ballot question.”

I didn’t say it was really good news…

Especially since a large part of the American people were apparently sleeping two short years ago, and because our frantic warnings went unheeded.

What was the catalyst?

The Obama Administration has repeated every “mistake” made by FDR.

The result of those failed policies… We’re on the precipice of the Obama Depression.

Sadly, I suspect that nearly half of the American people may be too soft and will find themselves ill-equipped to endure such hardship.

If honesty, integrity and fiscal sanity are not returned to Washington this election cycle, and the “boot” is not removed from the throat of our economic engine, the Great Depression will seem like a cake-walk in comparison.

I normally refrain from the extensive use of excerpts, but in this instance, I’m going to make an exception.

I ask this of our readers: Stop reading the excerpts and follow the links to Friedman’s and Herman’s material, respectively, before continuing. The background material is critically important to understanding the uncanny ability of the political class to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

A troubling milestone arrived on Thursday when the US withdrew its final combat brigade from Iraq. The remaining 50,000 US forces are charged with advising and training the Iraqi military. President Barack Obama has pledged to withdraw them as well by the end of next year.

When US-led allied forces invaded Iraq seven years ago, their action raised the hopes and incited the dreams of millions throughout the region and throughout the world.

Operation Iraqi Freedom promised to bring the light of liberty to a corner of the world that had known none. By doing so, it would inspire and enable men and women throughout the region to believe that they too could be free.

But as the last US combat brigade departed on Thursday, the Iraq they left behind was not an Arab shining city on an Iraqi hill. The Iraq they withdrew from has no government.

Snip…

Iran’s hand is everywhere in this chaos. As George Friedman wrote in a recent Stratfor Intelligence Bulletin **, it is true that today, with 50,000 US forces still deployed in Iraq, “the Iranians do not have the ability to impose a government on Iraq. However, they do have the ability to prevent the formation of a government or to destabilize one that is formed.

Iranian intelligence has sufficient allies and resources in Iraq to guarantee the failure of any stabilization attempt that doesn’t please Tehran.”

As Friedman notes, for Iran, keeping Iraq in an ongoing state of instability, with sporadic periods of outright chaos, is a low-cost, high-return investment. It denies Iraq the ability to reconstitute itself to play its traditional role as a regional counterweight balancing Iranian power in the Persian Gulf. It also denies the US victory, erodes its will to fight and saps it of its determination to defend the Persian Gulf from Iranian ascendance.

(** RCP link substituted to include those without a subscription to STRATFOR.)

Snip…

On a military level, the US’s inconclusive campaign in Iraq bears striking similarities to Israel’s departure from southern Lebanon 10 years ago. In Lebanon, as in Iraq for the US, Iran and its proxies made it impossible for Israel and its allies in the South Lebanese Army to bring stability to the south. Hizbullah’s constant but low-key assaults on Israel and IDF forces, punctuated by sporadic escalations, eroded the Israeli ruling class’s will to fight. So, too, the elusive character of the asymmetric enemy made it easy for the same elites to ignore the nature of the adversarial forces arrayed against Israel and so paved the way for Israel’s retreat. This in turn fomented Hizbullah’s triumphant takeover of the south, and in due course, its takeover of the whole of Lebanon.

The political class is delusional, and their thinking is extremely shortsighted and dangerous.

For the past seven years, advocates of the Iraq war and opponents of the war, Republicans and Democrats alike, have consistently refused to understand the nature of the battlefield and what that meant about their prospects in Iraq and the region.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations wrongly characterized Iraq as a stand-alone war. But the fact is that Iraq has always been a battleground of a regional war. And the main enemy in Iraq, the main obstacle to stability and victory, is Iran. Just as Israel was unable to beat Iran in Lebanon, and so lost to its proxy Hizbullah, so the US has been and will remain unable to defeat Iran in Iraq. And if it maintains its current strategy, it will be defeated by Iran’s proxies.

The only way to safeguard Iraq is to overthrow the regime in Iran. The only way to get the likes of Hariri out from under the jackboots of Hizbullah and the Iranian-proxy regime in Damascus is to overthrow the regime in Iran.

If it were just a question of Iraq’s well-being as a country, it would arguably make sense for the US to avoid escalation of the war and refuse to challenge the regime in Teheran.

But Iran is not only fighting for Iraq and it is not only fighting in Iraq. Through its proxies, Iran is also fighting in Lebanon and is using its proxies to increase its influence throughout the Persian Gulf, the Levant and beyond.

And with the regime just a short step or two away from nuclear capabilities it is clear that the US strategy in Iraq was wrong all along. It was wrong and dangerous.

The US strategy was to bring democracy to Iraq and by doing so, inspire democratic revolutions throughout the Arab world.

Although inspiring, it was wrong first and foremost because it was predicated on ignoring one of the basic dictates of strategy. It failed to recognize that there were other forces in the region.

It failed to anticipate that every US move would be countered by an Iranian move. And in failing to recognize this basic strategic truth – even though it has been staring them in the face – the Americans aggressively pursued a strategy that became more and more irrelevant as time went by.

Snip…

In the September issue of Commentary, Arthur Herman depressingly sets out the Obama administration’s declared plans and early moves to gut the US military. It is obvious that regardless of Obama’s political position after the mid-term elections in November, he will not revisit the US’s current Middle East strategy, which is predicated on ignoring the Iranian nuclear elephant in the middle of the room. He will not work to overthrow the regime or support any forces that would overthrow the regime.

It is true that in the short term, the prospects for the region hinge on whether or not Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has the courage to order the IDF to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. And it is also true that if an Israeli strike is sufficiently successful, it would empower many positive forces throughout the region – from Teheran and Kurdistan to Ankara, Damascus and Beirut.

But in the medium and long term, nothing can replace America. And as long as the US continues on its trajectory of strategic blindness, the Iraqis will be far from alone in their suffering.

I will reiterate: There can be no victory absent regime change in Iran.

And, simply state: This is no victory. We have just laid the foundation for a greater Middle East conflict.

The Obama Administration announced “Recovery Summer” in June to highlight the expected gains in jobs and economic strength resulting from Obama’s stimulus.. Well, maybe next summer.

Initial estimates from the Department of Labor (DOL) suggest the economy shed a whopping 131,000 jobs in July while employment for the prior two months was revised down by 97,000 jobs. The unemployment rate held steady in August at 9.5 percent despite a drop in employment, because the number of people in the workforce also declined as workers appear to be giving up in the face of persistent high unemployment.

(Snip…)

This data confirms once again that the $862 billion Obama stimulus legislation—as well as all the subsequent budget-busting legislation Congress has enacted under the rubric of “jobs” bills—has failed, as expected.

President Obama likes to make-up numbers from thin air to fit the narrative of the day. Lets take a look where his “jobs” numbers lead.

The President’s original target for jobs creation set during the campaign in the fall of 2008 was 2.5 million jobs. But as employment fell at the end of 2008, he increased the employment target by 1 million to 3.5 million jobs. At the time, employment stood at about 135.1 million, according to the DOL’s most commonly used measure. This establishes the Obama jobs target for December 2010 at 138.6 million. It also establishes a basic trajectory for employment that the economy would need to approximate to hit that target.

According to the latest jobs report, total U.S. employment stood at 130.2 million in July, which means the cumulative Obama jobs deficit stands at 7.6 million.

Accompanying his jobs promise, the President also emphasized accountability and measuring his presidency by results. By his own official forecast and by his own standard, the Obama jobs deficit attests to the failure of his policies.

The prescription for our ailing economy is well-known. It’s proven conservative principles, and it begins here:

For private sector job creation to accelerate to bring down the unemployment rate and the Obama jobs deficit, step one is for Washington’s job destruction machine to take a long vacation.

Too bad we can’t just send them all to Spain… The “green” economy there is so robust.

Here’s the text of the bill:

§ 38.2-3430.1:1. Health insurance coverage not required.

No resident of this Commonwealth, regardless of whether he has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his employer, or a plan sponsored by the Commonwealth or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this Commonwealth liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage. This section shall not apply to individuals voluntarily applying for coverage under a state-administered program pursuant to Title XIX or Title XXI of the Social Security Act.

WaPo reported on Thursday:

The Virginia General Assembly has given final approval to a bill that would make it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a measure intended to conflict with Democratic efforts to reform health care in Washington.

Thirty-four other states are weighing similar legislation to block the individual mandate, which is an element of bills that have passed both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. But Virginia is the first state to complete legislative action on such a bill.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell said Wednesday that he intends to sign the legislation.

This time is noticeably different than past efforts by the states to take-on the federal government: 70% of the states are moving forward with similar legislation, and they appear to be listening to their constituents. A little closer look at the numbers reveals that the total is just three states shy of that required for ratification.

Of course, none of this will become necessary if ObamaCare is defeated in the House.

(H/T – Neil)

(It was nearly impossible to respect fair-use since the entire WaPo report was only six paragraphs long.)

It’s not a very pretty sight. As indicated in the chart below, the hole just keeps getting deeper.

Some key highlights of the preliminary analysis from the Director’s blog:

–If the President’s proposals were enacted, the federal government would record deficits of $1.5 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. Those deficits would amount to 10.3 percent and 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), respectively. By comparison, the deficit in 2009 totaled 9.9 percent of GDP.

–Measured relative to the size of the economy, the deficit under the President’s proposals would fall to about 4 percent of GDP by 2014 but would rise steadily thereafter. Compared with CBO’s baseline projections, deficits under the proposals would be about 2 percentage points of GDP higher in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, 1.3 percentage points greater in 2013, and above baseline levels by growing amounts thereafter. By 2020, the deficit would reach 5.6 percent of GDP, compared with 3.0 percent under CBO’s baseline projections.

–Under the President’s budget, the cumulative deficit over the 2011–2020 period would equal $9.8 trillion (5.2 percent of GDP), $3.8 trillion more than the cumulative deficit projected in the baseline. Of that difference, roughly $3.0 trillion stems directly from proposed changes in policy and another $0.8 trillion results from additional interest on the public debt…

–Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020. As a result, net interest would more than quadruple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation); it would expand from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2010 to 4.1 percent in 2020.

–Revenues under the President’s proposals would be $1.4 trillion (or 4 percent) below CBO’s baseline projections from 2011 to 2020…

The full preliminary analysis from the CBO is available in pdf here.

My analysis is much more straightforward, and it doesn’t rely on budget gimmicks and questionable revenue projections to hide the pain:

–Under the president’s budget proposals, debt held by the public would triple, reaching 90% of GDP by the end of the current decade.

–President Obama’s wealth redistribution scheme is wholly unsustainable, and if left unchecked, the point of no return will be reached before the end of the current decade.

Buckle-up ladies and gents, Jimmy Carter is smiling from ear-to-ear.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But I thought its rationale was that because of its fundamental character, the right to bear arms must be understood as separate from the qualifying phrase of the militia clause, all people, most people in the United States, the public meaning of the Second Amendment was that there was an individual right to bear arms, and that’s because it was fundamental. If it’s not fundamental, then Heller is wrong, it seems to me.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I don’t see how you can read — I don’t see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment, whether you want to label it fundamental or not, was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant.

Did I mention before?… I’m sure I must have… Justice Scalia rocks…

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Gura, do you think it is at all easier to bring the Second Amendment under the Privileges and Immunities Clause than it is to bring it under our established law of substantive due ?

MR. GURA: It’s –

JUSTICE SCALIA: Is it easier to do it under privileges and immunities than it is under substantive due process?

MR. GURA: It is easier in terms, perhaps, of — of the text and history of the original public understanding of –

JUSTICE SCALIA: No, no. I’m not talking about whether — whether the Slaughter-House Cases were right or wrong. I’m saying, assuming we give, you know, the Privileges and Immunities Clause your definition, does that make it any easier to get the Second Amendment adopted with respect to the States?

MR. GURA: Justice Scalia, I suppose the answer to that would be no, because –

JUSTICE SCALIA: Then if the answer is no, why are you asking us to overrule 150, 140 years of prior law, when — when you can reach your result under substantive due — I mean, you know, unless you are bucking for a — a place on some law school faculty –

(Laughter.)

MR. GURA: No. No. I have left law school some time ago and this is not an attempt to — to return.

JUSTICE SCALIA: What you argue is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it’s also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence. Why do you want to undertake that burden instead of just arguing substantive due process, which as much as I think it’s wrong, I have — even I have acquiesced in it?

In that light, the Court appears ready to extend the 2nd Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process.”

Keep America Safe: “100 Hours” from Keep America Safe on Vimeo.

If that wasn’t telling enough…

There’s this.

Liz Cheney’s Response to President Obama’s National Security Remarks

“Pausing the transfer of al-Qaeda terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to Yemen is insufficient to ensure the security of the United States. If President Obama is serious about keeping the American people safe, he should reverse his irresponsible and ill-advised decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

He should reverse his decision to usher terrorists from Guantanamo onto U.S. soil. He should reverse his decision to bring the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to New York. He should reverse his decision to give KSM and other terrorists the rights of Americans and the benefit of a criminal trial in an American civilian court.

He should immediately classify Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, as an illegal enemy combatant, not a criminal defendant. He should inform Attorney General Holder that he will no longer allow the Justice Department to treat terrorism as a crime instead of an act of war, nor will he allow them to investigate or prosecute CIA officials who kept us safe after 9/11, or disbar or otherwise punish the lawyers who provided the legal framework for programs that saved American lives.

President Obama has weakened American security by treating terror as a law enforcement matter, refusing to use every tool at his disposal to prevent attacks, and taking his eye off the ball. America’s homeland security and counterterrorism systems will continue to erode in the absence of strong, consistent, unwavering presidential stewardship. It’s time for the President to make defending this nation his top priority.”

Conclusion

There was no “systemic” failure of the intelligence community. The breakdown occurred because of the widespread failure of political correctness by President Obama and his political appointees who oversee the intelligence community, their failure to take national security seriously and their inability to correctly identify radical Islam as the enemy.

The facts are numerous and undeniable. Since President Obama was elected, we have become “less safe.”

H/T: The RightScoop

We eagerly await your imminent return to broadcast excellence behind the Golden EIB Microphone.

Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said Friday that they will no longer participate in an investigation into the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, arguing that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s decision to reexamine allegations of detainee abuse by the CIA would hobble any inquiry.

And Sen. Bond is absolutely correct in his assessment of the current injustice.

“Had Mr. Holder honored the pledge made by the President to look forward, not backwards, we would still be active participants in the Committee’s review,” the ranking Republican on the intelligence panel, Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, said in a statement. “What current or former CIA employee would be willing to gamble his freedom by answering the Committee’s questions? Indeed, forcing these terror fighters to make this choice is neither fair nor just.”

But a few paragraphs into the story, WaPo gets to the real heart of the matter.

The Republicans’ decision is a blow to the goal of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the committee chairman, to produce a bipartisan report that cannot be described as a political attack on Bush-era policies.

Even though the resulting political gain might be unintentional, a victory is still a victory.

“The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud,” according to the report’s executive summary. “Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate. Emerging accounts of widespread deceit and corruption raise the need for a criminal investigation of ACORN.”

Committee investigators have received numerous documents and significant new information from ACORN “whistleblowers” which appear to substantiate these serious allegations. A full congressional/criminal investigation is warranted.

Again, from the press release:

Highlighted in the report:
• ACORN has evaded taxes, obstructed justice, engaged in self dealing, and aided and abetted a cover-up of the $948.607.50 embezzlement by Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke.
• ACORN has committed investment fraud, deprived the public of its right to honest services, and engaged in a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce.
• ACORN has committed a conspiracy to defraud the United States by using taxpayer funds for partisan political activities.
• ACORN has submitted false filings to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Labor, in addition to violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
• ACORN falsified and concealed facts concerning an illegal transaction between related parties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

If interested, you can read the entire report here:

Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise? (pdf)

Note: While reading this completely devastating report it is important to remember, President Obama is an ideologue and a community organizer with substantial ties to ACORN.

President Obama’s Cairo Capitulation™ instilled a sense of “hope” throughout much of the Middle East. Apparently, it was only false-hope, because his inaction has since proven beyond all doubt that his speech was just words.

That said, President Obama’s equivocation regarding the clearly fraudulent results of Iran’s presidential election and his refusal to take a stand in defense of Liberty have sealed the fate of the fledgling reform movement, and consequently, the immediate future looks very bleak for the Iranian people.

President Bush stood with the Iraqi people, an oppressive dictator was justly removed and the cause of Liberty was advanced.

Following President Obama’s equivocation and inaction, I’m curious to know how much time will pass before the damage to the cause of Liberty can be undone and the Iranian people are willing to trust the words or motives of an American president?

Our current federal debt obligation is approximately $63.8 Trillion, and will likely increase an additional $3.5 Trillion by the end of 2010. Many economists are predicting a “double-dip” in 2010, and given the 111^th Congress and its propensity to spend other people’s money, the federal debt obligation may exceed $70 Trillion.

Even though many are not yet born, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are broke. The first baby-boomer will turn 65 in 2011, and the debt obligation only skyrockets from that point going forward. The unemployment rate will undoubtedly reach double-digits later this year, or early 2010. The GOP can go-along-to-get-along and share the blame for the impending fiscal disaster, or stand up and fight both tooth-and-nail against the progressive’s agenda of redistribution, and stop the madness.

If the partisan press successfully deflects the blame for the impending fiscal crisis away from President Obama and the Democrats, even just a little, there will be no GOP advantage in 2012, and no grin. The foundation must be laid now, and the GOP must be battle-ready before the 2010 mid-terms.

The fiscal battle is but one theater.

The federal judiciary is another, and of equal importance, as it directly impacts the constitutional principles of our Founding, and thus, the longevity of our Republic.

Allow these words from Thomas Jefferson to provide food for thought regarding the federal judiciary, judicial activism and future confirmation battles:

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.’” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297

“It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,… that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary–an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed.” –Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331

“At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

(Note: Mr. Jefferson didn’t always hold this less than honorable opinion of the federal judiciary. It was earned.)

We (our constitutional Republic) can’t afford for the GOP to wage a defensive battle in response to President Obama’s agenda of redistribution and empathy. The stakes are too high. The GOP must seize the initiative and adopt a scorched earth policy that forces President Obama and the Democrats to defend everything.

Fiscal Responsibility and Judicial Reform are good starting points. Follow-up with Energy Independence, Education, Taxes, National Security and Entitlement Reform before President Obama and the Democrats have a chance to respond to the prior. Repeat the cycle as often as necessary, but stay ahead of the Democratic response.

The Heritage Foundation has published an excellent analysis, which projects the economic impact resulting from Waxman-Markey, and separates myth from reality.

About those “green” jobs touted by President Obama… It’s virtually impossible to create a positive atmosphere that promotes job growth while the economy is suffering through a $9.6 trillion decline in GDP. Waxman-Markey is no exception.

– Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft;
– Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and
– Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.

Though the proposed legislation would have little impact on world temperatures, it is a massive energy tax in disguise that promises job losses, income cuts, and a sharp left turn toward big government.

Let this sink in a minute… As opposed to no cap-and-trade, average unemployment will increase an additional 1,105,000 jobs as the result of the government mandated “green” economy.

The damage caused by this punitive tax and massive government redistribution will be real and tangible, and it won’t stop with job losses. Waxman-Markey is projected to adversely impact a broad spectrum of the economy as reflected by these leading indicators and real-life scenarios.

As President Obama pointed out, cap and trade can work only when energy prices “skyrocket.” To force consumer-energy cutbacks, the prices need to rise to painful levels. This paper’s analysis shows the results of this strategy. By 2035:

– The typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.
– Pain at the electric meter will cause consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 36 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 more that year and $12,200 more in total from 2012 to 2035.
– The higher gasoline prices will have forced households to cut consumption by 15 percent, but a family of four will still pay $596 more that year and $7,500 more between 2012 and 2035.
– In total, for the years 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800. These inflation-adjusted numbers do not include the indirect energy costs consumers will pay as producers are forced to raise the price of their products to reflect the higher costs of production. Nor does the $22,800 include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy-efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.
– As the economy adjusts to shrinking GDP and rising energy prices, employment will take a big hit. On average, employment is lower by 1,105,000 jobs. In some years cap and trade reduces employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.
– The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception: Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 29 percent by 2035. This is 26 percent above what it would be without the legislation and represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four. To reiterate, these burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 per family of federal debt that will accrue over this period even without cap and trade.

Using the IPCC’s projections, which reflect the implementation of cap-and-trade based on Kyoto and European models, the mitigating effect on global temperature going forward is negligible at best, 0.05° C. by 2050 and 0.2° C. by 2100.

It is not possible for President Obama and Speaker Pelosi to justify inflicting this level of financial pain, a crippling tax-burden and lasting economic hardship on the American family for an insignificant change in global temperature that may never actually happen.

The only justification for cap-and-trade that makes any sense: Progressives, like President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, believe they’ve found a massive new revenue stream that will enable the largest expansion of the federal government in history.

However, just like all of the Liberal/Progressive programs that have come before and failed, cap-and-trade is subject to the law of unintended consequences. But, unlike the countless failures of the past, cap-and-trade threatens to kill the goose and condemn the US economy to a prolonged depression. The global implications of failure are of nightmarish proportion, and responsibility for the ensuing global financial crisis will land squarely on the shoulders of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and all those who voted for Waxman-Markey.

We’ll call this completely manufactured crisis: “The Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.”

It’s a fitting epitath for a lame-duck president.

It’s a brilliant appointment from the point of view of the political interests of Barack Obama. Gov. Huntsman’s intellect, his popularity in his state, his undoubted conservatism combined with his open-minded new approaches on social issues and the environment – not to mention his enormous personal wealth – positioned him as the natural leader of the reform forces within the GOP. By sending him across the Pacific, President Obama has acted deftly to enhance the continuing dominance of the Republican faction that serves him best. The Limbaugh-Obama axis wins again!

Mr. Frum is just flat-out wrong by all accounts. The real winners are the Republican Party, the conservative mainstream of the American electorate, and more importantly, our constitutional Republic.

Mr. Frum, this really should have been all of the evidence that was required to prove the fatal flaw in your logic.

The enthusiasm we feel for him here at NewMajority has not to date proven infectious: The Republican party of Kent County, Michigan, outright cancelled an event rather than host the governor.

“The voters want and expect us to stand on principle and return to our roots. Unfortunately, by holding an event with Governor Huntsman, we would be doing the exact opposite,” [county party chairwoman Joanne] Voorhees wrote in an e-mail quoted in The Grand Rapids Press.

Clearly, the Republican Party of Kent County, Michigan gets it.

However, Mr. Frum attempts to justify his twisted logic, and with this quote from Benjamin Franklin, he cleverly attempts to label his critics.

“Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.” – Benjamin Franklin

Mr. Frum, Mr. Franklin was speaking to you.

That was 1960…

Fast-forward forty-years to an unsuccessful attempt…

The media group which descended on Florida after the 2000 recount debacle, with hundreds of election lawyers from both sides in tow, had hoped to prove that President Bush was “Selected/Not Elected.”

Much to their dismay, unsurprising to many knowledgeable observers, they discovered wide-spread voter fraud in precincts controlled by Democrats. Indeed, voter fraud was documented by the media group, but unfortunately for them, it just didn’t involve the Republicans.

Six-Months and Six-Million Dollars later, their final tally indicated that President Bush actually won the state of Florida by substantially more than the 527 votes officially recorded by Sec. Harris.

And now…

The stage has been set for Ohio 2008.

Over 200,000 fraudulent voter registrations, easily identifiable and directly connected to Acorn, have been found in Ohio. According to Acorn’s public declarations, approximately 1.3 Million new voter registrations have been submitted. Those are Acorn’s numbers, and they are not the only group participating in voter registration efforts.

The FBI is currently investigating an unusually high number of instances involving fraudulent voter registrations submitted by Acorn in at least fifteen battleground states. If I recall correctly, the total number of fraudulent voter registrations discovered to date exceeds 400,000.

The next step…

Overwhelm the system on election day with provisional ballots while claiming voter suppression and decrying a broken election process, all at the same time.

There will be no shortage of election lawyers, and clearly, they will be eager to carry forward their own interpretation of election law. Will they find a receptive judiciary?

Fraud has so very many sordid faces…