<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>rightklik's Diary</title>
	<link>http://www.redstate.com/rightklik</link>
	<description>Just another RedState: Where the VRWC Conspires Online weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:33:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.2.1" -->

	<item>
		<title>86 Billion Reasons to Ratify START</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<div>
<div>
<div>Now that Senate Republicans are caving in for <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/243568">Obama&#8217;s dangerous START treaty</a>, the issue has finally begin grabbing the attention it deserves.  Like many other conservatives, <a href="http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/video-republican-senators-hold-press-conference-on-start/">Nice Deb is incensed and perplexed</a> by recent developments:</div>
<div></div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>&#8230;for some inexplicable reason, [Republicans] are allowing the Obama administration to rush them into a yes vote on something that should take weeks to debate&#8230;</div>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div>The 11 Republicans who voted for cloture:</div>
<div></div>
<div>Sens. Dick Lugar (Ind.), Bob Bennett (Utah), Scott Brown (Mass.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), <strong>Bob Corker (Tenn.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)</strong>, and George Voinovich (Ohio).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div></div>
<div>[emphasis added]</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div>It came as no big surprise that Republicans from liberal states came out to support START ― but what about the Republicans from conservative states?  Like Nice Deb, I couldn&#8217;t explain that. I&#8217;m from Tennessee, a conservative state, and BOTH of my Republican senators support START!</div>
<div></div>
<div>I did a little research and found that Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Bob Corker (R-TN) have at least <a href="http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10872633">86 billion reasons to support START</a>:</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>There are <strong>seven facilities</strong> in the country, including <strong>Y-12 in Oak Ridge [Tennessee]</strong>, that deal with the nuclear arsenal and needed to be upgraded, Corker said, adding, &#8220;There is no question in my mind, if it weren&#8217;t for the discussion of this treaty, we would not have the commitments that we have today on modernization.&#8221;</div>
<div></div>
<div>The Obama administration&#8217;s updated nuclear defense plan calls for investing <strong>$86 billion</strong> at these facilities over the next decade, and UPF is a key part of the spending plan&#8230;</div>
<div></div>
<div>The Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 would be used for processing weapons-grade uranium that&#8217;s taken out of old weapons, as well as refurbishing nuclear warhead parts for weapons that remain in the active arsenal&#8230;</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>[emphasis added]</div>
<div></div>
<div>As we rush to dismantle our nuclear weapons, Corker will reap <a href="http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10872633">the political benefits in Tennessee</a>:</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>Not only will Y-12 be called upon to eventually dismantle components from the many nuclear warheads to be eliminated by New START, but the plant&#8217;s modernization program &#8212; including the proposed <strong>multibillion-dollar Uranium Processing Facility</strong> &#8212; is expected to gain strong momentum from commitments made by President Barack Obama&#8217;s administration during the drawn-out debate over the treaty with Russia.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Senate Republicans pushed for more support for modernization of the nuclear weapons complex and improved maintenance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal during the New START proceedings, and U.S. Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee were among the Republicans who announced Tuesday that they would vote for ratification.</div>
<div></div>
<div><strong>Both of the Tennessee senators played important roles</strong>, with Corker on the front-lines of the debate as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Alexander exerting influence as the No. 3 Republican in the Senate. Both said modernization of U.S. nuclear capabilities was instrumental in their support.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>[emphasis added]</div>
<div></div>
<div>In <a href="http://corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=News&#38;ContentRecord_id=4af9e101-4e9c-4b21-894a-aa99d6ff7baa">his speech on the Senate floor on Monday</a>, Corker made the connection between the money and his vote very explicit:</div>
<div></div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>One of the things that has concerned people on both sides of the aisle has been this whole issue of modernization&#8230;</div>
<div></div>
<div>There are <strong>seven facilities</strong> that we have in this country that deal with our nuclear arsenal, and many of those are becoming obsolete and need to have needed investment&#8230;</div>
<div></div>
<div>&#8230;[we have worked] to make sure that the proper modernization of our nuclear arsenal takes place, and there is no question in my mind, if it weren’t for the discussion of this treaty, we would not have the commitments that we have today on modernization&#8230;</div>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>&#8230;.what this calls for is <strong>$86 billion </strong>worth of investment throughout the seven facilities throughout our country on nuclear armaments, and over <strong>$100 billion</strong> on the delivery mechanisms to ensure that these warheads are deliverable.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Corker assures us he has a rock solid deal with Barack Obama to get the money he wants:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>Will the president actually in his budget ask Congress to ask for that money? I’d like to ask unanimous consent to have a letter from the president of the United States on December 20 to the appropriators saying that he, in fact, would ask for those funds in the budget that he puts forth in the next few months&#8230;</div>
<div></div>
<div>I would say that we have sought and received commitments that otherwise we would not have received if it weren’t for discussion of this treaty, and the two are very related&#8230;</div>
<div></div>
<div>[P]eople might say well, but there is no commitment&#8230;  I have reasonable assurance that by the time this debate ends, that we will codify this commitment as part of the resolution of ratification.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Corker fails to explain how this deal will make America safer, why modernization should be held hostage to the START treaty, or why a lame duck Senate needs to make this decision.</div>
<div></div>
<div>I think it&#8217;s reasonable to suspect that the other conservative-state Republicans might have similar reason$ similar to Corker&#8217;s for supporting START.  Thad Cochran and Johnny Isakson, I&#8217;m looking at you.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/rightklik/2010/12/22/86-billion-reasons-to-ratify-start/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Why the Tea Party Will Fail</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><span><span>Some wishful thinking from a Tea Party </span></span><a href="http://press.take88.com/why-the-tea-party-will-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-265"><span><span>hater</span></span></a><span><span><span>:</span></span></span></p>
<div><span></p>
<blockquote><p><span><span><span>The Tea <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Partiers</span> will fail because for them to succeed we would need to shred the US Constitution and start over. That would require a revolution, and that’s not going to happen.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span></p>
<div><span><span>You just have to examine what they stand for. They claim to be strict constitutionalists, but they can’t stop screaming that what Democrats are doing is unconstitutional – against the will of the people.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span>The Tea <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Partiers</span> must have forgotten that Democrats won two elections – one in 2006 and another one in 2008.</span></span></div>
<p></span><span><span><span>Obama and Congressional Democrats campaigned on health care reform. So it’s disingenuous for the Tea <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Partiers</span> to now claim that Democrats are defying the will of the people by pursuing the agenda that they campaigned on</span>.</span></span></p></blockquote>
<p><span><span><span>Time to school another left-wing <span class="blsp-spelling-error">hatriot</span>.</span></span></span></p>
<p></span></p>
<div>
<div><span><span>First, let&#8217;s remember that elections never authorize Congress to abuse the constitution.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span>Second, Obama and Congressional Democrats did NOT campaign on <span class="blsp-spelling-error">ObamaCare&#8217;s</span> key ingredients: the <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Cornhusker</span> Kickback, <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Gatoraid</span><span>, </span><span><span><span>the Louisiana Purchase, backroom deals with <span class="blsp-spelling-error">BigPharma</span>&#8230;or the </span><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html">unconstitutional</a> <span>&#8220;individual mandate.&#8221; (In fact, Obama rightly campaigned </span></span><em><span><a href="http://www.rightklik.net/2009/09/hypocrisy-flashback-obama-2008-campaign.html"><span>against</span></a><span> </span></span></em><span><span>the individual mandate.)</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span>Polls have made it </span></span><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html"><span><span>very clear</span></span></a><span><span>: <span class="blsp-spelling-error">ObamaCare</span> is </span></span><em><span><span>not</span></span></em><span><span> the health care reform Americans had in mind when Democrats were campaigning in 2008.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span><br />
</span></span></div>
<div>
<div><span><span><span class="blsp-spelling-error">Pelosi</span> and her cronies campaigned against the &#8220;culture of corruption&#8221; and promised &#8220;open and honest government.&#8221; I&#8217;m still waiting for that. The American people are still </span><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html"><span>waiting</span></a><span> for that. And we&#8217;ll all remember the bribes and broken promises when we show up to vote in November.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div><span><span><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span>But the left-wing extremists don&#8217;t seem to care about the indignation of the American people. They temporarily assembled a caucus in Congress barely big enough to override the objections of the people, and they seized as much unconstitutional power as possible, as fast as they possibly could.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span>The problem with the left is that the left has no respect for the Constitution―the very document through which the people loan their power to the president and to Congress. The radical left defied the Constitution</span><span><span><span> in order to advance their unpopular and reckless health care agenda, and now they&#8217;re </span></span><em><a href="http://thedanashow.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/democrat-phil-hare-the-constitution-doesnt-matter-to-me/"><strong><span><span>flaunting</span></span></strong></a></em><span><span> their disregard for the constraints of the supreme law of the land.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span>The Tea Party movement is a megaphone for those who have been disenfranchised by the radical left. That&#8217;s why the Tea Party will succeed.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/rightklik/2010/04/01/why-the-tea-party-will-fail/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Dear America&#8230;</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Dear America,</p>
<p>I hope you&#8217;re enjoying the process of becoming a banana republic.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re one of the naifs who voted for Barack Obama, you probably hear the term &#8220;banana republic&#8221; and think that I&#8217;m talking about a fascist clothing store where capitalist fat cats sell garments made in Chinese sweat shops to spoiled American suburbanites.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s another kind of banana republic. &#8220;Banana republic&#8221; is a pejorative term that is used to refer to a country that is politically unstable and dependent on limited resources (e.g. bananas).</p>
<p>In their haste to seize control of a huge portion of America&#8217;s economy (a portion that is as large as the entire nation of Great Britain), Barry, Harry and Nancy are <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTRmOGE3YzUzZjMwZjM4OTlmYWFlM2VlZWZlODIxZTQ=">setting precedents</a> that will undermine the stability of the political framework of los Estados Unidos.</p>
<p>Congress and the president have dismissed the concerns of the <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform">great majority</a> of American voters.  The Constitution, the very document from which &#8220;leaders&#8221; in Washington derive their power, has been brushed aside.</p>
<p>The U.S. Federal Government is on a precipice&#8230;entertaining <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU0MDYxMWEyOTdiNGU1OGU3ZjYzYmE3Y2ZlZDQ5NTY%3D">brazen plans</a> to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it.  This law is unpopular and <a href="http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=508154">unconstitutional</a>.  It is packed with <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/nelson_not_the_only_senator_to.html">bribes</a> and built on a foundation of <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_big_lie_of_health_care_ref.html">lies</a> and <a href="http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_will_have_to_break_his_deficit_promise_to_sign_obamacare_into_law/">broken</a> <a href="http://minx.cc/?post=295442">promises</a>.  Dependency, helplessness and <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/27/the-lefts-health-care-crony-capitalism/">crony capitalism</a> will be the inevitable consequences of this legislation.</p>
<p>ObamaCare reeks of sulfur.  The product of <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/09/oh-my-68-now-oppose-passing-obamacare-without-republican-support/">one-party rule</a>, it&#8217;s full of <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/03/2009-12-03_medicare_cuts_and_other_dc_fairy_tales.html">sleazy</a> <a href="http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2009/11/ten-years-of-taxes-and-spending-six.html">accounting tricks</a>.  The Democrats&#8217; health care bill is a giant gimmick wrapped in deceit and shrouded with chicanery.</p>
<p>I, for one, look forward to the rise of America&#8217;s new health care overlords. The day ObamaCare passes will be a great day in the history of banana republics.</p>
<p>Your comrade,</p>
<p>Hugo Chavez</p>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/rightklik/2010/03/13/dear-america/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>On Tea Parties, Boob Bait &amp; ObamaCare</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Flagstaff recently <a href="http://www.redstate.com/flagstaff/2010/02/28/why-the-tea-parties-mystify-the-media/">explored</a> the question of why the Tea Parties mystify the folks of Democrat-Run Media.  It&#8217;s an insightful exploration.  Here are my thoughts&#8230;</p>
<p>The Tea Party movement confuses the Democrat-Run Media (DRM) because the DRM are populated by people who think tea partiers are no smarter than <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8">Peggy Joseph</a>. (She&#8217;s the infamous O-bot who said of Obama&#8217;s rise to power, &#8220;I won&#8217;t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won&#8217;t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he&#8217;s gonna help me.&#8221;)</p>
<p>A chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway&#8230;<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/25/voters_spurn_the_boob_bait_of_the_educated_class_100016.html">boob bait for the Bubbas</a>.</p>
<p>Peggy Joseph&#8217;s line of reasoning is the way all middle and lower income Americans are supposed to be thinking.  Political experts like Roger Ebert have made it abundantly clear.  Here&#8217;s one of <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/03/02/2010-03-02_rober_ebert_takes_to_twitter_to_slam_sarah_palin_tea_party_movement.html">Ebert&#8217;s tweets</a> on the Tea Party phenomenon:</p>
<p>&#8220;I write about the TeePees because it&#8217;s so sad how they&#8217;ve been manipulated to oppose their own best interests.&#8221;</p>
<p><em>Poor dears. <a href="http://whatsthematterwithkansas.com/">What&#8217;s the matter with Kansas</a>?!</em></p>
<p>Media elitists refuse to acknowledge that middle America is thinking beyond the next mortgage payment and the next stop at the gas pump.  They can&#8217;t understand why ordinary Americans would find it in their best interests to shun government redemption.</p>
<p>Whether the DRM choose to believe it or not, Americans aren&#8217;t as easily tempted by Moynihan&#8217;s &#8220;boob bait for the bubbas&#8221; as the current regime in Washington would like them to be.  Americans know that the health care bait (and anything else the federal government wants to &#8220;offer&#8221; us) has to be paid for. No free lunch.</p>
<p>Because of the protracted health care debate, Americans are keenly and painfully aware of the racket that awaits them if the Democrats manage to thwart the will of the vocal majority.  Here&#8217;s the essence of the grand ObamaCare scheme&#8230;</p>
<p><strong>Your role:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>You earn the health care dollars.</li>
<li>You hand that money over to the government.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>The Government&#8217;s role:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Big Brother spends the money.</li>
<li>Big Brother calls the shots.</li>
<li>Big Brother bankrupts your children and grandchildren (see <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/26/our-own-greek-tragedy/">Greece</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p>We know that that&#8217;s a recipe for helplessness, dependency and low-quality services.  The DRM can&#8217;t believe that there are tens of millions of Americans who are smart enough to figure that out.  The DRM can&#8217;t believe we don&#8217;t want to trade freedom for the illusion of security.</p>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/rightklik/2010/03/03/on-tea-parties-boob-bait-obamacare/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Push Poll: Newsweek Sells ObamaCare to 80 People</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">In a poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday, </span></span><em><span><span style="font-family: arial">Newsweek</span></span></em><span><span style="font-family: arial"> found that American adults still oppose ObamaCare by margin of 49% to 40%. No surprise there.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s interesting:</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">Through the power of persuasive </span></span><span><span style="font-family: arial">telemarketing</span></span><span><span style="font-family: arial">, </span></span><em><span><span style="font-family: arial">Newsweek</span></span></em><span><span style="font-family: arial"> was able to tip the scales in favor of ObamaCare by focusing on relatively popular features of the Democrats&#8217; health care legislation.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">Here&#8217;s how they did it&#8230;</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">After asking respondents point blank whether they favor or oppose ObamaCare, </span></span><em><span><span style="font-family: arial">Newsweek&#8217;s </span></span></em><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/media/84/1001_ftop_v2.pdf"><span><span style="font-family: arial">pollster</span></span></a><span><span style="font-family: arial"> provided the respondents with warm and fuzzy descriptions of some of the Democrat&#8217;s health care proposals (much of the wording ripped straight from the </span></span><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health-care/plan"><span><span style="font-family: arial">White House website</span></span></a><span><span style="font-family: arial">). Their language resonated quite well:</span></span></div>
<div></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">Preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick ― 59% approved</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">Requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, even if they have a pre-existing medical condition ― 76% approved</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">Creating a public health insurance option to compete with private plans ― 50% approved</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">Health insurance for all Americans, with government help for those who can’t afford it ― 59% approved</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">Requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with tax incentives for small business owners to do so ― 75% approved</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">Creating a new insurance marketplace that allows people without health insurance to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive rates ― 81% approved</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">Despite</span></span><span><span style="font-family: arial"> </span></span><em><span><span style="font-family: arial">Newsweek&#8217;s</span></span></em><span><span style="font-family: arial"> efforts to provide innocuous descriptions of each ObamaCare proposal, two of the eight proposals marketed to the respondants were decidedly unpopular:</span></span></div>
<div></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">If health coverage is required for everyone, imposing fines on individuals who don’t obtain ― only 28% approved</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">Imposing a tax on insurers who offer the most expensive health plans, the so-called Cadillac plans, to help pay for health care reform ― only 34% approved</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<ul></ul>
</div>
<div>
<ul></ul>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">But many of the most intensely controversial features of ObamaCare were left unmentioned. There was no mention of the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purhchase, jail time for people who fail to comply with the individual mandate, years of new taxation before benefits kick in, increased </span></span><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704804204575069520491303964.html"><span><span style="font-family: arial">political control</span></span></a><span><span style="font-family: arial"> of medical decisions, or the real possibility of loss of private insurance for millions of Americans.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">After describing ObamaCare in terms to which most respondents reacted favorably, </span></span><em><span><span style="font-family: arial">Newsweek&#8217;s </span></span></em><span><span style="font-family: arial">interviewers urged the participants to reconsider their opinion of the Democrats&#8217; plan:</span></span></div>
<div><span></p>
<blockquote><p><span><span><span style="font-family: arial">Now please think about the proposals I just described to you. ALL of these proposals are included in Barack Obama’s healt</span></span><span><span style="font-family: arial">h care reform plan. Having heard these details, what is your OVERALL opinion of Obama’s plan – do you favor it or oppose it?</span></span></span></p></blockquote>
<p><span><span><span style="font-family: arial">[emphasis </span></span><em><span><span style="font-family: arial">not</span></span></em><span><span style="font-family: arial"> added]</span></span></span></p>
<p></span></div>
<div>
<div><em><span><span style="font-family: arial">Newsweek&#8217;s</span></span></em><span><span style="font-family: arial"> marketing effort was successful. With a net shift of about 80 of the 1,099 respondents, 48% supported the plan </span></span><em><span><span style="font-family: arial">after</span></span></em><span><span style="font-family: arial"> hearing the sales pitch.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><em><span><span style="font-family: arial">Newsweek&#8217;s</span></span></em><span><span style="font-family: arial"> conclusion?</span></span></div>
<div><span></p>
<blockquote><p><span><span><span style="font-family: arial">In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the majority of Americans are opposed to President Obama&#8217;s health-care reform plan—until they learn the details</span></span><span><span><span style="font-family: arial">.</span></span></span></span></p></blockquote>
<p><span><span><span style="font-family: arial">But the </span></span><em><span><span style="font-family: arial">Newsweek</span></span></em><span><span style="font-family: arial"> poll is flawed. The information they provided in their &#8220;interview&#8221; wasn&#8217;t education, it was a sales pitch.</span></span></span></p>
<p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/rightklik/2010/02/21/push-poll-newsweek-sells-obamacare-to-80-people/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Illinois Primary: Angry Thoughts in &lt; 140 Characters</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<ul>
<li>IL primary should be a lesson to Conservatives.  Need to pay closer attention to the Congressional Primary dates: <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2010/2010pdates.pdf">http://is.gd/7AJAE</a></li>
<li>Conservatives lost in IL today…time 2 move on. Next stop, TX primary 3/2/10.  Start promoting this guy…<a href="http://senateconservatives.com/v1/index.php?p=profile&#38;id=10">http://is.gd/79CGp</a></li>
<li>Not a good day for conservative candidates in Illinois. Bad timing with very early primary (&#38; right after MA race) We will not relent!</li>
<li>Discouraged by Illinois primary? Don&#8217;t be.  Support folks like these: <a href="http://senateconservatives.com/v1/index.php?p=candidates&#38;c=">http://is.gd/7AOwD</a></li>
<li>Tea Party forces will not waste resources on liberal Republicans in Nov.  Folks like Rubio &#38; Toomey will get our support.</li>
<li>Does the GOP really think that it can beat the Dems at their own game? We don&#8217;t NEED 2 liberal parties.</li>
<li>GOP will go extinct if it does not offer real, distinct alternatives to the Dem candidates.</li>
</ul>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/rightklik/2010/02/02/illinois-primary-angry-thoughts-in-140-characters/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Sunlight and Simplicity!</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Much of the anger generated by ObamaCare was a result of the Democrats&#8217; cowardly attempts to sneak it past the voters.  The legislation was unnecessarily complex and unnecessarily lengthy.  Bad ideas were buried in intentionally mysterious language. Key votes were held at night, on weekends and on Christmas Eve. </p>
<p>Unless Congress is dealing with some national security crisis or natural disaster, is there any excuse for voting at odd hours? </p>
<p>No more attempts to pass bad bills while America sleeps!  It&#8217;s time to rise up and stop this sort of nonsense.  Here are some suggested reforms for <strong>sunlight and simplicity</strong>:</p>
<ul>
<li>Limit legislation to 250 pages (or some other reasonable number).</li>
<li>No late night votes on non-emergent legislation (Vote 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday only).</li>
<li>No weekend votes on non-emergent legislation.</li>
<li>No holiday votes on non-emergent legislation.</li>
<li>No changes in the congressional schedule for non-emergent legislation.</li>
<li>All congressional activity should be broadcast online on a government website. No closed-door sessions of any kind unless it would be a threat to national security to make a meeting public.</li>
<li>Every non-emergent bill, in its final form, is to be made public 10 BUSINESS days before any vote can be taken.</li>
</ul>
<p>The era of stealth legislation needs to come to an abrupt end.  In this era of broadband internet access and social media, there are no more excuses for opaque government.</p>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/rightklik/2010/01/31/sunlight-and-simplicity/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>The First Amendment ― Statist&#8217;s Edition</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">In the wake of “Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission” and the <a href="http://www.rightklik.net/2010/01/alitos-flamboyant-outburst.html">Obama/Alito kerfuffle</a>, I give you the First Amendment, as seen through the eyes of lefty statists:</span></span></div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>&#8220;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press**; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble†, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.&#8221;‡</div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">*Except inconvenient political speech.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">**If new forms of communication media are developed in the future (e.g. radio, television, internet), Congress shall be permitted to make laws abridging communication involving those media.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">†Exception: Congress shall make laws abridging the right of the people to peaceably to assemble into groups of individuals known as corporations, particularly in cases in which these groups spend large sums of money exercising their &#8220;right&#8221; to communicate.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">‡Unless the attempt to redress grievances involves spending money on political campaigns within the 60 day period preceding an election.</span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><span style="font-family: arial">Now, from constitutional novice, <strong>so</strong></span><span style="font-family: arial"><strong>me thoughts on the First Amendment:</strong></span></div>
<blockquote>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">Take special note of the words &#8220;NO LAW.&#8221;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">Let those words sink in.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial">The First Amendment is not just about &#8220;speech.&#8221; It&#8217;s about freedom of communication. It&#8217;s about freedom of assembly (you can even form an evil corporation if you wish). It&#8217;s about the freedom to redress grievances (no exceptions).</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">So a group of people assemble and form a corporation ― and they communicate their thoughts in print, online, and over the airwaves. What part of the First Amendment provides wiggle room for the Imperial Federal Government to stop that?</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial">There <em>is</em> no wiggle room.  </span></span><span style="font-family: arial"><span>Those who despise the First Amendment have only one option before them: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tznR4wPeS4M">to amend the Constitution</a>.</span></span></div>
</div>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/rightklik/2010/01/29/the-first-amendment-%e2%80%95-statists-edition/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Meet Mark Kirk</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';color: #000000"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: left;line-height: 18px;font-family: Arial, 'Lucida Grande', Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;color: #333333;font-size: 12px"></p>
<p><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Take a moment to meet Mark Kirk, candidate for U.S. Senate in Illinois.</span></span></p>
<p>Mark Kirk…</p>
<div>
<ul>
<li><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Voted for Nancy Pelosi’s radical<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><a href="http://nalert.blogspot.com/2009/09/rhino-republican-mark-kirks-stunning.html"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Cap &#38; Tax</span></span></a><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Bill</span></span></li>
<li><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Voted against new oil<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2001-317.htm"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">drilling in ANWR</span></span></a><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>for energy independence</span></span></li>
<li><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Has earned an<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.twitpic.com/zlmi7"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">“F” from the NRA</span></span></a><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>for being “a true enemy of gun owners’ rights…and a consistent anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights.”</span></span></li>
<li><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Voted against the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><a href="http://kirk.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&#38;task=view&#38;id=2192&#38;Itemid=115"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">final surge</span></span></a><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>in Iraq.</span></span></li>
<li><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Being a supporter of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><a href="http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/17/patrick-hughes-busts-a-cap-on"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">partial birth abortion</span></span></a><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">, he gets a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Mark_Kirk_Abortion.htm"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">100% rating from NARAL</span></span></a><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">.</span></span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">For this stellar performance as a liberal RINO, Representative Mark Kirk has earned a score of 48 (out of 100) from the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.twitpic.com/zqlcy"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">American Conservative Union</span></span></a><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">. Looking at it from another angle, </span></span><strong><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Kirk is 52% liberal.</span></span></strong></div>
</div>
<div><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">In a state where<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.twitpic.com/zskma"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">conservatives outnumber liberals</span></span></a><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>by 12 percentage points, I struggle to understand why <a href="http://brooksbayne.com/post/329960157/the-nrsc-national-republican-senatorial">establishment Republicans</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>like John McCain have chosen to put their thumbs on the scale for Mark Kirk’s candidacy<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><em><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">before</span></span></em><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>the GOP primary.</span></span></div>
<div><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Have they learned nothing from the fine example set by <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31639">Arlen Specter</a>? Have they learned nothing from the <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/02/dede-goes-down-upstate">Dede Scozzafava</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>debacle?</span></span></div>
<div><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"></span> </div>
<div>Cap’n Trade Kirk must be stopped…but we only have seven days! The GOP senate primary is on February 2nd. Fortunately there’s a solid conservative for whom we can rally: Patrick Hughes.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Hughes is the most<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/01/24/is-it-really-fringe-and-it-the-game-coming-on-for-pat-hughes/"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">serious conservative candidate</span></span></a><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>running against Mark Kirk:</span></span><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span></p>
<div>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">If conservatives come out early next week in an organized fashion, throw a pile of targeted money into Illinois, and rapidly drive up Pat Hughes’ name identification, the polling in Illinois suggests Hughes will win.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">He is not polling well against Kirk right now, but then he has significantly lower name identification. All the polling suggests<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><strong><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">Kirk’s support is very weak<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></strong><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">and once people find out about Hughes, they break overwhelmingly for Hughes.</span></span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px"><span style="margin: 0px;font-family: inherit;font-size: 12px;vertical-align: baseline;padding: 0px">[emphasis added]</span></span></span></p>
</div>
<p></span></span></div>
<div>
<div><strong>Learn more about<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></strong><a href="http://www.patrickhughesforsenate.com/"><strong>Patrick Hughes</strong></a><strong>.</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
<p></span></span></p>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/rightklik/2010/01/26/meet-mark-kirk/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>

