The Top Stories We Broke In 2010

As we end 2010 and begin a new year, the media take a look back at the year gone by. We too wish to look back at all the stories this website has broken in the few months of our existence. Some have been ignored, others have been reported nationally — without credit to those of us who discovered them. Nonetheless, we are happy the information has spread and look forward to leading the charge in 2011. We want to take this time to celebrate all we have accomplished in so little time by highlighting a baker’s dozen of stories that we broke. Counting down our stories, from least to greatest.

13. Obama Apologizes to Guatemala for a Guatemalan Government Experiment (story). On October 1, Barack Obama phoned Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom with a heavy heart. He learned that from 1946-48, the U.S. Public Health Service had tested the effectiveness of penicillin in treating syphilis by infecting Guatemalan prisoners and soldiers with the disease, then treating them. Guatemalan politicians howled for “compensation,” and Obama promised “a thorough investigation.” The experiments — discovered by Susan Reverby of Wellesley College and revealed in the January issue of the Journal of Policy History — were inhumane. However, Reverby noted one fact Obama overlooked: The Guatemalan government approved of the experiments at the time. The story shows Obama’s focus on what he describes as America’s “tragic history” and absurd reflex to apologize for American behavior. In this case, the courageous leader of the free world apologized to the president of a third world backwater for experiments both their governments approved and conducted before either one of them was alive.

12. Oklahoma’s Muslim Law Ban Struck Down by Clinton Diversity Pick (story). On election day 2010, more than 70 percent of Oklahoma voters approved State Question 755, which forbids state courts from considering Islamic religious law, Shari’a, in pending court cases. However, federal judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the 10th Circuit Court issued a series of injunctions against the measure. In her tangled view, a law prohibiting judges from deciding cases based on religious law constituted an attack on the First Amendment. As we alone exposed, Miles-LaGrange, whom Bill Clinton appointed in 1994 as “first African-American federal judge in the six states that make up the 10th Circuit,” is a thoroughgoing mediocrity who has spent her entire career benefiting from or promoting Affirmative Action. She now sees Muslims as the next victims of an oppressive Christian America. Remember this the next time someone calls Bill Clinton a “moderate.”

11. Left-Winger Confirms Obama’s “Covert Propaganda” Scandal (story). In August, Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a 36-page report accusing Barack Obama of engaging in “covert propaganda” activities that were “inappropriate and sometimes unlawful.” The White House, Issa wrote, would enlist third parties to promote its talking points without mentioning its connection to Obama, a move he alleges is illegal (and thus impeachable). Within days, far-Left activist Sally Kohn confirmed another facet of this story on The Huffington Post. I reported the administration invited Kohn to a May 2009 “cultural policy summit” with five dozen other radical activists and extremists. Kohn wrote this was the beginning of the Obama administration’s weekly “Common Purpose” meetings, where “the White House dictated its agenda and appealed to the professional left for back-up.” Kohn, a onetime Ford Foundation employee, is a self-described “Jewish lesbian” who once wrote a DailyKos diary entry entitled, “Why I Have a Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” Her allegations that the president used them in a covert propaganda campaign are worthy of inclusion in an investigation of this scandal. To date, no one else has noticed them.

10. Obama’s Stimulus Put Microchips in Your Trash (story). Nearly half-a-million dollars of the stimulus bill went to an unusual form of economic activity: Dayton, Ohio, used some of these funds to purchase 8,000 recycling bins equipped with microchips that track which residents are recycling. This Big Brother snooping is not stimulating is unseemly under any circumstances, especially when financed in the name of improving the economy. In the interest of full disclosure, Senators Tom Coburn and John McCain included this use of ARRA funds in their list of 100 wasteful stimulus programs entitled “Summertime Blues.” While numerous reporters covered the existence of the report, no one reported this invasion of privacy until this author found the reference on August 19. By happenstance, a Cleveland newspaper exposed a similar initiative in that city, and the next day Michelle Malkin took to Fox News airwaves to discuss the program with Neil Cavuto.

9. Liveblogging on Election Night (transcript). Floyd Brown and I had the privilege of simultaneously live blogging, chatting online, and hosting a conference call with prominent conservative leaders around the country on the night Republicans took back the people’s house in the midterm elections. Floyd’s insightful analysis and our contacts on the ground around the nation allowed us to accurately call several races before the major networks. We were the first ones to know Joe Miller would go well  into extra innings. We were the first to experience the heartbreak of Sharron Angle’s defeat in Nevada after rural counties failed to make up Reid’s lead in major cities. This is due to Floyd’s extensive service to the conservative cause and his first-hand knowledge of campaigns around the country. I’d like to think my county-by-county vote analysis was pretty good, too.

8. Obama’s UN Apology is a Blueprint for Socialism (story). Furthering his international apology tour, Barack Obama became the first president to submit a report on U.S. human rights to the UN Human Rights Council. In addition to condemning Arizona’s immigration law (see below), the document he submitted enshrines America’s commitment to numerous socialist economic and social programs. Among things Obama considers fundamental human rights are the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; universal preschool; bilingual ballots; Affirmative Action; his health care reform bill; and card check union organizing. The danger of including these left-wing programs in a UN human rights report is that the UNHRC takes into consideration voluntary pledges made by member nations — such as enacting card check — and considers this part of that nation’s obligation. Failure to follow through, say by a future Republican president, could get the United States slammed for “persistent non-cooperation” with the UN and a “failure to live up to its international obligations.” Again, after we broke the story, Neil Cavuto hosted a Fox News segment on the UN commitment to card check, interviewing Barbara Comstock.

7. Anti-American Globalists “Defend” U.S. at the UN (story). In submitting the United States to UN Human Rights Council scrutiny, foreign nations including Iran and North Korea get the opportunity to criticize alleged U.S. “human rights abuses.” To defend us, Barack Obama appointed three America-hating globalists. Legal adviser Harold Koh is a believer in “transnationalist jurisprudence,” and once equated our country with Iran and North Korea as part of the “axis of disobedience.” Michael H. Posner has served as president or executive director of Human Rights First (HRF) for 30 years. HRF routinely criticized the U.S. after 9/11 for abuses at Guantanamo Bay that did not occur, but insisted Cambodia’s Pol Pot regime exercised “a policy of restraint with respect to violations of physical security.” With friends like these….

6. Obama’s Stealth Reparations (story). The president’s “tragic” emphasis has led him to stress the importance of paying “reparations” (his term) to allegedly aggrieved minorities. We noted Obama’s urgency for Congress to settle numerous lawsuits by black, American Indian, women, and Hispanic “farmers” who claim the government discriminated against them amounted to stealth reparations. We reported the low legal threshold of evidence required to win a $50,000 settlement and the hefty amount of fraud involved. Since then the fearless Congressman Steve King of Iowa has taken to the House floor to announce, “We’re not going to pay slavery reparations.” He is promising full investigations into this fraud-laden wealth transfer next year.

5. “No Labels” is a Third Party in Waiting (story). While other conservatives were denouncing the pseudo-centrist “No Labels” movement as bland or non-committal, we exposed it for what it is: a nascent third party movement. Despite its official insistence that “No Labels is not interested in encouraging the development of a third party,” its organizers have repeatedly gone on record with their intentions to form just such a party. Former Bush consultant Mark McKinnon recorded a podcast with the likewise Label-less David Frum stating, “There’s some people working very hard” to establish a third party by 2012 but he was “reluctant to talk about it right now.” But on October 22 at Harvard, McKinnon admitted “something very exciting” was coming: “A third party in 2012.” The “centrist” movement would coalesce RINOs and PUMAs behind a candidate, probably New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In addition to potentially complicating the 2012 election, No Labels stakes out unpopular, liberal positions as “centrism,” making Obama appear less radical than most Americans know he is.

4. Massive Voting Irregularities in the Alaska Senate Race. The Alaska Senate race between Tea Party favorite and official Republican candidate Joe Miller vs. incumbent Lisa Murkowski not only made for ideological drama but exposed the depths of corruption inherent in any political machine. Any political apparatus, whether nominally run by Republicans or Democrats, abuses the system for its own ends. The GOP establishment Sarah Palin fought against targeted Miller by teaming up with Native corporations and tribal leaders and running a truly You-Con election. Before the election a federal contractor was caught on tape encouraging his employees to vote for Murkowski. Native villages voted in some cases unanimously for Murkowski. It was no surprise when allegations surfaced that in some villages all the ballots were cast by one person. Elva Bettine soon swore out an affidavit stating whole villages turned in ballots written in the same handwriting. Multiple observers claimed ballot box stuffing had occurred or seemed likely. Although state election law requires a write-in candidate’s name to be spelled “as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy,” Murkowski-friendly politicians decided to ignore the law and accept an “intent of the voter” standard. This resulted in the absurdity of counting anti-Murkowski smears as votes for Murkowski. Floyd Brown was able to secure all these stories from his position on the ground in Alaska, at Joe Miller’s side. Only his firsthand knowledge allowed this website to break the story ahead of any other news outlet. Sadly, Floyd brown another story: incredibly, the national Republican Party turned its back on Miller and supported Murkowski behind the scenes, considering her a safe vote for the party’s leadership. However, even before her win was officially certified, Murkowski had gone rogue by opposing the earmarks ban (that was, after all, her chief campaign pledge); supporting the Obama administration on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; backing DREAM Act amnesty; and the START Treaty. Murkowski appears poised to morph into the next Lincoln Chafee. Republicans could have had a Cadillac but settled for a Lincoln. The tale Floyd Brown brought you from his front row seat should prove how entrenched the national political establishment is and how hard conservatives must fight to reclaim their own party. With Floyd and Mary Beth Brown on the case, the battle is joined.

3. The New Congress Will Consider Impeachment (story). In September, Floyd and Mary Beth Brown made big waves by writing: “The new Congress elected in November will surprise everyone. They will seriously consider impeaching Barack Obama.” The president, they note, stands accused of serious crimes in the Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff scandals, the use of illegal covert propaganda, and the Justice Department’s shameful denial of equal justice in the . However, the Constitution does not require the commission of crimes for removal from office. As Floyd Brown has noted, impeachment is the American people’s opportunity to remove any president from office for bad behavior. It is, I have written, the Constitution’s self-protection mechanism to remove any commander-in-chief whose actions contradict its clear and original intent. It seems inevitable that the coming avalanche of investigations into the administration’s malfeasance will uncover ample grounds for impeachment and removal from office. However, Floyd has done more than forecast the event; he has opened a website lobbying for that end. Click here to sign the petition to impeach Obama now.

2. Obama Will Rule by Executive Fiat in 2011 (story). Well before midterm elections, Barack Obama and his left-wing supported plotted a strategy to continue moving the country to the Left after they lost Congress. As I reported in October, their plans include bypassing Congress to rule by executive fiat. This was no alarmist notion; anonymous administration officials admitted as much to the Los Angeles Times. I noted this would take the form of a mad rush in the lame duck session of Congress followed by an endless stream of executive orders, federal regulations, federal lawsuits, selective enforcement of the law, and appeals to the United Nations. Before the lame duck session adjourned, Obama began ratcheting up the regulations on Net Neutrality, global warming, health insurance price controls, and ObamaCare end-of-life counseling. Once again, the mainstream conservative movement is playing catch-up. The threat of an imperial presidency run via regulation has been discovered by the Heritage Foundation, BigGovernment.com, and HotAir. Today’s lead story at National Review Online is Charles Krauthammer entitled, “Rule by Regulation.” This will prove a defining focus of the next two years — and whether Republicans have the resolve to hold this president accountable or will acquiesce to the destruction of the U.S. Constitution.

1. Obama Hauls Arizona Before the United Nations (original story; mirror). When the Obama administration agreed to submit the United States to UN Human Rights Council scrutiny, conservatives contented themselves to deride the move as another example of the president’s apology for his own country. They left it at that; I didn’t. Reviewing the Obama administration’s UNHRC report revealed a number of shocking discoveries, including its focus no domestic affairs such as card check union organizing and homosexual “marriage.” (See above.) However, most consequential its section on “Values and Immigration,” which boasted of the administration’s lawsuit against Arizona S.B. 1070, a bill that merely enforces existing federal law, which Obama is deliberately neglecting. This was intended to convince the UN panel of the administration’s progress toward in securing illegal immigrants’ human rights. This author was the first person to expose the administration’s unprecedented step of taking a U.S. court squabble before the UN. In turn, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer admitted she learned about Obama’s international condemnation by reading my article, written for this website. The governor’s language even echoed the opening of my own piece, that the president was not content to make a federal case out of S.B. 1070. UN condemnation would not lag far behind the report. In late September, an allied UN agency obliquely condemned Arizonans as “xenophobes and racists.” Ultimately a troika of nations, including human rights violator Cameroon, judged the United States. (More to come on the significance of their decision.)

These are the stories we brought you — first, verified, and ahead of the pack. Stay tuned for what 2011 brings.

This Year, I’d Rather Party Like It’s 1999

by Tom Purcell

Ah, New Year’s Eve. What a great night to revisit the past year.

Though I’d rather revisit 1999.

The unemployment rate was 4.2 percent in 1999.

Dot-com stocks were still creating lots of paper millionaires.

The U.S. deficit for that year was $1 billion — that’s right, “billion” with a “b,” a far cry from the $1 trillion to $2 trillion it is nowadays.

Things were going so well, we had to make up crises, such as Y2K, the Millennium Bug!

Because computerized devices used only two digits to record the date — “99″ for “1999″ — numerous glitches were expected to occur at exactly 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 1, 2000, when at least some of the devices would mistake “00″ for “1900.”

Senators held press conferences to warn the public to prepare for the worst.

President Clinton told us to keep a lookout for terrorists, who might take advantage of the potential chaos.

Federal bureaucrats even appeared competent.

They established mobile command centers on the National Mall, where thousands of New Year’s Eve revelers would celebrate.

They directed police, firemen, FBI agents and CIA operatives to crawl around our nation’s capital to thwart anyone looking to pull any funny business.

They made detailed preparations — cots, blankets, bottled water, canned goods, shelter, portable lighting — to respond to any and every contingency.

But nothing happened.

When the clock struck midnight that New Year’s Eve, there were few glitches, no chaos and zero mass hysteria of any kind.

Y2K, wrote The Wall Street Journal, was, essentially, a giant hoax.

That was the downside of America then. We were at our best in preparing for crises that weren’t real.

We lived in a fiction of our own creation — fake wealth, fake security, fake spending promises at the local, state and federal levels that we’d never be able to afford.

Boy, would the realities of the next decade be a bear.

No sooner did 2000 begin than the dot-com bubble burst, wiping out trillions in paper wealth.

In 2001, terrorists would catch us with our pants down, striking us hard.

A worried Federal Reserve would begin a series of interest-rate cuts to pump “easy money” into the economy.

That easy money, combined with bad government policies to both create (Citizens Reinvestment Act) and buy (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) bundles of risky subprime home loans, would fuel a housing bubble.

The housing bubble would burst in 2008, wiping out trillions in wealth and kicking off the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Voters would kick Republicans out of office. Democrats, controlling the presidency and both houses of Congress, would make more fake promises we will never keep and would spend, by New Year’s Eve 2010, nearly $4 trillion more than we had.

The unemployment rate would be stuck at nearly 10 percent. State and local governments would begin to default on debt payments.

And all these woes would seem small compared to the $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that generous politicians saddled our country with — liabilities we may never be able to pay for.

To be sure, our reckoning has finally arrived.

As bad as the past decade has been, the next decade will be plenty worse — unless we embrace the difficult, painful business of getting our house in order.

So while many in the media look back at the high points of the past year — while many neglect the sizable problems facing us — I will escape to a happier time.

This New Year’s Eve, I’m going to party like it’s 1999.

New Year, Old Fight

by Susan Stamper Brown

At the stroke of midnight December 31, old and new acquaintances will once again join hands to sing the words to Robert Burns’ old folk song “Auld Lang Syne.” “Should auld (old) acquaintance be forgot and never brought to mind? Should auld acquaintance be forgot, and auld lang syne (for the sake of old times).”

How many times have we sung that most catchy Scottish tune having no clue what the lyrics actually mean? Burns’ seemingly harmless melody asks the sobering question – is it wrong to simply forget the past and disassociate ourselves from old ideas and acquaintances who, for better or worse, make up our past.

Sigmund Freud’s research suggests that humans repress memories to lessen anxiety and protect self-image – but sooner or later reality surfaces and past experiences must be addressed for what they are. And at that point we must choose – as the saying goes – to learn from our past mistakes or we will be doomed to repeat them.

The same is true of cherished American history that some would like to erase and replace with their own contrived version of reality that finds Conservatism irrelevant and outdated. The recent political battle during the midterm elections was in many ways a fight to reassert the significance and relevance of American Conservatism. But this fight is not new nor is it over.

Writing about the need for a resurgence of America’s founding conservative principles, five-term Arizona senator Barry Goldwater wrote, “Conservatism, we are told, is out of date. The charge is preposterous, and we ought boldly to say no. The laws of God, and of nature, have no deadline. The principles on which the conservative political position is based…are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation.”

Over the past year, our freedom-based American values were chipped away – policy by regressive policy- in an attempt to resurrect a new version of an old and very outdated idea – a new New Deal of sorts.

With a new year dawning, Americans must not misconstrue last week’s bipartisan events to think the Obama Administration has moved to the center making the incoming 112th Congress out to be a repeat of the Clinton era. A new day of bipartisanship has not dawned.

Just last week, and without Congressional approval, Obama’s shadowy government Czars in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) each took prodigious measures to expand the size and scope of government. HHS enacted insurance price controls that will do nothing to solve rising health costs while ignoring congressional opposition and a court ruling. The FCC proceeded with net neutrality rules, and the EPA announced new regulations that will drive up the cost of electricity.

The Obama administration and Democratic Party progressives have done everything in their power to bid a definitive farewell to “old” ideas. As a result, we are engaged in a fight for the survival of America as we know her to be. Those who join this fight should remember the words of John Chamberlain, “…conservatism is not isolationism…It is the creed of a fighter who has both a warm heart and a clear mind.”

Just as we should unapologetically embrace our past, we should also welcome this New Year understanding that old acquaintances and past experiences should never be forgotten but rather, remembered and drawn upon when the need arises.

Cartoon Of The Day: No Jobs Next Year, Either

87459 600 Cartoon of the Day: No Jobs Next Year, Either

The 100 Worst Cases Of Government Waste In 2010

 

Although the United States is $13 trillion in debt, mandatory spending alone exceeds tax revenues, and the Congressional Budget Office is warning of a coming U.S. “fiscal crisis,” Congress felt no need to trim spending. The just-adjourned 111th Congress headed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi added more to the national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, has published his collection of the 100 most wasteful projects his colleagues deemed worthy of your hard-earned tax dollars this year. Among the most offensive, ridiculous, and startling examples of pork in the Year of our Lord 2010, he found:

  • Nearly $5,000 of stimulus money to hire goats to graze the weeds at Idaho’s Heyburn State Park;
  • $6 billion for ethanol subsidies, which raise food costs;
  • $177,000 for Ohio teachers to travel to China to learn about the Chinese “education” system;
  • $137,530 for a Dartmouth professor to develop “Layoff,” a video game that encourages its players to fire as many people as quickly as possible;
  • $700,000 for New Hampshire researchers to examine “greenhouse gas emission from organic dairies,” which are cause by “cow burps, among other things”;
  • $442,340 to study male prostitutes in Vietnam;
  • $823,000 to teach South African men how to wash their genitals after sex. (We reported this one earlier this year);
  • $55,000 to celebrate HIV Vaccine Awareness Day. Of course, there is no anti-AIDS vaccine, but the “observance is a day to recognize and thank” the professionals “who are working together to find” a cure;
  • $571 million — more than half-a-billion dollars — diverted from building roads and infrastructure to plant flowers on the roadsides;
  • $2.9 million to study how players of the online game World of Warcraft collaborate;
  • $5,000 for the Murfreesboro, Tennessee public library to host video game nights, featuring Rock Band, Wii Bowling, and Mario Kart;
  • $609,160 to develop a video game based on the life of a wolf;
  • $615,000 for the University of California-Santa Cruz to digitize Grateful Dead memorabilia;
  • $10,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival, attended by such elites as Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, and Uma Thurman;
  • $150,000 for signs alerting drivers of crossing salamanders in Monkton, Vermont;
  • Nearly $1 million to post snippets of poetry at zoos;
  • $175 million for unused buildings, including an octagonal monkey house in Dayton, Ohio;
  • $239,100 to study how singles use online dating sites while they are lookin’ for love;
  • $31,350 for a comic book mouse who teaches children the history of printing;
  • $112 million in fraudulent tax refunds for prisoners;
  • $1.5 million for a museum in Shelby, North Carolina, to honor bluegrass banjo picker Earl Scruggs;
  • $60,000 to renovate a pizzeria in Waterloo, Iowa; and
  • $212,735 to study the state of “civility” in U.S. politics in Pullman, Washington. Liberals rediscover the virtues of “civility” every time a conservative criticizes a Democratic president.

These synopses hardly give their projects their proper due. Read about them, and 77 others, in the senator’s report. Download Sen. Coburn’s entire Wastebook 2010: A Guide to Some of the Most Wasteful Government Spending of 2010 here.

Uncle Sam: Hands Off The Internet

by Michael Reagan

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wants to get its grasping hands around the throat of the internet, the international town hall where Americans have been free to express their opinions without Big Brother’s permission or interference.

That makes the FCC unhappy. It seems that this taxpayer-supported, intrusive federal agency simply can’t bring itself to allow anything having to do with Americans communicating with each other in public without their lordly oversight or permission.

The internet — despite Al Gore’s absurd claim the he used his political powers to invent it — is largely free of U.S. or foreign government regulation or interference. In its present form, free from any government’s rules or regulations, it’s the finest example of what freedom of speech is all about, on a worldwide scale.

That seems to irk the compulsive regulators at the FCC, hence their determination to drag the internet into their regulatory lair.

According to Rasmussen Reports, American voters believe free-market competition will protect internet users more than any government regulations. Moreover, they rightly fear government regulation will be used to push what is certain to be a leftist political agenda.

A national telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen revealed that only a scant 21 percent of likely U.S. voters want the FCC to regulate the internet as it already does radio and television. Fifty-four percent are opposed to such regulation, while only 25 percent are not sure. That’s a pretty healthy percentage that thinks the government should keep its sticky hands off the world wide web — a percentage that the FCC will ignore at its own risk.

The compulsive regulators at the agency need to keep in mind that within a few days the U.S. House of Representatives will be under the control of Republicans, and that the House controls the nation’s purse strings.

It would be very unwise for the FCC regulators to fail to recognize that at the moment Congress reconvenes in early January their financial future will be in the hands of a party largely composed of glorious skinflints, most of whom view any government regulatory power as inherently dangerous and in need of the most careful oversight.

And that’s what they are going to get.

Much of that oversight will focus on the fact that the FCC decision, based on a party-line vote, decided to impose what they termed “net neutrality” regulations on the world wide web. This despite the fact that by a whopping 52 percent to 27 percent margin, Americans are convinced that more free-market competition is far better than having more regulations that allegedly protect users of the internet.

As shown by Rasmussen, Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, yet a plurality of the Democrats among them — some 46 percent — think that more regulation is better.

As a veteran radio broadcaster, I relish the freedom to express my opinions without some would-be, present-day version of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels looking over my shoulder and telling me what I can say and what I can’t say. That’s not what America is all about.

Americans need to keep in mind the fact that government regulators use the time-honored tactic of tightening their grip on the citizenry one small step at a time. It appears that in the case of the FCC’s power grab, they would like Americans to believe that they are only seeking to protect us from some unnamed abuse of the freedom of speech and not in imposing government censorship on the internet.

They should recognize that we are not that stupid, something the new GOP-controlled House hopefully will teach them starting next month.

Happy New Year!

Cartoon Of The Day: Big Baby Debt

87482 600 Cartoon of the Day: Big Baby Debt

Conservatives Discover Obama’s Fascism — But Not What To Do About It

Barack Obama American flag SC Conservatives Discover Obama’s Fascism — But Not What to Do About It

A series of federal regulatory measures has finally woken up the conservative movement to the dangers of Obama’s plan to rule by executive fiat. New regulations from the FCC, EPA, and HHS have tightened the feds’ grip around the internet, health insurance, and the energy industry. Net Neutrality, price fixing, and oversight of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” — surely the only pollutant necessary for the continuation of life on earth — have forced them to face the reality that Barack Obama plans to force his far-Left agenda on the American people. In typical inside-the-Beltway Republican fashion, they present half-measures and temporary solutions that will leave our Constitution open to continual assault, because they lack the solution understood by everyone from our Founding Fathers to Ronald Reagan.

Obama Begins Government by Regulation and Fiat

Since at least June Barack Obama “has used the threat of EPA regulations to goad lawmakers into action.” Lawmakers bet that he was bluffing. They bet wrong.

Last week, the Obama administration decided to greet the incoming conservative Congress by rolling out the red tape. Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, announced new price controls requiring insurance providers to get the administration’s permission to race rates more than 10 percent. The FCC passed Net Neutrality, although it lacks Congressional authorization to do so. The EPA began regulating power plants and refineries for carbon dioxide emissions, although an EPA spokeswoman admitted, “I can’t tell you what types of reductions we hope to achieve.”

The Obama administration reinstated “end-of-life” counseling for ObamaCare recipients by federal regulation early this month, but it only caught notice this week after the federal onslaught.

These actions brought some conservatives a “moment of clarity.”

“The First Step is Admitting You Have a Problem….”

In October, most conservatives were too busy enthusing about the coming midterm elections to notice when the Los Angeles Times reported, “As President Obama remakes his senior staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the second half of his term: to advance his agenda through executive actions he can take on his own, rather than pushing plans through an increasingly hostile Congress.” This author was alone in reporting Obama’s plan to rule by executive order in 2011. In the coming weeks, liberal media outlets and Soros-funded think tanks including The Huffington Post, the Institute for Policy Studies, and the Center for American Progress encouraged the president to govern through executive force; CAP even produced a lengthy report containing the precise agenda Obama is to enact. Just last week Politico featured an article by John F. Harris and James Hohmann which concluded, “Republican gains in Congress make it essential for [Obama] to use new avenues of power,” including regulations and executive orders.

Now other conservatives have realized the dangers. The Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog noted that although Democrats tried to make the lame duck session of Congress a last ditch power grab:

Congress was not where the real action was. While the media was distracted by the last breaths of a defeated leftist majority in Congress, it was the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that gave true picture of how the Obama Administration will advance their agenda in 2011.

Seton Motley at BigGovernment.com wrote:

Every Commission, every Agency, every Board in the federal pantheon will ratchet up their orders, rules and directives.  To impose via executive branch regulatory fiat what President Obama can no longer get done in Congress.  In other words, bypass the obviously expressed will of the American people for smaller, more accountable government – so as to continue jamming through his on-all-fronts Titanic Government plan.  And do so without the People’s representatives at all involved in the process. [sic.]

In a follow-up on BigGovernment.com yesterday, Robert Allen Bonelli wrote, “the Obama administration is poised to use the regulation-writing process to advance its own agenda regardless of what the American people want. The administration is also acting in open defiance to our form of representative government. ”

The not-so-conservative Rep. Fred Upton — the Michigan Republican behind the incandescent light bulb ban — has written a Wall Street Journal op-ed branding the EPA move “an unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs.”

Even the mainstream media have owned up to the strategy. The Christian Science Monitor is asking, “‘Death Panels’ Controvery: Is Obama Avoiding Congress?” Meanwhile, the New York Times confessed last Thursday, “The president is studying how to maximize the power of the executive branch, advisers said.”

While free market organizations such as Americans for Prosperity are calling on Republicans to roll back these measures, Democrats are asking for more regulations.

Finally, the sleeping giant has awakened. After premature partying and futile fantasizing that Obama would spend two years at their mercy, conservatives realized what they actually possess: one-half of their own political party (the leadership of which is hostile to them) and some of the majority seats in one house of Congress. They have work to do in reining in their own party, let alone assuming Obama will defer to their will simply because the overwhelming majority of Americans want him to.

“By Any Means Necessary”

Obama and the progressive “liberals” have followed precisely the outline I laid out more than a month ago:

Look for an aggressive agenda in the lame duck session of Congress, focused especially on passing the DREAM Act and repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”…After January, Cabinet agencies will issue regulations at a faster clip. His most visible target will be the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.”…However, every agency will roll out reams of red tape, a process that has already begun…Stealth amnesty will continue apace…Obama will rule increasingly through executive orders and appeals to the United Nations.

If conservatives now agree on the problem, then to quote Lenin, “what is to be done”?

The Congressional Review Act: A Temporary Solution

Some Republicans in D..C. are serious about Constitutional government. Sen. Jim DeMint, who risked his political capital to support Tea Party candidates across the country has said the Obama administration is “out of control.” He added, “They’re pushing through a lot of bad policy at the executive level. We need to figure out how to rein it in.”

The instrument Republicans have come up with is the Congressional Review Act. Conservatives from the Heritage Foundation, to the Hot Air blog, to the Motley crew over at BigGovernment.com have discovered the 1996 law, which allows a majority vote in Congress to kill federal regulations by issuing a “resolution of disapproval.”

The tactic is one of the few tools Congressional Republicans have at their disposal against runaway executive branch power. However, it is at best an imperfect and temporary solution, even if the entire party were committed to its rigorous application.

It requires a Congressional majority, which even after the midterms Republicans do not have. Democrats still narrowly control the Senate. Republicans may be able to cobble together an ad hoc coalition around the most egregious regulations with vulnerable incumbents up for re-election, or the delegates from coal states, but it seems unlikely vast numbers of Democrats will oppose government regulations in any meaningful way. After all, each of them hope to be running this bureaucracy someday, churning out his own version of federal regs. And no Democrat seems terribly concerned about the constitutional niceties involved in the issue, since the death of Robert Byrd (who only cared when it was politically expedient). The president still has valuable favors and federal projects which he can use as bargaining chips for wavering Democrats. (Just ask Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.)

Provided a majority could be reached, Barack Obama can simply veto the disapproval. A two-thirds majority is well out of reach for virtually any bill.

If per chance one bureaucratic rule were to be struck down, the feds could pursue the same goal by another avenue. Although the CRA provides a rule struck down “may not be reissued in substantially the same form,” the same goal may be approached through a number of means or proffered rationales.

Should Congressional Republicans somehow get control of the ever-growing Federal Register, Obama still has the power to issue executive orders or insist he is acting in compliance with orders of the United Nations. Even the UN documents the United States has already adopted offer him tremendous lienway.

“Destined to Fail”?

Should the Republicans in both houses somehow overturn every one of these measures over the next two years in addition to their regularly scheduled legislative agenda, the Obama administration has shown it is not above ignoring the law and doing as it pleases.

That is not to say CRA could not provide meaningful victories over outrageous regulations. But it at best a half-measure that will allow many unconstitutional regulations to slip through the cracks.

AllahPundit at HotAir.com downgraded the CRA strategy to a “gesture,” mere “symbolic paces” which he likened to voting for bills that are “destined to fail.” That fails to instill confidence in this as a real solution.

The Conservative Solution, from Washington to Reagan

May I humbly suggest another? Abolish the EPA.

In fact, abolish as many federal agencies as possible and return regulation to the states and municipalities, which are closer to the people. If there were fewer federal Cabinet agencies, there would be fewer dictatorial, top-down federal regulations. This would render the CRA unnecessary. If a regulation were needed at a national level, it would have to show its Constitutional basis and gain the support of a majority of Congressmen. Measures that lacked either would never see the light of day.

That sounds radical today, but Ronald Reagan pledged to abolish the Departments of Energy and Education in 1980. (He never had the votes to pursue it.) He hoped the EPA would follow suit.

Reagan understood, with our Founding Fathers, the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of the federal government, most especially among its unelected elite.

While they are at it, Republicans should abolish America’s Ministry of Culture. Conservatives have rediscovered the joys of axing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the wake of the Juan Williams firing. The National Endowment for the Arts has slipped off the conservative radar since certain former Democrats (or radicals) convinced Republicans to spare the organization, since abolishing it was not “politically feasible.” In light of a $13 trillion national debt and “mandatory spending” exceeds tax revenues, such frivolous, offensive, and unconstitutional discretionary spending is indefensible.

Our liberties will never be secure until Washington is drained of the power to regulate, tax, spend, oversee, compel, or control whole segments of our lives. That is why Thomas Jefferson defined the government envisioned by the Founding Fathers as:

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

As Ronald Reagan left office in 1989, he told the nation:

And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: “As government expands, liberty contracts.”

Twenty years later, we still have to complete the Reagan Revolution.

Cartoon Of The Day: ObamaCare’s High Risk Pool

87432 600 Cartoon of the Day: ObamaCare’s High Risk Pool

Ed Schultz Explains Why He Doesn’t Have Republican Guests: “I’m Sick Of ‘Em!”

MSNBC’s tough-talking Ed Schultz discussed on his radio show this past week why his television show never features any Republican guests. Yet whether it’s because Schultz is sick of them, or they were never fond of him to begin with is unclear, since Schultz offers up both possibilities as explanations for his show being dominated by only liberal guests.

Schultz claimed:

You do not see Republican senators on The Ed Show on MSNBC. I don’t want ‘em! I don’t want ‘em and I’m getting sick of righties on my show anyway. I’m getting sick, I mean, we might have 2011, there might not be any freakin’ righties. I’m sick of ‘em!
Later in the audio clip you can also here an additional explanation:

Of course, I don’t put right-wing people on that are of any significance . . . ’cause they won’t come on the program.

And I don’t want to talk to ‘em anyway.
Although maybe there is a way for both of these statements to be entirely consistent with one another. Maybe Schultz is sick of the “freakin’ righties” precisely because they won’t come on his show. And given how Schultz refers to some conservatives with schoolyard taunts (like cold-hearted fat slob or psycho-talkers), it’s a wonder why conservatives would not want to be a guest in Schultz’s house after demonstrations of such hospitality?

Listen to the clip below from Schultz’s radio show:

Read More: by Matt Schneider, Mediaite