Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

Playing the Race card: A dead mans hand…

April 1, 2010

When people on the left simply cannot come up with rational arguments to use against their opponents it is inevitable that they play the race card. Often in conjunction with the “it’s for the children” card.  Sorry, but that just does not cut it anymore, we are  on to you, and those things just don’t work any longer.  But? You just keep on playing those ace’s and eights.

Racist, or just tired of too much government?

“Democrats last week began a well-orchestrated campaign to change the subject from Obamacare by declaring Republicans the newest terrorist threat. House Majority leader Steny H. Hoyer claimed that Democrats faced threats of violence in their home districts. He demanded that Republicans take a stand against it. ‘Silence gives consent,’ added Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, who accused Republicans of ‘aiding and abetting this kind of terrorism.’ Democrats promptly exploited their own fear-mongering by rushing out a fundraising letter. Meanwhile, a shot was fired through the window of Republican House Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s Richmond office. Instead of attempting to fill his campaign coffers over the incident, Mr. Cantor denounced Democratic recklessness in creating ‘media vehicles for political gain.’ To hear Mr. Clyburn talk, you’d think the Capitol had been bombed — like President Obama’s spiritual mentor Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground did in 1971 or the communist Revolutionary Fighting Group did in 1983. We don’t recall Republicans placing the blame on Democrats for those bona fide terror attacks committed by the Democrats’ ideological cousins. For the party’s leaders to make such insinuations now rings hollow. The Democrats and their supporters have consistently demeaned and mischaracterized the broad, nationwide, nonviolent grass-roots movement that arose in opposition to their radical agenda. A willing press establishment relays baseless claims that these protesters are violent uncritically and without investigation. … Any leftist thug is now free to toss a brick through a Democratic congressional district office window secure in the knowledge that the act of vandalism will be blamed automatically on Tea Partiers or Republicans. Such hoaxes are tickets to instant press coverage. … This victimization sideshow is meant to hide the fact that Democrats are pursuing policies that the American people oppose, and they are beginning to face a political price.” —The Washington Times

Anger, venom and bile: “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their ‘Obama Plan White Slavery’ signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.” –Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy

That’s racist! “[T]he current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. … If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.” –New York Times columnist Frank Rich with a tired refrain

“[W]hat are the tea partiers really angry about? Health care reform or the fact that it was an African-American president and a woman Speaker of the House who pushed through major change?” –MSNBC host Chris Matthews

Which one of these is not like the other? “[The ‘Don’t Tread on Me‘ flags are] the same imagery that was on [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh, you know? I mean, this is the kind of thing that’s worrisome to me. I don’t see how you can get away from it.” –Fox News contributor Juan Williams, trying desperately to make a connection between the Tea Parties and terrorism

Non Compos Mentis: “Because I think there’s been very consistent strategy from the right to racialize public policies so that poor white people who are often most vulnerable or most in need of those policies will vote against it to align themselves with a certain kind of whiteness, whiteness of property. So the poor white guy in Mississippi who needs welfare votes against welfare because he thinks he’s voting against a poor black woman in Harlem.” –CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill

It’s not fair: “[M]aybe we have reached the point where the Congress needs to equal it out. Equal out the audience. … I think that, you know, hell, if we’re going to be socialist, let’s be socialist all across the board.” –MSNBC radio host Ed Schultz, advocating for the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” simply because Rush Limbaugh has far more listeners than he does

SOURCE

When Rights Collide

March 31, 2010

Regular readers know that I am a big supporter of the Bill of Rights. The entire document. I believe that if, or when any part is weakened, the whole of it is also weakened.

That said, it has always been accepted that one persons rights end when they intrude on another persons rights. I don’t force hopolophobes to own firearms, and I resent it when they try and impose their own mental illness on myself or others as an example.

Clashes involving rights are bound to occur. That’s just a fact of life. Still? I for one am just about to blow a gasket at some of the things that are going on.

Read about that HERE. I had better stop… My blood pressure is getting really up there the more that I think about this…


Payola: Epic Fail obama style

March 31, 2010

One has to admit grudgingly, that the impostor in chief does things with style, Chicago politics style…

Obama Pushing Another Radical Anti-gunner to the Federal Bench

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

“Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views… using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing.” — Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (3/4/10)

Monday, March 29, 2010

Imagine a judicial candidate that is so far to the left that even Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is hesitant to push him forward.

Imagine a liberal law professor that not only fails to meet the ABA’s basic requirements for a federal judge, but is so green behind the ears that it appears the only reason he is being nominated to the federal courts is because he served as part of President Obama’s transition team.

If you can imagine such a leftist candidate, then you would be thinking of Goodwin Liu, the President’s recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Liu is the Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the ultra-left UC Berkeley School of Law.  Only 39 years old, he comes nowhere near fulfilling the ABA’s standards for a judge.

But what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in radical liberalism.  In a recent book that he co-authored, Liu says that, “Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change… as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation.”

Got it?  Like many radical progressives, Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving.  The Second Amendment might have been necessary in the 1700s, he believes, but now those rights are no longer necessary.

In Liu’s world, there would be no gun rights

Noted author David Kopel cites a law journal article of Liu’s where he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional — the Brady Law’s unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Liu said that Supreme Court cases like these did “damage” to civil rights and “upset settled understandings of congressional power.”  What?!  Striking down gun control laws does damage to civil rights?  Well, let’s be clear:  the Court did upset someone’s “settled” understanding of things, but it was the LIBERAL’S misunderstanding of the Constitution.

By the way, Liu co-authored the 2002 law journal article with then-Senator Hillary Clinton… which should tell us all we need to know about Liu’s liberal, anti-gun views!

Rights evolve over time?

The bottom line is that Liu would not be a stickler for the Constitution if he were to sit on the appellate court.

“It becomes pretty clear why ‘originalism’ and ‘strict construction’ don’t make a lot of sense,” Liu said in an interview promoting his book. “The Framers deliberately chose… broad words so they would be adaptable to new challenges over time.”

No wonder that the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), spoke out so forcefully against the nomination of Goodwin Liu:

I am very disappointed by President Obama’s nomination of Professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit….

Instead of nominating an individual who has demonstrated an impartial commitment to following the Constitution and the rule of law, President Obama has selected someone far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence.  Professor Liu believes that judges should look to “evolving norms and social understandings” in interpreting the Constitution, he has a history of advocating for racial preferences, and he served on the Board of the directors of the ACLU.

ACTION: Please urge your two Senators to oppose Obama’s appointment of Goodwin Liu, the latest anti-gun liberal to be picked for the federal courts.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I oppose the nomination of Goodwin Liu, the President’s recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Liu is an anti-gun, radical leftist who doesn’t even meet the ABA’s basic requirements for a federal judge, as he has neither practiced law for 12 years, nor has he any experience as a trial lawyer.

Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving… which is why I’m very concerned about his Second Amendment views.  He co-authored a law journal article in 2002 with then-Senator Hillary Clinton, wherein he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional — the Brady Law’s unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Leftists like Liu think our gun rights might have been necessary in the 1700s, but are no longer necessary today.  I agree with Senator Jeff Sessions’ critique of Liu, as the latter mistakenly thinks that judges should look to “evolving norms and social understandings” in interpreting the Constitution.

I vehemently oppose this view and hope you will vote against any nominee who doesn’t stand strong on the Bill of Rights.

Please oppose Goodwin Liu.

Sincerely,

Establishing a “Ready Reserve Corps” : Epic fail obama’s private army

March 31, 2010

And you thought that obamacare was all about give away’s to special interests, and the destruction of the economy? Nope, as reported here some time back the impostor in chief has indeed slipped in a few things that have nothing at all to do with health care, and yes, obama’s private army is enshrined in it. That would be the one that I blogged here almost in real time as I had a streaming video in Colorado Springs when he announced his plan during the run up to the election. Here’s just a bit from the monstrosity that the Congress and Senate passed in bald faced defiance of the American people. Can you say “Left Wing Militia?”

H/T fauxcajun via Texas Fred’s

SEC. 430. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of
1923, as amended.

(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate.

(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.

(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the
Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United
States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the
Service.

(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section
(as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act)
and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the
Regular Corps.

(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.—

(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist
regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and
emergency response missions.

(2) USES.—The Ready Reserve Corps shall—

(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;

(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;

(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and
domestic; and

(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.

(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of
the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds
appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training
of Commissioned Corps Officers

MULTIPLE SOURCES

Propaganda, pure and simple…

March 28, 2010

The Gray Lady aka New York times is well known for being a leftist mouth piece, and, in spite of a revenue stream that resembles a person hell bent on flowing over Niagara Falls continues to amuse and entertain.

Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich makes a case for the debate of whether the Times uses Saul Alinsky’s Rules for radicals or Goebbels Principles of Propaganda. Filled with misconceptions and untruths, but just enough substance to make his insane accusations believable he continues the NYT tradition.

Read that HERE.

As always, the devil will be found within the details, and? This is what I think. The New York Times is bleeding revenue, therefore, it stands to reason that they will back the obama to the hilt. Can you say another bailout?

I knew ya’ could!

Just the facts mam: Don’t allow pesky things like facts get in the way…

March 28, 2010

Yet another Federal Judge chooses to ignore the facts… Read on.

Today, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA’s case challenging D.C.’s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.

Judge Urbina rejected Heller’s assertion that D.C.’s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a “strict scrutiny” standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

In support of that rejection, Urbina opined that in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court “did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right,” and he adopted the argument of dissenting Justices in that case, that the Court’s upholding of a law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons implied that the Court did not consider that laws infringing the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review.

Judge Urbina also rejected D.C.’s contention that its laws should be required to pass only a “reasonableness test,” which would “require the court to uphold a law regulating firearms so long as the legislature had ‘articulated proper reasons for acting, with meaningful supporting evidence,’ and the measure did ‘not interfere with the “core right” the Second Amendment protects by depriving the people of reasonable means to defend themselves in their homes.'”

Instead, Urbina purported to subject D.C.’s registration, gun ban, and magazine ban to an “intermediate scrutiny” level of review, in which he first considered whether those laws “implicate the core Second Amendment right” and, if they do, whether they are “substantially related to an important governmental interest.”

Urbina agreed that D.C.’s firearm registration scheme implicates the “core Second Amendment right,” which, based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he described as the right to have a firearm at home for protection. But, he noted that the Court “suggested in Heller that such requirements [as registration] are not unconstitutional as a general matter,” and he concluded that D.C. had adequately articulated a compelling governmental interest in promulgating its registration scheme.

Based upon the Supreme Court’s statement in Heller, that machine guns might not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment because they are not commonly owned, and relying heavily on error-ridden testimony provided by D.C. and the Brady Campaign about the use of semi-automatic firearms in crime, Urbina concluded that D.C.’s “assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans do not infringe the right to have a firearm at home for protection.

Regrettably, Urbina uncritically accepted all of the “factual” claims in the committee report of the D.C. City Council and ignored hard evidence that “assault weapons” and “large” magazines are in “common use,” the standard Heller adopted. As we have detailed in other Alerts, of course, such firearms and their standard magazines holding over 10 rounds are owned by millions of Americans and their numbers are rising rapidly with every week that passes.

Stay tuned. Word about whether Judge Urbina’s decision will be appealed, or whether a legislative remedy will be sought in Congress, or both, will certainly be forthcoming.

SOURCE

Recess Appointments: Here we go again…

March 28, 2010

Recess appointments are indeed authorized by the Constitution. I fully understand the need for them, and, when used properly they can fill positions that are critical to the national well being.

What I seriously dislike is when a President uses them in a purely political manner. BHO has just done exactly that. To be fair though, I can’t remember any President that hasn’t done the same thing. Still,  just because someone else has done something despicable doesn’t make it any less despicable.

Jeffrey Goldstein, undersecretary for domestic finance at the Treasury Department

_ Michael Mundaca, assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury Department

_ Eric Hirschhorn, undersecretary of commerce for export administration and head of the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Commerce Department

_ Michael Punke, deputy trade representative — Geneva, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

_ Francisco Sanchez, undersecretary for international trade, Commerce Department

_ Islam Siddiqui, chief agricultural negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

_ Alan Bersin, commissioner of U.S. customs and border protection, Department of Homeland Security

_ Jill Long Thompson, member of the Farm Credit Administration Board

_ Rafael Borras, undersecretary for management, Department of Homeland Security

_ Craig Becker, member of the National Labor Relations Board

_ Mark Pearce, member of the National Labor Relations Board

_ Jacqueline Berrien, chairwoman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

_ Chai Feldblum, commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

_ Victoria Lipnic, commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

_ P. David Lopez, general counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

SOURCE More HERE

I first saw that list and just went… You have got to be kidding! I’m not completely sure on this, but I think that I have never seen a list of people that are either more,  one: incompetent, or two: possess credentials that make the term conflict of interests  laughable!

There should be some unspoken rule, based upon personal honor, that a President will not use recess appointments to circumvent the will of the Senate. As in, don’t use the process to appoint anyone to a position that the Senate has held up. There have to be any number of qualified people that could do those jobs on an interim bases while things get sorted out.

This will never happen of course, and it just shows how damned stupid the American people  can be at times. Electing people to office that are more concerned with “legacy” than the sound and moral governing of the nation.

On that note, I respectfully submit Texas Fred for the still open position at TSA

What next? Bill Ayers to head DHS?

David Frum: So what!

March 25, 2010

David Frum, another has been neo-conservative has been getting an awful lot of press the last couple of days. So much so that I don’t even think any citation is needed. Defeatism, apparently, is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Oh, alright, HERE is one example.

Taking on the socialist’s / communist’s  at every opportunity is what we, the people, wanted our elected representatives to do.  Not work with them, no not at all. We, the people, call us The Tea Party or whatever, don’t want, or need your type of RINO faux conservatism.

You, and your phony blue bloods do not represent what we want, nor what we need. Nor are we quitters that would rather “compromise” away our beliefs.

If indeed we do take it on the chin come this November we will at least know that we took the fight to them, and never surrendered.

No compromise Mister Frum, none, none at all. Not when it comes to our rights as stated under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not when it comes to our Natural Rights or our shared Common Law Rights.

Your choice Republican’s. You can do what is moral and correct. Or you can continue to prostitute yourselves by “working with” the Democrat machine. You need us. We do not have any need, or desire for you to get on board if you and yours are still not willing to take a stand, and boldly hold to the shared values of the American people.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

March 23, 2010

Once in a while someone comes up with some very good ideas what follows was commentary over at Texas Fred’s blog. Enjoy!

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

2. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11 .

BZ

Be of good cheer: What we think about what just happened‏

March 23, 2010

Leave it to Downsize D.C. to be optimistic!

Be of good cheer. There are many silver linings in what may seem to be a completely dark cloud. Let’s think about what just happened . . .

* Statist Democrats have waited three decades to take over healthcare
* Their last attempt, in 1993-94, was a bust
* And aside from those two years, they haven’t controlled Congress and the White House since the Carter years
* Now, it’s already fairly obvious that their current control won’t last long

After all . . .

* The American electorate leans conservative/libertarian and libertarian/liberal, NOT Statist Liberal
* Public dislike for Statism is why the Statist Republicans got fired in 2008, and it will likely cause many Statist Democrats to be fired too, starting this year

We think this explains the Democrats’ suicidal determination to pass their healthcare bill now, at all costs, in spite of the massive public opposition . . .

It was now or never!

Even so, public pressure, including tens of thousands of letters from DC Downsizers, forced the Statist Democrats to make major changes . . .

They had to drop their “deem and pass self-executing rule,” by which they hoped to make the Senate healthcare bill the law of the land, without ever voting for it.

You made the House Democrats do something they didn’t want to do. You made them cast a direct vote for the hated Senate bill.

Tax-funded bribery is also becoming a major issue. Witness the furor over the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. Public pressure made the Statist politicians retreat on this issue as well.

You also killed the so-called “public option,” which would have put us on the fast track to fully Socialist healthcare. As it stands now, the bill Congress actually passed more resembles Socialism’s kissing-cousin, Corporate Fascism. This is why . . .

We find it both amusing and a bit nauseating that the Statist Democrats claim they’ve struck a blow against the health insurance industry. In reality, they’ve just forced every American to become a customer of the insurance industry! This bill is . . .

* A bonanza for the big insurance companies, NOT a strike against them
* A system of crony capitalism with government in control but corporations pocketing the profits
*Which is most accurately called Corporate Fascism

Perhaps most important, but little noted, your opposition forced the Statist Democrats to jury-rig their bill, so that various provisions start at different times. They had to do this in order to hide the bill’s true costs, but this has also left their scheme more vulnerable to repeal! In other words . . .

* The bill may be the law now, but . . .
* Its various programs, mandates, fines, taxes, subsidies and regulations don’t all get started now, so . . .
* After the election, just 7 short months away, some or all of these things may be reversed

But that’s not all. Our Constitution’s robust system of checks and balances is also about to swing into action . . .

* Many state governments are rebelling against this corporate fascist healthcare bill
* And many legal challenges are being crafted for the judicial branch to consider

It could be that our country is about to have a major discussion about the proper Constitutional role of the federal government, and that could lead us to win a far larger battle than the one we think we’ve just lost. Remember . . .

* State governments, playing their proper role in our federalist system, have so far saved us from having to carry federally controlled national id cards (under the REAL ID Act)
* And the court system, though far from perfect, has often acted to restrain Congressional over-reach (with our recent campaign-finance victory being just one positive example)

But that’s still not all. There’s one more major force to be considered, before any final verdict can be rendered about the ultimate fate of this Statist healthcare scheme. And that force is the most powerful one of all — the market!

Please take note . . .

* Moody’s has warned that the U.S. credit rating may be downgraded from AAA in response to our government’s orgy of Statist spending and borrowing
* And the bond market is already hinting at this outcome through prices indicating that U.S. government bonds are becoming more risky than many private bonds

Remember what Clinton’s adviser James Carville said back in 1993: “I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president, or the pope, or a .400 baseball hitter, but now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.”

Carville’s point was correct then, and it applies now. The bond market can veto this scheme by raising the cost of funding it to an un-payable level. If this happens it won’t be bad news, it will be good news, because then the politicians will have to economize, just like you and I do.

So here’s what we think. We may have lost a battle, but we’re far from losing the war. Indeed, this seeming defeat may sow the seeds of ultimate victory. Be of good cheer, and continue to fight. There are many things we must do. For instance . . .

We need to get more candidates to adopt the Downsize DC Agenda in the coming election. If you’re a candidate running for Congress, endorsing the entire Downsize DC Agenda, we want to hear from you. FRONT-RUNNING U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul, who is having a money bomb today, endorsed four parts of the Downsize DC Agenda, in an interview with me, which you can watch at his website. Just look for the video titled, “Rand Paul and DownsizeDC.org.”

We ALSO need to spank the current Congress for passing the healthcare bill, and pressure all of them, Republican and Democrat alike, to repeal it. Please send Congress a letter for that purpose here: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/114

You can borrow from or completely copy this sample letter . . .

I’m very angry that the healthcare bill was passed. It costs too much and regulates too much. It will harm healthcare, not improve it. Please introduce legislation to repeal this bill immediately. Those who voted for it may think the issue is now settled. It is not. I will continue to pressure you until you stop COERCING me to live according to your dictates. Please obey your Constitutional oath of office. You can only do this by introducing legislation to repeal the cancerous healthcare bill that Congress just passed.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.