28Jan10
After having time to view, read through and digest last night's State of the Union address I'm struck by a sense of Deja vue. Underneath the focus grouped language, and rhetorical flourish is...nothing.

The tone, even the talking points have changed. But the meaning has not. Mr. Obama sees government as a panacea. The all powerful hammer to which every problem becomes a nail.

President Obama is willfully ignorant of the way that government "solutions" have a way of doing more harm than good. The policies of Republicans and Democrats alike have failed for years, because they've involved rampant growth of the problem itself; government.

Government has penetrated into every aspect of out lives and society and we don't like it. 54% of Americans say they'd be more satisfied with "smaller government with fewer services". A year of hurling the Democratic super majority against the force of grassroots sentiment should have any sane person calling for the federal government to take a step back from the economy, health care, and education.

Instead he doubles down on his socialist agenda. He harangues about the deficit and jobs creation while proposing more spending, handouts and bailouts; that will ultimately lead to more taxation.

The man...the system, are beyond redemption. Get ready to start over.

25Jan10
Washington is full of shopaholics.

Politician's plans are always bigger than their means. Liberals want to throw money at unions and wage a war on poverty, and Conservatives want to throw money at business and wage a war on terror. But government, like the spendthrift college student, has no resources of its own. It spends all its time running up the bill for someone else.

Voter anger over government spending and the deficit is at a fever pitch. Tomorrow evening during the state of the union address, President Obama will call for freeze on spending.

Barack Obama talks fiscal discipline with the same level of credibility that Jeffrey Dahmer would have had discussing the merits of Veganism.

The three-year freeze would lock discretionary spending at its current levels beginning in 2011, and only allow for increases at the same rate as inflation after that.

Of course, there’s a catch.

The spending freeze doesn’t cover entitlement programs. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; the largest and fastest growing portion of the federal budget, will remain uncontrolled and unfunded liabilities.

The proposal could cut as much as $15 billion from the 2011 budget, but finish the year with a budget deficit estimated at $1.35 trillion. White house officials claim as much as $250 billion in savings over 10 years, less than 3 percent of the $9 trillion in additional deficits that will accumulate over the same period.

All this comes just a week after the surprise election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, who campaigned to voters concerns on Democrat’s handling of the budget and the economy. With the federal budget deficit exceeding $1 trillion dollars three years running, many economists say the deficit and the national debt have reached levels that will impair the nation’s economic growth for generations to come.

Democrats are engaging in pointless election year posturing in the face of grassroots sentiment, and an uncertain mid-term election outlook. So Mr. Obama has gone back to full blown campaign mode to regain lost support. Once the election cycle has passed? It’s back on the Marx train.

"I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president," Obama told ABC news.

I have news for you sir, the stuff you’ve been pushing? You aren’t going to be either.

22Jan10
To the good folks at the Internal Revenue Service, the 16th Amendment is where it's at. The Holy Grail, the end all, the be all, best thing since sliced bread.

That's why they want to teach our kids all about it, so they'll love it too.

At IRS.Gov I found some lovely indoctrination propaganda teaching materials all about how "fair" the progressive tax system is:

Two criteria used to measure fairness in taxes are ability to pay and benefits received. Ability to pay means that people's taxes should be in proportion to their resources. People's resources differ because they have different amounts of income and wealth. Benefits received means that people should pay taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from government goods and services.

While they show a high regard for raising taxation with an individual's ability to pay, they're not so conscientious about keeping taxes in proportion with the government services one uses, as I've shown before.

But it matters little, because the object of the progressive tax system isn't to be fair at all. It's to give the "have nots" wealth redistributed from the "haves" to make them "equal":

Progressive taxation is the lynchpin.

They cannot practice Marxism without being able to directly tap your money on the income side. We cannot restore our freedom unless we limit their ability to tax us. We can monkey with tax reform, this law, that law. But unless we repeal the 16th Amendment and tax differently, sooner or later it's game over, the Socialists win.

21Jan10
Though I believe with all my heart that if implemented, the ideals of the Libertarian party will lead to happiness and prosperity for a majority of Americans, I was feeling disillusioned with the short term viability of a third party as recently as last week.

But now that I've had time to look at Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts special election, my faith that a third party is the right thing to work for is restored.

And then some.

Scott Brown's victory is a direct result of the left wing political machine's underestimation of the independent voter / Tea Party movement. It wasn't about saying no to Democrats or yes to Republicans. It was about saying no to socialism and government interference. About saying yes to liberty and the constitution. The last twenty years of duopoly, big spending, big government politics have taken their toll on the patience of the American voter. Numbers tell the tale.

If you average together voter registration in the 27 states where one registers by party, since 1987 the percentage of voters that identify themselves as Democrats has shrunken from 51% to 43% in the last election cycle. Republicans held more or less steady at 33%. But Independents (everyone not identifying themselves as being a member of the two major parties) grew from just 8% to 24%. A 200% increase.

Opinion polls show 35% of Americans view Democrats in a favorable light, and just 28% say that about Republicans. Yet 41% of Americans favor the Tea Party movement.

Martha Coakley and her cohorts should have read that sentiment. But instead used Brown's Tea Party association to level guilt-by-association attack at him. They said "If Brown wins, Health Care dies." It backfired massively when Brown began to campaign on that, garnering huge Tea Party support. 71% of Independents, almost 2.1 million voters, broke for Brown as a result.

While the Tea Party/Independent sentiment is currently backing one candidate or another in this lesser of two evils game, it's only a matter of time until we get behind another option.

Sarah Palin will be the keynote speaker at the upcoming national tea party in Nashville February 4-6, and the sheer number of people expected at the event is fueling speculation that the a third party could be the result. Part of my activities this year will be to reach out and make connections. I want to talk to those people, and let them know that there's already a home for them.

In the Libertarian party.

13Jan10
The two party system is dead in America.

This country is controlled by a single political party. One arm calls itself "Democrat" and the other asks we call it "Republican". But make no mistake, it is just one party. Career politicians invested only in maintaining their power. The party of big government.

It's for that reason that I'm a Libertarian, so that we can again have a two party system.

I’ll tell you, it's...hard. Libertarianism is an exercise in frustration. Imagine watching the two party oligarchy run on reform again and again, only to see them take office and further the growth and corruption of government?

It's like smashing your head against a wall again and again only to be told the wall doesn't exist. We're the fastest growing third party, yet lacking cohesion and critical funding. We are always outnumbered, always surrounded.

But we're also right.

We believe in the ideals of this nation's founding. Ideals that have stood the test of time. There are more people that agree with us than they realize. Though few and far between, there are even good people still working within the system to try and change it. As allies in our cause these people deserve our support and our help.

I've recently been given an opportunity to help one of these people in seeking office, and I'm excited for the opportunity. It will be an excellent learning opportunity, and a chance to make a difference.

Meet Dr. Jonathan Gruber.

Dr. Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a research fellow with the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

As a prominent economist, he's been an outspoken proponent of universal health care and authored numerous opinion pieces in favor of it. He acted as a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama Presidential campaigns in 2008. The Washington Post referred to him as “possibly the [Democratic] party's most influential health-care expert.”

More recently, he's contracted to the Department of Health and Human services under the Obama administration for $297,600 to provide "technical assistance" in evaluating health care reform proposals which has creating the impression of a conflict

Gruber authored numerous opinion pieces in favor of a public option during his time with HHS, yet strongly denies accusations that he is a hired gun:

"NONE of the work I have done in public, or any public declarations I (have) made, has been in any way funded by the administration. That funding was strictly for internal work that I did for the administration and, via the administration, for Congress. All externally visible work and comments, such as my editorials or public reports, have been done on my own time."

The position of the Obama administration has been that they do not have a position. Dr. Gruber is an award winning economist whose credibility they believe to be above academic reproach.

Which is where we part ways on the matter. He is an award winning economist. But he didn't win his awards for doing the heavy lifting, examining the state of the economy, and drawing new and logical conclusions based on empirical observation. He's won awards by beginning with the political left's conclusions already in mind, and cherry picking data points to support them. In short he's won awards for serving the party's good intentions.

Kind of like Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

If you have any questions for Dr. Gruber either on his involvement with Health and Human Services, his research methodology, or even just to say "thanks"...you can contact his office at MIT at 617-253-8892 or email him directly.

06Jan10
After a full year of the Obama administration, it's 2010, and the mid term elections will soon be upon us. There's a building consensus among pro-liberty advocates that the political left, having reached too far too fast, have expended their political capital and are in their last ditch throws of suicide. There's a great deal of optimism that we can swing enough seats to break the congressional super majority.

But the forces in power aren't about to make it that simple.

Like the Marxists of the past that they idolize, the radical left has a plan B. As Stalin said "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." If we're not all "intelligent" enough to understand what they're trying to do, they'll simply hijack the electorate and manipulate the elections in their favor.

As pointed out by John Fund of The wall Street Journal, in January Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will introduce Universal Voter Registration legislation. Ostensibly to encourage voter participation by minorities, the UVR would mandate that states automatically register voters. Welfare rolls, unemployment data, property tax assessments, motor vehicle registration and driver's licenses...would all be scoured and every eligible voter registered whether they want to be or not.

Besides the obvious privacy issues involved, the legislation would trample states rights as the federal mandate would supersede local election regulations, to say nothing of the potential for voter fraud. Less than 40% of eligible voters currently vote in major elections, that leaves 60% of the electorate that might have ballots cast in their name without ever detecting the fraud.

But let's assume they achieve the "desired" result and have full electoral engagement, to what effect? Voters who make their living off of the taxpayer are and have always been the Democrats secret weapon. They've created a huge entitlement machine in this country, and remind the beneficiaries of it at every opportunity. This alone gives the Democratic party a head start of millions of votes in any general election. Now assume they more than doubled turn out amongst entitlement seekers. How long do you think it would be before the pretense dropped, and America voted itself into open socialist governance?

Are you angry yet?

Sadly, it doesn't stop there. That's just where it starts. The Federal Court of appeals yesterday ruled that denying Washington state inmates the right to vote unfairly discriminates against minorities, who make up the majority of prison populations, in direct violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Currently only Maine and Vermont allow inmates to vote, but if the decision is upheld by the U.S. Supreme court, it will create a legal precedent that would rapidly be applied in all 48 states.

So who will the imprisoned baddies vote for the candidates that want to be tough on crime, and stand up for the rights of the individual? Or the one who tells them it's society's fault that they're bad, and wants to give them all a tidy wealth redistribution check as reparation?

But wait, there's more!

While the Universal Voter Registration legislation, and inmate voting initiatives might handily deliver the mid term elections for the Democratic party, 3 more years of implementing "Hope" (tyranny) and "Change" (socialism) could build a lot of ill will toward the party and make 2012 a tough battle.

Those who've read my blog before may have heard me mention the Democrats big agenda item for the fourth quarter of 2010, just after election time: Amnesty. As a joint venture between the SEIU, Acorn, and the Democratic party, there's a big push forming for "comprehensive immigration reform", in their minds - amnesty. Millions of undocumented and illegal U.S. residents naturalized in 2011, delivering as many as 11 million newly minted voters to the Democratic party. It's the very tactic Hugo Chavez used to steal Venezuela's presidency from the people.

If the UVR legislation is effective, and we fail to regain control of congress in the 2010 midterms, the same thing will happen here delivering a second term for Obama.

The stakes are unbelievably high this year. If you love freedom, do something.

04Jan10
It's a new year and new challenges are upon us.

The Obama administration, bolstered by Democratic control in both houses of Congress spent all of last year trying to bull through their Euro-socialist domestic policy in its entirety, and make a century of progressive wet dreams come true.

Though grassroots movements have caught on and continued to build momentum, they've found the GOP hypocritical for their participation in big government policies, and hesitated to back them fully.

Yet back them we must.

My long term goal is the establishment of a permanent, viable, three party system. But the most immediate need is to restore some balance to the halls of government, so the two party establishment can be locked in stalemate rather than further pillaging our constitution. To that end I invite you to think about the upcoming mid-term elections as an opportunity to swing some seats, and lay the groundwork for the words we're all dying to hear:

"One Term Obama Presidency"

It's only January, but in the coming days races will be shifting into high gear to battle for 38 Governorships, 35 Senate seats and all 435 seats in the House of Representatives.

The good news is that mid-terms trend toward being a referendum on how the public views the incumbent president, and folks, America's love affair with the chosen one is on the outs. His approval ratings have dropped more than twenty points since inauguration, with almost half the country voicing their strong opposition to his policies.

The bad news is that the only thing the American voter likes less than Barack, is the GOP. Their approvals ratings are worse than his are, much worse. Republicans need to paint themselves as something more than obstructionists, and pay the concepts of free markets and smaller government more than lip service.

So let's take a look at where we need to focus our efforts. 35 Senate seats are going up in 35, of which Republicans are defending 18, including 6 seats due to retirement where the Democratic challenger will not face an incumbent. Some of the senators the DNC will be looking to pick off are:

Robert Bennett, R-Utah. A borderline RINO, Bennett will face a strong challenge from the GOP in the Republican primary that could turn voters off of the party.

Richard Burr, R-North Carolina. N.C. increasingly trends for Democrats, and if they find a strong candidate, the incumbent Burr will be in for a hard fight.

David Vitter, R-Louisiana. Vitter faces a strong challenger from the Democrats, and has had trouble holding his base following an admission that he had an extramarital affair.

Thankfully, some high profile Democrats are seeking re-election as well. Here's the most wanted list:

Harry Reid, D-Nevada. Early numbers show mister health care trailing his little known GOP challenger in the polls. Nevada is a well known swing state, but Reid has substantial reserve funds and the full backing of his party.

Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut. Vulnerable, and disliked even among his constituents, Dodd trails his opponent by double digits. Look for Obama to stump hard for him this year.

Edit: The rumor now among party insiders is the Dodd will not seek re-election.

Barbara Boxer, D-California. Given her Cap and Trade crusade and the poor state of California's economy, boxer could face a strong threat from former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.

Arlen Specter, D-Pennsylvania. The party jumper will face strong threats in both the primary and general elections.

In the House of Representatives Republican incumbents in general are more secure, with one notable exception:

Anh “Joe” Cao, R-Louisiana. Cao represents a district that Obama carried by a 52 points, and thoroughly alienated any the party base by voting for the House health care bill in exchange for a large package of earmarks for his district. He is a lamb to the slaughter.

But there's plenty of vulnerable Democrats to make up the probably loss of Cao's seat:

Walter Minnick, D-Idaho. Minnick tried to protect himself in a largely Republican district, distancing himself from Democrats and highlighting his bipartisanship. But a strong Republican candidate will assure his defeat.

Bobby Bright, D-Alabama. Only two representatives have districts more Republican than Bright’s, and the GOP has no shortage of challenger waiting to take him on.

Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio. Re matched with the GOP congressman he defeated in 2008, but now hurt by Obama's low approval rating.

Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Ohio. M.J. is carrying low approval ratings into a race against the Republican she barely beat to win her seat in 2008.

So that's a thumbnail sketch of how things are shaping up for the year. It's critical that the GOP make a good showing, to put them in the best position possible going into the 2011 redistricting following this year's census.

Early estimate show the probability that Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington will pick up seats in the redistricting. Among them Republicans control the governorship and legislature in five of the eight states. Ten states in the Midwest and rust belt will lose seats. In Illinois, Massachusetts and New York, Democrats control the state government. In five of the states control of state government is split.

All of that makes gubernatorial elections in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania critical to a favorable redistricting result for the GOP.

Know the score in your state, and know where you stand. Pick a freedom loving candidate and support them with your time, and hard earned cash. It's a good investment.