I Guess the VLWM Was At Lunch

Federal Government Was Culprit in Housing and Economic Crisis, Says Congressional Report

Washington (CNSNews.com) –

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the chief culprits in the housing crisis because they encouraged people who could not afford payments to borrow money, according to a congressional report released Tuesday. The claims in the report have long been advanced by conservatives, who argue that the Community Reinvestment Act and other federal programs fed the housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to the economic downfall in 2008. But the report explains in detail how Fannie and Freddie - government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that were not subject to the same oversight as other publicly traded firms -- “privatized their profits but socialized their risks.”

Heritage Morning Bell - Healthcare

Obamacare’s Constitutional Problems Proliferating

After the Democrats cleared the second of three 60 vote hurdles last night, Republicans ceded enough debate time back to the majority so that passage of Obamacare through the Senate will take place n Christmas Eve at 8 AM. Conservatives have every right to be disappointed that Senate Republicans did not force the maximum amount of debate possible. But they can take heart in a key point of order that will be voted on later today. Sponsored by Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Ensign (R-NV), that vote will lay the groundwork for the possible legal dismantling of Obama’s health program.

As we’ve detailed before, the very core of the Senate health plan includes an unprecedented expansion of the power of the federal government over the lives of every American. For the first time in history, every American would be forced to buy federally regulated and approved health insurance or face a $750 fine.

As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in 1994: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” The individual mandate and other questionable measures in the bill raise serious questions as to whether Obamacare could survive a Constitutional test:

Enumerated Powers:
Article I allocates to Congress “[a]ll legislative powers herein granted,” which means that some legislative powers were intended to remain beyond Congress’s reach. The Supreme Court recognized and affirmed this fundamental principle from the earliest days of the republic, as Chief Justice Marshall famously observed: “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service. Democrats have pointed to both the general welfare taxing power and the commerce clause as possible justifications for the mandate, but as a recent Heritage Legal Memorandum details, neither justification withstands scrutiny.

5th Amendment:
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads in part: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Sen. Ensign will argue today: “The Democrats’ health reform bill would require an American citizen to devote a portion of income – his or her private property – to health insurance coverage. … But, Mr. President, if a Nevadan does not want to spend his or her hard-earned income on health insurance coverage and would prefer to spend it on something else, such as rent or a car payment, this new requirement could be a “taking” of private property under the Fifth Amendment.”

Racial Discrimination:
On December 10th, the United States Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to the Senate regarding racially discriminatory provisions in Obama’s health plan. The letter reads: “No matter how well-intentioned, utilizing racial preferences with hope of alleviating health care disparities is inadvisable both as a matter of policy and as a matter of law. … Ensuring that all Americans, regardless of race, have access to quality health care requires both creativity and hard-nosed attention to data. It also requires staying within the requirements of the Constitution. The current race-based provisions of the Senate Health Care bill display none of these qualities.”

Unequal State Treatment:
Speaking to Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) described Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) deal to support Obamacare in exchange for a bailout Nebraska’s Medicaid costs as “disappointing, sleazy, unconstitutional.” Graham is not the only one examining Cornhusker Kickback. The Attorneys General of Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas and Washington state are jointly investigating the deal to see if special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49 violates the Constitution.

The leftist majority in the Senate is likely to vote down the DeMint/Ensign constitutional point of order, but the very objection itself will help build a record that courts will look at when determining whether or not Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Senate is not the final arbiter of whether or not the laws it passes are consistent with the United States Constitution. That question was settled over 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison.

Although it is always difficult for the Supreme Court to thwart what is perceived to be the popular will, polling consistently shows that this legislation faces strong popular opposition. If that remains true after enactment, the majority of the Justices who are inclined to preserve the enumerated powers scheme and adhere to the original meaning of the text will have little inclination or incentive to stretch the Constitution to reach so decidedly unpopular and far-reaching a law as this one.

OOPS!!!

I saw this late last night after the FreedomWorks event, but was too tired to post it.

Washington Post -- 7 on defense panel scrutinized

A sloppy staffer for the House Ethics committee accidentally left a July report on a public server and now the committee's primary job -- providing cover for members of the House under fire for bad actions -- is in jeopardy on a number of cases.We got to see a bit about perennial problems for Reps Charlie Rangel and Alan Mollohan, but no news there (except that the FBI was sniffing around Mollohan again). But we got an eyeful on the relationship between the PMA defense contractor lobbying group and Rep. John Murtha and his merry band of earmarkers on the defense appropriations subcommittee

If you've already had your breakfast or just have a strong stomach, it's certainly must reading.

Take it away, Carol Leonnig "The investigations by two separate ethics offices include an examination of the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on defense, John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), as well as others who helped steer federal funds to clients of the PMA Group. The lawmakers received campaign contributions from the firm and its clients.

A document obtained by The Washington Post shows that the subcommittee members under scrutiny also include Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.). The document also indicates that the House ethics committee's staff recently interviewed the staff of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) about his allegation that a PMA lobbyist threatened him in 2007 when he resisted steering federal funds to a PMA client. The lobbyist told a Nunes staffer that if the lawmaker didn't help, the defense contractor would move out of Nunes's district and take dozens of jobs with him."

Spin City with Baghdad Bob Gibbs

It's official. The Obama Administration and proponents of government-run health care must think the American people are total and complete idiots.

On Sunday, the Obama Administration released a trial balloon that Obama was willing to "compromise" on health care reform by dropping the government-run "public option" from ObamaCare and replacing it with a so-called "health care co-op."

On Monday, the Obama Administration started backing away, ever so slightly, from that trial balloon.

Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, said Obama still "believes the public option is the best way" to achieve his goals.

And White House Press Secretary Robert "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs emphatically stated that previous comments regarding the health care co-ops "were misinterpreted" but hedged the statement by saying that "Obama is happy to look at them [alternatives to the public-option]."

If your head is spinning, don't be confused. The trial balloon is nothing more than an indication of what is to come in this battle over ObamaCare.

Simply put, after having failed to pass ObamaCare in the dark of night... after having failed to ram ObamaCare down the throats of the American people... the Obama Administration is moving to "Plan C."

In short, they'll try to put lipstick on this pig of a health care plan... they'll change the terminology and announce so-called "compromises" until you believe that they are backing down from their statist plan to impose government-run health care on every man, woman and child in the United States.

So don't be deceived. As with the Amnesty debate two years ago, every so-called "compromise" will be more of the same... every so-called "compromise" will essentially give the proponents of ObamaCare everything they want.

And that's why we must take the bull by the horns and make our voices heard. Now is the time to tell our elected officials, in no uncertain terms, that we want "no compromises."

Now is the time to tell our elected officials that we want ObamaCare buried... that we will not accept ObamaCare, no matter how it is packaged... that we will not accept ObamaCare in any way, shape or form.

You Want Obama Telling You How To Raise Your Children?

via email today

DIRTY SECRET NO. 1 IN OBAMACARE
Tell Congress to Oppose Obama's Health Care Mandate
.
Alert: Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.

While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.

Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?

Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?

One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"?

To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?

Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?
Government needs less of a role in running our children's lives and more of a role in supporting parents' decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right -- and government support -- to parent them without the fed's mandates, education or intervention in our homes.

How contrary is Obamacare's home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?

Government's real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations. That is done by seizing parental and educational power, legislating preferred educational methods and materials, and limiting private educational options. It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens. (TownHall)

DO NOT BE SILENCED BY ANYONE STAND UP! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

The Left Is Deliberately Undermining Capitalism

Left Is Attacking Free Enterprise, Not Just Health Insurance
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 10.05am in Health Care.

It’s becoming clearer by the day that the “public option” for health care is just rhetorical cover for kicking out free enterprise.
The latest evidence is the strategy to attack and condemn private insurance. Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the industry “immoral villains.” President Obama told the press, “If you take some of the profit motive out . . . you can get an even better deal.” He also told NBC, “People are having bad experiences because they know that recommendations are coming from people who have a profit motive.”
The head of the House’s ultra-liberal 80-member Progressive Caucus, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), told reporters that the number of uninsured is a symptom that private insurance is a failure and must be replaced with a single-payer government system.
How absurd. Why blame companies because not everybody has bought their product? Why not blame government for passing the laws and the over-regulation that designed our current flawed system?
Pelosi and friends also claim insurance companies are out of control because they’re too big. Their answer? Something even bigger and less accountable—a government-run plan.
The new strategy of the left is actually an echo of what then-First Lady Hillary Clinton told an audience when pushing HillaryCare. She proclaimed that it’s wrong for anyone to make a profit by treating or insuring the sick.
So is it also evil to make money by providing necessities like food, clothing, and a place to live? Is it only acceptable to make a profit if you’re selling whatever government deems is okay?
And if health insurance is immoral, what about life insurance, auto insurance, property insurance, etc.? Will government also “help us” by taking them over to drive out the evil profit motive?
The Left has launched a dangerous debate on health care, but it’s actually an extension of their attacks on Wall Street, banking, mortgage brokers, and others. They believe the bad mistakes made by business are an opportunity for more government control, which means more power for the political elite.
Yes, we have problems in health care and in other areas, too. But the proposed cures are worse than the disease. Besides, free enterprise has created an American standard of living that’s still the envy of the world. Fixing its problems is no excuse to tarnish its successes.

They'll Make Us All Criminals

Because THIS citizen will NOT play their game.

REALITY CHECK: THREE DEMOCRATIC CLAIMS THAT NO LONGER PASS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST

THE FACTS ON REDUCING COSTS, KEEPING YOUR HEALTH PLAN, AND HOLDING TAXES AT 1990s LEVELS
July 17, 2009 House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Permalink

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf’s announcement yesterday that the Democrats’ government takeover of health care would increase costs – not lower them – is the third strike against the Democrats’ claims about their health care bills. But as Democratic leaders in the House move full speed ahead, there are three arguments they repeatedly use that NO LONGER ring true:

CLAIM: HEALTH CARE PLAN WILL REDUCE COSTS
“Let me repeat - if you like your health care, the only thing reform will mean is your health care will cost less. If anyone says otherwise, they are either trying to mislead you or don't have their facts straight.” (President Obama, “Remarks at the Annual Conference of the American Medical Association,” 6/15/09)

“It will bring down cost, improve quality, and make America healthier.” (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Transcript of Press Conference, 6/25/09)

“We need to bring costs down. We need to bring costs down for government. We need to bring costs down for families. And we need to bring costs down for individuals.” (House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Transcript Fox News Sunday, 7/5/09)

FACT: THE PROPOSALS WILL INCREASE COSTS
“Here’s a blow to President Obama and Democrats pressing health care reform. One of the main arguments made by the President and others for investing in health reform now is that it will save the federal government money in the long run by containing costs. Turns out that may not be the case, according to Doug Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office… Elmendorf said CBO does not see health care cost savings in either of the partisan Democratic bills currently in Congress.” (ABC News, “CBO Sees No Federal Cost Savings in Dem Health Plans,” 7/16/09)

“Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf warned lawmakers the legislation that he has seen so far would raise costs, not lower them. Elmendorf was asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.S., if the bills Congress is considering would ‘bend the cost curve.’ The budget director responded: ‘The curve is being raised.’” (Associated Press, “House Democrats Set to Vote on Health Care Bill,” 7/16/09)

CLAIM: IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTH PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP IT
“If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too.” (President Obama, Remarks in the Rose Garden, July 15, 2009)

“I say all the time, with respect to their health insurance program that they now have: if you've got it, you like it, you keep it.” (House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Press Conference, 7/13/09)
FACT: DEMOCRATS’ PLAN WOULD FORCE MILLIONS OUT OF THEIR CURRENT PLAN
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that 23 million Americans would lose their current plans if a Senate Democratic health care 'reform' bill was enacted." (Congressional Budget Office, Letter to Sen. Kennedy, 6/15/09)

"When I say if you have your plan and you like it,…or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform,’ the President said.” (ABC News, “What Does the President’s Promise , ‘You'll Be Able to Keep Your Health Care Plan, Period,’ Really Mean?,” 6/23/09)

“White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn't about to barge in and force people to change insurance.” (Associated Press, “Promises, Promises: Obama's health plan guarantee,” 6/19/09)

CLAIM: NO FAMILY WILL PAY HIGHER TAXES THAN IN THE 1990s
“The pledge, as listed on Obama's campaign Web site, was: ‘No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.’” (Associated Press, “House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high,” 7/15/09)

FACT: HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ BILL WOULD RAISE TAXES TO 25-YEAR HIGH
“The bill unveiled by House Democratic leaders Tuesday would create three new tax brackets for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.” (Associated Press, “House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high,” 7/15/09)

“For New York state taxpayers, the top [tax] rate would hit 56.92 percent, third-highest in the nation. And in the five boroughs, the top rate would be 58.68 per cent -- highest in the nation. Having abandoned any notion of lightening the load with spending cuts, House Democrats have put forward a 1,000-plus-page proposal dripping with new taxes, surcharges and fees. The biggest losers? Small businesses -- companies with as few as five employees, who'll have to pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of income unless they provide their workers with health insurance.” (New York Post, “Here Comes ObamaCare,” 7/16/09)

“Another implication of the Rangel plan is that America's successful small businesses would pay higher tax rates than the Fortune 500, and for that matter than most companies around the world. The corporate federal-state tax rate applied to General Electric and Google is about 39% in the U.S., and the business tax rate is about 25% in the OECD countries. So the U.S. would have close to the most punitive taxes on small business income anywhere on the globe.” (Wall Street Journal, “The Small Business Surtax,” 7/15/09)

From September 26 2008

Friday, September 26, 2008

Now We Know Whose Side They Are On
No Oil for Blood
Thanks to three American senators, China will be pumping Iraqi oil.
by Frederick W. Kagan
09/16/2008
3:15:00 PM http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/574iglgp.asp

Why, after all the assistance we've given to Iraq over the past five years, was the first major Iraqi oil deal signed with China and not with an American or even a western company? The answer is, in part, because three Democratic senators intervened in Iraqi domestic politics earlier in [2008] to prevent Iraq from signing short-term agreements with Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, Chevron, and BP.

File This In the "DUH" Cabinet

Arlen Specter says he left the Republican Party because they were moving to far right and moderate (i.e. RINO) Republicans were being targeted for replacement.

Alright, who told? We were trying to keep this a secret.

Whoda thunk it? Grassroots conservative activists working to get rid of vermicelli-spined, go-along-to-get-along, no-values politicains and working to elect citizens who hold traditional conservative beliefs and will suport and promote the restoration of the Founder's vision and values.

Specter, mastermind of the "Single Bullet Theory" during the Warren Commission hearings, quit the Republican Party because he's a scum sucking low-life dhimmicrat and he sucks at keeping his word, which puts him squarely in the middle of the dhimmicrat party. He's a lawyer-politician and the conservative movement is better off without him.

From A Conservative to Mr Cantor

I'v been busy the past two days so I haven't really had time to formulate a response to the most breathtaking subversion of our Constitution I've ever seen. I heard about the vote to tax the retention bonuses AIG was contractually obligated to pay 71 employees on Thursday evening and my first thought was: "Damn I hope Congressman Cantor didn't vote for this monstrous violation of the takings clause." I knew it was the dhimmicrats just doing what they do best: ignoring the will of the people, ignoring the Constitution, and covering their slimy asses. I've said repeatedly here and on other forums, the dhimmis are in charge, they can do whatever they like whenever they like.
On Friday morning I was listening to WRVA and Jimmy Barrett and I heard Cantor try to justify his vote to single out 71 American citizens for puntitive retribution.Well, that dog don't hunt. So, with the help of friends over at FreeRepublic, I can post a response to this idiotic, anti-American, anti-Constitutional, Marxist tactic:
Dear Mr. Cantor-I just heard that you voted to tax the AIG bonuses. I am stunned that you would vote for a bill that targets specific individuals who did not commit any crime! Like it or not those bonuses were rightfully earned and rightfully paid. The ramifications of this bill are so stunning that I am speechless. What on earth were you thinking? I just cannot believe it.I used to think you had conservative values and beliefs. I don’t think that anymore. You seem to be drinking the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Kool Aid.I am disgusted. Don’t count on my vote in the future. You sold this country down the socialist/fascist river with that vote.

I Don't Know What To Call This

This is the same Dodd who got a sweetheart mortgage deal. I guess he's just trying to keep up with public opinion now.

Hey Dudd, its called a contractual agreement, you dipstick. It means you're supposed to keep your word. Something you're not very adept at.

Folks, a word of advice; ignore the financial crap being thrown around. It's a diversion. A Red Herring. Something to throw us off the trail, so we won't discover the real mission of these effing socialists.

From NewsMax:

Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd on Monday criticized the bonuses given to executives of American International Group Inc. and suggested that the government could tax the recipients to recoup some or all of the payouts. But it was Dodd who inserted language in the $787 billion stimulus bill that exempts the bonuses from taxation.
AIG lost $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, the biggest quarterly loss in corporate history, and has received $173 billion in federal aid. But the company is paying $450 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products unit.
Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, thundered on Monday: “This is another outrageous example of executives — including those whose decisions were responsible for the problems that caused AIG’s collapse — enriching themselves at the expense of taxpayers.”
While the Senate was constructing the stimulus package last month, however, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill, which provides an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” — which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax, Fox News observed.

Links to Stuff I Posted

No Taxes For Oil

Click this link and help us show these Warriors what a homecoming is supposed to feel like.

HR 6023 We need sponsors for this bill.

SEC. 3. INTERFERENCE WITH MILITARY RECRUITING.
(a) Offense- Chapter 67 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1389. Interfering with military recruiting
`(a) Whoever--
`(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been providing Federal or State military recruiting services;
`(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise their right to inquire about or volunteer for service in the active or reserve armed services of the United States or the National Guard of any State; or
`(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility houses or hosts military recruiting services;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
`(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is--
`(1) in the case of a first offense, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both; and
`(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both.
`(c) In this section--
`(1) the term `facility' includes the building or structure in which recruiting is conducted;
`(2) the term `interfere with' means to restrict any person's ability or freedom to easily enter or leave a recruiting office;
`(3) the term `intimidate' means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to that person or to another;
`(4) the term `physical obstruction' means rendering impassable entrance into or exiting from a facility that provides military recruiting services, or rendering passage to or from such a facility unreasonably difficult or hazardous;
`(5) the term `military recruiting services' means the provision by representatives of the Government or of the armed services, to individuals who might wish to serve in the armed services, of information about military service, assistance in selecting a branch of military service, enlistment information, or any other necessary assistance needed to join the armed services of the United States; and
`(6) the term `State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 67 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1389. Interfering with military recruiting.'.
(c) Direction to Sentencing Commission- The United States Sentencing Commission, in establishing or amending sentencing guidelines with respect to offenses under the section added to title 18 by this Act, shall consider the threat posed to national security and the national defense by these offenses an aggravating factor so that the base levels for punishment for these offenses is greater than those for otherwise similar offenses.

What WE Want

From Col Riley to John MCain:

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that we WILL DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, AND PAY LESS! The stupidity of sitting on trillions of cubic feet of our own natural gas and billions of barrels of our own oil while begging Arabs for more is beyond insanity! We want refineries, clean safe nuclear power, and STOP BURNING OUR FOOD FOR FUEL!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that the borders WILL be closed and NO illegals will get ANY amnesty or special consideration ahead of those waiting to enter legally!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that employers of illegals will be prosecuted. The illegals will go home on their own… and real wages for real Americans will rise!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that federal funding will be withdrawn from "sanctuary cities"…. immediately! I obey the federal laws… so should city officials… or defund and prosecute them.

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that ONLY strict constructionist federal and Supreme Court judges will be nominated, AND that they will be supported, in hearings! Abiding by our Constitution has worked to get us here... it will work for our future!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that NO new taxes bills will be signed!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that there will be NO carbon tax schemes and NO so called "global warming" or "climate change" agreements catering to the fear mongers claiming "man-made" climate change. The world climate has ALWAYS changed and puny mankind cannot control it! The facts, evidence, and tens of thousands of scientists, say it is a pure hoax, a lie, and a grab for money and power and it MUST be stopped before it destroys our economy!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that ALL earmarks will be vetoed!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that Social Security will be reformed and made solvent to end the illegal Ponzi scheme that will devastate the retirement of so many!

When John McCain, and the RNC, make these strong commitments, we will again support Republicans with OUR money and our vote!

But, NOT UNTIL THEN... IT IS TOO IMPORTANT!!!
DO YOU HEAR US…. OR ARE YOU NOW DEAF TO REAL AMERICAN VALUES?

Tell Congress to FUND THE TROOPS!!!!!

via Family Research Council

The home-grown commitment to our military that guaranteed success on D-Day has taken a backseat to partisan differences that threaten to endanger our troops oversees. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are still awaiting help that has not yet come in the form of the War Supplemental bill.
Torn over a non-germane provision, the House is set to debate the Senate's version of the bill, which gives groups like Planned Parenthood a discount on contraceptives, the morning-after pill, and possibly RU-486 (the chemical abortion drug).
We need your help to convince House members that H.R. 2642 was meant to arm our soldiers--not Planned Parenthood. Please take a minute to contact your representatives and urge them to fund the war for freedom, not the war against the unborn.

The dhimmi leaders in Congress insist we've lost in Iraq and ignore Afghanistan. Their inaction on the War Supplemental Bill guarantees they will be proven right and the extreme left wing whackos pulling their strings will have won another battle for the forces of evil. Loading a defense bill with unneccessary funding that has nothing at all to do with fighting terrorism and the evil behind it insures a Presidential veto and allows them to appear to be the good guys.
Do not let them pull this crap on our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines fighting the War on Terror.
Iraq is won. WE WON!!!!!!!!!

We CAN Drill Our Way Out

The statement today by Senator Dick "The Turban" Durbin that "we can't drill our way out of this..." is partially true. If we don't have the refinery capacity to produce the gasoline from the crude oil, that statement is true. I don't care how much crude oil you pull out of the ground, if you can't refine it into gasoline, you may as well leave it in the ground. We have not seen a new refinery built in 30+ years. You can thank the Turban and his enviro-nazi wackos for that. The propensity for the extreme left to dictate economic policy that puts mainstream Amercians in a budget busting situation by increasing the price of everything we use is well documented. Looking back, you'd think they'd planned it that way.



Dr. Thomas Sowell has a piece today that puts this in perspective. Here are a few observations from one of the smartest men I've ever read:

If corporate "greed" is the explanation for high gasoline prices, why are the
government's taxes not an even bigger sign of "greed" on the part of politicians-- since taxes add more to the price of gasoline than oil company profits do?Whatever the merits or demerits of Senator John McCain's proposal to temporarily suspend the federal taxes on gasoline, it would certainly lower the price more than confiscating all the oil companies' profits. But it would not be as emotionally satisfying.

Senator Barack Obama clearly understands people's emotional needs and how to meet them. He wants to raise taxes on oil companies. How that will get us more oil or lower the price of gasoline is a problem that can be left for economists to puzzle over. A politician's problem is how to get more votes-- and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to be a hero who will save us from the villains.

While economists are talking supply and demand, politicians are talking compassion, "change" and being on the side of the angels-- and against drilling for our own oil.Has any economist ever attracted the kinds of cheering crowds that Barack Obama has-- or even the crowds attracted by Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

If you want cheering crowds, don't bother to study economics. It will only hold you back. Tell people what they want to hear-- and they don't want to hear about supply and demand.No, supply and demand is not too "complex."

It is just not very emotionally satisfying.