Recently in Government Category

I couldn't resist posting just one more item about Governor Christie. Or in this case another video of him explaining to a media pinhead about his "confrontational tone" with the entrenched interests infesting the Garden State.


'Nuff said.

Could New Jersey governor Chris Christie be the next Ronald Reagan? It certainly seems like he's channeling the Gipper, and to good effect.

Probably one of his most Reaganesque moments took place during a town hall meeting.

One of Christie's most popular YouTube moments is a confrontation with an angry teacher, who upbraids him for not paying her enough. When Christie replies that if she doesn't like the pay package "then you don't have to do it," the crowd cheers like the Giants just scored a touchdown.

Listening to the teacher's complaints makes it quite clear she believes she's entitled to more pay, that it's owed to her. It turns out her salary at the time of the video was $86,389 per year, not including benefits. I don't know about you, but $86K per year is nothing to sneeze at. Christie was right to give her the answer he did. It also reminds us of another of Christie's Reaganesque moments.

Christie's cuts to school funding have earned him the enmity of the state teachers' union, with 200,000 members. The governor asked teachers to agree to a one-year salary freeze and to kick in 1.5 percent of their pay to help fund their health care insurance -- most of the state's teachers don't contribute to their plans.

Teachers in many school districts refused. As he had threatened during discussions with the unions, Christie called on constituents to vote down local school board budgets that didn't conform to his requests. Christie won the public fight. A surprising 58 percent of proposed budgets were defeated, making it the largest number of rejections on state record.

Just as Reagan did in 1981, when he faced off with the air traffic controllers union, Christie called the bluff and seems to have won.

How many times did Reagan go to the airwaves to ask the American public to contact their congressional representatives in order to get something he firmly believed was needed to fix the problems plaguing America through Congress? And how many times did they respond, giving the Gipper what he needed? It looks like Christie is following the same path and getting similar results.

The present governor of New Jersey bears watching as he goes over, under, around, and through the entrenched bureaucracies, union constituencies, and 'gimmee' special interest groups to put New Jersey's fiscal house in order.

From his analysis of the President's midterm slogan, "Let's reach for hope," talk show host Neal Boortz mordantly makes the following observations on his "successes" thus far:

• A government takeover of the healthcare system,
• A government takeover of the auto industry,
• Unmatched federal spending and deficits,
• Ballooning entitlements,
• Demonization of the private sector
• The glorification of all things government
• Empowering our enemies and angering our friends
• Race-based civil rights enforcement
• More burdensome regulations on the private sector
• Higher taxes for everyone
• More tax increases to come
• Pandering to terrorists

Where's Sen. William Proxmire when we need him? Are you old enough to remember his Golden Fleece Awards?

HT: Dan Mitchell at Cato@Liberty.

Many in Washington are wondering why more businesses aren't hiring. Anyone in business could give all kinds for reasons, many of them emanating from those self-same folks in Washington. With all kinds of new regulations, taxes, and other burdens coming why should anyone in business, large or small, want to hire when there are far too many unknowns? The answer: they wouldn't.

A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.

And what happens when the provisions of ObamaCare kick in and adds thousands more to the cost of hiring a new employee? The probability of hiring that new employee goes down.

More than one commenter to the op-ed piece linked above made it quite clear they had absolutely no understanding of business and why businesses hire new employees. To them all that was needed was for the business to hire new employees and the economy would start its recovery. They didn't understand that businesses won't hire them until they are needed. To do otherwise places a burden on those businesses with little or no prospect of generating any more income for that business and quite possibly turning a marginally surviving business into a money losing business. Businesses hire only the amount of employees they need to provide the goods or services their customers require. But these economic morons either can't or won't understand this simple concept.

My wife and I own a small business. (We both have other jobs.) While it is surviving it is barely viable. The economic downturn saw our income for the business shrink by almost 70%. My wife stopped taking a salary a year ago in order to ensure the business would survive. Both of us put in countless hours without pay in order to make sure we can pay our bills, our taxes, and meet our payroll. If the economy recovers we expect our customers to return as well (though not necessarily to the pre-recession level). But until then there's no way we could even consider adding another employee because if we did we wouldn't take in enough to pay them and pay all our bills, taxes, and business loan. In a short period of time we would be out of business and 5 employees would be unemployed. Yet this is exactly what the aforementioned economic/business morons want us to do.

Need I say more?

It has become quite evident to me and many millions of others that the Powers-That-Be, meaning the so-called 'Political Class', are clueless and out of touch with the rest of America and the people who live there. What's worse, they are convinced they are the anointed, the only ones with the knowledge, wisdom, and the will to use it even though those they look down upon see them as nothing more than elitist snobs without a lick of common sense or decency.

What's sad is the 'common folk' - that's you and me - are right and they are so incredibly wrong. The political class has no advanced wisdom, no special knowledge divulged to them through secret and ancient organizations, and no divine right or ability to rule you, me, or anyone.

They are nothing more than a mutual admiration society striding within the halls of power with impunity, an undeserved sense of entitlement, and the arrogance to believe they are the only ones with the answers. They believe the rest of us are incapable of running our own lives and need to be taken care of. That's ironic considering how many of them can't even run their lives. They have the same problems, the same foibles, the same weaknesses, the same flaws as everyone else. But somehow I doubt you'd ever get them to admit that, for to do so would mean they aren't any more enlightened than the rest of us and that doesn't track with their belief system.

How do I and the rest if America know this? Because we see it every day on the news, on CSPAN, in the newspapers, and in almost every law passed by Congress or a large number of blue state legislatures over the past few years. Our wishes, our desires, our demands, and our knowledge of the real world is dismissed out of hand because we aren't them. Never mind that we're the ones who pay the bills, create the jobs, build the cities, grow the food, and everything else they depend on. Without the rest of us they are nothing.

Wait. What the heck am I saying? I meant to say that even with us they are nothing. Perhaps it is time for them to learn this truth.

"Political tsunami" was coined  by the late William Safire following the 1994 elections, which propelled the Republicans to (temporary) control of Washington. It was then that affirmative action should have been dismantled. It wasn't. (A fact bemoaned in Robert Novak's political autobiography, _Prince of Darkness_.) Now it's probably too late, as whites are going the way of the passenger carrier pigeon.

But now the excesses of Pelosi-Hussein Obama will almost certainly engender a reaction. Sorta like Newon's law of motion. BTW, I'd give a hundred dollars if the average American even knew the three laws of motion as subscribed by Sir Isaac. I don't think I'd make out badly,

Peter Ferrara, a Harvard graduate who gave far more attention to Yalie Jonathan Adler than I, a mere UNH student who had left USMA, at Cato in the summer of 1991--slights are remembered forever-- tells how Republicans are UNDERESTIMATING their strength. We were both interns, though Adler was a lot smarter than I.

My best friend attended George Mason Law with him, and he was, in my friend's words, "head and shoulders" above everyone else. It was a shock to be around someone so smart, after spending a couple of years with poo-poo brains at UNH.

Promoting gubmit at the expense of the private sector is modern-day socialism. Didn't work then, won't work now.

I don't know if you've noticed it, but I have. So has John Stossel.

What am I talking about?

A host of ever growing laws and rules that make it more difficult to be a law abiding citizen.

Something's happened to America, and it isn't good. It's become easier to get into trouble. We've become a nation of a million rules. Not the kind of bottom-up rules that people generate through voluntary associations. Those are fine. I mean imposed, top-down rules formed in the brains of meddling bureaucrats who think they know better than we how to manage our lives.

Cross them, and we are in trouble.

This problem is getting worse all the time. We hear stories about some poor sap ending up being fired or expelled or arrested for breaking some nonsensical and totally useless rule or law that no one in their right mind would ever think were necessary or desirable.

One of my pet peeves when it comes to this kind of nonsense? Zero tolerance policies.

I've written more than once how such policies are crutches for the weak willed pencil-pushers and bureaucrats too damn afraid or too lazy to apply a little common sense and make a judgment call.

Stossel also provides a few examples of zero tolerance laws that do nothing more than make the local policymakers look like imbeciles. My favorite is this one:

Ansche Hedgepeth, 12, committed this heinous crime: She left school in Washington, D.C., entered a Metrorail station to head home and ate a French fry. (Emphasis added) An undercover officer arrested her, confiscating her jacket, backpack and shoelaces. She was handcuffed and taken to the Juvenile Processing Center. Only after three hours in custody was the 12-year-old released into her mother's custody. The chief of Metro Transit Police said: "We really do believe in zero-tolerance. Anyone taken into custody has to be handcuffed for officer safety." She was sentenced to community service and now carries an arrest record. Washington's Metro has since rescinded its zero-tolerance policy.

Examples of that kind of stupidity and sloth abound. Yet Congress and the federal government continue to crank out new laws that criminalize the most trivial behavior, or in some cases non-behavior in an effort to control every aspect of our lives. And it's not just the feds, but state and local governments and institutions that have fallen into the same mindset.

How do we solve this increasingly monstrous trend?

I can think of a few remedies, including a constitutional amendment that requires that for every new law passed, an old one must be repealed. And not just any old law, but one of equal import and scope. If not for that condition we'd be seeing all kinds of new laws passed that end up being balanced by repealing trivial laws that have outlawed things like spitting on the sidewalk.

Another tactic is to file a class action suit against every trivial, wasteful, and mind-numbing piece of legislation or regulation that comes out of government at every level. Bury them in endless litigation, making it difficult, if not impossible to enforce.

One of the tactics I like best? Ridicule. Make it known far and wide the abject stupidity of any law, rule, or regulation that defies common sense and has a profound negative effect on the citizens and relieves the bureaucrats from actually having to make any decisions about anything. Let the people know of the unintended consequences of imposing such laws, rules, or regulations and let them know who it is that created them. Show them for the lazy dunces they are.

A follow up to this last tactic: Vote them out of office or fire them. People this stupid or lazy shouldn't be holding positions of authority over any of us.

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record in regards to ObamaCare, but it appears our not-so-wise Congresscritters still don't understand the concept of It Ain't Gonna Work.

Again, the health insurance system upon which ObamaCare was heavily based is coming apart at the seams, with costs rising, courts overturning arbitrarily imposed rate caps, and actual access to health care declining.

But the Democrats in Congress and the White House insist everything will work just fine once the program goes national. Never mind that it's no better than what we're seeing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, just a heck of a lot more expensive and destructive. I guess they think that if they just believe it as hard as they can it will all come true. Too bad that history is against them.

There isn't a single member of Congress capable of pointing out a socialist health care system that works well and provides the level of care available here in the US. Why? Because it doesn't exist and never has.

Every such system eventually fails, either spectacularly or one slow painful step at a time. While a lot of people tout the British, Canadian, and French health care systems as superior to ours, they are wrong. Oh, they'll give us anecdotal evidence that out system really sucks, quoting long discredited WHO studies about things like infant mortality or life spans. But when it comes down to it, after taking a look at thinks like cancer survival rates, survival rates for strokes, heart attacks, actual infant mortality rates (taking into account that the US has a far higher survival rate for preemies, something the WHO stats ignore), the effectiveness of rehabilitative therapy, and a host of other branches of medicine, the US comes out on top. That's why so many people come from all over the world to be treated here rather than going to the UK, France, or Canada. Once ObamaCare kicks in and does great damage to our health care system, that will all change because the US will no longer have such a great health care system.

I must change course on this a little bit to cover something that has become a big pet peeve of mine in regards to ObamaCare.

One thing that drives me to distraction is the mistaken belief that ObamaCare will somehow provide access to medical care. It won't. It isn't designed to do that, despite what many may claim. What it's supposed to do is provide health insurance to those presently without it. It doesn't guarantee access to health care at all. Even today people with health insurance may have limited or no access to routine health care because they can't find a doctor who is willing to take on new patients. (In many cases it's not that doctors don't want to take on more patients, it's that they can barely handle the ones they already have.) Others won't take Medicare or Medicaid patients because of the extra requirements the government imposes on them in regards to staffing and reporting and the poor reimbursements. And yet others in certain specialties won't take on high-risk patients because of the fear of malpractice suits.

Does our health care system have problems? Absolutely. Does it make any sense to pass poorly thought out and damaging legislation that will only make the existing problems worse? Of course not. But that's what we ended up with, courtesy of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

You know it's bad when even CNN is dumping on ObamaCare.

The CNN report linked above covers the growing problems with Massachusetts health insurance program upon which ObamaCare has been modeled. None of the goals stated in the Massachusetts version have been met. The system is failing financially, with no control over costs, mandated coverage adding to health insurance premiums, subsidies for low/medium-income earners heading ever upwards, disincentives for people to work (higher income means paying a lot more for health insurance), and unintended incentives for businesses to drop their employees health insurance plans entirely.

The Massachusetts system is a preview of what we can expect as ObamaCare kicks in.

Already the the side effects of ObamaCare can be seen as the costs of it become more apparent. If most of the details of this bill had been made known to all of Congress before the vote it never would have passed. Anyone in Congress with a modicum of knowledge about business would have been able to see the negatives of ObamaCare far outweighed any perceived benefits.

With the unintended incentives ObamaCare gives businesses to drop employee health care, or worse, have all future hires brought on as temporary or contract employees, Obama's promise that we'd "be able to keep our present health insurance if we want to" rings hollow and shows he either doesn't truly understand the ramifications of health care reform, or doesn't care. The fact that he needs to spend $125 million of taxpayer funds to sell the idea that ObamaCare will be wonderful proves how bad it will be. If it was truly all that great it would sell itself. But the more he tries to push it on the American people the more they resist letting him destroy the imperfect but world class health care system we have.

Anyone with even a little math ability can figure out that the numbers don't add up, that they don't take into account real world conditions, and totally ignore the effects of the fiscal disincentives that will cause companies to drop health insurance for their employees and induce health care professionals to leave the medical field.

Is it any wonder 'green' jobs haven't been created here?

With the US government spending far too much time trying to kill off traditional energy sources, they really haven't spent nearly as much time trying to promote production of green energy sources as they should. Could that be why a lot of potential American energy jobs have been heading to China instead?

It seems any time there are alternative energy projects that actually look like they may actually work as advertised, the government wants nothing to do with it, or worse, works to kill them. But they'll sink tons of money into questionable projects with little chance of return on investment, or that will require endless government subsidies to survive.

Despite the ABC report above that the government of China controls the economy from top to bottom, meaning they can make offers others can't, the reality is quite different.

According to report from Cornell University, China's free enterprise economy works from the bottom up.

Entrepreneurship is taking off in China and with little input from the government, reports a new Cornell study. It is the capitalism of the private sector -- not government -- that is powering China's huge economy, say the researchers, making the rise of capitalism in China very similar to the West's.

"The surprising finding is how little government actually is needed to enable entrepreneurial activities," said Victor Nee, Goldwin Smith professor of sociology and director of the Center for the Study of Economy and Society at Cornell, who led the study. "Where markets rule, profit opportunities naturally draw in new entrepreneurs, no matter how adverse the institutional environment may be initially. Once a critical mass of private firms operates in specific niches, social norms and networks fulfill many of the functions that textbook economics assigns to government and legal institutions."

So ABC says one thing, and a study from Cornell says just the opposite. Who am I willing to believe?

Cornell, of course.

Chinese entrepreneurship is echoing that of the US long ago. Entrepreneurship is an endangered species here in America, seeing that the government doesn't appear interested in keeping US innovation, ideas, and inventions here where they can create new jobs, if not entirely new industries. We are indeed becoming far too much like Europe, where the government has taken control of many aspects of the economy. They stifle innovation, either by making financing new ventures more difficult or less profitable, or burying them under an avalanche of regulations that all but prohibit new economic activity unless the government can exercise control over every aspect of it.

Is it any wonder US companies are finding China far more receptive to new ideas and new technologies than the US?

Since it appears that Cap-And-Tax is moribund (for now), the Democrats are trying a different piece of legislation to achieve the same thing, only a bit more piecemeal this time around.

The so-called American Power Act seeks to tax carbon emissions from "coal-fired power plants and other large polluters."

A climate and energy bill being pushed in the Senate would cost American households 22 to 40 cents a day -- less than the cost of a first-class postage stamp, the Obama administration said Tuesday.

An analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the Senate bill, sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would cost households an average of $79 to $146 per year. A first-class postage stamp costs 44 cents.

Sounds great, doesn't it? But knowing government as we all do, we must ask about the hidden costs and the how the numbers were derived. As history has shown us again and again, government (and particularly Congress) have a tendency to underestimate the costs of new mandates and programs and overestimate the revenues or benefits derived from them. The fact that the cost estimates come from the EPA makes me skeptical the numbers are even close to being realistic. One must keep in mind that it will be the EPA regulating CO₂ emissions since it has now been erroneously classified a pollutant.

It would not surprise me to see all kinds of amendments to this bill, most of them intended to turn it into a stealth Cap-And-Tax law.

It doesn't help that the White House is using the oil spill in the Gulf as a rallying cry to choke off the supply of oil and other fossil fuels "for our own good." Not that this bill will have any effect on the oil spill or its side effects. All it's designed to do is make energy more expensive all in the name of saving the planet even though no one can rightfully prove it needs saving. But that's never stopped the Left from doing it anyway.

Just when I think Obama and/or Congress couldn't come up with any more ways to delay or destroy economic recovery, he proves me wrong.

First, there was the stimulus. Then Cash for Clunkers, followed by ObamaCare. Cap and Trade still lurks, waiting to make energy cost skyrocket. (Like that will help the economy). Then there was the first time home buyers tax credit, followed by a modified version that covered anyone buying a home. Now, to kill off the housing market entirely, they're looking to do away with the mortgage interest tax deduction, which will add thousands of dollars per year to the taxpayer's tax burden.

Do they really think this will help anything? Estimates predict elimination of the tax deduction will bring in $208 billion over the next ten years, but at what cost? What will the actual revenues be when all factors are taken into consideration?

Frankly, I doubt they'll collect anywhere near what they expect to because a lot of people that might have otherwise bought homes will decide it's no longer financially attractive to do so. What will that do to the housing values and the housing market? Two things that I can see.

First, housing values will drop, making an already shaky housing market even more so as an increasing number of homeowners will see their equity disappear. Some of those will find themselves upside down on their mortgages. This in turn means we'll probably see an increase in foreclosures and 'walk-aways', where people abandon their homes because they can no longer justify paying the mortgages even if they do have the money to pay them. Why should they when they'll end up with far less than they started with when they first bought their home? It will make more sense to let the home go into foreclosure rather than to keep paying for housing guaranteed to depreciate greatly in value. (In effect, it's like having your mortgage rate increase from 5.5% to 20%. Even if you can afford to pay it, you're really getting little in return for tall he money you spend.)

Second, the housing market will shrink even more than it has since the home buyer tax credits ended this past April. The only difference will be that the effect on the market will be semi-permanent. It could take decades for the market to recover and even when it does, there will a large stock of homes looking for buyers that don't exist.

In turn, all of this could affect the financial industry as people won't be taking out mortgages or equity loans. The banks won't be making any money because of the dearth of loans (and likely a large supply of foreclosed homes they can't sell at any price).

Again, Congress is getting ready to shoot itself (and the economy) in the foot by proposing legislation that will have the unintended consequence of killing off yet another part of the economy and ending up with even less revenue than they started with. If they really want to help reduce the deficit, then perhaps they should stop spending money we don't have.

If Congress were really interested in generating a little more revenue, then perhaps they could do away with the interest deduction for second homes. It's been done before and had little overall effect on the housing market as most activity on the market is for primary homes.

But they won't do that because, after all, it makes sense.

Back in June 2008, I predicted the Law of Unintended Consequences would assert itself in regards to the increase of the minimum wage.

Time has proven me right.

A sign of those unintended consequences can be seen in a memo from an employer to his employees, explaining why he's cut back on their hours across the board even though he wishes he could give them all the hours they'd like.

This is yet another example of how government intervention in the economy has a negative effect that far outweighs any possible positive effect that was used as the justification for such an intervention. Something as simple as raising the minimum wage 40% over three years can turn a money-making business into a money-losing business in very short order. I don't know of any business (other than government) that can absorb a 40% increase in labor costs and not suffer the consequences.

This letter to the editor appeared in Monday's Laconia Daily Sun. The author, one E. Scott Cracraft managed to use every single discredited and bigoted cliché in the book in his effort to paint the TEA party and its activists and supporters as the next Nazi Party. Originally I thought to just post it and my reply and leave it at that. But after rereading Mister Cracraft's diatribe, I realized what it really deserved was a complete fisking to show what a clueless and unthinking "useful idiot" he has become.

In spite of the efforts by the Tea Partiers (and the corporate media) to make the "Tea Party" movement appear "mainstream," the movement's "core" is far from mainstream. This movement includes people who arm themselves to overthrow a legally elected government. In some states, they have advocated succession from the Union. Some anti-Obama activists have even gone as far as calling for a military coup against the Obama administration.

This guy has tried to tie just about every fringe group he can think of to the TEA party movement. I'm surprised he hasn't tried to include the Weather Underground. Oh. Wait. It's President Obama who has ties to members of that domestic terrorist organization!

Cracraft's accusations ring hollow if for no other reason that there's been absolutely no evidence tying any of the militia groups to the movement. The "core' as he calls it has no desire to overthrow the government except by the same means the present government came to power - the ballot box. But there will be one difference: we won't need to stuff ballot boxes or commit massive voter fraud in order to throw the bums out.

The Tea Partiers also include religious conservatives who have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution does not make the American Republic a "Christian Country" but rather separates church and state while providing the most religious freedom possible. Others want to ban a woman's right to reproductive freedom. Interestingly, these same people who cry out against abortion also judge "welfare moms" for having too many babies! And yes, in spite of the movement's public rejection of racism, there are some racists in that movement These people cannot accept the fact that the American people (and the Electoral College) elected an African-American President with a "foreign" sounding name. Many of these are "Birthers," who even question President Obama's right to be president even though he won the election fairly and legally. No mainstream politician of either party has supported this lie but this urban legend persists, largely due to some of whom are in the Tea Party movement or who support it.

This country was first settled by religious refugees seeking to be free to practice their religion without interference from either their rulers or the established churches. Cracraft seems to forgotten this as well as the Constitution states there is a freedom of religion, not just freedom from religion. Over the past 50 years or so too many in this country have done their best to drive free expression of religious belief underground as if it were a dirty little secret to be hidden away from prying eyes. They have used the courts to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment in such a way as to ban almost all public displays of belief. Being a person of faith is not a disqualifier for holding public office, despite what Mr. Cracraft would apparently like to believe.

He also seems to believe that only the TEA party has racists. I hate to disillusion him, but there are far more racists within the Democratic Party than the TEA parties. He also ignores the fact that quite a few TEA party supporters voted for Obama and have since come to see him for the disingenuous big-government socialist he is. That isn't racism. That's regret. The only similarity between the two is that they both begin with the letter 'r'.

Then too, the anti-immigrant sentiment on the part of many Tea Partiers can be construed as racist. I rarely hear those opposed to immigration reform talking about white, European immigrants. It is usually about Asians, people from the Middle East, and Hispanics. Racist or not, there does seem to be and element of the "politics of meanness" among the Tea Partiers.

We aren't anti-immigrant. Many of us are immigrants or children of immigrants. We are anti-illegal immigrant. There's a big difference between the two. It's possible Cracraft is incapable of telling the difference because to him all the illegal immigrants are future Democrat supporters...once they can figure out a way to grant them amnesty and a short ride to citizenship. Never mind the legal immigrants such a move will screw over.

Conservatives have frequently criticized liberal presidents in the past, including President Clinton, but no conservative has gone so far as to question their qualifications to serve. "Red-baiting" has become common on Tea Party signs and at Tea Party gatherings. No liberal candidate has been called a "communist" or a "traitor" to his or her country in a long time. This includes people that are more liberal than Obama. The Constitution, in order to protect our political freedom, narrowly defines what "treason" is and I fail to see how our current president fits this definition. Thus, I cannot help but believe that there is a strong racist element in the movement against President Obama.

As the old saying goes, "You shall know them by the company they keep." It is Obama who has consorted with known and self-avowed anti-American terrorists (Bill Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, just to name two). It is Obama who, for almost 20 years, attended an unabashedly racist church with a pastor who spouted bigoted, racist rhetoric and called upon God to damn America, much like any radical Muslim cleric.

Of all our previous Presidents, only Obama has worked so hard to conceal his past, the details of his upbringing, his scholarship, and his vital statistics. Every other President's life was an open book. But not Obama's. We know nothing of his academic achievements. We know nothing of any articles or papers he might have authored while editor of the Harvard Law Review. And what we do know of his time at HLR is not flattering, with more than one colleague of his from his time there saying he was basically a do-nothing editor-in-name-only, deigning to grace the others working there with his presence from time to time and not much more.

The Tea Partiers are not engaging in "mainstream" talk. They have an extreme reactionary agenda which should be a concern of every American. They are using violent language, arming themselves, and even calling themselves "right wing terrorists." I have to laugh when a self-commissioned militia "colonel" spoke of defending themselves against leftists at a recent Tea Party in Washington. In case you have not heard, armed left-wing groups in the United States pretty much died out with the Weather Underground in the 1970s. It is not the liberals or progressives who are dressing up in camouflage and conducting field maneuvers utilizing automatic weapons (I think the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" with a chain of command subordinate to the elected civilian authorities and not a bunch of grown boys playing army in the woods). Nor is it the liberals and progressives who are making death threats to members of Congress with whom they disagree.

There he goes again, painting a picture of the TEA party supporters as fringe militant wackos. Well guess what? All these guys are are fringe element wackos, but they aren't TEA party folks. They have as much to do with the core of the TEA party movement as you do, which means none.

If all he knows of the TEA party is what he's seen on TV or from the New York Times, Washington Post, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos, then Cracraft is so mis- and un-informed as to be laughable. Not one of these 'sources' is reliable, unbiased, or without a political agenda that does not have the good of the American people as their focus. Like any media source, left or right, they can't be trusted. The fact that he appears to do so shows he's become incapable of thinking for himself and can only parrot what these sources have programmed him to say.

Some Tea Partiers, in their literature and websites, even call for employers to fire liberal employees simply because they are liberal. It does not matter what the employee's work performance is like. They also want to remove liberal teachers from our schools whether or not they are good teachers. They even encourage their followers to break off social relations with liberals and to totally marginalize them. And they accuse liberals of "intolerance?"

I've heard this claim, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence. He's made the claim. It's up to him to prove it.

I know I don't want the good teachers to be fired. But what I don't want are educators that aren't teaching what they're supposed to be teaching and are instead indoctrinating our children, teaching them what to think, not how to think, how to reason things out on their own. These days far too many of our kids are coming out of school totally unprepared to make it in the real world. They haven't been taught the critical thinking skills that will allow them to succeed away from the indoctrination centers we call schools. All they've been taught is how to allow others to think for them and to not question what they've been told.

As far as tolerance is concerned. The most intolerant people I have come across in my life have all been liberals. For them, tolerance is something other people must have, not them.

The Tea Partiers and their ilk protest and claim that as a "grass roots" movement, they are not responsible if there are some "wackos" in their ranks. But, while urging the American people not to "paint them with the same brush," the Tea Partiers seem to paint all liberals and progressives as Marxists, communists or terrorists, if not worse. And, I am not sure that they are even using these terms accurately. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that many of their opponents tend to paint them as "racists" and "fascists."

When a large majority of the liberals/progressives in power spout Marxist/Communist ideals and support leftist/fascist dictators over democratically elected governments, then yes we'll call them Marxists and Communists and fascists.

When our President insults our staunchest allies and embraces our enemies with open arms, then yes, we will paint him with the same broad brush. To quote yet another old saying, "By their actions you shall know them." So far our President's "smart diplomacy" has done more damage to America's foreign relations in a little over a year than eight years of Dubya's presidency.

One also has to be cynical about the "grassroots" label: the Tea Partiers and their Tea Parties are being funded by some very wealthy conservative interests. Some of these interests do not want banking reform. Others have a personal stake in seeing that meaningful health care reform is eventually defeated. How else could Sarah Palin pull down $100,000 per speech? Also, one look at a typical Tea Party website shows the movement's close association with extreme right-wing national movements and organizations.

Oh, really?Just who is financing the TEA party movement? I notice he didn't name names. He made the claim, it's up to him to prove it.

On the other hand, the Democrats, and particularly the extreme left-wing of the party, has been heavily financed by multi-billionaire George Soros, an unabashed socialist (his claim, not mine) and someone who is not a friend of the American people. Like most on the Left, he believes we aren't capable of making our own decisions and he's willing to spend his billions to make sure our ability to do so will be stripped from us, one step, one right at a time. Also, much of the Hollywood elite are willing to support political causes most Americans find repugnant. They pour millions into the Democrat party to help elect candidates that are more than willing to dismantle the Constitution because we're too stupid to understand that we need the morally bankrupt progressives to tell us what we need.

As to Sarah Palin's $100,000 speaking fee: So what? When she speaks at TEA party functions she has given that money to help fund the movement on more than one occasion. Bill Clinton pulls down that much for the same thing, but Cracraft hasn't asked who's financing his speaking engagements, has he? It's a specious point. Get over it.

I have no doubt that there are well-meaning members of the "silent majority" in the Tea Party movement who are simply afraid of government and who came blame them? The Federal Government can be scary to all of us! After eight years of George Bush, who turned a federal budget surplus into a deficit through his wars and giving tax breaks to rich Americans, who would not be suspicious of the federal government and its motives? The well-meaning Tea Partiers should consider who their real "enemy" is: the "Military/Industrial Complex" (a term, incidentally, coined by a Republican, not a liberal Democrat) which has received more taxpayer money than every "welfare cheat" combined.

First, a good part of Clinton's budget surplus was funded by borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund, which has not been paid back and never will be.

Second, Bush didn't give tax breaks just to the rich. He gave them to every tax payer...unless Cracraft's definition of 'rich' is the same as that of the Democrats in Congress - Anyone with a job.

Third, at least one of those wars was not started by us, not by George Bush. It was started by Osama Bib Laden after his follower committed an act of war against the United States, one that was greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor back on December 7, 1941.

Fourth, the other war was started by Saddam Hussein in 1990. We merely got around to finishing it.

Initially, this anti-government movement included a large number of libertarians. While not always agreeing with them, I have always respected the libertarians more than the Republicans who seek to hijack their movement. The libertarians oppose government intrusion into any aspect of our lives. While they are against taxation and "big government," at least they are consistent. They may oppose taxation but they also are champions of personal liberty and oppose government interference in what one smokes or who one sleeps with.

I have to agree that the GOP has been trying to hijack the TEA party, trying to 'bring it into the fold', as it were. But we're too pissed off at the GOP, and particularly those within the party that we call RINOS, - Republicans In Name Only. The GOP betrayed its libertarian roots and became a somewhat less liberal version of the Democrat Party with the same spendthrift tendencies.

As we have seen, the RINOS had no problem spending money the American people didn't have. But that's no excuse for the Democrats to double down and create a deficit in one year that was bigger than Bush's deficit over eight years. (And we must remember these two things: the Democrats controlled Congress during the last two years of the Bush Administration - a time during which the two biggest budget deficits occurred - and that all spending starts in the House of Representatives.)

Mainstream America is sick and tired of being ignored by our employees, who spend without our leave, impose programs upon us we neither want or can afford to pay for, and forget that they work for us, not the other way around.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party Movement seems to have been taken over by extreme GOP conservative hypocrites who are committed to protecting corporate interests. While they whine about government interference in terms of regulating business, they seem to have no problem with regulating a person's personal lifestyle choices. While the Tea Partiers oppose government getting involved in health care, they seem to have no issue with banning same-sex marriage or medical marijuana. I hope the "well-meaning" Tea Partiers eventually realize which side they are really on.

Oh, and the Democrats haven't been doing just that, and rather blatantly while they're at it? They haven't passed legislation that created 'regulations' and 'rules' and laws whose sole aim is to cripple competition and lock out the small guy. They aren't pandering to those same corporate interests?

Cracraft has attributed far too many motivations to the a vast majority of TEA party supporters and activists. Mostly, we want to be left alone by government, want government to get its financial house in order, want the government to start following the Constitution, want the government to stop spending money it doesn't have and won't have in the future. Abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other social issues aren't even a blip on our agenda. The resistance to health care has nothing to do with denying people health care, but does have to do with its unsustainable cost, its intrusive nature, and its destruction of one of the best health care systems in the world all in the name the overused and purposely misdefined term 'fairness'. My question is, fair to who?

'Nuff said.

Thursday I attended one of the hundreds of TEA party protests held around the nation. Turnout was around 1000, which was similar to last year's Tax Day TEA Party protest.

Of the myriad of speakers at the protest, only one was a sitting member of the House of Representatives and he was visiting from Michigan. A number of Congressional hopefuls were there, but none spoke, preferring to press the flesh and speak one-on-one with TEA party supporters. Not surprisingly, only GOP candidates showed up even though invitations were extended to candidates from all parties.

Three of the more inspiring speakers included former US Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH), Thom Thomson - son of the late New Hampshire governor Meldrim Thomson, and former New Hampshire Senator George Lovejoy.

Senator Humphrey related his experiences of serving in the Senate for two terms. (He promised when he was elected that he'd only serve two terms, then come home. He kept his promise.) The one thing he said that stuck in my mind was his comparison of Congress to "a pit of vipers." He also warned that even those with the best of intentions when they arrive in Washington are eventually seduced by the power their office confers. It doesn't happen quickly, but it does happen, which is why he has supported term limits. He also led the call to "Throw the bums OUT!", something the crowd quickly picked up and chanted with increasing volume. Humphrey said we shouldn't discriminate as there were plenty of Republican bums deserving to be thrown out as much as their Democrat colleagues.

Both Thom Thomson and Senator Lovejoy spoke about the fiscal problems visited upon the people of New Hampshire by both the legislature and the governor, with legislative Democrats willing to spend money the state doesn't have, implementing tax hikes that hit the people most affected by the recession, and attempting to 'appropriate' private funds from a medical malpractice fund in an effort to fund the runaway budget. The governor also failed to protect the taxpayers in the state by refusing to use his veto pen to stop the 30% increase in state spending over the past 2 budgets.

While other TEA party protests drew some number of infiltrators/agitators, the Manchester protest drew only one 'visitor' from the New Hampshire Democrat Party, and he pretty much just watched the activities.

All in all it was a great gathering with appreciative crowd all sharing the same message: "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more!"

I attended the Tea Party in Manchester, New Hampshire this afternoon/early evening and got back just before 9PM.

I'll have an honest to goodness post about it tomorrow Saturday.

I suddenly realized reading this Lawrence Auster post my new-found depressive feeling. It's the feeling I get when traveling to Massachusetts with my family.

What killed Detroit, Gary North says, is gubmit. He's got mind-blowing statistics on housing prices, too.

Get ready for it with health care which, as John Dingell says on WJR, Detroit's WRKO, is that it's going to "take a while to control the people."

What did the great Ronald Reagan say are the most dangerous words one can hear? "I'm from the gubmit, and we're here to help." No thank you. Time to get back to the Constitution, folks. We are at a vital moment in which to do that before it's too late, says Seth Lipsky in his new book, _The Citizen's Constitution: An Annotated Guide_.

I really enjoyed his conversation on Chicago's WGN with Milt Rosenberg.

You can take your infinitely elastic Commerce Clause--which has given us the no guns in schools, whether they be public or private, regardless of state laws--and shove it up where the sun usually doesn't shine.

Resistance to ObamaCare at the state level is growing. AG's of a dozen states have already said they'll bring suit to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare, in particular the part making to mandatory for American citizens to purchase a service or be fined (or imprisoned). Some states are working on or have passed legislation negating that requirement, seeing it as a violation of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment.

New Hampshire State Senator Jeb Bradley has filed such legislation here in the Granite State, making mandatory health insurance illegal without due process, meaning a court could order someone to obtain it as part of divorce/custody/child support agreement, but only then.

I wonder if the Democrats, and specifically Obama, will get the message that this piece of legislation is hated by a majority of the American people. No need to answer that as we already know they know, but don't care.