Sen. Brown's Support of DADT and START leave America a Sitting Duck

I wish advocates of repeal of DADT like Sen. Brown would explain how they plan on replacing the 32% of Marines and members of our special forces that indicated in the Pentagon survey that they would leave the service. Maybe students will be lining up at Harvard to join the ROTC when it's allowed back on campus or the advocates of repeal have received commitments from thousands of homosexuals, Unitarians and atheists to make good the losses, now that those knuckle dragging evangelicals have been shown the door. I don't believe they have the slightest clue how to keep the combat units and our military capabilities from dissolving before our eyes while engaged in two wars. They're shooting first and asking questions later during this lame duck session of Congress. Essentially, Sen. Brown is voting to break the offensive capabilities of our military.

If Sen. Brown is comfortable breaking America's sword, he at least believes in preserving its shield right? Not if he continues to support the ratification of New START he doesn't. Despite the protestations of the Obama administration the treaty precludes America from working on missile defense. The Russians insisted language be included in the preamble to the treaty stating exactly that and despite many senators' requests to review the negotiating record the Obama administration has refused to release it. What is Obama hiding? With Hugo Chavez signing an agreement with Iran to place medium range missiles capable of hitting the U.S. in Venezuela this isn't an academic exercise.

The simple fact is that neither of these issues need to be resolved in the lame duck session of Congress and shouldn't be, they're simply too important to rush. As much as advocates of repeal of DADT would like us to believe that the Senate must act before the courts do, it just isn't so. The ninth circuit hasn't even heard arguments yet and then the case would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Any decision imposed by the courts is at least a year away. What's driving the push for repeal at this reckless pace is politics, specifically the heavy losses Democrats suffered in the midterm elections. The Democrats' political "shellacking" is also driving the headlong push to ratify New START. They're more afraid of putting the votes off to make sure they get them right than they are with getting them right for the American people. Politics should never trump national security, period.

Sen. Brown should enjoy the praise of the liberals he's enabling, but he should understand that they won't be with him in 2012. Just ask Charlie Baker how effective being to the left of President Obama helped attract liberals to his gubernatorial campaign. Hint, he got thumped because he alienated conservatives in the bargain.

DADT: Mend It, Don't End It

Progressives proved with Obamacare that they wouldn't let reality hinder the realization of their idealogical objectives. Washington is giving us a repeat performance in the spectacle otherwise know as the lame duck session of Congress with DADT; but this time it appears Republicans are lining up to help them endanger our national security. Our Constitution couldn't be more clear in charging our government and its elected officials with the duty to "Provide for the common defence". Unfortunately, the current membership of the US Senate views the dogma of political correctness a higher authority than our founding document. How else is one to view their headlong rush to endorse a Pentagon report that was written by a political appointee who was installed by President Obama for that very purpose? The US Senate should place more credence on the opinions of those members of our military who will be tasked with implementing and managing the consequences of outright repeal and as they testified before that body the overwhelming majority doesn't support repeal.

As the AP reported:

The top uniformed officers of the Army and the Marines told a Senate panel Friday that letting gays serve openly in the military at a time of war would be divisive and difficult, sharply challenging a new Pentagon study that calculates the risk as low.

"If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat," the Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

changing the law now would "add another level of stress to any already stretched force" and be more difficult on the Army, particularly its combat units, than the recent Pentagon study suggests.Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey.

But most of the troops with concerns were serving in combat roles. Nearly 60 percent of troops in the Marine Corps and in Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said they thought allowing gays to be open about their sexual orientation would hurt their units' ability to fight on the battlefield.

"I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan," Amos said.

The chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, said it was likely that some highly trained combat sailors, including Navy SEALs, might refuse to re-enlist in protest of the personnel change.

The notoriously homophobic NY Times followed up with:

Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the chief of staff of the Air Force, recommended delaying repeal until 2012 because of the strain the military is bearing now. “I do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low,” he said. “It is an inescapable fact that our officer and non-commissioned officer leaders in Afghanistan, in particular, are carrying a heavy load.”

General Schwartz concluded that “it is difficult for me, as a member of the Joint Chiefs, to recommend placing any additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres at this particularly challenging time.”

Let's take another look at the results of the survey that's being heralded by the advocates for repeal.

58% of Marines in combat units believe repealing DADT will negatively impact their military readiness.

40% of the Army units in combat responded the same.

It's the same result for special ops, the most highly skilled, hence hardest to replace warriors we have. Just in case any senator has been locked away somewhere for the last nine years they are playing an irreplaceable role in our war against the jihadits all over the world.

Furthermore, 32% of Marines answered that outright repeal would cause them to leave the service earlier than they had planned.

How can any reasonable person regard this as constituting a "low" risk to morale and the effectiveness of our troops fighting two wars? The sad truth is that our national security is an afterthought in this decision.

One should also ask why a survey with such a low response rate 115,000 of the 400,000 sent out is being treated as if it were Holy Writ. A Marine officer wrote to the publishers of Powerline to give them and us a little insight to how the survey was conducted and why the response rate was so low:

I have to say that as an active duty Marine officer, I have been pretty heartened by the willingness of our leadership to stand up and say what a bad idea repeal of DADT would be. I think you have done a good job of sniffing out the phoniness of the DADT survey the Department of Defense sent around and the results that Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are running around trumpeting.

For the time that DoD was compiling the survey, I received 6 snail-mail letters and a dozen emails to my work email and my personal email address, telling me to access the survey with a special code, then input another special code as my password before I answered a bunch of questions about DADT. Of course, according to the emails and letters, my input would be completely anonymous. Riiiiiiiiiiight. Anonymous input requires 15 digit log ins.

I think that anyone who has been in the military more than a couple of years recognized what was going on. The decision to seek repeal has already been made and this survey is just part of the show trial. The results from the junior enlisted would be dismissed as ill-informed and contrary to "evidence," just as you suggested. The results from officers and senior enlisted foolish enough to actually provide negative answers will be used later to "remediate" those whose answers showed that they were not with the program.

Even with the clear disincentives to provide negative feedback, the Marines still weighed in overwhelmingly against the political correctness. God bless them. Once again, for yet another reason, I am proud to be a Marine.

Semper fi, and thanks for all you do.

Is it possible that the results of this survey could represent the same political correctness run amok that caused several officers to look the other way with Maj. Nidal Hassan, of Ft. Hood massacre infamy and hope for the best?

The advocates of repealing DADT appear more than happy to cashier the men and women currently fighting for our freedom if they're uncomfortable serving with openly gay members:

Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday.

and

The top enlisted adviser for U.S. forces in Afghanistan said on Friday that he believes the troops are ready for a repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' and that those who oppose ending the policy should leave the military.

Instead of telling the servicemen and women to "go to hell" and not to let the door hit them in the back as it seems Admiral Mullen is inclined to do, is there a better solution? Currently, women are prohibited from serving in combat units even in countries that have gays serving openly. From Wickipedia with a hat-tip to Hotair.com:

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression…

Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers “are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it’s is not as easy to program men to neglect women.”

If the US military feels it's necessary to prevent women from serving in combat units because it will negatively impact those units fighting ability, why not use the same policy for open homosexuals? By closing certain specialties to women the military is saying that national security trumps equal treatment of the sexes. Considering that it's the combat troops that are most resistant to serving with open gays it only makes sense to preserve DADT for those units and let them serve openly is support roles, the risk isn't worth the reward of equal career opportunities. The French used the term esprit de corps to desribe the intangible element that holds troops in combat together and makes them an effective force, even when facing long odds. The US Senate messes with this at our peril, unlike the French, the US still fights.

The Taxman Takes Another Bite

The Newburyport City Council provided quite a show Monday evening. There was drama, deal-making, possibly a little skull-duggery and for the PG-13 set, several councilors even discussed their showering habits and it was all topped-off with a $300,000 tax hike. The meals tax pushed by Councilor Cameron was nearly de-railed when a proposed ordinance that put the spending cart before the tax horse was deemed legally suspect and tabled, splitting the coalition committed to making it more expensive to dine in our city. Undaunted, Cameron with the able assistance of Councilor Connell and input from Mayor Holaday, who was watching it all on t.v., devised a plan to keep the taxpayer squeeze alive. At this point, the committee recessed to hastily write a new proposal to keep the votes of the "sidewalk two" in favor of the tax.

Now, prior to the meeting I took a quick gander at the city budget and found a line in nearly every department labeled "Longevity". During the break in the action, I asked Councilor Earls what exactly these longevity payments were. As I feared, he informed me that they were payments, above salary and overtime that the city was contractually obligated to pay public employees based on their length of service. These bonuses start at $718 for the Harbormaster's Dept. and top out at $128,133 for the Fire Dept. and total $313,573.38 for this fiscal year, excluding the school department which didn't itemize their personnel expenses. Councilor Earls also informed me that education was one of the few areas that isn't walled off by collectively bargained agreements, so it receives the vast majority of whacks from the budget axe.

It is a given in America that contracts are inviolable, unless you were a secured creditor of Chrysler and your rights conflicted with the president's political patrons at the UAW, that is. While the city must pay these bonuses, even though it meant cutting foreign language programs from the schools and guarantees future cuts, there is nothing stopping the unions, other than greed, that represent the public employees of this city from re-negotiating these ridiculous contracts. I've been around long enough to realize that AFSCME, which represents most public sector union members in this country sees taxpayers as nothing more than an ATM. Which is why they spent $87.5 million in the mid-term elections trying to keep as many of their Democrat party patrons in office to keep that money flowing. But won't they do it for the children? Shouldn't a decent salary, generous health and retirement benefits and plentiful overtime be enough?

The residents of this city, state and nation need to realize that public sector union contracts are bleeding us dry. Because the pension fund for state workers has an unfunded liability of $22 billion, $1.3 billion was spent this year to shore it up. That's a devastating $1.3 billion in cuts to local aid, which could have been spent on schools statewide. You can bet that Gov. Patrick and the Democrat-controlled legislature will bail the fund out again this year and every year until we wake up and stop them. Here's hoping watching California go banrupt will wake the voters' of Massachusetts up.

MassGOP Must Reach Out To Hispanics To Survive

There have been many interesting takes this week on Tuesday night's debacle and how to prevent it from happening again in 2012. While there is much to be said for organizing RTC's and focusing on GOTV,that only gets you so far.In short, as 11% of the electorate,we can organize and coordinate with a precision that would put the Michigan State Spartan marching band to shame and we will still lose in near landslides. I believe it was SSR that brought up the demographic hurdle Republicans face in statewide elections. He broke the Democrats' base into three groups:

1) Progressives/Moonbats

2) Public/Private Sector Unions

3) Minorities

If we hope to start winning elections outside of Worcester County we need to cut into the Dems base in addition to appealing to independents. Of the three legs of the Democrats' stool the only one we have a remote chance with is minority voters, particularly hispanics. Let's face it, most voters' make their decision based on who will best protect their interests. A Republican party that is committed to limiting the size and scope of government and promotes individual opportunity will never appeal to progressives or union voters. Why do I think that message has a small shot of winning over hispanic voters? Because Puerto Rico has a Republican governor that is advocating those positions.

From the WSJ:

Move over, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. You’ve got a tax-cutting, pro-growth competitor who may be even bolder than you. His name is Luis Fortuño and he is the governor of Puerto Rico, a place that, if you can believe it, is in worse fiscal shape than the Garden State.

When Mr. Fortuño took office in January 2009, Puerto Rico had a 46% budget shortfall equal to $3.3 billion. Things were so bad, he told me in a telephone interview from San Juan on Tuesday, that he had to fly to New York while still governor-elect to explain his fiscal plan to the investment community in order to avoid a sharp downgrade of Puerto Rican debt. “We were one step from junk status,” he says.

and

The governor says he cut 20% of the budget but “it was not enough.” Puerto Rico needs “to provide an environment for our people to flourish and to let their ingenuity take them where they want to go.” He adds: “Puerto Rico has not been competitive. Investors have been going to Singapore and Ireland. Our system was failing us.” And it wasn’t for lack of capital. Commonwealth debt offerings, he says, always sell out quickly. “There is plenty of money here but it has not been worthwhile taking risk” in private-sector ventures.

I'm not saying Republicans should suddenly become pro-amnesty and attempt to out-pander the Democrats for Hispanic votes. Just the opposite. Senator-elect Marco Rubio (R-Fl) refused to play the pander game to the point that Charlie Crist accused him(a son of Cuban immigrants) of not "being hispanic enough". Republicans need to start going into their communities and asking hispanics for their votes instead of just assuming that because they tend to be Catholic that they'll magically start voting R because of social issues. And we need to get started on reaching out yesterday.

On NRO Jim Geraghty's political sage discusses the Republican's problem relating to hispanics leading to the wipeout in California:

Jim: You mentioned California. Is that state gone for Republicans for the foreseeable future?

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Michael Medved said yesterday that Fiorina won the white vote by 9 percent, which is 61 percent of the total vote. But she did abysmally among Hispanics, getting only 28 percent. If she merely got to 40 percent, she wins.

Hispanic voters for a lot of reasons are nascent Republicans. But there are perception problems that need to be broken through. Those problems are not solved by doing what the consultants recommend — talking only about the economy while dancing around other issues. Our candidates need to be talking about ideas and discussing the difference between conservative and liberal philosophies. The question is one of educating voters about what those philosophies mean to them.

As much as I admire Gov. Christie, the MassGOP should try inviting Gov. Fortuno to the Commonwealth to campaign for our candidates next time. It's not like we have anything to lose.

Tierney's Record is the Scandal

The last time the voters of the sixth district tossed an incumbent Democrat it was scandal-plagued "Nicky Pockets". This week, our very own Johnny "Double-Down" Tierney has found himself engaged in damage control due to his wife's guilty plea in federal court. Congressman Tierney owes the voters an honest answer of what he knew and when before the election. His lame, focus-grouped, answer of being in a "twenty first century marriage" simply doesn't cut mustard. Look, the most likely explanation is that Tierney knew nothing about the eight million his wife was managing for her fugitive brother because he chose not to know. The you know what was destined to hit the fan and the congressman needed to maintain "plausible deniability". The $9,600 his mother-in-law,(who received money from the accounts) donated to his campaign and his vote against an internet gambling bill in 2006 that led to his wife's prosecution should be explained to the voters as well.

What I find far more troubling is the congressman's dismal record on job creation.The government announced on Friday that the economy shed another 95,000 jobs in September, keeping the unemployment rate at 9.6%. Unemployment has now topped 9.5% for fourteen straight months, representing the worst jobs record since the Great Depression. Yet, when the American people were begging Washington to focus on fixing the economy, Democrats instead fixated on "moving progressive agendas forward".

That agenda: The $862 billion stimulus, cap and trade, and nationalizing health care. The stimulus has proven to be nothing more than a bailout for government workers and wasted billions on Democrat special interests. Oh, they also gutted welfare reform, which they had been chomping at the bit to do since 1996. Cap and trade will increase the average family's energy bills by $1,761 a year. Since India and China have both refused to strangle their economies with similar caps on CO2, it will only increase the outsourcing of American jobs to those countries. The federal takeover of health care has proven to be the most controversial. It was recently announced that 22,000 seniors in MA will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage due to Obamacare. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Enacting this agenda hasn't been cheap. Johnny stood shoulder to shoulder with Barry, Harry and Nancy as they have pushed spending to record levels. The current spending binge has resulted in trillion plus budget deficits that extend indefinately and will result in the doubling of the national debt by 2020. The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) has found that if spending continues at this pace that taxes for everyone, not just the rich, will need to increase drastically. Their findings: The 10% bracket will increase to 25%, 25% to 63% and the 35% bracket to 88%.

Voters need to ask themselves if they can afford to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table if we double the debt and more than double taxes. Johnny hasn't asked that question, he's too busy enacting his agenda. If elected, Bill Hudak's only agenda will be getting our economy back on track and people back to work. He understands that Americans want to earn a paycheck, not scrape by on unemployment and foodstamps. I hope voters heed the Gambler's advice as they cast their ballots on Nov.2 "Know when to fold 'em,know when to walk away and know when to run".

The Spirit of '76

In addition to being one of our most colorful and quotable Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin was also a pioneer in a sad Massachusetts traditon, being born here, but moving to more favorable locals to seek opportunity. Well, in his case escaping messy domestic entanglements ran a close second to expanded job prospects. Lately, it seems hardly a day can pass without coming across a story that brings to mind Franklin's warning that "If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you". In our modern drama, the roles of the original "wolves"(King George and Parliament), are being played by progressive politicians and their special interest allies.

Close to home we have Mayor Holaday, who is demanding that we pay more in taxes and the princely sum of $50 for the privilege of parking downtown while she receives a hefty raise. In the case of Governor Patrick we have someone who has raised taxes eight times and promises to raise them again if he's re-elected. We are represented in Congress by Rep. Tierney, who has repeatedly voted to bailout his union allies(both public and private), while voting for cap and trade and Obamacare which will cost the average household thousands of dollars more a year. Cap and trade alone is expected to decrease economic activity by $9.4 trillion between 2012-2035, that's a lot of jobs that won't be created in a country already suffering 9.6% unemployment. Last but not least we have Sen. Kerry(Captain My Captain to the crew of the Isabel) who attempted to skate on $500,000 in taxes by docking his $7 million yacht in R.I..

While they occupy different offices, their solution is always the same, raise taxes. My question, borrowed from the movie "Wall St." for our progressive leaders is how much is enough? If they're in an honest mood they'll tell you that taxes will have to increase until the ever changing goal of "social justice" is achieved. Meaning, that government will of necessity get ever bigger, requiring ever more bureaucrats and ever more of our money. We know the path they are leading us on is unsustainable, the Congressional Budget office (CBO) has said so and now progressive hero Fidel and his equally tyrannical brother Raul have admitted as much. The statement from the Cuban government read in part "Our state can't keep maintaining...bloated payrolls," . Neither can we.

This Fall our choice is clear. We can meekly follow our progressive leaders as they attempt to transform our city, state and nation into another Greece or Cuba or we can vote for candidates who embrace the concepts of economic freedom, individual liberty and individual responsibility. Our forefather's risked everything to give us a Republic, it's up to us to ensure that it doesn't become an oligarchy. Once we go down that road it's almost impossible to come back. Just ask the Castro's, they wanted to lay off a million bureaucrats, but settled for half that after they saw their Greek counterparts firebombing banks.

Coakley Takes One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

In what must be the newspaper equivalent of the full Ginsberg the Boston Herald has three stories about our Attorney General today.

Starting with the good, AG Coakley takes National Grid to task for fleecing its customers:

“During the course of (reviewing National Grid’s rate-hike request), we found at least $300,000 worth of expenses that are outrageous and clearly provide no benefit to Massachusetts rate payers,” Jill Butterworth, spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley, told the Herald. “(And) we only scratched the surface.”

National Grid recently asked the state Department of Public Utilities to approve a $106 million-a-year rate hike for the company’s 850,000 Hub-area gas customers. That would raise ratepayer bills by about 4 percent to 11 percent, depending on where they live.

Some of the charges National Grid passed on to consumers:

$35,700 to send a senior vice president’s two daughters to the private British School of Boston

$30,000 for an executive’s personal medical bills

$4,363 for an employee’s trip to President Obama’s inauguration

$4,000 for company Christmas cards

$1,602 to matte and frame pictures for Grid President Tom King’s office

$1,433 for Rubik’s Cubes used in a team-building exercise

$1,254 to ship a wine collection across the ocean for a British employee who transferred stateside.

No employee expense was too small, with National Grid even passing on costs for $2 coat-check fees and $3.50 bottled waters.

Thank you Martha Coakley. Not only is the arrogance of National Grid executives a thumb in the eye of hard-pressed consumers, but the rate jump they are requesting isn't supported by the state of our economy. Sure winter is coming, but the economy is in big trouble, which means that natural gas supplies shouldn't be stressed, meaning prices should remain relatively stable. Even Obamanomics can't eliminate the basic rules of supply and demand. Natural gas futures fell slightly today.

Now for the odd:

After last week’s jailhouse suicide by accused Craigslist killer Philip Markoff - before he could be tried for the murder of erotic masseuse Julissa Brisman - Coakley reversed her earlier stance against interfering with the Web forum and demanded that Craigslist take down adult ads.

Coakley said the only reason for running the sex ads is to make money. “Craigslist should end the hypocrisy between its words and its practices,” Coakley wrote.

So, our AG is fine with the ads when a woman is murdered, but when her murderer takes his own life she changes her tune? Craigslist's popularity is based on the fact that it's free to the general public that are looking to post ads to sell a car, find a roomate, post a job etc. Without the revenue Craigslist makes from the adult themed ads, they will either need to start charging to post non-adult ads or go out of business. I'm sure the Globe wouldn't shed any tears if that were to happen.

I wonder when AG Coakley is going to go after "alternative" newspapers like the Boston Phoenix. After all, they make their money selling adult ads too. Maybe if Craigslist had a few reliably left-wing reporters on staff that could be counted on to write favorable stories about Martha, the AG would agree to continue looking the other way?

Finally, Jay Fitzgerald covers the downright indefensible:

Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office is withholding key details from the public about how she arrived at her Cape Wind rate-cut deal.

Coakley - whose office recently negotiated a 10 percent reduction in how much Cape Wind and National Grid can charge customers for wind-generated electricity - submitted a report late last week full of blacked-out pages related to wind-project price comparisons associated with the multibillion-dollar Cape Wind project.

The report, which was Coakley’s official justification of her rate settlement with Cape Wind and National Grid, includes “redacted” words, numbers, sentences, paragraphs and charts. It even blanked out a question asked of an energy expert hired by Coakley’s office - and the expert’s response was also crossed out, records filed with the Department of Public Utilities show.

This is a project that will cost between $2 billion-$2.6 billion when it's all said and done. The public has every right to know all the details. We're the ones that will be paying for the over-priced electicity generated by this green boondoggle. What are the proponents of Cape Wind afraid of?

Pres. Obama is the Reckless Driver

According to the Los Angeles Times President Obama is still pushing the driving metaphors on his fundraising tour on behalf of Congressional Democrats. So what did folks get for their $30,400? Andrew Malcolm reports on the President's stop in Tinsel Town http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/08/obama-democrat-findraiser-in-chief-.html. A snippet:

The president has also fallen into recycling the same jokes -- one about his favorite Republican, Abraham Lincoln (see full text below), and another, lifted from the rhetorical repertoire of Iowa Democrat Chet Culver, about American drivers knowing that to go forward they put their car in D and to go backwards they put the vehicle in R. (Groans.)

Before his next vacation, Obama is on a three-day, five-state tour of fundraisers -- Wisconsin to California to Washington to Florida to Ohio. Next to the size of the administration's deficits, of course, the millions in donations are minuscule. But they will help the ad wars in battleground districts. More importantly, all of Obama's travels cost him nothing, except a 747's massive transcontinental carbon footprint.

The simple truth is that President Obama is attempting to drive our country not into a "ditch", but over a cliff and he wants Americans to play Louise to his Thelma(or is it the other way around?) and clasp his hand as he punches the gas.

A primer on the President's plans for our country:

A $1.47 trillion 2010 budget deficit. The President's budget calls for doubling the national debt to $18 trillion by 2020, which will mean paying $2.5 billion a day on interest alone.

The President promised his $862 billion "stimulus" bill would keep unemployment below 8%. After reaching a high of 10.2%, it has settled at 9.5%. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS) there are 14.6 million Americans that want to work but can't find a job. To put that number in perspective, 14.6 million exceeds the combined populations of the six New England states (ME,NH,VT,MA,CT,RI) by 170,280. Adding insult to injury, the stimulus which amounted to little more than a bailout for government employees and pork projects couldn't even provide full employment for the public sector. Congress needed to pass another $26.1 billion bailout to keep their union supporters fat and happy.

The President's own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) estimates that Obamacare will run a $311 billion dollar deficit in its first 10 years, not the surplus the president promised. Also:

14 million Americans will lose their current employer provided health insurance.

18 million Americans will pay $33 billion in penalties due to the "individual mandate" and still lack health insurance.

Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties, which is money they could be using to hire workers.

7.4 million seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage.

The drastic cuts to Medicare in Obamacare will make 15% of Medicare providers unprofitable "jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries".

Letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire will mean one of the largest tax increases in American history, including onerous tax increases on small business which typically creates 2 out of 3 jobs in a recovery.

By supporting the Ground Zero Mosque President Obama is handing Al Qaeda its biggest propoganda victory since 9/11. To radical jihadists the 13 story, $100 million Cordoba House will be seen as a victory for Islam and a great recruiting tool in Al Qaeda's war against the West. The Islamists don't care about American rights to freedom of religion or private property, to them it will be a mosque going up on the site of their greatest victory.

Finally, for the second month in a row China has been a net seller of T-Bills. The Chinese know that the fiscal path President Obama has us on is "unsustainable" and they aren't as willing to lend us the money to continue spending beyond our means. The Federal Reserve gobbling up all the extra T-Bills is the only thing keeping interest rates from going up. How long do you think the Fed can keep it up?

Mr. President, cars come with reverse(R) for a reason. The voters need to slam the brakes on your agenda and back away from the cliff on November 2, 2010. America is too great a country to end as a pile of burning wreckage.

Cambridge on the Merrimack

Tax hikes, paid parking and stretch codes? Oh my. Actually, make that a Heck No! If enacted, Mayor Holaday's green and tax agenda will place a heavy burden on Newburyport's economy. The mayor and city council need look no further than today's paper "Tax holiday not enough, say some liquor stores"(Aug.12), to see for themselves how increasing taxes changes people's behavior. In their effort to soak the tourists, it's the businesses and residents of Newburyport that will wind up getting hosed.

The council will soon be asked to vote on Councilor Cameron's proposal to implement a "local option" on the meals and room taxes. This will mean a meals tax of 7% and room excise tax of 6%. I believe the visions of new revenue have caused the mayor and councilor Cameron to lose sight of the fact that tourists are pretty sparse in wintertime. In January when the wind is howling up State St., it's locals that keep the eateries in town a going concern until summer rolls around. As for the tourists, if you make it more expensive to eat and stay here, they will simply take their business elsewhere.

Next up in the mayor's quest for more revenue is a proposal for paid parking downtown, including the potential for a parking garage. Residents and those that work downtown are promised a sticker, while tourists will have to pay by the hour. How exactly is a sticker that will likely cost $10-20 a good deal when we can park for free now? The mayor likes to use Portsmouth, NH as an example of how painless paid parking will be without mentioning that it lacks a 6.25% sales tax. The more expensive you make it to visit our city the more incentive folks have to keep driving up 95 to NH or just over the bridge to Salisbury.

The mayor's effort to make Newburyport greener, while not a tax, will make its residents poorer. The stretch codes will add $10-20 thousand in construction costs for new development and more problematically will apply to all renovations. Everyone should want to spend less on energy, but it's a mistake to make us subject to the green police. A bureaucrat with more idealogy than sense, like that fool in Oregon who shut down a child's lemonade stand, could have made repairing damage from that powerful spring storm a nightmare. Imagine wanting to fix the hole in your roof, but being told you needed new windows and a new furnace to be green compliant and you couldn't get a permit until you agreed to make the upgrades. Now, imagine getting your insurance company to pay the bill.

The City Council needs to check Mayor Holaday's efforts to make it more expensive to live, work and visit our city. The great recession has forced many in America to do more with less, City Hall should do the same.

Is CA Brewing Another Taxpayer Revolt?

The state that introduced the country to the idea of capping property taxes,appears ready to take on public sector unions. Here's hoping that what's happening in CA does as much for income and sales taxes as Prop 13 did for homeowners. Some backround.

First we have the city of Bell, CA, that even had Simple Festus up in arms. From the Sacramento Bee:

The Times reported that Bell's city manager, Robert Rizzo, was earning nearly $800,000 in annual pay, making him the highest-paid government manager in the nation. Police Chief Randy Adams was paid $457,000 a year, and Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia made $376,288.

Under pressure from residents, all three have resigned. At a City Council meeting Monday night, Bell residents are expected to push for the resignations of four of the five council members; each of the four makes $100,000 a year for a part-time job.

Next up on the hit parade is San Jose. From the Mercury News:

Amid nationwide outrage about public employee salaries, a divided San Jose City Council on Tuesday took aim at the city's soaring compensation costs. As a result, voters this fall will decide whether to rework the city's pension system and clamp down on costs for police and firefighters.

The council voted 7-4 to put a measure on the ballot that would change a three-decade-old policy giving outside arbitrators the final say in contract disputes with public safety workers. Mayor Chuck Reed says the policy has helped hike police and firefighter costs 99 percent since 2000, contributing to 10 consecutive years of deficits. Just last week, the city laid off 50 firefighters to help plug a $118.5 million shortfall.

How did the unions take the news?

Union members were stunned by the upset. For hours, they had pleaded with the council to delay putting the arbitration and pension measures on the ballot until the council, unions and community could study the issues further.

"This was an object lesson in how to make bad law," said Jody Meacham, spokesman for the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council. The measures, he said following the meeting, "have been cooked up in a hurry and will be presented to voters as some sort of solution to the city's budget problems. Nobody knows if they are solutions or if they create more problems."

Meaning if the unions lose the vote, they'll sue. The mindset of public employees in this country seems to be "I don't care if city, town or state X goes broke, I better get mine".

Finally from the City of Angels. From the LA Times:

The cost of retirement benefits for Los Angeles city employees will grow by $800 million over the next five years, dramatically eroding the amount of money available for public services to taxpayers, according to a report issued Tuesday.
By 2015, nearly 20% of the city's general fund budget is expected to go toward the retirement costs of police officers and firefighters, who now have an average retirement age of 51. The figure was 8% last year.

Once civilian employees are factored in, nearly a third of the city's general fund could be consumed by retirement costs by 2015, Santana said.

"For every dollar you're paying into your pension systems, you're not paying into libraries, parks and various other city services," Santana told the council.

Shortly after Santana's presentation, the council voted to study the possibility of using employee-managed 401(k) investment plans — long favored by private industry — to provide a portion of the city's retirement benefits.

Representatives of the city's public safety unions warned officials not to rush to judgment on fixes to the pension problem.

"I highly recommend that we go very slow on this issue," said Peter Repovich, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file officers. "It seems there's a lot of group-think going on across the state and the nation" on the issue.

The taxpayers across this nation simply can't afford the outsized paychecks and pensions that public unions have negotiated with elected officials that they largely helped put in office in the first place. For good and for ill, California sets trends for the rest of our nation. Here's hoping that the days of public union employess being untouchable end and that the latest $26 billion bailout for states to ensure full employment for public sector unions is the last.

The days of politicians and unions playing "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" at the expense of the taxpayer are going to come to an end; it's just a question of how and when because the current path is "unsustainable".

34 to O

The voters of the Missouri, our 34th state, told President Obama exactly what they think of his idea of health care "reform". Here's how the NRSC framed the results:

Show Me State voters also approved Proposition C — which attempts to shield Missourians from the Washington Democrats’ mandate to buy ObamaCare — by a massive 71-29 margin. Recent surveys show that 61 percent of Missourians oppose the Democrats’ recent health care law.

What is the President's reaction to such a lopsided result on his policies?

Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: "Nothing."

When you lose a vote 71-29 and you claim not to care you either:

1) really don't care what the American people want

or

2) are scared witless and aren't honest enough to admit that your signature legislation was a terrible mistake

Frankly, I'm surprised the White House didn't take the opportunity to chastize Missourians for running up the score.

The Race Card, Politics At Its Worst

Now that the bogus effort to label the tea party movement as "racist" has been exposed time and again as lies. The left has decided their new tack is going to be we knew it was false, but it was good politics. Here's what Mary Frances Berry wrote to Politico:

“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

If journalists ever become interested in learning what really drives the tea party movement, they should check out this poll by Scott Rasmussen:

In official Washington, there appears to be a belief that policy makers must choose between helping the economy or reducing spending and deficits. A number of polling companies have even asked questions on the trade-off.

However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters believe increased government spending is good for the economy. Fifty-two percent (52%) believe increased government spending is bad for the economy, while 12% say it has no impact. Eight percent (8%) are not sure.

This suggests that for 72% of voters, asking about a trade-off between cutting spending and helping the economy doesn't make sense. A look at the demographics shows that the trade-off makes sense for only one group-- the Political Class. Among that group, 67% believe increased government spending would be good for the economy.

In a nutshell, there is a severe disconnect between the people and those in power on what is best for our country. President Obama's policies, not the color of his skin is the driving factor behind America's awakening.

Dems Playing "Chicken" With Taxpayers

From the Washington Post:

"After 18 months of runaway spending, bailouts and takeovers, Washington Democrats are poised to allow the largest tax increase in American history to take effect next year," Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), a member of the GOP leadership, said Saturday in the party's weekly radio address. "House Republicans will oppose this tax increase with everything we've got."

The Democrats are more interested in playing the class warfare card in the upcoming elections than doing their jobs.

This blows a hole in their argument that they're deficit hawks. They're not deficit hawks; they're deficit chickens," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is tasked with defending the party's House majority.

Political posturing aside, the difference between extending all the Bush tax cuts and just those the Dems claim apply to the "middle class" is $600 billion over ten years. This is hardly chump change, but when Democrats are running up a deficit of $1.47 trillion this year alone they can hardly sell themselves as competent stewards of our nation.

Besides, lost in the dems demogogic rhetoric is the fact that many of the "rich" they are planning to soak are small business owners:

Republicans say the tax cuts are critical to bolstering a feeble economic recovery. And with unemployment at 9.5 percent, even some Democrats are queasy about raising taxes on high earners -- a category that includes many small-business owners -- when policymakers are trying to encourage them to create jobs.

When the Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, Conrad (D-ND) isn't drinking the class warrior Kool-Aid, President Obama has a messaging problem.

When you add the Democrats willingness to see taxes rise and their promise to address the recommendations of the president's deficit commission in a lame duck session taxpayers are about to be hit with a one-two punch:

Obama debt commission member, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, launched a scary trial balloon on ABC News. Gregg suggested the debt commission will likely recommend a massive $26.7 trillion tax increase.

From "Hope" to "It Could Be Worse", Yes He Did

Congressional Democrats are undoubtedly walking around with a newfound swagger today. The political strategists in the White House have finally settled on the message to save their House and Senate majorities: "It could be worse". First they invented the nigh impossible to verify or refute metric of jobs "created or saved" and now this. They deserve every taxpayer penny they get paid. Republicans simply can't match the Wile E Coyote caliber intellects of Axelrod, Gibbs and the rest of the White House message machine. Just look at how easily any Republican argument can be dismissed:

1)Unemployment is 9.5%, under-employment tops 20%- "It could be worse"

2)The budget deficit is $1.47 trillion- "It could be worse"

3)4 out of 5 jobs "created or saved" by the $862 billion stimulus were government jobs, leaving a private sector jobs deficit of 7 million- "It could be worse"

4)The $862 billion borrowed to pay for the stimulus that didn't stimulate won't be paid back until the year 2130- "It could be worse"

5)Our national debt will top $18.5 trillion by 2020- "It could be worse"

6)Taxpayer funded bailouts reach $3.7 trillion- "It could be worse"

7)Small businesses are about to get hammered by massive tax increases- "It could be worse"

8)Over half of Americans will lose their current health insurance due to "health care reform"- "It could be worse"

Etc.etc..

Forget the concept of the "teflon presidency", we are witnessing the dawn of the "I'm rubber and you're glue presidency". Republicans need to run focus groups of pre-K tots immediately to find a way to counter this brilliance, or risk seeing their dreams of electoral success turn into the nightmare of epic defeat this November.

LiveShot Says "Only Peasants Pay Taxes"

From the Herald:

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I

Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven - like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau - for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners?

Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

Plus

Isabel - Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage - was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.

Senator Kerry I get that you and the Mrs. wanted to avoid a hefty tax bill. Who wouldn't? But you ran for president demonizing companies that were "shipping jobs overseas" and you have your yacht built in New Zealand. You couldn't find a single shipyard in the U.S. that could build your pleasure boat and put some Americans to work? There is a reason that sailing trophy is called the America's Cup, we have a rich heritage of building the best boats in the world.

Now maybe the Herald is missing a major scoop here and you are planning to relocate to Newport permanently. After all, now that you lost the fight to keep Cape Wind from being built and the views in Nantucket sound will soon be despoiled, it's time to find a more pristine sailing locale. Or maybe you're growing bored coasting to re-election every six years and you believe a primary fight with "Big Sheldon" Whitehouse is just the ticket to get your mojo back?

However,if you plan on staying in MA pay your "fair share".

Daily News Calls Out Governor Patrick

To the editors' of the Newburyport Daily News, welcome to the fight.

Some excerpts:

Gov. Deval Patrick filed a bill last week seeking $28.5 million to cover appropriations for the fiscal year that just ended on June 30. It is intended to cover a variety of things, including summer jobs and the settlement of various claims. But it also includes $9.5 million to fund more than 30 collective bargaining agreements.

and

This comes on the heels of the governor backing a project labor agreement for the $750 million rehabilitation of the University of Massachusetts Boston campus. The agreement requires the use of union labor in exchange for the unions agreeing not to strike while the work is under way. But it is expected to add as much as $100 million to what it would cost if it were put out to truly competitive bidding.

Read the whole thing http://www.newburyportnews.com/opinion/x536265353/Governor-sends-wrong-message

Going Green and Bust

President Obama went to Holland, Michigan yesterday to promote another "green economy" project funded by stimulus cash. A South Korean company is receiving $151 million taxpayer dollars to build a factory that will one day hopefully employ 300 in the manufacture of batteries for electric cars. That's $500,000 per job, which for this administration is small potatoes. The Obama administration's bequeath of
$1.45 billion to Abengoa Solar is expected to create only 85 permanent jobs. Michael Graham did the math and came up with $17 million per job for that foray into creating a new economy.

Using taxpayer funds to remake an economy has been tried in Spain with disastrous results:

As for Spain's vaunted "Green Jobs program" a study by Dr. Gabriel Cardoza has found that for every green job created 2.2 jobs have been lost. Of those green jobs 2/3 were only temporary, mainly in installation and construction.

True to form in the greening of our economy, Heritage takes a look at the effects of Sec. Salazar's ban on drilling:

Heritage analyst David Kreutzer has crunched the numbers and found that a full Obama administration ban on all offshore drilling would be absolutely devastating to the U.S. economy. Between now and 2035, an offshore drilling ban would: 1) reduce GDP by $5.5 trillion; 2) reduce job growth by more than 1 million jobs by 2015 and more than 1.5 million jobs by 2030; and 3) increase the total expenditures for imported oil by nearly $737 billion.

Congress isn't about to leave all the fun in regulating our way to a new and improved economy to the Obama administration. While Cap and Trade may be dead, Harry Reid is introducing its ugly stepsister on July 26th. John Kerry's bill is being replaced by Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) renewable electricity standard legislation (RES), which is simply CAP without the Trade. Heritage explores what it will mean if passed:

RES would: 1) raise electricity prices by 36 percent for households and 60 percent for industry; 2) cut national income (GDP) by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035; 3) cut national income by $2,400 per year for a family of four; 4) reduce employment by more than 1,000,000 jobs; and 5) add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035.

The Green/Progressive dream of using economic policy to punish the use of fossil fuels and promote more expensive, less efficient, but "greener" technologies will cripple our economy. In essence, they are adopting the policy of the officer that insisted during the Vietnam War that "we had to destroy the village in order to save it". I hope the Obama administration and Congress come to their senses and follow the sage advice of former President George HW Bush as channeled by Dana Carvey "The first lesson of Vietnam. No more Vietnams" before too much damage is done.

If Vietnam references are too dated and President Obama has his mind set on following a Spanish model; I suggest that instead of emulating the policies of Mr. Zapatero's socialist government that have his country mired at 20% unemployment and facing bankruptcy, that he just follow Penelope Cruz on Twitter.

Pawlenty's Principles

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty takes to the pages of Politico to instruct President Obama and Congressional Democrats in the ways of fiscal accountability:

1. Set clear priorities but cut almost everything else. Not everything government does is equally important. When faced with a budget shortfall in Minnesota, we considered the importance of programs. We decided to protect funding for the most important ones: the National Guard, veterans’ support programs, public safety and K-12 schools.

2. Reform out-of-control entitlements. By far, the biggest long-term driver of the federal debt is entitlement spending, including Social Security and Medicare. These programs are going to have to be changed. And despite Beltway rhetoric, it can be done.

3. Sacrifice. Americans have sacrificed enough; it’s time for government to sacrifice for a change. When Washington Democrats talk about balancing the budget, they speak gravely about painful choices and sacrifice — but what they mean is tax increases. In other words, we sacrifice so they can spend.

Read the whole thing: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39674.html

Republicans could do much worse than Mr. Pawlenty as our nominee in 2012.

"Recovery Summer" Flops, Jobless Hardest Hit

It seems fitting that President Obama signed "financial reform" into law and the US Senate belatedly passed another extension of unemployment benefits on the same day. Because what the Democrats are doing in Washington D.C. is hurting economic recovery rather than helping foster growth. It's tempting to compare their actions to those of BP in the Gulf; just as folks in the Gulf states' are forced to subsist on checks from BP because of its negligence, the unemployed rely on checks from a federal government whose policies have kept them jobless. Business leaders are trying to communicate to the Obama White House that it's the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda that's the problem, not evil corporations who put greed and profits before people. They began their efforts last week.

Wall St. Journal

Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Federation of Independent Businesses will air a list of concerns about government policy at a "Jobs for America Summit" at the Chamber's offices Wednesday.

The Chamber will issue an open letter to President Barack Obama asking that the administration cut taxes, act on pledges to expand export markets, and streamline government rules, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

On the regulatory front, "What we're looking at here is a tsunami of regulations coming online slowly because of legislation that has either been enacted or legislation that people expect in some form will be enacted," said Bruce Josten, the chamber's chief lobbyist.

The letter points out that the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with 29 major economic rules (a major rule would have an impact on the economy of at least $100 million) and 173 major policy rules.

Legislation overhauling financial-markets regulation now nearing passage in Congress would create more than 350 rule makings, 47 studies and 74 reports.

"You can find in these numbers a principal reason why businesses are so reluctant to make investments," the letter reads.

"Investments" is another way of saying "we won't be hiring anytime soon".These entreaties fell on deaf ears. So today business leaders took their concerns to Politico, which unlike that mouthpiece for capitalist dogs Journal, the White House views favorably.

Politico:

Corporate executives counter that the market recovery began as a result of a bank bailout that predates Obama and that the bulk of corporate profits in recent quarters have come not from business expansion but from massive layoffs and cost cutting.

And they do not see a friendly environment for job creation ahead, citing a possible credit crunch and an exploding budget deficit saddled by more health care spending.

“What I think bothers businesspeople is, they feel like they have a multitude of new regulations to comply with, and now they have to hire compliance experts and lawyers and other cost-generating personnel rather than revenue-generating workers,” said Scott Shay, chairman of Signature Bank, which has $10 billion in assets and serves companies in the New York metro area.

“When the devil is in the details, when you are dealing with a lot of new regulation at a time when we desperately need to be [generating] revenue-creating jobs rather than cost-center jobs, it causes concern. I hear it time and time again: ‘Give us broad rules, but don’t micromanage us like this.’”

and

“There is still a great deal of anxiety over the demonization of business, and it is a serious problem” for Obama, said Mort Zuckerman, the billionaire chairman of Boston Properties and owner of the New York Daily News, who has long supported Democrats.

Executives “really feel there is a deliberate attempt, as a populist political measure, to blame the business world for all the problems we have been having, when, in reality, the housing bubble was provoked by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And it wasn’t business or the public that lowered interest rates and created the credit bubble. It was the Federal Reserve.”

American companies are collectively sitting on $1.8 trillion and with unemployment at 9.5%, the White House needs a target for voters to blame, instead of Congressional Democrats. The problem is, it's not only big business that is refusing to put out the Help Wanted signs.

From Reuters:

Small businesses grew more pessimistic about their economic outlook in June in the face of weak sales and political uncertainty, the National Federal of Independent Businesses said on Tuesday.

The NFIB's monthly survey of members showed the small business optimism index fell by 3.2 points in June, dipping to 89, after posting several months of gains.

"Seventy percent of the decline this month resulted from a deterioration in the outlook for business conditions and real sales gains," the NFIB survey concluded. The report is based on 805 responses to a random survey of NFIB members.

"The performance of the economy is mediocre at best, given the extent of the decline over the past two years," the NFIB survey concluded. "Pent-up demand should be immense, but it is not triggering a rapid pickup in economic activity."

Very few small businesses plan to create new jobs, according to respondents. The survey showed that only 10 percent of firms plan new hiring, that is down 4 points from May, the NFIB said. About 8 percent of firms plan to reduce their workforce, up one point from the previous month, the group said.

If you prefer visuals, this graph shows how the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda is redefining the term "jobless recovery". Actually, they are doing their best to bring the terms "double-dip recession" and "stagflation" back into vogue.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/the-scariest-unemployment-graph-ive-seen-yet/60086/

Miscarriage At Justice

This is the fellow that had his case dropped, after it had been won by Eric Holder's cronies in the Justice Department.

The Democrats in Congress refuse to investigate the dismissal of charges against the members of the New Black Panther Party. Until Republicans take back at least one house of Congress the rampant politicization of the Justice Department under Eric Holder and by extension President Obama will go unpunished. Just like the members of the New Black Panther Party.

Deroy Murdock encapsulates the case well:

When they ignored late-term Bush administration charges of Voting Rights Act violations, federal district judge Stewart Dalzell issued a default ruling against Shabazz, Jackson, the New Black Panther Party, and its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz (no relation to the other Shabazz). Although career federal prosecutors won this case (arguing, among other things, that “There is never a good reason to bring a billy club to a polling station”), they were overruled by political appointees in Obama’s Justice Department who ordered them to dismiss the complaints against all parties except King Samir Shabazz. He was ordered not to exhibit a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia precinct through Nov. 15, 2012. Pittsburgh seems fair game.

The May 15, 2009 case dismissal was timed perfectly for Jerry Jackson. During the 2008 incident, he was an elected member of Philadelphia’s 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. With the federal case safely behind him, Jackson watched the polls again in municipal elections on May 19, 2009.

Tax Hikes For All

Calling for a "rollback" of the tax cuts for "the wealthy" has been a populist mantra for President Obama and his allies in Congress. As with much of our president's rhetoric, the gulf between his promises and reality is rather wide. The truth is that come January most Americans, not just the rich, will see their taxes increase. The folks at smartmoney.com have looked at what will happen when the tax cuts expire:

You may have been led to believe that only individuals in the top two brackets will face higher federal income taxes when the Bush cuts go bye-bye. Not true!Just a few months ago, it seemed like a safe bet that Congress would make a fix to keep the existing 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% rate brackets to help out lower and middle-income folks. That bet is now looking iffy.

Are you married? Your taxes are going up. A senior citizen with investment income? Your taxes are going up.

Their bottom line:

The Bush tax cuts don't just offer tax relief to the wealthiest Americans. They offer it to just about anyone who pays federal income taxes.

The Democrat majorities in Congress aren't simply contenting themselves by letting tax cuts expire, they are seeking new ways to tax the American public. The borrow and spend spree they have been on since January 09 is just the beginning of their plans for an ever bigger government. When President Obama came to office our national debt equaled 40% of our Gross Domestic Product(GDP), at the end of this year it will be 62%. The president's budget blueprint calls for increasing the debt by a further $10-12 trillion over the next ten years. To pay for all this spending the Democrats have floated two ideas to find the revenue to pay for a government as big as their dreams.

The first is to enact a value added tax(VAT). This tax is very popular in Europe because being based on consumption, it's paid by rich and poor alike. Dictionary.com has the following definition for VAT:

a tax levied at each addition of value in the processing of a raw material, the performance of a service, or the production and distribution of a commodity with each payer except the consumer reimbursed from payment at the next stage.

Their latest brainstorm has been dubbed the ATM tax.This is from The Hill newspaper:

One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His “Debt Free America Act” (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent “transaction tax” on every financial transaction — whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day — whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal.

The Democrats are pushing this idea because it would represent a revenue bonanza for big government.

Using 2008 numbers as an example: There was $755 trillion in total transactions that year. If you deduct the exempted $312 million in stock transactions, that leaves $443trillion in new revenues

What it means for Americans is a quadruple tax whammy. Not only will your income taxes increase, you'll be taxed an extra 1% on what's left when you deposit your paycheck. Also, thanks to the VAT, everything you buy: food, shelter, transportation etc. will cost more, plus the 1% transaction tax.

President Obama promised to "spread the wealth around", but what he's doing with the aid of Congress is to spread the debt around. Very soon, it will be the incomes of the working and middle classes as well as the poor that gets "redistributed" to Washington D.C. along with those of the rich.

Speaker Pelosi is planning a very busy lame duck session after November's election. Every member of Congress, whether they are on the ballot this Fall or not, should answer if they support passage of the VAT and ATM taxes.

The Prez Gets His Ration-Man

President Obama, complaining about phantom efforts to stall Dr. Berwick's appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) simply installed him to the post while the Senate is out of town for two weeks. It isn't just Republicans that are outraged by the president's maneuver.

"I'm troubled that, rather than going through the standard nomination process, Dr. Berwick was recess-appointed," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat. The Senate confirmation process, he added, is a check on executive power and "ensures that crucial questions are asked of the nominee - and answered."

The truth is that Republicans were pushing for a nomination hearing for Dr. Berwick, it was the Democrats that were stalling. They were stalling to keep the American people in the dark about the policies Dr. Berwick advocates and that their "health care reform" will make inevitable.

Dr. Berwick's views:

In 2009 Dr. Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare: "NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious and valuable knowledge-building system. ... The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

NICE is the rationing board in Britain's National Health Service. He goes on to explain why a rationed system is superior to our market-based model:

“Please don’t put your faith in market forces,” he said (italics in original). “It’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers choosing among an array of products, with competitors fighting it out, leads to the healthcare system you want and need. In the US, competition is a major reason for our duplicative, supply driven, fragmented care system.”

Berwick argued that purposely provided an inadequate supply of health-care—as Britain’s health-care system does—is superior to allowing the market to provide an excess.

“In America, the best predictor of cost is supply; the more we make, the more we use—hospi­tal beds, consultancy services, procedures, diagnostic tests,” Dr. Berwick wrote. “… Here, you choose a harder path. You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too lit­tle of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them.”

What results can we expect from intentionally limiting the supply of health care?

Britain, has one of the lowest cancer survival rates in the Western world. While 60.3% of men and 61.7% of women in Sweden survive a cancer diagnosis, in Britain the figure ranges between 40.2% to 48.1% for men and 48% to 54.1% for women. And NICE's rationing has not just hit cancer patients. Doctors have warned that patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under the NHS rationing scheme. And according to the Patients Association, one million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain.

Considering his championing of NICE's rationing policies, Dr. Berwick is the perfect person to supervise the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare that are mandated by our new health care law. It's a shame that Democrats by avoiding an open debate about the effects of their takeover of our health care system are keeping the American people in the dark.

Seniors should know that in Obama's America you better not get sick, because to paraphrase the Soup Nazi, "No medical care for You!".

Mission Creep At NASA

Does President Obama see America going back to the Moon? Nope. Mars? Nope. NASA's new mission is to make Muslims feel good about themselves:

“When I became the NASA administrator, [Obama] charged me with three things,” NASA head Charles Bolden said in a recent interview with the Middle Eastern news network al-Jazeera. “One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”

Unbelievable.

In Saudi Arabia women are prohibited from driving a car, much less a space shuttle. Since President Obama wants NASA to stop sending men and women into space anyway, I guess we've already adopted Saudi policy.

Happy Independence Day

Silent Cal's take on the meaning of The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. For a man of few words, he could let it rip when inspired.

Speech on the Occasion of the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Calvin Coolidge
July 5, 1926
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgement of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience.

It is not so much then for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.

It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.

We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.

While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.

This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents, which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.

When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the admiration and reverence of humanity. There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.

It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be under-estimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.

The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.

But if these truths to which the declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirety by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker of Connecticut as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that--

"The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people"

"The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God�s own allowance."

This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise, entitled "The Church�s Quarrel Espoused," in 1710, which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.

While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise, It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch-Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his "best ideas of democracy" had been secured at church meetings.

That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that "All men are created equally free and independent." It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, "Every man must be acknowledged equal to every man." Again, "The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth . . . ." And again, "For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine." And still again, "Democracy is Christ�s government in church and state." Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed stated by Hooker as early as 1638.

When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature�s God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say "The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."

No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government--the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that "Democracy is Christ�s government." The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.

On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.

It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook the balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guaranties of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever-broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.