The strategy should be pro-state rights

The Republicans lost badly in the 2004 and 2008 elections, handing the Democrats control of Congress and the White House. The likes of Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) dictate the legislative agenda, and a president with socialist ideology sits in the Oval Office. There was much soul searching post-elections, and even to this day some say that the Republican Party is still wandering the wilderness.

Blame Bush? Blame the media? Blame Sarah Palin? Blame disillusioned conservatives? Blame black voters? Blame young voters? Blame ACORN? Blame Iraq? ...

There's plenty of blame go go around. But as the saying goes, whenever you point a finger at somebody, three fingers are pointing at yourself.

Republican political strategists are pulling their hairs out trying to find the solution to a hard-to-define problem. Is it attracting more voters across all demographics? Or is it galvanizing the base? Or re-evaluating the overall Republican message? Or all of the above and then some...?

In light of President Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget, nationalization policies, and bankrupting America, concerned citizens have spoken out on the Internet and at Tax Day Tea Parties. Although the mainstream media paints a picture of a rightwing, conservative only movement, that is not the case. Many Obama voters are showing remorse, but you're not going to see that on CNN or MSNBC. There has been many cases of such past Obama supporters calling into conservative talk shows voicing their regret for casting a ballot for Obama.

This is not about anti-Bush and pro-Obama anymore. As our financial and automobile industries crumble in front of our eyes and our neighbors lose their jobs and homes, Americans understand that we are in a time of crisis. The majority of citizens are looking for help, not handouts, but the federal government is forcing handouts down our throats whether we like it or not. The W.H. and Congress is sending money to states with strings attached, enslaving the cash-strapped states. Bank and automaker executives are getting handpicked by the administration. Favors are still shown to stubborn unions in the midst of the turmoil.

The root cause of this unprecedented expansion of the federal government is clear: the blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution by shameless politicians.

Therefore, there is a simple and coherent message the Republican Party can adopt: state rights. Review the Tenth Amendment again and study it carefully:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Washington today has lost sight of this important amendment to secure federalism principles. Congress has morphed into an unsightly assembly of ignorant, power-hungry politicians with only one thing in their minds: votes for re-election to stay in power. Laws are drafted and passed without respect to the Constitution. Think about it -- the federal government now has control over our labor, wages, retirement, education, drugs, firearms, and even entertainment!

But there seems to be hope and the tides are turning, beginning with Montana's law exempting federal jurisdiction over firearms manufactured and used within the state stamped with "Made In Montana." The law stipulates that because these firearms never leave Montana, it is not interstate commerce by nature and therefore free of federal rules. Certainly a logical and valid point, but it's sure to be tested in court. Montana has definitely made a splash about state rights, and other states like Texas, Alaska, and Utah are following suit.

Can you imagine if all 50 state legislatures pass a similar law? That would significantly limit the federal government's control of our right to bear arms and send a strong message to Washington that people are serious about the federal government meddling in their affairs.

The consequences will have profound effects and the potential to redefine the political landscape. State rights is a cause worthy of the Republican Party's attention. After all, to paraphrase President Reagan, government is the problem not the solution. The only solution is for the states to reign in Washington.

It is a concise message that people will understand. The federal government's powers are derived by the state and its people, not the other way around! Without the states there is no United States government. The Republicans need to work with all state legislatures to find kinks in this federal armor. Any Republican up for re-election needs to campaign on the message of state rights. Most voters only go to the polls once every four years to pick a president and don't quite understand how Washington works, but state politics hit closer to home and are easier to identify with. It is also a strategy that'll attract independent voters: let the state decide on the major issues instead of relying on Washington.

Will the Republicans embrace such a game plan? Is the party leadership still struggling to find footing? The great state of Montana and its people have already stepped up to face the challenge. The GOP should mobilize its resources to get more traction and preferably make a noise that the Obama administration and Congress cannot ignore.

More about the unconstitutional bailout legislation

There has been a lot of interest in the constitutionality of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) and the TARP funds. I see a lot of Internet searches about this. George Will has a very good piece in the Washington Post about this topic:

By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law. Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators. Congress said to the executive branch, in effect: "Here is $700 billion. You say you will use some of it to buy up banks' 'troubled assets.' But if you prefer to do anything else with the money -- even, say, subsidize automobile companies -- well, whatever."

FreedomWorks, a Washington-based libertarian advocacy organization, argues that EESA violates "the nondelegation doctrine." Although the text does not spell it out, the Constitution's logic and structure -- particularly the separation of powers -- imply limits on the size and kind of discretion that Congress may confer on the executive branch.

One of the beauties of the U.S. Constitution is separation of the three branches of power: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. With EESA, Congress is giving the president unconstitutional powers by allowing him to write the specifics of the law, i.e. how the money is to be appropriated. That should be Congress' job!

Taxpaying citizens like you and I ought to be enraged by this! It's evident that we have a lazy Congress bowing to the demands of a fear-mongering President. And now the next two or more generations of Americans are to pay for the astronomical debt -- bought up by the billions by Communist China. The consequences of ignoring the Constitution is grave...

Not good for Obama: Even the NYT mentions 'Katrina' and 'Obama' in the same sentence

An NYT op-ed calls it Obama's "Katrina moment." Not a good sign at all.

As much as author Frank Rich gives readers a good run-down of the events leading to the current circus (with clowns Tim Geithner, Jay Leno, Edward Liddy, Chris Dodd, and President Obama himself), he ultimately shows his liberal side:

As the nation’s anger rose last week, the president took responsibility for what’s happening on his watch — more than he needed to, given the disaster he inherited. But in the credit mess, action must match words. To fall short would be to deliver us into the catastrophic hands of a Republican opposition whose only known economic program is to reject job-creating stimulus spending and root for Obama and, by extension, the country to fail. With all due deference to Ponzi schemers from Madoff to A.I.G., this would be the biggest outrage of them all.

Yes, beware of the evil Republicans and their rejection of massive government spending to create jobs! Of course, the truth is we don't need more government jobs. We need jobs in the private sector, and President Obama and his Democrats' spending binge does not help businesses create jobs.

More so, conservatives and Republicans are not rooting for Obama's failure! We all want a strong and free America. What we want to see fail are Obama's over-the-top spending bills! History has shown that we simply cannot spend our way out of this recession. Congressional Republicans have made their stand against these spending bills, but they are still passed because of the Democrats' majority.

Nobody to blame but the Democrats

How many Republicans voted for the stimulus bill? None.

Now it's widely known that the multi-billion dollar stimulus bill contains verbiage to allow executives to keep their bonuses, it's time for the Democrats to be accountable.

The bill is 1,000 pages or so, and granted, some honest Democrats admitted they didn't read over the whole thing. But then there are lawmakers like Dina Titus (D-NV) who was either too embarrassed to admit to that, or she did in fact read every page and allowed the executive bonus provision to pass.

Either way, the Democrats and the Democrats only are on the hook for this. And now they want to pass a bill to tax these bonus recipients at 90%. Clearly, they admit to their incompetency by even drafting the CYA bill.

This is how our legislative branch works now? Take no time to review and debate a bill, pass it in a hurry, and if lawmakers don't like something in it just write up another bill to make things OK?

What a sorry state our Congress has become, especially those in power.

Congress passes law to tax TARP company execs

In the latest development stemming from the AIG executive compensation mess, Congress passes a bill to tax at a higher rate of executives and employees of companies receiving TARP funds. The Democrats are eager to clean up this mess, therefore wasting no time to draft this legislation and put it to a vote.

But aside from the glaring tactic of political distraction, this piece of legislation should be a cause of concern for everyday Americans. Congress is essentially wearing the hat of a judge, determining who is guilty, and using confiscatory tax rates as punishment.

Andrew Grossman at The Heritage Foundation has a very good analysis:

Whether the legislation before Congress is a bill of attainder, and therefore unconstitutional, is a difficult question not susceptible to any certain answer under existing judicial precedent. But whatever the answer, the legislation does raise strong constitutional concerns animated by the purposes of the prohibition on bills of attainders. The legislation (H.R. 1586), as introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel (D–NY), would apply to income received in 2009 and thereafter by employees of companies receiving more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds, as well as to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill defines a new class of income, "TARP Bonus," that consists of any compensation payments in excess of a periodic wage and any income for such employees in excess of $250,000, or $125,000 for married individuals filing separate returns. Under the legislation, any "TARP Bonus" would be taxed at a 90 percent rate.

Article I, § 9, of the Constitution states: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." The prohibition has several purposes. First, it enforces the Constitution's separation of powers, thereby protecting individual rights. The judiciary, not the legislature, is the branch that judges the application of the law to specific individuals and entities, resolving the disputes before it on an individualized basis and ensuring that each case is afforded due process. For Congress to adjudge specific parties guilty and due certain punishment would necessarily intrude on this power. The result, as the Framers well knew from the country's colonial experience, would be legislative tyranny: Britain's parliament regularly enacted laws naming or describing particular individuals and sentencing them to death for some asserted infraction, usually treason.

And that's just the start. Read the whole thing... Congress may be crossing its boundaries here.

Enemy combatants coming to a neighborhood near you

Attorney General Eric Holder says to expect some suspected terrorists in your friendly neighborhood:

Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners.

Mr. Holder, in a briefing with reporters, said administration officials are still reviewing individual cases of the approximately 250 detainees to determine which will be put on trial and which may be released to comply with plans to close the detention facility by next year.

Get that warm and fuzzy feeling about your government yet? I bet somewhere in Congress there's a Democrat thinking up a bill to provide government-subsidized foreclosed housing to these detainees, and wrap that in a fancy economic stimulus package.

Actually, I have no problem with this if these Gitmo detainees are released into the neighborhoods of Pelosi, Reid, etc.

More calls for Geithner's resignation

First, it was Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL). Now Rep. Derrell Issa (R-CA) also calling for the Treasury Secretary's resignation:

“As one of the chief architects of the AIG bailout, Secretary Geithner was in a position to do what any lender of the last resort would do – negotiate concessions from AIG. Secretary Geithner either didn’t know about the bonuses, and was grossly negligent, or he did know and failed to bring this to the President’s attention. Either way, the end result has been a significant waste of taxpayer dollars and he should take immediate responsibility and resign.”

I have the feeling that there will be more...

Spending $900B without knowing the details

The 1,071-page stimulus bill is up for a final vote in Congress, yet it's unlikely that any Congressman and Senator would have the chance to read the whole document before taking action. In fact, these politicians even agreed to delay the publication of the bill on the Internet to be searched by everyone.

Congress gives itself a raise

Unbelievable.

While members of Congress give themselves a $4,700 raise, or $2.8 million from taxpayers, their constituents are living in the real world of frozen credits, tumbled stocks, devalued homes, and unemployment.

These politicians are lecturing the auto companies about executive compensation and corporate jets?!

Move over, Messiah, make room for the Prophet Dean

For a party that attracts atheists and non-religious folks, the liberal Democrats sure have a way of deifying their leaders. Barack "The One"/"The Messiah" Obama came first, and now Ari Berman of The Nation writes about Howard "The Prophet" Dean.

Sure, DNC Chairman Dean should get credit for his 50-state strategy to regain power, first in the legislative branch, and then the executive. In 2006 under his leadership Democrats became the majority in both houses of Congress. That momentum helped Obama win the general election by capturing battleground states like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina, along with several western states.

However, Berman attributes the Democratic resurgence from "Bush's remarkable mishandling of the country's domestic and foreign policies" simply makes him sound like a liberal talking head. Congress turned blue because of Republican politicians leaving their conservative roots and ignoring their warnings, and the fact that these politicians enjoyed having power for so long brewed corruption. Corruption brought down the Congressional Republicans. Poor economy hurt McCain's White House bid.

Dean isn't a prophet for coming up with a winning strategy. He's just like Karl "The Architect" Rove.

Impeachment to save the economy?

For some people BDS is deeply ingrained in their soul that nothing will cure them. That's the only way I know to describe Rochelle Riley after reading her article in the Detroit Free Press. She's even turning against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and idolizing socialist Rep. Dennis Kucinich, calling him "the bravest member of Congress." Of course, she has to sneak in a wise remark that President Bush "could also pardon every appointee and employee he has ever had -- and their dogs." With reporters like Riley, who needs cartoonists?

Instead of Congress and the White House focusing on the economic crisis at hand, Riley would rather see lawmakers debate and push for an impeachment. Go right ahead. Never mind that the Democrat controlled Congress has an approval rating lower than the President. Voters would love their representatives to argue about President Bush's "crimes" while losing their homes, retirement savings, and jobs. The Democrat Party ought to pick her as a strategist!

Is TARP constitutional?

The Trouble Asset Relief Program was passed by Congress and signed into law to thaw the credit crisis. At least that was its initial plan. But in reality the law gave much broader authority to the Treasury Secretary in using TARP funds, some hundreds of billions of dollars. In drafting the legislation, members of Congress met with Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke to learn more about the problem. It was evident that either Paulson and Bernanke weren't able to adequately explain the situation, or lawmakers had no intention of fully understanding the crisis. The bill was passed within a few days, amid some lawmakers' admission of not really knowing what's going on, but "something had to be done."

George Will writes in Newsweek:

John Locke's "Second Treatise of Civil Government" (1609), which deeply influenced America's Founders, says: "The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others." And: "The power of the legislative ... being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands."

But that is essentially what TARP has done. It has made Treasury Department bureaucrats into legislators; or perhaps it has made Secretary Hank Paulson the fourth branch of government...

Our lawmakers sort of gave up on learning in detail about the crisis, and just lazily pressed for a vote on TARP. They threw up their arms and decided that letting the Treasury do all the work would be easier. And look at the situation now: more bailouts, more companies and municipalities asking for monetary aid, and more uncertainty from Paulson and Bernanke.

Can there be change in public education?

The economy has trumped other issues in being the central focus of Congress, the outgoing administration, and the incoming administration. Nobody is talking about the sad state of public education. Yet education is one issue that both political parties claim to care about, and an issue that has a generational impact.

Public schools in America are in trouble. Children are kept in underperforming schools. Ineffective teachers are keeping their jobs. The government keeps throwing money into the system, but improvements are hard to come by. Why?

With the Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, there is a golden opportunity for the party to tackle America's education problem, if the Democrats are willing to break some bad habits, mainly its close ties with the teachers' unions.

No love from anyone for Big Auto

Wow, even the Democrats are giving Big Auto a hard time! The CEOs have appeared before Congressmen to beg for a bailout loan to no avail. Then today the Democrats voted to oust John Dingell (D-Mich.) from chairmanship of the powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce, replaced by Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

Dingell was chairman for almost 28 years and one of Big Auto's best friends in Congress. His removal from the committee sends a clear signal that Pelosi and friends are ready to impose stricter regulations in the auto industry and align with the environmentalists. Rep. Waxman has always been a supporter of legislation to curb global warming, and this latest move in House politics will be welcomed by many environmentalists.

Obama wants to probe Bush, where's the change we can believe in?

Change we can believe in? Obama had just gotten a tour of his future White House home, and he's already talking to Congressional Democrats about investigating Bush and his administration of torturing terrorists. In anticipation of such actions by Democrats, Bush is readying a "blanket pardon" to all who were involved in the administration's interrogation policies. Such a pardon would be rare but completely legal under the Constitution.

I can understand if Obama wanted to pursue this when he's a senator. Now that he's president-elect and got elected on a "change" narrative, why can't he just let it go? It's just classless for an incoming president to plan such investigations of the outgoing president. What would it prove? It's just more of the same Washington partisanship and to an extent, political persecution.

Leftists will argue till their faces turn blue that there's nothing more sacred than human rights. Yes, it is true. But when a person's sole purpose in life is to blow up innocent people and destroy others' right to live, then that person is a criminal. And in our society, we want to stop criminals from harming others.

Can torture be allowed? Just imagine this scenario: A person in custody is known to have information pertaining to an attack which will kill your family and others. He remains tough and silent, unwilling to divulge that important piece of information. Wouldn't you do anything to try to extract that information from him in order to save your loved ones and many others?

To President Bush, his fellow countrymen are his family. Somehow I feel that President-elect Obama and his Democrats think their families share no ties with the rest of us...

Let's focus on 2010

I share the same sentiment as Patrick Ruffini. Stop worrying about the presidential election in 2012. The focus should be transforming Congress and state legislatures in 2010, and that will eventually bear fruit for the 2012 race.

Moderate House Democrats want leadership roles

It's not just the Republicans and conservatives who are worried about the gains liberal Democrats made in Congress. Moderate, or Blue Dog, Democrats are vying for committee leadership positions in a Pelosi-run House. They warn that if their voice is not respected, then there will be seats to lose in 2010.

What will Pelosi do? I think she's drunk with power and will ignore the Blue Dogs. Like many in the Democrat leadership, she sees her party's seat gains as a mandate to stride towards the left, quickly. If she's smart she'll heed to the moderate voices in the House. After all, there is another election in two years...

Rep. Rangel buried in tax problems

More tax troubles are brewing for Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) which prompted him to hire a new accountant to review his tax records for the past 20 years. He is being investigated by the ethics committee on unreported income and unpaid taxes on his beach house in the Dominican Republic. This is especially embarrassing for Rangel as he chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, a committee which is charged to guide new tax laws. Republicans have asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi to strip him of his committee chairmanship, but so far she's resisted. No surprise there as that committee is one of the most powerful on Capital Hill.

Even the New York Times is asking Rangel to step aside!

Palin boosting other GOP candidates

The addition of Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket is also improving Republican congressional candidates' numbers:

Republicans say the landscape has changed in the past few weeks, reflected by the party's improved standing in generic ballot tests. Through July, Democrats led the RCP Generic Congressional Average by 12 points. Today, that lead is down to 3.6 points.

Palin is probably the most important and impacting running mate in American history. The Democrats not only have to worry about the W.H. race, but now also in Congress. Their goal to expand their numbers in Congress may be in jeopardy.