WEISMAN: Obama Takes Aim at Republicans

JONATHAN WEISMAN

President Barack Obama, in a combative, campaign-like speech in Parma, Ohio, conceded that his policies have “fed the perception that Washington is still ignoring the middle class,” even as he castigated Republican opponents for “riding…fear and anger all the way to Election Day.”

The speech, at Cuyahoga Community College, was billed as a major economic address to unveil a new round of proposals to kick-start a flagging economic recovery. The president did introduce three new policy proposals the White House has been rolling out for nearly a week: $50 billion in additional infrastructure spending, a permanent and expanded research and experimentation tax credit and a measure allowing businesses to write 100% of their investment costs off their taxes through 2011.

But Mr. Obama’s speech was far more about politics than economics.

“If we’re willing again to choose hope over fear, to choose the future over the past, to come together once more around the great project of national renewal, then we will restore our economy, rebuild our middle class and reclaim the American dream for the next generation,” he said, striking the same cadences that buoyed his presidential bid.

He fell back on campaign themes that propelled his 2008 surge: his grandfather’s World War II fight, his father-in-law’s struggle to work with multiple sclerosis and his work “in the shadow of a shuttered steel plant on the South Side of Chicago.”

In a way he never has, the president singled out House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R., Ohio) repeatedly and by name, castigating him for proposing “the same [economic] philosophy that led to this mess in the first place. And he hit Republicans hard for opposing the administration’s economic policies.

“Instead of coming together like past generations did to build a better country for our children and grandchildren, their argument is that we should let insurance companies go back to denying care to folks that are sick, and let credit-card companies go back to raising rates without any reason. Instead of setting our sights higher, they’re asking us to settle for a status quo of stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness and a shrinking middle class,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Boehner countered with a proposal that he said should garner bipartisan support: Extend all of the tax cuts passed under George W. Bush for two years and cut spending on programs not tied to national security to 2008 levels.

“If we’re able to do this together, I think we’ll show the American people that we understand what’s going on in the country, and we’ll be able to get our economy moving again and get jobs growing in America,” Mr. Boehner said on ABC’s Good Morning America.

The president’s speech and a White House news conference on Friday will cap more than a week of headline-grabbing economic efforts at the White House. Administration officials say Mr. Obama has regained the initiative and has muted criticism even in his own party that he is not sufficiently focused on a job market stuck at 9.6% unemployment.

The policy proposals, thus far, have gained little traction. Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.), who is locked in a difficult election fight, said Wednesday, “I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package.” Such spending should come out of still-unused funds from last year’s stimulus law.

Democrats have expressed some disappointment in the president’s choice of proposals. In a speech Tuesday, Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania’s open Senate seat, said he welcomed Mr. Obama’s proposals, although he added they should have come 18 months ago.

“Why now? We’re doing it for the polls, we should be doing it because it’s the right thing to do,” he said in a speech on the economy at Carnegie Mellon University.

But Mr. Sestak’s top priority, a 15% payroll tax credit for small businesses, was rejected by the White House, as was a proposed payroll tax holiday for new hires that Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, another embattled Democrat, pressed on White House economist Larry Summers last Friday, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

“The rollout has not been good,” said a Democratic congressional campaign aide, who noted there was little coordination between the White House and congressional leaders.

But, the aide added, Mr. Obama’s combative tone—both Wednesday and at a Labor Day picnic Monday—has been helpful for Democrats, who are trying to turn the November midterms from a referendum on Democratic control in Washington to a choice between Democratic and Republican policy prescriptions.

For their part, Republicans were not dodging the charge that their responses to the president’s proposals have been a constant and resounding “no.”

Asked why Republicans should win in November, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a potential rival to Mr. Obama in 2012, said Republicans “in a very unified fashion have opposed bad policy. And the public appreciates it when a party fights against what it knows is bad policy.”

Read the original article OnlineWSJ

Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe predicts GOP will take over Senate

MICHAEL MCNUTT
Inhofe tells the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber that voters will sweep Republican senators into office after undergoing the “shock treatment” given the nation’s economy through policies enacted by the president and fellow Democrats.

Voters will respond to the “shock treatment” given by the president’s national economic policies by sweeping in enough Republicans in November to take over the U.S. Senate, Oklahoma’s senior U.S. senator said Thursday.

“Every institution that made America great happens to be under attack today,” U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe told members of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber during a breakfast at the Oklahoma City Marriott. “Maybe America needed a shock treatment, and we got a shock treatment. … I will predict the shock treatment will precipitate in a really great renaissance in the free enterprise system.”

Inhofe, R-Tulsa, said he expects Republicans could pick up as many as 13 seats in the Nov. 2 general elections to gain control. He listed off potential wins in Arkansas, Colorado, California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Connecticut and Oregon. Republicans need to pick up at least 10 seats to be in the majority; 34 seats are up for election. The Senate is made up of 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans and two independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Oklahoma Democratic Party Chairman Todd Goodman, asked later to comment, said Democrats should hold onto the majority in the Senate.

“The national trend of being anti-incumbent … would tend to favor the party in the minority, but I think we’ll maintain the majority,” Goodman said. “So many of the Republicans are just battling for the fringe right. The tea party clearly is more identified with the Republican Party nationally, and I think that’s going to be a very important factor.”

Inhofe, elected in 1994 to the Senate to fill an unexpired term and re-elected three times since then, said Americans are starting to understand that policies by President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are attacking the oil, banking, insurance, health care and military industries.

“By attack, I’m talking about the government taking over,” Inhofe said. “The public never believed that we would get to the point where our government would do what government is doing today.”

The federal bailout programs that have added to the country’s deficit are having an adverse effect on the economy, he said.

“There’s no one out there who can read or write who doesn’t know you cannot sustain a deficit of one year of $1.4 trillion,” Inhofe said.

Looking to 2012

If Senate Republicans gain control, it’s likely Democrats up for re-election in 2012 will move away from supporting the president’s policies, Inhofe said.

“When the ship sinks, the rats jump off — they’re not going to go down with the ship,” he said. “We’re going to see a behavioral change in Democrats who have been following and doing everything they could to help with the administration.”

Inhofe criticized a one-year moratorium on requesting earmarks, or money for special projects, which was announced earlier this year by Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Inhofe said earmarks should be called appropriations, saying that appropriating funds is the job of Congress. He said no money is saved when a congressional earmark is removed — the money remains in the budget and is spent by bureaucrats and administration officials.

“It goes right back to the bureaucracy,” he said.

Inhofe this year requested more than $615 million in special projects, with about two-thirds of that for defense contractors and military bases.

Inhofe said he gets along with U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, who does not request earmarks.

“When you really need something for Oklahoma, he’s there,” Inhofe said. “All I want him to agree with is just to define earmarks as appropriations, then we wouldn’t disagree on anything. If there’s a ridiculous appropriation out there, we’ll go out and fight it together.”

Inhofe said he is proud to bring federal money to pay for improvements at the state’s military installations and highway system.

Inhofe, last re-elected in 2008, said he hasn’t thought about whether he would seek another term in 2014.

“I’m 75 years old, but I still fly airplanes upside down and I don’t know why it is — I don’t hurt anywhere and I don’t feel any different than I felt five years ago,” Inhofe said. “If circumstances are the same as they are today, yeah I would be running.Read the original article NewsOK

Election 2010: How bad is it for Democrats?

Brad Knickerbocker
A consensus is building that Democrats’ chances of holding on to both houses of Congress – certainly with anything like the majorities they have today – are fast fading.

News story and polling headlines this past week paint a grim picture for Democratic lawmakers and therefore for President Obama:

“Americans Most Likely to Favor GOP Newcomers for Congress” … “Dems in power could be in peril, poll says” … “Fewer Young Voters See Themselves as Democrats” … “Dangerous Numbers for House Democrats” … “Republicans Hold Wide Lead in Key Voter Turnout Measure” … “Generic Ballot Continues to Suggest Major Losses for Dems” … “Democrats Plan Political Triage to Retain House”

Undoubtedly, there will be twists and turns (and probably some surprises) between now and when voters go to the polls Nov. 2. Eight weeks can be a political lifetime.

Plus, the “tea party” movement – showing extraordinary muscle in some recent Republican primaries – could be as much of a problem for the establishment GOP as it is for Democrats. And as John Dickerson at Slate points out, “The advantage for Democrats is that they have the better organization.”

“Organizing for America, the Obama campaign operation, has been up and running for more than three years,” he writes. “Some of the volunteers have been knocking on the same doors since Obama was just a freshman senator from Illinois running for president.”

Postpartisan? Forget it.Obama himself has largely shucked his “postpartisan” ideal, and you can expect some sharp rhetorical elbows thrown at Republicans when he addresses a Labor Day rally in Milwaukee on Monday. That’s likely to escalate in coming weeks as Obama – and first lady Michelle Obama – go stumping for Democrats.

“They’ve forgotten I politick pretty good,” he told a crowd in Austin, Texas, last month.

Still, it’s an uphill battle for Obama and his party. Some of the evidence:

In a new survey released Friday, a USA Today/Gallup poll shows voters more likely to pick a generic Republican over a Democrat for Congress by 53-40 percent, particularly if that candidate is a newcomer. “It appears that the best type of candidate to be this fall is a Republican challenger,” writes Gallup analyst Jeffrey Jones.

In another sign of danger ahead for Democrats, Gallup reports that minorities and young voters – a solid part of Obama’s base in 2008 – are unlikely to turn out in large numbers come November.

“In contrast to 2008, when whites and blacks were about equally likely to say they were giving ‘quite a lot of’ or ‘some’ thought to the presidential election, whites are much more likely than blacks to be thinking about the 2010 elections: 42 percent vs. 25 percent, a gap exceeding those from recent midterm elections,” according to Gallup’s Lydia Saad. “As a result, and because of the extraordinarily keen interest in the elections that conservative Republicans currently display, Republicans overall currently enjoy a 54 percent to 30 percent lead over Democrats in ‘thought given to the election’.”

Professional political prognosticators are weighing in along the same lines.

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, sees it this way:

“Conditions have deteriorated badly for Democrats over the summer. The economy appears rotten, with little chance of a substantial comeback by November 2nd. Unemployment is very high, income growth sluggish, and public confidence quite low. The Democrats’ self-proclaimed ‘Recovery Summer’ has become a term of derision, and to most voters – fair or not – it seems that President Obama has over-promised and under-delivered.”

Could the GOP take over the House?At the moment, Sabato predicts, “Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net.” In the Senate, he writes on his web site, “Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react).”

Charlie Cook doesn’t go quite that far. His latest outlook is for Republicans to gain 35 seats in the House (four fewer than they’d need to take control) with a net GOP gain in the Senate of 7-9 seats.

“The odds still favor Democrats holding their majority, but that is no longer given,” Cook wrote in the National Journal on Saturday. And with a campaign war chest that needs to be doled out most effectively, Democrats are going to have to make some tough choices – maybe abandoning some of their most vulnerable incumbents.

“With this many races in play, Democrats may have to perform triage and focus their resources on those that remain winnable,” Cook writes. “That means giving up on the rest.”

Dire straits for Democrats, in other words. For as David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report writes, “This is an environment in which any Democratic laxity or misstep can prove fatal and even underfunded or flawed Republicans can be highly competitive.”

Read the original article YahooNews

FOX:Top 10 Things the GOP Should Do In Congress After November

Judging from polls, it now seems probable that Republicans will win control of the House of Representatives this November. They may even take over the Senate. The greatest benefit of this would be ending uncertainty over how far President Obama will be able to go in turning America into a European-style welfare state.

America would be far from out of the woods with the economic destruction wrought by a massive government and an increasingly controlled economy that discourages hard work and innovation. But the foot would be off the accelerator on the road to serfdom.

But then what? Republicans in control of one or both houses of Congress will face three major challenges: demonstrating progress on a yet-to-be-defined agenda, convincing voters they have recovered from the period when they spent lavishly and governed like liberals, and paving the way for a conservative president in 2012—the first since Ronald Reagan.

This is different from the last period of GOP ascendancy in 1994, when the party took both houses of Congress. Then, Newt Gingrich helped usher in a massive class of reformist freshmen who had rallied around the Contract With America. The next step was obvious: pass the provisions of the Contract.

This year, there is no such guiding document.

The GOP should look to the successes of the Gingrich congressional period as an example of how to advance a positive agenda when they do not control the White House. They should also take a page from former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine), who helped to get a president elected from his party by forcing a string of unpopular vetoes from then-President George H.W. Bush.

Such an agenda could consist of these ten elements:

1. Repeal and Smother Obamacare. Shortly after former-Speaker Pelosi turns over the gavel to Speaker Boehner, the House’s first piece of legislation, HR-1, should be a single-sentence law repealing Obamacare. 

If the repeal act passed the Senate, it would surely be vetoed by President Obama. But the signal that the new Congress opposes government-run health care would help restore Republicans’ credibility and spur economic recovery. 

Later, Congress could refuse to appropriate money required for federal agencies to implement Obamacare, buying time to offer a Republican alternative that empowers individuals, not bureaucracies.

2. Seek Immediate Savings. The current Congress wasted $862 billion on liberal-Keynesian “stimulus” spending that proved good for little other than again disproving liberal-Keynesian economics. The new Congress should identify government programs costing at least the same amount and repeal them permanently.

3. Enact a Balanced and Limited Budget Amendment. Congress clearly cannot be trusted to spend only what it takes from the people. A constitutional amendment should remove its the authority to spend more, and limit spending increases to inflation and population growth.

4. Stop Pending Tax Hikes. Tax increases kill jobs. Counterintuitively, they can also fail to reduce deficits. The massive Obama tax hikes are set to kick in on December 31. Congress should restore the current tax levels when it convenes on January 4.

5. Enforce Immigration Laws. Arizona’s illegal immigrant law is a fair, common-sense approach to dealing with the consequences of Washington’s bipartisan failure to secure the border and enforce the law. 

Congress should follow Arizona’s lead and make it easy for local police across America to help detect and deport illegal immigrants caught committing other offenses. Securing the border once and for all can pave the way to a broader national discussion on immigration.

6. Defend Democracy Against Liberal Judges. Congress alone was given the sole authority to appropriate funds as a check against the other branches of government. It should once again use this to check the Judicial Branch. Congress should abolish or refuse to fund courts like the one that suspended the Arizona immigration law and any other court that similarly attempts to legislate from the bench. The leftwing 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco should be abolished or defunded.

7. Create a Citizen Congress. Congress should pass constitutional amendments enacting term limits, providing for the recall of senators by their constituents, and outlawing gerrymandering of congressional districts. Congress should look to the success of big states like Texas and Georgia and small states like Wyoming that have legislatures that meet for limited periods to do serious work. This makes for better government than legislatures like those in California and New York that meet almost continuously and legislate too much.

8. Seriously Consider the Flat Tax. Congress’s main method of intruding into the lives of Americans and controlling more and more of the economy is a complicated tax code. A flat income tax for all is an appealing alternative. An interim step could be offering Americans the choice to opt out of the current tax code if they wanted to pay a simple, flat tax. The new Congress should send this plan to President Obama for a highly unpopular veto.

9. Limit Union Power. Politicians of both parties love to talk about positioning America for the 21st century. They could actually do so by revising labor laws that are stuck in the 1930s and aid special interests while harming the middle class. Repealing the pro-union Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which inflates the cost of public works projects and is one reason Americans spend so much time in traffic jams, would be a good start. 

New federal laws should help bring the increasingly extravagant pensions and benefits of unionized public employees in line with those of the Americans they serve.

10. Defend America. It is perverse that in a world becoming more dangerous, the only cuts to government spending are occurring at the Pentagon. We need to rebuild the Navy and Air Force, field comprehensive missile defenses, and get serious about threats from Iran, Islamists and China. 

Foreign policy has mainly been a liability for Republicans since the Iraq insurgency. Despite this, fresh blood on Capitol Hill should get involved and resist the corrupt foreign policy establishment in Washington and a White House inclined to apologize for America.

President Obama will of course resist and veto most of these actions if they make it to his desk. But assuming he has not given up on the idea of being reelected, he might acquiesce to some reforms. In the same way, Newt Gingrich was able to get Bill Clinton to sign welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts, and a tax credit for children. But even a steady stream of vetoes denying Americans the type and size of government they want will help pave the way for conservative success in 2012, and the chance of sustained American renewal.

Read the original article FOXNews

The gathering revolt against government spending

Value-added tax has some GOP backers

Walter Alarkon

The idea of a value-added tax (VAT), attacked by national Republicans ever since it was floated by a White House adviser, has some GOP supporters in Congress.

Five Republican House members are co-sponsors of a bill by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) that would impose a border tax on imports similar to an importing country’s VAT if the U.S. government couldn’t negotiate a way to cut trade imbalances. In the Senate, George Voinovich (R-Ohio) has suggested that replacing income taxes with a VAT could be one way to streamline the tax code.

“I don’t know whether it would [be more efficient] or not,” Voinovich told The Hill. “All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t just say it’s a bad thing.”

Voinovich was one of just 13 senators to vote against a “sense of the Senate” resolution offered by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in April calling the VAT “a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America’s economic recovery.” Every other Republican and most Democrats voted for the non-binding resolution.

Consumption tax proponents on both sides of the aisle have said the VAT could be the key to a tax code overhaul that increases the competitiveness of U.S. exports and brings down taxes on income that discourage saving and investment. The VAT is levied at each stage of production of a good and is part of the tax system for most industrialized countries.

The attacks on the VAT by the Republican National Committee — and McCain — have been based on the notion that it would be added on top of the current income tax structure.

Voinovich and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), a co-sponsor of Pascrell’s bill, said the VAT and other consumption taxes should at least be considered by President Barack Obama’s fiscal commission as it works on producing a plan that would reduce, in the least painful way possible, the massive deficits expected over the next few decades.

Jones took issue with those who immediately dismiss the idea of consumption taxes. He said Congress should allow experts to analyze various tax reform plans before judging them.

“You get one politician says this, one politician says that, one former secretary says this, and nothing’s coming together,” Jones said.

The other House Republicans who have co-sponsored Pascrell’s bill are Reps. Gresham Barrett (S.C.), Howard Coble (N.C.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.) and Joe Wilson (S.C.).

The RNC pounced on Democrats’ talk about a VAT after Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman and economic adviser to Obama, suggested last month that higher taxes, and possibly a VAT or carbon tax, would be needed to close deficits. The RNC later sent to reporters Obama’s response in an interview that he wouldn’t rule out a VAT despite his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 and couples making less than $250,000.

“Obama will use [the] deficit commission to push for European-style value-added tax despite the fact that the tax would violate his campaign pledge [and] hit middle-class American families hard all to pay for his record binge spending spree,” the RNC wrote in one blast e-mail to reporters.

Republicans who want a VAT only want it in place of other taxes and charge Democrats with seeking to have a VAT in addition to the current tax structure, an RNC aide said.

The co-chairman of Obama’s fiscal commission, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), took issue last week with GOP attacks against the VAT as the panel met for the first time.

After hearing the criticisms, Simpson said, “You’d think you’re coming in and slapping it on top of the income tax.

“If you do a VAT tax, you’ve got to do some adjustments to the income tax,” he said.

The exchanges over the VAT between Republicans in Congress and Simpson have already become heated.

Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.), who has called for ending federal income taxes and using a national sales tax, suggested that the VAT would end up being a “money machine” that would lead directly to more government. When told about Simpson’s concern that critics were distorting his panel’s work, Linder attacked the former Republican senator for his support for gay and lesbian rights.

“How does he sort that out from his conversation about gay marriage?” Linder told The Hill, referring to Simpson’s opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“Milton Friedman summed it up,” he added. “The value-added tax is the most efficient way to raise revenues and government. It’s the most effective way to increase the size of government.”

Simpson fired back.

“What the hell is he talking about?” Simpson said. “That is bulls–t.”

He said that Linder “must be a homophobe” and called for him to talk to the House Republicans on the fiscal commission, who haven’t ruled out any fiscal reform proposals. He emphasized that a VAT wouldn’t be enacted unless significant changes were made to the current tax code.

The attacks, however, have started to make VAT proponents wary of pressing for it.

“I don’t think it’s on the political table now or for the indefinite future,” Volcker said during a summit on the debt sponsored by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. “But that’s the kind of thing you have to look at.”

Pascrell said the problem with talking about the VAT is not the tax itself, but the looming midterm election.

“I don’t think you want to bring it up now because it would be divisive in our own party and it would be divisive on the other side’s party,” Pascrell said in an interview. “I will stand by what I’ve introduced. I think it’s important on the way to level off the imbalance in trade because other countries [with a VAT] subsidize their manufacturers, and we don’t.”

Read the original article on TheHill

Beck:Puerto Rican Statehood Ahead?

 Glenn Beck

I want to talk to you about the fundamental transformation of America. It could happen tomorrow.

But first, you have to understand progressives. What is it that progressives believe?

• Big government, power and control: It’s not about Democrats or Republicans, people. It’s power and control. You can’t choose for yourself. You’re too dumb, so progressives will choose and regulate everything for you

• Democratic elections: This is important to progressives. You’ll hear it “democratically elected” to refer to leaders like Hitler, Chavez and Castro — all democratically elected

• Social justice: Collective redemption through the government: Call it socialism, Marxism, whatever — it’s all about the redistribution of wealth

Now, I want to talk to you about Puerto Rico. Understand: This is not about Hispanics. It’s not about freedom. It’s about power and control.

Puerto Rico is a self-governing commonwealth, but is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and sovereignty. It’s been a U.S. territory since after the Spanish-American War of 1898. They’re not an independent country. It’s similar to Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa. Some people like it, others don’t; they get to enjoy many of the benefits of America — like protection — and they don’t have to pay any taxes. That’s a pretty sweet deal.

So it’s no wonder “the people” have consistently voted against becoming America’s 51st state; three times since 1967 — the latest in 1998. It’s always been the same question: Do you want to be a state?

Now, let’s take you to Washington, where there’s important vote happening: HR 2499 — it’s called “The Puerto Rico Democracy Act.” Gosh darn it, who could be against that? The bill is a non-binding resolution, supposedly to support Puerto Rico’s “self-determination” on if they want to be a state or not.

That’s so cute. Wait, I thought they already had a right to vote? They do. So I’m left with the question: Why do they need a non-binding resolution to support their self-determination? Is there something going on that I’m not aware of that is so important that we need to take attention away from the economy or immigration?

We’ve asked some of the Republicans in Congress who are supporting this bill and here are some of the answers:

“This is a vote about freedom.”

“This vote does not grant Puerto Rico statehood, it simply gives Puerto Ricans the right to determine if statehood is something they want for themselves.”

See, I thought they already had that. Three times they voted on that. It’s almost like something else is going on. But remember, they keep telling me it’s “non-binding.”

If I just trusted progressives. With progressives, democratic elections always comes with a trick. For instance, Hitler was democratically elected. But as the chancellor, not the furor. Whether it be through parliamentary tricks or corruption, it’s important to progressives to have the appearance of “the republic.” Remember: They went through the democratic process for health care.

So what’s the trick?

HR 2499 — if it passes — would force a yes or no vote in Puerto Rico on whether Puerto Rico should maintain the “current status” of the island. Wait, that’s not a vote on statehood. That’s a vote on do you want to “maintain the status quo.”

Let me ask you this: Do you want to maintain the status quo of America? ACORN’s Bertha Lewis would agree with me and say no, I don’t want our current direction. But we would disagree on the reasons why.

See the trick?

In the past, statehood fails because some people like the status quo, some want to be a state and some want to be independent. There are too many choices, too many options. They need to unite people. Do you want to maintain the status quo unites them, not on the answer but on the question.

See, the folks that like the status quo are more likely to vote for statehood than independence.

In 1998, there were five options on the ballot: Limited self-government; free association; statehood; sovereignty and none of the above. Which one won? None of the above.

But now, the vote is going to happen in two stages. The first stage: Do you want to maintain the status quo? Then a chair is removed. The second vote leaves you with three choices: statehood; full independence or modified commonwealth.

Remember, full independence and modified commonwealth historically get less than 3 percent of the vote. So those options will be the only thing standing in the way of Puerto Rico becoming a state.

But Glenn, it’s non-binding. Big deal!

True, but here’s where if you don’t know history, you are destined to repeat it. Let me introduce something to you called the Tennessee Plan. (This is probably going to sound like a conspiracy theory, but I have one thing the conspiracy theories never have.)

OK — so the Tennessee Plan, you’ve probably never heard of it unless you are from Tennessee or Alaska. Apparently, some of those who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution haven’t heard of it either. When Tennessee first came to the Union, it had a different name; it was first called “Territory of the United States South of the River Ohio.” It was a U.S. territory, just like Puerto Rico is now.

But instead of waiting for Congress to decide if they wanted to make the territory a state, they took a different, bold route: They forced the issue themselves:

• They elected delegates for Congress

• They voted on statehood

• They drafted a state constitution

• And applied for statehood

• Then, when Congress dragged their feet, they went to the Capitol and demanded to be seated

Congress was unsure of how to proceed; this was the first territory going for statehood. They relented and Tennessee became America’s 16th state. Alaska did many of the same things.

Again, the Tennessee plan in a nutshell:

• Unsuccessfully petitioning Congress for admission

• Drafting a state constitution without prior congressional intervention

• Holding state elections for state officers, U.S. senators and representatives

• In some cases, sending the entire congressional delegation to Washington to demand statehood and claim their seats

• Finally, Congress has little choice but to admit a new state through the passage of a simple act of admission

Congressmen, voting for HR 2499 are like sheep being led to slaughter. They’ll say the people of Puerto Rico have a right to vote for themselves. They’ll vote yes. The progressives will then present a false choice to the people. Instead of saying “do you want to be a state?”it’s “Do you want the status quo?” If voters vote no, the next vote removes the status quo from the ballot, leaving statehood against two far less popular options. They’ll vote yes for statehood. Then they’ll elect their congressman and senators, they’ll demand to be seated and a 51st star will be attached to the flag.

How could this happen? Look at the immigration debate. What are Arizona and Texas being called? Racists. Anyone opposing Puerto Rico as state 51 would be called a hatemonger. Why do you hate Puerto Ricans so much? Why do you hate freedom?

This is not about Hispanics or freedom or sovereignty. It’s about power and control. If progressives convince Hispanics that everyone besides progressives are racist, you’ll have their vote for 60 years. But it’s more than that.

Why are Democrats and Republicans for this? Because it’s not about Republicans and Democrats. The progressives in our country know that this is the moment they’ve been waiting for; every Marxist daydream they’ve ever had, now is their time to get it done. They are not going to let it pass.

That’s what’s happening: The fundamental transformation of America. And this is only the beginning.

I told that this sounds like a conspiracy theory. But who is orchestrating this effort in Puerto Rico? Lo and behold, the New Progressive Party; from their own party platform:

“The New Progressive Party adopts the Tennessee Plan as an additional strategy for the decolonization and the claim for the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America.”

And: “This shall be done through legislation which will establish a process for the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of the State of Puerto Rico, and the election of two senators and six federal congresspersons to appear before Congress in Washington D.C. to claim their seats and the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America.”

They’re going to paint this as a vote for freedom, but Puerto Rico has already voted and they’ve already spoken. When they send the delegates to Washington, if you stand against this you’ll be labeled a racist.

Read the original article FOXNews

Agent Provocateur: Mad Hatters want to crash your Tea Party

 Judi McLeod  

Warning: Marinated-in-Marxism Democrats and supporters are hot on the trail of Tea Party Patriots.
They have launched a Crash the Tea Party (CTTP) website: crashtheteaparty.org on the eve of the April 15 anniversary of the Tea Party.

“WHO WE ARE, Crash The Tea Party style, is a lesson in Marxism 101: “A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself “The Tea Party.”

The definition of CTTP couldn’t have been better scripted by Nancy Pelosi.

“WHAT WE WANT: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.

“HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself!  In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion…We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.”

But the game-plan is Crash the Tea Party’s most ominous part: “We will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them.  We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans.”  (Emphasis CFP’s).

“Sound like fun?  It is!! If you’d like to join us, just click on the word “crash!” below.

Crash the Tea Party could should be called Agent Provocateurs Are Us!

And like the scurrilous snipers of the sidelines they are, they try to pass off their website registrant name as Ben Franklin.

Crash the Tea Party was registered April 3, 2010.

CFP conducted an Internic “Whois” search and discovered that the phone number listed for the Ben Franklin registrant gave an S. Lamonoff in Langhorne, Pa.  White pages list a Sheila R. Lamonoff as holder of the telephone line, also listed as S. Lamonoff.

The telephone number listed for Crash the Tea Party is 215-752-1992.  The number has call block service.

CFP dialed the number and reached a recorded female voice saying “You have reached Carol and Nat, We are not available.  Leave a message and have a nice day.”

Other records indicate that there is a Norman Lamonoff listed at the same address.

Meanwhile, patriots take note: The Dem-inspired agent provocateurs want to crash your Tea Party.

Read the original afrticle Canadian Free Press

KING: 100 percent repeal of Obamacare

By Rep. Steve King

President Obama, speaking at a rally in Iowa City on March 25, challenged opponents of Obamacare who have vowed repeal. To repeal advocates, the President said, “Go for it.”

Before the first light of dawn on the morning after this Pelosi Congress sent Obamacare to the President’s desk, I started the process to repeal.My decision to take this fight to and through the next election and probably through the presidential election in 2012 was not a knee jerk response to a legislative defeat.It is a commitment to the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, real health care reform and American Liberty.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid – the troika that controls America today – have long had designs to shove America into the abyss of socialism. Their philosophy, political power and cynical effort to expand the dependency class all lined up to make Obamacare the law of the land. The highest price every generation of Americans will pay is not measured in dollars but in lost liberty.

America is a unique nation with unmatched vitality. The rights and liberties which transformed the “Dream” into the reality of American Exceptionalism are written on our hearts. We have a vitality that is unmatched because we have skimmed the cream of the crop off every donor civilization.

Millions have flocked to America because of the promise of liberty. They have joined natural born Americans to form the most vigorous culture on the planet. Every preceding generation has had the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.

Obamacare is a reversal of the formula that has produced the world’s unchallenged greatest nation. For these reasons, 100 percent of Obamacare must be repealed.

With the massive costs of Obamacare, we cannot hope to pay our debts in our lifetimes or our children’s. Under Obamacare, costs will go up and quality will go down. Under Obamacare, we must go all the way to the Supreme Court to reestablish the Constitution as a pact limiting the reach of the federal government.

However, all of the aforementioned will not crush our national spirit like the oppressive weight of mandated dependency. Obamacare takes away the American right to manage our own lives.

The rights to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” are prioritized rights. No one has the right to kill in the name of liberty just as no one has the right to take your liberty in pursuit of their happiness. Obamacare is a “taking” of our liberty.

We the People understand this intuitively and reject this injustice which will, if not repealed, bring about the American decline. We cannot “hide the decline” or “manage the decline.” We must decline the decline by repealing 100 percent of Obamacare.

Every provision of Obamacare must be repealed – not selective parts of it. Not by preserving a short list of less egregious components. Obamacare must be ripped out completely, lock, stock and barrel – root and branch – no vestige left behind – not a DNA particle of Obamacare retained.

The toxic stew of Obamacare would taint every effort to reform and give the next generation of leftist politicians their talking points for another assault on our liberty. Republicans will either stand unanimously together for 100 percent repeal, as we did against the bill, or our ranks will be split and our effort defeated.

The voracious appetite of the leftists to consume American Liberty has spontaneously created a new class of activists whom I define as the “constitutional conservatives.” They are the 9-12 Project groups, all the Tea Party groups, and the organizations who join in their efforts.

Constitutional conservatives are emerging as the new majority makers and will not support a partial repeal. They stood in the streets, town halls and capitols of our states and nation to “Kill the bill.”

No one demonstrated to “kill the most egregious aspects” or “preserve the least egregious aspects” of Obamacare. This is an all or nothing fight from this point forward. Either we will be unified, energized and resolute for 100 percent repeal or we will be divided and deservedly conquered by Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

This is a life or death struggle for the soul of America. We are the redoubt of Western Civilization. It is our charge to set the standard for the world.

From an upstart nation formed on the profound belief that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” we have, over the past century assumed “among the Powers of the Earth,” the responsibility of sole superpower. We have defeated our enemies and saved Western civilization for the world.

We are not a nation created to mimic mediocrity. Our charge is to take this nation upwards to a new level of liberty and prosperity built upon the pillars of american exceptionalism.

Pence calls president’s drilling announcement a ‘smokescreen’

Kerry Picket

President Barack Obama announced today his administration would pursue to expand offshore drilling (Reuters):

President Barack Obama will announce on Wednesday he will stick with a Bush-era plan to drill oil and natural gas off the coast of Virginia but will not pursue energy development in waters off the U.S. Northeast and the West Coast that were recently opened to drilling. 

Obama, who wants Congress to move a stalled climate change bill, has sought to reach out to Republicans by signaling he is open to allowing offshore drilling, providing coastlines are protected. Allowing offshore drilling also would create jobs and reduce U.S. long-term dependence on foreign oil.

GOP leadership is not buying the president’s plan, though. Congressman Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican, said in a statement today:

“This Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs overseas at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”

“As usual the devil is in the details.  Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim you’re going to increase production.”

“The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen.  It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan. 

“Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the President’s national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate.  At the end of the day this Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs oversees at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”