Tuesday, July 20, 2010

For Kagan, Progression Is Nine-Tenths of the Law

Washington Update

Family Research Council

Defending Faith, Family and Freedom


Just as there was little doubt about what the outcome of today's committee vote on Elena Kagan would be, so too is there little doubt about the role she'll play on the nation's highest court: that of an extreme activist. While most Americans can't name a single Supreme Court justice, they can certainly identify a liberal judge when they see one. In fact, Kagan's reputation is so disturbing to the average citizen that Gallup says that if she's confirmed, Kagan "would be the first successful nominee in recent years whose nomination was backed by less than a majority of Americans in the final poll before the Senate confirmation vote."

If President Obama can't have a lifetime term, then he knows the next best thing is nominating Elena Kagan to one. She shares the President's disgust for traditional morality, free speech, the military, individual liberty, unborn children, constitutional fidelity, and all things religious. As a political appointee to President Clinton, she was so fixated on protecting partial-birth abortion that she masterminded a plot to substitute her own opinion for that of two medical groups. Both the American Medical Association (AMA) and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said there was virtually no instance in which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to save a woman's life. When that statement crossed Kagan's desk, she personally changed it to say that partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the mother."

Byron York talks about her scary disregard for government policy in today's Washington Examiner. "Kagan is not a doctor and has no medical expertise. She just made the statement up... The ACOG executive board... adopted Kagan's addition verbatim. (The experts who draft the original statement weren't consulted.) Later, when the issue of partial-birth abortion made its way though the courts, several judges cited the ACOG statement... The judges had no way of knowing the statement was written not by doctors but by an associate White House counsel." Her track record of violating professional ethics should make Kagan's nomination a non-starter for every American Senator.

It was her rabid pro-homosexual views that led her to restrict military recruitment on Harvard Law School's campus, and, as Solicitor General, to sabotage the defense of our federal marriage law. In both instances, she favored her personal ideology and political calculations over the law. And she may spend 30 more years doing it as a member of America's most powerful court. Elena Kagan was unfit to be Solicitor General, and she definitely doesn't deserve a lifetime promotion to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contact your Senators and tell them to vote "no" on Kagan. If you need help making a case, check out the laundry list of objections to Kagan on The Cloakroom Blog.

Senate Swings, Donald Ducks

Facing pressure about his new number one at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS), President Obama sent Donald Berwick back to the Senate for consideration after his controversial recess appointment. Senators from both sides were more than a little stunned that a man in his position--with control over a trillion dollar health care budget--would be hired without at least a public hearing about his views. Alarm bells started sounding early on, when Berwick's quotes surfaced about his preference for health care rationing over treatment. His comments were so outlandish that even Democrats didn't want to schedule a hearing on his confirmation. With an election looming, they don't want to have to defend this doctor in public--and, frankly, neither does President Obama. Berwick is the poster boy for rationed, universal care. And while liberals may have the votes to push him through the process, they never wanted to let America in on his dirty little secret: he's a cheerleader for socialized medicine. The Senate Republican Policy Committee put together a list of his top 10 outrageous views, and Berwick is so outside the medical mainstream that he even calls ultrasound technology "scientifically unnecessary." For an administration hoping to avoid a messy PR campaign over Berwick's appointment, this belated attempt at transparency is too little, too late.

Gambling Supporters Work on Full House


Desperate to pay for their budget-busting health care law, Democrats are back stumping for online gambling. Ring leader Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is holding a hearing tomorrow on overturning UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) in his House Finance Committee. Of course the timing is no coincidence. The poker alliance, Wall Street banking entities and other gambling interests are among the Democrats' major backers at campaign time. So hosting a debate on the legislation seems particularly beneficial one week away from the August recess, when liberals hope to see money pour in for tough races.

But the effort on Rep. Frank's part is also sincere. He would like nothing better than abolishing UIGEA through H.R. 2267 and passing the companion bill (H.R. 4976) to tax online gambling sites. If he's successful, it would be the largest and most aggressive expansion of gambling in American history. But beyond that, it would be the first domino to fall in the push to tax and regulate the entire Internet. Gambling is devastating for families and communities, and studies show that gaming addictions are the fastest growing among young people. Rep. Frank needs to look beyond the dollar signs of overturning UIGEA to the real costs in society. Tell your representative as much. Contact them this week and let them know that American families should come first--not special interests.

Principles of Political War (Part 1)

By Wes Riddle

The people are rising up. Americans are waking up at last to the threat: a leftist elite, bent on fundamentally changing America and making every citizen entirely dependent on the state. The Obama machine driven by a socialist agenda is spending trillions of tax-payer dollars to finance takeover of the American workplace and to stifle personal initiative and community awareness and self-determination. America is built of better stuff, however, namely the principles of private property and individual freedom, and the Resistance has begun.

In May 2009 Californians launched a tax revolt, indeed at a time when their state government’s deficit was larger than the budgets of most other states and many countries. State law according to its “Initiative” process required legislators to win a two-thirds referendum of the people before they could raise taxes. Forced to hold special election with multiple ballot Initiatives to raise taxes, California citizens shocked legislators by sending an unmistakable message by margins of 60 percent even in San Francisco: Taxed Enough Already! No more taxes!

The “TEA” Party movement quickly spread, gaining steam across the entire nation. David Horowitz calls it “the most innovative, exciting and powerful grassroots force in the history of American conservatism.” Today and through the election cycles of 2010 and 2012 it is not only vital to the health of the country, but essential to the survival of America. Consider that on the eve of the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama proclaimed, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America!” Tea Partiers threw themselves into the political breach, so to speak, saying unequivocally “No” to Obama’s plans to fundamentally alter the federal constitutional Republic and turn it into a socialist state.

The breach is one thing, but politics is really more about sustained effort and long-term commitment to ideas. A particular movement without an effective plan or strategy will not succeed. Therefore it is critical to reacquaint ourselves with some principles of political war. Many political philosophers have characterized politics as warfare by other, presumably peaceful means. Nixon described politics as being part and parcel of an overall spectrum of conflict. Most Americans are naïve politically and unfamiliar with what philosophers and political operatives know about the electoral game played every two to four years. Americans think about politics as some kind of spectator sport or movie show, a passive distraction that doesn’t require any of their personal involvement. They mistake the huge personal consequences while sitting in the bleachers or back row of a dark auditorium. They might bemoan results of an election at tax time, but then they turn again to something else entertaining or pressing.

Liberals are morally bankrupt and clueless about policy, but they still win elections because they understand American politics is driven by a dime novel Hollywood romance, with Americans sitting idly by as, you guessed it, spectators. According to Horowitz, the story they love to watch is about an underdog—you know, the little guy who goes up against the system and triumphs in the end. It is a story about opportunity and fairness too, and to win the flitting hearts and minds of American voters, you have to tap into emotions evoked by the underdog. America’s heroes are cut to a common mold: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Davy Crockett, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Amelia Earhart, Jackie Robinson, Ronald Reagan or Colin Powell, etc., etc. Always it is about the common man who rises against the odds. Yep, Mr. Smith goes to Washington and make things right! Luke Skywalker saves the planet! Horowitz isn’t as cynical perhaps about the narrative. Truth is, practically everyone in America thinks of him or herself as the underdog and aspires to be a hero. The romance in fact resonates with our deepest convictions, as well as faith in freedom and the ability to overcome adversity or to challenge and win against unjust power arrayed against you. It is the American Dream and largely her story—rising to the top through hard work in spite of humble origin.

Until the Tea Parties showed up, the political left wielded this romantic narrative as a political weapon virtually unopposed at election time. In positioning themselves as champions of the underrepresented, neglected and oppressed, leftists manufactured a version of the American story and spread it far and wide through the media and academe. According to Horowitz, the left successfully transformed America’s story from “an epic of freedom into a tale of racism, exploitation and domination. In their telling, American history is no longer a narrative of expanding opportunity, of men and women succeeding against the odds. Instead, it is a Marxist Morality Play about the powerful and their victims.” Elections have become staged political dramas too, as progressives invariably speak in the name of America’s alleged victims—women, children, minorities and the poor.

Conservatives play into the trap
, approaching politics like management on every issue, as a mere practical problem that needs to be solved—emphasizing, say, utility of the tax cut, efficiency of a certain program, the optimal method to approach this or that. They talk like businessmen in other words, and while there is nothing wrong with instituting good policies and running things efficiently or turning profit, progressives label them as servants of the rich, oppressors of the weak, defenders of the strong and privileged. Conservatives become the enemies of the people, in the liberal parlance of political warfare. Witness Mario Cuomo at the Democrats’ 1996 National Convention: “We need to work as we have never done before between now and November…to take the Congress back from Newt Gingrich and the Republicans, because ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, the Republicans are the real threat. They are the real threat to our women. They are the real threat to our children. They are the real threat to clean water, clean air and the rich landscape of America.” Ooh, such good spectator sport. Only now it won’t wash.

_____________________

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary. He is currently Chairperson of the Central Texas Tea Party. Article loosely based on an essay by David Horowitz. Email Wes@WesRiddle.com or call (254) 939-5597.

Keynes is Dead; Long Live Adam Smith

by Lynn Woolley

The economic theories of John Maynard Keynes have undergone a stiff test over the past few years in Socialist Europe and in Barack Obama’s United States. What we’ve gotten is unsustainable deficits, a jobless rate hovering around 10% and the near collapse of parts of the European Union.

Obama is still a true believer, but the rest of the world is beginning the process of exorcising Keynes.

It’s about time, even though President Obama is still dutifully committed to the idea that the Keynesian model will win out. It won’t, it never has, and it never will.

Eventually, the massive debt catches up with any government as we are seeing in Greece or you get the “stagflation” that brought down President Carter. Obama, however, is driven largely by ideology and he will never give up on an economic system that carries with it elements of “social justice” and collectivism.

Any study of Keynes could end up as long as, well, the Democrats’ new financial regulation law. So suffice it to say that he is considered by many the great economist of the 20th Century. His ideas, presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936, essentially argue that recessions are best mitigated by vast government intervention—like stimulus spending. Keyes believed in a “multiplier” that would produce $1.50 worth of growth for each $1 spent.

It never works out that way. The $1 in spending comes from the pockets of the producing class—those operating a business or gainfully employed—or it is borrowed. So it either becomes a drag on business or increases the debt.

But then, the argument goes, why didn’t I and other talk radio hosts criticize President Bush when he installed a new entitlement and failed to veto big spending bills? We can easily put that to rest. In 2006, Rush Limbaugh announced that he would no longer “carry the water” for the Bush administration.

I was asked by the Dallas Morning News to write a column reacting to Limbaugh’s proclamation, and it was published on Dec. 17, 2006. In it, I said: “My Rush Limbaugh moment came the day after the elections. I trudged down to the garage with a razor blade and a bottle of Windex and sadly scraped off the ‘W-04’ sticker that had been on my window for the past two years. Already, on my radio show, I had given up on George W. Bush as a conservative long before Rush’s now-famous comment.”

And that was written before I even knew about TARP and Bush’s stimulus package and the takeover of two American car companies. All very Keynesian and all wrong. But not to Obama. He picked up where Mr. Bush left off.

In its glee, Newsweek published a homage to Time’s 1965 cover story “We are all Keynesians Now.” But we are NOT all Socialists as Newsweek said and we have never been all Keynesians. Read Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek of the Austrian School, Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer—or Ronald Reagan. President Reagan’s 1981 “Kemp-Roth” tax-cutting bill used supply-side economics to actually create long-lasting prosperity from the throes of recession.

Obama has been telling the leaders of the G-20 nations to keep piling on the debt. In fact, he and his advisor, Larry Summers, are pushing for Stimulus III, arguing as Keynes would if he were here, to keep spending and worry about the debt later. The rest of the world is going the other way—for the simple reason of national survival. Keynes is dead. As Sandburg might say, let the dead be dead. In fact, we ought to sprinkle salt on the grave.

_____
Mr. Woolley is a Texas-based talk show host heard on KVCE AM 1160 weeknights at 8 p.m. Visit him at www.BeLogical.com.

Here's what Obama's doing with your money – in Kenya!

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

3 Republican congressmen reveal Barack secretly spent $23 million


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


An investigation by three Republican congressmen has revealed the Obama administration has secretly spent $23 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars in Kenya to fund a "Yes" vote on a constitutional referendum scheduled for Aug. 4 that would increase access to abortions in Kenya and establish legal status for Islamic law tribunals.

Meanwhile, trusted sources in Kenya tell WND that the White House has used Vice President Joseph Biden's trip to Kenya in June and the office of U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Michael E. Ranneberger to put out the message that passage of the referendum would enable the White House to open the floodgates to allow millions of dollars of additional U.S. government aid and private investment capital to flow into Kenya.

Last week, in response to inquiries from Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, admitted to spending more than $23 million of U.S. taxpayer money to influence voters in Kenya to pass the highly contentious constitution.

Learn details of Obama's Kenya connections. Get Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store.

"Despite denials, the Obama administration's funding to support passage of the controversial Kenyan proposed constitution is clear," Jeff Sagnip, spokesman for Rep. Smith, told WND in an e-mail over the weekend. "It constitutes U.S. monetary interference in a sovereign nation's voting process. If passed the constitution would dramatically alter existing pro-life laws."

Sagnip pointed out that the proposed constitution would water down the existing abortion law. It would permit abortion when "in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law." That language, Sagnip said, is "obviously vague" and riddled with "blatant loopholes."

Islamic courts

The proposed constitution would also give legal status to what are known as "Kadhi Courts," constituting an Islamic judicial structure within the overall structure of the Kenyan legal structure, to resolve disputes between Muslims under Shariah, or Islamic law.

Critics have charged that the constitutional provision to codify Kadhi Courts would violate the separation of state and religion by allowing Islamic law to have official legal status.

WND previously reported that in the 2007 presidential campaign in Kenya, Raila Odinga – the presidential candidate of the Orange Democratic Party and a Luo tribesman like Obama's father –signed an undisclosed memorandum of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya to expand Islamic law within the country in exchange for Muslim support of his candidacy.

As reported by Ecumenical News International in the U.K., many Kenyans believe the provision in the proposed referendum that would establish Kadhi courts is a fulfillment of the agreement Odinga made with Sheik Abdullah Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.

U.S. taxpayers suppory "Yes" vote

According to Smith's office, the USAID inspector general had identified the following programs with direct ties to supporting the "Yes" vote the Obama administration had funded in Kenya:

Provincial Peace Forum, Eastern Providence: $97,633.33 to "gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by educating the professional elites in Isiolo South Constituency about its benefits and getting their commitment to use their influence to ensure people register and vote 'Yes' at the referendum."

Central Organization of Trade Unions
, Kenya (COTU): $91,106.66 to "marshal a coalition of pro-Constitution individuals, institutions, and organizations to drum up political support for the Proposed Constitution by organizing a public rally at the historic Kamukunji Grounds, Nairobi."

Provincial Commissioner North Eastern Province: $99,220 for "one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an 'overrepresentation' of the 'Yes' voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to the office of the Provincial Commissioner (PC) in the form of transportation and fuel.

Kenya Muslim Youth Alliance (KMYA): $56,953.33 for "one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an 'overrepresentation' of the 'Yes' voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to Kenya Muslims Youth Alliance (KMYA) in the form of transportation and communications.

Provincial Peace Forum, Rift Valley Province: $94,193.33 to "build on previous activities in the North Rift as an entry point for a 'Yes' campaign on the constitution. Specifically, this activity will serve to gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by getting the professional elites' commitment."

Inter community Peace Choir Organization: $38,600 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in cosmopolitan areas occupied by IDPs for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."

North Rift Theatre Ambassadors: $37,773.33 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in cosmopolitan areas of Uasin Gishu, namely Turbo, Maili Maili Nne-Chepkanaga, and Huruma divisions for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."

Amani Peoples Theatre: $41,400
for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in Kachiliba and Psigor Constituencies-North Pokot for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."

Christian Community Services: $37,466.67 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in the three Constituencies of Turkana South, Central, and North for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."

Pokot Outreach Ministries: $38,133.34 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 additional voters in the entire Constituency of Kapenguria for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."

"By funding NGOs (non-governmental organizations) with obtaining 'yes' votes, the administration has crossed the line," Smith said last week in a statement. "Directly supporting efforts to register 'yes' voters and 'get out the yes vote' means the U.S. government is running a political campaign in Kenya. U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to support one side or the other."

The Standard in Kenya reported Kenyan Higher Education Minister William Ruto, who is leading the "Red" team opposing the Kenyan constitutional referendum, has accused Ambassador Ranneberger of crossing the "no-go-zone for foreign diplomats."

In defending his actions, Ranneberger argued he was operating within his diplomatic orbit, but "more so because the U.S. is a friend of Kenya and is pro-reform," according to the report published by the Standard.

"Ranneberger maintained he was a friend of Kenya and would therefore not shy away from pointing out the lies being propagated by the 'No' team," the Standard wrote.

"Separated by a few kilometers from another meeting, where Ruto was selling his views against the draft, the envoy promised to continue helping the push for reforms," the paper said. "The American ambassador again pointed out Obama was interested in ensuring the country embraces reforms to pave way for better governance, improved livelihood for citizens."

Obama's links to Odinga

The Obama administration's funding of Kenyan internal politics appears to follow a pattern then-Sen. Obama first set on his 2006 Senate-funded visit to Kenya.

During that trip in 2006, Obama campaigned so openly for Odinga that Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua went on Kenyan television on behalf of Kenyan President Kibaki to object that Obama was meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics, as WND reported.

WND reported in 2008 that Obama raised almost $1 million for Odinga during the run-up to Kenya's 2007 presidential election.

Also as WND previously reported, Odinga called for protests over alleged voter fraud during the December 2007 Kenyan presidential election, with the resulting protest violence leaving an estimated 1,000 members of the dominant Kiduyu tribe in Kenya dead and an estimated 500,000 displaced from their homes.

In a horrifying incident following the election, at least 50 people, including women and children, were killed when an angry mob forced Kiduyu Christians into an Assembly of God church in the village of Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi. The mob set fire to the church, hacking with machetes any of the Christians who attempted to escape the flames.

In the final days of the New Hampshire Democratic primary, after the post-election violence in Kenya, Obama told reporters he continued to remain in contact with Odinga by telephone.

Obama did not object to Odinga's continued push to share the head of state with President Mwai Kibaki despite Odinga's electoral defeat.

Instead, Obama worked with former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to end the violence by creating for Odinga the position of prime minister – a position not defined in the Kenyan constitution – so Odinga could become co-head of state with Kibaki.

As recently as May, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, was in Kenya to investigate the possibility of bringing criminal charges against both Kibaki and Odinga for their roles in the post-election violence.