Why I quit...

By Findalis

Desert Storm vet explains decision to leave Air Force after 22 years.

By MIKE BANZET

I never expected to write this letter, but my Mom e-mailed me to get information about my career for a writeup on Veterans Day, and as this is the first such holiday in 22 years when I will not be on active duty, I felt compelled to let you know why I decided to quit.

Quit is a strong word, I know. Everyone I’ve talked to has repeated that I’ve had a marvelous career and that I’ve retired with honor. Maybe that’s true on paper; I guess that it’s reflected by the record. But that’s not how I feel. I feel like I’ve quit. And because I’m not a quitter, I feel I have to explain why — not that anyone is asking, but because perhaps they don’t know to ask.

Briefly, my career had been a representation of the promise of this country. Starting out on the lowest rung of the rank ladder as an F-4G Wild Weasel crew chief, continuing on F-16s and the F-117A Stealth fighter in Desert Storm, then a small part of Desert Fox as a nuclear Maintenance Officer and finally a pilot that took part in numerous deployments in Southern Watch, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I finished up an awesome year on the ground in Iraq, and was selected to receive a coveted “Definitely Promote,” assuring me of promotion to lieutenant colonel. They don’t pass out many of those. My dreams were right in front of me. All I had to do was grab them. And then I retired. Why?

Atlas Shrugged.

I had chosen, freely, to place my life between those that would do harm to the U.S. and those whom I would protect: her citizens. I had always believed in the best of America and the people of her lands; that despite occasional missteps there was a general “rightness” to our way. I lived that belief for 22 years, leading and following warriors into combat. I’m certainly no war hero; my brothers in arms have seen far more combat, more intense and personal than I. But I have become acquainted with death in a way that I hope you never do. My last tour, on the ground in Iraq was where my heart started to be hardened towards you, the electorate, and culminated in this letter, written two days before our elections. And here’s why.

You’ve elected officials who, for partisan points, spoke openly that the “…war is lost.” I happened to be in a dining facility in Baghdad that day, filled with the (mostly) young faces of (mostly) Army men and women. CNN was on the TVs, and things got very quiet when this elected official continued on, railing that the mission that some of these very people were here to do, had “…failed.” Yet, they would be donning their body armor, strapping on med kits and weapons, mounting HMMVs or MRAPs and heading outside the wire, ensuring that the newborn democracy in Iraq, purchased with so many lives, would be safe another night. The newly re-invigorated insurgents would be waiting, teeth bared back in a hateful smile, gripping the IED detonator, the RPG launcher, or the AK-47s to ply their trade with new energy, because the Senate Majority Leader had said they were winning.

You elected officials who continually defame and berate military members, whether it is the observation that if you’re not too bright, you’ll get “…stuck in Iraq” (this from a guy who has two Purple Hearts for self-inflicted wounds, and known for throwing someone else’s medals away in protest), or the calling of combat Marines cold-blooded killers (in a war; before trial). You’ve elected officials in the role of commander-in-chief who “loathe” the military, while using ROTC deferments and special treatment to avoid military service that the less “connected” take as a responsibility. On the basis of “change,” you elected someone who had close, ongoing associations with people who were part of an organization that tried to kill us [U.S. military] on our own soil.

You elected officials that promised to take property from some Americans, and give it to you, merely because they had more than you did. Those Americans that these officials have labeled as the “rich” are your neighbors, who provide jobs and pay far more in taxes than you ever will. That means they are already subsidizing your lifestyle choices; you just want more of their property without the responsibility of risking your wealth and labor to get it. You would rather hire someone to take it from them. And you have.

Yet these same officials from this same party are the wealthiest group of people in both the House and Senate. They have offshore accounts, forbid unions in their businesses and use every tax loophole they can find with their armies of accountants. But you keep sending them back to those jobs, because they promise to steal from some Americans and give to you.

You elect officials who openly embrace illegal activity; but they don’t have to live with the consequences. Other Americans pay the price. You support “sanctuary cities” and open defiance of federal law, including supporting administrations who sue our sister states as they desperately try to control a crime epidemic by supporting federal law. You support an administration that leads a party that gives a standing ovation to the leader of a country that exploits our kindness and actively encourages law-breaking in our country while insulting our fellow citizens who dare to try to enforce the law. Check out your elected officials; did they stand and applaud the racist diatribe of the president of Mexico? Did they join the attorney general and the head of Homeland Security in applauding this gaping hole in (homeland) security and law? Do you have locks on your doors? Why?

You elect officials who are openly racist, decrying that “White folks’ greed drives a world in need…” and that their own grandmother was a “…typical white person.” Someone who sits in admiration as their pastor (small p; no capital letters for racists), in a church he attended for 20 years, slanders the United States as the “…U.S. of KKK America” and delights that the 9/11 “…chickens have come home to roost.” Someone who refused to denounce a paramilitary, racist organization that placed its members in front of polling places armed with billy clubs, and yelling racist, threatening epithets. On video. And the Attorney General did nothing.

Oh, wait. The Justice Department is now apparently, under sworn testimony, the Department of Racial Payback. And you continue to support the party that supports this blatantly racist behavior because they say that they will stick it to “the man” on your behalf. A Nation of Cowards? I don’t think so; the courage of this breathtaking racism is without equal in modern times. One would think that you would use your votes to eradicate these racist policies from the U.S. But that assumes eradicating racism is your aim. It’s not, or you would be as incensed at this blatant racism as you would if sheet-covered whites were there. But longtime Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd’s old gang has been rightfully disgraced and shamed into a virtual non-existence. Thank goodness that 52 percent of you discourage that kind of behavior.

But you don’t. You support the tactic of using the epithet of “racist” as the cudgel of choice for racists who don’t like policies that conservatives advocate. Don’t like illegal activity? Racist. Your party insists that to provide a photo ID — proving you are who you say you are — is not only too much of a burden to ask a voter to bear, but it’s racist as well. This not only terribly insulting to all races, but when the burden of proof to rent the DVD “Second Hand Lions” (amazing movie!) is higher than that required to vote for someone who has control of nuclear weapons or deploying men and women into harm’s way, there is something wrong.

It doesn’t end there. Don’t like a particular female’s policies? Sexist. Yet, you support politicians who prey on 20-year old interns, seduce underage male interns, and, as a double bonus, support a person for the Supreme Court who says she is “wiser” than white people because of her race and sex. And any opponent of hers must be sexist and racist. Yet the prevailing double standard makes “bitch” an acceptable term for a conservative grandmother with the temerity to want to stop illegal activity. And “whore” is acceptable terminology for any conservative woman.

Sarah Palin seems to be a nice person, the kind you would love to have as a neighbor, regardless of her policies; but you insist that she is stupid and vile. She is ignorant and inexperienced, clearly not ready for anything, as holding a variety of elected and appointed positions culminating in the governorship of Alaska clearly doesn’t hold up against… an organizer of race-based communities. Sexist, if a conservative said those words about a liberal, but because she is not pro-killing-little-kids, 52 percent of you decided she was worth vicious ad hominem attacks that continue to this day. Not just saying that you disagree, but saying she is evil. You support it all. All because the folks that practice this abhorrent behavior promise to give you free health care stolen from other Americans who haven’t paid their ill-defined “fair share.”

My oath was this: “I, Mike, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

I took that oath seriously. But you have responsibilities, too. You should take them seriously.

Mike Banzet, a retired major in the U.S. Air Force, is a 1986 graduate of Flathead High School in Kalispell, Montana.

When I first read this letter I knew I had to post it in its entirety, without any embellishes or comments from me.  Major Banzet's words speak louder, clearer, with an eloquence that stands alone without overt embellishments.

It is a shame that men and women who serve our nation find themselves disillusioned and repelled at the level of revulsion directed at them by many of the esteemed Members of Congress.  Many of which never served a day of their lives in uniform, let alone in a combat zone.  These respected public servants are not fit to lick the shoes of Major Banzet, let alone speak against them.

Let the words of Major Banzet be a wake-up call to us all.  For if the Major Banzet's leave our military disillusioned and disheartened, we will be faced with the reality of a second class military incapable of defeating our weakest foe and unable to defend this nation from those who would destroy it from within.  A military the former Soviet Union wanted us to have and their fellow travelers are trying to turn into the new reality.


In Tribute To The Men And Women Of the US Air Force


Wild Blue Yonder

Jack Cafferty on Disgraceful Cowardly Democrat Congress

Jack Cafferty says Pelosi releasing the House early on October 1st, a week earlier than scheduled to go home and campaign, is disgraceful. We have no federal budget because Democrats are cowards, and refuse to make the cuts necessary to get the National debt under control.







Jack Cafferty on Disgraceful and Cowardly Congress (video)
Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Obama Asks Congress for Access to Your Internet Records: Your Prescribed Drugs are Already in a Government Database

Obama is asking Congress for the right to access your Internet records - presumably everything you have done on the web, without a Court giving him the authority to do so. Without any authority, the government is already keeping your prescription drug information in a government database. Think that doesn't include you? AVirginia Tech student's records were in a government database, not a hospital or doctor's database - but in a Federal database. Read the story below.

Quote:

“Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications.” To call that an out-of-control, privacy-destroying Surveillance State is to understate the case. ~ Glenn Greenwald

Something else I read in Greenwald's article, unrelated to our Internet records, is that the government keeps a database on every drug each of us are prescribed and take.

When Seung-Hui Cho went on a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech in 2007, this passage appeared buried in an ABC News report on the incident: “Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government’s files.” Such “files” are maintained through a 2005 lawwhich, the Government claims, authorizes it to monitor and record all prescription drug use by all citizens via so-called “Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs.” And there is a slew of other under-discussed surveillance programs whereby the U.S. government stores vast data on our private activities: everything from every domestic telephone call we maketo “risk assessment” records based on our travel activities. A bipartisan group of Senators iscurrently promoting mandated “biometric ID cards” for every American as a purported solution to illegal immigration.

From GlobalResearch.ca:

"The Obama administration is seeking authority from Congress that would compel internet service providers (ISPs) to turn over records of an individual's internet activity for use in secretive FBI probes.

"In another instance where Americans are urged to trust their political minders, The Washington Post reported last month that "the administration wants to add just four words--'electronic communication transactional records'--to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval."

"Under cover of coughing-up information deemed relevant to espionage or terrorism investigations, proposed changes to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) would greatly expand the volume of private records that can be seized through National Security Letters (NSLs).

From Glenn Greenwald at CATO:

Not only has Obama, in the wake of this massive expansion, blocked any reforms, he has taken multiple steps to further expand unaccountable and unchecked surveillance power. For the last year, the Obama Justice Department has been trying to convince federal courts to extend its warrantless surveillance powers beyond even what the Patriot Act provides to encompass private email and Internet browsing records, a position which would allow the FBI and other federal agencies to acquire email and browsing records of American citizens — including those who are not suspected of any wrongdoing — without any warrants or judicial supervision of any kind. With defeat in the courts appearing likely, it wasrecently revealed by The Washington Post that the administration is agitating for Congressional action to amend the Patriot Act to include such Internet and browsing data among the records obtainable by NSLs.

Not only has Obama, in the wake of this massive expansion, blocked any reforms, he has taken multiple steps to further expand unaccountable and unchecked surveillance power. For the last year, the Obama Justice Department has been trying to convince federal courts to extend its warrantless surveillance powers beyond even what the Patriot Act provides to encompass private email and Internet browsing records, a position which would allow the FBI and other federal agencies to acquire email and browsing records of American citizens — including those who are not suspected of any wrongdoing — without any warrants or judicial supervision of any kind. With defeat in the courts appearing likely, it wasrecently revealed by The Washington Post that the administration is agitating for Congressional action to amend the Patriot Act to include such Internet and browsing data among the records obtainable by NSLs. 

Greenwald's article is long and packed with information that I did not know, and bet you don't know either.


Side Note: Are you aware of the weekly Ten Buck Friday Poll? You can leave your nomination for constitutional conservatives to be entered in the poll. The winner each week receives donations from Ten Buck Friday participating bloggers and readers. Please leave nominations for next week's Ten Buck Friday poll in comments on any page in my blog, or follow the link on the poll, found in my lefthand sidebar, to comments and post your nomination.

Please help us find constitutional conservatives around the country, and then support them with your donation each week. See the poll in my lefthand sidebar.


Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook
Linked by The Unreligious Right

ACORN Funding Ban Upheld by Court

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Nina Gershon's resumption ruling of Congress' funding of ACORN. The 2nd Circuit ruled that banning government funds to ACORN was not a form of "punishment" and therefore was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder, as the organizations attorney's argued.

Darrell Issa

Congress originally shut-off the money spigot. ACORN sued Congress. Congress won. Gershon reversed the win, and here we are this week with the 2nd Circuit upholding the original ruiling. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has been the taxpayer's watchdog on this case. Here's his statement

In one, unified and bipartisan voice, the United States Congress and the president agreed that it was inappropriate to use taxpayer dollars to fund a partisan political organization, intentionally structured as a criminal enterprise that used the guise of charity to deceive the American people while betraying very people it claimed to help.

Hopefully, today's ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals puts an end to ACORN's misguided belief that there exists some right to taxpayer dollars to fund their overtly criminal and partisan political agenda.

For it's part, ACORN is asking the court to reconsider.

We cannot let Congress act like judge, jury and executioner without any hearings at all. No matter how politically unpopular and vulnerable ACORN is, we cannot allow right wing to pressure Congress into acting in unconstitutional manner.

So when the spigot stopped, and Gershon turned it back on...does ACORN have to repay the taxpayer's money?

Socialists in Congress: 70 Socialists in U.S. Congress

WHO ARE THE SOCIALIST IN ELECTED OFFICE TODAY:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is apparently considered a part of the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA). The Jeremiah Project says the group:

"has gone underground in respect to their connection to the Democratic Socialists of America. Their roster is no longer published on the DSA website and they no longer publicly acknowledge their loyalty to the socialist organization.

That being said, the following Scribd document is dated 10/1/09 and is identified as the American Socialist Voter  - Dem Soc of America. So are socialists inside Capitol Hill out of the closet and joining Bernie Sanders?


 Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA [Democrat Socialists of America]?

 A: Seventy

 Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee

 A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?

A See the listing below

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raul M. Grijalava (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane atson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sanchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. Jose Serrano (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Fair use notice cited from Congressional Progressive Caucus and Tysk News

H/T Gateway Pundit via Ace of Spades

Card Check Passed in Lame Duck Session?

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) says he may be able to pass the Card Check bill during the Lame Duck session.

Tom Harkin

Here's a Senator unashamed to admit he is "maneuvering" for shameful legislation:

"To those who think it's dead, I say think again," Harkin said on the liberal Bill Press radio show. 

"We're still trying to maneuver," the Iowa Democrat added, explaining that if Democrats can't move the bill in its entirety, they might try to pass key parts of the union-organizing legislation individually.

The Iowa senator also raised the prospect on Thursday or trying to pass parts of the card-check bill during a lame-duck session of Congress at the end of the year.

"A lot of things can happen in a lame-duck session, too," he said in reference to EFCA. 

A "lame-duck" session refers to the time Congress is in session after an election, during which members who might have retired or lost reelection still serve for roughly two months. Contentious legislation like EFCA is rarely moved during such a session, though the logic behind trying to move the labor bill during a lame-duck Congress is that lawmakers who might have opposed it for political purposes might be more inclined to support it.

Card Check is a way for Unions to deny a private ballot to Union voters. In other words, Union leaders will know exactly how you vote in Union matters. Card Check removes the "federally supervised" private ballot privilege. Read more about Card Check here, and if you come up with a democratic reason for stealing an employee's right to a private vote, let me know.

The real explanation for a "lame duck" vote is this: the politician is not coming back to Congress and so abandons all ethics, integrity and concern for their own constituency and votes opposite to how they would have voted had they been returning to Capitol Hill. In other words, they sell out. Nice.

Congress Fined for No Health Care: Health Care Fines Couldn't Happen to a More Deserving Bunch

You've heard that Obama's health care legislation seemed to boot members of Congress from their own privileged health care plans. Today, it appears they may stay on their health care plans, but will be fined, as laid out in the law. It is incredible what Congress doesn't know. Idiots!

Our Desecrated House of Representatives

From The Daily Caller:

A memo from the obama administration may stop members of Congress and their staffs from immediately getting dumped off their health care plans, but it won't stop Congress from getting fined by its own health care law.

The reason is that while the new law is vague about whether Congress can keep its current health care plan for the moment, it's crystal clear about dumping members and their staffs from that plan after 2014.

At that point, when 535 lawmakers and the 15,000 or so people who work for them flood newly-created health insurance exchange markets, it's likely that some will apply for government subsidies, which in turn will trigger massive fines. Under the law, employers are subject to fines of up to $3,000 per person for each employee who receives government health care subsidies. 

The article continues, to muse about what Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, might do about the predicament, and the guess is, she will exempt Congress from fines by "narrowly defining the word "employer."

Linked by The Lonely Conservative - Thanks!

CNN Poll 52% Obama Doesn't Deserve Reelection in 2010

A just released CNN Opinion Research poll says 52% of Americans polled do not think Barack Obama deserves reelection in 2010.

The telephone poll canvassed 1,023 adult Americans, including 954 registered voters. The poll was taken Feburary 12-15, 2010. Margin of error + or - 3%.

Skipping to question No. 6 in the poll, as this is the news:

6. Do you think Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or not?

All Respondents
44% yes, deserves reelection
52% no, does not deserve reelection
4% no opinion

Registered Voters
44% yes, deserves reelection
52% no, does not deserve reelection
4% no opinion

Pertaining to Obama deserving reelection, note that the answers are the same whether a registered voter or not.

Respondents were asked about their own social class:

4% upper class
44% middle class
52% working class
0% no opinion 

This is fairly shocking. Fifty two percent of working class respondents do not believe Obama deserves reelection, and 52% of all respondents consider themselves working class.

Now I'd like you to describe Barack Obama as a person using those same classifications.  Think about Obama's personal experiences before he became president and his overall outlook on life rather than the lifestyle that all presidents have while they are in the White House.  Thinking about the kind of person you believe Obama is, which would you say he belongs in -- the upper class, the middle class, or the working class?

45% upper class
42% middle class
12% working class
2% no opinion 

Here is the remainder of the poll:

1.  Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

49% approve
50% disapprove

2. and 3. If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district? (IF UNSURE:) As of today, who do you lean more toward:

All Respondents 46% Democrat 46% Republican 5% neither 3% no opinion

Registered Voters

45% Democrat
47% Republican
6% Niether
2% no opinion

4. Please tell me whether you think each of the following political officeholders deserves to be re- elected or not:   (RANDOM ORDER)

The U.S. representative in your congressional district
All Americans
50% yes, deserves re-election
44% no, does not deserve re-election
6% no opinion

Registered Voters:
51% yes, deserves re-election
44% no, does not deserve re-election
4% no opinion

5. Please tell me whether you think each of the following political officeholders deserves to be re- elected or not:   (RANDOM ORDER) (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE.  RESULTS BASED ON 501 INTERVIEWS IN VERSION B -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE POINTS.)

Most Democratic Members of Congress
All Respondents
43% yes, deserves re-election
54% no, does not deserve re-election
3% no opinion

Registered Voters
41% yes, deserves re-election
56% no, does not deserve re-election
3% no opinion

Most Republican Members of Congress
All Respondents
39% yes, deserves re-election
56%  no, does not deserve re-election
3% no opinion

Registered Voters
41% yes, deserves re-election
56% no, does not deserve reelection
5% no opinion

It is striking that the same percentages of both Democrats and Republicans believe Congress does not deserve reelection.

For additional analysis, read The Hill.

FairTax Nation Rally: FairTax Washington DC Rally April 15th

I received the following from FairTax Nation and want to share it with you.

A message to all members of FairTax Nation

You are invited to a FairTax rally in Washington DC. The rally on April 15 "Storm the Hill" is free and open to the public. After the rally we go to the Congressional office buildings to meet with our congressmen. It is advised that you call for an appointment ahead of time if you wish to talk to your Congressman or a legislative staffer in person. If you go as a group, it improves your odds for an in person meeting.

Find your congressman's contact  information at: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ or click Contacting the Congress.

To register for the conference or to register for discounted hotel reservations go to: www.FairTaxNation.com or click FairTaxNation.

We also have information on discounted group tickets on Amtrak which we named "Get onboard the FairTax Train" We have a coordinator, Amanda Swafford 4672beacon@gmail.com who can help you make the arrangements if your group would like to take the train to DC.

Would you like text updates on FairTax activities? Text "FairTax" to 68398

Questions? Just ask!
Marilyn Rickert

Visit FairTax Nation at: http://fairtaxnation.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

Orrin Hatch Declares War on Reconciliation: Permanent Damage to Parties

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) says there will be an "all-out political war" if Democrats turn to reconciliation to pass their health care reform. That's not all. Hatch believes if reconciliation is employed, it will cause "permanent" harm to any hope of bipartisanship.

Senator Hatch is expecting that war; he expects Democrats to "go to reconciliation," and "promised a new high in partisan tensions," if they do.

The day after the President's State of the Union, with Obama admonishing Republicans for their tone, and asking for bipartisanship, Hatch said he didn't believe Democrats will participate in bipartisanship [my interpretation of his remarks]:

"They haven't acted in good faith on this, nor do I expect that they will," he said in an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune . "I expect them to go to reconciliation."...

Hatch said Thursday that using reconciliation would be "one of the worst grabs for power in the history of the country" that would permanently impact relations between the two parties.

"It is going to be outright war and it should be, because it would be such an abuse of the reconciliation rules," Hatch said. "If they abuse those rules it is going to lead to even more heated animosities between not just the two parties, but even between individual senators." 

Reconciliation allows one party to bypass a filibuster and pass legislation with a simple majority - 51 votes, rather than 60 votes needed to avoid filibuster.

Hat Tip to Hot Air - read their commentary, and Senatus

More on Senator Hatch: Government in Control of Everything - Including College Football?

More on "Bipartisanship:"
Marsha Blackburn Questions Obama at Baltimore Conference

Paul Ryan Questions Obama on Budget: Obama Runs for the Hills

Obama Says Health Care Centrist: Angry, Delusional President (videos)

Max Baucus Health Care Alive! Rahm Emanuel Stripped Down Health Care: Emanuel Force Repubs to Vote on Health Care

On January 21st, Senator Max Baucus said about health care: "No way is it dead...we will find a way to pass it." Below the fold in a Politico article dated today, it was reported that Rahm Emanuel was hunkered-down, working on a stripped-down version of health care, in the hopes of forcing Republicans to vote. Friends, this is the Chicago-machine we're dealing with. It's not over till it's over. Update 1-22-10: Rush Limbaugh is reporting right now, that the reconciliation option, needing only 51 votes to pass health care, is on the table. Dems will be spending the next 4 or 5 days trying to figure out a way to get the legislation through.

From Politico 1-21-10:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said, “No way is it dead, because it’s so important for the country. And we will find a way to pass [it].”

From Politico 1-22-10:

Emanuel, for his part, is now pushing for a stripped-down health care bill that could be passed within a few weeks and force Republicans, for a change, to take a few tough votes.

Can Rahm Emanuel resurrect a stripped-down version of ObamaKare, and foist it on us - the incredibly naive public who thinks the legislation is dead, done and over?

Can Emanuel craft a bill that guilts Republicans into reaching across the aisle, and force their hands on their oft-mentioned desire for some version of health care, just not Obama's version?

Can there be a plan, with backdoors and loopholes not easily seen in a health care bill designed to sucker Republicans, and save the President's badly tarnished image - battered ego, and diminished credibility?

Just sit back, close your eyes and imagine such a bill. When the image is burned into your conscience, pick up the phone and call your representative and senator.

The Awakening!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Book of Obama Chapter 9

All through the first year of The Anointed One the people of the land did grumble.

"You are spending too much!"
"Increasing the debt!"
"The jobs are gone, make more!"
"The banks will fail again!"
"The car companies will fail!"
"HEALTH CARE!"

And did The Anointed One listen to the people of the land?  No He did not.  For He was told by Pelosi the Loud and Reid the Inept that they can do what they want, for the people will forget.

So while all through the Summer of Discord,. while tempers ran wild, The Anointed One just plowed forward with His own New Deal.

"We will push it through Congress!" The Anointed One shouted to His staff.  "We will force this on the people."  And the Progressives did laugh.

"We will change the nation, turn it into Europe-lite.  By the time We are finished, those idiots in the street will not be able to change it back."

"For Nanny is the name of the New Welfare Plan.  Total Cradle to Grave, We will do to them as well.  I know best, that everyone can see.  My way is the Right Way.  That is what I say it will be!"

All through the summer and into the fall, the warning signs were there for all to see, but The Anointed One became blinded to the truth.

He ignored the disaster of the Olympics, how His city of Chicago was turned down.  Or when He went to campaign for Virginia and Jersey of New, He couldn't turn those races around.

He put on the tears for the victims of Fort Hood, but refused to call it terror.
He ignored the Christmas bomber, it upset His plans for golf and fun that week.
But when His friend's son received a boo-boo, He ran back as fast as He could.
He partied day and night in the warm Hawaiin sands.

But on the eve of His first year anniversary.  He has received the worst news.
The Fiefdom of the Kennedy's:  Massachusetts has left the color blue.
The Fiefdom that old Joe the Bootlegger bought for his own son.  A piece of land that was the birthplace of the progressive slant.
The land of Harvard (the school The Anointed One attended.), of Barney the Frank and Kerry the Swiftboater, plus other illustrious names.
The Fiefdom of John the Martyr and Teddy the Lecher, both of Camalot fame, did hold court.  Those names plus Tips, remained true in count.

Yet of the day before the anniversary of the anointing by John of Roberts, the Holy Chief of Justice, where He was endowed with the Mantle of Power, did the news break unto Him.  His party just lost the Fiefdom of Massachusetts, and may never get it back.

There goes the New Deal for the Nation.  The Nanny must go!  The people have turned against us.  Our seats will be given to another.  The people have spoken in Massachusetts, a Fiefdom so blue it was nearly black.  The Kennedys don't run this Fiefdom any more.  The people have taken it back!

"We are fed up with your nanny, spending and lies.  You promised us openness on C-SPAN!  You said no smoke-filled rooms, transparency.  Yet you haven't delivered these.  What we want is good government.  Lower taxes, more jobs, less waste, less debt.  We didn't get that.  We want to feel safe when we fly.  Yet we don't feel safer too.  You treat those who cause harm to us like the common criminal.  Giving them rights they are not entitled to, setting them upon our shore.

For all these reasons and more, we have chosen our new champion Brown of the Body Politic.  He is our champion.  He is our Redeemer!"

The Anointed One reeled in horror.  He was the chosen.  He wore the Mantle of Power.  He was the one they had to worship.  He would see to it that the people would have this nanny nation to live on.

But it is too late for the false Messiah He has become, His oration will fail.  For the people of the nation have awakened.  Now they will just count the days to the next election where they can correct the mistake they made in 08!

Dedicated to the late Roger W. Gardner of Radarsite.  Massachusetts was his home state!

Congress Abdicates: Obama Task Force to Decide Taxes

Barack Obama has the agreement of Congress to form a task force to once again abdicate the duties and responsibilities of that increasingly laughable body that sits on Capitol Hill. Where the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to tax and spend, a new task force of 18 congressional members will now try to solve the country's deficit.

Two senators came up with the idea and drafted the legislation: Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). May Judd Gregg feel the weight of what he has done each and every night he lays his head on a pillow. Once the panel makes a recommendation, it will be voted on by Congress, no amendments with a straight up or down vote in both the House and the Senate. Not that Congress has done much responsible thinking of late; now they need to do none.

In this column by George Will, he points out a sentence in The Washington Post:

The White House has been talking to Congress to try to craft a proposal that would not wholly relinquish congressional control over major decisions on taxes and spending.

What is it that Congress does these days? Czars do the work, plant the seeds, the seed is carried to the House and Senate leaders and the troops bring out the goose-step.

Will points out that the oath of office for members of Congress doesn't ask them to "partially or occasionally or when convenient" support and defend the Constitution - and faithfully discharge their duties.

Substantively, the task force would be a means of conscripting Republican participation in huge tax increases.

Were the Conrad-Gregg task force to come to a consensus, it almost certainly would be that Congress must make the supposedly “difficult choice” of spending more of other people's money. Fortunately, the task force probably would be paralyzed by the requirement that its proposals must be endorsed by at least 14 — 78 percent — of its members. Given the difficulty of getting 60 percent of the Senate to agree on anything important, a 78 percent consensus on raising taxes and cutting entitlements will be extremely elusive.

Here's a suggestion whose time has come:

So the Gregg-Conrad legislation should be amended to include this language:

“During the life of this task force, which will perform Congress' fundamental duties, all senators and representatives will be considered on vacation and will not be paid. If the task force's recommendations are accepted by Congress, there will be no congressional pay until 2050.”

This would be a Madisonian measure, altering incentives in order to encourage responsibility. Let's vote.

 Others talking about the abdication of Congress:
Left Coast Rebel

White House Wednesday Cocktail Hour Dead

The Wednesday cocktail hour at the White House is dead. Obama's Hope to be the Pied Piper of Republicans each Wednesday evening, actually did bring about Change. Witness Scott Brown and Massachusetts. That's real change. Republicans are quick learners.

A professor quoted in this article says Obama "started with hope, tries to nurture it and then hope of getting bipartisanship fades." Someone explain to Professor Julian Zelizer the meaning of bipartisanship, please, and where his president failed.

Related:
Arianna Huffington says Hope has been a bust - Time for Hope 2.0

Obama Full Speed Ahead for Health Care: Your Opinion has Never Mattered

The war begins now. President Obama says he will push ahead - full speed - for health care. Your opinion has never mattered.

Now we need the individual Congressmen and women to step all over this man's ego. It should be clear that those in Congress who have waivered over their vote, will see the writing on the wall more clearly after the Massachusetts vote. But we know Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will travel to the depths of indecency to buy their fondest desires. Who will be the next Martha Coakley?

Their options are few, and extremely complex, mostly involving legislative tactics that would be difficult to pull off in the best of circumstances, let alone at a time when members are worried they could be the next Martha Coakley – a seeming Democratic shoo-in laid low, in part, by health reform.

Judge Napolitano Constitution and Freedom Part 1 Video

The following video is Part 1 of Judge Napolitano's series on The Constitution and Freedom. See links to each of the five parts below, or view them in one video.

Judge Andrew Napolitano Constitution and Freedom Part 1 (video) 

See all 5 parts in one video here.

See Part 1 here.

See Part 2 here.

See Part 3 here. 

See Part 4 here. 

See Part 5 here.

Judge Napolitano Constitution and Freedom Part 2 Video

The following video is Part 1 of Judge Napolitano's series on The Constitution and Freedom. See links to each of the five parts below, or view all 5 in one video.

Judge Napolitano Constitution and Freedom Part 2 (video)


See all 5 parts in one video here.

See Part 1 here.

See Part 2 here.

See Part 3 here. 

See Part 4 here. 

See Part 5 here.

Judge Napolitano Constitution and Freedom Part 3 Video

The following video is Part 3 of Judge Napolitano's series on The Constitution and Freedom. See links to each of the five parts below.

Judge Andrew Napolitano Constitution and Freedom Part 3 (video)
See all 5 parts in one video here.

See Part 1 here.

See Part 2 here.

See Part 4 here.

See Part 5 here.

Judge Napolitano Constitution and Freedom Part 4 Video

The following video is Part 4 of Judge Napolitano's series on The Constitution and Freedom. See links to each of the five parts below.

Judge Andrew Napolitano Constitution and Freedom Part 4 (video)
See all 5 parts in one video here.

See Part 1 here.

See Part 2 here.

See Part 3 here. 

See Part 5 here.

Judge Napolitano Constitution and Freedom Part 5 Video

The following video is Part 5 of Judge Napolitano's series on The Constitution and Freedom. See links to each of the five parts below, or view all 5 in one video.

Judge Andrew Napolitano Constitution and Freedom Part 5 (video)
See all 5 parts in one video here.

See Part 1 here.

See Part 2 here.

See Part 3 here. 

See Part 4 here.