Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January 21st, 2010

End TARP Now!

by Nancy Matthis at American Daughter

Senator John Thune (R-SD) is trying to save $$ with an amendment to the Democrats’ expansion of the US debt.

Despite the clear message of the Massachusetts election this past Tuesday, Democrats plan to raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion:

The Senate opened debate Wednesday on a plan to raise the nation’s debt limit by $1.9 trillion, a move that Democrats hope will see the Treasury through this fall’s congressional elections.

The record increase would raise the Treasury’s legal ceiling for borrowing to $14.3 trillion — about the size of the nation’s overall economy….

Do you get the significance of that casually reported phrase? We will be in debt by as much as our whole economy is worth.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama plans to use the remaining funds in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), reportedly about $200 billion, as a piggy bank for pet projects in Democratic legislators’ districts, to buy back voter support. These expenditures would be entirely unrelated to the original purpose for which TARP was passed — to buy toxic assets.

Senator Thune has submitted an amendment to the legislation to raise the debt ceiling, calling for an immediate end to TARP and lowering the debt limit by an amount equal to whatever funds are recovered from TARP. From the Daily CallerTARP has run its course by Sen. John Thune:

….TARP funds may become just another slush fund for Democrats to spend on pet projects that might be good for them politically, but do nothing for our national economy. Far from spending our way out of this recession, this flawed approach would just dig us into a deeper hole.

Take the president’s last $800 billion stimulus package as an example. He billed that as a guaranteed way to create up to 4 million jobs. Since that stimulus was passed last February, our economy has lost 2.7 million jobs, and unemployment has risen to 10 percent….

TARP has already strayed far from its original purpose of taking toxic assets off the books of financial institutions so they could get back on their feet….

This week Senate Democrats will vote to again expand the nation’s debt limit by at least $635 billion $1.9 trillion, and I have introduced an amendment that would end TARP immediately and lower the debt limit by an amount equal to whatever funds we get back from the program. Taking steps now to reduce the uncertainty created by a ballooning national debt will have a far greater impact on righting our economy and allowing private businesses to create jobs than will any new spending by the government.

TARP was never meant to be the president’s piggy bank for costly new stimulus spending, and the wisest thing we could do with the remaining TARP money is to end the program so these funds won’t be wasted. I hope Senate Democrats will take this opportunity to join their Republican colleagues in supporting my amendment to finally end the TARP experiment. In doing so, we can take one small—but significant—step on the path toward fiscal responsibility.

H.J.Res.45 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt was introduced in the Senate yesterday. You can track this resolution at Open Congress here.

ACTION ITEM: Call, fax or email both of your US senators and tell them to support the Thune Amendment to House Joint Resolution 45. Find contact information for your senators here.

[Editor's Note to our readers -- The legislation to increase the national debt ceiling is House Joint Resolution 45. Don't confuse this with House Resolution 45, the egregiously anti-gun-rights bill titled Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. The first is a joint resolution with the Senate, while the second is simply a House bill. They just happen to have the same number.]

Read Full Post »

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

With the historic election of Scott, the people of Massachusetts rose to defend our nation’s liberty as their predecessors had done over 200 years before. A new day is dawning in America and a new hope that liberty’s light will continue to shine on our nation for many years to come.

A New Day is Dawning in America

 

Left Wing Poll Indicates Democratic Base Helped Brown

From Fightin’ Words

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC conducted an exit poll in Massachusetts Tuesday night which indicated the lack of a “public option” in the last known Senate version of the health care bill contributed to Scott Brown’s victory. 82% of respondents who voted for Obama in 2008 and then Brown on Tuesday stated they support the public option. 86% of Obama voters who stayed home from the polls also stated they support the public option. Over half of respondents in both categories, those who voted for Brown and those who stayed home, said Obama is not doing enough to deliver on the change he promised during the campaign.

Forgetting for the moment this poll was conducted on behalf of three “progressive” organizations, including MoveOn.org, what should we take away from it? It may be a mistake to disregard these numbers. When taken in consideration alongside reaction on record from Democratic supporters to the exclusion of a “public option,” along with the presence of a sizable faction within the left-wing which has demanded an outright single-payer system, it seems sensible to speculate a disillusioned Democratic base is perhaps as responsible for Brown’s victory as an emboldened libertarian uprising. This makes sense when compared to the model established in Republican support when the GOP was the majority; the failure of Republicans to live up to their articulated ideals led to disillusioned conservatives who withheld support and essentially enabled Democratic victories.

If one can move past an inherent suspicion of the source, these numbers offer some sobriety to the elation following Brown’s historic ascent to the Senate. While it is true, as articulated in the above shown video from Minnesota Majority, that Scott Brown’s victory “was a referendum on freedom,” it may also be true it was a referendum from some quarters to the contrary. Understanding this, at least accepting it as a possibility, may be key to crafting successful campaigns throughout this year.

The greatest danger in the wake of Brown’s victory, in this writer’s opinion, is assuming an air of manifest destiny. Candidates for liberty must pursue an aggressive campaign which forces statist opponents toward the center, depriving them of support from their entitlement-hungry base. Speaking from the perspective of the Republican Party, the sentiment has been oft expressed that Republicans have not distinguished themselves from Democrats, been “me too” luke-warm alternatives, and thus enabled the message to be crafted by opponents. There is an opportunity this year to turn that phenomenon on its ear. Brown’s victory offers evidence. 

Left Wing Poll Indicates Democratic Base Helped Brown

From Fightin’ Words

 

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC conducted an exit poll in Massachusetts Tuesday night which indicated the lack of a “public option” in the last known Senate version of the health care bill contributed to Scott Brown’s victory. 82% of respondents who voted for Obama in 2008 and then Brown on Tuesday stated they support the public option. 86% of Obama voters who stayed home from the polls also stated they support the public option. Over half of respondents in both categories, those who voted for Brown and those who stayed home, said Obama is not doing enough to deliver on the change he promised during the campaign.

 

Forgetting for the moment this poll was conducted on behalf of three “progressive” organizations, including MoveOn.org, what should we take away from it? It may be a mistake to disregard these numbers. When taken in consideration alongside reaction on record from Democratic supporters to the exclusion of a “public option,” along with the presence of a sizable faction within the left-wing which has demanded an outright single-payer system, it seems sensible to speculate a disillusioned Democratic base is perhaps as responsible for Brown’s victory as an emboldened libertarian uprising. This makes sense when compared to the model established in Republican support when the GOP was the majority; the failure of Republicans to live up to their articulated ideals led to disillusioned conservatives who withheld support and essentially enabled Democratic victories.

 

If one can move past an inherent suspicion of the source, these numbers offer some sobriety to the elation following Brown’s historic ascent to the Senate. While it is true, as articulated in the above shown video from Minnesota Majority, that Scott Brown’s victory “was a referendum on freedom,” it may also be true it was a referendum from some quarters to the contrary. Understanding this, at least accepting it as a possibility, may be key to crafting successful campaigns throughout this year.

 

The greatest danger in the wake of Brown’s victory, in this writer’s opinion, is assuming an air of manifest destiny. Candidates for liberty must pursue an aggressive campaign which forces statist opponents toward the center, depriving them of support from their entitlement-hungry base. Speaking from the perspective of the Republican Party, the sentiment has been oft expressed that Republicans have not distinguished themselves from Democrats, been “me too” luke-warm alternatives, and thus enabled the message to be crafted by opponents. There is an opportunity this year to turn that phenomenon on its ear. Brown’s victory offers evidence.

Read Full Post »

All hell breaks loose and loose and loose again when: 

  • Republicans are suspected of interfering in ongoing DOJ investigations
  • Republican administrations claim privileges against outside investigations
  • Republican administrations stiff the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
  • Republican administrations stiff-arm Congress
  • Republican administrations aggregate power in the executive
  • Republican administrations promote secrecy over transparency
  • Republican administrations are accused of abetting voter intimidation

But when Democrats do it … well, somehow it’s just different.

“Martin Luther King did not die to have people in jack boots with billy clubs, block the doors of polling places. And neither did Robert Kennedy. It’s an absolute disgrace.”—Bartle Bull, civil rights attorney.

 


 

Springing Panthers

By Quin Hillyer

In the excitement over the Massachusetts Miracle, conservatives should not lose sight of other issues that are gifts that can keep on giving. On one of them, I dare say that we at the Washington Times have provided a leadership role. And the White House should be sweating. Yesterday, in a comprehensive analysis, we show why the scandal of the Obama/Holder Justice Department killing a voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party may well reach into the White House itself. Confirmation came the very same day when Hans von Spakovsky of Heritage wrote at NRO that he independently reached the same basic conclusions.

To quote a key paragraph from Hans’ excellent analysis,

Did White House officials order Perrelli to dismiss this case? If so, which officials? These questions may help explain why the Justice Department has refused to provide almost any information about this case, despite clear law that it must “cooperate fully” with the Commission on Civil Rights. The department is even asserting privileges that do not exist in response to the commission’s subpoenas, such as the need to protect against disclosures that would “undermine its ability to carry out its mission.”

The Washington Times’ final paragraph says much the same thing:

In short, almost all of Mr. Perrelli’s key White House meetings coincide almost perfectly with key decisions and developments in the New Black Panther Party case. Yet the Justice Department continues to insist that there was no political interference involved in the decision – despite the lengthy political ties between New Black Panther Jerry Jackson and the Democratic Party, the long-standing personal ties between the key Justice Department officials and President Obama, and the long-simmering ideological dispute within the Justice Department about whether the department should indeed aggressively fight for civil rights protections for white voters, or just for minorities.

Again, these articles came out virtually simultaneously. The analyses were done independently. And both suggest White House involvement.

When Republicans are suspected of interfering in ongoing Justice Department investigations, all hell breaks loose. When Republican administrations claim all sorts of privileges against outside investigations, all hell breaks loose. When Republican administrations stiff the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, all hell breaks loose. When Republican administrations stiff-arm Congress, and aggregate power in the executive, and promote secrecy over transparency, and are accused of abetting voter intimidation, all hell breaks loose and loose and loose again. When, therefore, is the establishment media going to pay attention and unleash the hell that this case merits? And when are Republican senators, or the GOP leadership specifically in both congressional chambers, going to go before the cameras and make this the big issue it should be? When is some brave soul at the White House press briefing going to ask about it, on camera?

This isn’t about some “gotcha” scandal, it’s about policy. Simply put, do civil rights laws protect everybody, or do they just affect minorities? And does transparency apply to all governments, or just to Republican ones? And does politicization of the Justice Department only become a sin when conservatives (allegedly) do it, or is it a sin when radical liberals do it far more flagrantly?


 

Members of the New Black Panther Party standing outside a polling station in Philadelphia, one is holding a nightstick.

Black Panther “Security” people intimidating voters at polls


 

 Bill O’Reilly interviews liberal civil rights attorney Bartle Bull about the Justice Department’s decision to drop charges against members of the New Black Panther Party who engaged in voter intimidation in Philadelphia polling place last November (see above video).

Bull (a civil-rights lawyer who was a staffer with Robert F. Kennedy and worked for Jimmy Carter) was one of the attorneys who watched polling places in the south in the 1960s to make sure that blacks were not kept from the polls through intimidation.

Bull said that the intimidation he witnessed outside a polling station in Philadelphia involving New Black Panther members “would qualify as the most blatant form of voter intimidation” he had ever encountered. He went to say that Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision not to pursue the case “100 percent politically motivated.”

 

Eric Holder Drops Charges on Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation

Read the transcript of Bartle Bull’s interview The O’Reilly Factor here and his affidavit here.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.