Predicting the Future of Politics

I was reminded today about an old Yogi Berraism: "Predictions are always uncertain, especially about the future."

When you look back ten years, is there anyone who could have predicted then where we would be as a nation today? So why would anyone in their right mind believe ANYONE living today could possibly predict the future of politics in this country?

That said, I will venture a guess that things as they are today will not remain for much longer politically. The Republicans are still smarting from the election of 2012. There were many surprises. The old methods of analysis of the demographics have faded away, it would seem. Conversely, there were numerous allegations of voter fraud and stealing the election in key battleground states. Whatever the facts may someday reveal, it was a shock to the conservative base to which I belong.

We face some daunting challenges. The country is broke, at least by the traditional definitions of what that means. When we spend more than we take in that used to mean "broke." We have a federal government that is out of control in its spending habits. We can’t afford what they are doing. We now have a government that is doling out benefits across a broad spectrum to half the citizens. Our private industry, once the envy of the world in productivity is now stalled and mostly stagnant compared to China's output. The Republican Party, once the champion of free enterprise, limited government and individual freedom and responsibility lost its way in the darkness of progressivism a long time ago.

Democrats were historically the party of big government. There was hope in the 90s when Bill Clinton declared the end of big government, constrained as he was by the Newt Gingrich revolution in Congress that produced a balanced budget. Now they too have lost their way. Under Barack Obama it appears they would make everyone dependent upon big government. They believe they have discovered the golden ticket to winning elections in perpetuity among voters who like the dole they receive in whatever form it takes.

Sadly, about all we got Republicans to admit in this last election cycle is that they could manage big government better than Democrats. While I at one time believed there was a clear and obvious contrast between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, when it comes to the argument about Big Government versus small government, the argument became a blended mishmash that was nearly indistinguishable, especially in that last debate.

So I've mostly gone silent on the political front since that first week in November. Stunned and still recovering would be the best way to describe my reaction. This country has been without a true political freedom of expression and limited government party for many years.

That reality must change. The upstart "tea party" has received its death warrant from more than a few pundits, most recently from former Senator Bob Bennett, who was soundly thrashed in the Utah nominating convention in 2010, and whose seat is now held by Mike Lee (R-UT). But I have the sense predictions of the spirit it represents may be premature. I hear a lot of rebellion talk brewing under the surface in the Republican Party, at least here in Utah. You can describe "the base" any way you wish. I choose to think the true conservatives, moderates and independents who make up Utah's "base" were aroused in 2008, spoke up in 2010, and still shout, "Stop it! Reduce this out-of-control federal government! Wake up, Washington, and put a lid on the debt, the spending and the deficits that are enslaving our future generations. Reduce the taxes, abandon the regulatory agencies that are throttling down the economic engine of America. Stop it all!"

This ground swell of emotion and political action state by state made a decision to return to the Republican Party in 2010, hoping they would get it right. The grassroots elements of the tea party now seem to be opposed once again to the "establishment wing" of the Republican Party. We saw it play out in the primary elections held in the states during the last cycle. If all the establishment can give us is an argument they can be better managers of a bloated government, then my prediction is an easy one to make - those grassroots people will abandon the Republican Party, both here in Utah and nationally.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

As an example, I suspect Mike Lee chose the Republican Party only because it was the most expedient vehicle in which to ride at the time. I might be wrong. I didn't discuss it with him personally during his run when he had my unabashed support, but everything he has done since being elected leads me to believe he cannot long endure the status quo I see promoted by the establishment in the party.

So here's my bold prediction, and I've held this view for some time now: The new political reality we will see playing out in the future is no longer going to be Republican versus Democrat. That's been a carefully managed political contrivance of convenience and expediency for way too long. No, instead, it’s going to be lovers of freedom and limited government versus Big Government dependency. We may be running out of time to make a conscious choice about that. Events may compel us into that path whether we like it or not.

Back in the day, Abraham Lincoln left the Whig Party and formed the Republican Party because he and others would not compromise on slavery.

In the future people like me will leave the Republican Party because we will not and cannot compromise on freedom and limited government. Finding candidates who believe in principle over party will be the next challenge.

Dan Liljenquist Announces Candidacy Against Senator Orrin Hatch

Dan Liljenquist, Republican challenger to Orrin Hatch

This past week brought a long-anticipated announcement that former Republican Senator in the Utah Senate, Dan Liljenquist, would run for the U.S. Senate in Utah, challenging the aged one, six-term Senator Orrin Hatch, who will be 78 years old on election day 2012.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

For 36 years, almost half his life, Hatch has represented Utah. I am personally grateful for his service (more on that later), but enough is enough.

It's just the kind of David vs. Goliath political match-up needed to tantalize the voters and should assure a large turnout for the Utah caucuses coming up on March 15, 2012. Liljenquist, 37, similarly youthful as Senator Mike Lee, has won the hearts and minds of tea party groups who are disenchanted with Hatch. The reason they are excited about Dan's candidacy is they notched a victory in knocking off Bob Bennett two years ago, and now hope an encore performance may be in the wings for retiring Hatch. I have said before I do not believe all the hype that the tea party was solely responsible for Bennett's defeat, because I believe other moderates like me had a hand in it, but a victory is a victory no matter who takes credit for it.

Liljenquist stated, when he announced he was resigning his local senate seat to challenge Hatch, he would focus his campaign on reducing the nation's debt. He said Washington is broken and that some GOP lawmakers share in the blame. Hatch, of course, would counter he wants to do the same. His record says otherwise, however, despite his efforts to sponsor a balanced budget amendment on several occasions in the past. Hatch's long voting record includes support for TARP, which he later admitted he regretted when he sensed he had angered conservatives.

Dan Liljenquist is a name most Utahns have never heard before, but he has received national recognition for his work to overhaul Medicaid and the state's pension system for public employees, two critical and demanding issues begging for solutions. "Even counting for inflation, 36 years is enough," Liljenquist said Wednesday in announcing his candidacy for U.S. Senate. "Service in Congress was never meant to be a lifetime appointment. In the the military there's an adage that says, 'Be brief, be brilliant and be gone.'"

Hatch will say he is "not Bob Bennett." He's been quietly offering cash to potential state delegates to work for his campaign, up to $2500 per month. It's perfectly legal, just unsavory because it smacks of buying delegate votes. A good question to ask those who support Hatch at the caucuses would be, "How much is his campaign paying you to run as a delegate to the state convention?" He's done an unprecedented outreach to conservative groups like the tea party activists to assure them of his conservative credentials. Knowing how to organize is the main strength of his long-time friend and campaign manager, former state Republican party chairman, Dave Hansen. But all of it will not be enough this time around.

I have no argument with Hatch's conservative creds. My problem is his age. It's simply time for him to turn the page and retire. If he can't seem to make that decision on his own, it is my wish to get re-elected as a state delegate from my precinct and help him find the exit door.

Hatch's campaign war chest is even larger than Bennett's. He has more than $4 million in the bank based upon his latest filings. Other potential challengers, Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz and Democratic Representative Jim Matheson, both avoided a head-to-head battle with Hatch and decided to keep their powder dry in Congress, rather than to challenge him.

Liljenquist will have to embrace the help of conservative groups with strong ties to the tea party. FreedomWorks hinted last month it will support the Liljenquist bid, when it named him the organization's "legislative entrepreneur of the year."

In my estimation Hatch is making the same calculated error in judgment that Bennett did last year. Historically, I have not had issues with either of their conservative stripes. They are both "conservative enough" for my taste. I voted three times in the past for Bennett, then backed Mike Lee. This cycle I've voted six times in the past for Hatch, and this time I will back Dan Liljenquist, with the possible proviso that I will reserve an "endorsement" if someone else I like better enters the race.

Chris Herrod

Utah State Representative Chris Herrod announced yesterday he would run also, but he's not going to get as much traction as Liljenquist in my opinion. The danger at convention is they might split the vote in preventing Hatch from getting 60% of the vote out of convention and avoiding a primary. On the other hand, they could combine against Hatch, eliminate him as happened last time with Bennett and set up a primary between the two of them. The politics of our two former Utah senators are not the problem with me as much as their audacity to think they are irreplaceable. In Hatch's case, his certainty approaches infinity.

I have personal affection for Senator Hatch, because he advocated for me and my colleagues through a legislative fight on Capitol Hill he believed in and helped us win. I'll spare you all the details, but in an act of defiance against a piece of ill-conceived legislation requiring a 100% excise tax on charity-owned life insurance, he took on Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and personally walked a "colloquy" I had written in support of our position onto the Senate floor at 1:30 a.m. in the morning and had it entered into the Congressional record. But for his heroics on our behalf, a bad proposal by Grassley's chief of staff would undoubtedly have been passed into law.

So my problem, once again, is not about Hatch personally or politically. It is simply his age and longevity. In my presence on one of many trips to Washington, I heard him say he was going after Strom Thurmond's record for longevity in the U.S. Senate, a dubious reason to stand for re-election in my heart and mind (and that was the last time he ran, not this cycle). Actually, Byrd and Inouye served longer than Thurmond, but at the time he was the longest-tenured. By re-electing Hatch for a seventh term, Utahns would place Hatch high up in the rankings of longest serving senators, making him 84 years old at the end of his next term. For me that's just a bridge too far.

Like the aging prize fighter who thinks he can get keep getting back into the ring for one more big pay day, Bennett and now Hatch seem to lack the grace and good judgment to read the tea leaves (pun intentional), stand aside and make way for the younger generation. They both believed in their hearts they were indispensable to the citizens of Utah, the nation and the world. You can add the universe too if you like.

Between now and the March 15th caucus night in Utah you will hear that Hatch's experience and his pending (assuming Republican control of the Senate can be achieved) chairmanship in the Senate Finance Committee will be needed to get America back on track and that no one else is as well-equipped to get the job done as Orrin Hatch. The same argument was made for Bennett, who had only served half as long (three terms and eighteen years) as Hatch. The irony is that Hatch unseated Frank Moss to win his seat originally, saying no one should become a career politician. Setting the agenda in even a powerful committee is not as "powerful" as one might suppose. Each senator, after all is said and done, has only one vote to cast on every single measure that comes before him/her. And the argument that this is no time for "rookies" flies in the face of not understanding the upheaval that will almost certainly carry over from the 2010 uprising across America. In my judgment this is the perfect time for rookies, as many of the old guard in both houses of Congress voluntarily made a decision to bow out, take their campaign war chests with them and return home before they lost. But not Hatch. Damn the torpedoes, he would say, and full steam ahead to victory!

In this presidential election year nationwide the ballots cast for POTUS will not be as important as the ones cast for the 33 Senate seats in play. If the majority of those seats can be won by conservative Republicans who can gain control of the Senate and remove the old guard this time around, a Senate majority of new faces sent BY THE PEOPLE to stop the Marxist Obama dictatorship agenda once and for all will go a long way to restoring Constitutional principles.

We made a mistake in 2008 as a country. We elected a smooth talker with a personality. We hoped for change. He promised "hope and change." He passed the largest socialist program in the history of entitlements, Obamacare, and he borrowed more money than ALL the former U.S. Presidents COMBINED! Our national debt now stands north of $15,200,000,000,000 and rising fast. The interest on the debt now stands at $1,500,000,000 per day (yes, billion)! Then-Senator Barack Obama once accused George W. Bush of being "irresponsible" for raising the debt ceiling, calling that request a "failure of leadership," and now has demanded and passed record stimulus spending bills that have done little to stimulate the economy. He continues to cry for more debt and more spending when we're bleeding at every fiscal pore. And that's "responsible" leadership?

He sent Navy Seal Team 6 to Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden. This last week he proposed slashing the Defense Department spending to the bone, and ended the war in Iraq to bring home the troops. He takes credit for it, but the proposed withdrawal timetable was already set by the Bush administration before he took office, and the intel on the whereabouts of bin Laden was gleaned through enhanced interrogation techniques advocated by the Bush administration. Boldest of all, he now is "working around" Congress while it's out of session (or is it really "in" session - only Obama can tell us apparently) to appoint even more "czars" to head up regulatory commissions as far as the eye can see, emboldening his followers for a government-run economy that purports to be the solution to every societal ill we face. He is trashing the Constitution daily.

But I digress, this post is about our future and my sincere wish is that the future does not include another four-year term for Barack Obama. Elections are about the future, we must remember, not about the past. Obama is positioning himself to "win the future," but his idea about what that looks like is very different than mine and yours. I was told the other day that an in-law "hated" me because of my conservative positions, so I should not speak for everyone I know. As I have said before, I am not as much concerned about who wins the presidency as I am about putting an end to Congressional gridlock. Without a victory in the Senate that gives a majority to conservatives, not the old guard RINOs who have gone along to get along for too long in this country, we are doomed to continue down this path of fiscal insanity.

I'm not certain at all that we can reverse course in America at this late date, but I am certain we must try by retiring the old guard and beginning afresh. That begins with electing new conservative senators who are more responsive to the people like Dan Liljenquist. My hope is he will join Mike Lee and others in taking control of the U.S. Senate and partnering with the House in passing a balanced budget amendment, repealing Obamacare and never again flirting with the European socialist agenda for an entitlement society.

In my considered judgment Dan Liljenquist is better equipped to do that than Orrin Hatch.

Thanks 53ers - Now I Finally Know Who I Am

First we had the tea party, and in 2010 they changed the electoral map nationwide from blue to red in a dramatic "take back" of the People's House - the U.S. House of Representatives.

Most observers speculated they were a flash in the pan that would quickly fade and have no staying power.

However, taking a page from the tea party, a more recent populist response has arisen, labeling themselves as "the 99." They claim they are the "rest of the country" not represented by the privileged class in America who comprise the top 1 percent. Their claims are legitimate. Corporate greed has never been more obvious than it has been the last few years. Workers unite!! Overthrow the system!! Down with capitalism!! At least one observer thinks it's coming right out of the Communist Party play book.

Contrasted with the peaceful demonstrations of the tea party (no, they are not racist, bigoted, rowdy or fanatics), they have been seeking a more representative voice in Washington, and they made huge strides toward that goal in 2010. Many would be surprised to learn the goals of the 99ers and the tea party are not that divergent when it comes to change we can really believe in, as opposed to the change Obama gave us. Political change within the system without anarchy is what everyone is aiming for. Overthrowing the government by violent means isn't really the aim of anyone, or is it?

The 99'ers, aligned with something called "Occupy Wall Street," have filled up public squares all over the United States with their vitriol. Camped out for days at a time they have left behind garbage and filth, and I'm not referring to their language or their antics. The iconic symbol of this development is a picture of a protester defecating on a police car in New York. Nice image.

They claim this country has treated them unfairly. They collect their welfare checks, their unemployment benefits, their Medicare and Medicaid, and they are railing against the fat cats because they aren't. They aren't likely to become such with their protests, unless the goal (which it could be argued is the goal) is to simply destroy the capitalism they detest, which would give them the jobs they claim they want. But what they really would prefer is living on the government checks they receive. The government in their view is the benevolent dictator for which they seek. Level the playing field, equalize the income, redistribute the wealth, reach for the Utopian society capitalism denies them.

It's complicated, I know, but try to keep up.

If the socialist government we have created in this country does not collect enough taxes, it is free to borrow from foreign nations to sustain the socialist giveaways. Try asking them sometime where all the money comes from that funds the government, then wait for their response. Their simplistic view is that we need to tax the rich, redistribute the wealth of the fat cats and presto, problem solved! They rarely mention the debt this government has racked up, nor do they believe government spending must be curtailed. If you really believe in the socialist agenda, you'll have to look somewhere else for direction; you certainly won't find it here.

Now comes something called "the 53-percent." These folks are pushing back against the 99 with their own stories. They pay taxes, these 53 percent, because they are working and trying to stay ahead of the economic tsunami that has overtaken the world's financial markets. Many lost jobs, certainly their medical benefits, their retirement investments, and some on the cusp of old age now find themselves wondering what all their hard work of a lifetime has gotten them. I met a neighbor the other day in his 70s working the drive-up window at Arby's, but he refuses to give up or retire.

Here's the one thing they won't do - they refuse to blame anyone for their plight.

Somebody's got to pay for this according to the 99ers!! Followers of the 53-percenters' site created on Tumblr have been posting photos of their faces next to pieces of paper detailing the workaday sob stories that are their lives. But who are they blaming for their difficulties? Not the fat cat capitalists, nor the communist progressive liberals who are driving this country into the ditch.

The 53-percenters might be pushed to blaming themselves for electing career politicians, but that's generally as far as they will go in playing the blame game with others. They say we did it to ourselves. They're right in the middle of the American electorate where I reside. And in most cases they would be right. It's the folks in the middle who tend to be more independent.

Here's one guy's story who caught my eye today:

"I don't blame Wall Street because it doesn't matter what Wall Street or anyone else does. I am responsible for my own destiny because of me and me ALONE."

Here's another one:

"I don't have health insurance, but I don't blame Wall Street. Stop whining, suck it up, and God bless the U.S.A."

The 53-percent Tumblr is run by Mike Wilson, the same guy who made "Michael Moore Hates America," and his friends.

I don't need to sign up my story on the 53-percent. I wrote my views recently to the Bank of America in my "hardship letter" as part of a request for a modification of my mortgage (almost a three-year odyssey now):

"I love the game of golf. I love it because no matter what external influences come to bear on you during a round, there is only you, the ball, your club selection and the hole up ahead. You alone are responsible and accountable for the outcome in a round of golf. Only you take the swings that produce either a good or a bad shot. You can kick the ball to improve your lie, you can shave strokes off your scorecard, and you can brag about your exploits after the round is over as you describe it to others, but in the end only you know the truth about the round. You can't blame the weather, the wind, your playing partner, or even the condition of the greens. Once you learn the truth that no one's a very good golfer, you can accept responsibility and take it all in stride.

"I signed a mortgage agreement years ago with a mortgage broker and the loan was sold to Countrywide. Then Countrywide was taken over by Bank of America. In a transaction to which I was not a party that mortgage was securitized along the way. But none of that changes the fact that someone in the capitalist system in America eleven years ago provided me with money to buy my home. I made a promise I would pay it back with interest. Certainly since then the financial winds have blown at gale force, the economic rain has fallen in torrents and I lost my means of providing financially for my wife and family. All my savings were consumed and my assets sold to stay alive.

"I reinvented myself to compensate. Three years later I am still alive, in good health and I can still work hard every day.

"I know as the servicer for my loan Bank of American cannot even produce the original note I signed because it long ago disappeared into a securitization pool where it was pledged in the collateral pool to investors who bought it, and I later confirmed the note is now owned by Fannie Mae. There is nothing I can do about any of that.

"All I know is I still owe someone the money I borrowed, and I am doing everything I can to repay it. The arrearage that has amounted to a negative amortization of my loan based upon my partial payments of the full amount will have to be addressed. Even that's not totally my fault, since Bank of America's inaction and broken promises have contributed to it. However, I've done everything you've asked me to do as a borrower in distress.

"In the end I am fully responsible and accountable. No politician did this to me. No bank did this to me. No amount of adverse external conditions swirling over my head in the last three years alters in one iota the fact that I made a promise to pay it all back. And I will. With or without Bank of America's offer of a modification. If I can't get there before I die, a life insurance policy will pay it off."

So after all that, here's what I know about myself: I never saw myself as a member of the tea party. There was something about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann that just never clicked with me. I'm sure as heck not a 99'er, so I must be a 53-percenter. The margin of victory in a presidential election is most often narrow. Thirteen months out, no one knows which way the thing will turn out. Half the country will be ecstatic, the other half dismayed.

A related thought to conclude: If the death of Steve Jobs teaches us anything it is that in failure we may someday succeed despite all the odds against us. He didn't just put a "ding" in the universe, he kicked the door down. He was likely a fat cat in the upper 1% by any measurement of financial success. How funny to see one of the protesters the other day in New York answering her iPhone while condemning capitalism's profits. Can you say disconnect?

Now you can correctly label me. #IAmThe53. Here's another version.

Obama's Biggest Mistake

I said it from the moment it was announced, and now even his most liberal stalwarts, looking back, are confirming the obvious. To be fair, there are a few who think Obamacare will jump-start the economy.

Obama's biggest mistake in the two and a half years of his presidency is Obamacare. The absence of a national mandate and a Congressional consensus from both political parties, the staggering costs associated with it and the way in which it was crammed down the throats of Americans proved to be all the stimulus needed to empower the Tea Party movement and revitalize normally complacent citizens.

Awakening the sleeping dog on the porch was a political miscalculation for which Obama rightly predicted he would be a one-term president. If the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional before the 2012 election (and I believe it will), Obamacare will yet be seen the way Howard Fineman sees it today.

In the annals of political theater this snippet will go down in history. Chris Matthews seems amazed at Fineman's response, yet Fineman is only stating the obvious to the rest of us. Wake up Chris.

Economics 101, Professor Rand Paul

This exchange between freshman Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and David Letterman tells you everything you need to know about snarky liberal comedians and Tea Party/Republicans. It's Econ 101 for beginners in simple understandable, non-technical terms. The audience, however, applauds in all the wrong places:



I'm not certain how long it's going to take, but the liberal agenda is on full display here and those who are preaching small government and private sector are eventually going to prevail.  Why?  Because when Letterman and other liberals keep saying "tax the rich" to pay for everything under the sun there will come a day when the rich will no longer be able to afford the agenda.

Bob Bennett: Consistent and Tone Deaf



Boston Harbor, 1773

Two hundred and thirty-seven years ago last night (can it really be just a "coincidence?"), a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded British merchant ships and dumped an estimated £10,000 worth of tea into Boston Harbor.

John Adams described that moment in our history as the “grandest event which has ever yet happened since the controversy with Britain opened.”  The struggle for independence from Britain would drag on for eight long and frustrating years before the American dream of freedom became reality as the British redcoats succumbed to the ragtag band of patriots and the Revolutionary War finally ended. 

Many people believe the Boston Tea Party was just a protest about an unfair tax.  But it was infinitely more than that.  The 1773 Tea Party was a manifestation of the colonists' protest against the process by which the British government taxed them.  It was the methods the British throne was using to govern them that aroused them to action.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)

Last night, our forefathers would have been proud.  Another major victory against what can only be described as a tyrannical process was won when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) was forced to drop his $1.27 trillion, 1,924-page omnibus spending bill.  Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called this bill "dreadful" and opposed it vociferously.  He's gone to school on Bennett's demise, and is already running hard in his all out social media blitz to bid for re-election in 2012.

The problem with Reid’s omnibus spending bill was not just its size, but the process by which it was drafted and forced on the American people.  There was no committee review.  No one was given the chance to read the bill before it came up for a vote.  It was being crammed down at the last minute again. 

The utter collapse of this "dreadful" bill was a complete rejection of that way of doing business in Washington.  It's historic in its implications because it came at the end of the 111th Congress, the lowest rated Congress since Gallup has recorded public opinion. 

Senator John McCain (R–AZ) told National Review:  “I know this is a seminal moment, because for the first time since I’ve been here, we stood up and said ‘enough.’”  Classic quote!!

Lame Duck Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT)

Last night’s victory could not have happened without the modern reincarnation of the Tea Party.  Here's the saddest part of the story for me personally.  Once again, lame duck Senator Bob Bennett (R–UT), who was resoundingly rejected at the nominating convention, lined up on the wrong side of history on his way out the door after eighteen years.  He was working “actively to round up as many as nine potential Republican votes” for the omnibus bill.  He never heard the electorate, and continues to turn a deaf ear right to the bitter end.  "That's my intention," Bennett told The Hill when asked if he would support the package.  Bennett said earmarks in the bill might give some of his GOP colleagues reason to hesitate but wouldn't affect his vote. "It will be tough for some, but not for me," he said.  During his re-election bid he not only refused to oppose the earmark practice, he defended it.  And we all know how that ended at the convention.

The bill was tinselled with over 6,000 earmarks worth $8 billion, a "mere fraction" of the total size of the bill, but come on, they're trying to pull this crap within a month and a half of a stunning repudiation of the "business as usual" way of doing things in Washington D.C.?  Even President Obama described it as a "shellacking."  It appears, the will of the American people will not be denied, even in this lame duck Congress.

To counter Bennett's actions among his Republican colleagues, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) worked in direct opposition to Bennett with those nine Republicans.  Many of them are members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  McConnell asked them to drop their support for the bill. 

Senator Thad Cochran (R–MS), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, had 281 earmarks worth $561 million in the bill.  McConnell himself had 48 earmarks worth $113 million.  It's shameful, but this time they got it right at long last when the chips were down.  I'm encouraged, and I'm the forever optimist.

But the daylight has finally dawned, it appears.  McConnell told National Review afterward: “We decided that we’re not going to pass a 2,000-page bill that nobody has seen since yesterday. That’s not the way to operate and that’s not the message from the November elections.”  May history be made!!

This is fabulous news, America!  It can only be considered a victory!  Not every member of the unpopular 111th Congress has gotten the message of the November elections.  By the time the next election cycle rolls around, watch for the remaining clingers on to the Obama agenda to be gone altogether if this emerging 112th Congress sticks to its knitting and continues to listen to their constituents.

According to Gallup, the American people dislike this 111th Congress more than any other Congress in the history of public opinion data gathering.  Eighty-three percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job, while only 13 percent approve.  It was the faith of Thomas Jefferson that the majority of informed Americans would almost invariably eventually get it right.  That's why he never hesitated to put so much power into the hands of the citizens, and eschewed big government.  He spread power around intentionally for these very reasons, and once again the Founders are exonerated.

That is the worst approval rating in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance. 

Last night Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D–CA) House also voted to prevent a massive tax hike on the American people.  It now looks like Congress will pass a simple bill that freezes spending through February of next year.

Mercifully, the 111th Congress is toothless at last.  And Senator Bob Bennett, the first harbinger of the electorate's wrath against incumbents in 2010, finally goes with it.

To the bitter end, Senator Bennett remained consistent and tone deaf.

Democrats Underestimate the American People Once Again

Repost from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Thursday, July 29th at 4:24PM EDT

Clearly, the Democrats think they have something here tying together the Republican Party and the Tea Party. However, it seems to me that this political miscalculation is exactly why Congress’ approval rating is at 11%.

What the Democratic Leadership doesn’t seem to understand is that the Tea Party isn’t a political party; it’s a set of ideas shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

The Tea Party is made up of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Constitution Party members, and apolitical Americans.

They are mainstream folks who love our nation and who wish to see America return to policies of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and strictly adhere to our Constitution. After all, these are the fundamental principles of our founding and represent the character of America.

For the Democrats to portray these fundamental principles as radical and a hindrance to public policy shows just how far out of touch they are from the political pulse of this country.

I hope the Democrats’ latest messaging campaign reaches far and wide because it will do nothing but distance them further from Main Street America.

* * *

One more voice making sense in America. 

"Give me liberty, or give me death!"

In the category of patriots, none looms larger than the story of Patrick Henry in the struggle of freedom.

Following the Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773, in which American colonists dumped 342 containers of tea into the Boston harbor, the British Parliament enacted a series of Acts in response to the rebellion in Massachusetts.

In May of 1774, General Thomas Gage, commander of all British military forces in the colonies, arrived in Boston, followed by the arrival of four regiments of British troops.

The First Continental Congress met in the fall of 1774 in Philadelphia with 56 American delegates, representing every colony, except Georgia. On September 17th, the Congress declared its opposition to the repressive Acts of Parliament, saying they are "not to be obeyed," and also promoted the formation of local militia units.

Thus economic and military tensions between the colonists and the British escalated. In February of 1775, a Provincial Congress was held in Massachusetts during which John Hancock and Joseph Warren began defensive preparations for a state of war. The British Parliament then declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion.

On March 23rd, in Virginia, the largest colony in America, a meeting of the colony's delegates was held in St. John's church in Richmond. Resolutions were presented by Patrick Henry putting the colony of Virginia "into a posture of defense... embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose." Before the vote was taken on his resolutions, Henry delivered the speech below, imploring the delegates to vote in favor.

He spoke without any notes in a voice that became louder and louder, climaxing with the now famous ending. Following his speech, the vote was taken in which his resolutions passed by a narrow margin, and thus Virginia joined in the American Revolution.

***

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775