Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) came to Washington as the a tea-party conservative with the goal of fixing the economy, addressing the debt crisis and curbing the growth of the federal government. It’s an uphill battle for the youngest member of the U.S. Senate, but one he’s prepared to fight.

(more…)

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner may be most famous in the United States for cheating on his taxes (you can even buy a t-shirt to acknowledge his tax dodging), but he’s becoming a punch line in the rest of the world for different reasons.

I wrote two years ago about Chinese students erupting in laughter after Geithner claimed the Administration believed in a strong dollar.

Now he’s getting mocked by the Europeans.

After Friday’s post about the absurdity of Obama sending his Treasury Secretary to lecture the Europeans, you can imagine my great amusement today as I read that the Europeans basically told Geithner to go jump in a lake.

Here are some passages from the Reuters report.

(more…)

It was supposed to be this:

On the 17th of September, we want to see 20,000 people to flood into lower Manhattan, set up beds, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months.

Instead, as they say about the best laid plans, it was something entirely different. It was, frankly, a stroll through a park—Zuccotti Park, in lower Manhattan, to be exact.

A Non-Union Non-Event

Over the summer, on the heels of Arab Spring, an anti-capitalist group called adbusters established a campaign to occupy Wall Street, beginning on September 17th. Whether coincidental or not, September 17th also happened to be Constitution Day. While there had been some unfounded unfounded speculation a few weeks ago that the SEIU’s Stephen Lerner and ACORN founder Wade Rathke were behind the OccupyWallSt movement, there were never any signs that the Marxist-Anarchist protesters had any formal union backing—nor has there been anything posted on union websites about the occupation of Wall St.

This morning, protestors did, however, call for “revolution”
(more…)

We ignore most polls because most are not meaningfully instructive and, often, the phrasing of the questions hideously corrupts the results.  There are, however, some polls we do watch carefully because we believe they are instructive.  The Rasmussen “wrong direction, right direction” tracking poll is one we do watch carefully. It is conducted week after week and the single question that is asked (do you believe the country is headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?) is exquisitely unambiguous and the message it conveys to the ruling class can only be ignored at great peril.

Campaign strategists for President Obama as well as the leaders of both political parties, should be burning a lot of midnight oil pondering the reality that three quarters of the nation believes we are headed in the wrong direction.  That’s not just an opinion that’s being expressed.  It, rather, reflects a growing sinking feeling, a queasiness in the nation’s collective gut, not that things just aren’t going well, but that things are getting worse. It says that the vast majority of Americans believe the course that has been, and is being, set is the wrong course.

What should be particularly distressing to the White House is not only that the nation’s confidence is so low, but that it has also been deteriorating rather steadily.  To be sure, the people were unhappy with the direction of the country when President Bush left office.  When Bush departed Washington, two-thirds of the people felt we were headed in the wrong direction.  Now, following thirty-three months of President Obama’s initiatives to fundamentally transform America, three-quarters of the nation feels we are headed in the wrong direction.  The question doesn’t ask whether the people are happy with where we are, but, more importantly, whether they are happy with where we are headed.

Most polls provide a glimpse at where the electorate’s opinions are at a given moment, and, consequently, are subject to rapid change.  For example, prior to September 15^th 1950, most Americans probably would not have liked the way the war in Korea was going.  But between September 15 and September 19^th the enormously successful Inchon landing took place, and American opinion would have, no doubt, turned around on a dime.  President George H.W. Walker enjoyed very high approval ratings in January of 1991 following the successful Gulf War, but in spite of his personal popularity, his electability diminished as the economy declined in the months thereafter, clearing the way for President Clinton’s election in 1992.  Likewise, President Obama enjoyed a temporary, but well deserved bump in his approval rating when our navy seals took out Osama Bin Laden.

Presidential approval ratings (as compared to the “where we’re headed ratings“) are, we believe, less telling.

(more…)

This scandal is getting curiouser and curiouser. There are even rumors that MSNBC may actually cover the story this week.

From Reuters:

President Barack Obama, in a populist step designed to appeal to voters, will propose a “Buffett Tax” on people making more than $1 million a year as part of his deficit recommendations to Congress on Monday.

Such a proposal, among suggestions to a congressional supercommittee expected to seek up to $3 trillion in deficit savings over 10 years, would appeal to his Democratic base ahead of the 2012 election but may not raise much in revenues.

(more…)

Do you believe in American exceptionalism? I do and while President Barack Obama may not I believe a great many of you also do.  In fact some of you who are reading this article at this very moment might yourselves be shining examples of American exceptionalism.

If so then your story has the opportunity to possibly be included in my upcoming new book on the lives and stories of ten people who are shining examples for the rest of us of American exceptionalism. Those chosen will also be offered to appear as guests on my radio show.

To submit your story for consideration simply email me your name, contact information and a brief (less than 3-4 paragraphs) description of  your story of American exceptionalism.

In his farewell speech President Reagan urged us not to allow our values to slip away and to once again make them a part of our pop culture.

So whether you were born elsewhere and immigrated to America or if your family’s roots date back to the Mayflower landing I want to hear your stories of American exceptionalism!

The first known person to write about the United States as being exceptional was a Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville around 1831. Tocqueville believed America’s exceptionalism was a result of the American Revolution and a uniquely American ideology based on liberty, self reliance, the common person free from a ruling class and private business free from over-regulation.  He marveled at how our democracy infused into every nature of our society and culture at a time when it was not popular elsewhere in the world.

(more…)

EDITOR’S NOTE: Recently, a woman I’ll call “Janet” met with me for more than six hours to discuss two court cases in which she’s involved. One is a Family Court case involving the welfare of a child, while the other is a Probate Court case involving the welfare of that child’s great-grandmother. Names and case-specific personal details in the stories below have been changed in order to protect the identities of the innocent people involved.

Unlike other middle-age Americans who find themselves caring for both young children and elderly parents, Janet’s status as a member of the “sandwich generation” is unique. Rather than simply care for her almost-seven-year-old granddaughter and her octogenarian mother at the same time, the 40-something woman who once earned six-figure income as manager of a high-end fitness center/spa in a posh St. Louis suburb finds herself fighting for both of them in separate cases at the St. Louis County (Mo.) Courthouse. After years of legal wrangling, she now finds herself on the verge of bankruptcy, having thrown everything she had into the effort to save the two most important people in her life.

“Sometimes I feel like that movie is my life,” said Janet, referring to “Changeling,” a 2008 film in which a grief-stricken mother takes on the Los Angeles Police Department to her own detriment after it stubbornly tries to pass off an obvious impostor as her missing child. Unlike the movie, however, Janet’s child isn’t missing; instead, her granddaughter is on the verge of being taken from her family permanently. In addition, her mother has, for the most part, already been removed from her life.

SAVING A GRANDDAUGHTER

Janet’s most-pressing concern is the fight to keep her granddaughter, a little girl for whom she’s been the primary caregiver during most of early life, from being placed up for adoption — possibly by total strangers. In less than 10 days, a court hearing could determine whether or not she succeeds in the fight that begun in earnest 15 months ago.

(more…)

The upheavals of the sixties had political and cultural contexts – the war in Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement. There is a great debate about the relationship between culture and politics; a which-came-first conundrum similar to the vexed “chicken or the egg” question. Few deny the critically important relationship between culture and political change. What the sixties generation had however we in the American Renewal movement haven’t got – a soundtrack.

There seems little doubt that the growing bitter rhetoric of American politics signifies a deep national divide. With the centrist middle ground shrunk and ignored, the language of conflict and war is heard more often now than in recent memory in political debate.

The deep relationship between music and politics that was seen during the 1960s was both reactive and causative; culture drives politics and vice versa. Because music plays a far more important role in the lives of young Americans than it has for any preceding generation the power of music to drive change and respond to it both positively and critically should not be neglected. The message is the medium.

From the invaluable John Kass in The Chicago Tribune:

The Solyndra scandal cost at least a half-billion public dollars. It is plaguing President Barack Obama. And it’s being billed as a Washington story.

But back in Obama’s political hometown, those of us familiar with the Chicago Way can see something else in Solyndra — something that the Washington crowd calls “optics.” In fact, it’s not just a Washington saga — it has all the elements of a Chicago City Hall story, except with more zeros.

The FBI is investigating what happened with Solyndra, a solar panel company that got a $535 million government-backed loan with the help of the Obama White House over the objections of federal budget analysts.

(more…)

The globalists at the United Nations are busy preparing their agenda for the Rio + 20 Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which will be held on June 4 – 6, 2012.  They have prepared a draft entitled “Enabling a Flourishing Earth: Challenges for the Green Economy, Opportunities for Global Governance”.  It is truly amazing that this is not being devised in Dr. Evil’s hidden lair in the depths of some inactive volcano or on a deserted island.  This has been made available for everyone to read.  It reveals the true intent; the hopes, dreams and aspirations for this new world order that they have been working on for twenty plus years.  The entire document can be viewed here.

In the document they make reference to the Earth Charter, which is purported to be “an ethical framework for a more just, sustainable and peaceful world”.

They understand that their “green” initiative has not progressed as quickly as they had hoped it would.  Cap and trade schemes that involve redistribution of wealth from developed countries to developing countries based on a market price on carbon dioxide emissions have not generated sufficient revenue.  A new or additional economic or market solution should be implemented, because humankind has transgressed against nature.  Humans have been treating nature as a commodity.  The “loss of biodiversity,  desertification, climate change and the disruption of a number of natural cycles are among the costs of our disregard for nature and the integrity of its ecosystems and life-supporting processes.  As recent scientific work suggests, a number of planetary boundaries are being transgressed and others risk being so in a business-as-usual world”,  according to the U.N. Secretary General’s report to the U.N. on Harmony with Nature.

Their proposal is to create a new world organization, naming it  the World Environmental Organisation (WEO) which will have a global legitimacy and mandate to have jurisdiction over what are considered the “common goods”, defined as “fresh water, healthy soil and clean air, but also the oceans, the atmosphere and diversity of life” since it would be difficult to implement or trade on these “common goods” that are not privately owned or traded on markets.

This document states “Our proposed WEO should be mandated with a trusteeship function over global public goals and common goods”.  Much like a legal guardian is appointed in the case of a person who is unable to represent him/ herself, such as an infant, insane or senile person, they are proposing such a legal guardian to represent and give “legal voice for the otherwise voiceless environment”.

(more…)

From BusinessInsider:

From its inception, Solyndra’s business model was flawed. It’s unique cylindrical, silicon solar cells were innovative, but only made sense when solar panel prices were high. By the time the Energy Department approved Solyndra’s loan — the first granted by the department’s loan guarantee program —Chinese and Canadian manufacturers with low-cost structures had priced Solyndra out of the market.

In March 2009, Solyndra’s loan application, to build an advanced manufacturing facility in California, was fast-tracked through the DOE, despite the fact that the department had not completed its review of the company’s financial viability.

Solyndra was not the only company that was fast-tracked. A 2010 government audit of the DOE program found that the department lacked the ability to adequately evaluate applications to the federal loan program, and often approved loans before completing a full review.

(more…)

New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, in a radio interview on Friday, warned that high unemployment could lead to widespread rioting. That’s right. He actually said that. At a time when European cities have suffered massively from hooliganism, and at a time when U.S. towns like Philadelphia and Kansas City have suffered huge human and commercial tolls from so-called flash riots.

For Bloomberg to come out with this statement is irresponsible and incendiary. But you know what? He’s got a personal agenda. This is a desperate talking point to sell Obama’s jobs plan, which Bloomberg favors as a solution to high unemployment and zero growth.

There’s a whole history here of liberals threatening riots if they don’t get their way. WABC radio host Mark Simone reminded me that back in 1994, Matilda Cuomo warned there would be race riots in New York if her husband Mario weren’t reelected governor in his race against George Pataki.

So now the liberal Mike Bloomberg is trying to go to bat for his pal Obama. And he’s doing so in a very clumsy and inappropriate way.

In fact, Bloomberg is pitching for the whole Obama jobs package — the $450 billion stimulus plan and the $470 billion tax hike. The package is totally unpopular. A recent Bloomberg poll (how ironic) showed that voters disapprove of more Obama stimulus by 51 to 40 percent, and that 56 percent of independents oppose it. Other polls show that more than 60 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy.

Memories are long. The $800 billion stimulus package nearly three years ago didn’t work. So why do it again?

(more…)

During Bibi Netanyahu’s 2010 visit to the White House, in the middle of a tense settlement concession conversation an irritated Obama left Mr. Netanyahu sitting in a room to rush upstairs for din-din with Shelley and the girls. Abruptly walking out of the room, the President said “Let me know if there is anything new.”  Either the Israeli Prime Minister was being officially dissed, or Michelle refuses to tolerate any excuse for Barack showing up late for dinner.

However, in the future, should the Prime Minister desire another sit-down with the President of the United States, he’ll have the option of purchasing a roll of tickets for the “Sometime soon, can we meet for dinner/Reelect Barack Obama” raffle.

Before the “Sometime Soon, Can We Meet For Dinner?” initiative, Netanyahu didn’t stand a chance in hell of getting Barack to sit through an entire conversation.  Now, at least Bibi has as much opportunity as anyone else willing to contribute five bucks.

Now, if by chance Bibi’s ticket is pulled out of the spinning drum, Obama, albeit under duress, will be obliged to endure eating blintzes and can no longer escape a Jerusalem settlement discussion using dinner getting cold as an excuse.

The President of the United States selling dinner raffle tickets may indicate that the man is forlorn and in need of genuine companionship. Begging to be shown love by the people who just three years ago were showering him with confetti and weeping at the mere mention of his name, frankly, is both “creepy” and pathetic.

Barack Obama’s dine-with-me/love-me idea started when the 2012 reelection campaign sent out an email with this subject line: “Sometime soon, can we meet for dinner?” Why would an American president ask such an unusual question? Obviously, to goad supporters into donating money in hopes of winning face time with Mr. Lonely.

(more…)

Wisconsin State Representative Steve Nass says that if Madison law enforcement authorities don’t begin to crack down on the repeated and escalating harassment of lawmakers and staff “somebody is seriously going to get hurt…or killed.”

Will Madison authorities allow politically motivated harassment escalate until someone is hurt or worse?

State Representative Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) believes that Madison law enforcement leaders are partially to blame for the escalation of disorderly and dangerous conduct by protesters in the Capitol city. Nass believes that Madison Police Chief Noble Wray, DaneCounty Sheriff Dave Mahoney, Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs and Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne have been more interested in cooperating with protesters than enforcing the law.

(more…)

When Ronald Reagan proclaimed in his first inaugural “We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around,” he was not taking off on some libertarian tangent or making an obscure philosophical point. He was following in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers who erected a frame of government that began with the words “We the People.” He was also trying to return government to its important but limited role in people’s lives—a role that both political leaders and the people understood until 1912 but has been mostly misunderstood and abandoned since then. At Philadelphia in 1787, the Framers of the Constitution created a national government that would be effective—even energetic—in its functions but also limited to those functions. The people were to be the ultimate guardians of both the effectiveness and limitations of government. The only way such a republic—unprecedented in modern history—could work would be if the people acted as a vigilant and constitutionally-minded sovereign jealous of their rights.

The authority of the people is made clear in at least three respects in the Constitution, and their vitality is powerfully suggested in a fourth. First, the Constitution holds both the lawmakers and the executive accountable to the people through elections, whether direct or indirect. The foremost depository of the people’s will is obviously the House of Representatives, whose members are directly elected every two years. According to James Madison writing in The Federalist, every constitution is designed to find rulers with the wisdom and virtue to pursue the common good and to make sure those rulers remain virtuous while holding the public trust. Elections are the means to both of those ends. In other words, if those in office lose their virtue, they can be thrown out of office by the people through regular elections. The people are the true source of term limits.

Second, the Constitution embraces, indeed creates, the system known as federalism. Not only can the people exert their authority through elections at the federal (national) level, they can also throw their support behind the state governments against federal encroachment. The chief means of doing so in the original Constitution was through the Senate, whose members were elected by state legislatures. Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution originally thought that the people’s loyalties would lie overwhelmingly with the states, not the remote national government. Their opinion owed to the history of the Revolution—in which the states were extremely jealous of their powers; the confidence that men of great talents and ambitions at the national level would devote their energies to the high pursuits of “commerce, finance, negotiation, and war,” to quote Hamilton in The Federalist, not with local concerns; and the general tendency of human nature to prefer the things closest to us. (Not many people living in Dallas root for the Steelers.) To this end, should the national government extend its powers beyond those enumerated in Article I, section 8, the Senators—whose loyalties lie, and whose careers are made, not in the national capital but in the state capitals—would defend the prerogative of the states and thereby the liberties of the people.

Third, for the Constitution to be adopted, it was imperative that the first Congress adopt a Bill of Rights to be appended to it. The Bill of Rights, authored mostly by Madison, was meant to serve as an education to the people in what their rights are and an encouragement to them to guard those rights jealously. It is also abundantly clear what would be the greatest threat to their rights. The Bill of Rights begins with the words “Congress shall make no law respecting” and ends with the words “or to the people.” That is, the greatest threat to liberty would come from government—though republican—exceeding its constituted authority and encroaching on the rights of the people.

Finally, there is the latent suggestion in the Constitution that the people will be doing the vast majority of the work in civil society, and the government will be needed chiefly to establish the rule of law, to protect the society from internal and external enemies, and to set up a system of uniform commercial exchange.

(more…)

Today, in 1787, the U.S. Constitution was signed in Philadelphia. Can we please celebrate by agreeing to eradicate anti-intellectualism from the conservative movement? (Vaccines!) There are few greater intellectual endeavors than the drafting of the Constitution. It seems we have fallen very far from the branch.

As President Obama makes his way around the country to gin up support for his latest stimulus efforts, his underlings can’t seem to stay on the same page.

The two national teachers’ unions – the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers – recently hosted a closed-media conference call with Vice President Biden to rally support for Obama’s “American Jobs Act.”

source: nea.org

According to a recording first revealed at PublicSchoolSpending.com, Biden told the audience:

“Nobody is saying this [plan] isn’t positive for the economy.  We’re ready to compromise with the Republicans.  But only compromise on things if they have a better way. …”

But less than 24 hours later, Campaign Manager David Axelrod appeared on Good Morning America and told host George Stephanopolous that “the package works together.”

“So it’s all or nothing,” Stephanopolous stated, attempting to pin Axelrod down.  Not answering the question (shock!), Axelrod responded, “We want them to act now on this package.  We’re not in a negotiation to break up the package – it’s not an ala carte menu.”

In other words, no, they’re not willing to compromise.  Take it or leave it, America.

(more…)