The arrogance of the Obama Administration and Congress has cost Democrats a Senate seat in the bluest of blue states. Scott Brown emerged victorious last night against a very liberal candidate in Martha Coakley. It seems that the 2008 liberal playbook of talking points needs revision. Listening to liberal candidates blame George W. Bush is a bit like watching the Chicago Bears offense run the same play over and over for no gain after it worked on the first try.

Scott Brown’s victory brings many positives to light. The Democrats have effectively lost their supermajority power, which means that markets and the public no longer have to fear their ability to ram through catastrophic legislation. Gridlock is also very bullish for the market. This victory also sends a very chilling message to Democrats across the country that the heavy hand of big government is being rejected by the people. This was a Senate seat in Massachusetts and was occupied for decades by the late Ted Kennedy! Never in my lifetime would I have thought the seat would have gone to a Republican, especially only one year after the public and the media fawned all over President Obama. My first column after Obama was elected stated that he would make the best case for classical liberal/free market ideas. However, my optimism certainly didn’t extend to Massachusetts. If the Obama Administration and Pelosi-Reid led Congress respond with the usual arrogance and ignore the public’s message, then November is going to be a very dismal month for Democrats.

Now for the bad news…

Scott Brown’s victory may be just what the country needs in the short term, but ignoring the bigger picture does pose long-term problems.

Scott Brown was not even close to being the ideal candidate. His record, especially fiscally, is very disturbing to say the least. In fact, Brown has an 11-year record of voting for expanding government that includes the following:

• Brown urged voters to vote AGAINST “Ballot Question One” in the 2008 election that would have ended the Massachusetts state income tax. In addition, he failed to publicly endorse and take a stand on the biggest tax and spending issue facing Massachusetts this year – a ballot initiative to roll back the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent. It is estimated that Massachusetts families would have had 32,929 new private sector jobs if the measure was passed. (1)

• Brown not only supported and endorsed the Massachusetts health care reform bill (also endorsed by Ted Kennedy) known as “Romneycare,” he played a key role in its design. “Romneycare” actually served as a model for “Obamacare,” as the bill forced all Massachusetts workers to buy health insurance or be subject to a penalty tax. It is very ironic that voters now sent him to the Senate to vote against “Obamacare.”

• Brown’s voting record does not show any sponsorship of a bill that cuts taxes, eliminates wasteful spending or shrinks government during his entire 11 year tenure in the Massachusetts state senate. (2)

The long-term concern here is populist outrage. Such outrage puts America in a perilous situation, as this type of outrage played a key role in Obama’s victory in 2008. The public was so angry and fed up with George W. Bush, many cast a blind vote for Obama without realizing that the agenda was the same – especially from an economic standpoint. People closed their eyes and ears to reality and did not take the time to actually listen to him on the campaign trail. Now that the anger has switched ideologies, folks on the right are repeating the same mistake. People are so caught up in their anger towards Obama and his policies, they are ignoring the fact that a lawyer with a fiscal record that would make some Democrats jealous was just sent to Washington to stop the very same agenda! While there is no doubt Brown will ride the populist wave and vote against big government, the concern lies in what he will do when “Father Time” quells the anger.

It is apparent in 2008 that a vote for Obama was simply a vote against Bush. Conservatives and libertarians must not make the same mistake and vote for candidates that do NOT represent their ideology to simply vote against Obama. Voters need to examine potential candidates’ records very carefully, and not fall back into the “lesser of two evils” mentality. Otherwise, the left, once again, gets to turn populist rhetoric in their favor by casting blame on an ideology when its principles were never enacted. Fake allies pose a much greater threat and can do far greater damage than known enemies. The tenure of the Bush Administration and John McCain’s unsuccessful presidential bid should have proved that conclusively.

Classical liberalism has made a comeback. The ideas of limited government and free markets were never dead. They were dormant. President Obama has allowed these ideas to be resurrected. It is now time for voters to make wise choices, examine records, hold their candidates accountable and vote based on IDEOLOGY not PARTY. Let’s not get caught up in the Democrat vs. Republican war, as America has seen where that leads.

November, 2010, poses one of the best opportunities in decades to get candidates in office who understand economics and will fight for free market principles. While I am thrilled to see people embracing these ideas and rejecting the current statist agenda and equally thrilled to see the Democrat machine take a hit in Massachusetts, I don’t want voters to lose sight of the long-term picture. Scott Brown is not the long-term solution we need to put America back on the path to prosperity.

(1) http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com/feature/warning-to-tea-party-activists-and-supporters-town-hall-meeting-protesters-and-tax-cutters-living-in-massachusetts-who-are-even-considering-voting-for-scott-brown-for-us-senate-january-19th/

(2) http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=18919&type=category&category=10&go.x=13&go.y=12

How do you justify racism?

How do you justify hate?

How do you justify theft?

Easy. Don't call it that.

With the communist, racist and radical Mr. Van Jones now out of President Obama's administration the Left, including many mainstream publications and talking heads, are trying to justify the words, actions and writings of a man that is indefensible. It's one thing to be an avowed communist. It's another thing to say that environmental waste is purposely being dumped into black neighborhoods. It's entirely out of one's mind to sign a petition that accuses the President of the United States of allowing/masterminding the 9/11 attacks. And yet, the Huffington Post, The New Republic and even mainstream journalists like David Gergen are all jumping to the defense of this man. What gives? Do they suddenly hold to trutherism? Do they believe that the white majority wants to destroy just the black minority by all conspiratorial means? Really?

The answer is no. I don't think any of the mainstream liberal publications and personalities actually subscribe to the views of Van Jones, or do not have a strong enough belief in them to consider them the truth. Defending Van Jones isn't about what he said; it's about what he represents to the New Progressives. Van Jones, as far as I can tell, is a true believer. A man who gave up personal ambition for political service. A man who stood fast in the face of adversity. A man who was, to many of these people, a good friend and an overall good guy. An icon of the New Progressive movement. In the words of Ms. Huffington, one of Van's closest friends: “He's a remarkable man. One of those things I've always found so impressive about him – and something completely lost in the partisan mudslinging – is his ability to build coalitions and create unlikely alliances.”

I'm sorry, Arianna, but when he's recorded telling people how white folks hate black folks or when he blames America for 9/11, his ability to organize is kind of secondary compared to that kind of radicalism. The KKK organized pretty damn well during the Civil Rights era. They built coalitions between labor and management, between the haves and have nots, but I don't think you'd be congratulating them on an organization well done. Because this isn't about a man's ability to organize, is it? It's about your side losing.

The Right is going through that as well. With the resounding defeat of the Republicans in 2006 and in 2008 by President Obama's well-planned campaign, the conservative movement turned on its own, and rightly so, identifying the ideas and the people who blurred the line between conservative and moderate, between statism and federalism. As far as I can tell, the civil war has passed for now, but we have a new problem to deal with: hysteria.

I'm not talking about the exposing of Van Jones, even if some more passive conservative think that was a bad idea. That was a great job that Glenn Beck started and the blogroots finished (major kudos to GatewayPundit for finding the truthful petition). I'm talking about the row over the President's speech to American students. I'm talking about the overblown rhetoric about the amount of czars Obama has. I'm talking about, and unfortunately pointing the finger at, the Glenn Becks of our movement who are more concerned about the metaphorical decoration on Rockefeller Center than with the ideological and philosophical battles being waged across the country. These wars will have much more impact on the way this country goes. (As I have said, I am not a fan of Glenn Beck, but I am not a frenzied detractor either. I simply have an aversion to the populist and conspiratorial style of his show.)

In light of the Left's vulnerability over their dear communist truther, we must be disciplined in our voices and in our words. The loose confederation of conflicting and overlapping beliefs we call the conservative movement is always under a vast larger microscope than the flamboyant and childish New Progressives. While screecher Paul Krugman and alarmist Al Gore are considered intellectuals by the Left, we have people like Yural Levin and Jay Nordinger who bring down the hammer on such shallow thinkers. While the Left can tiptoe around the Animal Liberation Front, the Weatherman, Code Pink and the bigoted Prop 8 protestors, the Right must be held accountable to the deranged murderer of Mr. Tiller, to the uber-radical paranoia of a few violent people and even the antisemitism of a old Nazi sympathizer. While the Left can dismiss John Murtha's billion dollar corruption, California's Democratic Party's gerrymandering, Nancy Pelosi's abuse the Speaker's office by action and word and Henry Waxman's overbearing and probably unconstitutional investigations, but the Right must explain Larry Craig's indecent behavior, Gov. Sanford's indiscretions and Michelle Bachmann's less than tactful words about the President.

The world isn't fair, most of all when it comes to politics. When you talk about good morals, you shouldn't be accused of brining a theocracy. When you talk about patriotism, you shouldn't be called a fascist. When you talk about race quota, you shouldn't be called a racist. When you talk about the freedom of commerce, you shouldn't be accused of hating poor people. But we all get this. We all get the wrath of the ignorant, the radical and the just plain insane. And because of this, especially since the last eight years have been filled to the rim with leftist sewage, we feel its proper to throw some of it back.

The thing is, though, is that we can't throw any back, not if we want our ideas to be taken seriously and our opposition to be seen more than just a mishmash of anger. The townhalls were a good start. The Van Jones investigation was brilliant. Now, with this opening, we need to invade with all the forces we have at our disposal.

We need to explain how expropriating the labor of private doctors for state use without consent is tyrannical.

We need to expose other radicals in the President's circle, like Mr. Lloyd, the FCC's Diversity czar.

We need to put leashes on Congress with term limits and the returning the election of Senators to state legislatures.

We need to individualize Social Security , minimize and streamline welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, so not to put even more of a burden on the post-Boomer generations.

There is a lot conservatives need to do. There are many people we need to find, support and elect to office. There are a lot of people we need to kick out of office. There is a lot of the country that needs to be educated on what it means to support federalism, free markets, and a strong minimal federal government.

But, people, we can't really do that if we're considered just the other side of the same partisan coin.

Well, we're 2 weeks into President Obama’s first term and he certainly has been busy. We're now paying for abortions overseas, we’re closing the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay for increased national security (not sure how that works), and we're stimulating the economy with the biggest spending bill in the history of, well, ever!

The trouble is the vast majority, and by that I mean 90%+, has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. $400 million for ATV trails, for instance. How is that doing anything? So, along with about 50% of the country, I’m simply bashing my head against the wall wondering why this is being allowed to happen. This bill has passed through the house with every single republican and 11 democrats saying ‘no’ to it, yet this pork laden steaming pile of dung passed and now moves on to the Senate.

So, America really has gone crazy. The keys to the candy store have literally been handed over to the kids and there are not enough adults to stop them. So, we hear the outrage from conservatives like myself, as well as traditional common sense thinkers who see this as nothing more than a spending bill aimed at democratic pet projects and forwarding the socialist agenda. Money was even set aside in this bill to 'prepare' America for universal health care. Being a British citizen living under this kind of program for 20+ years, I can tell you: you do not want to give up the system you have.

The outrage is heard from every corner of common sense America, and yet it still passes. But where is the scream of joy from the Obama voters? Is this not what he said he'd do?
In fact from his abortion bill, the closing of Gitmo, all the way to the $800 billion spending bill, I’ve not heard anything from any Obama voters.

Tell a lie, the most I've heard is 'well he's not even been in 10 days yet, give him a chance'. It appears that now the Obama voters are 'asleep at the wheel' and have no idea what is going on. The educated on the issues, common sense people are now the ones screaming as loud as they can at the destruction of America. Conservative talk show hosts as well as journalists are seeing what this dramatic increase in spending, as well as the vast increase in the printing of money by the fed, is going to do. And those responsible for voting Obama into office are blind to it? Can they still blame this on Bush? Will the 'inherited problems of Bush cannot be fixed overnight' be the new 'Bush's fault' answer?

I’ve heard so many stories of people screaming for Obama, thinking he will pay their bills, give them free health care, and take care of them. They will be waiting a long time.
The most they will see is a check for $500 every year, money many of them do not deserve because they pay no taxes. Yet its called a tax cut,figure that one out. Not only do the non-tax payers get the money, but so do our illegal immigrants, who not only don’t pay taxes, but still get the health care for free, as well. So, in an 'economic stimulus' package we are giving money to people who not only do not support the economy, but are not even legally entitled to any of it. Where is the stimulus?

Is this 'change we can believe in'?

Obama himself said he will not sign a bill that contains pork spending. The $800+ billion stimulus bill is about 90%+ pork. Obama himself stated he will not have any lobbyists on his staff. Timothy Geithner's number 2 at the treasury department is a former lobbyist. Is this change we can believe in?

And where are the Obama voters questioning what he said then and what he’s doing now? Surely, they cannot just vote for such a historic figure and then not keep a watchful eye on what he's doing? Well, I'm sad to say that appears to be exactly what they are doing. They voted and now their job is done, as far as they are concerned. The media honeymoon continues, but how long can they hide the dramatic spending when inflation takes over?

The hopes of Obama being a centrist president are long over. He moved to the left and he moved quickly.

Lets go back in history for a second. In a recession two forms of action have been tried by the government in the past.

1.)Increase government spending to stimulate the economy – this has failed every time. Because of this the depression of 1929 became the 'great' depression of the 1930's, and even FDR’s own staff stated that their involvement only made things worse.

2.)Drastically cut taxes – this was done when Reagan inherited the recession from Carter and it actually increased revenue to the government and let the free market get itself out of the recession.

What have we learned? Apparently nothing, since Obama is now increasing spending saying 'government is the only one who can get us out of this economic downturn' while pushing us towards hyper inflation.

If the Obama voters woke up, what would they say to this? Give him a chance; it’s only been 2 weeks or so? Well, Bush really screwed up the economy and its going to take this to fix it?

Or what if they said:
Well what if we cut taxes? What if we cut spending? What if we gave more money to businesses that create jobs?

I don’t see it happening, but what if America woke up, stopped relying on government to fix the problem it caused and relied on themselves?

I know, we can dream.

Please America, take the time to learn what is going on. We need you.

Do Obama Voters Care - Tony Leach

P.S. Thank you to all Republican members of the house.
I'm one of millions who are hoping this is the start of something unifying and new from the GOP.

By Mike Porter

On January 28 2009, the House of Representatives passed an $819 billion economic stimulus package. The bill is titled “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” It passed straight down party lines with a vote of 244-188 and is now headed to the Senate. Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have pledged to jump start this shaken economy with a stimulus package. Naturally, this is a package that had to be passed immediately, or America would face grave dangers. Failure to act now will lead to unprecedented dangers.

President Obama said after the House vote, “This recovery plan will save or create more than three million new jobs over the next few years.” He also said “We don’t have a moment to spare.” (1) Of course we don’t have a moment to spare. Who would want to waste a few minutes to take a look at this bill to see what it is really in it? Every minute we wait, someone could lose their job. If we take too long, someone else might come up with a better idea, or things may turn around on their own. If that is the case, then this ridiculous spending bill would never get passed unless the public is scared or desperate. If we examine this bill, then we may find out what it really stimulates, or what it doesn’t stimulate. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the following is included in the bill: (2)

• $20 billion to the food stamp program
• $2.8 billion to expand broadband internet service in rural areas
• $8.7 billion to promote energy efficiency and conservation at federal facilities
• $8.4 billion to the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
• $20.4 billion to the Department of Health and Human Services
• $4.6 billion to employment and training programs by the Department of Labor
• $30 billion to highway construction
• $5.2 billion in grants to states and cities for community development
• $11.1 billion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• $46 billion to unemployment insurance and other provisions
• Refundable tax credits up to $500 for single and $1,000 for joint filers

One is left to wonder exactly how the provisions in this bill will invoke job creation in the private sector where most jobs are created. What incentive is there to invest in America and start up a new business? Not once will you hear Obama or Pelosi stress how the free market can assist with recovery. Credit should be given to President Obama for at least asking Pelosi to remove the hundreds of millions of dollars that would have gone to contraceptives for low income people. I do not understand how contraceptives can be bundled with an economics stimulus bill (no pun intended). The truth is this bill is not about stimulating the economy; it is about expanding the federal government and increasing those who depend on their programs at the taxpayers’ expense.

The House Republicans stood against this bill and offered an alternative bill called “The Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009.” The Republican version of the bill called for a 5 percent income tax cut across the board, increasing the child tax credit to $5,000, freezing the capital gains and dividends tax rates at 15 percent, and relief for businesses. (3) In my humble opinion, the alternative bill is missing an overdue reduction in the corporate tax rate and much needed spending cuts. Taxing corporations only leads to higher prices for consumers since those costs are added to the price of the products they sell. How about giving the consumers a break by cutting the costs of goods sold for our corporations? I am not so sure we can afford to expand the child tax credit by 500 percent either.

The best news for conservatives is the fact that EVERY Republican opposed this bill along with eleven Democrats. This is a very good sign that conservatives appear to have some say in their government. Is it possible that the Republicans have learned from their mistakes of the past? These mistakes have cost them majorities in the House, Senate as well as the White House. I would have loved to have seen this opposition to spending back when the Republicans had the majority in Congress. Unfortunately, the Republicans ran out of man power to block this legislation due to the seats they lost in the previous election. Perhaps if they didn’t abandon their principles, we could be fine tuning their version of the bill instead. Sometimes the best lessons in life are the hardest lessons we learn. The Republican Party has just been taken to school by the party who really knows how to spend money. Welcome to the school of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.

(1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090128/ap_on_go_co/obama_economy

(2) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf

(3) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/28/house-republicans-push-counter-proposal-stimulus/

By Michelle Seitz

Republicans in Congress, who are being closely watched by their constituents, stood their ground and killed the bailout bill for the “Big Three” automakers. Finally, a victory against corporate welfare; and Republicans are acting like conservatives again! Not so fast…

Until today, the Bush administration was opposed to using funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to aid the ailing auto companies according to a Bloomberg report. “Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry.” This statement is indicative of the Bush administration’s position according to Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin.

The last line of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg address states: “and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” It seems that the people no longer have a voice in their government. Our elected officials spoke on our behalf, yet President Bush feels he has the power to override the decision.

Bush’s use of the term “czar” is very disconcerting. His administration has presided over government intervention at extraordinary levels in every aspect from national security to the most disturbing involvement in the economic sector. The administration’s intervention in the financial sector has led to forced partial nationalization of nine of America’s largest banks. Billions of dollars have been given to politically connected institutions to jumpstart and continue peculiar monetary policy along with the continued abuse of credit.

As for the auto industry, the government takes a stake by way of the bailout and will appoint the industry with a “car czar.” Why the term czar? Is there an advantage to using the governing style of former Russian emperors? Just who will this car czar be, and what gives him/her the expertise in overseeing such a transaction? A business does not have to look any further than the federal government for examples of gross mismanagement. With the federal debt approaching $11 trillion and deficits that are likely to surpass $1 trillion, the government isn’t the institution to seek cost structure advice. Therefore, how does a person appointed by a President who has presided over the worst monetary policy arguably since the Hoover and FDR administrations going to get the “Big Three” back on track again? Answer: It won’t happen.

We loan the industry the money so they can pay their bills, then what? Without the major changes that I and other writers have outlined in previous columns, the American taxpayers will be at a crossroads again shortly – this time with a $15 billion sunk cost.

The events that have transpired over the latter half of 2008 have fiscal conservatives and free-market advocates in frenzy. True conservatives know that crisis is a friend of the state. Crisis and people’s desperation give the government the power to overrule the will of the people in order to experiment – experiment with trillions of dollars as if it were pennies. As Herbert Hoover laid the groundwork for FDR, George Bush has laid the groundwork for Barack Obama. George Bush has set up the framework for the largest governmental intervention experiment in possibly all of America’s history, as I believe it will surpass the New Deal.

For those fiscal conservatives who still think they have representation in the Republican Party, it is unwise to have blind faith. Don’t be fooled by temporary victories such as the Senate’s. There is no need to be frustrated with Barack Obama or the Democratic Party. Obama will do what he was elected to do and execute the principles his party has always stood for and conservatives have always opposed. After all, it’s not his administration who is agreeing to appoint “car czars,” approved government handouts to select income groups passing it off as “fiscal stimulus” and handed out billions of dollars to irresponsible companies as if it were pocket change.

Sadly, the world will have to see the fallout first before it sees the light…

Originally posted at RedState

If we've finally learned to cool our heels and drop the fingers, conservatives are beginning to realize that we have sucked it up this decade. But one thing is certain. The accumulation of frustration that has been building up since '07 was pretty clear in the loud of chorus of boos during John's concession speech on the night of the fourth. But wait. Are we quick to say who they were booing? Sure, the mention of 'The One' probably triggered an instinctive backlash of muddled curse words and vocal boos and hisses. Yet, who's to say there weren't those in the crowd who were just a teensy peeved at McCain? A pretty common diagnosis of our failure was an unpopular incumbent, a messianic challenger, yada yada yada. They say Obama's timing was right; that he would have won regardless our chosen candidate. But oh no! It was the BUSH factor! It must have been the President's fault! But... has anyone bothered to realize that it was in McCain's full capacity to kick Georgie out of the picture?

"I am not President Bush."

In theory, if all Americans knew what we conservatives know, that sentence alone would have been enough for there to have been an ah-ha! for the voters, let alone the grassroots. But as we know, Americans don't know that and tend to be attracted to very long coattails.

The President's ideological platform (and no, I'm not talking about the Bush doctrine) was for certain sound enough (or we wouldn't have reelected him in '04). Sure, W didn't run as conservative a campaign as HW did, but did that kick us in the arse? The very vast majority of the perceived dissatisfaction of our President has been induced by arbitrary incidences of alien origin. In other words, the platform didn't screw Bush; we know that much. Black Tuesday screwed Hoover. Watergate screwed Nix. The Iranian hostage crisis screwed Carter (well, he was already screwed). But in this case, like Obama's uncanny power to do magic, it seemed as if the real Bush "doctrine" disappeared. If at all, the President's domestic prowess seemed to be nonexistent this election cycle.

McCain had an open kill here. He really only had two options: renounce George completely, or strengthen his principles while defending the President in subtlety. It's evident he didn't choose the latter. The smart thing for John to have done would have been to tell the voters that he would not run a campaign of 'what-ifs'. They really are nothing new, but politicians these days seem unwilling to detach these 'what-ifs' from core party platforms.

To sum things up, an ideological campaign would have given John a win. His arbitrary one cost him it.

So yes, I just said it. It was not Bush's fault.