ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100218

ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100218
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!



The Mount Vernon Statement

http://www.themountvernonstatement.com/

Conservative Beliefs, Values and Principles

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.
Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers
what we can and should do to that end.

It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America

Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation

Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council

Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center

Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator

David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union

David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society

T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform

William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government

Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness

Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority

Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring

Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review



"Daily Motivations"

"If we did all the things that we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves." -- Thomas Edison

"Gratitude is the open door to abundance." -- Yogi Bhajan

No act of kindness is ever wasted. -- Aesop



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it. (Mark 10:15)

One day I received a telephone call from a friend. He was working for his doctorate in one of the most prestigious seminaries in America. He asked if I would go with him to call on the head of the seminary, who was also his professor. He explained to me that his professor was a brilliant scholar, but denied the deity of Christ.

When we arrived and I was introduced, his immediate response was: "Mr. Bright, when you talk to college students about becoming a Christian, what do you tell them?" I was skeptical of his sincerity and weighed my words carefully.

He then asked a second question, "Better still, what would you tell me? I would like to become a Christian?"

The professor continued, "About five years ago I began to reevaluate my personal beliefs and I began to study in earnest the writings of the church fathers and the original manuscripts concerning Jesus. The more I studied, the more convinced I became that Jesus is the Son of God." And when he asked, "Will you help me" (and I shall never forget this phrase) "know Him as my personal Savior?" I was deeply moved.

He also made a profound statement: "As a result of my research," he said, "I am now convinced that no honest person who is willing to consider the overwhelming evidence proving the deity of Christ can deny that He is the Son of God." That day a great scholar met the living Christ with the spirit of a little child.

Your View of God Really Matters …

Who do you say Jesus is? Have you honestly looked at the evidence? Have you ever made Jesus your personal Savior, or has it just been intellectual recognition?



"The Patriot Post"

"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." -- Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, 1775

"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Query 19, 1781



Profiles of Valor: U.S. Marine Corps MGySgt Peter Proietto

United States Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant Peter Proietto was serving in Afghanistan when, on March 12, 2003, his patrol was ambushed by Taliban fighters. As the other Marines in the forward element of the patrol sought cover, Proietto stayed in position -- exposed to enemy fire though he was -- in order to provide suppressive fire for the protection of his comrades.

As the firefight continued, Proietto bravely stayed at the machine gun atop his unarmored vehicle on an open road. The Team Sergeant advised him to leave that position for cover, but he stayed and fired on the enemy for almost an hour until he ran out of ammunition. When the ammunition was gone, he grabbed his M4 carbine and continued to engage the enemy. Soon, the Taliban were pushed from their positions. For his actions, Proietto received the Bronze Star with combat "V" for valor. His citation says he "displayed himself in a courageous professional manner and his heroic and immediate response to enemy fire and willingness to jeopardize his own safety to provide supporting fire for the rest of the team demonstrated a level of dedication to the mission and his fellow soldiers, which is rarely surpassed."

For more Profiles of Valor, see our Perspective section each Sunday.



Business & Economy

Income Redistribution: Tax Cut Games

Still reeling from last week's Democrat loss in Massachusetts, Barack Obama is proposing a series of middle-class tax breaks to "reverse the overall erosion in middle-class security." Undoubtedly, he also hopes the breaks will reverse growing disenchantment among middle-class voters. Under the proposal, childcare tax credits would nearly double; student federal loan repayments would be limited to 10 percent of income beyond a "basic living allowance"; and employers would be required to let employees enroll in direct deposit IRAs. Additionally, $1.6 billion in new funding would flow to childcare and $102.5 million to family-provided elder care.

These tax cuts will undoubtedly be welcomed by those who receive them, but in reality the proposals are little more than smokescreens and sound bites. "Americans are asking, 'Where are the jobs?'" said House Republican Leader John Boehner. "[N]one of the proposals outlined by the White House ... would, in fact, create jobs."

This latest scheme reiterates that Obama's philosophy is not one of systemic tax relief, which views wealth as created by the people and belonging to the people, but of wealth redistribution, which selects "worthy" recipients of taxpayer dollars and reallocates those dollars accordingly.



This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"We also had some good news for the first time in approximately two years. The projection of revenues has stabilized, not decreased. That is a very good sign because it is a sign that people are in fact making money and will be in a position, because they're making money, to pay a portion of that in revenues to the federal government." --House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)



Hope 'n' Change: How Many Jobs?

Barack Obama spent a good deal of time in his State of the Union address telling us how he was going to create jobs, mostly by giving various tax breaks to different constituencies, paid for by other constituencies. Friday, he announced a $33 billion incentive package for small businesses for hiring and wage increases -- again, more acts of "benevolence" rather than just getting out of the way.

Meanwhile, it was a game of multiple-choice statistics on Sunday's talk shows, as three of Obama's top advisors graced three different networks, spouting three different job numbers. On CNN's "State of the Union," Senior Adviser David Axelrod picked Door #1: "[T]he Recovery Act the president passed has created ... or saved more than 2 million jobs."

On "Fox News Sunday," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs chose Door #2: "[T]he recovery plan ... saved or created 1.5 million jobs."

Door #3 was left for Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett on NBC's "Meet the Press": "The Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs." Unfortunately, none of the president's sages had the correct answer: None of the above.

Is this messaging faux pas a sign of trouble in the Obama ranks? Looks that way. Indeed, following Democrats' recent electoral nosedives, an internal shakeup may be on the horizon. On last week's McLaughlin Group, five of five panelists think that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's days are numbered. The hard-nosed strategist may soon find his nose in the classifieds. And as Obama re-hires former campaign manager David Plouffe in a post-Massachusetts (and Virginia, and New Jersey) attempt to salvage his agenda, one can only wonder how many other senior advisers will soon add "former" to their titles.



Around the Nation: Oregon Voters Approve Tax Hike

"It's not often that citizens vote for higher taxes, but 54% of Oregonians have done precisely that," notes The Wall Street Journal. "In a rolling month-long referendum by mail that ended Tuesday, they approved some $700 million in tax hikes on business and wealthy residents."

The vote pushes the highest state income tax rate from 9 percent to 11 percent, nearly the highest in the nation. Not only that, but the retroactive (to January 2009) tax is a gross-receipts tax, not a net-profit tax. How, in a time of voter anger over taxes and spending, did this happen?

Both national and local public employee unions spent $6..5 million in support of the hike, which helped build support in the crucial precincts in and around Portland. Naturally, the union label placed the burden on "someone else." Only Wall Street bankers, out-of-state credit card companies and the rich would pay the tax. But as the WSJ points out, "Two-thirds of those hit with the new 11% tax rate are small and medium-sized business owners." Besides, tax hikes at the top tend to have that dastardly trickle-down effect.

Public unions succeeded in using tax dollars from dues paid through salaries to lobby and win more tax dollars for even better wages and benefits. The average Oregon state worker receives $83,402 in pay and benefits, which is 30 percent higher than private workers get. Nice work if you can get it. With voters electing to add to their deficit problems rather than solving them, it's no wonder Phil Knight of Nike (in Oregon) called it the state's "assisted suicide" for business.



Climate Change This Week: NASA Measures More 'Warming'

A new NASA study has declared this past decade to be the warmest since the recording of temperature began in 1880. Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world's best-known envirofascists, even broke it down by year. According to him, 2009 was a real scorcher, second only to 2005.

The New York Times reports that the scientist has been "attacked" by climate change skeptics, though perhaps a better word is "exposed." If Hansen is being challenged openly, it's because scientists who had been silenced for years are now debunking the junk science of climate change. Yet the Times won't mention that; in fact, it even attempted to gloss over "ClimateGate" by focusing on the fact that the e-mails had been released without permission.

Arguably, the Times has good reason to be testy, for it recently received the not-so-shocking news that China and India will not be signing the Copenhagen Accord after all. India had been on the verge of signing the agreement because it would look good diplomatically and obligate them to do absolutely nothing, but Prime Minister Singh changed his mind after being hounded by the United Nations. He responded by issuing a letter to UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon asking the organization to elaborate on several aspects of the accord.

Singh's letter -- plus the fact that of the nearly 200 countries which attended the conference only Australia, Canada, Papua New Guinea and the Maldives have signed -- prompted the UN to postpone indefinitely its Jan. 31 deadline. Another key factor was the election of Republican Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's senate seat. "With the Democrats losing in one of their strongholds," an anonymous official said, "the chances of the climate bill going through the U.S. Senate have receded dramatically." Still, the Obama administration formally notified the UN Thursday that it will support the Accord.



Faith and Family: McCains Support NoH8

Much ado is being made of Arizonan Cindy McCain's participation in the NoH8 campaign to overturn California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage. Mrs. McCain joined her daughter Meghan in the fight for marriage "equality" when she appeared in a commercial with duct tape over her mouth, supposedly symbolizing the silence being forced on homosexuals.

As so often is the case, however, the real problem is not in front of the TV cameras, but lurking below the surface. The issue isn't just whether the government should allow same-sex marriage, or whether a politician's spouse should publicly take a different stance on a hot-button issue (such as when Barbara Bush announced that she is pro-choice), but whether all Americans are allowed to speak their minds, even when their views are not popular in Hollywood.

The people of California have rejected same-sex marriage twice. As blogger Michelle Malkin notes, "Prop. 8 supporters and donors have been hounded, threatened, blacklisted, beaten, and forced to resign from their jobs for exercising their political free speech." In fighting against their own perceived discrimination, perhaps those in favor of same-sex marriage should examine how they are trampling the rights of others.



To Keep and Bear Arms

Mark and Rodney Bowens were thrown out of a Charlotte, North Carolina, nightclub earlier this month, only to return armed with at least one pistol. They opened fire, and 67-year-old bar owner Roosevelt Hinton responded by grabbing his handgun and returning fire. Mark Bowens was reportedly struck in the head and abdomen, though he survived. He went outside where police later found him on the pavement. Two bar patrons also were injured in the shootout. Rodney Bowens fled the scene. This also wasn't Mark Bowens' first encounter with trouble. He had already spent four separate occasions in jail, one of those for a second-degree murder conviction in 1991. Fortunately, Hinton was ready for trouble.



And Last...

Given recent events and the plummeting popularity of Barack Obama, Republicans are salivating at the chance to retake Congress in November and even the White House in 2012. Of course, polling is the new national sport, and a recent Newsmax/Zogby poll poses an interesting problem for Obama. Newly elected Republican Sen. Scott Brown is within the margin of error from the president in a hypothetical match up -- Obama leads by only 46.5 to 44.6 percent. Now don't get us wrong; a year is an eternity in politics (see Obama's popularity as Exhibit A), let alone three years. And as Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto writes, "C'mon, Scott Brown? His victory last week was undoubtedly impressive, but let's put things in perspective. Brown is merely a state senator, and by the time of the next presidential election, he will have served less than a full term in the U.S. Senate. What could possibly give anyone the idea that he's experienced enough to go to the White House?"



"ACU"

Yestrerday I sent you the email below about a disturbing story regarding the Obama administration's decision to monitor website and social media internet postings.

Because it was late in the day when I sent it, I am sending it again this morning so you have an opportunity to read it.

Many times government programs like this seem worthwhile. However, it is not the program or the federal employees doing the work that should concern us, it is the misuse of data by political appointees and opponents that should give us all pause. We must ensure that freedom of speech is still free and that conservatives opposed to government-run health care, ACORN funding, a weak foreign policy and liberal values are not targeted.

Please take a moment to read this and support our efforts as we fight for you.

Also know that CPAC is this week. You may remember Rush Limbaugh's speech at CPAC last year. This year Glen Beck is a featured speaker. CPAC is hosted and sponsored by the American Conservative Union Foundation and co-hosted by more than 90 others. We work all year to put together CPAC. Hopefully you will have an opportunity to view some of the events on C-Span or other news channels later this week.

I look forward to your support on the letter described below.

- Dennis

------------- ORIGINAL EMAIL -------------------

Last Saturday, in a story not widely circulated, Obama's Department of Homeland Security admitted they are monitoring the comments and posts of Americans on websites and within social networks like Twitter.

This raises some serious concerns.

In an ABC News report the Department of Homeland Security said they were monitoring the sites during the Olympics to increase security and detect threats. No one wants the Olympics to be threatened or for any American or foreign athlete or spectator to get injured.

However, the Department, led by liberal Secretary and politician Janet Napolitano, has a history of trying to suppress conservative opponents of the President.

This latest news with an admission that they are monitoring the comments of Americans begins to raise concerns about big brother and the security of individual Americans.

We need to be absolutely sure that the political views of Americans - especially those with conservative views critical of the President - are not being monitored for political suppression.

Someone needs to ask these questions. We need confidence that conservative Americans are not being monitored for their opinions.

Sign the ACU letter here, now. Ask that Obama's Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jane Napolitano assure American's that our political views are not being monitored.

Last year you may remember the uproar over the official DHS report Napolitano requested that attacked conservatives as extremists.

It was a formal Federal Government paid report titled: "Rightwing Extremism."

This report said among other things: "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements ... and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

First Napolitano's department sought to tie the word "hate" to those who favor state's rights - in essence the form of democracy created by our founding fathers. Secondly, it sought to label as dangerous those who oppose abortion or who favor a crackdown on immigration. But there is more...

Obama and Napolitano's official report also said: "Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election (Obama's election as President) as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship ... and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment."

So, if you believe in the Second Amendment to the constitution or if you disagree with Obama's policies - you too can be dangerous according to Janet Napolitano and the Obama administration.

... After a weekend where we saw former Vice President Dick Cheney argue that the Obama administration has taken its eye off the ball in the real fight on terrorism, Napolitano's Department is admitting they are monitoring websites and social media feeds for "increased security..." Maybe they should be monitoring foreign terrorists not Americans.

In light of her past actions it makes one wonder what they are really monitoring or how Napolitano might use the data.

Sign the ACU letter here, now. Demand that Obama's Secretary Jane Napolitano assure American's that our political views are not being monitored for political purposes.

When Napolitano's report came to light last year it was also revealed that it included passages saying the American government should be afraid of returning troops coming back from war.

... In effect her report said we should be afraid of veterans. It said, "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat."

CNN reported the American Legion's national commander, David K. Rehbein, said in a letter to Napolitano that, "I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are."

Her response was to say "I know that some veterans groups were offended by the fact that veterans were mentioned in this assessment, so I apologize for that offense. It was certainly not intended."

However, this apology did not include an apology to the millions of conservative American's who did not vote for Obama, who do not support his policies and who are not radical but average, concerned Americans - the same Americans who have attended Tea Party protests, events like CPAC or who have supported the ACU.

Now we find out that she and her Department are monitoring website posts and other internet networks.

We must make absolutely sure this will not be used in any way to limit the freedom of speech.

Sign the ACU letter here, now. Demand that Obama's Secretary Jane Napolitano assure American's that our political views are not being monitored for political purposes.

Do you remember last summer when ACU warned you about White House attempts to track emails?

The Dallas Morning News had reported the Obama White House government official website called for supporters to track "disinformation" about healthcare legislation. Another report from the Syracuse Post-Standard newspaper noted the White House told their supporters "If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it." They then provided a special email address just to track opponents.

The Obama White House has a history of trying to track political dissent.

Thousands of American citizen petitions - your sigantures collected right through our ACU petitions - were sent to Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs asking for a Congressional investigation into the White House's public attempts to track and suppress political opponents aligned against President Barack Obama's health care proposals.

As a result the White House scaled back this effort and it disappeard.

Now they are tracking internet postings.

They paid for reports critical of veterans, gun owners and those with conservative political views. They created a program to track messages and email addresses of those opposed to government run health care. Now the administration - the same Department led by Napplitano that issued the anti-conservatives report is admitting to monitoring website posts and social networks.

It is important to ensure this data is used for legitimate law enforcement and anti-terrorism activities... not for political attempts to track opponents.

Please sign the letter here, now and support ACU's efforts to demand an answer to the question: are they using this data to track political opponents?

Thank you for your continued support.

We can assure you that ACU will continue to "monitor" the Obama administration to sensure that our nation remains free.

Sincerely,

Denis Whitfield
Executive Vice President, American Conservative Union
former Reagan Deputy Secretary of Labor

P.S. In a letter to the President last year, U.S. Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, wrote, "I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens ...." as he was made aware of White House attempts to track opposition to government-run health care. We supported him.

Now we find out that an Obama department is monitoring website posts, Twitter and possibly Facebook. We need to ensure they are not tracking political opponents. Sign the ACU letter here, now.



"The Web"

Audio: Clarence Thomas Defends Supreme Courts Campaign Finance Decision

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgWxFDkzbWo



The Contract From America: Why CPAC Matters Now More Than Ever

by Newt Gingrich

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35657

Tomorrow, for the 37th time, conservatives will gather in Washington to discuss, debate, and forge new solutions at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

For those who may be tempted to despair about the state of the limited government, pro-market and pro-family movement, a little history is in order.

In 1975, then-Governor Ronald Reagan inspired a dispirited conservative movement to revolution at CPAC. In a message that resonates to this day, President Reagan proclaimed, “Our people look for a cause to believe in,” and then asked: “Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"

President Reagan’s first speech to CPAC was in its inaugural year in 1973. According to CPAC organizer David Keene, that year, 125 Americans came to CPAC to hear Reagan speak. This year, attendance is expected to top 10,000.

Excitement about the Return to the Bold Colors of Conservative Leadership

There is a palpable sense of excitement about the prospects for a return to the bold colors of conservative leadership in America today.

This excitement isn’t just due to the vulnerability of the left, although it is vulnerable.

And it’s not just because of the American people’s disavowal of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi liberal agenda, although Americans have repudiated it.

It’s because of the strength of the solutions being generated by a concerned American public, solutions that are being taken up and championed by conservatives.

The Contract From America

This Thursday at CPAC, the Tea Party Patriots will unveil a grassroots-generated, crowd-sourced, bottom-up call for real economic, conservative and government reform.

It’s called the Contract From America. It’s not the handiwork of me or any public official. It is the genuine voice of the American people. Unlike the current political dynamic, in which the will of Washington is forced on America, this is the voice of America coming to Washington.

The idea of a grassroots-generated call for reform came from Ryan Hecker of the Tea Party Patriots.

Here’s how Ryan explains why he started the process of giving citizens the power to change Washington:

“We started this to give every American the opportunity to make a difference and to tell elected officials that it’s now time for them to listen to the people. We also see this as a way to help unite the Tea Party movement and transform it from a purely protest movement to one calling for proactive and positive reform.”

Hundreds of Thousands of Americans Submitted Ideas for the Contract

From the idea of the Contract came a website, launched in September 2009. At www.ContractFromAmerica.org hundreds of thousands of Americans have submitted and debated thousands of solutions for creating jobs, securing liberty and reclaiming our government.

After much debate and a series of surveys, the list of solutions has been narrowed to 22.

Tomorrow at CPAC, nationwide voting will begin to refine this list of 22 down to ten solutions for real change. Voting will be open for a month. Then, the ten winning solutions, which will comprise the Contract From America, will be unveiled at the next round of nationwide Tea Parties on April 15.

At that point, candidates and elected officials from both parties will be asked to sign the Contract and commit themselves to the American people’s solutions.

Cast Your Vote to Determine the Contract From America

Here, for the first time, are the 22 solutions to be voted on beginning tomorrow:

DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.

STOP THE TAX HIKES: Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.

COMMIT TO REAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY: Every bill, in its final form, will be made public seven days before any vote can be taken and all government expenditures authorized by any bill will be easily accessible on the Internet before the money is spent. (Proposed by: Steve Kulik, Gonzales, Texas; and Steve Hollis, San Francisco, Calif.)

PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

PASS REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM: Greatly improve affordability of health insurance by permitting all Americans access to all health insurance plans sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines and allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance.

ENACT FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the Internal Revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution.

END RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

LET US SAVE: Allow all Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account they own, control, and can leave to whomever they choose.

PROTECT INTERNET FREEDOM: No regulation or tax on the Internet.

GIVE PARENTS MORE CHOICES IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN: Improve American education by reforming the broken federal role through eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school, and improving the affordability of higher education.

PASS AN 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' ENERGY POLICY: Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition.

PROTECT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in any form, including requiring “localism” or “diversity” quotas.

RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY & CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states.

PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS: Block state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.

REJECT CAP & TRADE: Prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

STOP THE PORK: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is fully transparent, including requiring a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

NO CZAR REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION: All “lawmaking” regulations must be affirmatively approved by Congress and signed into law by the president, as the Constitution requires for all laws.

AUDIT THE FED: Begin an audit of the Federal Reserve System.

NO MORE BAILOUTS: The federal government should not bail out private companies and should immediately begin divesting itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts.

STOP CAREER POLITICIANS & CURB LOBBYIST POWER: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require Congressional term limits. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice or to the House of Representatives more than four times.

SUNSET REGULATIONS: All regulations will be “sunset” after ten years unless renewed by Congressional vote.

LET US WATCH: Broadcast all non-security meetings and votes on C-SPAN and the Internet.

Thirty-five years ago at CPAC, a call for “bold colors and no pale pastels” came from one of America’s greatest leaders.

Today, that same call comes from the American people themselves.

To cast your vote for the 10 solutions that will comprise the Contract From America, go to www.ContractfromAmerica.org.

And if you’re in the Washington area, come to CPAC and add your voice to the debate. Just like this 37-year-old gathering, it’s needed now more than ever.

Your friend,

P.S. How should health reform be accomplished?

On February 25, President Obama is calling on lawmakers to put their best ideas forward during televised, bipartisan negotiations on health reform. Join the Center for Health Transformation and its panel of experts beginning Wednesday, February 17 for an ongoing, online dialogue discussing the best solutions to transform our country’s healthcare system. To learn more click here.



Obama appoints Muslim envoy

Chad Groening - OneNewsNow

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=898402

An Islamic critic and terrorism expert says President Barack Obama should not have named a special envoy to an Islamic organization that is an absolute enemy of the United States.

President Barack Obama has named White House lawyer Rashad Hussain as his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which represents 57 Muslim countries. The president claims Hussain is a "hafiz of the Quran" -- one who has memorized Islam's holy book. He also contends that Hussain will continue working to repair U.S.-Islamic relations and develop the types of partnerships Obama called for last year in his address to the Muslim world in Cairo.

"It takes two to repair relations, and he's not going to be able to do it on his own," comments Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch. "He's reaching out and reaching out and reaching out, and all he is doing is giving them the impression that we're weak, and that's really the way in which the Islamic Jihad groups operate. They understand weakness and strength. They don't understand conciliation; they see it as weakness."

Spencer adds that the president should not be sending an envoy to a group like the OIC, as he believes "it is waging a war against free speech at the United Nations and elsewhere, trying to stifle critics of Islam and Jihad, trying to vilify and smear anybody who speaks honestly about Jihad activity as a hateful bigot and so-on."

As for the White House lawyer and special envoy, the Jihad Watch director recalls that "Rashad Hussain defended publically Sami Al-Arian, who was a professor at the University of South Florida, who is now in prison for his role as a leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

Spencer further notes that Hussain has spoken out against the "profiling" of Islamic terror suspects.



Obama’s Love of Labor Makes for One Unholy Union: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aJarhKRzqHqY

Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s union with labor unions has become a marriage made in hell. If he wants to save his presidency, and his party, he should seek a divorce.

When Obama met with House Republicans last month, he chastised them for mischaracterizing his health-care agenda. “You’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot,” he said. It’s not, of course, but Republicans can be forgiven for observing the truth that this president has been more in the tank for the labor movement than any U.S. president since World War II.

It certainly has made great financial sense for the president to align himself with the unions. After all, organized labor spent more than $100 million in the last election supporting Democrats. And for unions, the investment looks like a good one. Since taking office, Obama has doggedly pursued their agenda.

First, he included special restrictions on much of the economic-stimulus funds, requiring that large portions of the $787 billion be used only on projects involving unionized workers. The stimulus also included “Buy American” clauses that infuriated our trading partners. Though Obama was said to oppose adding trade restrictions to the bill, that didn’t stop him from signing it.

Obama cut deals with the United Auto Workers ensuring that they be the primary beneficiaries in the bankruptcies of Chrysler and General Motors. More recently, Congress exempted unionized workers from the 40 percent tax on high-end insurance packages in the Senate health-care bill, a step that would have saved labor an estimated $59 billion. Unfortunately for Democrats and labor alike, this type of backroom dealing destroyed public support for the health-care bill.

Persistent Nomination

Perhaps the most obscene sign of Obama’s heavy indebtedness to the unions is his persistence in the case of union lawyer Craig Becker.

Last year, Becker was nominated to serve on the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that administers U.S. labor law. Becker’s nomination set off red flags, given his radical pro-labor views in support of that board rewriting union-election rules without the consent of Congress.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce took the unusual step of opposing Becker’s nomination, something it had done only three times in 30 years. “Many of the positions taken in his writings are well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law,” the chamber and several other industry groups wrote last October.

Easier to Unionize

To many, Becker’s appointment looked like an attempt to use government fiat to impose rules that could never pass Congress and that would make it much easier for unions to organize workplaces. Even moderate Democrats opposed Becker, and his nomination was returned to the president last year.

But late last month, even after Obama began paying lip service to bipartisanship in response to the shocking Republican Senate victory in Massachusetts, Obama chose to resubmit this controversial candidate. The Senate again blocked Becker, but Obama may well use a recess appointment to seat him.

There are two big problems with such a high-stakes alliance with America’s unions.

First, unions are unpopular with ordinary Americans. A Gallup poll last September found that 48 percent of Americans approve of unions, an all-time low since Gallup began asking the question in 1936.

Tawdry History

Unions are unpopular for good reason. They have a tawdry history of connection to organized crime and a continued reputation for thuggery. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Web page on organized crime: “Labor racketeering has become one of La Cosa Nostra’s fundamental sources of profit, national power and influence,” and, “For decades, the Teamsters has been substantially controlled by La Cosa Nostra.”

While the FBI cites progress in cleaning things up, the history has not been forgotten by Middle America.

The second problem is that union policies are bad for the economy -- and for the unions themselves.

To the extent that government’s support of unions succeeds in driving up wages, those policies will reduce employment and make the slow labor recovery worse. To the extent that unionization spreads to new firms, we can expect the higher associated costs to reduce growth, and even, as was the case with U.S. automakers, help propel the companies into bankruptcy.

Membership Dropping

In this world of unintended consequences, perhaps the most predictable of 2009 was the further decline in private-sector unionization that occurred in Obama’s first year. Even while he was giving away the store to the unions, private-industry unionization dropped to 7.2 percent in 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That number was 27 percent in the 1950s.

Unionization continues to decline because unions are such a destructive force. When the economy got weaker, unionized businesses were the weakest. When unionized businesses looked ahead to a world with Obama appointees administering labor laws, they decided to close up shop.

Even after political defeat in Massachusetts, Obama has aggressively pursued the expansion of this destructive force. If that continues, America’s unions will do for Obama what they have done for so many others: cost him his job.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)



Education: Too Important for a Government Monopoly

by John Stossel

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/02/17/education_too_important_for_a_government_monopoly?page=full&comments=true

The government-school establishment has said the same thing for decades: Education is too important to leave to the competitive market. If we really want to help our kids, we must focus more resources on the government schools.

But despite this mantra, the focus is on something other than the kids. When The Washington Post asked George Parker, head of the Washington, D.C., teachers union, about the voucher program there, he said: "Parents are voting with their feet. ... As kids continue leaving the system, we will lose teachers. Our very survival depends on having kids in D.C. schools so we'll have teachers to represent."

How revealing is that?

Since 1980, government spending on education, adjusted for inflation, has nearly doubled. But test scores have been flat for decades.

Today we spend a stunning $11,000 a year per student -- more than $200,000 per classroom. It's not working. So when will we permit competition and choice, which works great with everything else? I'll explore those questions on my Fox Business program tomorrow night at 8 and 11 p.m. Eastern time (and again Friday at 10 p.m.).

The people who test students internationally told us that two factors predict a country's educational success: Do the schools have the autonomy to experiment, and do parents have a choice?

Parents care about their kids and want them to learn and succeed -- even poor parents. Thousands line up hoping to get their kids into one of the few hundred lottery-assigned slots at Harlem Success Academy, a highly ranked charter school in New York City. Kids and parents cry when they lose.

Yet the establishment is against choice. The union demonstrated outside Harlem Success the first day of school. And President Obama killed Washington, D.C.'s voucher program.

This is typical of elitists, who believe that parents, especially poor ones, can't make good choices about their kids' education.

Is that so? Ask James Tooley about that. Tooley is a professor of education policy who spends most of every year in some of the poorest parts of Africa, India and China. For 10 years, he's studied how poor kids do in "free" government schools and -- hold on -- private schools. That's right. In the worst slums, private for-profit schools educate kids better than the government's schools do.

Tooley finds as many as six private schools in small villages. "The majority of (poor) schoolchildren are in private school, and these schools outperform government schools at a fraction of the teacher cost," he says.

Why do parents with meager resources pass up "free" government schools and sacrifice to send their children to private schools? Because, as one parent told the BBC, the private owner will do something that's virtually impossible in America's government schools: replace teachers who do not teach.

As in America, the elitist establishment in those countries scoffs at the private schools and the parents who choose them. A woman who runs government schools in Nigeria calls such parents "ignoramuses."

But that can't be true. Tooley tested kids in both kinds of schools, and the private-school students score better.

To give the establishment its best shot, consider Head Start, which politicians view as sacred. The $166 billion program is 45 years old, so it's had time to prove itself. But guess what: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently found no difference in first-grade test results between kids who went through Head Start and similar kids who didn't. President Obama has repeatedly promised to "eliminate programs that don't work," but he wants to give Head Start a billion more dollars. The White House wouldn't explain this contradiction to me.

Andrew Coulson, head of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Reform, said, "If Head Start (worked), we would expect now, after 45 years of this program, for graduation rates to have gone up; we would expect the gap between the kids of high school dropouts and the kids of college graduates to have shrunk; we would expect students to be learning more. None of that is true."

Choice works, and government monopolies don't. How much more evidence do we need?



Who won the war? Biden blunders again

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/letters/who_won_the_war_biden_blunders_again_PyIvbK8lfPFP0jXx1K0p7L

THE ISSUE: VP Joe Biden's claim that the Obama administration deserves credit for Iraq progress.

***

The Democrats wanted President George W. Bush to fail in Iraq so badly they did everything short of selling terrorist war bonds ("Biden: Cheney 'Misinforming' on Terror," Feb. 14).

I guess their new slogan will be: "We vote for the war before we vote against the war. But, if we win the war, then it's our war."

Vice President Joe Biden's comment is an outstanding example of hypocrisy, even for him.

Bill Ahearn, Brooklyn

Getty Images - Joe Biden

***

Biden, deemed by many to be "crazy uncle Joe," has made a reality-bending claim that the success in Iraq can be credited to President Obama.

This wild claim attempts to diminish the efforts of Bush, Gen. Petraeus and the success of our soldiers in Iraq.

Does Biden not realize that, with a click of a mouse, Americans can hear what he, Obama and the Democrats were saying while the surge was being planned and executed?

Can anyone forget Hillary Clinton's cold stare at Petraeus as she publicly demeaned his honesty and integrity?

The Obama administration has no hesitation in blaming the previous administration for its own failures and, in the same immature mindset, cannot acknowledge anything positive about the Bush administration.

Diane McVey, Scotch Plains, NJ

***

The more Biden speaks, the more it becomes apparent that his true job is not vice president but impeachment insurance.

Erik Lander, Brooklyn



"The e-mail Bag"

When U Black, U Black

This was written by a black gentleman in Texas and is so funny. What a great sense of humor and creativity!!!

When I was born, I was BLACK,
When I grew up, I was BLACK,
When I went in the sun, I stayed BLACK,
When I got cold, I was BLACK,
When I was scared, I was BLACK,
When I was sick, I was BLACK,
When I bruise, I'm still BLACK,

And when I die, I'll still be BLACK.

NOW, You 'white' folks.....
When you're born, you're PINK,
When you grow-up, you're WHITE,
When you go in the sun, you get RED,
When you're cold, you turn BLUE,
When you're scared, you're YELLOW,
When you get sick, you're GREEN,
When you bruise, you turn PURPLE,
And when you die, you look GRAY..

So who y'all callin' COLORED folks?