Did someone Say "Un-biased???"

by David Barton of www.wallbuilders.com

America’s first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation. Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The “Indians” even swept the decks of the ships before they left.

Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales. And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent, but such was not the case.

Interestingly, in many ways, today’s Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the “American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act”). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.

Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.

• “To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones.” “Avoid occasions of expense…and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions…to discharge the debts.” George Washington
• “Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to…extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt.” Alexander Hamilton
• “The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness.” “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Thomas Jefferson

These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; (2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget; (4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress. Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that while Americans differ on the way they view the Tea Parties, they support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one.

Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: “My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad.” But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.

The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today’s Tea Party rallies when he said: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!”

Rand Paul’s credibility as a government reformer has taken on a life of its own, growing with each new establishment-inspired smear. Today, Louisville Courier Journal columnist John David Dyche swings and misses at Rand’s solid position on balanced budgets:

“Dr. Rand Paul says he will not vote for any budget that is not balanced. Secretary of State Trey Grayson rightly responded that Paul’s position “is not practical” and explained why. Now Paul is airing an ad attacking Grayson as if Grayson is altogether opposed to balancing the budget.”
“Paul has neither outlined a balanced budget nor detailed how he would eliminate this year’s projected $1.5 trillion federal deficit in one fell swoop. Any combination of spending cuts and tax increases doing that would choke even the most highly caffeinated tea partiers.”

Actually, Rand Paul has discussed deficit elimination many times and with more-than-sufficient specificity. He has suggested passing an old federal budget from a prior year, but one that matches current revenues. Also, he has discussed closing multiple government agencies and — this is the important part going over some well-educated heads — restoring limitations on government functions to within the boundaries explicitly imposed by the U.S. Constitution.

Even more fundamental to the question at hand, though, is the value of a “no” vote even if it is the only one for a while. “Practical” Republicans talk about “spending less” and may even give lip service to a balanced budget ideal, but recoil in horror at the practical realities involved in actually cutting even a single well-intentioned but wasteful government program. Rand Paul’s campaign has succeeded in exposing this feel-good phoniness that has wrecked our nation’s finances with bipartisan back-slapping. Establishment politicians and scribes have staked out their positions yet again in opposition to basic common sense.

Rand Paul will withstand this latest attack because too many Kentucky Republicans appreciate reality enough to seriously consider the hard choices that lie ahead of us.  (David Adams)

www.randpaul2010.com

Election day in Kentucky is May 18.

An unofficial memo from the White House has revealed plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development.  This land grab would dry up tax revenue that is essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers, says Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). 

The 21-page document marked “Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE,” names 14 different lands President Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as “monuments” under the 1906 Antiquities Act.  Rep. Robert Bishop (R-Utah) made the memo public because he did not want another unilateral land grab by the White House, like what happened under former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, says DeMint: 

• Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.
• President Clinton used the authority 22 times to prohibit hunting, recreational vehicles, mining, forestry and even grazing in 5.9 million acres scattered around the country (the law allowed him to single-handedly create 19 new national monuments and expand three others without consulting anyone).
• In Nevada, the Obama Administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it supposedly is a “center of climate change scientific research.”
• In Colorado, the government is considering designating the Vermillion Basin as a monument because it is “currently under the threat of oil and gas development.”  

The government currently owns 650 million acres, or 29 percent of the nation’s total land.  Federal bureaucrats should not be wasting time thinking up ways to acquire more, especially in the middle of a recession, says DeMint. 

Taking the nation’s resources offline will stifle job creation and dry up tax revenues.  If anything, the government should be selling land off, not locking more up, says DeMint. 

Source: Jim DeMint, “White House Land Grab,” Washington Times, March 2, 2010. 

For text:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/white-house-land-grab/

• “I support Senator Jim Bunning.  Frankly, unemployment benefits are currently 99 weeks or almost two years. While I support extending the benefits for a short period of time longer, we must find a way to pay for those benefits.  I do not support extending unemployment benefits beyond two years.  Even Germany limits unemployment benefits to one year.  Benefits here in America are exceeding those offered in the most liberal countries of Europe.  Two years of government support is not a safety net. It is an entitlement program. I am tired of paying for entitlement programs that continue well beyond a compassionate need.”  (Bill Johnson, Press Release, 3.2.10)
• “Jim Bunning is being unfairly attacked for saying we should spend money already set aside for benefits rather than borrowing more.   He deserves our support and he is going to get it.” (Rand Paul)
• “I would proudly stand up to ensure that programs are paid for and think that this is further evidence of mismanagement of the Senate by Harry Reid.  If we had not wasted time debating and passing a pet bill for Reid, we would not have been in the situation that led to the delay.  I agree with Senators Bunning and McConnell that the government has a responsibility to pay for its programs and a good place to start would be to cut funding from the stimulus in order to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits.  If the stimulus had created jobs as promised, then we would not need more unemployment insurance.” (Trey Grayson)

Editor’s note:  Thanks to these candidates for swiftly stepping out and supporting Senator Bunning in what has been a career-long quest to support fiscal responsibility.

(This analysis offered by ex-governor of Delaware, Pete du Pont)

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page did an analysis of the federal government’s debt that will be held by the public over the coming decade: 

• When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the debt held by the public was 36.2 percent of gross domestic product.
• It rose to 40.2 percent the next year.
• This year it will be about 63.6 percent, next year 68.6 percent, then 77 percent of GDP in 2020.
• And the Obama administration’s budget estimates 218 percent in 2050. 

The reason for these rising deficits is the huge increases in federal spending — the intended growth of the federal government — that Congress and the president are pushing, says du Pont: 

• The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion.
• In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion.
• The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2010. 

To the White House and congressional Democrats, these large figures are not a surprise, a mistake or a worry.  They are part of a strategy to Europeanize America, to make the government larger, broader and in charge of almost everything.  And that would of course require broad and massive tax increases, says du Pont.  

Source: Pete du Pont, “Nightfall in America; The Obama deficits portend a gloomy future,” Online Journal, February 16, 2010. 

(Editor’s Note:  How can any group, whether from the Executive or Legislative Branch of government, feign shock and surprise at the cavernous deficit that they are all too well aware that they are creating?  Pete du Pont’s theory, while deeply disturbing, is entirely plausible.  “Quel surprise???”  N’est ce pas, citizens. ~~Dan Blanchard)