Tea Party Gets Its Own Colonial America TV Show — Made by Tea Partiers

President ‘becoming an absolute monarch’ on war powers, Dem says

A House Democrat warned Friday that the U.S. president is becoming an “absolute monarch” on matters related to the authority to start a war.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Congress must act to limit funding for military operations in Libya in order to correct that trend.

“We have been sliding for 70 years to a situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about whether to go to war or not, and the president is becoming an absolute monarch,” Nadler said on the floor. “And we must put a stop to that right now, if we don’t want to become an empire instead of a republic.”

Nadler stressed that he is not talking exclusively about “this president,” meaning President Obama. But he said nonetheless that Congress needs to reassert its authority to declare war, and said this should be done even over concerns that it would damage U.S. credibility with its NATO allies.

“I think that the nation’s credibility, that is to say its promise to go to war as backed by the president, not by the Congress, ought to be damaged,” he said.

“And if foreign countries learn that they cannot depend on American military intervention unless Congress is aboard for the ride, good,” he added. “That’s a good thing.”

Members of the House early Friday morning were debating a rule allowing for consideration of H.J.Res. 68, which would authorize continued operations in Libya, and H.R. 2278, which would limit funding for those operations.

Members of Congress have been clashing with the White House over the Libya mission. Many Republicans and some Democrats argue that President Obama does not have the authority to continue involving the U.S. in the NATO-led mission without congressional authorization.

The White House argues the U.S. role in Libya does not constitute “hostilities” and is therefore not covered under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to seek authorization from Congress 60 days after notifying lawmakers of a military action.

Read more here.

Minimum wage madness exposed

A real life experiment has revealed the madness of raising the minimum wage. One of the tenets of brain dead liberalism is that raising the minimum wage benefits workers. In the imaginary world of liberals, government edicts make the world run, and market forces count for nothing. Such thinking can only come from people who have never invested their own money, taken responsibility for hiring and paying people, and had to live with market responses.

The GAO has just released a report (summary here) on the effect of raising the minimum wage in American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands to mainland US levels. What cause could appeal more to liberals? Eliminating discrimination! Treating all American citizens the same! Rescuing exploited workers from evil companies exploiting them!

Well, in the real world, if employees cannot produce value in excess of what they are paid, they don’t have jobs anymore. Anyone who has had to meet a payroll knows this, though people who have made their lives in academia and government can remain immune from this learning.

Here is what happened:

In 2007, the United States enacted a law incrementally raising the minimum wages in American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) until they equal the U.S. minimum wage. American Samoa’s minimum wage increased by $.50 three times, and the CNMI’s four times before legislation delayed the increases, providing for no increase in American Samoa in 2010 or 2011 and none in the CNMI in 2011. As scheduled, American Samoa’s minimum wage will equal the current U.S. minimum wage of $7.25 in 2018, and the CNMI’s will reach it in 2016.

Despite the delays in further increases, serious damage has already been done:

In American Samoa, employment fell 19 percent from 2008 to 2009 and 14 percent from 2006 to 2009. Data for 2010 total employment are not available. GAO questionnaire responses show that tuna canning employment fell 55 percent from 2009 to 2010, reflecting the closure of one cannery and layoffs in the remaining cannery. Average inflation-adjusted earnings fell by 5 percent from 2008 to 2009 and by 11 percent from 2006 to 2009; however, the hourly wage of minimum wage workers who remained employed increased by significantly more than inflation. Private sector officials said the minimum wage was one of a number of factors making business difficult. In the tuna canning industry, future minimum wage increases would affect the wages of 99 percent of hourly-wage workers employed by the two employers included in GAO’s questionnaire. The employers reported taking cost-cutting actions from June 2009 to June 2010, including laying off workers and freezing hiring. The employers attributed most of these actions largely to the minimum wage increases. Cannery officials expressed concern in interviews about American Samoa’s dwindling global competitive advantage.

Budget talks implode

For the last six weeks, Joe Biden has been hosting “talks” on our budget crisis. As of yesterday, the yaksqueeze hit the fan. GOP representatives in the talks Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl pulled out of the talks. The reason? The inability to come to an agreement on taxes. We’ll get to more on that in a minute, but the Democrats insist on raising taxes in order to come up with a deficit-reduction package of $4 trillion, which would be tied to an increase in the federal debt limit. The Republicans do not want to raise taxes. And after six weeks of this song and dance, Cantor and Kyl realized that they weren’t getting anywhere. So now the task rests in the hands of Barack Obama, John Boehner and Harry Reid. Meanwhile, Eric Cantor says that he will propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Barack Obama … it’s time to take a stand. Will you fight to increase taxes as your fellow Democrats insist, or will you recognize the effect of lower tax rates on economic behavior? I assume that wealth envy will ultimately prevail.

So what if Democrats manage to convince the Republicans (not like with a Republican-led House) that we need to end the Bush tax cuts and return to the tax rates we had under Bill Clinton. That’s no longer good enough. Why? Because our government spending has grown tremendously since the days of Clinton! Don’t they get it? This isn’t a revenue problem. It’s a spending problem. Here are some specifics from the Washington Examiner:

In 2000, the last full-year of President Clinton’s administration, tax revenues were 20.6 percent of GDP, according to the CBO. (The White House Office of Management and Budget puts it slightly higher, at 20.9 percent, which places it in a tie with 1944 for the highest ever level in U.S. history). But the CBO’s long-term fiscal outlook released yesterday predicts that by 2035, total spending will reach a stunning 33.9 percent of GDP if lawmakers pursue their predictable course. That means even if revenues returned to the coveted pre-Bush tax cut levels, there would be a 13 percent difference.

Yet President Obama’s former OMB director Peter Orszag has written that, “a sustainable level is more like 3 percent (of GDP) or lower.” So that would put the deficits, even with Clinton-era revenues, at more than four times their sustainable levels.

Increasing taxes is a Democrat strategy to pander to wealthy envy voters. This has nothing to do with our debt or deficit and everything to do with re-election.

Small business owners … BOHICA!

We don’t know the nature of the tax disagreements in the budget talks, but what I do know is that our tax cheat Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is advocating for tax increases on small business. No … that is not a joke. He told this to the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday of this week. This plan would be a part of the administration’s efforts to raise taxes on all American’s earning more than $250,000 a year.

In a back-and-forth between Geithner and first-term Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers, Ellmers points out that 64% of new net jobs created over the last 15 years were from small business. To which Tim Geithner replies that his plans to increase taxes would actually be “good for growth.”

Geithner: “No, that’s right. I agree with that. But just to put it in perspective, it’s important to recognize why are we doing this. You know, our deficits are 10 percent of GDP, higher than they’ve been since any time in the postwar period really. We have a big hole to dig out of, and we have to figure out how to do that in a way that’s balanced, good for growth, fair to people as a whole.”

Uh oh … here we go with the “fairness” routine. When presented with the fact that small businesses create the majority of jobs in America, Tim Geithner’s response is that we have to do what is “fair to people as a whole.” Fairness … give me a break.

Geithner: “We’re not doing it because we want to do it, we’re doing it because if we don’t do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don’t think I can justify doing that.”

You see, Tim Geithner, and big-government politicians are under this false liberal assumption that all money earned in the United States belongs to the government, and it is the government that decides how much of it you get to keep.

CNSNews: When Ellmers finally told Geithner that “the point is we need jobs,” he responded that the administration felt it had “no alternative” but to raise taxes on small businesses because otherwise “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs”—including federal education spending.

Oh no … not government programs! We can’t shrink government programs!

Meet the 17-Year-Old Fighting ‘Big Government’ and Traffic Cameras

Josh Sutinen isn‘t old enough to vote and only got his driver’s license last month, but he’s already among the leaders in a growing national backlash against cameras that issue traffic tickets.

The 17-year-old has worked for most of this year – frequently on school nights – pushing an initiative to ban Longview’s new red-light and speed cameras. He’s now in the final stages of a signature-collection effort that has him fighting city council and asking fellow citizens to join his crusade.

“These cameras are really just another big government attack on our rights,” Sutinen said in an interview. “It’s just taxation through citation.”

Sutinen’s plan is one of four similar ballot proposals around Washington this year. Voters in more than a dozen cities nationwide have passed referendums banning the cameras while nine states now prohibit them.

Officials in Los Angeles, where a single ticket can cost hundreds of dollars, moved this week to end a camera program there. Opponents question whether the cameras actually improve safety, noting that many citations are issued to drivers who simply don’t fully stop as they take free right turns at red lights. They also believe governments are largely using the cameras as a revenue source.

Washington’s activists hope to repeat the local success that state initiative guru Tim Eyman had in his hometown of Mukilteo last year. A group in Bellingham turned in nearly 7,000 signatures this week, and a movement in Redmond is still collecting.

Read more here.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey Says She is Very ‘Proud’ Of The Anti-Israel Activist Who Tried To Stop Netanyahu’s Speech To Congress

A Clueless, Callous Commander-in-Chief

Obama’s bumbling, bungled delivery at Fort Drum yesterday represents far more than mere confusion; it clearly demonstrates a lack of care, an inattention to detail in matters very important to his audience, an insensitivity to the families of dead warriors, a dismissive disrespect of SSGT Giunta, and a casual slap in the face to the entire United States military.

If you are going to be the Commander-in-Chief, Barry, then as this old sergeant would have instructed one of his troops after such a disgraceful performance, “Soldier up fool and get your sh*t straight. You are talking about recipients of the highest award for valor their nation can bestow upon their warriors. You have flippantly dishonored the award itself and all those to whom it has ever been awarded. You are an embarrassment to the world, your country and most importantly to the troops you supposedly command.”

What a sorry, sorry performance…what it demonstrates most clearly is why gradually increasing experience and leadership responsibility are essential before anyone should even be considered for the Commander-in-Chief’s position.

Among the many roles a president must perform, that of leader of our military forces, is the one most difficult to fulfill successfully because the men and women who comprise those forces are those very Americans who suffer fools least gladly. They have been there and done that and are quick to spot the fast-talking phony who has not. That is why military personnel wear campaign and accomplishment ribbons on their uniforms-those brightly colored little strips, meaningless to civilians, provide a quick read to fellow warriors as to where you’ve been and what you’ve been through. It’s the equivalent of your military history displayed for your fellow warriors to see. Our current C-in-C hasn’t a single, earned ribbon.

And, brother, is it ever obvious….

Barry is nothing more than a great pretender, a community organizer elevated far beyond deserved rank, completely oblivious to the gravitas of his role. I deplore the overuse of the term offended in today’s society but, can there be anyone associated with the military who is not offended by this clueless, callous affront to all warriors?

SSGT Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66