Paul Ryan (R-WI) on the foundations for growth on Squawk Box

Senator McConnell Endorses Earmark Ban

This is something that Dr. Coburn has been pushing for sometime and looks like it could finally happen. Democrats will vote against it at their own peril for their seats up in 2012. With Senators Lincoln (D-AR) and Feingold (D-WI) losing this time, we would expect some Senators like Ben Nelson of NE or Bill Nelson of FL to think long and hard before voting against the ban on earmarks. Ben Nelson already got paid off for voting for Obamacare which made people in Nebraska furious. Doubt if he wants to do that again.

So much for all the consternation on websites and on the air over the weekend what McConnell was going to say today -- some people don't have a clue about Mitch McConnell or how he handles everything. He is a deliberative person who looks at all sides. They would rather jump the gun and attack him instead of waiting to see what he says.

McConnell Endorses Earmark Ban
2:18 PM, Nov 15, 2010 • By JOHN MCCORMACK

On the floor of the Senate moments ago, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell endorsed the proposed earmark moratorium that the GOP Senate caucus will vote on tomorrow:

Nearly every day that the Senate’s been in session for the past two years, I have come down to this spot and said that Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people. When it comes to earmarks, I won’t be guilty of the same thing.

Make no mistake. I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don’t apologize for them. But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government.

That’s why today I am announcing that I will join the Republican Leadership in the House in support of a moratorium on earmarks in the 112th Congress.

Earlier today, Senator Jim DeMint said he thinks earmark opponents had enough votes to pass a GOP conference-wide moratorium. Senator Tom Coburn (R, Okla.) also pledged to force an up or down vote on earmarks for the entire Senate when the food safety bill comes to the floor.

McConnell's full remarks are here:

Obamacare Waivers List Released Friday Afternoon -- No News Release -- Unions Benefit Most!

Doesn't take rocket science to figure out why the 111 companies who were granted waivers by the Obama Administration were not announced in a public press release. That is a lot of waivers to Obamacare which points out the fact it is an extremely flawed healthcare program that Nancy Pelosi rammed through saying it had to be passed to see what was in the bill. Most people do not like what is in the bill after they saw it but it helped prove in this election that Pelosi could care less about what was in a bill as long as it passed. Now she is running for Minority Leader since they lost so many seats and she will no longer be Speaker. Are the Democrats going to elect her and once again make her the face of Democrat House members?

Why did the Democrats under the leadership of Pelosi and Reid refuse to even consider the bicameral Patient's Choice Act bill submitted by Sen Coburn (R-OK) and Senator Burr (R-NC)in the Senate and Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA)? In the Senate in addition to Coburn and Burr, it was co-sponsored by Senators Alexander (R-TN), Graham (R-SC), Isakson (R-GA), Bunning (R-KY), Chambliss (R-GA) and Inhofe (R-OK). In the House in addition to Ryan and Nunes, it was co-sponsored by Brady (R-TX), Campbell (R-CA), Linder (R-GA), Marchant (R-TX), Sessions (R-TX), Souder (R-IN), Calvert (R-CA), LaTourette (R-OH), Lungren (R0-CA), McClintock (CA-4), Rohrabacher (CA-46), and Shimkus (R-IL). The bill in both Houses was sent to Committee where it didn't even receive a hearing.

This site covered the Patient's Choice Act on August 22, 2010 at Patients Choice Act of 2009 and provided the details of their plan to fix healthcare. We suggest they bring it back in the next session of Congress because at least it will get a hearing in the House. Would make an excellent substitute bill for Obamacare but we would expect Obama to veto it because it makes common sense, and he had nothing to do with it.

Now we learn the waivers are favoring the unions which is no shock as they are in Obama's hip pocket. When looking at the list, it gives you an idea why the Democrats didn't want to publish the list and waited until Friday afternoon to post it on-line. Do Democrats seriously think that the information will be buried forever with this stunt? Sure seems they do.

Obamacare Waivers Prove Policy is a Jobs Killer, Unions Benefit Mostby Warner Todd Huston

111 companies and organizations were granted waivers by Obama’s Dept. of Health and Human Services so that they could get out of having to comply with Obamacare and unions were particularly well rewarded by the HHS with these waivers.

Interestingly, there was no great announcement of these waivers issued to the press. The HHS buried the waiver announcement six layers deep on its webpage and posted them on Friday when they imagined no one would notice. It’s a typical Friday evening document dump so common when an administration wants to avoid the prying eyes of the people. So much for the “most transparent administration in history,” eh?

One thing is sure about these waivers. Obama rewarded his union pals quite well. Som 15 unions and union healthcare or financial fund and insurance providers fill the list of companies and groups that will not have to operate under Obamacare’s destructive rules.

The Service Employees Benefit Fund
United Food and Commercial Workers Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust Fund
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union No. 195
Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
Employees Security Funds
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 227
United Food and Commercial Workers Maximus Local 455
Service Employees International Union Local 25
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1262
Musicians Health Fund Local 802
Hospitality Benefit Fund Local 17
Transport Workers Union
United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (AFL-CIO)

Interestingly enough, Obama has waived the onerous Obamacare rules for quite a few healthcare providers, too. One wonders how good Obamacare could be if the rules are waived for actual healthcare providers?

Most outrageous addition to the waiver list is the exemption that New England Health Care got. Is NEHC a healthcare provider or insurance company, you ask? Nope. It’s a policy group that, according to its website, is “dedicated to transforming health care for the benefit of patients and their families.”

As Jazz Shaw notes the irony is rich.

So an institute dedicated to finding ways to reform the health care system had to apply for an exemption from the administration’s reforms to the health care system? Keep your eyes on the news next week, as I’m fairly sure that the heads of some immigration reform lobbying groups will be deported.

In any case, this list shows that HHS realizes how bad Obamacare is for the healthcare plans on a wide range of industries, so bad that the new rules had to be waived. And remember. Once Obama waives all these businesses from having to put up with Obamacare, that just puts more burden on the rest of us that aren’t big campaign donors to Obama’s warchest,

Excerpt: For a full list of waivers visit Big Government.com

Senator Tom Coburn: Earmark Myths and Realities

If there is one person in the United States Senate who can speak against earmarks in a manner to make everyone understand, it is Dr. Coburn who does not take earmarks. He has been fighting against them for years along with pork. It is great to see so many members of the House and Senate now agreeing with Dr. Coburn. When you see the list of earmarks for Oklahoma, you see a "0" next to Dr. Coburn.

In looking around for the best explanation we went to his op-ed at The National Review which gives clear and concise answers to the debate. Oklahoma just reelected Dr. Coburn in overwhelming numbers to send him back to DC for six more years. Frankly, we wouldn't mind seeing him run for President because he has more common sense in his little finger when it comes to what is the right thing to do for Americans then some people have in their whole body. Arrogance is also not a word you see association with Senator Coburn.

If the Congress and Administration had listened to Dr. Coburn, Sen Burr (R-NC), Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI), and Rep Deavin Nunes (R-CA) on their bicameral plan for healthcare, The Patient's Choice Act, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today with Obamacare. Obama/Pelosi/Reid didn't even bother to consider this plan and it died without being taken up in Committe. Time for Rep Ryan and Rep Nunes to reintroduce it in the House after January 3rd. Maybe we have the votes now in the Senate to at least get it heard in Committee.

Might be a good idea for the Senate to start paying more attention to what Dr. Coburn has to say when it comes to legislation -- American people would sure be better off.

Earmark Myths and Realities

November 10, 2010 4:39 P.M. By Sen. Tom Coburn

As Senate Republicans prepare to vote on an earmark moratorium, I would encourage my colleagues to consider four myths and four realities of the debate.

Myths of the earmark debate:

1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money

This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn’t spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It’s that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to.

2. Earmarks represent a very tiny portion of the federal budget and eliminating them would do little to reduce the deficit

It’s true that earmarks themselves represent a tiny portion of the budget, but a small rudder can help steer a big ship, which is why I’ve long described earmarks as the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington. No one can deny that earmarks like the Cornhusker Kickback have been used to push through extremely costly and onerous bills. Plus, senators know that as the number of earmarks has exploded so has overall spending. In the past decade, the size of government has doubled while Congress approved more than 90,000 earmarks.

Earmarks were rare until recently. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it contained 121 earmarks. Eliminating earmarks will not balance the budget overnight, but it is an important step toward getting spending under control.

3. Earmarking is about whose discretion it is to make spending decisions. Do elected members of Congress decide how taxes are spent, or do unelected bureaucrats and Obama administration officials?

It’s true that this is a debate about discretion, but some in Congress are confused about discretion among whom. This is not a struggle between the executive branch and Congress but between the American people and Washington. Do the American people have the right to spend their own money and keep local decisions at the local level or does the federal government know best? Earmarks are a Washington-knows-best solution. An earmark ban would tell the American people that Congress gets it. After all, it’s their money, not ours.

An earmark moratorium would not result in Congress giving up one iota of its spending power. In any event, Republicans should be fighting over how to cut government spending, not how to divide it up.

4. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to earmark

Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to do earmarks. The concept of earmarking appears nowhere in the enumerated powers or anywhere else in the Constitution. The so-called “constitutional” argument earmarks is from the same school of constitutional interpretation that led Elena Kagan to admit that Congress had the authority to tell the American people to eat their fruits and vegetables every day. That school, which says Congress can do whatever it wants, gave us an expansive Commerce Clause, Obamacare, and a widespread belief among members of Congress that the “power of the purse” is the power to pork.

Earmark defenders are fond of quoting Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” They also refer to James Madison’s power of the purse commentary in Federalist 58. Madison said the “power of the purse may, in fact, be the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”

Yet, earmark proponents ignore the rest of the Constitution and our founders’ clear intent to limit the power of Congress. If the founders wanted Congress to earmark funds to specific recipients, micromanage American society, and ride roughshod over state and local government they would have given Congress that authority in the enumerated powers. They clearly did not.

Our founders anticipated earmark-style power grabs from Congress and spoke against such excess for the ages. James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, spoke directly against federally-funded local projects. “[I]t will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest.” Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand.

Also, if earmarks were a noble constitutional tradition, how did we thrive for 200 years without an earmark favor factory in Congress?

Finally, for those worried about ceding constitutional authority to the executive branch, I would respectfully remind them that the president has zero authority to spend money outside of the authority Congress gives him. The way to hold the executive branch accountable is to spend less and conduct more aggressive oversight. Earmarks are a convoluted way for Congress to try to regain authority they have already ceded to the executive branch through bad legislation. The fact is there is nothing an earmark can do that can’t be done more equitably and openly through a competitive grant process.

Beyond these myths, I would encourage members to consider the following realities.

1. Earmarks are a major distraction

Again, earmarks not only do nothing to hold the executive branch accountable — by out-porking the president — but take Congress’ focus away from the massive amount of waste and inefficiency within federal agencies. In typical years, the number of earmark requests outnumbers oversight hearings held by the Appropriations Committee by a factor of 1,000 to 1. Instead of processing tens of thousands of earmark requests the Senate should increase the number of oversight hearings from a few dozen to hundreds. The amount of time and attention that is devoted to the earmark chase is a scandal waiting to be exposed.

2. This debate is over among the American people and the House GOP

If any policy mandate can be derived from the election it is to spend less money. Eliminating earmarks is the first step on that path. The House GOP has accepted that mandate. The Senate GOP now has to decide whether to ignore not only the American people but their colleagues in the House. The last thing Senate Republicans should be doing is legislative gymnastics to get around the House GOP earmark ban.

3. Earmarking is bad policy

In recent years the conventional wisdom that earmarks create jobs has been turned on its head. The Obama administration’s stimulus bill itself, which is arguably a collection of earmarks approved by Congress, proves this point. Neither Obama’s stimulus nor Republican stimulus — GOP earmarks — is very effective at creating jobs.

Harvard University conducted an extensive study this year of how earmarks impact states. The researchers expected to find that earmarks drive economic growth but found the opposite.

“It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman’s state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending,” said Joshua Coval, one of the study’s authors. The study found that as earmarks increase capital investment and expenditures by private businesses decrease, by 15 percent specifically. In other words, federal pork crowds out private investment and slows job growth. Earmarks are an odd GOP infatuation with failed Keynesian economics that hurts local economies.

Earmarks also crowd out funding for higher-priority items. Transportation earmarks are a good example. Pork projects like the Bridge to Nowhere and bike paths divert funds from higher priority projects according to a 2007 Department of Transportation inspector general report. Thousands of bridges continue to be in disrepair across America in part because Congress has taken its eye off the ball and indulged in parochial spending.

4. Earmarking is bad politics

If the Senate GOP wants to send a signal that they don’t get it and are not listening they can reject an earmark moratorium. For Republicans, earmarks are the ultimate mixed message. We’ll never be trusted to be the party of less spending while we’re rationalizing more spending through earmarks. The long process of restoring fiscal sanity in Washington begins with saying no to pork.

— Sen. Tom Coburn represents the state of Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate.

SourceNational Review.com

Obama Takes Credit in India for an Agreement Started Under Bush and Goes Downhill from There

Interesting commentary by Chip Reid of CBS when Obama talks about Obama's use of words saying "supporting" 50,000 jobs, Reid is quick to say that is less than "creating" which is interesting. The deal with India was signed under Pres Bush in early 2008. The contract was set for Lockheed Martin when India Delayed the Fighter Deal because India could not make a decision on what fighter to buy during the two-year contract window as other companies decided to submit bids.  Now in typical Obama fashion he is taking credit for a contract originally negotiated under President Bush.

Where was Hillary? We don't remember seeing a major trip overseas by a President without the Secretary of State being right by his side. Everything should have been negotiated ahead of his visit by the Secretary of State but then Hillary seems to have her own agenda.

There is no way that the White House can spin this trip was successful -- trying to make lemonade out of lemons this time is not going to work. The trip was a failure and Obama is quickly losing what little amount of respect he had left from world leaders who were way too quick to embrace someone with no experience and frankly by all accounts very lazy.

Amazing to watch many members of the media quit covering for Obama.  Wonder when some woke up and had to admit to themselves that this man should never have become President based on his hollow rhetoric.  Many of the press corps willingly bought into everything he said refusing to acknowledge the truth or do any investigation.  They allowed their disgust at Bush to cloud their reporting and Obama took full advantage.  Don't expect an apology but I expect fair reporting. 

Chip Reid is one of the rare reporters who doesn't need to aplogize to anyone because as  a White House reporter over the years he continues to report facts not spin no matter who is President.  We first noticed Reid when he was reporting from the White House during the Clinton troubles with Monicagate.  Never have a sense when watching his reports or reading what he writes that he is someone who spins or covers up for any President.  In fact he is quick to point out, as he did in this article, when he perceives a White House Press Secretary or Advisor is spinning.  Over the years he has earned respect for his ethics as a reporter by reporting the facts and pointing out the spin which we wish was emulated by more reporters.

November 14, 2010 8:20 AM
White House Push-Back on Asia Trip Failure MemePosted by Chip Reid

President Barack Obama's 10-day trip to Asia started off surprisingly well. Right off the bat he got a "deliverable," as they call it in the world of international diplomacy.

During his first stop in Mumbai he announced more than 20 trade deals between India and American corporations worth about $10 billion, "supporting" (something less than "creating") more than 50,000 jobs in the U.S.

But there's a danger in front-loading the good news on an international trip. There's also a danger (as the White House certainly should have known) in building up expectations and then not meeting them.

That's exactly what happened in South Korea. To hear administration officials talk about it, the Free Trade Agreement with Korea was all but in the bag. So when it somehow slipped away, some reporters quickly declared it a "failure."

That was compounded by the fact that the administration was unable to convince other nations to agree to tough language on China's manipulation of its currency.

So in rapid succession they fell short twice, and the word "failure" started to creep into stories in a way that seemed to sum up the entire trip.

The President clearly was not pleased.

At his wrap-up press conference in South Korea he was unusually defensive. As he often does -- and sometimes he's right -- he criticized the media for focusing on immediate drama and disagreement, instead of the hard-fought, long-term results of international diplomacy.

It's not clear what irked him most: the media, or his frustration at not getting everything he wanted. But something had gotten under his skin.

When I asked him what was the "number one complaint, concern, or piece of advice that you got from foreign leaders about the U.S. economy and your stewardship of the economy?" he snapped back: "What about compliments? You didn't put that in the list."

Sheryl Stolberg of The New York Times asked him if his relations with other foreign leaders were a bit rocky now compared with previous summits when they "maybe were just a teensy bit falling all over you when you first arrived on the world stage."

The President didn't take kindly to that, either, sharply (some would say angrily) responding: "That's not how I remember it. I remember our first G20, you guys writing the exact same stories you're writing now about the exact same issues. Don't you remember that, Sheryl?"

So with the President apparently frustrated, and the word "failure" appearing in a steady stream of stories, the White House shifted into damage control mode, sending new National Security Advisor Tom Donilon to give a briefing to the White House press corps.

Here's how he summed up the trip:

"From the first day in Mumbai to today in Japan, I think that the United States has dramatically advanced its critical goals and its strategic interest in the region."

Wow -- sounds like a gigantic success. How does he justify that?

Source: CBS News.com

Who Would have Thought?

Late afternoon or early evening yesterday this site was attacked by someone adding Malware to one of the Widgets. All the widgets have been removed including the one that is suspected of causing the problem which has been tracked down.

We have been around with this site since the general election of 2008 and have gone after people like Ayers, Wright, Obama, Emanuel, Pelosi, Reid, Sink, and a host of other Democrats and not one time did we have Malware put on this site. We have emails and comments that are not very nice but the site itself was never attacked.

We were shocked to learn that we had Malware added for the first time yesterday which looks to have been added to a Widget that came from a 'conservative' website. Didn't take a genius after learning where it tracked to figure out which article had caused the Malware to be added -- DeMint: "I don't think people realize that we're borrowing money to pay back debt that is coming due." Call it circumstantial evidence because we don't have absolute proof but 2+2=4.

There is no way we are accusing the Senator of doing this but we know some of his supporters from other websites and wouldn't put it past any of them to do such a thing. If they think this is going to silence DfS, think again. We are more determined than ever to get out the facts. In fact, as much as we dislike what we have seen the Democrats do over the past four years, a Republican will be treated harsher by us as we hold them to a higher standard.

To people who don't like our commentary, don't read it but we will continue to shine the light of day on a lot of areas and if it hits a Republican then maybe they had better look in the mirror. One trait we cannot stand is 'arrogance' which has been the downfall of more than one politician over the years.

We are also not going to bow to any one group or threats but will continue to call it like we see it. There are two freedoms that are at stake -- Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press that should not be infringed. Anyone who adds Malware to shut down a site is pretty low and not what conservatives should stand for but over the years we have noticed there are conservatives who like liberals only believe in freedom of speech if it pertains to them and their agenda.

We will keep you posted on any other attacks but be assured we are not going away and this has only made us more determined to shine the light of day on what is happening in the world of government and politics.

Thanks for your support during the election cycle and reading our blog.

Sharon

Tea Party Group Releases Congress Members' Personal Cell Phone Numbers and Email Addresses

UPDATE: November 13, 7:42 p.m.

Looks like we were not the only ones upset by this action by the National Tea Party Patriots to release the private cell phone numbers and emails of incoming Freshman. This press release comes from the Florida Tea Party movement and don't want to be tainted by these people. Mike Flynn at Big Government has a similiar take on this matter at Personal is Personal even for a Congressman. Anyone who condones the actions of the National Tea Party Patriots has the ethics of a gnat to go right along with this group. How were they able to obtain the personal information on these incoming Congressman and did they pay for that information?  Just who provided the information?  National Tea Party Patriots speak of transparency -- how about we see some from them!

It takes a lot of encouragement to get good people to run for office as stated by Mike Flynn at Big Government and how many of them want their personal information spread all over the net? Zero, zip, nada. Now they are going to have to change long time cell phone numbers along with email accounts. Why? Because some arrogant people decided they need to attend the Tea Party orientation not the Claremore Institute and went after them releasing their information all over the net along with a basic warning attend our orientation or else. What do the Tea Party Patriots know about orientation to new members of Congress? Or is the leadership really paid professionals capable of putting on an orientation that covers how the House works along with getting bills through committee and other necessary information the Freshman will need to do their job. We will never know because there is no transparency from this group or the Tea Party Express.

Who put the Tea Party Patriots in charge of the U.S. House of Representatives Orientation?  Were they asked to provide any orientation to new members? NO is the answer to both! They took it upon themselves which is very presumptious in the first place.  The new members were being given the same orientation that has been given in the past to new members. Now they are faced with a threat if they attend the Claremore Institute, they will make the Tea Party Patriots mad. What a horrible thing to do to newly elected members of the House. 

We say Thank You to the Florida Tea Party Coalition for standing up to the bullies of the Tea Party Patriots. The leadership of the Tea Party Patriots need to resign for giving out private information in their attempt to intimidate Freshman Congressman for their own purpose. These Freshman are upset and have every right to be disgusted. The word 'intimidate' is used by the Florida Tea Party Coalition who are just as livid as we are.

Tea Party, 9/12 Project Members Reject National “Tea Party Patriots” MethodsNovember 12, 2010 Press Release Florida Liberty Alliance

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Tom Tillison

Grass Roots Florida Tea Party, 9/12 Project Members
Reject National “Tea Party Patriots” Methods
In an attempt to intimidate the Congressional Freshman Class, “leaders” of the national “Tea Party Patriots” group embarrass the grass roots Tea Party Movement by releasing the personal phone numbers of freshmen House Members with instructions to their email list to pressure Members into attending a private TPP Freshman Class Orientation.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA – November 12, 2010 – A statement issued to its email list yesterday by the national “Tea Party Patriots” group leadership demands: “Let’s show them that you won’t tolerate politics as usual and show them the power of the Tea Party” – and then breaks with the most basic protocol of respect and reveals the private cell numbers of the entire Congressional Freshman Class to their list to ensure delivery of this message.

Was this grand call to arms justified because of an important piece of legislation under consideration? Were these freshmen legislators engaged in some act of fiscal irresponsibility or constitutional malfeasance? Not exactly. This demand involved a Freshman Class Orientation scheduling conflict with the conservative organization Claremont Institute, unjustifiably attacked by TPP leaders in its statement as a group comprised of nothing but “Washington Insiders”.

“The grass roots Tea Party Movement, where the volunteers on the ground do the real heavy lifting in the Movement, find the message in the TPP statement and the release of private contact information of Congressional Members inexcusable and an embarrassment for all of us,” says Jason Hoyt, co-founder of the Central Florida Tea Party Council.

Many in the Congressional Freshman class are angry about how poorly they have been treated. There are those who are also puzzled by such egregious and meritless behavior imposed on them before they have even been sworn into office.

The Florida Liberty Alliance strongly requests that the leaders of the “Tea Party Patriots” immediately move do all that they can to repair the damage that these actions have caused to the Movement’s relationship with these Congressional Freshmen and the good name of the Tea Party Movement.

******
So much for Tea Party Patriots being local after what just happened. Let me get this straight -- Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank, scheduled orientation events for Congress that the head of the Tea Party Patriots, Jenny Beth Martin, says they did on purpose that conflicts with the Tea Party Patriots orientation. Excuse me! What gives her the right to attack Claremont which has done this in the past and give out personal cell phone numbers and email accounts urging people to call or email their Congressman and give them a warning to come to her event or else.

Is this what the Tea Party is evolving into? Yet some people wonder why a lot of us who are long time activists are skeptical about the national organized groups. This bullying is not going to go over coming from the 'my way or no way' crowd. Last I checked it is a free Country and members of Congress and Congressmen/woman-Elect along with the Senate have a right to choose which orientation they want to attend. Her threats and that of others is not going over well from what I am hearing.

Now the Tea Party Patriots go after a Conservative Think Tank and that is alright because after all they are the Tea Party? They gave out personal cell phone numbers and emails of Congressman? Get that personal -- not their official ones but personal accounts but it is okay as they are the Tea Party Patriots and have a right to do that for their cause. What would Conservatives be saying if a Democrat group had done this? Have had some private emails for years and have never given them out to even my best friends because they are just that -- private!

Wonder if Malware is going to be attached to this site for this article like it was for DeMint's article yesterday?

When you keep getting warned not to take on the Tea Party or else, you have to wonder what is really behind all of this. They are sending their emails to the wrong person because I believe in something called 'Freedom of Speech' which seems to only apply to them not someone who doesn't agree. First it was the Tea Party Express which we will have an article later this weekend and now we learn the head of the Tea Party Patriots is threatening Congressman if they don't attend her event.

Looks to us like some people have become very arrogant and believe they rule the world after the media has spent so much time propping them up during the election with tons of articles. How many actual Tea Party members are there that belong to organized national groups? Anyone have a count?

We thought this group was legit but now have to wonder since it is obvious they are also a national group not just local. How many of them are libertarians or libertarian leaning or from the Ron Paul camp is what we would like to know.

This idea because you don't agree with something you are attacked is beyond disgusting. Have stated many times that the ideals of the Tea Party are correct but I am concerned about the national groups who have taken over what started out as grassroots events. How much money are they making off of this and just who is funding these organizations now?

We want transparency since they demand it of Congress which we agree should happen but it time for these national groups to also provide transparency as well as to who is funding them. Hosting these events is not cheap.

Tea Party Group Releases Congress Members' Cell Phone Numbers
November 12, 2010

Some newly elected Republicans may have overflowing in-boxes and many voice mails this week, after a tea party group released the personal e-mail addresses and cell phone numbers of freshman members of Congress.

The leader of the Tea Party Patriots sent an e-mail with the private information to supporters, urging them to contact the GOP Congress members to make sure they stay on the tea party course and avoid being being "co-opted" by Washington insiders, Roll Call reported Friday.

Jenny Beth Martin accused the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank, of purposefully scheduling orientation programs this weekend that conflict with similar events by her tea party groups.

"We need you to call & e-mail these incoming Congressmen & tell them you want them to attend YOUR Tea Party Patriots event," Martin wrote.

Her message was also posted Thursday on IronMill.com.

"The water in the Potomac is infected with the politics of the past and needs to be boiled to be cleansed and then steeped in fresh tea," Martin wrote. "You are the fresh tea. Today we need your help."

Rep.-elect David McKinley (R-W.Va.) told Roll Call he has received calls from tea party members on his personal cell phone.

"I guess I'm going to have to get used to this," he said.

Claremont Institute President Brian Kennedy told Roll Call he's been receiving harassing calls and e-mails.

"After a mass e-mail was sent out calling for Tea Party members to harass me, effectively, I have received many nasty and threatening calls saying we should 'stand down' and that 'they have my number,'" he wrote in an e-mail.

Source: Politics Daily

Favorite Article of the Day: We Should Not See GOP Presidential Debates Before the Next World Series

We couldn't agree more with Jim Geraghty of National Review.  I saw the information that Nancy Reagan wanted a debate next spring and almost lost it.  We are starting on a new Congress in January with an agenda to turn back the Obama agenda and now people want a Presidential debate?  Give us a break!  We have had enough of campaigns to last for sometime.  It is way too early and we agree the message will get lost by the time voting finally rolls around.  Whoever came up with this idea needs to rethink. 

American people want to see action out of Congress not more campaigning.  Some naive people didn't even wait a month after November 2nd before springing this on us.  Frankly I resent the idea and so will a lot of Americans.  Perpetual campaigns need to end with this election cycle.  Time to for Congress to get to Work and not worry about the next campaign.  Also would recommend the grandstanding STOP in the Senate and start working together for the American people!  No one person needs to always take the credit -- Congress needs to be a team effort to stop the runaway spending and march toward the left.

We Should Not See GOP Presidential Debates Before the Next World Series

November 11, 2010 12:46 P.M. By Jim Geraghty

Holding a GOP presidential campaign debate in spring 2012 2011 sounds like an astonishingly bad idea.

Former first lady Nancy Reagan announced plans Thursday to invite the leading Republican contenders to the first debate of the presidential primary season, to be held at her late husband’s presidential library and co-hosted by POLITICO and NBC News.

The debate, sponsored by the Reagan Presidential Foundation, will be held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif., during the spring of 2011. NBC News will serve as the television partner for the debate while POLITICO is the online content partner.

Most Americans are not like you and me. They do not like political campaigns. They do not like two-year campaigns. They do not like debates for a general election roughly 20 months away, or a primary six months away or more.

If we have them in spring, then groups will be inviting these folks for additional events every month through 2011 and 2012. By the time anyone is actually voting, we will have had six or seven. Debates are a good thing, up to a point; when a cycle has 20 or 30, no particular debate stands out or ends up making much difference. There’s a reason that most presidential years have three or fewer.

As a campaign correspondent, I’m arguing against my own interest here. But for pete’s sake, let’s not exhaust the American people nor our candidates. There is plenty of time.

Source: National Review.com

AP: High court rejects plea to block gay military ban

We were shocked when the 9th Circuit Court said the policy would remain in force while the 9th Circuit considers the appeal so we are definitely not surprised this action was taken by the SCOTUS.

We would like to know why the Obama Administration put out a flawed reporting touting doing away with Don't Ask Don't Tell which has worked very well since it was enacted. The Commandant of the Marine Corps definitely did not agree with Obama.

We believe this will eventually end up with the SCOTUS before it is over as the gay group pushing this is not going away.

The Marine Corps has some legitimate concerns as they are not required to provide private quarters for their members and should be the service that is heard the most and the loudest.

AP: High court rejects plea to block gay military banSeptember 12, 2010

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is refusing to block enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military while a federal appeals court considers the issue.

The court on Friday denied a request from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to step into the ongoing federal court review of "don't ask, don't tell." The Obama administration urged the high court not to get involved at this point.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that the policy violates the civil rights of gay Americans and she issued an injunction barring the Pentagon from applying it. But the San Francisco-based appeals court said the policy could remain in effect while it considers the administration's appeal.

Source: Yahoo News

DeMint: "I don't think people realize that we're borrowing money to pay back debt that is coming due."

Want to go on the record that arrogance is not limited to Obama and Pelosi as Republicans have their own share. What is needed in DC is a dose of humility from the White House and Members of the Congress.

Republicans backed by the movement lost in some key Senate races, including Sharron Angle who failed to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada.

Analysts have said Republicans would have had a stronger chance of capturing the Senate with more established candidates. But DeMint has offered no apologies.

"There's not one Republican senator who would have been elected without Tea Party support," he said.

"This is make-or-break time for Republicans in our country. We have to pull our country back from a precipice," DeMint said.

"I don't think people realize that we're borrowing money to pay back debt that is coming due. China and other countries are chiding our mishandling of our currency."(Reuters)

Most Americans are not as dumb as DeMint thinks we are as we know we owe a huge debt to China that is coming due. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Doesn't he realize that the Tea Party movement started by the Ron Paul and his people was about that debt and how Congress was spending much more than we take into the US Treasury and selling the debt overseas to places like China. The headlines were everywhere that China was rapidly buying up our debt which led to the backlash. Never met anyone who didn't understand we had to pay China back someday.  Some of you may question my saying Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement like he claims, but it is a fact to most of us who follow politics in Middle America:

Sarah Palin may be the face of the Tea Party movement today, but it started with Ron Paul in 2007. That December, on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Paul's presidential campaign supporters participated in a "money bomb," a one-day online fundraising blitz that raked in $6 million from 40,000 people nationwide, and drew upon the 1773 protest's anti-tax sentiments. (Ron Paul Helped Inspire the Tea Party Movement)

In addition Mr. DeMint says that every Republican candidate elected was because of the Tea Party. That is a flat out lie and he has to know it.  Is DeMint trying to tell Oklahomans that Dr. Tom Coburn would not have been reelected without the Tea Party when he won over 70% of the vote and the people working his campaign were the same grassroots Republicans who worked his campaign in 2004.  Made tons of calls in 2004 and made more this time as a member of the Oklahoma grassroots.  Give me a break! Who does DeMint think makes up the largest share of the Tea Party? Grassroots Republicans in most states where I have connections!

Bet John McCain would not agree with DeMint's statement when you realize the Tea Party leaning people of Arizona worked for his opponent in the primary (didn't bother to vet his opponent either but blindly followed the radio pundits and posters on line) and the grassroots establishment Republicans worked for McCain's re-election. Same people who worked for his Presidential campaign in 2008.  Anyone who follows this blog knows I wrote a lot about that primary and what a bad candidate Hayworth was.  Then it finally came out he had done informercials touting free money.  Where were the pundits then -- still supporting Hayworth despite the facts.

We held every Republican Senate seat that was up for election in the Senate and now DeMint tries to take credit for all the incumbents winning because of the Tea Party? Even Ken Buck in Colorado who DeMint had close ties with said his campaign was made up of the Colorado grassroots Republicans and the Tea Party was only a small portion.

In Florida, the County Chairs were some of the first Flordians to go Marco Rubio over Crist. If DeMint thinks that Rubio would have won in such a resounding manner without the Florida grassroots Republicans think again. We have now been branded the establishment by DeMint and Palin even thought most of us have been part of the grassroots Republican movement for years all because we didn't join a Tea Party movement.

How many members of the Tea Party are also grassroots Republicans who belong to County parties and attend State Conventions? I bet the number is very high in a lot of states. We have noticed that a lot of the outspoken Tea Party people come from the Tea Party Express who for the most part doesn't even understand how Government or elections work especially the FEC rules.

Now let's look at the flip side since DeMint thinks every Republican candidate was elected by the Tea Party. Using that flawed analysis then Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Dino Rossie, John Raese, and Ken Buck should be US Senator-Elect as they were heavily favored by the Tea Party. Outside the Tea Party Express who are these people who are organized enough to swing elections? They are not my neighbors who are members of the Republican party. An activist in NM has never met a Tea Party person nor have people I know in Florida except for the senior citizens Tea Party people who got out and worked campaigns as grassroots conservatives long before the Tea Party.

Guess DeMint has not been getting around too many campaigns in other states as he does not recognize the people working campaigns for Republicans in most areas of the Country come from the Republican grassroots not the Tea Party. Here in Oklahoma we took great pride as the grassroots Republicans in sending Dr. Coburn to the Senate in 2004. He was the best candidate even if Denny Hastert and others in DC worked against him but he won big. His race was one that a lot of campaigns have looked at with their campaigns to see how it was done. His funding in DC was cut off but Senator-Elect Pat Toomey's Club for Growth stepped in and along with the grassroots we funded his campaign with him winning a 3-way race in primary with no runoff and winning the general going away. Back in 2004, where was no Tea Party.

Don't think there is one member of the Republican grassroots that doesn't believe in the ideals that started the Tea Party movement, but we have been going to Town Halls for years as members of the grassroots. The ones who attended were mostly senior citizens who have been Republicans for years here and elsewhere. The ones who did make the most noise at the Town Halls were Ron Paul supporters or Libertarians.

Just don't get it and have to wonder why a real poll on how many people consider themselves in favor of the Tea Party ideals are the Republican grassroots who work the campaigns and are already activitists. Others are independents, libertarians, or Democrats who were fed up with DC. Most of the new people who claim to be Tea Party did not work in campaigns in many states but who DeMint says are the ones who got every Republican Senator elected.

In some states like Colorado and Nevada we keep hearing that Republicans may have had better candidates in the primary who were defeated but we see it more as the candidates who won the primary being naive about running a general election race where you have to move to the center to win the independent votes needed for victory.  The winners of the primary were also establishment candidates by definition.   Sharron Angle was a member of the Republican Executive Committee of her county for years and a State Representative. Ken Buck was a county district attorney. Dino Rossi had run statewide before and same with John Raese. They were all good people who probably should have listened more to some people who had run close races like Dr. Coburn than other people who had not won a tough race.  Tea Party Express should have stayed out of NV as it cost votes and didn't help Angle win.

Do not believe NRSC should get involved in primary campaigns period -- look at Florida where they endorsed Crist. Bad move! Let the states decide and that goes for people from out of state like Tea Party Express getting involved on the ground in primaries when they don't live in the state. It is one thing to donate money, but the Express was on the ground in Delaware, Nevada, Arizona, and other states.

Tea Party Express went all out for our two worst candidates -- O'Donnell and Miller. So did the pundits. Do these people not vet candidates as it wouldn't take much to realize these people should not have been running. Read the Anchorage Daily and have learned a tremendous amount about the Miller campaign. Trying to throw out a ballot with the 'L' in cursive and the rest printed correctly is not 'count every vote.' More like Al Gore.

Miller is a disgrace in this write-in counting that is in progress. Yet pundits and posters are still defending him and blaming the media for cherry picking ballots to show that he tried to throw out because an 'r' looked like a 'v' and things like that. He tried to keep records sealed because he lied in 2008 and quit before being fired. He should have never been the candidate but Palin and DeMint went for him because he was the anti-Murkowski candidate. BTW, Palin donated $5,000 to the Lisa Murkowski campaign last year for the person she dislikes.

Murkowski ran a louzy primary and it bit her but like her or not, she has run a masterful write-in campaign. One thing she has shown is that because you win the primary doesn't mean you will win the general.

Think the media with the help of people like DeMint and Palin have over hyped all of this Tea Party movement for stories and now they are believing their own hype. There are a lot of people who were brought into the process especially in the northeastern states but in Middle America where we have a strong grassroots who make up a large portion of the Tea Party movement it was ignored by the media led by Fox News.  Having grassroots Republicans as part of the Tea Party doesn't fit the narrative.

DeMint in the Reuters article went over the top again and yet he thinks he can run for President and find all these Tea Party people supporting him. They will be supporting Ron Paul for the most part as a large portion of the Tea Party is made up of his supporters and Libertarians who will never support someone like DeMint in the Presidential race.

It goes back to the Paulbots saying throw every incumbent out of Congress on the websites which was ludicrous since they were supporters of Ron Paul who is a member of the House. Just who is the establishment they love to demonize? Dr. Coburn of Oklahoma? How about Paul Ryan of Wisconsin or Eric Cantor of Virginia? They love to go after John Boehner who by the way is not going to be using the Pelosi plane but commercial instead to fly back to Cincinnati. Why not throw in Jeff Sessions of Alabama? If we elected men and women near the caliber of any of the these people (we did this time for the most part), we would have a conservative House and Senate with a load of Common Sense. Most of the more moderate Republicans from conservative states didn't survive 2006, 2008, or the primaries in 2010. Some of those like in Utah were not ousted as much for their votes as they didn't do anything.

This whole deal trying to pit the Tea Party against the grassroots has to end including the threats if you don't do what I say, then I are going to bolt the party. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. As Ron Paul will tell you that running without GOP support does not have a happy ending. Does DeMint honestly think with roughly 55 million registered Republicans they are all going to follow someone from South Carolina who grandstands? There are roughly 72 million Democrats and 42 million registered independents who the vast majority would never vote for someone like Jim DeMint or Sarah Palin for President.

We need a candidate for President in 2012 who can appeal to a wide range of people. Note to people like DeMint and others: We cannot win without Independents being on board so that means you move to the middle not the right. American people are mostly center right and don't want someone from either party who is unappeaseable and refuses to listen to common sense. That applies to both parties -- the far left of the Democrats and the far right of Republicans. The 'my way or no way' crowd is not going to get elected in a lot of states including my State of Oklahoma where in the primary the person who was far right lost big to a Conservative with Common Sense Mary Fallin who has more of a backbone and who will stand up against Obamacare and other bad bills coming out of DC more than most men I know.

DeMint has some good ideas but it is being overshadowed with his continual grandstanding while trying to get support for running for President.  He has lost all common sense and is believing the media that he is the 'kingmaker' of the last election.  His final total if you take out grassroots candidates who won with heavy grassroots support is not very good which is why he wants you to believe that all Republicans who won were Tea Party candidates.  With that scenario that would include Ron Kirk of Illinois who is definitely not a Tea Party candidate.  County Chairs who are now considered establishment were responsible in a lot of areas for getting out the vote and the support.  Where were the organized Tea Party members in many states in Middle America and the south who made the telephone calls or worked campaigns?  Does he honestly think that Independents and Democrats who are members of the Tea Party movement are going to make calls for Republican campaigns?  Not going to happen in most states outside the northeast. 

Nice to know as part of the grassroots we are now part of the Establishment because we are not a member of the Tea Party movement so we are no longer a conservative and not needed.  Only the Tea Party people are the conservatives now in some people's worlds.   Two of us go back to the days of passing out literature for Goldwater as teenagers and have been conservative since then.  We have been part of the grassroots helping Republican candidates for years but we are not part of the 'real' or 'pure' conservatives as touted by the far right so we don't count.  The good thing is that most candidates love to have us and others helping out their campaign because we believe in winning seats not standing on principle for bad candidates and losing. 

Any person who stays home or supports a candidate that cannot win in the general, might as well vote for the Democrat that they agree with 0% of the time because the candidate they chose not to support that they agree with 80% of the time is going to lose with that ideology.  If you don't win seats, your agenda goes down the drain as witnessed in 2006 and 2008.  We would have thought they learned a lesson but with the arrogance we are seeing along with the threats, we do not think so.  This is one time we would love to be proved wrong.